KPAO by Dave Cortright

Mitch Albom serenaded by the University of Michigan Men's Glee Club

This is a very uplifting story about my college singing group, written by award-winning journalist (and a really good one at that) Mitch Albom.

Suddenly, a small army of young men came walking toward us. They lined the stairs to the second level, they stood along the balcony, they filled the spaces between the tables around us. They were every kind of college male—from the sweat-shirted, unshowered, matted-hair mold to the neatly coiffed, bespectacled version...

The voices were strong, lovely, harmonious, sincere, they filled the restaurant until everyone in the place was listening in stunned silence...

We sat in that restaurant feeling uplifted by the impromptu performance. It truly was beautiful singing—and we hadn't even paid the check yet...

Here's the video of that very performance Mitch described:

And just in case you all didn't know, I wrote a song for the "Write a Michigan Song" contest back in 1993. It won. It's one of the prouder achievements of my life.

Los Altos Schools Facebook groups

In case some of my readers aren't aware, there are a few different Facebook groups that were set up over the past few month set up specifically to facilitate discussion of public schools issues in the community.

Bottom line: If you want to participate in the discussion, I encourage you to join us in the LA/H Public Education Forum. Everyone is welcome.

---

The first group (LASD Voices) was created by Santa Rita PTA co-presidents Michelle Sturiale and Molly Black. The moderation proved to be too much for them, so the group has been closed.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/lasdvoices

The second group (Los Altos Schools Community) was created in the wake of the first one shutting down. It is a closed group and requires admininstrator approval to join:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/losaltosschoolscommunity

The third group (LA/H Public Education Forum) was created by Box Baxley, who did so after moderators in the second group started censoring posts. He vows to maintain a completely open forum: anyone can join, anyone can say anything they want on any topic related to public education (provided it complies with Facebook's terms of service and the law, of course).
http://www.facebook.com/groups/347812728589673/

I have previously participated in all three. But currently I am only active in the third.

I much prefer the Facebook platform to the anonymous and extremist comments that pile onto Los Altos Town Crier and the Mountain View Voice news articles. In fact I stopped even reading these comments months ago.

 

Apple's VP of Design, Jonathan Ive

Q: What makes a great designer?

A: It is so important to be light on your feet, inquisitive and interested in being wrong. You have that  wonderful fascination with the “what if” questions, but you also need absolute focus and a keen insight into the context and what is important...

Our goal is very simple—to design and make better products. If we can’t make something that is better, we won’t do it. ...most of our competitors are interesting in doing something different, or want to appear new. I think those are completely the wrong goals. A product has to be genuinely better. This requires real discipline, and that’s what drives us—a sincere, genuine appetite to do something that is better. Committees just don’t work, and it’s not about price, schedule or a bizarre marketing goal to appear different—these are corporate goals with scant regard for people who use the product.

Q: How do you know consumers will want your products?

A: We don’t do focus groups. That is the job of the designer. It’s unfair to ask people—who don’t have a sense of the opportunities of tomorrow from the context of today—to design.

Some of the problem solving in the iPad is really quite remarkable, there is this danger you want to communicate this to people. I think that is a fantastic irony—how oblivious people are to the acrobatics we’ve performed to solve a problem. But that’s our job, and I think people know there is tremendous care behind the finished product.

[this is another way of stating Larry Tesler's Conservation of Complexity. Do as much work on the development side of things to make it as simple as possible for the consumer.]

Here is the original article.

I support the Buffett Rule

From a CNN article:

The Buffett Rule, simply stated, requires the wealthiest Americans to pay taxes at rates not less than rates paid by middle-income Americans. Current loopholes that allow millionaires and billionaires to have unfairly low tax rates would be closed. It's only fair.

Yesterday the White House released a report on the Buffett Rule, and blogged about it too.

If you agree, please sign this petition.

It would be even better if you also contact your congressional representatives and urge them to vote for the Buffett Rule.

