I have a 2 year old daughter and we’re considering buying a house. Redwood City is more affordable than other communities, but I’m worried about the public schools. So, should I consider moving to Redwood City?

The short answer is a resounding “yes!”. I have two daughters, ages 13 and 11 who have experienced the Redwood City Public School system first hand and all the way through. For elementary school, both went to Orion, a wonderful, very small school based on parent participation. The school is cozy and beautiful, the teachers are great, and the community is incredible. A fantastic experience.

Orion, ends in 5th grade and before High School you have to pick a Middle School. The default choice is Kennedy Middle School, the largest middle school in Redwood City. Both my daughters are now at Kennedy, one in 6th grade, the other one in 8th. Kennedy is a completely different experience. It’s large and diverse, admitting kids from many other schools in Redwood City. In a way, it provides a realistic sample of our population, with a majority latino contingent and kids from various socio-economic backgrounds. My kids have had a great time at Kennedy, enjoying the greater variety and opportunities that a larger school can provide. They’ve had some great teachers and have been challenged academically.

Yes, funding issues affect our schools, but teachers and the administration make heroic efforts to provide the best education possible. We’re happy with the results and see that are kids are well prepared to face the High School experience.

So, sure, you don’t need to worry about our schools and if Redwood City with its great geography, location, revitalized downtown are and more sound good, go ahead, move in.

That said, I want you to move in with your eyes wide open, so here’s some additional information you should know…

School Funding is Unequal and Unfair

The first thing you’ll find out, is that Redwood City spends much less money per student than all the surrounding districts: Woodside, Portola Valley, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, etc. The reason has to do with how school funding works. School funding comes from local property taxes. The State guarantees minimum funding per student. If your property tax revenue divided by the total number of students in the district is below this number, the State makes up the difference. If the number is greater, you get to keep the difference. So, a district like Woodside, with few students and large, expensive houses, gets much more per student than a district like Redwood City, with a large student population and more middle class houses. The difference in funding, it turns out, can be enormous, thousands of dollars per kid.

Putting aside the debate over teacher evaluation, unions, etc, funding inequities do matter. School districts with better funding have better physical installations, better resources, more enrichment programs (a euphemism for programs we used to take for granted in schools, such as PE, music, art, etc.) and the ability to retain their best teachers. School districts that cut funding every year, like Redwood City has been forced to do during this period, are at a disadvantage. Funding is unpredictable, with levels fluctuating based on complex formulas at the State level. Districts with lower State funding are more vulnerable to loosing their best teachers. After all, if I was a teacher in Redwood City and every March I got a pink slip, just in case I might have to be laid off in the summer, I would look for a different district at the first opportunity, and many great teachers already have.

Why does all this matter? Because the High School district encompasses more than Redwood City. It also covers Atherton, Belmont, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Portola Valley, Redwood Shores, San Carlos and Woodside. So, when your Redwood City educated kids get to high school they will be meeting kids who’ve had access to a richer education, and this sad fact might bother you.

So, make sure you can stomach how unfair this system is before you choose to move here.

Local Sources of Funding

Since being at the mercy of the State for funding is at best unpredictable, school districts have a couple of options to get funding through local support: a local education foundation and passing a Parcel Tax.

In addition to being surrounded by districts with much higher funding through property taxes, Redwood City is the only district in the area without its own Parcel Tax. A parcel tax is a fixed amount that’s added to property taxes. By passing a parcel tax, a district provides a predicable source of funding for itself. Parcel Tax initiatives typically designate funds for specific purposes, like music, art, PE, etc, allowing districts to keep providing “enrichment” programs in the face of continuing cuts from the State. Passing a parcel tax initiative is hard, requiring a 2/3 super majority as dictated by Prop 13.

Now, check this out: Redwood City has no parcel tax and every other district around us does. And their parcel taxes are significant, in the hundreds of dollars per year. Instead, in Redwood City we’ve failed to pass a parcel tax 2 times in recent years and for amounts that get smaller every time. Yes, getting a super majority is hard and we were close, but still, other districts all have been able to achieve it. So, something is inherently wrong with Redwood City. Every time this happens you can’t avoid thinking that this community, which does not value public education, is not your community.

We’ll be trying again, and soon, but our parcel tax will be measly, only $67 per year per parcel. Can we convince enough voters to donate the cost of 1 dinner per year to support our public schools?! I hope so, but I’m not optimistic after experiencing the previous 2 failures. The rationale is that once a parcel tax passes people see the world has not ended and further, and hopefully more substantial parcel taxes can be passed in the future. For now just assume it won’t pass, and you won’t be disappointed.

So, if it bothers you at a fundamental level that Redwood City does not have a Parcel Tax when all other districts do, you might want to reconsider your decision.

We do have a local education foundation, the Redwood City Education Foundation, and they do a great job, but compared to surrounding districts the percentage of parent participation is lower and the resulting total funds collected per student are much, much lower.

Racism is alive and well

Redwood City is a unique school district with a diverse population that aligns geographically to a large extent. West of El Camino Real are the more affluent areas which get more and more affluent as you hit the hills. To the other side is the less affluent, mostly Latino area.  This diversity causes problems that other districts don’t have to face.

Here in Redwood City, parents are very happy donating large amounts to their kids’ school, but when you ask them to donate to the Redwood City Education Foundation, which benefits all kids, they’re not as inclined. I have heard in public forums parents asking: “why should I give money to them?” Them? Who’s “them” exactly?

To elucidate this question it’s instructive to look at the mix of public schools. Districts typically choose one of two approaches: K-8 schools where kids complete their elementary school in a single place or K-5 + Middle Schools, where elementary schools up to grade 5 are followed by grades 6, 7 and 8 in the Middle School. Interestingly Redwood City has chosen both approaches. The most affluent neighborhoods have K8 schools (eg. Roy Cloud and Clifford) while other neighborhoods have K5 schools that feed the two large Middle Schools (Kennedy and MIT). The conclusion from this is obvious: if you live in an affluent area your kids stay in your K8 school and don’t have to mix with “them”. You can provide funding to your own school and completely ignore the other kids in the district.

Here’s another date point, from personal experience. Orion, a California Distinguished School based on Parent Participation, is a small but very diverse community with kids from all backgrounds. And even there people are terrified at the prospect of sending their kids to Kennedy. Orion has an informational meeting for 5th grade parents where Orion alumni that have gone on to Kennedy try to assuage their fears. Many Orion 5th grade parents treat Kennedy as a last resort, trying to get their kids into one of the K8 schools, North Star Academy, even leaving the public school system altogether.

