| ||||
![]() |
Political Philosophy for Pamela CoxsonCandidate for |
![]() |
![]() Make Neighborhood Schools our First Priority First and foremost, we must support and strengthen our neighborhood schools. It is great to have choices but the most important choice that should be available to every San Francisco child is a good neighborhood school. Can every San Francisco School be a good school? Of course! Will families choose a good neighborhood school over a fancier "alternative"? They have and they will. Strong Academic Programs and High Expectations for All Students We have strong and sophisticated academic programs in our schools, but often we fail to provide essential support for these programs -- especially in the schools that serve the most disadvantaged students. Let's take Mathland for example. As a math volunteer, I saw capable teachers abandon the Mathland curriculum because they did not have the right materials, the time, or the opportunity to develop the lessons. In my first year as a math volunteer I came in on the weekends to help plan lessons. In my second year, teachers were locked out on weekends. What help should have been available? Grade level teacher planning times; math/science resource materials and/or personnel; mentor teachers. We need to insist on full support for all academic programs. School-Community Ties We all know that education does not take place in a vacuum. The involvement of parents and the community are essential elements. Strengthening neighborhood schools will make it easier to build strong community ties. In schools with geographically scattered populations, it is even more important to build a sense of community and to draw on support from many different community elements -- extended families, churches, social and recreational organization, neighbors and friends. We need significant teacher, parent and student involvement in school decision making. Fiscal Responsibility We need to spend our scarce public education dollars wisely. California schools once boasted one of the highest per student expenditures in the U.S. Now we are among the lowest. While it is important to press our case for more support with the legislature and the electorate, we must insist that our available resources are not squandered. We have paid out large sums to consultants - such as Educational Partners - but where is the accountability? We have started programs and then not followed them through to completion. Other school district administrations (notably Oakland) are coming under increasing scrutiny for the revolving door between the administration and the contractor-service industry. We, too, need to audit and overhaul our administrative superstructure. Commercial-Free Education On television, radio, magazines and on the streets, our children are subject to intense pressures to consume -- from high priced shoes, clothes and toys to unhealthy food and tobacco products. Increasingly, corporations are pursuing opportunities to make their product pitches to our children at our schools. We must insist on keeping our schools and their immediate environment free of advertisements. Yes to Charter Schools -- No to Privatization Charter schools provide a flexible framework for experimenting with different educational models. For the most part, these schools are not subject to provisions of the state educational code. This almost total lack of regulation lends flexibility, but also significant potential for abuse. As it stands now, it is very easy for a charter school to start up and it is very difficult to cancel a charter. We should adopt guidelines for acceptance of charters that will increase their probability of success and decrease the probability that the system will be abused. We should insure that charter proposals are truly generated and supported by teachers and parents. We should not allow for-profit operation of charters. Edison: A Case Study of What is Wrong in our School District Today Edison Elementary School was reconstituted in 1995. A string of inexperienced principals came and went -- victims of their own inexperience and of inadequate support from the School District. Parents who put together a list of problems and suggestions for solutions were ignored. Neighbors who wanted to bring preschool parents in for visits were discouraged from doing so -- the school, we were told, had too many problems to be seen. Behind the scenes, the superintendent had other plans. Edison had been offered to a privately held New York corporation, the Edison Project (name similarity is only coincidence), to be managed for profit. This corporation was selected because a local billionaire whose son is an Edison Project investor offered a million dollars in start up money. Teachers and parents were told of the Edison Project and asked to support its bid for a charter in early April, just days before the proposal was turned in to the School Board for approval. Signatures (required for a charter proposal) were gathered with no opportunity for discussion. No alternative was offered or discussed. Those who were willing to support the proposal were welcomed onto the Edison Project team. Those who expressed concerns were shut out. Lucrative salary opportunities were presented to teachers and staff to get them to sign on. The process was unethical and possibly illegal. Because of this, the charter was rejected by the curriculum subcommittee of the Board which reviews charter proposals. Other Board members were heavily lobbied by the superintendent and the corporation. In the last Board meeting of the year, when the subcommittee findings were to have their second reading and a vote, the superintendent included an item in the consent calendar calling for approval of the charter. Consent items can be discussed but do not need a second reading -- they are intended only for routine matters before the Board. The charter was approved in a series of questionable maneuvers that the District's attorneys are still trying to rationalize. As a result, a San Francisco neighborhood school has become a corporate profit-making venture. We deserve better than this! |
Next Page:
Full Biography
Candidate Page
|| This Race
November 1998 Home (Ballot Lookup)
|| About Smart Voter
Created from information supplied by the candidate: October 7, 1998 12:11
Smart Voter '98 <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © 1998
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor
opposes candidates for public office or political parties.