Qualifications

I was asked what I feel my qualifications are for The Board of Education. Perfectly good question and here's my answer.


I want to say that I intentionally do not have a "plan" to fix SFUSD. There are seven people on The Board and they all have their ideas and experience and maybe some even have plans. I want to sit down with that body after being sworn in ready to participate in crafting a plan along with six other commissioners, two student representatives, parents, teachers and the rest of the community. Coming to the table with a plan in my pocket reeks of hubris and that is not the kind of commissioner I want to be.

Only candidates running for executive offices, mayor, governor etc., need to have plans and even they have to deal with their legislative body. Board of Education Trustee is not a executive office.

I served on the Miraloma site council when my child was there, I am currently serving on the Parent Advisory Council. My political background includes holding the office of PAC Chair for The San Francisco Young Democrats. I worked on various campaigns including Prop 5 (Indian Gaming) and Gray Davis for Governor. Professionally I am a software engineer and program manager. Currently, I am a founder of Aramova, Inc. a small software company in San Francisco. Previously I was the Director of Core Engineering at Computer Curriculum Corporation and I've worked at Apple Computer where I developed the first software package for MacOS users to connect to the Internet beyond just command-line shell access.

I've spent the past 18 months learning the ins and outs of The Board of Education and SFUSD and have met personally with many commissioners learning a great deal from them. I was the original author of the resolution currently moving through The Board to create a Community Advisory Committee for School Facilities and Program placement meant to initially focus on school closures and over enrollment. I worked last year to get parent involvement mandated in the first resolution for school closures. I have good relationships with Board members, SFUSD staff and teachers as well as CBOs focusing on Public Schools.

Most of all I am passionate about what I do for The Schools. I do what I do because I have a child going though the schools nd hope to have a few more and I am one of those crazy people who are compelled to help people and serve.

I announced

I announced my candidacy. To be honest is was a tad premature. I wanted to announce when my website was ready. I drafted the announcement and saved it as a draft and when I was reviewing it after an evening of working on the website I hit send instead of save. Its OK though I will have the full site up soon or at least a workable placeholder.

I haven't posted much here because I've been busy working on the basis of my campaign and talking with a lot of people about it.

Here's the announcement that was posted to sfschools. I'll also post questions I've received and their replies.

--------------------------------

This is my official announcement and I've chosen this venue as the sole place for the announcement.

I am an official candidate for The San Francisco Board of Education. I'm sure a great deal of you have already assumed this and some of you have known this for some time. This is a public forum and I shall remain a member and everything I post I believe in regardless of how some of you may feel about it. Please, I ask you as a voter, search the archives of this Yahoo group for my posts as I stand behind each and every one of them. I won't necessarily tell you what you want to hear. I'm not in this race to make friends and win regardless of my values. I will win or loose this election based on what I feel is right for The San Francisco Unified School District and most importantly my child who is my primary impetus for running.

Following are some of the things I stand for and shall be unwavering in working for:


Parent Involvement at the highest level.

The first resolution I will introduce and fight for would be to create an advisory seat on the Board of Education to be filled by a parent who is a member of The Parent Advisory Council and appointed by The PAC who will be allowed to deliberate with The Board and cast an advisory vote. This person shall serve a one year term.

Also, following the benifits allowed to The Unions, my resolution will also allow for The Executive Director and The Board President of Parents for Public Schools or their designate to address The Board on any matter, as it comes up for a minimum of 2 minutes regardless of any rules of The Board of decisions of The President of The Board.


Independent Auditor / Controller.

I will introduce a resolution (if one has not yet been introduced) to create an office of Independent Auditor of The SFUSD. This person and their appropriate staff (as decided by The Board of Education) would first and foremost continuously audit the finances of SFUSD and for each and every measure before The Board of Education would provide a financial impact analysis and recommendation to The Board based solely on financial impact. The position will be appointed by The Board of Education for a five year term so as not to be impacted by a general election and not to be influenced by BOE politics.