In other districts, like Palo Alto, you cannot donate to your own school PTA to pay for “staff”, additional teachers. Instead you must contribute to their educational foundation which distributes funds equitably to all schools. This approach would not fly in Redwood City. Here individual school PTAs fund additional teaching resources, meaning that schools with strong PTAs are able to provide further enrichment and educational opportunities other schools won’t have. And not surprisingly, the schools with strong PTAs and fundraising are the ones you would expect. Inequality to other districts and also inequality of schools within the district. Sigh.

So, if you’d rather avoid all these nasty, uncomfortable issues you need to consider another district.

What about North Star and their phenomenal test scores?

Ah, yes. No overview of the Redwood City School District can ignore North Star Academy. North Star is a grades 3-to-8 school open to all kids in the district. The basic idea is that it’s a special school for “high achieving” kids. By only taking these kids, North Star claims they can cover the standard curriculum more quickly and leave time for enrichment activities. Their test scores are fabulous, almost as high as they can go, and many people want to send their kids there. Too many, in fact.

To get into North Star you need to apply during second grade. Your kid will need to take a special test as part of the admission process.  A final score is computed based on the results of this test and other factors and if the aggregate score is over the minimum threshold, your child enters a lottery. There is no guarantee of getting in, even if you satisfy the requirements. Furthermore, there’s no guarantee that all siblings get in either and I know many families where only one child makes it. Since many families frame North Star admission as a signifier of higher intelligence or aptitude, the self esteem blow to the sibling that does not get in must be quite significant.

So, if your plan is to move to Redwood City, attend Orion, then North Star, you should know there’s no guarantee of getting into either of those schools.

Final Thoughts

My original answer does not change. If you like what Redwood City has to offer in terms of housing, location, infrastructure, you should not hesitate to move here because of the public schools. Yes, our K8 school system is not as solid as it is in surrounding districts, but it’s doing fine. Test scores are going up all the time and kids are properly prepared to enter high school.

When you get to high school it’s a completely different story. Our High School District encompasses more than Redwood City, its sources of funding are quite different and some of the High Schools have a great reputation. To a large extent, the High School District has not been facing repeated cuts year after year, and the high schools still resemble the high schools you remember from 30 years ago, with great installations and many exciting enrichment activities for the kids.

We moved to Redwood City more than 10 years ago and don’t regret the decision. Yes, it’s been hard to deal with the school cuts year after year. It’s been even harder to deal with the repeated failure of the Parcel Tax initiatives. And yes, the world would be a better place if we cared more about raising educational levels for all kids in the district. Due to inadequate funding we don’t have the resources to do enough to support kids from more disadvantaged families and tragically many of them will be left behind.

But your kids won’t have that problem, they have all the support they need from you and they will do just fine in the Redwood City School District.

Unrestricted Funding By District

Focus on the far left and the far right. On the far left we have the Woodside School District, serving a small population of children in an area with very expensive houses. On the far right we see our very own Redwood City School District, serving a very large population of kids in an area that’s mixed, containing some expensive houses but mostly middle class ones. The result? Due to the intricacies of school funding, our district receives the minimum funding guarantee from the State while the Woodside district exceeds that lower bound with its own property taxes and receives a much larger chunk (the blue section of the bars). In addition to that, the Woodside district raises much more money per child, a result of having fewer children and a more affluent parent community. The red section of the bar shows a combination of donations and parcel tax income.

Regardless of the funding details, the inequity inherent in the system is outright immoral. Is a child in Woodside worth twice as much as a child in Redwood City? Think about that for a few seconds…

So, what can we do? Ideally all districts in the State would enjoy similar levels of adequate funding, more like Woodside than Redwood City. Two options: try to raise the blue bar or the red bar. Raising the blue bar is virtually impossible without substantial reform in Sacramento, where the 2/3 Super Majority requirements result in a tyranny of the minority as described eloquently by James Madison in the Federalist Papers #22. A minority of Republicans is enough to block tax increases or any kind of meaningful reform. Attempts to change the 2/3 requirement, at least for passing local Parcel Tax initiatives have repeatedly failed. Sadly, we cannot wait for the State to act responsibly in defense of public education.

The next option is to try to raise the red portion of the bar. The good news is that we, local residents, fully control that bar. We can finally pass a parcel tax, but that’s going to take a while and is no sure thing based on previous experience. What we can do right now which can make a real impact is realize that the days of public schools fully funded by our taxes is over. We need to start thinking of a constant stream of donations to our public schools.

Low income families don’t have any choice: they are stuck with the public schools. If the public schools deteriorate, so will the chances of success of their kids. Upwards mobility, a key component of the American Dream, is no longer what it used to be.

People of higher income levels can react to the constant defunding of public education in two ways: by leaving the public education system altogether (opting for private schools) or by staying and fighting to restore proper funding levels. If you’re devoted to the idea of public education and equal opportunity for all our kids, consider the cost of a good, secular private school. Most in the Bay Area are between 20 and 30 thousand dollars a year. So, here’s my proposal, for your consideration:

If you voted for the Parcel Tax in the past, consider:

• A monthly $100 donation to your school’s PTA.
• A monthly $100 donation to the Redwood City Education Foundation.

Your total “expense” for a full year of public education is $2000 (if you only contribute during the 10 months of school), a mere 1/10th of what you would pay to abandon the ideal of public education for all and move to a secular private school. And considering that our schools do wonders with the resources they have, this is an amazing bargain.

Donating to your PTA alone is not enough. The RCEF is the only organization that fund raises for all the schools in the district (the red section of the bar in the graph!). Since it speaks for all the children, it can attract larger donors and fund larger items than you can do alone within your school. RCEF pays for much of our music instruction, the Outdoor Ed program, and much, much more.

And if you don’t have kids in the schools, and you voted for the Parcel Tax, please send a donation to the RCEF now, in lieu of that parcel tax payment you’re not making.

It’s hard to accept that public education is not “free”, but we can’t ignore reality. We can’t expect magical solutions from the State and we can’t sit idly by while the schools receive less and less funding and cut more and more programs.

For a great overview of where we stand, check out this Redwood City Patch article: Redwood City Still the Only District Without Additional Parcel Tax Funding.

Appendix 1: The Tyranny of the Minority

In Federalist Paper #22 James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers no less, writes the following incredible words (quote courtesy of “The Ruskin Report”, August 2009):

To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser… This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration [of government], to destroy the energy of the government… In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction.

He must have been watching the California budget squabbles with his time machine. Prop 13, which imposed a 2/3 super majority requirement for passing local Parcel Taxes and much more, has resulted in exactly this paralysis.

Appendix 2: Redwood City School District Budget Facts 2011

Size of  budget  and  cuts:

• 2010-­11 budget:  about $81 million; 2011-­12 budget: estimated $73 million
• $5.4 million cut from 2010-­11 budget; $9.6 million potential gap for 2011-­12
• About $13 million cut in last 4 years
• 2007-­08: educated about 8,000 students with about $81 million; 2010-­11: educating over 9,000 students with about $81 million.

