Sometimes it's so easy to see how systems meant to help go bad.  Some of it is the strange exponential brew of unrelated line items that form some really ugly whole.  For instance, if SFUSD is interested in both providing the least restrictive environment for children with special needs AND wants to save money in delivering services...well, it's very easy for that to become a block to any child receiving any services.

Of course, the issue of intentions always comes in, and there's something about central district offices that seem to cause those employed there to become very leery of school site workers.  Maybe it's seeing the whole picture: one can see that district wide a certain population is over-represented in low graduation rates/SDC placement/ED classrooms, so one views with suspicion the school site personnel proposing that a student from that population receive services.  It might be understandable, but it's still unpleasant: you have to assume the best of the people with whom you are attempting to serve children, or the children pay.

What I really dislike, though, is the way certain "procedures" that block access to assessment and services get quoted at you over and over and over, even when you know that the procedure in question is rarely followed or in fact illegal.  This is when it's very useful to carry a procedural binder and a copy of relevant case law.  It may make one unpopular with certain district folk who don't really like being (gently) corrected, but if the one in question is me, you were destined to be unpopular with those people, anyway.

I haven't seen Waiting for Superplutocrats - I have this thing about controlling my blood pressure - but I understand that the lazy, rotten, nogoodnik public school teacher types sleep while their students fail to learn in this movie.

I don't actually know how that works.  If I fell asleep in my classroom, two students would immediately dispatch themselves to run to the office to alert officialdom.  Three more would make a child tower to get at the Magical Mysteries of the Top Shelves.  The rest would tickle and/or suffocate me.  I don't even have a teacher's desk to sit behind, brooding, while my students have snail races/give each other haircuts/become depressed in a miasma of union-loving child hate.  My class can more or less leave me alone to do Guided Reading and/or assessment, but that's due to months of training (and is made much easier this year thanks to having a Resident).  Moreover, part of the 'leave E. Rat alone' compact is that you will eventually get your turn with the teacher, and you don't want anyone to interrupt it.

This week was a bit difficult.  In addition to some time at the vet, it ends up that part of aging is developing really miserable allergies to life itself.  It was also a week featuring things I find difficult (paper management: field trip permission slips, forms for certain school programs, thank yous to mail) and anxiety-inducing (putting together technological items like incubators, making sure no one jumps in the pond on the field trip, eighty seven thousand little tasks that are in themselves exceptionally easy but become this Doomy Doom in my head).

Also, I had this at my home, waiting for perusal.  And someone gave me a set of these.

So what I really wanted to do was spend hours lettering folders, permission slips, awards and similar for my students, taking breaks only to read my exhibition guide and to blow my nose, cough, sneeze and rub my eyes.

What I did instead was run the annual Read an Eggathon (we have an egg hunt, but with words in the eggs and stickers for prizes), get a snootful of pollen on our buddy picnic field trip (DUCKLINGS!), set up the incubator and leave my new fancy book in its overwrap.

The stars therefore granted me a Donors Choose of fine, fine construction paper - the kind that is smooth, crisp, bright and probably miserable for the planet - and twenty boxes of glitter crayons.  Perhaps one day one of my Kindergartners will rate their own fine museum exhibition of couture, and I will attend as a guest of honor in a bespoke dress.  THANKS TO THE GLITTER CRAYONS.

In other news, SFUSD indicates that - Oops!  Sorry again! - the coming year is NOT the worst.  The one after that could be even more dire!  At this point, I am presuming that if the state passes a budget before August 15 I'll be laid off thanks to the late window.  I'm also frightened by the increasing class sizes forecast for SFUSD (and thankful to the district for keeping them low as yet in K-3).  I started teaching after class-size reduction; I have a hard time imagining 31 students.  And the supports that made 31 more manageable (paraeducators, AM/PM Kinder with co-teaching) are gone, while the standards for students are much higher (and the school year even shorter).

Moreover, what with the financial crisis, every year more of my students are under stress.  In the four years I've been at my school, every year student mobility goes up.  I got a new student this week, for instance.  Of my students who have moved away, most if not all of their moves were directly due to losing housing/relatives losing housing (often complicated by violence and family members' passing).  This year I've held SSTs for seven students; about half my class is receiving some kind of school-provided social-emotional service.  Those are services that we may not be able to afford.

