For those who dare, here it is.  It runs 21:38.

State law now requires that school districts have policies to prevent harassment and discrimination of students based on actual and perceived gender identification and sexual orientation.

The law (appropriately) gives local school districts some discretion about what those policies are to include. Educating students with an additional lesson (proposed lesson #9) in the Caring School Curriculum in order to help prevent harassment or discrimination before it occurs occurs is a good, reasonable (and legal) part of such a policy.

The curriculum has been revised and improved substantially based on community input. The current curriculum includes age appropriate concepts and vocabulary. It doesn’t include any “sexual health education.”

If there are other forms of harassment or discrimination that AUSD policy is not addressing adequately, AUSD should examine changes in those policies as well. But that’s not a reason not to take this step now. If we accepted the argument that “We can’t take this step because it only solves part of the problem rather than the entire problem,” we’d never solve any problems.

To those who argue that the Board should postpone this decision past May, I’d submit that this isn’t going to get any easier in 6 or 12 months. The fundamental issues aren’t going to change. We’ve got all the facts and opinions we’re going to get. It is time to do the right thing. The Board should approve the revised curriculum.

As you may have read in today’s Alameda Journal or seen on Mike McMahon’s website or even noticed on AUSD’s own vastly improved (and improving) website, AUSD is launching a nine month master plan process.  The result of the process is to be a master plan setting AUSD’s long-term course for the coming years. 

For far too long and far too often, AUSD and Alameda have responded reactively and defensively to the many real challenges our schools face.  With the temporary shelter from the storm that Measure H provides, we now have our last, best chance to come together, to be proactive and to move forward strategically.  This is it.

We know our schools are the foundation of our community so that we all have a stake in the future.  We’ve got to move forward together.  Now. Supporters, critics, the engaged, the disenfranchised, and everyone else must join this effort. 

On Wednesday May 20 at 6:30 at Haight School, please come to the first (of many) community workshops to listen, learn, talk and think about the future of Alameda’s schools so that together we will build the best master plan we possibly can. 

Future workshops will be on Tuesday June 2 at Edison School, on Tuesday August 18 at Wood School, and on dates still to be announced for the fall.

See you on May 20th.  Bring a friend or two or three.

In the end, the Paden PTA decided to save thousands of dollars in installation costs by finishing the project with a volunteer “community build” last summer that drew upon the time and talents of the Paden community. This was an extremely time-and-labor-intensive effort that could not have happened without a large number of volunteers, all demonstrating the “life skills” we aim to teach our kids. The logistical and organizational challenges were immense. I think all of us who worked on the project would agree that this would not have come together as it did without the indefatigable, unflappable, awesome Paden PTA President Gwen Meyer.

Miracle Recreation Equipment Company just released a short video about the “community build.” If you’re interested, check it out.

Last November I wrote a bit about how and why the state budget plays such a large role in AUSD’s fate. At this week’s School Board meeting, the Board will be adopting the Budget Adoption Calendar for the 09-10 budget so that we’ll all know the general schedule for the difficult budget days ahead.

In addition, the Board will also be adopting the school calendar for the 09-10 school year. It looks like the first day of school will be August 31.

Among other things, the meeting also includes a recognition of the undefeated NCS champion Encinal football team as well as reports on (a) upgrading the technology network and on (b) the Strategic Instruction Model. This will also be the first Board meeting for our new Superintendent Kirsten Vital.

So on Tuesday be sure to check out the School Board meeting live in person or on cable channel 15!

And, although you might not know it from the political rhetoric in most debates over how best to improve public education, it is well worth remembering that teaching is quite complex. 

Simply “raising standards” isn’t the answer. 

In fact, by focusing attention on the wrong questions and the wrong issues, all the rhetorical hand-wringing in recent years about “raising standards” may have undermined efforts to improve education.  In essence, the obsession with “standards” has led to a diversion of attention, energy and resources (on the national, state and local level).  Those obsessed with standards have been “fighting the wrong war.”

What might be the focus of the right war? 

