Leonard Letter Articles on Education – 2004-2007

“Remedial Math” – February 2, 2004
Last week’s news reported that the Cal State University system is throwing out fewer students for being behind in basic math and English skills.  That is hardly something to celebrate.  All students who graduate from California high schools should be able to pass such proficiency exams, but only 42% of incoming freshmen can.  As a result, the CSU system is spending millions offering remedial coursework to get these students up to speed.  What none of the news stories noted was how much money that is costing the state. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that we could save millions annually by offering those basic math and English courses at the community college or high school level, rather than continuing such basic instruction at the University level.  As we try to close a multi-billion dollar gap this year, budget writers should look for every available savings opportunity.

 

“Parents Beware” – February 9, 2004

While California may not be able to guarantee that students graduate knowing how to read and write, California law does allow school districts to dismiss minors from campus for confidential medical services. The state does not require parental consent for their children to leave school for medical services, but school districts may, as a matter of local control, choose to require parental notification and consent before releasing minors from campus for any reason. If you are the parent of a high school student, I encourage you to familiarize yourself with your district’s policy so that you will know whether your child can seek medical attention without your knowledge.

A debate was held at the Folsom Cordova school district last week, driven by parents who wanted that district to change its policy. Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute, speaking for the change, said, “Parents simply want to know where their kids are during the day and want the opportunity to be a part of important decisions made by their kids.” Advocating for keeping the school district policy open to allow students to leave campus without parental consent was Planned Parenthood. School board members sided with Planned Parenthood on a 3-2 vote.

 

“Public Education Failing a Generation” – March 8, 2004
One big challenge that public schools in California have is convincing the public that more money will result in better student performance. I do not see what they can point to that is going to make voters believe this. Forty-eight percent of freshman enrolled at CSU last year got out of California high schools without basic English skills and 40% lacked basic math skills -- and these are supposedly the good students. It is true that the high number of limited-English speaking students in California is a great challenge. Still, it is obvious that California public schools need bold change, and before they get more money, the California Teachers Association, and other education advocates, will need to offer evidence of a reform agenda that will dramatically improve student performance.
Lance Izumi and the staff at the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco released a study last fall, The California Index of Leading Education Indicators, which shows that the performance of our schools is at an intolerable level. According to the report:
-        From 1987 to 1995, verbal SAT scores for California public high school students dropped from 421 to 412, while those for parochial school students increased from 432 to 442.
-        From 1990 to 1994, the percentage of students taking first-year chemistry in California was the lowest of all states, and only Delaware and Hawaii had a lower percentage of students enrolled in second-level algebra.
-        California ranks near the bottom in both math and reading based on National Assessment of Educational Progress test scores, with 59 percent of California students reading below the basic level.
-        As many as one-third of California's high school students drop out.
-        In inflation-adjusted dollars, per-pupil spending in California was 60 percent higher in 1994-95, than in 1969-70.

“Drop-Out Deception” – May 3, 2004
Kudos to Dr. Alan Bonstee, president of California Parents for Educational Choice (http://www.cpeconline.org/homepage.asp ), for his recent article in the Los Angeles Daily News exposing the California Department of Education’s shell game in reporting the state’s drop-out rates. He points out what I well remember: that until 1998, the CDE reported a drop-out rate based on unaudited numbers. Schools assumed that students who left their district enrolled somewhere else and so concluded that we had a 3.3% drop-out rate. The absurdity of that number comes into focus. In 1998, the state Board of Education required different numbers (though still unaudited). They show that during 1999-2003 school years, the most recent statewide dropout rate is 29.2 percent. Dr. Bonstee notes the sad case of the LA Unified School District, with a drop-out rate of 53% during those years.

Since such figures do not sound too good for the state of education, educators are now reporting “graduation rates” instead of “drop-out rates.” Those are calculated differently and assert that 86.9% of students graduate high school. Dr. Bonstee believes this number low-balls the real drop-out rate, and that the new computer system that has been designed to track students through bar-coding will still miss the mark. He concludes, “California's shameful dropout rate is the greatest crisis facing the state. Our budget crisis will end someday, and we'll soon fix the workers' compensation mess. A teenager who drops out today, however, is a tragedy for the state for the next half century. Subtracting a phony number from 100 percent to get another phony number is nobody's idea of reform. The public deserves the truth.”

“What Is the Yield on 12 Years of Public Education?” – June 7, 2004
In 1999, the State Board of Education decided that the new California High School Exit Exam would include some Algebra concepts.   Sen. Poochigian then wrote a law making Algebra I, or an equivalent course, a graduation requirement. The bill was signed into law in 2000.  The state Department of Education notified California school districts of the new requirement, but gave them plenty of time to ramp up.  Now, it is finally time for high school seniors to have successfully completed Algebra I to get their high school diploma.  But an avalanche of whining from both students and teachers has led the State Board to grant waivers for more than 15,000 students statewide.

 

I would like to hear from LL readers whether they think young people, after spending twelve years in school, should or should not be expected to handle basic algebra concepts. Here are some sample problems from the exit exam:

 

If x = -7, then -x =

 

A.      -7

B.      -1/7

C.      1/7

D.      7

 

Assume y is an integer and solve for y   ‌

 

‌‌‌| y+2 |‌ = 9

 

A.      {-11, 7}

B.      {-7, 7}

C.      {-7,11}

D.      {-11, 11}

 

OK, these are two of the easiest questions to get you warmed up.  Next week we will do some harder ones -- but thus far, are we having any trouble?  More important:  Would you be satisfied with your local high school if your 18 year-old received a diploma without knowing how to do the problems above?

“More Algebra” – June 14, 2004
I maintain that California's high school seniors should be able to solve basic algebra problems.  Thousands of students have successfully graduated without knowing basic algebra because the state is granting waivers to just about anyone who asks.  We should all be very disappointed that we are short-changing students this way.  To me, it is the bigotry of soft expectations that claims that these problems are too tough for California students.  We are a great state and a great people -- our students are more than capable of handling this subject.

 

You be the judge.  Here are a few more questions from the sample test. (Answers follow):

 

Q1:  In a certain room, the number of chairs, c, is equal to 3 times the number of tables, t.

 

Which equation matches the information?  (The symbol x in this case represents the multiplication function.)

 

A. 3 x c = t

B. 3 x  t = c

C. 3 x c = 3 x  t

D. c x  t = 3

 

Q2:  A shopkeeper has x kilograms of tea in stock.  He sells 15 kilograms and then receives a new shipment weighing 2y kilograms.  Which expression represents the weight of the tea he now has?

 

A. x - 15 - 2y

B. x + 15 + 2y

C. x + 15 - 2y

D. x - 15 + 2y

 

Answers: Q1: B, Q2: D

 

“Lottery Low-Down” – June 21, 2004

Californians were sold a bill of goods back in the mid-1980s.  They were told that a state lottery dedicated to public education would help solve our schools’ problems.  The lottery has not accomplished that and school funding remains a fiscal football to this day.  Here are some new stats about the state lottery and the money it generates to schools:

 

Over the past 18 years, the California Lottery has dispersed $40.03 billion. The money has been distributed between three different categories: 49.8% to lottery winners, 37.2% to education, and 13% for operating costs.

 

Of the 37.2% set aside for education: 77% goes to salaries and benefits for teachers, classroom aides, nurses, school psychologists and other educators; 18% for textbooks, computers, software, library books and other instructional materials; and 5% for miscellaneous programs and services.

 

The sales from the California State Lottery over the past four years has been relatively flat, averaging an annual return between $2.8 to $2.9 billion a year. In 2003, total gross sales were $2.78 billion, a decrease of 4.7% from 2002.

 

California ranked 28th out-of 38 states with sales at $78.40 per capita. This compares to Florida, which ranked 12th with sales at $168.51 per capita, and Texas that ranked fifteenth with sale at $141.53 per capita.