Cuts made in 2010-­11:

• K-­3 class sizes went from 20 students/1 teacher in 2008-­09 to 30 students/1 teacher in 2010-­11.
• Libraries open fewer hours per day and fewer days per week.
• Classrooms cleaned 1/week vs. every other day in 2007-­08.
• Services reduced, turnaround longer due to loss of 15 administrative and support positions in district office over the past two years.
• International Baccalaureate program eliminated at Selby Lane
• Instrumental music program (orchestra) eliminated for 5th graders

For more information: http://www.rcsdk8.net/budget

Appendix 3: The Gap has Widened!

The chart at the top of this post is from 2008. Below is an updated chart, showing data for the 2009-2010 academic year:

2009-2010 Funding Comparison for Peninsula School Districts

And we note that the gap has widened even further.

I claim that the video quality we get from TyC for these Argentinean soccer games is lower than Low Definition. Games look, really, really bad, much worse than low definition games you see on ESPN or even Univision. I don’t know why, but here’s the evidence.

What follows is snapshots of my LCD TV, with signal from DirecTV, comparing High Definition to whatever this other thing is. I used my digital camera, taking pictures at max resolution.

First, a snapshot of this weekend’s Barcelona Vs. Osasuna game.

Barcelona Vs. Osasuna in HD from GolTV HD

Very pretty. Now here’s the capture of today’s glorious Boca Juniors victory over Huracán.

Boca Juniors Vs. Huracan in Ultra Low Definition, from TyC Sports

To highlight the differences even further, I took a picture of an actual player from each screen, of about the same size. Here they are, side by side:

HDTV Single Player Capture

Ultra Low Def Single Player Capture

Now, I wonder why the signal from Argentina is so much worse than normal low definition broadcasts in the US. Is it the transformation from PAL to NTSC? Is it the satellite link uploading the signal the US? What?!

One thing I did not enjoy was the focus of the ending on the lotteries that would decide whether the kids we had been following would get into their respective Charter schools, schools that would be the difference between success and failure. Dramatically the scenes work and we’re on the edge of our seats waiting to see if they make it in (most do not!), but the emotional kick from these scenes undoes a very important point the movie makes about Charter schools: just like normal schools, some of them work and some of them do not.

There were several points I thought the film made well:

• Teacher tenure is a disaster.
• Teacher Unions get in the way of real reform.
• The achievement gap is real and cannot be ignored.
• “Tracking” is problematic.
• Charter Schools are an option but not a panacea.

But before that, an important note about the all important issue of money.

OK, what about the money?

The film makes makes this point very early on: per pupil money spent in the US has been rising consistently over the past few decades and yet test scores remain flat. Therefore, money is not really the issue and we can move on to examine other aspects of the educational system.

As a parent in California schools I cannot let this point pass uncontested. In first place, California spends much less per student than other states in the nation.

Furthermore, even if we did manage to raise per pupil spending in California over the past few decades, in the last years all we’ve experienced is massive cuts. We’ve already cut those “nice to have” items, like art, music, physical education, transportation, etc, to the point where there’s nothing left. And we’re facing the prospect of massive cuts this year, when the Republicans in the legislature won’t even accept to let the voters decide whether taxes should be extended to avoid disastrous reductions in service at all levels of the government.

School funding in California is further complicated by a system based on inequality. Funding comes from property taxes, local parcel taxes and donations to education foundations. Redwood City (a Revenue Limit district) is surrounded by richer (Basic Aid) districts. The result? The Redwood City school district, in the midst of Silicon Valley, receives much less money per student that districts like Woodside and Palo Alto. And while our district and teachers make heroic efforts to provide a quality education, the differences in funding are real and their effects palpable. Just ask anyone who has recently moved from Redwood City to Palo Alto for example. I know it’s hard, but try it.

Money remains an issue that cannot be ignored. Now, onto the main points from the film.

Teacher Tenure

The section on teacher tenure is incredibly painful to watch. First we find out teacher tenure exists and that in some districts teachers get tenure after a mere 2 years of employment. Once tenured, they cannot be fired, unless there are incredibly blatant self-incriminating circumstances. Most bad tenured teachers just stay around until retirement and their district needs to figure out ways to mitigate the damage they may cause.

One option is to shuffle them around. At the end of the school year, schools move their “lemon” teachers to other schools in the district, in the hope that the lemons they get are better than the ones they let go.

Another option is to park those bad teachers into a warehouse, paying them full salary and benefits but keeping them away from the classrooms. This is really done in some districts. Truly amazing.

I don’t know how this came about, but the notion of automatic tenure after a few years of employment seems (ahem) problematic to say the least. In University environments it takes years to make tenure and there are limited tenured spots. Applicants go through an extremely long, painful and rigorous process with lots of peer review before they make it in.

One argument I’ve seen is that without tenure districts would choose to fire older teachers who by virtue of having been around the longest are collecting the largest salaries. In these times of cuts to public education you can see how a district could avoid draconian cuts by replacing experienced teachers with young, enthusiastic ones. Still, using tenure as a solution to this problem seems out of proportion, as it ties your hands forever.

As a parent of kids in public schools, or any school, you know when you have a good teacher. You can see it in the kids, how excited they are to go to a class, how much they enjoy the new things they’re learning, how much they respect their teacher. Their eyes light up when they talk about what they do during those periods. And in the same way you know when you have a bad one. You can easily see it in lack of achievement, when your kid starts failing tests, or in plain lack of enthusiasm, if your kid manages to pass the tests anyway. And when you have a really bad teacher you know with complete certainty. As a parent I don’t want those teachers to be teaching. Period. There should be a fair process in place for parents to use to report teachers that are failing the children. A process with follow up by the district, proper validation of claims to ensure fairness, even a probation program to let teachers get back into good form, etc. Companies do this all the time, with yearly performance reviews, tracking of performance and placement of under achieving employees in improvement programs. Tolerating a bad co-worker for a while is a pain, but tolerating a bad teacher for years is just unconscionable.

Teacher Unions and Reform

I said it once and I’m saying it again: I’m 100% pro union and I’m in awe of our teachers and their work. That said, the Teacher’s Union comes across rather poorly in the film. The film focuses for a while on Michelle Rhee, then Chancellor of DC Public Schools, trying to reform the compensation system to pay more to high performing teachers in exchange for relaxing the rules of tenure and seniority. The film shows the Union rejecting the proposal, even though it was later passed in some diminished capacity. Regardless of the merit of the idea, it was shocking to see the attitude of Union leaders, seemingly unconcerned with the state of education as they fought to preserve a system that’s obviously not working for the kids.