Write to your House Representative

Write to your Senators

Please hold BCS accountable to a much higher standard of performance

From: Dave Cortright 
To: Joseph Di Salvo; Michael Chang; Anna Song; Grace Mah; Julia Hoover-Smoot>; Leon Beauchman; Craig Mann 
Cc: Charles Weis; Cary Dritz; Lucretia Peebles
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 7:52 AM
Subject: Please hold BCS accountable to a much higher standard of performance

Members of the Santa Clara County Board of Education and Office of Education,

First and foremost, a commendation is in order. I am very grateful that Dr. Weis took the time on Friday to respond to my request for how SCCOE defines an "academically low achieving pupils". (For the record, his definition is "students scoring in deciles 1 though 3 on the California Standards Tests"; that is, the bottom 30% of all students.) As I mentioned to him in my response, the paucity of feedback coming from SCCOE back to our community has denied us all a chance to have an interactive dialog so that we may come to a shared understanding. The silence of the board on so many of my questions and assertions has been disappointing to say the least. So I wanted to be sure to give you the proper positive feedback in the hopes of encouraging even more back-and-forth discussions in the future. (The public forum will help, but it is again disappointing that you chose to cave to BCS' desire to delay it.)

Yet as much as I appreciated the response, I was very dissatisfied with its content. Dr. Weis said: "As I see it, BCS may be providing 'expanded learning opportunities' for all students by providing the option or choice of a slightly different educational experience from that of the local school districts."

I ask you all, is the bar really that low? Does SCCOE seriously consider one of your approved charter schools a success if it merely "may be providing" the option of a "slightly different educational experience"? Are you familiar with to concept of "opportunity cost"? If not, please go read up on it. I assert that by investing in charter schools like BCS that merely provide choice for the its own sake—but actually do little if anything to improve the academic achievement of the district as a whole—SCCOE is neglecting so many other paths that would have a much greater impact.

Here is a quite enlightening post copied from our community's Facebook group:

From an LASD parent who attended the BCS Board Meeting on Monday: the BCS board was considering which of those action plans (from their Strategic Plan) to pursue in the coming year. One of the BCS board members had talked to Santa Clara County Board of Education (SCCBOE) board members to determine which of the action plans were of most interest to SCCBOE (the entity that grants BCS's charter). The BCS board member reported that two of the action plans were of greatest interest to the SCCBOE members: "Establish a summer bridge program to promote the academic, social and emotional growth of underserved K-8 students who feed into the Mountain View Los Altos School District" and "Involve BCS teachers and students in a series of educational, collaborative projects with a sister school in Santa Clara county whose mission it is to close the achievement gap." (IMO, SCCBOE's interest in these items may reflect the recent efforts of LASD parents to raise awareness of BCS's poor track record of serving disadvantaged students.) In discussing these action plans, two of the BCS board members expressed a preference that BCS "stick it its knitting" rather than making "external" efforts; one of the BCS board members summed up these concerns as "what's in it for us?"

It seems that your thrice-approved charter school won't even deign to honor your requests for them to actually help disadvantaged students. They prefer to spend all of their time and resources on their own advantaged students. From the little I've been privy to, I also see this same "what's in it for us" mentality affecting negotiations of the MOU. 

I hope you have an answer to that BCS board member's question of "what's in it for us?". And I hope that answer is something along the lines of "the continued existence of your beloved charter school." How often and how egregiously must BCS continue to defy the valid feedback of not only their community, but also their very own chartering authority before corrective action will be taken?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you must wield the power you have over BCS, else you cede that power to them. From where I'm sitting, SCCOE looks pretty powerless over BCS. They are doing whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, and you are simply standing aside letting it happen. It makes SCCOE look weak and pathetic. I expect better from you; I demand better of you. Please assert yourselves here and help guide BCS to become the charter school that both you and the LASD community wants it to be.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I'm always here for you if you need me for anything.