So beyond the academic requirements, the empathy and care needed for a class of 31 at a high-needs school in an ill-funded environment is at the 'psychic vampire' level.  It's hard to listen to education reform rhetoric about failing schools, failing teachers and "we already tried money" and believe they are anything other than self-assured, knowing liars who have enough time to read their Savage Beauty catalogues and enough money to send their own progeny to highly-supportive, exceptionally expensive private academies.

Who Are These People, Anyway?

Cobb: Dr. William Cobb was the first African American principal in SFUSD (so no, the school's not named for the roller coaster guy).

Lilienthal: Claire Lilienthal was on the BoE and was a civil rights activist.

Serra, Milk, Carmichael, Carver, Chavez, Malcolm X, Moscone, Drew...everybody knows these, right?

Frank McCoppin and ER Taylor were Mayors of San Francisco.

McLaren CDC is named for the Park Superintendent.  He also designed Lithia Park in Ashland, one of my favorite non-Shakespeare, anti-bipolar parks in all the land.

John Yehall Chin was an educator.

Gordon J. Lau was the first Chinese American elected to the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco.  He was part of the Milk/Silver/Moscone progressive government contingent.

This is kind of neat.

Brief Flu Thoughts

1. If Michelle Rhee doesn't want uppity bloggers casting aspersions on her students' results, maybe she shouldn't have offered so many contrary reports of same.
2. And if she just now noticed those uppity bloggers, she really needs a better Google alert on her name.  I think the Daily Howler commented on the issue four or five years ago.
3. We need to move away from the idea that diagnosis is in itself a negative.  Locally, maybe the move toward inclusion will do this.  But right now, we are ignoring students' needs in the name of not labeling learners.  Given the dark and racist history of SFUSD's special education referrals, it's an admirable impulse.  But some students have real needs.  These needs can often be ameliorated in the classroom, but they won't be if they aren't named and teachers aren't given support in doing so.
4. For instance, I know some things about sensory processing issues.  I can generally offer support to students who need tactile feedback, proprioceptive development, etc.  But there is far more I don't know and therefore can't support.  When we can't assess students who are struggling for special needs, how can I serve those students well?
5. In short: learning differences are differences, and differences are good.  Diversity makes us richer, not poorer.
6. Ms. Rhee's Cult of the Teacher plays into this, too.  If the teacher is the driver of all student achievement or lack thereof, then he or she - if truly motivated - needs no support or guidance to reach all learners.  If he or she would just work harder, everything would be easier.
7. Of course, the thoughts of anyone who duct-taped students' mouths closed on any issue in education should be taken with a veritable Bonneville of salt.

I am not at work today because I have the flu.  I am very thankful we celebrated Valentine's Day Friday because a rainy celebration day on my poor Resident Teacher would be a truly terrible thing.  Today is the first day I have been awake for more than three hours in a row since Friday afternoon.  This is a big achievement.

Some things NEVER change.

Preparing for a $19 or a $330 cut per student in funding next year, SFUSD is as usual planning for massive teacher layoffs: 300 to 400, presumably with EduJobs and maybe with retirements counted in already.  This year, my school can actually anticipate more layoff letters; presuming the same plan as last year, the following will definitely be noticed:

• all of 1st grade
• 2/3 of 2nd grade
• all of 3rd grade
• 1/2 of 4th grade
• all of 5th grade

with an additional four notices if they also send layoff letters to teachers with four years' seniority in SFUSD (in which case, they will notice all but three classroom teachers).

Undoubtedly there will be plenty of hand-wringing about how terrible it is that the Superintendent and BoE are required to utterly upend high-needs schools, but they're going to do it anyway and get hinky if anyone suggests that it's their fault.  It's that mean state!

So let me be the first to assure SFUSD that it is, ultimately, their decision.  Going "Beyond the Talk" is a radical action.  Inequitable layoffs are a status quo action.  You can't balance these things out.  Blaming union contracts, seniority, etc. doesn't exonerate you.  The shady self-dealing of the state GOP (I can balance the budget and increase school funding, leaving a three billion dollar reserve: bet you can too!) doesn't exonerate you.  We need to take responsibility for our actions.