We experienced some of this in Redwood City a year ago, when facing an untenable situation the District had to ask the Union to accept fewer work days in order to close a huge budget gap. The Union eventually agreed, but it took a while and the tone of the discussion was adversarial and a bit unsettling. It did not feel like we (teachers and parents) were a team, in this mess together, trying to do the best for the kids in the district.

The Achievement Gap can be closed!

The film presents the data that shows the achievement gap: kids do about the same until they enter middle school and then you see significant discrepancies in performance for groups of different socioeconomic status. The amazing point shown by the movie is that the gap can be closed. How? Basically by massively increasing the amount of resources devoted to a smaller group of children. One example highlighted is the KIPP program. Here are its operating principles, from Wikipedia:

The schools operate on the principle that there are no shortcuts: outstanding educators, more time in school, a rigorous college-preparatory curriculum, and a strong culture of achievement and support will help educationally underserved students develop the knowledge, skills, and character needed to succeed in top quality high schools, colleges, and in the competitive world beyond.

And a major component is something we know from comparative studies: more time in school matters:

Most KIPP schools run from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on select Saturdays (usually twice a month), and middle school students also participate in a two- to three-week mandatory summer school, which includes extracurricular activities after school and on Saturdays. As a result, KIPP students spend approximately 60 percent more time in class than their peers.

The achievement gap can be closed, but it requires more resources, that is, more money. Not an option for our public schools. Not closing this gap when we know we can is just criminal.

“Look Ma, we’re famous!” or Tracking is Problematic

Redwood City makes an appearance in the film, in the context of a discussion of “tracking”. The movie explains that “tracking” is where someone in the educational system decides which kids are good enough for college and which kids aren’t and divides education into two tracks: one with more advanced work geared towards the privileged future professionals and one with simpler classes geared for the underprivileged mass of workers. It further points out that this approach made sense in the 50s when there was a great need to educate masses to work in the factories, and that now that factory jobs have been outsourced, the students in the wrong track are being failed by the system. If such an explicit plan did exist, it does not necessarily seem irrational to me. Educational systems in Europe are known to channel people that don’t do well academically into apprenticeship programs allowing them to develop a profession with a living wage. The film notes in righteous indignation that the success in life of your kid depends on an obscure decision by a bureaucrat in the school system. It all makes for a rather convincing narrative but I think it just misses what’s really going on.

At that point on the film, we leave drab urban schools to gaze from afar at the manicured installations of Woodside High School, here in Redwood City. The lawns are beautiful, the buildings stunning… quite a contrast from the dilapidated schools we had been spending time in up to that point. It’s hard to tell why there’s something ominous about the school and there the film talks about tracking and showcases a girl who’s doomed to attend Woodside High School unless she can get accepted through a lottery into Summit Preparatory School, a small Charter School in Redwood City.

I know people with kids at Woodside and had trouble sympathizing with the plight of the student in question. I assume she and her family wanted to go to Summit, were heavily invested in their decision and their anguish was heartfelt. But the I felt the film was dishonest here. It wanted to talk about tracking and used Woodside High School as a convenient example. In an eloquent letter (quoted at the end of this post), two Woodside parents point out the many ways in which the film mischaracterizes the school. They also make this crucial point:

Waiting for Superman does not take into account that Woodside must accept every student, whether they are English Language Learners, special education students or students with learning disabilities.

Which brings me back to tracking and whether it exists. To me the question is a basic one of available resources. Say you’re a large school with a thousand or more students coming from various backgrounds. Some of these are academically inclined, some less so. Many come from low income families where very few family members have gone to college. Others come from complex family situations, not necessarily conducive to focused academic work. And, of course, many kids come from families lucky enough for all conditions to be set to let them excel in school. You have very limited resources. Class sizes are large and there are limited hours in the day. What to do?

One option: mix everybody up, resulting in classes containing those ready to perform at their class level and those who are not. If you do this, teachers can choose to teach to the more advanced kids or to the least advanced kids. If you choose the first option, you will leave behind the kids that cannot keep up. These kids need personal attention and more school hours and we don’t have the resources to offer either to them. Over time they will fall further and further behind making the gap wider in a vicious cycle. If you choose the first option, the advanced kids will be bored and their parents will notice they’re not getting the level of education they expect. When this happens, the middle and upper middle class parents will leave the public schools for private schools, another vicious cycle, where the low income people are the only ones “condemned” to a public system that has fewer and fewer resources. As the political class leaves the public schools, public schools will loose their voice in the political debate and will end up loosing more and more of their funding. This might be already happening.

This is all extremely painful when we consider that we know how the achievement gap can be closed. But we don’t have the resources to close it, so we’re forced to consider nasty “rational” alternatives.

One alternative is to offer “advanced” classes and let kids find their spot. Kids can enter the advanced classes and drop to the (ahem) “normal” classes if they cannot keep up. Unfortunately this system segregates the kids from affluent families from the low income children. In a way, it’s a system that admits failure. We know we cannot give all the kids the attention they deserve to pull them out of the achievement gap, but we won’t ruin it for the other kids. This system keeps middle class families in the public schools and helps other kids with the example that high achievers provides, but still, it is inequitable and unjust. But with limited resources there’s no magic.

We know the difference resources can make. Orion is a K-5 Public School that requires parent participation. Because of this, the small staff is complemented by a large number of parents that help in the classroom and provide the personalized attention kids need to succeed. Orion parents, through fundraising, are able to hire additional support staff that can help the kids that require special attention. At Orion, 50% of children are from low income families and yet, all kids do very well. In fact Orion’s test scores rival scores from the more affluent schools in the district.

So, is there tracking in our schools? Yes, it’s a rational response to the endemic lack of resources.

Are charter schools the solution?

The short answer is: no. The film makes this point when it states that only a fraction of charter schools are more successful than public schools. But then the film contradicts itself at an emotional level when it focuses the whole final act on the plight of kids waiting to see if they win the lottery that lets them into one of those few charter schools that do work and make a difference.

Here in Redwood City, the film compares Woodside High School to Summit Preparatory School, a new, small charter school that sounds like a great place. I know a few people that send their children there and are extremely satisfied. Summit might very well be one of those charter schools that outperforms the public schools, and that’s totally fine. At the same time our local high schools, are doing very well. So, the way I see it, charter schools are not a panacea. Some work, some don’t, just like public schools.

Personally I think that as kids grow older it’s good to expose them to more opportunities, a larger, diverse population, more variety of classes and thus I’m tending towards the larger high schools, as the natural progression to the even larger world of college. But then again, some kids might certainly benefit from the attention they can only get at a smaller institution.