“Algebra Challenge III” – June 21, 2004
Loyal Leonard Letter readers know of my disappointment in the thousands of waivers granted to students who have not learned enough basic algebra to successfully pass that portion of the High School Exit exam.  To show how easy the questions are, I have been offering some sample problems from the exit exam. 

 

1. Divide a number by 5 and add 4 to the result.  The answer is 9.  Which of the following equations matches these statements?

 

A. 4 = 9 + n/5

B. n/5 + 4 = 9

C. 5/n = 4

D. (n+4)/5 = 9

 

2. If n = 2 and x = 1/2, then n(4-x) =

 

A. 1

B. 3

C. 7

D. 10

 

3. If h = 3 and k = 4, then (hk + 4)/2 - 2 =

 

A. 6

B. 7

C. 8

D. 10

 

Answers: 1-B, 2-C, 3-A

 

“Education: Bad News/Good News” – November 8, 2004

Over the past few months, the Department of Education has released data that show an education system in serious crisis. It is important to keep in mind that it some will try to shoot the messenger. Every excuse will be given why it is bad to measure student achievement. It took years of hard political fighting to even get to this point where we are testing students against national norms and minimum standards. Measurement alone does not improve educational quality but properly used it will give educators and policy makers pointers on making needed improvements. We cannot afford to let up on these measures.

 

Starting with the Early Assessment program. The CSU system has teamed up with California's K-12 schools to provide 11th-graders a way to measure their ability to do college level work. This is a terrific idea. Last Spring nearly 40 percent of all 11th grade students statewide voluntarily took a test to see whether they are ready to handle college-level mathematics and English at CSU. The results are shocking: Only 22 percent were ready to take college English classes and 55 percent were ready for college mathematics.

 

In addition to this, the number of California schools facing penalties under the Federal No Child Left Behind Act because they failed to meet federal test-score standards rose 45 percent to 1,626 schools, which is about 20 percent of all California schools. This could rise substantially as the requirements under the Act become tougher. By 2014, 100 percent of students in each public school must score "proficient" in reading, writing, and math -- hence, the title “No Child Left Behind.”

 

Many reformers have been warning us about the decline in educational skills of our students. These tests are concrete proof that the warnings cannot be ignored. Those who would end this testing must be rebuffed so that we can use this information to guide our educational bureaucracy to the needed improvements.

“Golden State Fleece Awards” – November 29, 2004
My thanks to the California Taxpayers Association for identifying these examples of wasting your valuable dollars that should be used to teach children:

 

Parents of students at Santa Cruz County’s Freedom Elementary School recently received a letter saying the school would be confiscating “any non-nutritious foods such as Cheetos or chips, sugary snacks, soda, etc.”  After parents complained about the school food police, the Superintendent’s office countermanded the confiscation policy.

 

Nevada Union High School students and parents received a surprise when the first quarter report cards actually included last year’s grades.  An audit last year noted the district was behind in technology and the report card error was attributed to a “computer glitch.” 

 

Although the above cost just more than $1000, the Alameda County Office of Education has just wasted $1 million.  Back in 1997, the county staff purchased software for attendance reporting before each of the member school districts committed to using it. Three districts did not participate and the software has sat unused since then.

“Different Kinds of School Reform” – February 7, 2005
Last week, Jack O’Connell, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, was in my hometown of San Bernardino.  I commend the Press Enterprise editorial that preceded his visit by pointing out a major discrepancy in his statements about public education reform.  The Press Enterprise wrote, “O’Connell sends a contradictory message about vocational education.  He says he wants to make college-prep the ‘default’ curriculum for high-schoolers, yet also says he ‘recognizes’ that academe isn’t for everyone, and that many students need training to thrive in technical careers.”  It is not just that academe is not for everyone; it is that it is barely for anyone.  Just more than 20% of California high school graduates go on to four-year colleges. 

 

If we make the state’s curriculum default to serve that 20%, we ignore the 80% who are either going straight to work or onto community college.  We cannot be elitist and ignore both the needs of the majority of students and of California’s job-creators who need employees who understand how to work well.  High school students need options in their education and should not be ramroded into either college prep or vocational ed programs.  Rather, they should be able to sample from all and then choose a course of study that suits their needs and plans in consultation with their parents and counselors. When we talk about standards, we simply cannot have one standard that fits all.  Our children deserve the best education that readies them for their future, and not everyone’s future is college.

 

“Students Debate Taxes” – February 22, 2005

If you know a high school student with any interest in public policy issues then I recommend the YMCA Youth and Government Program. This last weekend 2,200 California high schoolers took over the Capitol and did the work of Governors, Legislators, Supreme Court Justices, and, yes, Board of Equalization Members. Margaret Pennington of my staff was one of the coaches for the first time ever BOE section. The students did a great job and they did everything we do. They presented the taxpayer’s case, defended the government’s position, followed the Clerk’s rules of order, and then, after asking questions, the Board members voted on the cases. My commendations to a great team. Pictures will be on my web site soon.

 

“Told You So” – February 22, 2005

A decade ago I got in trouble with the University of California officialdom and their elitist supporters for saying that the then-UC Berkeley Chancellor was nothing more than a professional fundraiser. Not only is this true, it is also sad as there is little leadership at the top of the UC system. The Regents have delegated authority to the administration, the administration to the Academic Senate, and the Senate to the individual department chairs who are unaccountable to the public or to the students. Now in an LA Times piece on the search for the new UC Irvine Chancellor comes this fact: “In a 2001 survey, the American Council on Education found that presidents of public institutions like UC Irvine said fundraising took up more time than any other activity.” Maybe it’s not as controversial when the American Council on Education says it, but it is no less sad.

 

“Math, New Math, Fuzzy Math, Anti-Fuzzy Math” – March 7, 2005

If you are of my generation, you remember looking at your own children’s math homework and thinking, “huh?” Our children were taught the “new math” and it did not make much sense to those of us who learned traditional math. Now our children, math-impaired as they generally are, are looking at our grandkids’ homework and asking the same question. Mathematics itself is ancient and constant and necessary, but the manner in which it is taught in the U.S. has varied widely in the past few decades. We collectively groan when new test scores are released demonstrating just how poorly U.S. students perform in math compared to their international counterparts. If you have ever asked yourself how this sorry situation came to pass, then I encourage you to read the article “An A-Maze-ing Approach to Math,” by Barry Garelick (see: http://www.educationnext.org/20052/28.html).

 

Garelick did his research while interning on Capitol Hill, but his frustration began before that, while he was trying to help his daughter do second grade math homework and while tutoring a ninth grader in geometry. He explains how mathematicians themselves have been removed from the curriculum process, that educational fads, textbook companies and national standards have had a stultifying effect on learning, and how reforms are stymied by fearful politicians. His article is a must-read for teachers, parents and school board members who hope to recapture the days when students could actually do basic addition, long division and multiplication, and thus be equipped to learn geometric proofs, calculus and other logic-driven subjects that will render them not just competitive with their global counterparts and functional in daily life.

 

 

“Numbers for Educators” – May 9, 2005
Two nearly identical numbers struck me last week as carrying a message for educators.  First, I read that 88% of California's parents expect their children to get a college degree or higher. Second, data released showed that in 2003 only 86.6 of what should have been high school seniors even graduated from high school.  (As I have mentioned in this newsletter before, that number seems inflated to me, sad though that is to conclude.)  Parents have a higher expectation for their children than the public education system is able to deliver.  Educators should take advantage of these high expectations parent's have for their children and partner with them.  There is no reason that the California high school graduation rate (comparing entering freshman with the number of graduates four years later) should not be right at 100%.