I do think SFUSD has options other than massive layoffs that still allow them to sign off on a budget (although I am tired of hearing about STATE TAKEOVER from those who would lose their jobs in that case, gotta say!).  Some of them are straightforward: time to make some big cuts at the top at the Central Office.  Frankly, 25% paycuts to all EDs, Senior Directors and Superintendents of every ilk are not too much to demand.  Legal needs to cut down on its use of the unrestricted General Fund, and like the Special Ed redesign, should be forced to account for its legal decisions (SFUSD: Fighting Every Access Ramp Since 1901).  I recognize that Legal is used to being the end all on all law, but I must note that their opinion is just that.  (FYI, Legal?  Your opinion on layoffs and equity?  LAUSD settled.  Because they were going to lose ugly.)

In other news:

• I have an offsite PD thingamajig today, which means that I cannot walk to work and must get on the bus.  BOO.
• As of yesterday afternoon, I was 40% to filling a Donors Choose grant to get a big big fan and a space heater for my classroom.  We have already lost heat twice this year, and 40s classrooms with full-wall window exposures need the heavy artillery in air circulation technology.  Of course, going Beyond the Talk might be construed to mean the District should undertake liveability issues, but I still have lead pipes in my classroom so I suppose not.

Christmas List!

Dear Red-Suited Imaginary Arctic Gift Givers,

I may not have been good this year, but definitely I did good things.  Despite epic budget cuts, regular interludes without heat and the daily denigration of my profession, I have successfully taught my students to read, figure, and treat others with a modicum of respect.

Given American capitalism's "pay for breathing" plans for CEOs, I suppose I could demand presents without any work.  However, the same Rand-reading illiterates* receiving bonuses for their ability to take in oxygen seem to think teachers have something to prove.**  Hence the above.  Additionally:

• I did NOT go to New York so that I could be used to denigrate my own profession.
• I voted in all elections.
• I spoke at Board meetings, gave interviews to the press, and had my picture in national publications. In all venues, I observed that equity is not equality.
• I spoke against child-blaming, parent-blaming and teacher-blaming.
• I took responsibility for my students' learning and demanded that the powers that be take responsibility for their inequitable actions.***

I'm worthy.  I demand presents:

1. Math and reading games to fill the backpacks for my students to take home this summer.
2. Bird print funnel neck dress, size 38 or 40 IT.
3. SFUSD cuts administrative paychecks and positions BEFORE cutting teacher jobs.
4. UESF does not capitulate on "No Layoffs".
5. We get the PAC-TIN grant.
6. Magical black tights that do not get ladders.
7. Aga Six-Four stove and range.
8. 20:1 class size reduction K-12 throughout the state.  12:1 reduction at "high needs" schools (say, those with FRLP over 75% and/or those serving a major public housing development).
9. Lots of nifty light fiction.
10. My very own cross trainer and/or elliptical machine.

As you can see, my desires are both many and extravagant.  I figure such an attitude has served Lloyd Blankfein well, so it can't hurt me any.

In anticipation,

E. Rat

*Yes, I meant for that to happen.  You don't really need strong reading comprehension skills to suffer through Ayn Rand.  Her books are all a disturbing amalgamation of bad, mildly sadomasochistic romance novels and repetitive semi-philosophical pablum.
**And the ones who didn't slap some sense into those boys DO.
***Not that they did, of course.  How much you want to bet that Garcia declines to take a solidarity pay cut (beyond furlough days) again this year?

On Starting Out

Earlier this month, I spoke on a panel with some other teachers for an audience of education reformers.  The topic was SFUSD, with a focus on the current strategic plan ("Beyond the Talk: Two Years In and We're Still Just Talking").  Needless to say, I had quite a lot of opinions on the issue and I aired these at some length to an audience that seemed receptive.  At least they gasped at all the right parts, like where I ran down the school demographics and statistics, noted our #1 (in layoffs) status and then stated that these factors left me leery of the will behind the strategic plan.

Anyway, one of the other things I said was that I thought SFUSD would be a very difficult district in which to start one's teaching career.  I didn't, for the record.  When I got to SFUSD, I had a credential, done teacher training, had student teachers, done education research, all that noise.  I knew what I was doing.  So while I had to deal with the eccentricities of a new district, the vagaries of a mammoth district and the specific drama that is SFUSD I could go into my classroom and do my job.

Even better, I could do my job with none of the unpleasant nonsense of Reading First mandates, scripted math curricula (they even give you lines for the wrong answers they predict students will give!) and whatnot.  If my students had mastered rhyming, I didn't have to teach it for seventy four more days.  If the unit on wood went so well that we needed to stop and do a little carpentry art for a week, we could.  We could even TAKE FIELD TRIPS (providing they were within city limits and free, but all the same!  FIELD TRIPS).