Final Notes

So, all in all, Waiting for Superman brought up a number of significant issues and generated lots of discussion. Meanwhile in the real world, here in California, we’re bracing ourselves for another round of cuts, which this time could be even more gargantuan than in the previous years. If the Republicans in the legislature can’t even allow the people to vote on tax extensions, if the people can’t bring themselves to support taxes for basic services, if our neighbors in Redwood City can’t tolerate to pay an extra $80 in property taxes a year (a year!) to support their local schools, how can we stop what looks like the inevitable decline of public education. Will our children be able to send their kids to public schools? Or could we be witnessing the very last generation of middle class children in public education?

Appendix: Letter from Woodside Parents Regarding WFS

We had an opportunity to see Waiting for Superman recently. What a powerful documentary. It presents many of the problems in our education system, suggestions to fix it and many success stories. Unfortunately, the information presented about Woodside High School, located in Silicon Valley, left an impression that Woodside does not do a good job educating its students, when in fact, it is an outstanding high school where students receive a top notch education.

The filmmakers were offered an opportunity to learn more about Woodside, but regretfully, they declined. Had they visited Woodside and talked with staff, students, administrators or parents, they likely would have avoided some of the mischaracterizations and misrepresentations in the film.

The information presented in the film about graduation rates and college acceptances is very misleading. Those statistics came from a UCLA study that uses data which tracks students from 9th to 12th grade. The study does not take into account the number of incoming freshmen who are enrolled at Woodside and decide to attend a private or charter school, or move out of the area, without notifying the school before the school year begins. Nor does the study include the number of students who move out of the area during their high school years. Even more inaccurate, the study only includes the seniors who go on to attend California colleges, and leaves out the 10-20% who choose to attend private universities, vocational schools and out-of-state public universities and community colleges.

In fact, looking at Woodside’s entering freshmen class of 2004 through the graduating class of 2008, 92.4% of those students graduated. The dropout rate was 4.9%. The other 3% of students either moved out of the area, changed schools or were reassigned to special programs. The film should have just used the graduation rate and drop out data, but that would have inconveniently disproved their thesis.

The Woodside staff is very focused on qualifying students for admittance to college. Most recently, 93% of the graduating Class of 2010 were accepted and committed to attending either a four-year or two-year college. The other seven percent joined the military, went to technical school, decided to work, or chose a gap year experience. The film seems to make an issue of students attending a two-year college. For some students, going to Community College is definitely the right move. Two-year colleges can have smaller class sizes than a four-year university and cost much less. There is a wonderful policy in California which offers a student who completes the required courses at one of the Community Colleges, to be automatically admitted to a California State University, and even receive priority admission to a University of California school as a junior. For some students, this is a golden opportunity.

As for tracking, the film is flat out wrong – Woodside does not track. Students are given opportunities to advance in subjects if teachers and students think they will succeed. Woodside offers a great summer program, open to all students, which allows a student to advance an entire level in math so that they can get ahead in their math studies.

Waiting for Superman does not take into account that Woodside must accept every student, whether they are English Language Learners, special education students or students with learning disabilities. It does not talk about all the support services offered to Woodside students who need extra help. The school has an Academic Resource Center open all day where students can meet with a certified teacher to get the extra help they need. They have after school tutoring in the library. They have an AVID program that prepares first-generation college students, or those students in the academic middle, for college.

WHS also has the Counseling and Advocacy for Teens program – a counseling program staffed with a licensed clinical social worker and interns from local colleges. These counselors provide assistance to students experiencing academic, social, personal, or crisis counseling needs – a great benefit for those attending Woodside High School.

Waiting for Superman suggests that Woodside High School is living in the past. This could not be more wrong! If anything, WHS is not only keeping up with the world around it, but is an innovative leader. WHS offers many great programs that are essential in today’s world. These include an extensive offering of Advanced Placement courses, robotics and engineering classes, environmental (green) education classes, and a Mandarin language program. In addition, Woodside is about to break ground on a state-of-the-art digital and media arts building where students will be able to learn about photo, audio and video production, animation and web design. WHS hosts a “College Day” in October where the freshmen take a field trip to Cal or Stanford, sophomores and juniors take the PSAT, and seniors spend all day in workshops learning about college applications, financial aid, and career opportunities. In March, the College and Career Center offers “March into College” a series of four evening workshops where parents and students learn together about college choices, the application process and financial aid.

Waiting for Superman paints an inaccurate picture of Woodside High School and has regrettably tarnished the school’sreputation. Again, had the filmmakers actually visited the school, this mischaracterization would never have happened. Unfortunately, there is no way for those of us who know the truth about Woodside to reach everyone who sees the movie. We appreciate this opportunity to shine a light on a wonderful school and set the record straight.

Sarah Blatner
Donna Habeeb
Woodside High School Parents

But words are cheap. Here’s an example trailer, done entirely by Mijal, my 12 year old daughter, from video she took herself on a point and shoot digital camera:

Click here to view the embedded video.

What’s amazing about this is not only how easy it is to make trailers, but also that any video, no matter how inane or unexciting results in a trailer that promises lots of action, thrills, and fun.

Creating a trailer is amazingly easy. You get a template with placeholders for text and video clips. The transitions, music, and title sequences are canned and ensure the proper rhythm. You drop clips onto each slot and then open them up to select which section of the clip will be shown. Each clip lasts a very, very short time, typically around 1 second.

The whole thing is brilliantly executed and a joy to use. My only gripe, and a tiny one at that, is that it’s a pain to fill in the whole technical sheet that shows up at the end: directory, producer, casting, costume designer, music, etc. To its credit, iMovie remembers the last set used and you don’t have to type it again.

There are about 15 templates, some very, very good. Still, I wonder whether they will get too tiresome when you make more than a few and end up repeating template type. I assume Apple will ship more templates with new updates. Even better would be to open this up to third parties to provide their own…

And finally, when will they release templates for “Negative Political Ads”?

And to end, here’s their second trailer, this time it’s a moving love story: A Rock Story:

Click here to view the embedded video.

The first few letters from Clara, our 10 year old were pretty normal. She wanted mail from us. She told us about her activities and also that she had been sick during the first couple of days of camp, which we knew because camp staff had communicated with us about it. Then, somewhere around the end of week 2 on our end, we got this gem:

So, how is a parent thousands of miles away to react to an obvious cry for help (or stuffed animals) such as this one? In this age of immediate communication we are really no longer used to the time travel effect of physical mail. Obviously she was in some distress when she wrote this, but when was that? And how would she be feeling in the present? After taking a couple of deep breaths we carefully weighed the evidence:

• the repeated requests for stuffed animals did call into question how dire the situation really was
• we did not receive any communication from camp staff about any problems (they do use email)
• we did see several pictures of our kids seemingly enjoying themselves at camp
• at this point there were only a few days left of camp, so there was not much that could be done anyway

So, we emailed the staff to verify that everything was OK and they responded quickly indicating that Clara was obviously having a great time, enjoying activities, seemed to be in good spirits, etc. So, we relaxed a bit. And soon enough we started getting more letters from her, of a totally different nature.

