The year-end statements for the Cabrillo Unified School District election campaigns reveal more connections among the members of current board, and the outgoing board as well.

The Gardner campaign still owes board member Jolanda Schreurs $1,813 from loans she made in August or September ($2,161 in loans, less a $348 reimbursement).  According to Gardner campaign Treasurer Susan Stuart, the campaign is still trying to raise money to pay off the debt.  Gardner also received $100 from outgoing board member Ruth Palmer on December 30.  Gardner’s largest post-election contribution was another $519.62 from the Committee to Elect Jim Larimer on November 13, bringing the Larimer committee’s total contribution to $1,519.62.  According to Stuart, this odd amount is the result of Larimer’s committee turning over all its remaining funds to the Gardner campaign. Larimer is a director of the County Coastside Water District. Gardner also received a $250 contribution from the Republican Party of California on November 9, one week after the election.

The Moseley campaign’s only significant contribution after the election was $1,500 from outgoing CUSD board president Ken Jones. This was received on December 10, the day after Moseley’s first meeting as a member of the CUSD board. This payment matches a $1,500 contribution made by Jones to the Gardner campaign on October 5.

The campaign statements also reveal how much it costs to run for a seat on the CUSD board.  Gardner spent a total of $11,246 and Moseley spent $9,536.

You can download (large) PDF versions of Gardner’s [2 MB] and Moseley’s [7 MB] final statements from Coastsider.

John Bayless, superintendent of schools in Cabrillo Unified School District, is interviewing today for a job as superintendent for Public Schools in Somerville, Massachusetts, according to the Somerville Journal. He’s one of five finalists for the position, which pays $160,000 per year.

“He interviews quite often, but if he’s interviewing today I’m not aware of it,” said CUSD president Dwight Wilson, President of the CUSD board. “When it’s serious, I usually get a request for a letter of reference.” He also mentioned in passing the fact that Bayless almost took a position at the San Mateo County Office of Education in 2002.

I called Dr. Bayless at the CUSD office, but he’s out for the remainder of the week. If he’s staying the weekend, I recommend that he have dinner at the Elephant Walk restaurant in Cambridge.

Half Moon Bay High School did very well in the state’s Academic Performance Index scores, which were released last Thursday.  The performance of the District’s other schools was lackluster.

The API is a complex index created from the schools’ scores on multiple tests that are administered by the state. The statewide target score on the API is 800, and schools are rated based on their progress toward that goal. They are expected to increase their scores by five percent of the difference between their earlier score and the goal. If their API is 781 to 799, the annual growth target is one point. At that rate, a school would take more than 20 years to reach the state’s target score.

Schools are also compared to similar schools. For each school, a set of 100 similar schools is selected based on student demographics, teacher qualifications, class size, and other factors.

In 2004, Half Moon Bay High School blew away its five percent target, and its API is now nearly equal to the average score for similar schools.

Farallone View Elementary, the only other CUSD school to increase its API, is still far from matching the performance of similar schools. It’s 2004 score is 758, compared to 819 for similar schools.

El Granada, Hatch, and Cunha all declined slightly. But, then so did schools similar to Hatch and Cunha.

“You really have to look behind these scores,” says Madaline Shearer, the District’s Assistant Superintendent/Curriculum and Instruction. “The Board has said many times that this is one score at one time and that you have to look at individual factors and individual students.” Shearer also noted that Hatch has improved for the previous four years, while its number of English language learners has increased, and that this year’s redistricting is going to make it difficult to compare yearly performance in individual schools in the future.

As for HMB High, Shearer said that the District had felt for some time that high school students hadn’t been taking the tests seriously, because their score doesn’t really affect them personally. But, she said, the school has done a much better job lately of motivating the students.

What does this all mean? This stuff is fraught with significance, but the differences seem miniscule. Is it really important that Cunha’s score declined by three points instead of increasing by two as the state’s target would have it? It’s not even clear to me that these differences are more than statistical noise.

I don’t envy the District having to interpret this information, act on it, and report it to parents. 

The Cunha PTA will host HMB High School Principal Susan Million and several members of her staff for a Half Moon Bay High School orientation. The orientation will be February 7 at 7:00 pm in the Cunha Library.

Million and her staff have already been asked to answer the following questions at the open house.

• What are AP (Advanced Placement) classes and how does a student qualify?


• What happens if a student gets a C or below and wants to enroll in AP classes?


• Please explain the math program.


• Can a student wait to take math/biology till their sophomore year?


• Why is there no freshman science?


• When can a student attend classes at CSM (College of San Mateo)?


• Please show a sign up sheet that is being sent home on an overhead. Explain what classes are mandatory and what isn’t.


• Can students from HMBHS qualify for the top universities?


• Which classes are college prep?


• What is zero period PE and who qualifies? Do certain programs get preference?

The Governing Board of the Cabrillo Unified School District chose its officers tonight.  The Board unanimously elected Dwight Wilson president. Wilson, vice president of the board last year, presided at tonight’s meeting.

The Board also elected Roy Salume to the position of vice president. This is the only position that was contested. Jolanda Schreurs nominated Charles Gardner, who received her vote and his own.  Salume, an apparently reluctant nominee of John Moseley, received votes from himself, Wilson, and Moseley.

Jolanda Schreurs was unanimously elected clerk of the Board. Wilson congratulated her, saying, “Now you can enjoy carpal tunnel syndrome, too.”

[This story was posted live from the CUSD Board meeting, which is still in progress.]

Later, the board accepted the presentation of the strategic planning committee and encouraged citizens to sign up for committees. The board strongly supports the process and is really looking for people to participate.  In a theatrical touch, Deputy Superintendant B.J. Mackle brought forward the eight or so visiting members of the strategic planning group and had them alternate reading the list of beliefs that came from the meeting.

The Board’s goal is to create a strategy that will inform its decisions and to push responsibility deeper into the organization.

This is not the first such mission statement the District has created.  In 1992, as part of its facilities master plan, the District created an 11-page mission statement [pdf] that has a lot in common with the product of the current strategic planning team.

The Review knows who took out the anonymous attack ad in its October 20 edition, and managing editor Clay Lambert has said when his investigation is complete he will publish a story not only revealing that person’s identity, but “all the players”.

I talked to Clay this morning after reading his apology for the ad in today’s Review to find out if he knew the mystery shopper’s identity and why it wasn’t revealed before the election. He says that there was no time before the election to get the complete story and apparently that story is still under investigation.

“We have been duped,” began Clay’s editorial in today’s Review, which ends with “And I’m sorry for that [the anti-democratic impact of the ad]”. The apology is thorough and sincere, and Lambert goes on to mention some things the Review is doing to alleviate the problem, including following up with the Fair Political Practices Commission to see if the law was broken, rethinking the Review’s policy of allowing campaigns to reserve prime advertising space, and reconsidering accepting ads from committees without valid ID numbers.

My interpretation of all this is that the Review feels used. Regardless of their political alignment, nothing pisses off a newspaper publisher like being taken advantage of by a paying customer. It’s supposed to work the other way around.

Jonathan Lundell lost by fewer than 500 votes, so it’s entirely possible that this nasty, anonymous ad affected the outcome of the election. That can’t be undone, but the Review is taking the right steps in the wake of this mess.