On the other hand, there are some flaws in this model even for the veteran.  Finding teachers with whom to collaborate could be a bit difficult - it took me a year to get a good buddy system going.  Since I no longer used the purchased language arts program and there is no district language arts assessment, I had to come up with my own (or not assess at all, I suppose, but life is easier when you know what the kids know and don't know.  They're not bored or lost, so their engagement is higher and the management is smooth).

But imagine this system as a first year teacher: worse, as a first year, uncredentialed teacher.  A credential may give you very little in practical technique, but you will have at least a student teaching experience upon which you can draw.  I can't imagine what this would be like.  Of course, some schools probably have more cohesive programs (but not many) and at my school the grade levels are tight team projects so that even the greenest newbie can get some assistance (this I know is far less true at most SFUSD schools and generally not that true at Kindergarten, although I have no idea why).

The lack of support system is brutal for the newbie - and these teachers invariably start at high-needs schools, where there are fewer supports and higher concentrations of early-career teachers.  And high-needs teaching is never easy: I have ten years in doing it, and I'm really good, but my job is not easy.  Fun, yes.  Exciting, yes.  An intellectual challenge, oh yes.  But it is not easy.

So you have the neediest teachers at the hardest schools having exceptionally hard times - the kind of experience that means burn out even if you do survive a layoff cycle.  There just isn't a safety net in SFUSD.

Based on what the reformers told me later, SFUSD seems to know that there is a lot of site-based freedom.  However, they seem less interested in building a safety net than building a boot camp - or maybe they just can't see a middle ground.  I do suspect this will be the big tension of the whole "re-design" this year.

Oh please, none of these.

SFUSD laid off eleven of fifteen teachers at my site this year, all of whom were eventually offered their jobs back. Of course, if you wait until the beginning of July to offer everyone's job back, some people leave: they actually need to be employed. So they find new jobs.

I think we can take it as a given that SFUSD will place elementary education TFAers in classrooms. I floated my TFA proposal (that they should be assigned to high-performing west side schools while veterans take the southeast side) by a prospective Board member last week and she seemed to dig it, but no dice for this year.

I have a huge issue with this, because in essence what TFA is doing is saving SFUSD's ass from a Williams complaint. If TFA refused SFUSD elementary education candidates, more credentialed teachers would get their jobs back sooner or not be laid off at all. TFA is Plan B for when teachers leave.

Given the latest studies on TFA (academic results: bad, retention: worse - and worse than other new teachers' retention rates) it's not really a point of pride to have them. Moreover, it's unfair to our students. They get to be someone's training class, and TFAers don't stay and build relationships with families - the kind that take more than a year and make a big difference. Nor is it fair to me: when you have uncredentialed newbies, site professional development must prioritize their needs. That makes sense, but those of us who have been teaching for years also need to grow, and our PD needs are different. They don't get met, so we either a. stagnate b. redesign the wheel testing "new" stuff or c. spend a healthy proportion of our salary that would be much better spent purchasing fantastic clothing on professional development.

Anyway, this is from the New York Times' latest Best-and-Brightest Piece.

Lilianna Nguyen, a recent Stanford graduate, dressed formally in high heels, was trying to teach a sixth-grade math class about negative numbers. She’d prepared definitions to be copied down, but the projector was broken.

This is not a productive method of teaching. Copying definitions does not teach anything. Also, does this classroom lack blackboards? Could she not photocopy her notes, group the students and have them jigsaw definitions - or rephrase them in their own words to teach the class? Newbies don't have pockets filled with Plan Bs. This makes it difficult for them, and they're out of their element. Things tend to go badly and end with management issues because the flow is poor.

...Copying definitions, though? Management will ALWAYS be bad with that kind of nonsense.

She’d also created a fun math game, giving every student an index card with a number. They were supposed to silently line themselves up from lowest negative to highest positive,

Dude.

Don't lie.

That is not a fun game. It is a boring game...unless someone manages to start a fight. That'd be cool.

It is also a discipline nightmare: that many students? In one line? Interacting? I predict pushing, with a side of shoving. Also probably some running.