The girls flew back from the East Coast on their own and as we drove home they just talked excitedly about all the nice things they did at camp. And while Clara says she does not necessarily want to go again next year, on her first phone call to one of her friends she told her of this great summer camp that both of them should go to… when they’re a bit older. (not stupid)

I call our system “socialized” because we get socialized health care. The patient experience is one where your doctor sees you for mere minutes before they need to run off and see another patient. There is no personal relationship with your doctor whatsoever, unless while you remain healthy. Our pets, who all see private doctors, in contrast, have wonderful personal relationships with their veterinarians. Going to the vet is a completely different experience, where everyone knows our names and the names of our dog and cats, and the vet takes ample time examining the critters and discussing treatment options with us.

So, here’s a short story of dealing with our system. Is this a story of hardship, life and death, financial ruin? No, sorry. Fortunately the family is healthy and we’re financially stable. This is a story of for-profit companies choosing the most rational path: denying health care, therefore maximizing profits. It’s a story of ridiculous bureaucracy that results in overhead costs that aren’t spent on the actual care. One of the compelling reasons to adopt a single payer system was to vastly simplify administrative procedures, therefore reducing much of the overhead. But we’re not going there. Even after Obama’s Health Care reform, the current system remains in place. In this story you see our dysfunctional system at work.

A Change of Employer

It all started in the end of 2008 when I switched to a new employer. The first thing you do when you join a new place is pick the Health Care option that’s best for you. It’s typically about which doctors you need to keep seeing. Our family has been going to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) for years, and all I had to do was pick the plan that had a deal with that clinic so that my current doctors would be “in network”. There was only one choice: Guardian’s PPO, subcontracted to Interplan.

The first time you go to see your doctor after such a change, you’re asked to see the administration and give them the new insurance information. In my case the information was pretty simple. Guardian sent me a card containing my name, my employer, our group plan number and finally my own member ID. I passed on this information to PAMF and forgot about this altogether.

Claims and their Paper Trail

When you go see the doctor you are charged your co-payment, which can vary depending on your plan. Then the health care provider bills your insurance company for the services provided. If all goes well, the insurance company accepts the claim, pays the health care provider and you’re done. You receive a statement from the insurance company explaining what happened (the instance, the amount billed, the amount covered) and you also receive a statement from the provider showing how much the insurance has paid and asking you to pay for the rest, if insurance did not cover you fully.

The statement from the health care provider is pretty simple. The one from the insurance company is incomprehensible. Typically it’s accompanied by “codes” that indicate the reason something was not covered. The amount covered also can depend on various factors, including deductibles, and percentage of coverage based on an idealized expected total for the given procedure. The point of this is that it’s non trivial to figure out what these statements are saying and it’s non trivial to understand exactly what your health plan provided.

The Story

In 2009 I had to see a doctor for something. After a while I got a bill from the provider for about 100 dollars. I thought that was a bit strange, but assumed there was a small deductible in the plan and just paid it. That month I was probably too busy to look into it as I was doing the bills and the amount was not significant enough to trigger alarms.

This happened a couple of more times, and I paid again. Then I got a bill for $800. That one caught my attention. What was going on? Was the health care plan covering anything at all? Strangely, I noticed I had not received any statements from the insurance company. I assumed PAMF had misplaced the data I gave them on my first visit and called them to find out. Nope. They had all the data and we painstakingly double checked it all. It all matched. And yet, the insurance company claimed that my “identity cannot be verified”. That is, they had my name, employer name, group plan and member id and somehow this was not enough to match the claim to my person. Mission accomplished. Claim denied, more profits this quarter.

Having spent a few hours dealing with this, and many more worrying about this mess, I talked to our HR department to make sure all my records where in place. They were. They suggested I call the insurance company to find out what the real problem was. Note that during this saga, these were hours in which I was not working. Instead my employer was paying me to debug whatever was going wrong in the health care chain. Let’s move on.

Engaging the insurance company was the most time consuming. My insurance card is confusing because while Guardian is the insurer, the Interplan logo appears on the right hand top corner. I called on of the numbers on the card, which turned out to be Guardian. After explaining the situation in great detail to a couple of people, they told me to call the Interplan number.

I explained the situation to the person at Interplan and after a while we moved on to double checking my data. It all matched again. They saw no reason why the claims would be denied, so they asked me to tell PAMF to resubmit the claims. So, I called PAMF again and asked them to resubmit the claims to Interplan. They said they would.

A couple of months later PAMF contacted me to inform me that the claims were denied again. Once again we made sure all the data was in place and it was, and once again they told me to talk to my insurance company, who was still claiming they didn’t know who I was. Interestingly as they seemed not to be able to ascribe the claims to me I never received a statement from them indicating that any claims had been denied. PAMF wanted me to call Interplan again.

I did that. At that point I had already spent possibly 10 hours dealing with this mess and we still didn’t know what to do about it. After explaining my case in great detail yet one more time, the Interplan person I got this time wanted to know what the provider was entering into field 11.B and 11.C of “the form”. I had no idea. I didn’t even know what form they were referring to. They must have been talking about the Interplan form that PAMF uses to submit claims to Interplan. I’ve never seen any of these forms. No worries. They told me to call my provided and ask them to enter “Guardian” into box 11.B and the name of my employer into box 11.C, and that with that it should all work. Thanks for calling and good luck.

Back to PAMF. The person I talked to was extremely skeptical, but willing to make a note of this requirement into my record and have the claims resubmitted. We did that and waited a couple of more months.

At that point I finally saw evidence that the insurance company finally knew who I was. Claims were processed, I started receiving statements from them and, more importantly, I got a refund check from PAMF for the original doctor visits I had paid for by mistake. That was all last year.

This month I get a bill from PAMF for $500 for an individual doctor visit. While I think this is outrageous, what catches my eye is the fact that my insurance company has been contacted and this item is “not eligible for coverage”. That’s all the note says. So, I call PAMF and ask for more details. Once again: the insurance company does not know who I am. This time it’s a claim for my daughter who’s listed under my own account. Sigh.

Fortunately I’ve kept notes from the first time around and I quickly pass on this information to the billing department. It’s been a year and maybe the relationship between providers and insurance companies has deteriorated because the person I talked to was veering on hostile when I told them what they needed to write in boxes 11.B and 11.C. She indicated the claim would be resubmitted and that’s where we are at this juncture of the narrative.