“Incentive Pay Works” – May 9, 2005
The headline above is so obvious that it should not have to be explained.  However, to the teacher union leaders, such a statement is fighting words.  The union defends the “principle” that the best teachers should be paid exactly the same as the worst teachers.  Now, the story is that the union leaders have discouraged legislators from even talking to each other about how to get good teachers in the right classroom.  It has long been known that a school campus with more challenges has a higher percentage of low seniority teachers in a system where teachers can choose their assignments on the basis of seniority.  The Governor has asked the simple question:  what if we paid those senior teachers more money to teach at those schools where recruiting faculty is harder?

 

The May revision of the budget will soon be out, and my hope is that if there is more on-going revenue than predicted in January that the Governor earmark that money not for the K-12 general fund, but for a program that will pay good teachers more if they will take up the challenge to teach in tougher schools.  Let the teachers and the district negotiate on how to identify who the good teachers are and how to identify which schools are the tougher, but let state government use its clout to make inventive pay happen despite the nonsensical opposition of union officials.

“Drop-Out Redux” – May 16, 2005
A new report from the Legislative Analyst explains how three very different groups of high schools students-- dropouts, general track students, and university bound students—are creating challenges for high schools.  The LAO explains that dropouts constitute 30% of the entering ninth grade class. Despite the admission that decades of focused programs to reduce the dropout population have failed, the LAO recommends more new programs. One of the ideas is to make high schools more “accountable.”  It’s a great buzz word, but I have no idea what they mean. Each dropout costs the school money in reduced state support, so the schools already have plenty of incentive to keep bodies, if not students, on campus.  Another idea is to increase spending at elementary and intermediate schools to supposedly identify potential future dropouts and somehow serve them. That is called throwing money at the problem, and it is doomed to failure.

I have another idea: do nothing. Make sure that high school adult education and California's community colleges are funded and available to all.  Then, when these dropouts grow up to the realization that a good job requires a good education, there will be educational opportunities for them. Not everyone matures at the same age and not everyone gets it without a few setbacks along the way. So we should design a system that is there for people when they are ready and willing to learn.

This would also mean that the high schools could focus on the 70% of the 14-18 years old who want to be there.

“Out of the Box Schools” – May 23, 2005
In recent weeks the public discourse on education has focused on spending.  The fight between the Governor and the California Teachers Union over how much money our schools need has generated debates about how schools function and how students learn. 

 

First, let me share an idea offered by Senator Tom McClintock.  It is not new; I remember writing similar article myself nearly 20 years ago and McClintock has been doing a great job making education spending understandable for a long time now.  After pointing out that the K-12 school budget proposed for next year is actually $2.5 billion more than this year, McClintock finds we will be spending $10,084 per student.  After removing the money spent at the state Department of Education, we are left with $6,937 per student.  McClintock then takes a hypothetical school of 180 students and budgets $6,937 per student.  This would give the school “only” $1.2 million to get through a year.  Rather then putting those students in an existing school (with the filthy bathrooms, leaky roofs and other physical problems we have seen), he proposes leasing luxury commercial office space.  Then he wants to hire five teachers—associate professors from Cal State paid at their current rate.  He says “since university professors generally assign more reading, we’ll need 12 of the latest edition, hardcover books for each student at an average $75 per book, plus an extra $5 to have the student’s name engraved in gold leaf on the cover.”  He considers that since the childhood obesity epidemic seems to indicate that our P.E. classes are not working, he proposes an annual membership at a private health club for each student. “Finally, we’ll hire an $80,000 administrator with a $40,000 secretary because, well, I don’t know exactly why but we always have.”  Here is the budget:

 

Five classrooms in leased office space: $158,400

150 desks @ $130 each: $19,500

180 annual health club memberships @ $480 each: $86,400

2,160 textbooks @ $80 each: $172,800

Five CSU professors @ $67,093: $225,465

One administrator: $80,000

One secretary: $40,000

24% benefits for faculty and staff: $109,312

Offices, expenses and insurance: $30,000

Total = $1,031,877

 

Second, I have heard many creative ideas from educators and parents.  Consider these options: changing the school calendar so it is no longer based on the agrarian lifestyle; altering school hours and having schools offer before- and after-school programs; grouping students by ability rather than grade; having students work on computers that either move them forward when they have mastered a skill or keep reviewing a skill in different ways until it is mastered; creating classes that teach student work skills so that if they do not want to go to college they will be prepared to take on productive jobs.

 

All of these have value.  Some schools might thrive in a non-traditional campus setting.  Some students might excel in a technology-based environment.  Some families might benefit from different schedules.  The problem is that in our current, top-heavy, centralized education system, none of these options can be explored.  Creativity is squashed.  The pendulum swings all the way in one direction (“outcome-based” education) to the other (excluding everything that does not appear on a standardized test) and back again.  We have to dismantle the system, toss out the concept that one-size-fits-all, and enable parents to find the education option that is best for their children.

“State Pencils” – June 13, 2005
A quote from a school teacher at one of those anti-Schwarzenegger rallies reflects my major frustration over this whole school funding debate.  The reporter quoted this teacher as saying that the state only gives her one pencil per month for each of her students.  Like most other teachers, she digs into her own pocket to buy pencils when a student needs another pencil before the month is up.

 

The state does not buy pencils.  Nor with all of its volumes of educational regulations does it set a quota for pencil usage in California's schools.  The teacher and the reporter both reflect the unquestioning myths about state support of schools.  The state sends money, not pencils, to school districts.  The amount of money is roughly equal to the average public school support in every other state in the nation.  Individual school districts decide how to spend the money.  With all of these tax dollars going to schools, it is shocking and sad how little of it actually ever gets inside a classroom.

 

Some fiscal administrator at this teacher's district office decided that her students needed only one pencil per month.  The money that could have been spent on more pencils was spent elsewhere.  The administrators of school districts, guided by the school board, decide where this money goes.  If merely 5% of the school budgets were shifted to hiring more teachers, buying more textbooks, and, yes, buying more pencils, the new amounts for these purposes would be in the billions.  I sure would like to see some district try this.

 

“Doctor, Doctor” – July 11, 2005

It may not be the end of western civilization, but it is close. I am speaking of the power play by the California State University system to begin granting doctorate degrees, which once was the exclusive province of the University of California. It’s not that doctorates are bad in and of themselves that has kept CSU from offering them; it’s the known fact that universities put more money into post-graduate research projects than into undergraduate work. CSU was supposed to be the workhorse of the state’s higher education system, teaching undergraduate students. Now it will divide its resources between the undergraduates and the doctoral candidates. I suppose that would not be so bad if CSU was excelling at its current mission, but it is failing at this core mission and should not take on additional responsibility. It spends more than one billion dollars per year teaching college students high school level coursework, and many of these students really do not catch up and truly achieve the fullness of a bachelor’s degree education.  Having CSU now grant doctoral degrees is like the city granting me a building permit to add a second story onto my home when my basement is flooded and my first floor is collapsing. It will be a sad day for education in California if the legislature rubberstamps this bad deal.

“Leonard Law” – August 22, 2005

Imagine you were running a college program to train new teachers.  You have to write a list of “professional dispositions” that students are “expected to demonstrate” during their classes and field work.  What might you put on that list? What professional qualities might you want future teachers to develop?  I jotted down a few: excellence in academics, good communication, ability to inspire students, effective classroom discipline, flexibility in teaching skills depending on students’ learning styles, ages, abilities, etc.  Then I read the actual Professional Dispositions code for the College of Education at San Jose State University.  It says that students should be reflective, responsible, committed to professionalism, and committed to fairmindedness and equity.  That seemed a little odd at first glance and looked even more suspicious when I read the “indicators” of these dispositions.  For example, one demonstrates a commitment to fairmindedness and equity in these ways: “treats others with respect, courtesy and dignity; is intolerant of all forms of harassment, discrimination, and exploitation; recognizes the need for differences to ensure equal treatment of all.” 