Respectfully,
·Dave Cortright

The only ethical meat is scavenged

I submitted this essay to this NY Times contest challenging readers to make the case why it's ethical to eat meat.

---

It can be ethical to eat meat, but only under very specific circumstances. Practically all of the meat consumed on the planet each day does not qualify. Chances are astronomically high that if you ate meat today, it was a selfish and unethical act. Yes, even that free-range, grass-fed, "humanely-killed" steer who—in the ultimate sacrifice—literally gave a piece of himself for your meal. Your rationalization that this is somehow better than the lives and fates of so many other livestock does not make it ethical. You have just anchored your morals to the wrong end of the ethical spectrum. The fact remains that an animal—a living, breathing creature who shares the same basic needs and emotions as you—was raised and killed expressly for your own gastronomic predilection. Not because you needed it; not because your life depended on it; but simply because you preferred it to any of the numerous plant-based options that would have so easily served your caloric and nutritional needs.

Let me be clear about that point, because it is so very important: You do not need to eat meat to live a full and healthy life. Period. Humans are omnivores, not carnivores. There is no necessary nutrient available in meat that cannot be obtained from a non-animal source. In fact there is much compelling evidence that eating meat is detrimental to your health. It increases your risk of cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and obesity. And because our omnivore guts were not designed to digest meat, it causes indigestion, constipation, and increased flatulence. Meat may provide nominal nutrition, but it comes inseparably integrated with human toxins. Eating meat is like drinking your own urine: in the short term it can help you survive a life-or-death situation, but over the long term it will kill you.

It is simply not ethical to kill an animal for any reason when there is no need, only want. Yes, there are cases when it is ethical to kill an animal: when it is too sick or injured to recover, or when it is a danger to people or other animals. But none of these cases are based upon extracting vain value from an animal's body parts for petty human desires.

It is ethical to eat meat, provided the animal did not die for that purpose. The only ethical meat is scavenged. If it died by accident or old age, or via one of the few cases where its death was ethically justified, then by all means, fire up the grill! If you are carving strips of thigh jerky off the frozen corpse of an incompetent pilot in the Andes to stay alive; if you are picking up raccoon roadkill from the side of the highway to make into a lovely stew later that evening; if you are memorializing your beloved pet by hosting a dinner both for and of her; in these cases, you are eating meat ethically.

But, if you are simply going down to the neighborhood grocery store or local restaurant to partake in the "offal" products excreted by the livestock-industrial complex, you are eating meat unethically. I know this is difficult to hear, but that is all the more reason why it must be said. This is the most inconvenient of truths that we collectively do not want to admit—Al Gore included: the entire livestock industry—which includes every consumer who votes with their dollars daily by purchasing meat—is unethical.

Charles Weis responds to my request: "define an academically low achieving student"

From: Dave Cortright
To: Charles Weis
Cc: Lucretia Peebles; Cary Dritz 
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2012 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: What is your definition of "academically low achieving pupil" as used in CA Ed. Code 47601(b)?

Thank you for your response, Charles. I was mentally crafting my letter about how the lack of feedback our community has been given on this issue has denied us all a chance to learn your position and have a dialog so that we may come to a shared understanding. The silence of the board on many of my questions and assertions has been disappointing to say the least.

So it sounds like you are saying—despite the use of the word "all" in the first paragraph of 47601—you do not believe that each individual charter school must accomplish all of the points a-g listed below. That is unfortunate, as it allows boutique charters to exist who don't have to actually raise the academic standard of the pupils in the district, but merely offer "choice" for the sake of choice.

I think one of my fellow citizens—Joe Seither—said it very well in a post to our community Facebook group:

Despite the CA Charter School Act of 1992's clear emphasis on measurable improvements for low-performing districts, the SCCOE tells me charter applicants are not required to demonstrate how their students have been underserved by their current schools. In the absence of any needs assessment, I could, quite literally, convert an API decile 10 school to a charter, achieve an API decile 4 rank and call my charter a success. And get my charter renewed in perpetuity.