Final Whining Points

We’re still in line for a happy ending, but I’m still fed up enough to whine a bit more about all this. I’ve wasted hours of work time dealing with this crap and I have no confidence this is the last time I’ll be dealing with this.

I have fond memories of my time as a student in Ontario, Canada. I was a member of Ontario’s Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) and I knew that anything I needed would be covered. I never ever saw a medical bill and spent no time at all dealing with forms or worrying about health care at all.

Here in the US, on the other hand, even with a good job and expensive health insurance I’m not only constantly worrying about how much I’ll have to unexpectedly have to pay but also have to deal with ridiculous denials like the one I just described. I really expected health care reform to include a Public Option. I was waiting for the day when it would become law and I would walk into my HR department and ask to transfer my whole family to the public, not for profit system. Not only do I not have that choice at all, but almost nothing changes for people with employer based health insurance. Clearly the system is broken, full in inefficiencies and yet it continues to be the system we deal with every day.

But not in the US. And more specifically not even in the San Francisco Bay Area where there’s a large population of foreigners. The only hint I got that the World Cup was upon us was a pamphlet from DirecTV MAS (the Spanish language package) containing the schedule of games and information about the participating teams.

Of course, I did not need the reminder. I’m among the many that define life as “a succession of those 4 years that seem to fill the void between World Cups”.

As the Cup approaches, the level of intensity rises and I find myself constantly distracted and with an irrepressible urge to consult World Cup related news every five minutes. Who else got injured in the latest friendly? What new colorful news item comes out of Maradona’s rule as head the Argentinian squad.

The lack of prominence of the World Cup in the US results in an unexpected benefit: it is possible to record games and get back home at night without knowing the results, something that would be unthinkable in any soccer country. Of course you can always make matters worse for yourself by wearing a team’s jersey or any other World Cup related article of clothing, in which case chances are someone will approach you and talk to you about games you have not yet watched. But even if you keep a low profile, you still have to deal with your well intentioned co-workers. After all, the only reason to record games is that you still need to go to work, right? Here in Pacific time, the last game of the day takes place at 11:30AM, a rather inconvenient time to step out of the office.

So, I’ve emailed the following message to my whole company, in the hope that they’ll comply and I’ll be able to continue going to work during the Cup:

World Cup Etiquette:

The 2010 World Cup (soccer) starts next Friday, on June 11th. It goes on for about a month. This is the most popular sporting event in the world and it takes place just once every 4 years. Anywhere in the world but here in the US, the World Cup is everywhere and people are bursting with anticipation. There are three games a day during the group phase and at most 2 games on selected days during the elimination round. The whole calendar can be found here:

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/calendar.html

You may be wondering if there’s any point to this message at all. There is. During the World Cup, the soccer fanatic that has a full time job has two options: take the month off or keep coming to work while also managing to watch a large percentage of games. I assume most of us intend to continue working during this tumultuous month and we face a real problem: in order to come to work we must record games that happen during work hours and we must get home at night without knowing the results of these games. We set games to record, come to work and avoid all external media for the whole day (no looking at web sites, social networks, etc). But the one thing we cannot control is our coworkers who already know the results of games.

So, in order to maintain your soccer fanatic colleagues’ fragile little minds intact during this period I propose the following rule:

* DO NOT, under any circumstances, discuss any games that happen during the current work day.

And it’s more subtle than that, because you don’t need to say anything. Just approaching your favorite Nigerian coworker after aNigeria game and smiling (or making any sort of gesture) will drive him insane for the rest of the day. Why was that person smiling at me? Is it because we lost and they’re enjoying our misfortune? Or maybe it is it because we won, scoring a pile of goals. Maybe they’re smiling because nothing exciting happened. Or maybe a bunch of people got red carded. Argh! And so on…

It’s ok to discuss yesterday’s games. There’s no excuse for not being able to watch yesterday’s games before coming to work.

That’s all. Just one easy rule. Good luck to us all. Hernan.

It’s that simple. Now let’s enjoy the World Cup.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Redwood City Education Foundation is fighting hard to prevent this one and more cuts but raising funds before June when the School District needs to finalize its budget. If we manage to raise enough by then we can save instrumental music. Donate, volunteer, organize, spread the word, and read all about it in RCEF’s Save the Music page.

And here are additional action items, from an email sent by Georgia Jack, one of the organizers of RCEF’s Save the Music efforts:

Donate to help us reach our minimum goal of $100,000 to maintain 5th through 8th grade instrumental music programs for all of our students in all 17 elementary and middle schools.

Participate in the Groovin’ in the Grove (GIG) concert event on May 29, 2010, being held at Sequoia Unioin High School’s Carrington Hall and Grove area AND the 4th of July Fun Run taking place in downtown Redwood City before the parade. For more information see: www.rcef.org/groovin and www.rcef.org/funrun

Panel participants: Lisa Carlos, moderator. Bret Baird, president of the RWC Teachers Union. William Crowe, president elect. Kim Combs, Classified Union Rep. Jean Martin, member of RCTA. Ara Prigian, CTA representative.

The next section has my notes from the meeting, edited for readability, and without my own editorial comments. You can stop at the end of that if you’d like, or go on to my rather bleak take on the proceedings.

Notes from the meeting

The organizers pose 3 questions to get the discussion started:

1. Where is the union in the process of negotiating for this current year and what is your hope of where this process will lead?
2. How confident are you that the union’s position represents a majority of your constituents with this current contract?
3. What are you suggestions to the district for balancing the budget in the coming year?

Lisa introduces the panel and lets the current president of the Union answer the three questions.

Bret welcomes everyone for coming, and thanks all for the work of the PTAs, the Redwood City Education Foundation, and finally parents in the classroom.

He starts with question #3. The position of the union is not to fire, hire or evaluate. The union does not take positions on this. Individuals can take positions, but the union does not. If the union takes a position it favors some members over others. Their job is to look for the best contract and working conditions, salary and benefits.

On question #1. Currently at “impasse”. At the second day of negotiations, the Union said they would not be involved in suggesting cuts, and then the District got up from the table, interrupting negotiations. Bret points out the “impasse” has never been reached so quickly. This year the Governor allowed districts to reduce the number of school days by 5 days, a reduction that requires negotiation with the teachers’ union. Bret implied that the School Board move to impasse quickly to force arbitration in the hope of forcing the Union to accept the 5 day cut. Currently waiting for arbitration to begin.

The Union is hoping for the status quo. They claim the mid-year cuts and current expectations of further cuts are projections based on the the Governor’s January speech. CTA claims our District is on the conservative side on these matters, cutting early. The Union’s job is to act as check and balance to ensure things are done properly.

On question #2. He’s very, very confident that their position reflects the position of a majority of the members. They did a survey and got results back. Many of the members are upset about the mid-year cuts. The Union is an extremely democratic organization where everyone can speak at meetings. Any teacher can come raise issues and so can anywhere else. They meet the first Monday of every month at Red Morton.