You can get away with this kind of thing, mind you, but your ground expectations need to be tight. They need to include things like "When I say integer, stand up and tuck in your chair...don't forget your personal space bubble. If you pop someone's bubble, you are out and must sit down until I give you a signal..."

Also, this game is not very...well, learning. Everyone only gets one try. It's easy to help someone else out. A more interesting variant might require that some kids can't show their numbers but can only say "greater" or "less than" or something. Real world data might be interesting here, too: temperatures of planets in our solar system, I dunno.

(True story: I taught the scientific method to 6th graders by standing in front of the room claiming with a straight face that ketchup was made from blood, up to and including an exchange where a kid offered to go to the cafeteria to get some ketchup to prove it wasn't blood and I said to also bring a knife to prove that it was. Oh, don't worry: I didn't actually give him a hall pass. Anyway, best lesson ever? No, of course not. Did they get the difference between a hypothesis and some crazy shit you just thought up? Yes. Also, I can get away with this kind of stuff because I am harmless and sixth graders are generally not sure if I am schizo or just ADHD.)

but one boy kept disrupting the class, blurting out, twirling his pen, complaining he wanted to play a fun game, not a math game.

I am so with this kid.
Check how bad the management is, though: he's doing this IN FRONT OF A REPORTER. Either the kid is incredibly fearless or things in this classroom have degenerated to open warfare.

“Why is there talking?” Ms. Nguyen said. “There should be no talking.”

Yeah, that'll stop the talking. Oh, and raise your hand if you can hear the voice she used in your head. I totally could. Moreover, if the kid is clowning around IN FRONT OF A REPORTER, he needs a different plan than whatever you've got going on, and probably that needs to be a personal conference.

Oh, and no talking EVER? Did you tell them they had to do the game with no talking, or did you forget that and assume that they would give it to you for free?

“Do I have to play?” asked the boy.

That suggests she could still get somewhere with this kid. This isn't total rebellion: he's not refusing to play. He's just whining.

“Do you want to pass summer school?” Ms. Nguyen answered.

This could be a light and funny rhetorical question between a teacher and a pupil with a good relationship, or it could be an outright threat. A simple "Yes." would have been much better. After all, some kids will freely answer such a question with "No." And honestly, nothing in this exchange suggests a good relationship between Ms. Nguyen and Bad Boy X.

The boy asked if it was O.K. to push people to get them in the right order.

I will assume this was said in a smarmy way, but honestly: fair question! It also suggests that he knows (or thinks he knows) how to order integers by size. Kids who are above whatever you are teaching have far too much time to think up ways to bug you, like calling your boring game boring.

“This is your third warning,” Ms. Nguyen said. “Do not speak out in my class.”

So is the rule no talking? Because she answered him when he asked if he had to play. Or is it "No speaking out"? Also, what happens after three warnings?

Okay, I'm being very nit-picky, but honestly? America's best and brightest need to stop avoiding the job market in America's neediest classrooms. I have my own class, and I don't have enough time to teach them how to teach every day.

Positioning Problems

If SFUSD's teachers justified themselves with the righteous indignation that our Superintendent and Board do, our students would fail.

Carlos Garcia cannot leave a forum without reminding us that he is not to blame for the budget cuts. I am not to blame for the fact that all of my students live in poverty, or that five have significant mental health issues.

Regardless, I am responsible for their school success - and therefore I must be reflective, crafty, and dedicated to student mastery of material. If I take my blamelessness as an out, my students fail.

Alas, our Superintendent may not be responsible for budget cuts, but he ought to be reflective, crafty, and dedicated to going "Beyond the Talk". Unfortunately, he shows no interest in any solution other than those that are traditionally comfortable and deeply inequitable.

Our Board would like you to know that they are very dedicated to equity. That's why they have made some admirable decisions: increasing ethnic studies offerings, increasing access to AP courses, providing resources for LGBTQ students.

However, their commitment to equity is only for the easy initiatives. Desegregating schools? No. Demanding equity in cuts and layoffs? No.

If teachers took this view, we would be happy to explain our colorblindness to you. We might offer some of that "soft bigotry of low expectations", too. And our students would fail. Instead, we make our philosophy drive our decisions.

I am tired of being the District's moral courage.

No, Actually: I Blame You.