In the five years before the Bullis Charter School commenced operations, Bullis-Purissima API scores were near the top among LASD schools, which are, as we all know, perennial near the top of all district scores in CA. B-P was decile ranked 10 out of 10 statewide and 10 out of 10 versus similar schools. B-P students were extremely well served, and would have been equally well served in other LASD schools after the school closure.

Ten years hence, I think it's well worth reminding all involved that there was clearly no unmet educational need justifying the BCS charter, though a lot of parent anger and desire to strike back at the district over the 'injustice' of the school closure. A chartering authority that fails to consider the actual needs of students is surely derelict in its legal and moral duties to administrate the spirit and letter of Ed Code to achieve the greatest educational outcomes for public school students. Choice purely for the sake of choice in a high performing district is no legitimate basis for a charter. All reform roads must lead back to actual, demonstrable educational needs.

Somehow, this principle has been lost—or overlooked—by SCCOE. Unmet student need and failed schools are so assumed, so foundational to the spirit of the Charter Act that the Legislature didn't spell them out in letter - though within the body of charter success criteria, there is no doubt about the intent of the legislation. We must bring student need back to the fore, to ensure that Charter law is applied for the benefit of students wherever and whenever it serves its intended purpose - and only there and then. Making incremental improvement to an already high performing system is what LASD parents do every day—from within the system.

You say that BCS "may be providing... the choice of a slightly different educational experience..." Is the bar really so low for you all in SCCOE that this is all that is required for a charter to be considered a success? Seriously?! If this is the sort of charter system that your office believes best serves the educational needs of Santa Clara County, well let me just say I strenuously disagree, and I strenuously implore you to rethink your position as I believe it is misguided.

But if my input and the input of all of the other concerned citizens are not sufficient to sway you, then I feel it is only fair to warn you that we are not going to shy away from seeking mandamus. If wielding the law (or even just the threat of a lawsuit) like a club to get their way works for BCS... well two can play at that game. Someone needs to hold your office accountable for your actions (or lack thereof). Expediency is no longer an option. I really hope you SCCOE wakes up in time and see that before things get too ugly.

Respectfully,
·Dave Cortright

---

From: Charles Weis 
To: Dave Cortright
Cc: Lucretia Peebles ; Cary Dritz 
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2012 1:19 PM
Subject: RE: What is your definition of "academically low achieving pupil" as used in CA Ed. Code 47601(b)?

Dear Mr. Cortright,

I have written to you below following each of your questions in an attempt to clarify my understanding of Charter Schools and Charter School law (my responses are in red italicized print). The responses below are my own and do not necessarily represent those of individual Santa Clara County Board of Education members or the Board in its entirety.

---

...

For reference, here is CA Ed. Code Section 47601 and 47601(b):

47601.

It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this part, to provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils, and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently from the existing school district structure, as a method to accomplish all of the following:

...

(b) Increase learning opportunities for all pupils, with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for pupils who are identified as academically low achieving.

As I've stated before, I believe this is the single piece of charter law that BCS has been most egregiously violating, and you have been egregiously failing to enforce. But perhaps the problem lies in our different interpretations of term academically low achieving pupil. So I ask you: what definition are you using for the term academically low achieving pupil?

I do not believe that “the problem lies in our different interpretations of the term academically low achieving” as you assert. I believe that you may be misinterpreting the power, purpose and intent of language in the law. The section of Education Code 47601 that you cite above is “intent language.” To my understanding, intent language is only used to interpret the law when the language of the law is ambiguous. In my opinion, the language of the law is not ambiguous on this subject. The authors of this section of code intended to “increase learning opportunities for all pupils” and to provide “emphasis on pupils who are identified as academically low achieving.” The core of increasing learning opportunities is providing choices to parents for their children. The law does not say that all charters must focus on pupils who are academically low achieving. This preference is operationalized in the section of code (47605 (3) (h) see actual language of the law below) that requires authorizing agencies to “give preference to Charter petitions that serve academically low achieving students. As you may know, Charters are legally operating in California that serve academically and artistically gifted students as well as under-performing students.