 

The problem with these pleasant, harmonizing words is that they themselves are used to harass.  This Professional Disposition code is simply a new form of the “speech codes” that were used to punish people, generally conservatives, on college campuses in the 1990s.  I recently received a complaint from a student at the school who was graded down for expressing an unorthodox view.  Implicit in such speech codes or professional dispositions is that students must express the tolerant views of the administration, not their own thoughts, freely arrived at, no matter how well supported by research or citations.  I authored a law (S.B. 1115 of 1991) to prevent students from being punished solely for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech, but clearly there still is a gap between the intent of that law and how students who express unpopular views are treated on campus.

“What Is 7 Times 8 Today?” – October 31, 2005
I have long been a critic of many standardized tests used in our public education system.  Usually those tests are for students, but I learned recently about a question on our state’s test for teachers, the CBEST.   Leonard Letter reader Barry Garelick has said it all very well himself, so I will not repeat his thoughts here.  I will tease you with this line from the test question: “What many people fail to understand is that mathematics is constantly evolving; it is not a fixed body of facts.”  As one commentator noted, “Has anyone checked what 7 times 8 is today?”  Go see for yourself at

http://www.kitchentablemath.net/twiki/bin/view/Kitchen/OpenLetter

Garelick reports that one day after his article was posted, the question was removed.

 

“School Governance” – November 8, 2005
The new Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, has announced his interest in getting LA schools to do a better job.  Right on, Mr. Mayor!  I know a previous Mayor, Dick Riordan, also made this a priority and I commend both of their efforts.  Fifty some years ago the state made a major policy change in school governance.  Up until the 1950s, schools were governed not by boards of education but by mayors and city councils.  It is now clear that is was a mistake to set up the single purpose government entity called a school district.

 

Cities have a tremendous stake in the academic success of their schools.  Just as the city leadership influences a city's success by the infrastructure they build and by the proper use of their planning and zoning powers, city leadership used to be able to control the quality of their schools.  These powers should be restored so that the electorate can focus on the leadership of their entire community by their votes for mayor and council.

 

“CTA – Check Your Calendar” – November 14, 2005
A small item in today’s Sacramento Bee noted that the California Teachers’ Association conducted candidate interviews on Thursday to figure out whom to spend their dollars on next year.  I was also invited to be interviewed, and I appreciate the support the CTA has lent me in the past, but I declined this recent invitation since the connection between my present job and education policymaking is so tenuous that it does not merit comment.  However, I was struck by CTA’s timing.  In their letter to me, they said they would decide their endorsements in January.  This seems very odd since the filing deadline for those to declare their candidacy for the 2006 election is not until March 10.  This creates the possibility that the CTA could endorse candidates who will not even be on the ballot, or they might neglect to endorse greater friends for their cause who have yet to declare their candidacy. 

“The UC Exposes Itself” – November 14, 2005
I have been meaning to comment on a story I read a few weeks ago in the Wall Street Journal.  It featured a sad episode between a Christian school in California vs. UC Riverside.  The school, Calvary Chapel in Murietta, sent a description of some of its courses to UC Riverside for review because some of the Academy students aspire to attend UCR.  The university’s undergraduate director of admissions rejected some of the courses as not legitimate preparation for UC.  From the article, it is clear that what is really going on is blatant bigotry against Christians.  Calvary Chapel has filed suit in district court.   According to the Journal, an English class titled “Christian Morality in American Literature,” which featured writers like Mark Twain, Stephen Crane and Nathaniel Hawthorne, was rejected because, according to the university, it did not offer a non-biased approach to the subject matter.  The incredulous Wall Street Journal reporter compared this to other courses approved by the university like, “Feminine Perspective in Literature” and “Ethnic Perspectives in Literature.”  Another example, “Christianity’s Influence on America,” is too narrow but “Armenian History” is OK.  You get the drift.

 

My first reading of this story made me angry.  But on second thought, the humanities departments at our public universities have been so hostile and contemptuous of Christian values for so long, I have decided it is better to be grateful that they are no longer hiding it.  As the university has abandoned people of faith so now it is understandable that people of faith will abandon the government-owned universities. It is a sad end to a history of academic inquiry that began with the creation of the university by the church in the Middle Ages.

“A Good Read: Hirsch’s Cultural Literacy” – November 28, 2005 (listed as Microsoft doc ‘1118’)
I have in recent weeks talked about the need for immigrants to this country to assimilate.  Such assimilation is not limited to being fluent in English.  It must also include a knowledge of the shared information that is “the foundation of our public discourse,” which allows us to “comprehend our daily newspapers and news reports, to understand our peers and leaders, and even to share our jokes.” E.D. Hirsch, Jr. first wrote about this concept in “Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know” in 1987.  He tied his discussion to the need for educational reform and explained how the skill of reading must be linked to the content of what is read.  His criticism of education at that time was right on: schools had abdicated their responsibility to impart this cultural knowledge and were shifting to the dismal “whole language” approach to reading.  Hirsch ended the book with an actual list of what every American who graduates from high school should know. He followed that up with “The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy,” which expands on the list by telling the stories connected to each piece of knowledge.  Hirsch updated “Cultural Literacy” in 2002, and I recommend you pick up this new version and a copy of the Dictionary. You can test your own knowledge, and make sure that the young people in your life are familiar with the concepts that make them uniquely American.

“Making More of Money for Schools” – January 3, 2006
If there is one thing voters want to fund more than roads, it is schools. Yet in most states, only one-half to two-thirds of every dollar designated for public education actually makes it into the classroom.  The rest of the money is spent on business operations like transportation, food services and administration.  Those costs tend to be driven down in large districts where there are economies of scale, but the downside is that student performance tends to be higher in small districts, not large ones. Dr. Dan King of San Bernardino talked with me about this paradox more than two decades ago.

 

A new study by the Reason Foundation and Deloitte Research finds a middle ground between these two choices: shared services.  The report (available at http://www.reason.org/ps339.pdf) details how small school districts can join together to create economies of scale for everything from instructional services to transportation, real estate services and human resources management. The report also discusses the benefits of decentralization, and I was particularly impressed with the story of John Hay Elementary School in Seattle. There the principal worked with her teachers to develop a new class schedule and hire part-time reading and math coaches.  Reading was taught in small groups of five to seven students and gifted students experienced “turbo-tutoring” to challenge them. In four years, the school’s math scores rose from the 36^th percentile to the 62^nd and reading jumped four percentiles.

“A Weighty Matter?” – February 6, 2006
A few weeks ago I published this question as a sample of math questions on the high school exit exam: “A shopkeeper has x kilograms of tea in stock. He sells 15 kilograms and then receives a new shipment 2y kilograms. Which expression represents the mass of the tea he now has?” One observant reader wrote back with this point: “Kilogram is a unit of mass….Weight is a measure of the attractive force between the matter and the Earth, the moon, or whatever. Mass is
measured by using a balance to compare it to other masses. Weight is measured with a spring scale. Weight of an object varies with location. Mass does not. Weight is also measured in pounds...”

 

So I asked the Department of Education to respond to his factually correct analysis. The Department offered the following explanation: “We understand the point brought up by the question, but items used to assess learning on this mathematics standard may be written from a business or everyday perspective, rather than a scientific perspective, as they do not assess knowledge of the difference between weight and mass. In business and in everyday usage, weight and mass are not distinguished and are commonly used synonymously. For example, shipping companies charge by 'weight' and not by 'mass'….This item adheres to the test item specifications for the standard it assesses and was also deemed acceptable by the teacher committees that reviewed this item prior to its use on the exam. The subsequent statistics for this item supported its clarity and effectiveness.”

