++Administrators might also benefit from closer contact with the students—hmm, I have a thought for a class for our Superintendent.
You can find a number of my comments on this and associated threads in the past couple of months. I hope you can distinguish between:
“Stay the Course?” Or “Change The Course!”
Ken Johnson
Eric Nelson,
As an individual, running opposing a well resourced incumbent slate that is using public resources to further their campaign, there must be a two part effort.
The first is to honestly reference credible resources exposing, as you observed, why the incumbents should not be re-elected.
The second is to attempt to answer your: “The other choices have not stepped up with any brilliant insight.”
You will find a number of items at both the MCC and AAUW Candidate forums videos on Coastsider. I am not certain that I hit the “brilliant insight” bar, but I am giving it a shot: A summary of some of my comments:
* Workshops at each of the schools with the Board inviting all the parents, teachers, students and public with the board primarily listening and asking questions. In all humility, I don’t feel I have all the answers.
* I have identified schools and District in our county that with less money and greater demographic challenges, they have two to three times the effectiveness of this district. In my contacts (and I will continue to follow up in greater detail) here are a few observations I will be asking the Board to implement:
++ The Spanish immersion program can continue; without our ELL (English Language Learners), I actually personally prefer Cantonese or Mandarin immersion. The Latino students exit the program today NOT fluent English.
++ Implement a K-5 English Immersion program for our ELL students with proper support and tutoring—the goal is to Mainstream these students within a 2 to 4 year period depending on their initial language skills. This benefits not only the students but reduces the overhead associated with a separate and unequal school system. Win-Win.
++Invite AAUW, community, more peer to peer and church - yeah, we can do it with proper observation of state and fed requirements, you can and should have separation of Church and State without treating a membership like they have the plague - to assist with tutoring.
++Provide more communication and information on students to middle school teacher from the elementary teacher and the transition from middle school to high school.
++We need to speed the reorganization of Cunha to shorter span of control and group responsibility.
++Maybe a successful school district can afford to meet only 11 times a year—this is not a successful school district! It took 10 months for a presentation on the ELL program to the board. Cunha, which is designated for “Corrective Action”, will not air a plan till half of the school year is over. Unacceptable.
++The school board needs to see monthly expenditure reports - once a year report that ‘it balances’ is insufficient control. If our Superintendent is not capable of arranging that - the board needs to discuss that in public.
++One of the tasks of a board member is to actually get out into the schools to observe and listen to our teachers.
Charlie Gardner,
“competitive bids”?? You wrote:
“To answer Leonard’s questions about the middle school build. We expect to have additional board meetings in November to publicly discuss the bid letting process for competetive [sic] bids (yes, competetive [sic] bids!) for construction to actually start at Cunha next summer. “
Really, one of the best predictors of board future actions is to look at past and present actions. The current design contract was NOT let as a competitive bid. The board was not bound to the present / past contract. The board majority deferred to the Superintendent’s desires. Your fellow Board member, Mr. Roy Salume’, didn’t appear impressed that competitive bidding had, is or will be used.
The nice pretty drawings of the concept for the remodeled Cunha, shown to all, could and should have been a requirement of a competitive bidding process - free to district. Not only would we have gotten them free; but we would have multiple rendering concepts to choose from.
Contrast that with my past action:
I was a chairman of a Half Moon Bay Committee, Business Revitalization, hosted a “Charrette”. You should be familiar with the term, but just in case: “a Charrette is a collaborative planning process that harnesses the talents and energies of all interested parties to create and support a feasible plan that represents transformative community change.”
About two dozens members of the San Mateo Chapter of The American Institute of Architects volunteered their weekend time. Broke into teams to do design for the ‘entry ways’, Main Street and our then future Coastside Trail into the city Main Street.
Cost to the City - Zero.
Actually we made money, by selling tickets to a “Presentation of Design Concepts” conclusion dinner.
CUSD looks at spending public funds as OPM - Other Peoples Money.
“Stay the Course?” Or “Change The Course!”
Ken Johnson
Barry,
I don’t get the Review.
Actually, they voted to ‘plan’ - give them another decade to ‘build’ [maybe]!
Ken Johnson
Q - What other costs were there?
A - Enrollment at Cunha dropped from 871 in 2001-02 to 758 in 2005-06 or 113 students. The drop in white enrolment, those who could afford alternative schooling, was 185. Increase in Latino enrolment propped up the district. Our middle school is now a minority white school. The cost was five teachers and a much more difficult job for the remaining teachers.