One board meeting earlier than necessary, the BoE voted affirmatively on the poorly-planned, mendacious layoffs proposed by SFUSD. To evince said claims:

POORLY-PLANNED: The District is unable to state what percentage of teachers would be cut in a worst-case scenario (everyone who gets a 15 March letter is laid off). The District also failed to negotiate a hard-to-staff point for hard-to-staff schools: math and science credentials get an extra point on the seniority list, but the hard-to-staff schools don't. Therefore, schools that are hard to staff and have transient teaching corps, whose teachers are getting an extra thousand bucks on their paychecks this cycle and by the nature of hard-to-staff staffing, have very low seniority...are getting laid off.

SFUSD: Wasting Prop A Money on People It's Laying Off.

MENDACIOUS: The District's layoff list names all of the Associate Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, a mess of Executive Directors, many Directors and a bunch of Program Managers. To some extent, these positions could be reduced and their holders bumped into the teaching pool, and if you think that's going to happen you must actually be Pollyanna.

Also, the District has implied that no permanent teachers will get a 15 March layoff unless they are "consolidated" (their position disappears, so they have to find a new one), but given their numbers this cannot be true. I have been told by District employees as high as Associate Superintendent that permanent teachers cannot be laid off, but that is wrong: in a catastrophic budget situation, there is a mechanism enabling such layoffs. The mechanism's conditions are met. It is disturbing to me that high-level District functionaries do not understand these issues as well as a run-of-the-mill teacher does.

The Superintendent and the Board would like you to know that they are totally blameless and committed to equity, which is why the layoff vote didn't happen until after 11pm. Before that, SFUSD committed to increasing ethnic studies and AP classes and renaming SOTA after Ruth Asawa. For what it's worth, I approve of all of these. I think the self-congratulatory pro-equity bent is compromised by layoffs that are by nature inequitable, though.

The Superintendent keeps repeating that he is absolutely blameless, and this is totally not his fault, and he doesn't want to cut one teacher, which is why his staff cannot come up with a coherent plan to present to the union, keeps increasing class sizes for next year and trying not to get anyone to notice that, and significantly increased District office staffing over the last year.

Also, the Superintendent and BoE are absolutely committed to closing the opportunity gap, which is why they are laying off teachers at high-needs schools, failing to make funding adjustments that will protect schools in poor neighborhoods, and have been threatening to sue the state for three years but...not actually suing the state.

Therefore, they are 100% in favor of 4 March demonstrations, which is why the Superintendent attempted to end same by sending out a threat letter to any school planning any kind of demonstration or organizing even off-hours participation.

Needless to say, SFUSD would prefer that no one discuss equity in budget cuts and have no plan to talk about it themselves (SFUSD: "What? How dare you ask! Don't you know: We're Beyond the Talk! Look at our five-year plan!"). Alas, it ends up that the District unfortunately hired some real radicals, who really believe in equity, and those people keep talking to the press and commenting in public forums. So far, we've managed to place quotes in the Chronicle and the New York Times, and our well-planned, easy to explain take on equity is shaping stories in the Chronicle and SFSU's paper. Seriously: so evident, clear and verifiable are our claims that we are able to change stories from "funding cuts are bad" to "funding cuts are inequitable, and SFUSD's particular cuts go against everything in its five-year plan".

Which isn't too shabby given that we are looking, site-wise, at layoff letters to at least 10 teachers and consolidation or layoff letters to at least two.

Interesting Developments in School Funding

1. The Governor's proposed budget - and it is very important to remember that this budget is his proposal, and the state Legislature is not required to adopt it - requires the federal Secretary of Education handing California a waiver.

California took stimulus funding for education, and doing so required that it agree to maintain school funding at the same levels as four years prior. In the case of massive shortfalls, the state can get a waiver if the same proportional funding is maintained. Through prefunding (budgeting money for next year into the 09-10 budget, so that schools get it now but can't use it until 10-11) and changing gasoline taxes into "fees" (a change in name only that keeps these TAXES from entering the General Fund, thereby making them unavailable to Prop. 98's funding guarantees) the Governor's budget claims to do this.

This is, obviously, a scam - or at best, it uses the letter of the law to beat the hell out of the spirit. If Duncan refuses the waiver, the Governor needs to cut the cuts - $850 million need to come back into the budget.

The state Legislature is trying to come up with a way that will enable the tax/fee reversal to go through but maintain school funding through upping tax revenue; all current proposals have been threatened by veto (even the one that passed). It is a win-win for the Governor and state Dems to get an agreement here: the state Dems look tough and the Governor gets to claim he totally saved education. I do not support these: taxes are taxes are taxes, and this particular renaming also underfunds transportation infrastructure projects.