EC 47605 (3)(h) In reviewing petitions for the establishment of charter schools within the school district, the governing board of the school district shall give preference to petitions that demonstrate the capability to provide comprehensive learning experiences to pupils identified by the petitioner or petitioners as academically low achieving pursuant to the standards established by the department under Section 54032 as it read prior to July 19, 2006.

What metrics are you using to measure which students in the district are identified as academically low achieving?

I define academically low achieving as students scoring in deciles 1 though 3 on the California Standards Tests.

And how is BCS using that data to place a "special emphasis on expanded learning experiences" for them?

As I see it, BCS may be providing “expanded learning opportunities” for all students by providing the option or choice of a slightly different educational experience from that of the local school districts.

Bullis Charter School's admissions discrimination violates the civil rights of ~85% of LASD students

From: Dave Cortright
To: Joseph Di Salvo; Michael Chang; Anna Song; Grace Mah; Julia Hoover-Smoot; Leon Beauchman; Craig Mann 
Cc: Charles Weis; Cary Dritz; Lucretia Peebles; Greta Hansen 
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2012 7:44 AM
Subject: Bullis Charter School's admissions discrimination violates the civil rights of ~85% of LASD students

Members of Santa Clara County Board of Education,

From a memo written by Cary Dritz dated April 4th, 2012 titled Disclosure and First Reading of the Santa Clara County Office of Education and Bullis Charter School Contract for the period July 1, 2012 - June 30, 2017:

III. Attendance Preferences

The concern is that Bullis has an enrollment preference for the Bullis-Purissima Elementary School attendance area that may hinder Bullis from achieving the required racial and ethnic balance "reflective of the general population residing within the territorial jurisdiction" (Education Code § 47605 (b) (G)) of the Los Altos School District.

a. The Bullis Board rejected the proposal, choosing not to make a material revision to the charter petition that was approved by the County Board on October 5,2011.

This falsely implies that there is only one concern with the "enrollment preference" (let's not euphemize; it is quite plainly enrollment discrimination). Racial and ethnic balance is certainly a concern, but it secondary to the biggest one: Bullis Charter School's admissions discrimination violates the civil rights of ~85% of LASD students.

There are two types of curricula available to students within LASD: the one offered by the traditional schools, and the one offered by BCS. Currently every student in the district has equal opportunity to partake in the LASD curriculum. While there are some differences among the seven elementary schools in the district, they are minor. LASD prides itself on the consistency of curriculum and performance across all of its schools. (Compare this to districts such as Cupertino where schools like Nimitz and De Vargas perform significantly worse than their peers.) Every student in LASD is guaranteed a spot at one of the traditional schools if he/she wants it. Equal opportunity for all.

However with the BCS curriculum, students do not have equal opportunity to partake. Half of the slots are currently reserved for kids who happen to reside in one small section of the district (one old attendance area, which covers roughly 15% of the students). Incidentally, this area is the wealthiest part of the district. So 15% of the students are allotted 50% of the BCS slots, while the remaining 85%—which includes the vast majority of special needs, ELLs, low SES, and academically low achieving students—vie for the remainder of the slots.

Zhiqi Zuo—concerned parent and statistics savant—analyzed the data from the most recent BCS enrollment lottery, and here is what he posted to the LASD Voices Facebook group on February 26 at 1:49pm:

The ratio, between the BCS students from the preference area and "elsewhere" in the district, is about 3:7.

The total number of students from preference area is (very) roughly:

(((465-33 out-district)=432)*30%) at BCS+ 324 at Gardner) = 454 students.