It seems there are those that don’t understand basic math. The district is paid by the state based on ADA, Average Daily Attendance. If enrolment drops, then state funds drop. You have fewer students - you ‘need’ fewer teachers. Even if the new makeup of the district is more challenging to meet minimum standards.
I tried to get the board to take up the Cunha ‘situation’ three months ago when Cunha was designated for “Corrective Action” by the State - Jolanda put it off till months after the election resulting in another difficult year! Her re-election is more important to her than the student’s needs.
Q - Has this board successfully terminated the contract with Ocean Colony Partners or is it a future legal problem hanging over future boards?
A - Dwight has been ‘working’ on the busing problem for FIVE years with no accomplishment yet! They don’t do well in a ‘rush.’
I’d rather see it wait than see another in a long string of bad deals!
Q - How much has the lack of competitive bids for the middle school construction project cost the district?
A - The drawings of Cunha could have been obtained as a required part of a competitive bid process rather than paid for by us. They like spending OPM - Other Peoples Money. Competitive biding could make a significant saving and local business could win keeping our money on the Coastside. So far, the existing board hasn’t supported Competitive Bidding per the ‘recommendation’ of Bayless.
Q - How much has the 8 year period declining enrollment cost the district?
We have 601 fewer students and dropping faster each year. That is roughly 24 fewer teachers.
Q- Given the 8 year period of declining enrollment, will the new middle school be too big?
A - Well that is sort of the good news in a very bad story. If you will recall, the district still didn’t have enough money in the bank for going with the cheaper, faster and better solution at Cunha. The size and quality was downsized from what we were promised a decade ago to fit what was left in the bank even with the matching State funding. So, if the “Incumbent slate” is re-elected and they “Stay the Course” we will have an ever increasing excess of capacity.
Obviously, I hope the “Incumbent slate” is defeated and we can “Change the Course!”
Personally, I think we would be better off to do the promised quality and leave the excess capacity as ‘shell space’, constructed structurally yet left unfinished, until needed when the ‘flight’ from the district is stemmed by restoring the trust in the board.
Ken Johnson
Kathryn, et al.;
“The Tipping Point”!
First, Ms. Schreurs earned her support by the “Wavecrest Forever” group through her attorney’s threatening lawsuit letter of 17 May 2002. Mr. Gardner drank the Kool-Aid and Ms. Schreurs and Mr. Riemer carried out the groups actions in support through the infamous advert. Mr. Riemer also earned his stripes then. Many parents are far smarter in their children’s interest than the “Wavecrest Forever” group allows. It is reflected in the enrollment numbers this school year.
You will find a link to a chart representing the district’s enrollment on CUSD.Info. The peak occurred 1997-98. From then on, the drop is a simple and predictable stepwise drop with a period of two years. I suggest it is not a coincidence that the ‘step’ occurs in anticipation of each school board election. The “Wavecrest Forever” group has a pretty successful record in electing their slate at any cost.
The truly scary thing is that this year’s projected drop would result in an enrollment of 3,401. Instead, the enrollment this year was 3288! It suggests that we have reached “The Tipping Point”!
If the “Wavecrest Forever” group slate is elected; it would result in Mr. Gardner, Ms. Schreurs and Mr. Riemer as a consistent majority voting block. If you will recall, there is nothing yet that binds the district from returning to Wavecrest or something else equally absurd.
The “Enrodlment Report for the First School Month” this year was due to be reported out at the October 12 CUSD meeting. It was suppressed by Board President Ms. Schreurs and Superintendent Bayless who are responsible for the meeting’s Agenda - presumably for political purposes. So, I can only provide data for Cunha through last year.
Back to Kathryn’s questions:
Joel,
Since you have chosen to support Ms. Jolanda Schreurs and ignore Ms. Schreurs part in: HMB Review’s November 10, 2004 article:
“Ad writers say ends justify means of CUSD campaign”
http://hmbreview.com/articles/2004/11/10/news/local_news/story05.txt
and presumably feel she can work with other people; I find it curious that you feel forthright campaigning objectionable.
As to Superintendent Bayless, I feel that a School Superintendent should not be a partisan participant in a School Board election. I do understand his reaction, presumably he also saw the video before the meeting, and he would be aware of the question of whether his recent new contract is valid and enforceable if it were not done consistent with all State of California law.
As a School Board member, I would seek the comment of school staff and especially the teaching staff as to the Superintendent’s effectiveness in the required evaluation of his performance by the board.