More control transfered to school sites.

I will work to move even more control to SSC's to decide what is best for their schools. I want to enable each and every site to compete head-on with charter and private schools on their own playing field. I believe that each and every school should be empowered to address the needs of their particular community without the overbearing oversight of a central office who develops ideals for a homogenous student population that doesn't truly exist. Each school should have the flexibility of a charter school while maintaining the safety net of the greater school district as well as maintaining the Unified and Organized labor force of the various Unions serving The District.

If a TRUE SSC cannot be created at a school site, the people willing to create that SSC should be able to choose a willing and able SSC from a sister school willing to act as a proxy for that school site until a true and able SSC can be formed. Look to McKinley, Miraloma, Alamo, New Traditions, Aptos and other schools with strong parent involvement and you'll find parents willing and able to to just that for schools unable to do it for themselves.


Respect for the people who work with our children.

Why is it that we, parents, have to worry about the next labor action or strike that will effect our children? SEIU, after countless hours of negotiations, drew a solid line in the sand and let it be known that its final offer was the immutable, unmovable will of its membership well before the strike deadline. SFUSD let that deadline lapse before it blinked and aquiesed to the demands of SEIU 790. It was well known with insiders that SEUI 790's demands were the last before a strike but parents and students were made to wait and wonder until the very last minute. That is utterly crazy and irresponsible of SFUSD.

USEF is close to a labor action themselves and parents must wait and wonder yet again. Some people may think The Unions are out to bleed The District dry. That thinking is at best ignorant and thinking that Union leadership is stupid enough to drive The District into insolvency, at which point its members are worse off, is ludicrous. Years of COLA adjustments coming from The State and not passed on to the employees of The District while high level administrators get raises and golden parachutes is evidence enough for the total lack of respect for the people who teach our children and those who support them. I will never tolerate this kind of disrespect for our teachers and support staff. EVER! We ask so much of these people and we need to support them! When Teachers come first, Children come first. When teachers are disrespected, our children are disrespected.


Responsible Spending

We're spending $400,000 for a PR department who's sole job it seems is to spin the latest drama between the superintendent and The Board of Education. When the Student Advisory Council decided to discuss the issue of Dr. Ackerman's raise, this PR department put together a full-on press packet attacking members of the SAC who are students, our children. Today the PR department acts as a press secretary of the superintendent. Watch them at a Board meeting of consequence, directing the press and spinning the latest controversy. Why is this necessary? This office is supposed to provide the press with public information and act as communications outlet for our schools. When was the last time you've read something in The Chronicle or Examiner that was addressing our schools in a positive light that wasn't an op-ed written by a parent? Yeah, never. This whole farce we call a PR department needs to go. $400,000 is better spent on teachers and keeping schools open or on actual positive PR for our schools. We have no need whatsoever for the PR department that currently operates.


$375,000 out the window, given to an outgoing Superintendent who already has a job lined up is money well spent! Yeah, she earned it! She couldn't get along with The Board of Education elected by voters in a VERY HIGH TURNOUT ELECTION, ie. THE WILL of THE MAJORITY of San Francisco voters. So she gets a parting gift of 8 teachers. Yes 8 teachers, that's basically what $375,000 turns out to be. So its goodbye Dr. Ackerman and goodbye 8 teachers as well. Good Luck!

I will never let this kind of utter stupidity ever ever ever ever get by. I judge a person by what they are willing to give up, not what they are willing to take. If I were on The Board when the last raise for Dr Ackerman was up for a vote I would have voted NO!!! regardless of the person and I have the greatest respect for Dr. Ackerman and what she has done for our district but when the kinds of games are played that have been played my respect diminishes and I just have to wonder if the people are in it for the children or in it for themselves . In a for-profit entity I would look for someone in it for themselves and support that if I were a shareholder but in a public entity such as a school district I would abhor it an do all i can to fight it. A leader of a school district MUST be a leader for the children, not their own ego.