The total number of students from elsewhere is 4,384+432-454=4,364. Ratio between them is roughly 1:9.6.

http://www.bullischarterschool.com/cms/lib6/CA01001253/Centricity/Domain/39/2012-13PrelimOffer.pdf

The preference area is favored by 9.6/7*3 or about 4.1:1.

The kindergarten application lottery favored the preference area by 93/18 or about 5:1.

This is a very real problem. There are families who live outside the geographic preference area who's children are not thriving in the LASD curriculum. BCS is an alternative public curriculum that could be a much better fit. And yet they do not have equal access to it. Some apply and don't get in. Others don't even bother applying as they feel the odds are too low to waste the time and effort. And any one of those families would have a very solid case should they decide to retain the services of even the most mediocre of civil rights attorneys.

And here is the kicker: not only is there inequality in the ability for families to choose between public school curricula in LASD, but the inequality it is skewed so that the families from the wealthiest section have the most opportunity to choose. This is exactly why the words "elitest" and "boutique" are used often when describing Bullis Charter School.

So back to the memo. It states: "The Bullis Board rejected the proposal" to drop the admissions discrimination from their charter. Of course they did. They built their elitest charter school specifically for the families in Los Altos Hills who felt spurned by the closure of Bullis-Purissima. And since then they have already conceded half of the slots to kids outside their area (which I'm sure they are already none too pleased about). Of course they don't want to erode that exclusivity any more.

But it isn't up to them, is it? It's up to you. You are the chartering authority. You have the power to require them to make this material revision to their charter petition. And you have the responsibility to do so. You have a responsibility to the 85% of the students in LASD who do not have equal choice in public education. Please do the right thing: remove the admissions discrimination and give equal opportunity to attend BCS' alternate curriculum to all students in LASD.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I'm am always available for questions and follow up.

Respectfully,
·Dave Cortright

The EPA should strongly recommend that all school cafeterias go vegan

The EPA is working on guidelines to help K-12 schools implement environmental health programs. Here is the letter I wrote to them. If you feel strongly enough about this issue, please write your own letter to them. I'd be very happy if it mirrored my views. :-)

---

 

The policy that would have the biggest positive impact on the environment would be to strongly encourage or even require schools who receive federal funds to implement a vegan school lunch program.

From Livestock's Long Shadow, a report from the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization: "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity."

Vegetarian diets are more healthful than those containing meat & dairy. And it will set a great example and pattern that these children will continue for the rest of their lives. From the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine web site: "Children raised on fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes grow up to be slimmer and healthier and even live longer than their meat-eating friends. It is much easier to build a nutritious diet from plant foods than from animal products, which contain saturated fat, cholesterol, and other substances that growing children can do without. As for essential nutrients, plant foods are the preferred source because they provide sufficient energy and protein packaged with other health-promoting nutrients such as fiber, antioxidant vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals."

Even if going 100% vegan is too extreme, let me strongly encourage you to consider at least recommending that schools offer a vegan option at every meal. And even better would be to join the growing community of people and organizations who observe Meatless Mondays, where the entire menu is vegan one day per week.

I could go on with further reasons and evidence to back it up, but I think you get the basic gist. If you do have any other questions or want to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. I'd be happy to help directly, or put you in touch with other organizations and experts who can help you make a rational, evidence-based decision about your stance on school lunches.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to provide you with feedback on this critical issue.

Respectfully,
·Dave Cortright

Please sign up for the LASD Voices mailing list

If you are interested in information on Los Altos School District and Bullis Charter School (and let's face it, if you're reading this, you likely are), then please sign up for the LASD Voices mailing list. The organizers—Michele Sturiale and Molly Black—are both parents and active in the PTA, and they have a unique and valuable viewpoint on the issues. Do not get your information on this important topic from a single source.

Sign up today by sending a blank email message to
LASDvoices-subscribe@yahoogroups.com