The makeup of the school board, by the design of the election, is intended to have five independent members. It is designated as “non-partisan”. I find it unfortunate that there are those who choose to bifurcate the electorate, rather than differentiate themselves.
Do you find the concept objectionable of five independent voices seeking consensus? Democracy may take a little longer, but the public is the winner! There is a combination that results in independent voices.
I guess you object that Ms. Schreurs is not part of that combination.
Ken Johnson
Ray,
We are beginning to communicate. I followed up your Sunday post by actually going out and checking out
Mr. Frank Geritty comments.
Tuesday afternoon [17 October] was a beautiful day and I did some hiking of the property in question. The only person who comes out of this as a hero is CUSD’s Mr. Roy Salume who, when the first problem occurred, spent about four hours meeting with the neighbours and checking out the property questions. His point about the value of having Half Moon Bay residents on the School Board should be headed. It is unfortunate that he chose not to run for re-election—smart man!
In Half Moon Bay, we have had open meetings and workshops where all points of view were aired and considered on considerably less issues. ‘Control freaks’ are their own worse enemies.
Anyway, the claims of ‘butchering’ the trees by CUSD are actually an understatement. The trees life span is probably considerably shortened by the lack of qualified CUSD personnel. It is also true that the neighbours are maintaining, at their expense, that which is CUSD responsibility. And that they were severely harmed by CUSD’s failings to work and communicate with adjacent property owners to CUSD property. CUSD would have done well to actually adhere to state law rather than trying to be ‘cute’. I would have been considerably more ‘animated’ than Mr. Geritty in his comments and a desire to ascertain the truth behind ‘rumors’ of being screwed over again by CUSD.
The real shame of all this is that a real win-win could have been achieved quite easily by having open communications and open meetings. The contributor who generously gave for the ball fields could have achieved his objectives. The neighbours would have continued as supporters of the district. And the kids had a great situation.
Ken Johnson
Ray,
Please re-read above: “how CUSD (mis)treats the public.”
I feel the manner of treatment of members of the public at a public meeting IS important!
Ken Johnson
Monday, on MCTV at 7PM, is probably the only chance to see Mr. Kirt Rimmer speak before casting your absentee ballot. Does anyone else think it strange that ALL THREE, on the incumbent slate, were too busy for the MCC debate?
You can also see how CUSD (mis)treats the public. Mr. Frank Geritty, from the Highland Park neighborhood, tried to clear up a ‘rumor’ about the road proposed by CUSD’s Charlie Gardner and Board President Jolanda Schreurs that would severely affect his neighborhood.
I have gotten used to it, but maybe Superintendent Bayless could fill the vacant slot for a drama teacher at Cunha. Strange, his performance didn’t relate to my comments nor to the relationship detailed by the teaching staff’s feelings as exemplified by the recent protest by two thirds of the kindergarten teachers. Maybe he is running as a write-in candidate for the school board.
You can also hear Board Member Dwight Wilson’s solution to the canceled school bussing: “soon”! Sort of rings a little hollow since he has been working on it for FIVE years since he voted to cancel school bussing and he has yet to produce any results.
There is a CUSD Board Meeting
THURSDAY, September 14, 2006
IV. RECONVENE OPEN SESSION � 7:00 P.M.
VIII . COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA
Location: District Offices [adjacent to Hatch Elementary
498 Kelly Avenue � Half Moon Bay
Do YOU wish to just gripe here � or attend and express your opinion �
.
Thought I heard our incumbents say they had something that was supposed to sound like a solution at the San Mateo Times � Interview Tuesday morning!
.
�what happened to walking to school� � and just how far was it �both ways uphill�?
Measure the distance from the District�s furthest point to Cunha � preferably walking during a winter storm with a backpack loaded with books!
Ken Johnson
For those who are ‘History Challenged’, the story recounted in “All The President’s Men” could not have occurred without the removal of VP Agnew first!
Ken Johnson
Kevin J. Lansing and Leonard Woren,
Seems like HMB Review editor Clay Lambert still can’t get his calls returned.
“Ad writers say ends justify means of CUSD campaign”—Wednesday, November 10, 2004
http://hmbreview.com/articles/2004/11/10/news/local_news/story05.txt
[I]“Cabrillo board President Jolanda Schreurs said the third man is Kirk Riemer. Riemer’s name appears on a list of Coastsiders who endorsed Lundell’s opponent, Charles Gardner. Riemer did not return a telephone call seeking comment.”
Schreurs, who runs a graphics business, confirmed that she designed the ad to look like Lundell’s and helped arrange for Gardner to give up his space. Larimer said he contributed wording for the advertisement.”[/I]
Or maybe Clay Lambert is only indignant after an election!