“Teachers Just ‘Fudge’” – February 27, 2006
My article last week about educators’ use of group learning techniques generated strong reactions from several teachers.  One teacher said that if teacher put five students in a group, then they have one-fifth of the papers/projects to grade. On the other hand, one teacher told me how her colleagues get around the silliness of some education fads, like group learning: they fudge.  These teachers know what works with students and they do not want to be forced into experimental or ineffectual classroom methods.  So, they submit lesson plans that conform with the latest “requirement” but they do not teach to those lesson plans.  Instead, they stick with what they know works in their classroom.  One problem with this is that administrators reviewing good results might think the falsified lesson plans deserve credit when actually it is the ingenuity of a good teacher.  The other problem this identifies is some principals being completely out of touch with what is happening in the classrooms on their campuses.  I am curious about how widespread this practice is, and while I cannot advocate lying, I also cannot condemn a professional who wants to do right by their students.  I welcome your stories and experiences on this topic.  Send your thoughts to me at billleonard@billleonard.org.

 

“Educrats Need Paddling” – April 3, 2006
I went to high school and college in the 1960's during tumultuous times of students protests. When students abandoned classrooms for the streets they confronted “the man.” Educators told students to get back to class or face punishment. This sometimes escalated to sit-ins and other protests, forcing educators to manage situations where they were ill equipped. Ronald Reagan made his early reputation as the new Governor in telling students how lucky they were to have state subsidized education and in telling administrators to find their back bone.

Fast forward to today. School officials are assisting, encouraging, and promoting student protests on immigration policy. What once was a protest against the system is now a school sponsored field trip. Have these officials lost their minds? Now that they have told all students that truancy has no consequences, how do you get them back in school?  Mayor Villaraigosa, after congratulating them for abandoning their classes, then told the students to go back to school and was booed for his comments.

Maybe we should use student protests as an incentive. Hey kids, you can leave school today to protest but only if you have already passed the High School Exit Exam.

“Stupid in America” – April 3, 2006
For a terrific summary of what is wrong with America’s public education system, see John Stossel’s column, “Stupid in America: How Lack of Choice Cheats Kids Out of a Good Education” at this link:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/print?id=1500338

 

One of the most intriguing parts of Stossel’s article is a profile of a charter school in Oakland, California, run by principal Ben Chavis. Chavis formerly worked as a public school principal but now he runs an alternative school that spends thousands of dollars less per student than neighboring public schools.  Despite that, his middle school students have the highest test score in the city.  He says, “It’s not about the money,” and he saves it by having students keep the campus neat, set up their own cafeteria for lunch and just go for a run for physical education.  The article also compares our public school system with those in Europe, explores the difficulty of firing bad teachers, and discusses the lengths to which parents will go to enroll their children in better schools than the ones they are assigned to geographically.

“A Good Read: Graham’s Schooling in America” – April 3, 2006
For anyone curious or concerned about the state of public schools in America, I recommend “Schooling America: How the Public Schools Meet the Nation’s Changing Needs” by Patricia Albjerg Graham.  The book is not quite the defense of public education one expects from the title, but it is a quality look at the history of American public schools.  Using her own family’s immigrant history, Graham explains how public school adapted to meet the needs of the huge immigrant population in the early 1900s.  The goal of public schools was to assimilate the children of immigrants into American society.  By the middle of the century, schools were changing again to address critics who demanded attention for desegregated classes, programs for the gifted, the disabled and the poor.  Finally, she discusses the current demand for accountability by way of high test scores.  On the subject of research into successful educational methods, she writes: “[W]e treat schools as doughnuts.  We are very good at explaining the periphery (the demographics of students, the teachers, the funding) but we do not understand the hole in the center (what makes the child learn).  I do not agree with all of her points, but her historical perspective of schools changing because of social demands is instructive, and her concluding discussion about the importance of schools in a democracy is not something we hear often enough these days. She writes, “What the country needs now is the enhancement of both the wit and the character of the young, and such efforts should be at the heart of our educational institutional efforts.  Wit is a more inclusive term for knowledge than academic achievement.  Character includes the secular traits of integrity, ingenuity, and hard work, both individually and collectively, that our democracy needs.”  She cites these personal attributes as the causes of American triumphs and wonders, appropriately so, from whence will come the force that will help bring such wit and character to our modern schools.

“A+ Response to Exam” – May 15, 2006
As high school graduation day approaches throughout California, the media is focused on the first class of graduates required to pass the California High School Exit Exam.  Judge Robert B. Freedman issued a ruling last week saying that because poor students do not have an equal education, they do not have an equal chance of passing the test. Therefore, he concludes, the test cannot be required to receive a diploma.  Recently, the West Contra Costa Unified School District actually debated defying state law and giving diplomas to students who did not pass the exam.  I wish to commend a member of the West Contra Costa Unified School District Board of Trustees who spoke on the matter with a clarity that seemed missing in news coverage of the exit exam and the court case. Trustee Karen Pfeiffer told students who were objecting to the quality of their schools, which they blame for their failure to pass, “We are charged to deliver education to you, and it is your job to show up and learn.”  Kudos to Pfeiffer for placing responsibility on students and their parents.  She also said, “To continue to pretend that student who can’t pass this relatively simple exam are high school graduates and should get a diploma is a disservice to the students and the community.”  Double kudos for reminding us that standards must actually mean something and have substance and value.  The majority of the Board voted to keep the state requirement in place.

 

“There’s More To It Than Money” – June 12, 2006
Notwithstanding the importance of education dollars actually getting into classrooms to help teachers do their jobs of imparting knowledge, skills and character to students, money is not everything.  This sentiment was captured perfectly by Santa Clara County School Board member and Stanford Hoover Institute fellow Bill Evers in a recently San Jose Mercury News article.  For full text, see:

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14638652.htm

 

Next week, it is likely that the legislature will pass the Governor’s budget that proposes to spend more than $67 billion on California’s public schools. That is a lot of money; Evers says it is $11,300 per student.  Evers also says that a new study shows that California “has the highest average teacher salary in the country when state income taxes and mandatory retirement contributions are netted out.”   What is noteworthy about the Governor’s education spending plan this year, according to Evers, is the Governor’s “focus on ensuring that we reap a bountiful harvest from what we sow in education—that taxpayers are getting their money’s worth out of our schools and not just continuing to write check after check, to no avail.”  To accomplish this, Schwarzenegger designates money for unbureaucratic charter schools and $2 billion for discretionary spending.  I join Evers in appreciating these aspects of the budget and acknowledging that local control and cutting red tape can make great things happen for our students.

“Slivers of Money” – July 3, 2006
One the state budget stories last week got me ranting at the press again.  A Sacramento Bee writer opened her story with the line, “A small sliver -- less than 1 percent -- of the $131 billion budget...”  Do you know how big a “small sliver” is?  In this case, it’s over a quarter of a billion dollars.  Of all of the state's competing priorities for public funding, for any specific program to get one percent is a big deal and not a sliver.  After all, add up just 100 of those one percent slivers and you will have spent the entire budget.  I am not asking for reporters to be math geniuses, but I would appreciate some proper perspective.

Which brings me to my second rant: the sliver in the story is new money being dedicated to the high school exam.  This is the exam that makes sure that high school graduates have at least an eighth grade education in math and English.  Now you might think that the billions of dollars going to California's government schools would include eighth grade math and English.  And I know they do include this.  But some kids who are not exempt from the exam are still unable to pay attention long enough to pick up these skills by the end of the twelfth grade.  So the state budget has a plan.  These educrats want to spend almost $300 million on extra classes and counseling for those who do not pass this exam.  I want these kids to pass this test, but I do have to point out: this is school money that is not going to school districts as part of the general education apportionments.  My guess that this money will not change the pass rate by much at all, and it should have been left to the discretion of the local school board to decide how to spend. 

