San Diego's Poor Students Fall Behind

Recent testing of San Diego fourth and eighth graders showed that the poor kids are doing even less well in San Diego's schools than when similar tests conducted in 2003. From the U-T.

Among San Diego’s fourth-graders eligible for free lunch, those tested last year earned a math score that was 38 points lower than those who do not receive that income-based subsidy. That’s a deeper chasm than the 27-point difference reported in 2003.

Budget cuts are blamed by some in the article for the drop in scores, but the gap is consistent with other research.

In his 2008 book, the Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell posits that the reason for lower test scores achieved by lower income students was due to lack of summer activities that promote further development of reading skills. From the book, he addresses research performed by Johns Hopkins University sociologist Karl Alexander. He reviewed changes in reading test scores that occurred over summer vacation, dividing scores by income groups, top, middle and bottom.


(Source: Gladwell, Malcolm (2008-10-29). Outliers: The Story of Success (p. 257). Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition.) We see that the those in the high income group achieve a 52 point cumulative increase in test scores over their summer vacations, compared to poor children, who make no progress.

In Outliers, Gladwell looks at KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) where students spend considerably more time in school than the national average. The program has lifted almost everyone one of its poor students into college eligibility. From The Economist:

In particular, charter schools in the Knowledge is Power Programme (KIPP) start the school day at 7.30am and end at 5pm, hold classes on some Saturdays and teach for a couple of weeks in the summer. All in all, KIPP students get about 60% more class time than their peers and routinely score better in tests.

The lengthy school days, and the work over the summer allow these poorer children to perform as well as students in wealthy districts. One of the criticisms of the KIPP program is the self-selection of children whose parents are motivated to be involved. However, I see it differently. They have a program that demands high commitment from parents, and being free from the shackles of the public education system, they can do so. It is just one of many innovations available when schools are freed from tight legal restrictions.

A public school cannot compel the compliance of parents to be involved in their child's education in the manner that a charter such as KIPP can. When government takes over the duty of educating all children, we lose the flexibility to allow education to innovate to 21st century demands. Further, the schools no longer view parents as clients they must please in order to maintain their business of educating children. For this reason, I believe we should end the system of public education and provide subsidies to allow parents to pay for the education of their children.

Will that fix the system? Probably not, because parental involvement and longer hours are also needed and full privatization won't fix that. However, as schools who implement reforms that draw the parents into greater involvement and longer hours, including summer studies for students, their free market success will spawn imitators.

The Mess that is SDUSD

The actions of the San Diego Unified School District board are irrational. Consider the following.

• The board proposed a plan to shutter schools, including high performing magnet schools to save money for a reported savings of $5 million.
• In the same article, it stated that the board is considering selling or developing real estate to save money.
• Two credit rating agencies have recently downgraded the district's bond rating.
  

So the district is in deep trouble, right?

• ". . .the district continues to hire back teachers whose layoff notices were rescinded some four months ago."
• ". . .instrumental music lessons offered at every elementary school also seem to belie the troubles that have been touted."

Now the district is talking about a new bond measure, but admitting that some of the money would be used to pay operating expenses. [Isn't that a violation of law or at least generally accepted accounting practice?]

The new bond money would ostensibly go for construction, upgrades and equipment, including new technology for students.

But officials openly discussed the potential of using the bond to free up general fund money for teacher salaries and classroom programs.

What gives with these guys. Melanie Nickel lambastes the board in a letter to the editor.

How much staff time was spent preparing this poorly thought-out, unrealistic list of proposed closures? (Example: The proposal suggested moving a K-8 magnet program to a middle-school campus that has no facilities for elementary students.)

Whose idea was it to put the selection process in the hands of a group of downtown bureaucrats, working in secret without any input from parents or working educators?

I guess this is what we get when we get a board whose election is dominated by the teachers' union. I don't recall a single board member being elected without union endorsement, because no one pays attention to those elections. If we are ever going to fix the school district, the voters are going to have to vote exactly the opposite of the union recommendation. Otherwise we will continue to pour money down the rathole of the public education system in this city.

[Full disclosure, both of my sons have graduated high school, from private schools here in the city of San Diego. We made financial sacrifice to save them from the cesspool of incompetence we witnessed in this school district.]

National City Schools - Central Falls Deja Vu?