2. The ACLU is suing LAUSD. They want an injunction against layoffs at three schools in Watts based on the inequitable education created by the 2009 layoffs. Note: they're suing LAUSD, not UTLA. It is the district, not the union, that is required to create ed equity. It is the district, not the union, that decides what impact funding cuts will have. It is the district, not the union, that agrees to contracts that do not protect high-needs schools.

In short: We should be printing mass copies of the complaint, folding same into paper airplanes, and firing them at St. Carlos, the Most Blameless Superintendent Who Ever Gifted SFUSD with His Presence.

Possible? I suppose. Credible? Not at all.

For the upcoming BoE meeting, SFUSD has quite a layoff/reduction list that lends itself well to claiming that 15 March letters will hit administrative offices and school staff with equally horrible outcomes.

But the idea that SFUSD will really and truly lay off four Associate Superintendents and a veritable gaggle of Directors, EDs, and Supervisors strains belief. It's hard to see this as much more than a PR move - one that I hope fails. I mean, how does the District intend to handle enrollment if the EPC has no Director - especially when planning to roll out a new assignment system?

Cross-checking proposed reductions in staff with incoming Kindergarten projections - numbers prepared by two different arms of the District for two different purposes - suggests that all District administrators are planning on 25:1 or higher next year. This is something of a surprise to me, because there has been a lot of agitation at all levels to create a proposal of furlough days that would enable holding to 20:1. (This is financially possible.)

However, it does appear that SFUSD has a layoff/cuts plan that will enable them to survive inability to come to a contract negotiation agreement with the union (or the membership voting such an agreement down). Not a plan so much maybe as a starting point.

School Equity

I have been teaching now for...well, a whole lot of years. Eight in the classroom teaching Kindergarten, a year out of the classroom as a teacher coach/trainer, and two teaching college students. What with all of this experience, I have had an opportunity to view many, but many children, including:

a. a child who entered my classroom in March on his second try in Kindergarten. He did not know the whole alphabet and was under screening for a major speech and language disorder.

b. a child who was born exactly two minutes before the cutoff (1 December at 11:58 pm).

c. several children with major trauma backgrounds including head injuries, all of whom were homeless.

d. children in emergency foster care.

e. children in long-term foster care.

f. children who were the victim of assault or witnessed violence/murder against family members.

g. a child whose caseworker told me, "Essentially, he was raised by the television" - which explained why he had all kinds of old movie quotes in his conversational repetoire.

All of these kids learned something in my Kindergarten. Almost all of them were promoted to first grade (I retained the youngling). I referred several to counseling and exactly one for "testing" - the first child, who had not received a primary language screen but who had an extensive workup on his second language.

I have a stated anti-SST policy. I do not believe it is in the best interest of children to have a paper trail. An IEP does bring legal protection, but I have been teaching long enough to know that those protections are valid and strong only when there is institutional power backing the child. I have been seriously injured by a child in crisis. I kept that child in my classroom and promoted him to first grade. I have explored sensory integration strategies with major improvement on my own initiative to better serve high-needs children rather than IEPing them, and have created extensive case histories for their future teachers so that the same in-room modifications can be used. I have been praised by high-level administrators for "treating emotional disturbance as part of a natural spectrum".


I could go on, but here is my point: after many, many successful years in the classroom, you'd think that when I flag a kid for testing they'd take me seriously, right?

Of course, they don't. But after violence, intervention through district and private specialists (UCSF, Edgewood) and two union grievances, it ended up the child in question had major processing disorders, sensory issues requiring OT and a SIPT screen (for sensory integration disorder), and full-day special education...with or without an ED component.

Let me very clear: I cannot educate this child in a 20:1 environment. The child's sensory needs alone (low light, tactile feedback, low noise) make this impossible - let alone his well-developed strategies for negative attention if I cannot provide immediate positive attention. And despite the many, many strategies I have (even the OT person wrote that in her report), I have not found a strategy leading to the retention of more than 25% of introduced content.

Not to mention: the child is a harm to himself (poor impulse control), others (proprioceptive gaps that lead to collisions and worse) and the emotional states of other children (his presence triggers another kid in my class - one who, at five, is already engaging in self-harm and suicidal ideation - into tantrums).