“Higher Standards, Not!” – July 17, 2006

An interesting item in the LA Times last week. They reported that the University of California is raising the minimum grade point average (GPA) of applicants up from 2.8 to 3.0. Your first thought might be that UC is raising its standards and we should expect brighter graduates in the future. Not. The truth is that UC must rule eligible the top 12.5% of each high school graduating class. They do that by setting a GPA at which only 12.5% are at or above. So this is not an example of higher standards at all, just a reflection of grade inflation at the high school level. As with monetary inflation, higher number = decreasing value. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uc13jul13,1,203420.story?coll=la-headlines-california

 

“School Construction” – August 28, 2006
One of the choices voters will face on this November’s ballot is Prop. 1D, a $10+ billion school bond.  Knowing that, I read with interest an Ohio Legislative Service Commission study about the costs of school construction in that state.  The study found that a 1997 law exempting public school construction from prevailing wage laws reduced the cost of school construction by more than 10 percent. I suspect the difference in California would be more pronounced, and imagine what an extra $1 billion could build.

“Expertise and Bias” – September 18, 2006
The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, another misnamed special interest group, is attacking Speaker Nunez for appointing a leader of the California Teachers’ Association to the Stem Cell Research Citizens Financial Accountability and Oversight Committee.  Their attack centers on the fact that John Hein is not an expert on stem cells.  Given the unbelievable conflict of interests in the scientific research community, I think it is important that the appointee not be a stem cell expert, but instead be an expert in smelling out corruption.  John Hein, who has always been a straight shooter on behalf of the teachers, is perfectly qualified to recognize financial abuses. 

I compare it to the days when I served on the budget subcommittee on education.  I am not a certificated teacher, but I could do the math and figure out that less and less money was getting to the classroom while more and more money was being diverted to administrators and consultants who never had any contact with students.  Some considered me to be the skunk at the administrators’ trough of money, but my duty was to the taxpayers and the students, not the bureaucrats.  Best wishes to John Hein as he reviews the stem cell trough of money.  It certainly is a target rich environment.

“Survey Shames America’s Elite Colleges” – November 6, 2006
The Intercollegiate Studies Institute has a new study out that is a comprehensive survey of how well America’s colleges are teaching basic civics.  The results are a wake-up call.  The University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy assisted with the survey to produce the results in “The Coming Crisis in Citizenship: Higher Education's Failure to Teach America's History and Institutions”
 
In the fall of 2005, UConn surveyed more than 14,000 randomly selected college freshmen and seniors at 50 colleges and universities across the country to measure their knowledge in American history, government, America and the world, and the market economy.  ISI characterize the results as constituting nothing less than a coming crisis in American citizenship.  I agree.  Just a few of the findings:
 
“Seniors scored just 1.5 percent higher on average than freshmen…At many colleges, including Brown, Georgetown, and Yale, seniors know less than freshmen about America's history, government, foreign affairs, and economy. We characterize this phenomenon as "negative learning.  "A majority of the 16 schools where senior scores were actually lower than freshman scores are considered to be among the most prestigious colleges in the United States.”
 
Here is their sample quiz if you are like me and wondering if you can do better than today’s college seniors (answers below).  I found them to be depressingly easy.  A specific date to the second question might have stumped me, but not the range. 
 
1)       Which of the following are the unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence?

1. life, liberty, and property.
2. honor, liberty, and peace.
3. liberty, health, and community.
4. life, respect, and equal protection.
5. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

2)       During which period was the American Constitution amended to guarantee women the right to vote?

A. 1850 – 1875

B. 1876 – 1900

C. 1901 – 1925

D. 1926 – 1950

E.  1951 – 1975

 

3)       In his “I Have a Dream” speech, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

A. argued for the abolition of slavery.

B. advocated black separatism.

C. morally defended affirmative action.

D. expressed his hopes for racial justice and brotherhood.

      E. proposed that several of America’s founding ideas were discriminatory.

 

4)       Which of the following was an alliance to resist Soviet expansion?

A. United Nations.

B.  League of Nations.

C.  North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

D.  Warsaw Pact.

E.   Asian Tigers.

 

5)       Which of the following is the best measure of production or output of an economy?

1. Gross Domestic Product.
2. Consumer Price Index.
3. Unemployment Rate.
4. Prime Rate.
5. Exchange Rate.

Answers: 1E, 2C, 3D, 4C, 5A
 
Read the whole report and check out ISI’s recommendations to turn this around:
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/report/summary.html

“Judges Should Not Legislate” – January 2, 2007
An LA County judge has read into the state's constitution that a 1946 vote to remove restrictive language requiring school governance by cities from the Constitution was really an order for the Legislature to never allow schools to share power with cities. The truth is that the people were removing a restriction from the Constitution and giving the Legislature power to develop the best methods for school governance. Now after 60 years of schools being governed by single interest-- school boards dominated by single interests-- it is time to try new methods.

I do not know if Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's bold plan to have the Mayor share power with the school board will work, but I defend his and the Legislature's ability to try different methods that will push our public schools to do the job. What is wrong with tailoring governance over school policy to fit the community? What is wrong with the Legislature authorizing experiments and demonstrations in how to deliver education services like charter schools, larger school boards, elections by area or district-wide? There is no bar in the Constitution to these actions, and this judge should run for the Legislature if she wants to vote on school governance.

“Missing Senators” – January 16, 2007
The mainstream press has again missed a political story.  Governor Schwarzenegger's appointee to the State Board of Education, Joe Nunez, was on a deadline to be confirmed to that board by the Senate.  The vote was scheduled by the Senate leadership with only days to go.  Republican Senators had been in opposition to the nominee for months and it should not have been a surprise to the press that the Republicans voted against Nunez’s confirmation.  Democrat Senators had been supportive of this teacher/union leader nominated by the Governor. Yet the headlines all say “GOP kills appointment”.  The truth is that two Republican Senators crossed over and voted for Nunez.  Their two votes combined with all 25 Democrat Senators would have given Nunez the 27 votes he needed, but he lost 25-11.  That means that the Democrats actually killed his appointment.  The press should be asking Senators Vincent and Calderon if their abstentions were purposeful.

 

“Kudos to West Covina School Board” – January 29, 2007

Kudos to my friend Mike Spence, the West Covina School Board Member who successfully

passed a resolution that will have the school district using the Department of Homeland

Security’s Basic Pilot Program to screen employees for their eligibility to work legally in the

U.S. According to Carl Olson, Chairman of State Department Watch, West Covina is the first

school district in the nation to take this important step. Spence won the unanimous support of his

colleagues for this common sense approach to employment screening and it shows that there are

some in government who still care about being role models for the Rule of Law.

 

If you are a business owner who wants to take advantage of this free online system to help ensure

that you do not unwittingly hire an illegal immigrant, go to:

https://www.vis-dhs.com/EmployerRegistration/StartPage.aspx?JS=YES&AccessMethod=

“Education Underfunded, So Are We All” – March 12, 2007
The press is buzzing with leaks from big studies about education.  The "news" angle is that education is underfunded.  Yet, asking anyone if they want more money is the wrong approach. We already know the answer to that question and the obvious answer is not newsworthy.

 

What would be useful is to ask educators for ideas about how to spend school dollars more effectively.  Or ask what programs could be axed and the money shifted to another with no loss.  Or ask teachers what one thing the district could do more them to help them avoid failure with their students.

 

I know the studies have not yet been released, but unless there is better quality than what has been leaked thus far, then this “new” study of education will be a waste.

“Schools Send Home a Bill” – March 12, 2007
I just read that some school districts around the state are sending voluntary bills to parents whose children miss school for reasons other than illness.  One district’s bill says, “Are the ski slopes calling? Are you taking the kids to Disneyland midweek to avoid the crowds?  If so, we would encourage you to reconsider.  When your child misses school, there are consequences for the student and the district.”  The invoice that accompanies the note is for $36.13 per day per student. 