Ken Johnson
John Lynch,
Thanks for patiently hanging in there. I have given up “explaining alternate side of the street parking to turnips.”
Regards,
Ken Johnson
Probably not a surprise, the deadline passed on 11 August without moving the parcel tax to the November ballot. The next free shot is a year away. Well, at least I gave it a try.
CUSD Board Response on 03 Aug 2006
Everyone has the opportunity to give the same way to an undirected use, as Measure S was written. Yet, less than the equivalent of 8% of the yes voters on Measure S have given to “Back to Basics”.
What we lack is a good way of seeing that the most pressing problems of our School District are corrected: “Citizens’ Alternative Parcel Tax Measure” goal.
(No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, H.R. 1)
English-Language Arts –
Year District met criteria
2001-02 42.9% NO
2002-03 48.7% NO - appeal
2003-04 46.0% NO
2004-05 51.2% NO - appeal
2006 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) results will be available on Tuesday 15 August.
You can look to determine (guess) how many schools and will the District (again) be designated failing.
The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Reports will be available on Thursday 31 August.
If any of the K-5 Elementary Schools are designated failing, it is the School Board’s majority failure – the student’s tested will have lived five years under the School Board’s majority implementation of the NCLB goals!
Cunha Middle School and Hatch Elementary have been designated by the State for PI under NCLB. CUSD was designated a failing District in 2005. I can find many flaws in NCLB – yet it is the only thing that has motivated CUSD to start to teach ALL of our children!
The School Board majority has consistently refused to adopt a successful strategy to teach the other 60%. Mr. John Moseley’s lone voice on the CUSD Board agreed on the need of a Plan B strategy when failure is imminent.
CUSD has reluctantly seen an 8.3% improvement in the five-year life of NCLB. Looking at it in another way, that is 291 children who have made the first rung on the ladder of learning – they would not have been given that first step before NCLB!
Had Measure S passed, it is likely that a majority on our School Board would have voted to use part of those funds to withdraw from Federal funding and NCLB accountability. We would have returned to the 60% left behind standard before NCLB and 291 children’s education - indeed their life’s future – would have been lost!
Ken Johnson
Brian Ginna,
Thanks for the ‘praise’.
If you don’t like the Citizens’ Alternative Parcel Tax measure, where is your solution?
http://coastsider.com/comments/1680_0_1_0_C/
Regards,
Ken Johnson
Ray Olson,
Trust – you hit the key word. An average board meeting has 3 members from the public, including the TV person. Those few who have attended, know that they are not well received if they differ in any way with the board majority.
But all voters know that after paying for a decade, there is still no new school and that the cost has roughly doubled in that decade. Many know that the district is judged failing academically. Many know that there are other schools in the County that receive less money and have a more challenging student demographics and yet do considerably better than CUSD.
I suggest that the public’s key item in whether to go to the polls and vote yes was: ‘do I trust the school board’s decision making on how to spend my money.’
Ken Johnson
Joel Farbstein,
I love a straight line so neatly served up, TRY:
Opinion: Support the Citizens’ Alternative Parcel Tax measure
Opinion by Ken Johnson on Jul 31, 06 at 4:37 pm in Schools
http://coastsider.com/comments/1680_0_1_0_C/
The following comment was posted by Joel Farbstein on Aug 01, 06 | 5:45 pm
“But about the original thread, I’d like to challenge a person from the 38% “No” vote side of Measure S—someone who claims to be FOR improving education on the Coast—to be the author of a parcel tax initiative. Write it as you see fit. If 62% of the Coast is FOR Measure S, and just 3% voted No because it didn’t include busing, write the initiative without the school board’s help. Include busing or not, your call. You know 62% will vote to tax themselves to improve education. And you’ll go down as a hero to kids, and parents. What do you have to lose? -Joel Farbstein”
Ken Johnson
P.S. Joel, now prepare to be accused of being a part of some “they” group.
Mary Bordi,
I wasn’t concerned with Mary Ascher’s use of the word “blog”. Now, calling the “Review, our local newspaper” should be out of bounds – calling the Review a newspaper was an insult to journalist.
You were right:
“You probably didn’t get a chance to read Dan Blick’s Jul 29, 06 | 12:41 comment.”