Therefore, I supported moving this child to a Special Day Class, where he could receive a lowered adult-child ratio (this classroom is apparently about 3:1), pullout OT and in-class modifications (light filters, etc.). The child is bright, confident and interesting. With some modifications, he should be able to learn what he needs to learn. With some therapy, he should be able to integrate sensory information and self-regulate more easily. At his IEP meeting, we predicted he would be mainstreamable within two years.

His new teacher is an uncredentialed, first-year Teach for American. The class is at a high-needs school with strict discipline and lots of yelling - not to mention major physical plant problems (like exposed wires...always a plus for the low impulse control types, no?).

The problem is obvious, but here's my issue: How on earth does Teach for America believe that this teacher, this placement create equity? They can't possibly - or if they do, their Pollyanna ate mine for breakfast (and I'm a notorious Polly). There is no well-meaning best and brightest white kid who can handle such a placement.

This, my friends, is how our system replicates itself whilst claiming reform and change.

Not really funny.

As part of the Prop A funding, SFUSD and UESF got together and named a list of "hard to staff" schools: schools with high turnover and "challenging" demographics (high poverty, high percentage of English Language Learners, etc.). Teachers at these schools fill out a little form and get an extra $2000 annually. It's a pittance, but it's money.

Anyway, "hard to staff" schools have by nature had heavy recent staff turnover, which means they have a lot of new (overall or to the District) teachers. So their teachers are low seniority.

So their teachers will be laid off this year. So in essence, teachers at hard to staff schools are getting paid to stay and fired all at once. This is counterproductive.

One could argue that this is a short-term, single year counterproductivity. In theory, the fired teachers will be replaced with higher-seniority bumpees, who can collect the Prop A money and won't be subject to layoffs for many years to come.

In actuality, there is no reason to believe that bumped teachers will accept an assignment at a hard to staff school in the first place, nor stay any longer than necessary before transferring. Given these circumstances, SFUSD may resort to TFA teachers. Of course, most of these teachers leave after two years, so the "hard to staff" problem is ongoing.

So the district is throwing several hundred thousand dollars in salary away. We know that staff stability strongly correlates to positive student outcomes, and that trained, experienced teachers get better student achievement results by any measure. The purpose of the "hard to staff" funding stream was to increase teacher retention. So much for that.

In other SFUSD news, the BoE agenda is up and Garcia's merry band of budget cutters remains unwilling to let much sun shine on their financial proposals. They are asking for the union to agree to the District having total freedom over class sizes, which brings the 25:1 ratio into doubt. It also is decent evidence that SFUSD has no intention of ever reducing class size if we give that away (there's nothing in the proposal that puts in writing Garcia's claim that class sizes will be reduced as soon as possible).

Whatever the case, SFUSD is dragging its feet on specifying how and what they plan to cut other than union concessions. Given how quickly they want a union vote and a budget vote by the Board, their pace suggests (to me, at least) that speed is necessary to obscure inequity in cuts: agree to SFUSD's lifeboat now or we all drown.

There appears to be decent support within UESF for an option of 20:1 retention through furlough (it's possible; Garcia said it would be either seven or nine days over two years depending on whether or not he was counting the two days' furlough already in the pipeline. The funding actually works out for it to be no more than six days, but I haven't looked into this so I can't accuse Garcia of trying to throw a potential pro-CSR vote. Yet.) I don't think SFUSD plans to offer this option, though; it doesn't show up on the agenda. What they do want is so sketchily outlined it's hard to tell.

Still, there is a good argument for voting down any contract revision that does not protect students. SFUSD is threatening apocalypse if this happens: no budget, no reserve, state takeover, consultants from Sacramento bearing pitchforks and Open Court, etc.

That's apocalypse for Garcia et al, though, not for the teaching staff. The state is not required to take over districts that fall within the possibility of takeover, and I don't think Sacramento really wants to deal with what they have wrought on school budgets. And even if they did? Garcia's out of a job, but I'm not. Consultants would get the big bucks for stupid programs, but that happens already. Privatization and Eli Broad would come in bearing big bucks for big cuts and corporate philosophy, but again: already happening. San Francisco isn't such a good market for boot camp schooling, anyway: why add another market when it's possible to get more done in Los Angeles and Oakland?

I think the state takeover gambit is a threat of very little interest. Barring a good proposal, UESF should vote it down.