Item 1. I wrote yesterday, but posted this morning, on the schools and municipal situation in Central Falls, RI. Right on cue, this morning's headlines detail some issues locally that mirror the issues back east. It appears that the National City schools are bracing for a strike, as teachers reject budget cutting measures like six furlough days per year. From this morning's U-T:

Faced with a $3 million deficit, the National School District said it was forced to take drastic measures by imposing six furlough days and raising class size caps this year to balance its budget — without the union’s consent. But labor leaders say the district is hording millions of dollars in its reserve account, exploiting the bad economy and bullying teachers to drive down wages and benefits.

Another case of defiant teachers clinging to their privileges and not recognizing the new political realities? Maybe. But here is what I found curious in the article. Management had a chance to settle on terms close to their desires:

When an independent fact-finding mediator issued a report that included a proposed settlement on July 19, the union’s representative signed off on the proposal that — among other things — called for five furloughs, representing a 2.7 percent pay cut.

A lawyer representing the district signed the same document, but said the district would not agree to all of the recommendations. The school board met in closed session the next day and rejected the proposal, in part because it called for a two-year contract when the district wanted a three-year agreement.

Why is the school board so adamant about getting all of their demands met? Can't answer that, but the fact that the teacher's union reps signed off so quickly makes me wonder about what is really going on. It may be that management is overplaying their admittedly strong hand. What is clear is that the district has serious budget difficulties, to the tune of $3 million dollars in the current school year budget. At least some of the pain to be endured must come from the teachers, but it remains an open question as to whether the school board erred in not taking the deal offered by mediation. Either way, fiscal realities like this are going to start impacting districts across the nation, causing reductions in pay for government employees such as teachers.

Item 2. Mayor Sanders not yet released plan to convert new city employees to a 401(k) style retirement plan is already drawing criticism. Public employee pensions are at the heart of the Central Falls post as well. One criticism is that by keeping new workers out of the old plan, there won't be fresh cash to keep the old system afloat. Said criticism is an implicit acknowledgement that the current system amounts to a Ponzi scheme. If the current system were properly accounted and funded, this change wouldn't matter. The other criticism comes from Michael Zucchet, union leader and former council member, saying that a properly funded 401(k) that has to include a decision on whether to account for placing the new workers in the social security system (current workers are exempt), would not save appreciable amounts of money. Maybe so, but that is totally beside the point. First, such a system insulates the city from the risks of investment fluctuation. Second, the workers themselves are better off because it forces the city to fully fund its contributions in the year earned, preventing a later reneging on promises. That Michael Zucchet would be opposed only shows that he has an agenda different from actually helping city employees.

Term Limits for the School Board?

"Sign the petition for term limits for the school board." The scraggly signature gatherer outside my local grocery store had my attention. "Really," I asked, "what else does it say?" "Local district elections," was his reply. Wow, sounded great. I picked up the petition board. He also told me there was more on the back. Taking a read, I became less impressed. There was some language about increasing the number of districts, but having some of the members nominated by particular community groups. I admit that I signed anyway, figuring we could debate the merits later.

Now I wish I hadn't. The petition drive is the brain child of an innocuous sounding group called San Diegans 4 Greater Schools. Scott Himmelstein is the organizer and he is given a full page to explain himself in the VOSD. My key problem is that four of the nine members of the school board would be appointed by people based on their positions as leaders of committees that are part of education/community partnerships. Such a plan has two key drawbacks, of which I am sure that Mr. Himmelstein is aware, but isn't discussing. First, these well meaning and dedicated people are, by the nature of their volunteer efforts, part of the education establishment. They wouldn't have been elevated to their positions without being able to work effectively with the educracy. This plan is a clever way for the education establishment to pick its own board. Look at the people who would be on the nominating committee if this plan were in effect today, and tell me honestly that these people aren't education insiders. I have no problem with their work, I just don't think they should be appointing members of the board.

Second, because of the new power that would be vested in these positions, inevitably, there will be political pressure to ensure that those appointed tow the mark with respect to the type of people nominated. One could easily see members being removed or replaced for political reasons, with the possible exception of the university presidents. This would be a disservice to these community leaders who are presumably working to make our schools better.

If we have learned anything from the Obamacare debacle, it is that process matters. School reform is too important an issue to be pursued with a school board that has members not selected through the democratic process, even if they are a minority. There is nothing about their plan to improve schools that couldn't be accomplished through an entirely democratically elected school board. Go to their web site and ask these same questions. If school reform is important, then those impacted need a grass roots movement of their own to start electing like minded board members. Further, I could be convinced that term limits and district only elections for the members of the board might also be a good thing, but undemocratic processes cause my gut to recoil.

Image courtesy of my lefty friends at OB RAG, with whom I seldom agree, but met at the coffee party meetings and seemed decent enough folks. They aren't down with this plan either.