Whatever else we do, we must continue to fight and to win the battle to replace the current school finance system with a system that is fair, efficient and adequate so that the essential foundations of resources and systems to support classroom teaching and learning are reliably in place. Without those foundations, the many failures and pathologies of our current funding system threaten to destroy any progress we might make towards the ultimate goal of improving teaching and learning. 

But this posting isn’t supposed to be about school finance.  It is meant to remind us that in this war, there remains plenty of work to be done in continuing to move past simplistic slogans about “raising standards” in order to understand and overcome the challenging complexities of how best to improve teaching and learning.

In the current issue of The New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell’s essay “Most Likely to Succeed” is a thought-provoking examination of some of the complexities of teaching and learning.  Although I don’t agree entirely with the article, I appreciate greatly that it moves past the usual empty rhetoric to ask the right questions and to raise the right issues.  If you’re interested, have a look.

The most important “missing piece” in many discussions around here about AUSD’s finances is the recognition that AUSD has very little control over its revenues. The overwhelming majority of AUSD revenues come from the state. So when the state economy is in a recession and the state budget is in free fall — as happened for 08-09 and as will happen again for the 09-10 budget cycle — AUSD’s revenues will drop precipitously. Even though “the district” and “the Board” have the responsibility of dealing with the resulting budget crisis, the situation is not of their making.

Furthermore, unlike a business that can balance its books by closing divisions and operations, AUSD may not cut costs by, for example, shutting down its highly unprofitable “special ed division” or suspending any of its other services for high needs (and therefore more expensive) students. AUSD must educate all students wishing to enroll in public schools in Alameda.

Accordingly, AUSD is largely at the mercy of a state system that cuts its revenues at the same time that it mandates much of its expenses.

Moreover, since AUSD already has cut so much out of its budget in recent years and now has such relatively lean administration and low staff compensation/benefits relative to surrounding districts, there just isn’t a whole lot that can be done to make up large budget gaps by reducing the costs of existing operations, particularly in the short term. Although there are surely some modest additional cost-cutting and efficiencies to be gained within AUSD, no one who has looked seriously at AUSD’s budget can conclude there is way to come anywhere close to finding the millions in dollars in cost savings that would be necessary to “cut our way out” of the financial troubles we face.

As a result, the only short-term defense we have against the pathologies and instability of the of the state’s school finance system is to generate additional revenue locally. And it is important to remind ourselves that that is exactly what Alamedans voted to do in June by a margin of more than two to one in passing Measure H by 66.9% to 33.1%: We voted to step up locally with a short term parcel tax to offset dangerous cuts to our funding by the state.

The continued deterioration of the economy and of the state budget in recent months demonstrates the wisdom and necessity of passing Measure H in the first place and of defending it vigorously now. AUSD is facing unprecedented financial peril in the coming months. If we were to lose Measure H now, that loss would deal a tragic, mortal blow to public education in Alameda that would devastate our kids and community in many, many ways.

In recent weeks and months, we’ve heard quite a bit from anti-H people about the burdens that will be borne by those who will begin paying Measure H taxes this month. Of course paying any new taxes is a burden, especially in a weak economy. But in thinking about the merits of Measure H, that burden has to be balanced against the alternative of what we all would face without H: real, long term, possibly irreversible damage to public education in Alameda.

If AUSD does have to make millions more in cuts soon, there isn’t much mystery about what will be on the list. Among other things, we’ll see school closures, the end of K-3 class size reduction and 9th grade class size reduction, significant layoffs of teachers and staff, and cuts or elimination of funding for athletics, music, AP classes, counselors and college and career services.

Given all this, I have to agree with the perspective of AUSD’s attorney Page Barnes when she explained her motivation to fight the anti-H litigation in Friday’s Alameda Journal: “I am fighting to preserve the educational quality of 10,000 students and uphold the will of an overwhelming majority of voters who recognize the importance of passing this parcel tax for our kids.”

To understand the degree to which the fate of AUSD hangs in the balance, it is helpful to take a look at the budget numbers driving the existential financial challenges facing AUSD in the coming months.