I feel just as strongly about other issues and I will voice them here. I'll make further announcements in relation to my campaign here first always. I welcome feedback from each and every one of you and I don't expect it all to be positive. From this point on to the election in November I promise to promptly and directly respond in public to any question whatsoever that is addressed to me in this forum.

I currently am enabled to create blog entries on the sfschools blog. I have yet to take advantage of that ability and I've been unsure if I should use that as a place to make statements as other potential candidates are unable to do so. I vow to not use that ability unless either all BOE candidates have that ability as well or the election is completed.


Rick Reynolds...
A Public School Parent for Board of Education

Kim Knox's account of the closure debrief

Kim kindly allowed me to repost her notes from the closure debrief meeting I mentioned bellow. Thanks Kim!




Commissioners Mar and Sanchez met with 18 parents and education activists on Thursday, Feb. 2 to listen to their concerns about the school closure process. (Lipson was asked by President Yee not to attend due to concerns with Brown Act-two or more committee members can't meet to talk about school-related business without proper notice). Parents from John Swett, New Traditions, Rooftop, Peabody, Monroe, JBBP and other schools were at the meeting. There was also a teacher from John Swett. There was also a parent of a potential student at Daniel Webster, Sandra Holladay of Parents for Public Schools and a representative from the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association. The initial discussion centered on Sanchez's proposal (co-sponsored by Sarah

Lipson and Norman Yee). Mark said that the resolution calls the District to create a five year and ten year plan with a Community Advisory Committee. He felt that this would allow the school closure to proceed in a more equitable manner. Mark mentioned that Supervisor Mirkarimi is creating blue ribbon panel where the Mayor, Supervisors and BOE would appoint members and Mark has been working closely with Mirkarimi on the Supervisor's legislation.

Mark felt that the chair of the Community Advisory Committee should be prominent person as the chair in order to gather publicity and support for the Community Advisory Committee. Mark also felt that a benefit to working with the City is that a staff member could be assigned to the Community Advisory Committee to create timely minutes and agendas. Mark also acknowledge the help of Rick Reynolds, a parent from Aptos and a member of the PAC, in crafting the resolution.

Both Mark and Eric acknowledged that it was the Parent Advisory Committee who had recommended a Community Advisory Committee for School Closures last spring and that the BOE didn't move on it. They also reminded that the Board doesn't have to adopt the recommendations of the Community Advisory Committee-and that the community must ensure that the Community Advisory Committee's voice is heard by all seven members of the School Board.

Ali Blum from New Traditions stated there should be an advisory position for parents on the Board of Education-similar to the Student Delegates. Mar explained that there was a similar resolution that had been introduced several years ago and it was defeated with a 4-3 votes (the ayes voting to have a parent serving an advisory position was Sanchez, Lipson and Mar.) Mar volunteered the information that his daughter is a kindergartener at a SFUSD school. (More information: Lipson's children (2 & 4) are still too young to enter SFUSD.)

Ali Blum also pointed out that during her public testimony in front of BOS, President Peskin stated that he would get the BOS to approve funds for the District to hire a crisis manager, since it appears to the public with the school closures, that the District is in crisis.

The parent of Peabody pointed out that the benefits of small schools are well-documented and she questioned why the District was emphasizing school closures rather than increasing its enrollment. Much discussion was then centered on how the District should market schools and the District to potential students.

I brought up that in Round 2 in this year's enrollment, schools can market themselves to parents/students who didn't get their first choice. Sandra Holladay promoted the Parent Ambassador program where parents talk to other parents about their school during Round 1. Eric Mar volunteered that he was a parent ambassador for his daughter's school.

The JBBP parents asked if there was a decision about how Dianne Feinstein Elementary School would be used in SY 06-07. Both Eric and Mark said that there hasn't been a decision-so the default would be for Feinstein opened as K-3 school in SY 06-07. Eric noted that he was opposed to opening a elementary school when the District closed three elementary schools this school year and another two schools last school year.