I went back to 12:41 to find it and couldn’t find it. Then it occurred to me, you have two 12:41s in your day and I only one [depends on perspective, doesn’t it?]. Now, I found it:
“In her letter, Mary blames “*they*” ("that small, but vocal, group of self-appointed arbiters of community values who consistently find fault with anybody who dares to advocate for our Coastside children") with defeating Measure S.”
I guess it is easier when you start with a conclusion and go on from there without ever seriously examining the original premise.
Statement: X is beneficial; anyone who questions X is a %#%# - aka “they”?
It was once accepted dogma:
‘The sun revolves around the earth. Mankind is the center of all. Anyone who questions that is a heretic and must be punished.’
“Absolute truths” must never be questioned?
Sounds like “they” is a code word for a small group who courageously exhibit the ability to think!
Ken Johnson
Mary Ascher,
A few Facts you missed:
June 1996 Measure K won with 74.90%;
November 1999 Measure C lost with 55.99%!
Your letter, http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2006/06/28/news/letter_to_the_editor/story4.txt
“They won’t support the Cabrillo Unified School District because they don’t like certain school board members.” [You never identify: “they’]
School Board:
Measure K: Ken Jones, Ruth Palmer, Marina Stariha, Ken Wilson, and Burt Jones.
Measure C: Ken Jones, Ruth Palmer, Marina Stariha, Ken Wilson, and Dwight Wilson
Given, Dwight is not particularly likable - but a 20% difference?
Measure K: $35,000,000 twenty-five year Bond
Measure C: $125 4 years Parcel Tax
Maybe it was the extra $125 a year; but I don’t see any evidence for that.
OR do you think it might be the ACTIONS of the School Board Members?
-After THREE AND A HALF YEARS, all we had was a drawing of a new school [in fact, after TEN years, all we have is a drawing of a new school!]
- The School Board Members chose North Wavecrest, over much objection, in a bizarre series of land deals [North Wavecrest has had a variety of land development proposals that were ‘just around the corner’ since the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake – and still waiting].
Cunha needed to be rebuilt in 1976 when I first saw it in detail.
By November 1999 [Measure C], I concluded the School Board lacked judgment, accountability and financial wisdom.
November 5, 2002
Jolanda Schreurs, Dwight Wilson and Roy Salume ran on ‘Wavecrest Forever’.
[November 2, 2004: Charley Gardner the same]
A group of mothers, tired of waiting for a new school – SEVEN YEARS – brought in
November 4, 2003 ballot Measure D; “BUILD OUR SCHOOL NOW”!
CUSD response: Resolution NO. 22-03 OPPOSING BALLOT MEASURE D
Kenneth E. Jones, President
Ruth A. Palmer, Clerk
Roy Salume,
Jolanda Schreurs,
Dwight Wilson,
Had it not been for the above CUSD Trustees, we would have the middle school built and be MILLIONS Of DOLLARS ahead!
I’ve seen a number of references to “Obstructionists” in your Review – seems the School Board members above are in the membership.
Mary, voters don’t support when they can’t trust; but I still don’t know who “They” are.
Ken Johnson
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 4 9:50am comment by Kevin J. Lansing, Ken Johnson has it right. Why is an elected school board member like Charles Gardner more occupied with things like…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 3 10:43pm comment by Ken Johnson, Yes Paul, Charlie Gardner has an 'agenda' - do to MWSD what he accomplished at CUSD. He has been on…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 3 5:57am comment by Paul Perkovic, Charlie, Do you have any MWSD agendas, staff reports, minutes, letters, etc. - i.e., some actual documentation - that supports…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 2 10:44pm comment by Carl May, Mr. Gardner: Why an intertie with the NCCWD? You say "and only use the water when we need it." Do…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 2 10:22pm comment by Ken Johnson, Charlie Gardner, You are good at asking questions and making unsupported claims - you are not very reliable at answering…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 2 8:46pm comment by Charlie Gardner, Paul, What has MWSD done to investigate the possibility of an inter-tie to the north with Pacifica? Is it true…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 2 5:31pm comment by Paul Perkovic, The analysis is very useful to Montara Water and Sanitary District (MWSD) customers, too. One of the misplaced attacks that…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 2 1:47pm comment by Todd McGee, I'm sure Paul's analysis is correct and very useful to the CCWD customers. And I will readily admit that he…
Letter: Alternatives to July 4th fireworks?, Jul 2 12:29pm comment by Leonard Woren, What would the 2 sides be in a 2008 tug-of-war?
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 2 12:25pm comment by Leonard Woren, Every new CCWD customer increases the water cost for all existing CCWD customers. This is simple arithmetic, which "engineer" Jim…