The state budget is in such dire straights that the Governor has called a Special Session of the legislature to enact additional budget cuts for the CURRENT SCHOOL YEAR (”mid-year cuts”). Among the “highlights” of the Governor’s proposal to cut 2.5 billion more from the education budget for this school year – yes, those would be cuts for the year for which school districts were required to approve a budget last June — are (1) retroactively eliminating the COLA for 08-09 and (2) retroactively reducing revenue limit funding (i.e., general funding) by 1.79 billion. Even more ominously, this draconian Special Session plan only addresses 11 billion of the state’s projected shortfall. The Governor projects another 13 billion deficit for 09-10. That means that in January we will hear about even more cuts ON TOP OF THESE for the next, fast-approaching budget cycle. If the legislature is unable or unwilling to act in the Special Session (which I think is likely), the whole problem of a 24 billion deficit would be carried into 09-10.

The following numbers aren’t precise, but they are “in the ballpark” and so are useful for getting a general sense of the financial horrors AUSD will be facing soon as a result of the combination of (1) the state cuts already made in 08-09, (2) the 2.5 billion in additional cuts proposed in the Special Session FOR THE CURRENT 08-09 SCHOOL YEAR and (3) the additional cuts that will surely have to come for 09-10 (with a 13 billion dollar deficit coming in 09-10, those cuts are likely to be in the range of 2 to 2.5 billion more).

So it looks like AUSD will have something close to either (1) 2.5ish million in new mid year cuts from Nov-Dec for 08-09 from the state AND the 2ish million from Aug-Dec = 4.5ish million total for 08-09 AND then we’ll have new cuts of 2 to 2.5 million for 09-10 (AND another 1 mil or so from the impact of Nea if it is approved) OR (2) nothing will happen at the Special Session in Nov-Dec so that in January, on top of the 2ish million that we were cut in Aug-Sep 08-09, we’ll get whacked massively by 5ish million for 09-10 (AND another 1 mil or so from the impact of Nea if it is approved).

Regardless of whether more cuts are made in the Special Session or are delayed until 09-10, based on what the Governor is proposing we will be looking at something close 7 million in cuts or more for all of 08-09 and 09-10 combined (AND another 1 million or more due to the opening of Nea if it is approved).

Even under a “best-case scenario” in which the Governor’s proposed cuts are halved, it looks like AUSD would then “only” get cut by 5ish million for the two year 08-10 budget cycles by the combination of (a) 2 mil in regular 08-09 cuts and “only” 3 million more in combined cuts from (b) special session 08-09 cuts (if any) and (c) regular cuts for 09-10.

Having these numbers in my mind is one reason that many of us who support Measure H are so very displeased with and determined to fight the anti-H litigation. Even with all of the 4.2 to 4.5 million annually that Measure H provides, public education in Alameda may still face brutal cuts and just barely survive financially, even under the “best case scenario.”

Without Measure H, I don’t see how we will avoid turning into the Oakland of several years ago, going out of business, getting taken over by the state and losing the local community voice we still have in how our schools are run.

Defend Measure H!

As we’ve all been working hard doing what we do in the classroom, the fast and furious pace of “stuff happening” in AUSD generally has accelerated this fall.  That trend seems sure to continue in the second quarter.

Among other things, in November we’ll elect a new majority of the school board, the current school board will choose a new Superintendent, and the current school board will decide the fate of the second Nea charter school application.  There will also surely be developments in the Borikas and Beery anti-Measure H lawsuits.  We may even see Sacramento hold a special legislative session imposing ridiculous, impossible-to-implement mid-year budget cuts on the schools.

By the end of the AUSD “second quarter” in late January, we will have heard the Governor’s first budget proposal for education spending/cuts for 09-10.  Especially in the winter and spring of 2009, I hope we’ll be able to turn more of our attention to Sacramento.  (By the way, I’ve been hard at work the past couple of months on a lot of Sacramento-related matters that I look forward to sharing in the future.)

Finally, please do your homework and vote on Tuesday!