There was a great deal of agreement when Stephanie Cheng, a member of the Parent Advisory Committee, stated the list of the schools slated to close was too long. She stated that the long list made a severe impact on children and also made it difficult for the school community to study the criteria for each school.

Several people raised that the School Board did not have all of the research that has recently been done about the increasing numbers of school-aged and pre-school children in specific neighborhoods. Stacey Bartlett pointed out as an example that the District was willing to close one of two schools in Potrero even though the research showed that the Potrero Hill's population was to triple.

Ann Connery brought up that there are other factors that the District should consider. She brought up John Swett as an example. Swett's outstanding art program may not included in Swett's merger into John Muir. The art teacher is leaving and many of the teachers who have taken training in infusing/incorporating art into the school's curriculum are unsure on if they will move to John Muir. Ann also pointed out that the staff at John Swett have created a "mini-United Nations" atmosphere where students respect and honors the diversity of everyone. Mark Sanchez acknowledged that John Swett Elementary truly reflected a desegregated school environment where students of all colors learned together.


Kwan Wang, district liaison of the Second District of PTA (and mother of a successful alumni of SFUSD) stated that the school closure process should involve a two-way communication between the parents and the District. The discussion about the process with the community prior to creating the list would allow everyone to know that we (District, parents and community) are all in this together.

Pauline Vela, a parent and a member from Coleman Advocates, raised the idea of Mayor Newsom and the City asking corporations and large businesses to put more resources-volunteers, equipment and staff hours-into public schools. (A point that I brought up later to Pauline is that the City and County of San Francisco should step on to the plate first-and encourage the union is that get paid parent time to use it at their children's schools).

The final point was that a good deal of the District's financial problems is due to the reduction in state funding and the District as well as the community need to go to Sacramento to lobby for more funds for education..

School Closures

This past Thursday, I attended a parent briefing with Eric Mar and Mark Sanchez concerning the issues of school closure. Kim Knox has her usual blow-by-blow account of the meeting and I've asked her if I could post it here, but in the meantime here's my executive summary.

There was nothing much more said than we've already heard. A few JBBP parents were saying they're trying to get into Feinstein. Eric Mar has received a lot of angry emails from JBBP parents expressing many things in not so kind ways. My impression from that evening and other meetings with parents from JBBP is that JBBP will be devastated. No one from JBBP seems to want to send their kids to Rosa Parks and the main argument isn't the quality of the school, it's the huge distance.

There was also the discussion about the programs that are being moved no longer guaranteed to exist as was indicated at the Board meetings discussing closure. Lots of unhappy parents there.

The was also displeasure/concern about the lack of support from The District in the actual merger process, though its still early and I've personally seen District people assisting the site councils with the mergers.

There was unanimous agreement, with some skepticism, that the proposed CAC will have a great impact on future closure/merger issues. Sandra Halladey made a great point that the Student Assignment CAC has done a lot of work in this area and that should not be wasted and I took that to heart and will make sure it isn't.

There was also agreement that The District needs to help schools market
themselves better to prevent further closures.

It was good for the parents to get together though and hopefully more will come from it.

Sabrina

Last night I attended a birthday party at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse on Van Ness. One of the members of our party teaches at Bessie Carmichael . She ended up talking with one of our waitresses named Sabrina. It turned out that Sabrina is a teacher at Sherman Elementary. I knew that many teachers in San Francisco have to take part-time jobs in order to afford to live in San Francisco. I even wrote an op-ed about it with USEF President Dennis Kelly but I never really encountered it.