Lisa: district website has papers with the current proposals from the District and the Union. Officials from the District were not invited to this meeting. After some discussion on why the School Board is not here, and what’s confidential during negotiations, Lisa asked the audience to submit their questions.

Questions from the audience:

Has the suggestion been made to furlough District office workers instead of teachers? How about “furlough Fridays” like in Sacramento? Ara: furlough is unpaid. It’s a bad term. 3 days a month for DMV and other state workers. It’s mandatory to have an 180 day school year, but they allow a maximum of 5 days to be removed after negotiation with the local union. Unpaid days for teachers, no education for kids. The proposal is to remove 4 instructional days and 1 non instructional teacher day. Yes, administrators took some days too, but they work a longer year. Administrators reach the top of their salaries quicker than the teachers (6 years rather than 24 years).

What are the other points of contention for the contract? Just the cuts in teacher days. For 08-09 teachers took 0% salary increase. This year the union accepts the status quo, leaving everything the same. No salary increases. This in itself helps the district save money. 4.5M cut this year, already done. 0% increase and then the cuts, and also 0% last year. If you keep the contract going as is, the union will go into negotiations immediately for next year.

Susie Peyton: Last year after the school year ended, cuts came in retroactively and the district used the reserves which went down all the way down to the 3% limit. If the state makes retroactive cuts we can use our reserves down to 1%, and they can stay that low for 2 years. We need to be a little preemptive and conservative. This was the reason to try to cut days off the year, this year.

Lisa: union’s position on dipping into reserves to 1% level? Ara: reserves started going down in past years. Questions the real levels of the reserves. Has not seen a disaster of this magnitude in years. Districts make budgets. Total uncertainty with Governor and legislature. Not enough information from the district to know whether they should be dipping into reserves.

Why not get involved in cut decisions when these will be happening? Ara: too many teachers to be laid off. Rails against Prop 13. Then on the Governor cutting the VLF. We need more revenue and to address this at the State level.

A teacher responds: the union is all the teachers. “It’s not my job to figure out which of our colleagues should be cut.” General applause. This is not a parent vs. teacher thing.

Susie notes that tenure rules determine who gets cut. It’s all about money. And the district prepares for the worst case scenario. Susie justifies the actions of the district. Teachers have to receive pink slips by March 15th by law.

Bret: describes the process by which the Union operates. The contract is put together and needs to be ratified by the union members.

Can you share data about your survey with members? Bret: Listed the district proposals, which were overwhelmingly rejected by the members. No to salary reduction, no to fewer days. Uncomfortable with sharing survey information. Come to the next union meeting and ask for the data.

What can concerned parents do with Federally elected officials? Lisa: the pie we had has shrunk and the federal piece is not that large. Kim (secretary for the union): ask for help from private organizations. Susie: this is what RCEF has been doing for years. Bret: not happy with Education Secretary, Arnie Duncan. Susie: get the Federal Government to fund Special Ed to the full. Bret: we spend 7M of General Fund money on Special Ed. Susie: we should ask for this at the Federal level. Thea: there’s legislation pending in congress about this. Anna Eshoo is involved.

How about evaluation process to priority teachers to be let go first? Bret: teachers are not qualified to evaluate other teachers. That’s what people with administrator credentials do.

Explain who you think your adversaries are. Bret: our opponent is always ignorance and apathy. Back to the Federal Level, think of the difference between our approach to military funding and education funding. We’re going to crumble from within. Spending on military doubled after 9/11. Have the military compete for their cut of the pie, using vouchers. Vouchers is now gone, current talk is about Charter Schools.

Do we have rights as tenured teachers who have received pink slips? Ara: tenured teachers are laid off too. Called “permanent” teachers, not tenured. Then talks about differences between Revenue Limit and Basic Aid districts.

Do teachers get seniority credit for previous work years? Ara: depends on the district. Layoffs affect seniority.

Lisa asks a process question: do you want to take questions from the audience? Bret: no.

Thea gives a speech about making the pie larger. California does not impose oil extraction taxes. Robert Reich’s idea, to demand a bail out for education much like the bailout for the financial system. Last time there was major money for education was during Sputnik! These children created our current economy. Time to invest in Human Capital.

Bret: State legislators claim their hands are tied, but it’s not true. Moderate Republicans hold out to get what they want. CTA suggests: force the Republicans to vote against unpopular measures.

Layoff teachers or reduce salaries for all, what would you choose? The union refuses to answer the question. It’s all bad. Susie tries to push the issue trying to get the union to accept that the options are not equally bad. They will not go there. Let someone else make that choice.

What happens when we go bankrupt and someone else controls our schools? Ara: in Oakland they took power away from the School Board. Dictatorial power from the Superintendent. Bret: in the big districts, larger cuts, possibly an extra month out of school a year. Other districts are in worse shape than ours and the state would take over those districts first.

At that point the meeting ended with a reminder about the proposition to reduce the parcel tax requirement to 55%…

A rather bleak assessment

Before I start let me state unequivocally that I am 100% pro Union. Many, if not all of the social advances we enjoy today were the result of sustained, long term work by Unions. Let me also point out that it’s deplorable that we have to ask our teachers, who are real life heroes, to reduce their salaries by anything at all. We should be paying more to our teachers, not less! I see how hard they work, how dedicated they are. I’m in awe of our teachers.

The worst thing we can do at this point is to take an adversarial position against any of the parties in Redwood City. I’ve said it before regarding School Board meetings and I say it now regarding the Union. We’re all in this together and we all want what’s best for the kids.

And yet, this meeting left me with a bad taste in my mouth. The tone was confrontational and the Union was defensive in its answers. This got worse as the meeting went along, as more of the answers failed to satisfy. I did not feel the Union was our partner in this struggle to do the best for our children. Instead, they refused to accept the current realities and take any position regarding possible cuts. The discussion was diverted quickly into State or Federal issues, which we all agree with, but which the local Union has a very indirect connection to. The refusal to answer direct questions from the audience was just shocking to me. And then there was the refusal to share the results of the survey sent to the members. There was a shocking moment when a Union representative suggested targeting local corporations to raise funds… which is what RCEF has been doing for years!

Basically, I felt that any solutions to the problem are left to us, the parents. The Union will stand aside, wait for arbitration, and hope for the best. And don’t get me wrong: it’s their job to get the best possible deal for their members. But if it comes to what we expect, where we either reduce these 5 days or face an even more draconian alternative, I don’t see the Union standing with us picking what’s best for the children.

The union represents the views of its members. I know some of its members directly, the wonderful teachers that have taught my daughters for years. They would never, ever, pick anything but the best option for the kids.