 

While some parents are sending in the check, others are laughing at the absurdity of getting a bill from a government monopoly attempting to enforce a criminal code that says your child must be in school.  Why do parents have their children not attend school sometimes?  Maybe some of them question the value of the education that is being provided.  Parents are paying property taxes, income taxes and sales taxes to fund these government schools, and still they decide that a day off school with the family is more important.  My take is that it is their choice.  This is another line in the battle of who owns your kids: you or the government?  How about this turn-about is fair play?  For every day that kid comes home and says that he learned nothing in school, maybe you should send the school district a bill for $36.13.

 

“The Private Sector is Leading an Education Revolution” – March, 12, 2007

Education is going through profound changes and the changes are coming at lightning speed.  The traditional media may miss large parts of this story, but parents will not.  In the February edition of Popular Science we are given a glimpse of this in an interview with Sun co-founder Scott McNealy about his nonprofit, Curriki.   The article notes that California spends around $400 million per year to replace old textbooks.  McNealy wants to take that down to near zero.  He is progressing toward this goal by posting entire textbooks online at his site, curriki.org: http://www.curriki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome

McNealy plans to add lesson plans and other resources to the site.  He got the idea when his daughter asked him about electricity.  He went searching for some web-based way of teaching this to his daughter and ended up on a welding site.  Curriki is his solution, and the Sun open-source philosophy allows users to participate by adding new content themselves. Brilliant.

“Frustrated with English Learning” – March 19, 2007
Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Education’s Director of the Office of English Language Acquisition, Kathleen Leos, held an on-line chat about the subject of teaching English to non-English speakers.  The link below will take you to the full transcript of the chat, which may frustrate you as much as it did me.  The complaints from educators around the country are serious and heartfelt. The Director’s response are stilted and bureaucratic, referencing funding available for various programs but seemingly disconnected from the passion of the subject.  Most disturbing, however, was the airing given to a 2005 Urban Institute Report showing that 56% of children who enter high school with limited English language ability are actually born in the U.S.

 

One in nine U.S. students are labeled “limited English proficient” now and by 2025, that ratio will be one in four.  How on earth we think we can maintain our status as a world leader in the economy, in ideas, in science, in anything, when 25% of our students cannot speak English proficiently is beyond me.  That children can be born in this country, spend their early years in public school classrooms and yet make it to high school without having mastered the language is unfathomable.  And how parents, who should by nature want the very best for their children, put up with such underachievement and allow their children to continue in this educational slump, is deeply disturbing.  Parents must demand more from themselves and their children, and educators must be freed to use the best language teaching methods instead of being hampered by regulations and restrictions.

 

See the transcript of Leos’s on-line chat at this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/03/01/DI2007030101208.html?nav=rss_liveonline

 

"Documentary on the Corruption of Universities" - April 2, 2007

Evan Coyne Maloney is a talented young documentary film maker. His low-budget, no-frills work has gotten a lot of attention over the last few years in conservative circles. One work of his I particularly enjoyed was of him interviewing anti-war protesters in which he asked the protesters to guess the author of a quote about Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs. The actual speaker of the quote was Al Gore, which made for some amusing reactions from those being interviewed as they guessed Bush instead. It’s Maloney’s willingness to engage far left people along with his self-effacing style and fairness that make him stand apart.

 

His latest film is wonderful and disturbing at the same time. It is called “Indoctrinate U” and focuses on the intellectual atmosphere on campuses across the nation. This film is long overdue. For way too long, people have been tolerant in letting a certain point of view dominate America’s campuses. Conservative-leaning students have known for last 30 years – at least – that in order to succeed, especially in the liberal arts, they have to hide who they really are because it is well known that professors punish conservative students for not towing their line. Young conservatives are given the friendly advice to “just get through it” or “tell them what they want to hear” and then upon graduation they are only then allowed to be their real selves. That is shameful and it needs to stop.

 

What I really like about Maloney’s approach is he is not shilling for the Republican Party. That is not the issue. Rather, Maloney just wants universities to go back to being a safe place for people to voice ideas without fearing damage to their future prospects in life for doing so. That is the correct approach. What is also wonderful about the film is that Maloney does not just cherry- pick disgruntled conservative students, he interviews many professors as well. Some of these are self described architects of the political correct atmosphere on campus and they agree that things have gone too far toward a certain narrow vision that is not healthy for the schools, nor the nation

 

Check out this site for a showing of this movie near you. If you have kids nearing college age, this movie is an eye-opener. http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

 

"Students of Liberty" - April 30, 2007

Much of the news about public policy proposals in California this year has demonstrated the need for refresher courses in the concept of liberty. While it may be too late for many legislators, I encourage college students to participate in one of the many free seminars offered this summer by the Institute for Humane Studies. IHS is run out of George Mason University, but the seminars are held at locations all over the country. The seminars are heavy on fascinating discussions lead by distinguished faculty and tremendous opportunities to socialize with other students who are committed to the ideals of liberty. They are free to participants and range from the beginning level, “Exploring Liberty” to more specific topics of journalism or globalization. One of my staff members has participated in several IHS seminars and speaks highly of the intellectual stimulation, historical background and fascinating reading. If you, or a college student you know are intrigued by personal freedom and responsibility, then I encourage you to check out these seminars and see how you can advance the cause of liberty.

 

“Still No Satisfactory End to Eastin Scandal” – May 7, 2007
A small news item in the Sac Bee took me down memory lane.
“A Sacramento jury has awarded $7.6 million to a California Department of Education whistle-blower who was retaliated against after he reported the misappropriation of millions of dollars in government funds.  The funds were handed out to community-based organizations between 1995 and 2000 to teach English as a second language to adults.  Some of the schools turned out to be non-existent.”
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/160661.html   ---- more background:
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/cap/2004/cap_04-06-17.html
 
According to Pacific Research Institute, during the period in question the Department of Education failed to conduct a single on-site audit of any school district in the state.
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/educat/grand_theft_education.pdf
 
First of all, thank goodness that Jim Lindberg at the Department of Education did the right thing and blew the whistle on this massive fraud.  It was found that both the Department, and former Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin, retaliated against the whistleblower rather than stop the fraud.  A jury had originally awarded the whistleblower $4.5 million in 2002, but the state stupidly appealed.  Now, this new jury has almost doubled the award.  Clearly, it is time for California to cry uncle and pay this guy. 
 
Since these were actually federal grant monies, the feds did their own investigation, and in 2001 indicted a couple of the groups’ leaders who falsely took this money.  No one from the Department of Education was indicted.  The Department gave the federal government back $3.3 million for the fraudulent dispersal of the federal money.  Millions in state funds are still not accounted for. 
 
The state should hold hearings on this matter.  State Superintendent Jack O’Connell should be asked whether the recommendations in the state auditor’s report were ever instituted and whether additional efforts have been made to get the peoples’ money back.
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/99121.pdf

“Memo to Eastin: You Lost” – May 14, 2007
Kudos to Assemblyman Michael Duvall (R-Yorba Linda) for holding the Department of Education’s feet to the fire.  The San Jose Mercury News reports that Duvall has been pressing the department for details how they are paying for the attorneys that have thus far not succeeded in prevailing against a department whistleblower.  The department says $4 million has been set aside just to pay for private attorneys to defend the department and former Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin.  The story is here:
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_5856349?source=email
 
What I find incredible is the statements by the department, and in particular, Delaine Eastin, who along with the department was found liable by two juries.  The first jury found that Eastin “acted with malice” and held her personally liable for $1.45 million in damages.  That jury awarded the whistleblower $4.5 million in total.   The department appealed the decision at public expense.  Last month, a second jury upped the damages to $7.6 million.
 
In the Mercury-News article last week Eastin was quoted saying, “It really is taking money away from the children to give to a guy who’s really no more entitled to it than a man on the moon.”   Think about the chutzpah of that statement.  