I talked with Sabrina a bit and she confirmed that she indeed could not live in San Francisco off her paycheck from SFUSD and even if UESF is successful in getting a 12% raise for her and her colleagues, she would still need to hold a part time job. So I asked her what she fealt she would need to make as a teacher in order to not take a part time job. Her answer was $50,000 a year. That's a little less than a 25% raise. For the rest of the dinner I thought about how it could be possible to give teachers that kind of raise. I quicky saddened as I realized its not possible at least not any time soon. There's a parcel tax coming up on the ballot and I'm all for it but I'm sure even that cannot balance SFUSD's budget at give teachers a 25% raise.

What can we do that will enable us, the residents of San Francisco, to pay our teachers a wage that will allow them to focus on teaching our children? In order to accomplish this we need an extra $85 million every year, probably more actually since other Unions will want bigger raises as well. There's only two years until SEUI 790 comes back to the bargaining table. Just for the $85 million, that parcel tax would have to impose a duty of $107 on each and every resident of San Francisco.

Why I wear the same UESF T-Shirt to every Board meeting

I will wear a UESF t-shirt to every Board meeting I attend until teachers in San Francisco receive a fair and equitable contract.

When Teachers come first, Children come first!

First Post!

Hello, this is the first post of my blog that will journal my campaign for San Francisco Board of Education and with the support of Parents, Teachers and other San Francisco voters I will continue to journal my work on The Board of Education.

I believe in total transparency and openness and to that end I will, from this point on, journal all of my activities related to my work with SFUSD. I'll also post random thoughts on public education in San Francisco and at times totally random thoughts with no restriction on topic. Here's what I've done today so far...



Today's activities:



I've been working with Mark Sanchez to get a resolution we co-authored introduced and ratified by The Board of education. This resolution calls for the creation of a Community Advisory Council to look into the many complex issues of school enrollment, not just under-enrollment but over-enrollment, enrollment trends, diversity and program placement. The Parent Advisory Council made this one of its recommendations during last year's school closures and The Board didn't take that advise. I didn't give up on this and kept pushing along with other PAC members and now The Board is finally taking us seriously.


This Community Advisory Council will be filled with the best and brightest parent and community leaders and will also have members of The Board of Education and The Board of Supervisors as well as representatives of The Mayor and our local State Assembly Representatives. This will be a strong committee empowered to truly make a difference. This committee will reach out to the communities of San Francisco through on-the-ground community engagement; proaction with the community replacing reaction from the community.


One week of meetings, noticed only a few days in advance, where parents get a minute or two to make their case AFTER decisions had been practically made, culminating in a ten page packet of information delivered to The Board of Education ON THE EVENING THEY WERE TO MAKE A DECISION is NOT community involvement.
The District still practically operates as though it has 70,000 students even though its enrollment is 56,578. There are school closures and mergers that make sense. A few people in a central office working over a few months with only the afterthought of community involvement cannot find those closures and mergers that truly make sense for the community. The answers lay in the community and we need to pull the community together and get those answers FROM THE COMMUNITY



So... I've been sending out an email blast to a few people to get them out to The Board meeting tonight advocating for the creation of this council.

--------------------

I spoke with an LA (legislative assistant) from Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval's office regarding a resolution he submitted to The Board of Supervisors asking Dr. Ackerman to give her $375,000 severance back to the children of SFUSD. I worked on this with Supervisor Sandoval after Dr. Ackerman made her announcement. After Gerardo submitted it, Supervisor Maxwell sent it to committee. Well actually she dumped it in a committee that never meets. Recently, Gerardo acted to pull it out of committee and today the full Board of Supervisors will vote on it.



---------------------

I spoke with a community leader about the merger of John Swett and John Muir. She was concerned that even though The District has indicated programs will merge, in fact programs could be cut partially or entirely due to lack of funding after 15% of the effected students leave the combined school or because there will not be enough room at the John Muir site. We discussed the need to be vigilant about this. I will contact the principal of John Muir and get involved in the merger process of the two schools. We met at the recent Parent Summit and discussed issues with the merger. I'm sure she'll welcome me to the process.