Endorsements, controversies and tidbits about the school board race

October 10, 5:26 PMSF Education ExaminerCaroline Grannan

Previous Next

10 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the SF Education Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Lowell: Keep it as it is or not?

The Bay Guardian came out with its endorsements, using JROTC -- which the Guardian vigorously opposes -- as its litmus test. (“Her support for the save-JROTC ballot measure disqualified her for our endorsement,” the Guardian said of Rachel Norton, while praising her credentials and her “appealing campaign”).

Yet the Guardian endorsed incumbent Norman Yee, who claims explicitly that he supports JROTC even though he co-sponsored the school board resolution that definitively eliminated it. I e-mailed Guardian editor Tim Redmond to ask about that inconsistency, but haven’t heard back yet. Sandra Fewer, Barbara “Bobbi” Lopez and Kimberly Wicoff make up the rest of the slate that the Guardian deems acceptably anti-JROTC.

The Guardian praised Jill Wynns warmly while not endorsing her because of her support for JROTC and previously of former SFUSD Superintendent Arlene Ackerman, whom the Guardian loathes with a passion equal to its hatred of PG&E. Wynns “has had a distinguished career, and we will never forget her leadership in the battle against privatizing public schools,” the Guardian enthused. Pretty flattering for a non-endorsement.

*

All the candidates except for h. brown (who the Guardian says “can be a bit politically unhinged [and] has no business on the school board) showed up at the Oct. 7 forum at Everett Middle School. I’m not sure what I’d think based on that forum if I knew nothing about the candidates beforehand.

The forum barely touched on some of SFUSD’s major issues, including the assignment process, curriculum, the budget crisis, selective admissions schools, GATE education, arts education or how to increase enrollment – or even JROTC. In my and others’ views, there was more focus on school violence than the level of the problem in SFUSD warrants, considering all those other key issues were overlooked – and lots about truancy and dropouts, plus “cultural competence,” whatever that is. As one audience member e-mailed me later: “It was like they were discussing a whole other school district - one plagued by constant crime, populated entirely by undocumented immigrant children who were either truant or locked up in juvie after a schoolyard fight, and surrounded by adults who had never had any professional development focusing on cultural competence, who were therefore unfit to enter the same building as the students.”
 
*
On the topic of school violence, I was at a Board of Ed meeting a couple of years ago when the use of Prop. H funds (city money that augments school programs) was being decided. Then-acting Superintendent Gwen Chan was pleading for more money for academic coaches for struggling students – especially for struggling students in schools that aren’t overall low-performing, because low-performing schools already get extra funds for academic help. The Prop. H Committee wanted more of the money to go to “violence prevention programs.” There was a compromise.

Later, the “violence prevention” money paid for a program at Aptos Middle School when my daughter was there. The consensus among students and parents who were present was that the anti-violence program was “BS.” One parent attended an assembly that she told me was run by a hip-hop DJ who took the opportunity to promote his services for other parties. Students made T-shirts with anti-violence slogans.

Considering there’s wide agreement that helping at-risk students achieve academically is likely to steer them away from crime, I have to wonder about that priority. One cynical parent comments that it’s really about channeling funds to the organizations that run the programs. All this comes to mind when I hear the discussions by school board candidates of violence prevention. Just because it says it’s a violence prevention program doesn’t mean it’s actually preventing violence. I’m with Chan on this one.

*

An important issue to me as a School of the Arts (SOTA) parent is the selective admissions process and the future of SOTA and Lowell high schools. (SOTA admits by artistic audition; Lowell based on academic achievement.) Opposing “elitist” selective admissions has been part of the party line of the Green/Progressive faction in our district (not necessarily actual Green Party members). Eliminating the selection criteria --- which would essentially eliminate those schools by turning them into ordinary general-education schools -- has definitely been on the table in the recent past. Mark Sanchez – leaving the Board of Ed to run for city supervisor – has been the most visible spokesperson.

I’d like to know the candidates’ views on that, and I’ve submitted that question at both candidates’ forums, but the moderators haven’t gotten to it. Rachel Norton has told me she supports Lowell and SOTA – with a strong effort to provide low-income students with the resources they need to compete in the admissions processes (that’s my paraphrase of her views) – and Jill Wynns has been a continuing strong supporter. Emily Murase is active in the Lowell Alumni Association, which should indicate support. I’d really like to know where the others stand, though.

*

I have to comment on candidate Omar Khalif. I’ve never talked to him face to face, but from what I’ve seen at several forums and meetings, I like the guy. He appears to have a droll sense of humor and a self-deprecating good nature, appealingly combined with the guts to take unpopular and un-PC positions. Unfortunately I disagree with enough of his positions to make it a deal-killer, but he still deserves mention.

*

The results of a candidate questionnaire were handed out on a sheet at the Everett forum. The sheet doesn’t indicate its source, which I’m sure is some organization that does good things in the community, but the questionnaire is pretty amusing. All the rambling questions are set up in such an absurdly leading way that only an ogre could disagree with them, and then the candidates are asked if they support or oppose the statement.

For example: “Minority students in SFUSD are disproportionately disciplined through the suspension and expulsion process, resulting in truancy and missed educational opportunities for students who are already in the lowest performing subgroups. The District should explore and implement alternatives to suspension and expulsion, such as Peer Courts, community service, and in-school suspension to the fullest extent possible.”

Do you agree as all right-thinking people should do, or are you vile scum? And when did you stop beating your wife? All 14 questions are worded in similar fashion.

Given the phrasing of the questions, I’m giving credit for guts and principle to any candidate who had the cojones to disagree with even one. Here are the few, the proud:  Marigrace Cohen, Omar Khalif, Emily Murase and Jill Wynns. (Only Khalif, for the record, disagreed with the question I quoted.)

*

I’m surprised that there has been so little discussion in this campaign of the questions about candidate Jaynry Mak’s finances that surfaced only two years ago when she ran for supervisor, to which the Chronicle’s Matier and Ross political team devoted an entire column (rare for them).  Mak has enough endorsements to be a serious candidate.

*

A couple of other moments stood out from the Oct. 7 candidates’ forum. Sandra Fewer, discussing parent involvement, approvingly mentioned parents selling cupcakes, while down the stage, Jill Wynns, longtime leader of the SFUSD healthy school food movement, smiled ruefully. (Parents are not banned from selling cupcakes, but it’s limited and not encouraged. For information, go to www.sfusdfood.org.)

Bobbi Lopez called for more professional development for custodians and cafeteria workers, leading one audience member to fan herself with a flyer.

*

25 years ago or so, there was a popular bumper sticker: “I Brake for Animals.” The late humor magazine the National Lampoon created a sticker in response: “I Speed Up and Run Over Small Animals.” That’s what I think of when I hear a bright-eyed, naïve  newcomer make the bold proposal that we should just “make all the schools great.” Gosh – why hasn’t anyone else thought of that? Sorry to be so cynical, but that’s like piping up eagerly: “I know! We should just eliminate war, crime and poverty!”  I’ll ponder how to do that and get back to you. The rest of the candidates believe that many schools should be kept crummy, right ?