 

The former superintendent was in charge when more than $3.3 million in federal money and untold millions in state education money were given to people to buy Mercedes Benzes and other luxuries with no oversight whatsoever.  Then, to make it worse, she treated the revealer of this fraud not with respect or appreciation, but in a way that is now going to cost the state another $7 million in damages, plus perhaps $4 million in legal fees and she is accusing OTHER people of taking money away from California schools.

“Evaluating Education” – May 14, 2007
“Spending on education has gone up, but the way tax dollars are spent has not changed much over the years.  On some programs…California Department of Education officials still have no idea where the money goes or what it does. Government education programs are poorly evaluated, if they are at all. Even if there is decent evaluation work done, lawmakers largely ignore the research evidence when making funding decisions.”  Those few sentences should compel you to want to read the Pacific Research Institute’s fourth annual California Education Report Card by Lance Izumi and Rachel Chaney with Xiaochin Claire Yan. 

 

The Report Card grades the state on 17 categories, giving only one “A” but six “F”s.  Let’s start with the good news.  The “A” grade came in the category of Standards.  Izumi writes, “California has one of the best sets of academic standards in the nation.  The problem for the state and its students has been inconsistent implementation of the standards in the classroom.”  That takes us to the failing grades.  Among the Report Card’s observations:

 

• The formula used to calculate the improvement targets for each public school produces targets so incrementally small that it would take many schools 20 years or more to hit the state’s performance goals.
• Only about four out of 10 students in grades two through 11 scored at or above the proficient level in English language arts and math in 2006.
• More than half of the incoming California State University freshmen in 2005 required either remedial instruction in English language arts or math. These remedial students have a solid “B” high school GPA and are supposedly in the top one-third of high school graduates.
• State-sponsored research has found that whether using statewide average test scores of more refined school-level analysis, there was no association between the total number of years a student had been in reduced-sized classes and differences in academic achievement.
• The government construction system in California is unbelievably convoluted and results in five- to six-year waits before schools can be built, even if there is funding for construction.

 

I have a keen interest in education policy and when I was a legislator, I clamored for more research about the school bills we were voting on.  I did not want to simply ride the pendulum back and forth from one education fad to another. Yet, that is what the system did then and it is what continues to mire it down today.  Legislators must have access to and take the time to study evidence and research, and the educrats in Sacramento and in school administrative offices around the state must do better than merely oversee a system that gets a report card like the one Pacific Research Institute has issued.

 

For the full report, go to:

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/educat/2007/Report_Card/index.html

“Free Speech for Thee, but Not for Me” – July 2, 2007
Senator Kuehl is advancing a bill (SB 777) that will make it harder for Christians, Jews, Moslems, and members of other traditional faiths to enroll their children in public schools and make it even harder for public school teachers who are religious to reconcile their day job with their faith.  The bill seeks to prohibit textbooks, teaching or activities from promoting bias against homosexuals, transgenders, or bisexuals.  Harassment is wrong, but I am not aware of public school textbooks or curriculum that rile up students to attack or demean homosexuals.  What this bill really does is prohibit truthful information while suppressing affirmation of the traditional family structure.  For teachers who respect chastity and family integrity this makes for a contradiction between what they believe and what they can say. 

 

While most people in American today are tolerant of people with different behaviors, it is a very big step for the law to prohibit teaching that certain behaviors are often risky to health, or that these behaviors are different from historical families.  At a time when the public is pushing for more ethics and character-education in schools, this bill -- it is just a few votes from the Governor's desk-- would force drastic changes in the free flow of ideas and honest discussion in schools.  I would not be surprised to see lots of early retirements from teaching if this controversial and contradictory burden is placed on teachers.

“’Advocates’ for What?” – August 27, 2007

One news story about last week about the state budget passing with the votes of two Republican Senators included a list of the compromises and concessions that were made by all sides.  The first item on the list caught my attention for its irony: “Republican efforts to send more money to suburban school districts was dropped amid opposition from school advocates.”  Think about that for a moment.  A group of lawmakers were trying to get additional money to certain school districts around the state.  Opposition to that additional education money came from “school advocates.”  Two questions: 1) who are these “advocates”? and 2) do any of the school districts that just lost out on more money pay any part of their salaries?  The answers are obvious to anyone familiar with the making of educational policy in California: 1) teachers’ unions and 2) yes.  This also demonstrates the supreme power of the major urban school districts (i.e., Los Angeles and San Francisco) to the detriment of students around California.  The Republicans wanted to send more money to the schools in their part of the state, but the bird dogs on the block would not hear of it.  Keep in mind, I do not believe that more money equates to improved education for our kids, but usually when more money is offered, “advocates” scoop it up. In this case, they turned up their noses and schools in other areas of our state lose.

 

“Volunteering to be Fired” – August 27, 2007

Most people dread being fired. The economic uncertainty, the damage to personal reputation, etc., are discouraging, to say the least. Yet, if I were the president of the University of California, I would volunteer to be fired and do it for a lot less than the Regents are paying President Robert Dynes to leave. See the link below for details on his leaving salary, home loan help and pension.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/20/BAFDRKMES.DTL

It is unfortunate that the leaders of our top universities are now fund raisers rather than academicians, and they are paid as rainmakers not educators.

 

“Privatization” – October 1, 2007

The Governor is proposing to sell off two California government departments because they are really businesses. That is, they make money on their own, and whatever services they perform the public can choose whether to use them. Both the Ed-Fund, which is a bank making loans to college students, and the State Lottery, which is a government run casino, are the kind of entities government should not be running

I propose another that meets these same standards and should thus be privatized: the University of California. UC is also a business that competes with the private sector (USC, Stanford) and it makes tons of money with its high tuition charges and patents on its inventions, as well as Federal contracts (like Halliburton and Blackwater). Certainly with a mandate to only admit the top 12% of the high school class it does not serve even a majority of Californians. Given the recent headlines of corruption, mismanagement, lack of oversight and violations of academic freedom, UC really should be reconstituted away from state government. As a charitable educational institution it would then be subject to Franchise Tax Board audits just like the private college and universities are now.

We could save millions of taxpayer dollars by this privatization and if someone really wanted to buy the headache, we the people might be able to break even.

 

“Get Ahead of the Text” – October 1, 2007
The Governor has two bills on his desk about the costs of college textbooks:
The College Textbook Affordability Act, SB 832 (Corbett) and the College Textbook Transparency Act, AB 1548 (Solorio). According to the LA Times, both authors say their goal is to give professors more information about textbook pricing and what has changed in the books’ newest editions so that they can decide whether it is worth requiring students to purchase new books. One study shows that California college students spend nearly $900 per years on texts and that the average prices for one is over $100. Professors should look even beyond the information that these bills would supposedly give them. There are websites that offer free licenses for full texts with embedded advertising or charge a small fee for a printable version. Technology and starving students may well get ahead of the Legislature, Governor and professors on this matter. Try:
http://www.freeloadpress.com/
which lists several topics, or
http://www.introecon.com/
to see how one economic text has made this work.

 

“Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” – October, 22, 2007

Students on college campuses are afforded the opportunity to learn about and participate in all sorts of radical movements of questionable value, but today marks the beginning of national Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week on more than 200 campuses around the country. The purpose of the week is simple according to the organizers: “to confront the two Big Lies of the political left: that George Bush created the war on terror and that Global Warming is a greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat.” Events during the week include: memorial services for the victims of Islamic terror both in America and around the globe; a student petition denouncing Islamo-Fascist violence against women, gays, Christians, Jews and non-religious people; a teach-in on “The Oppression of Women in Islam”; sit-ins in Women’s Studies Departments and campus Women’s Centers to protest their silence about the oppression of women in Islam.

While that purpose makes perfect sense to me, I have no doubt that the leftists who dominate our college campuses will not take kindly to those students who exercise their First Amendment rights by participating in Islamo-Fascism Awareness. I am sure they will be harassed and critici