Author: lpsf

Is the college algebra requirement a “civil rights issue”? Eloy Ortiz Oakley, Chancellor of California Community Colleges, thinks so. He wants to eliminate the requirement for non-STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) majors to get an AA degree or transfer to a four-year college in California. He said, “If you think about all the underemployed or unemployed Americans in this country who cannot connect to a job in this economy—which is unforgiving of those students who don’t have a credential—the biggest barrier for them is this algebra requirement. It’s what has kept them from achieving a credential.” Currently intermediate algebra is the lowest level of math needed at community colleges to graduate or transfer. Oakley is correct this is a major hurdle for community college students, as it is the single most failed course in community colleges today.

The dismal state of the academic results of the state’s community colleges is hard to overlook. The community college system is not called the Bermuda Triangle of Higher Education without reason. While the rate fluctuates slightly from year to year, currently only 48% graduate from California’s community colleges with an AA or transfer to four-year school within six years. According to a report entitled “Vision for Success,” prepared for and adopted by the California community college system’s Board of Governors recently, even the 48% figure is overstated because it doesn’t include students who earned less than six units or did not even attempt to take a math or English course within 3 years of entering the system. Another problem pointed out by the report is that students often accumulate far more course units than they need to graduate, earn a certificate, or transfer to a four-year college. While 60 units is generally all that is needed to move on, currently the average number of units a community college student accumulates is 87 units. While students linger in community colleges for no useful reason, the report states that they “crowd out or slow down the trajectory of other students who need these same courses for reaching their own educational goals.” Wasn’t community college supposed to be a two-year program? OK, some people have to work full or part-time while they attend school, so it’s understandable that they might take longer, but six years and less than 50% graduating?

So, how to improve the outcome for the students? The educators could try to teach math more effectively—or simply lower the bar. Clearly Oakley is making the case for lowering the standard by getting rid of the algebra requirement. He says, “What we’re saying is we want as rigorous a course as possible to determine a student’s ability to succeed, but it should be relevant to their course of study. There are other math courses that we could introduce that tell us a lot more about our students.” While “rigorous” is a nice soundbite, the educational trend over the years, especially in government schools, has been moving them in and out with a diploma in hand, regardless if the students learned anything. We have to at least sympathize with Oakley on one issue: the academic preparedness of high school graduates entering community colleges is so low that 74% require remedial work. As one community college administrator put it, “Community colleges are open access. Students can come here whether or not we have courses that are appropriate for them. We get students who can’t read. That blows me away! My curriculum is not designed to teach someone how to read.”

With such a daunting job ahead of them, lowering the bar would definitely be a step in the wrong direction. For one thing, college—and all of formal education, for that matter—is supposed to give students the skills to think, and there are some forms of reasoning that may not actually be used on the job but are essential to becoming a critically-thinking adult. A journal article from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience had this to say about the role that algebra plays in the development of abstract mathematical reasoning: “Algebra typically represents the students’ first encounter with abstract mathematical reasoning and it therefore causes significant difficulties for students who still reason concretely…In agreement with previous research, we can conclude that, on average, children at the age of 15-16 transition from using concrete to abstract strategies while solving the algebra problems addressed within the present study.”

Since it is not unreasonable to expect 15 and 16-year-olds to start reasoning abstractly, is there any good reason not to expect the same of community college students? Especially since California taxpayers are paying $9 billion per year—not to mention the parcel taxes imposed by local governments—to sustain such unimpressive results. If the stated purpose of low cost government higher education for all “for the overall betterment of society” is the goal, we would give California’s community colleges a failing grade. And Chancellor Oakley’s proposal would sink the system to a new low.

For a change, we have something good to report: SB 562, The Healthy California Act, a bill proposed to make single-payer healthcare a reality in California, was shelved by Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon on June 23 when he decided that the proposed bill will remain in the Assembly Rules Committee until further notice. The bill, which had passed the State Senate by a vote of 23-14, was supported by San Francisco politicians Scott Wiener and David Chiu (no surprise). Rendon, himself an advocate for single-payer, was nevertheless apprehensive about the bill and noted, “It certainly wasn’t a bill. There was absolutely no funding attached to a $400 billion proposal, no service delivery mechanism.” For his hesitation to allow the Assembly to vote on the bill and cave in to the powerful California Nurses Association, Rendon received death threats and a cartoon was posted with a California bear being stabbed in the back with a butcher knife that said “Rendon.” So much for civility on the left.

SB 562 would have abolished voluntary health care coverage for all 39 million Californians, and the moment such a system would have gone into effect, all voluntary (private) health plans, Medicare, Medi-Cal, and Covered California would be out the window. One-size-fits-all to be serviced by a government-run bureaucracy with unelected appointees who would make all the decisions about health care services and prices. Since 18% of California’s workforce currently works in the health care industry, SB 562 would have increased the unemployment rate in California immediately, not to mention the doctors and health care professionals who would have left the state to seek greener pastures elsewhere. The proponents of SB 562 proclaimed, “Californians can choose their doctors from a full list of health care providers, not a narrow network chosen by insurance companies.” Everything would be completely covered, including dental, vision, reproductive services, and mental health services. There would have been no co-pays, no deductibles, no premiums, and no medical forms to fill out—everything would have been completely and unconditionally “free.”

Well, not exactly. How would such a massive changeover from a mostly voluntary system to complete government monopoly been paid for? The estimate ranged from the optimistic $331 billion per year from the Californian Nurses Association to the more realistic $400 billion per year from the Senate Appropriations Committee. Three revenue sources were mentioned most often regarding SB 562: an additional 15% payroll tax, an additional sales tax of 2.3%, and a gross receipts tax of 2.3% of all revenue over $2 million. In addition to increasing the payroll tax on employees and employers, the proposed payroll tax increase would have had no cap on it, unlike Social Security, disability insurance, and unemployment insurance, which are currently capped at various levels. In addition, even though the proposed single-payer system would have abolished Medicare, both employees and employers would have continued to pay for it anyway. As for the proposed sales tax increase over what is already the highest state sales tax in the country, the bill’s proponents wanted to add many services to this increase, so it would no longer just be physical goods that would be subject to sales/use tax in California. The plan’s proponents preferred the gross receipts tax because “it does not discriminate in its impact between labor-intensive and capital-intensive firms” (equal misery for all), but a gross receipts tax is less popular these days as a tax funding mechanism and several states have repealed their gross receipt taxes in recent years, and those that retain them have very low rates, mostly way under 1%. Oregon voters rejected a gross receipts tax of 2.5% last year by over 19 percentage points, so while Bay Area voters would easily approve a 2.3% gross receipts tax, statewide it would likely fail. Any way you cut it, and whichever extraction method the politicians use, including a combination of all three taxes, this “free” medical care will be anything but.

The proponents of single-payer point to the savings that would result from California employers just switching from paying insurance companies to paying the state in taxes. Furthermore, they say SB 562 would have cut overall state spending on healthcare by 18%. They say that California businesses that currently have health plans for their employees would see a decline in their payroll costs of 22% for small businesses and 13% for medium-size businesses. They say that single-payer will cut costs through better administration and lower drug prescription costs. They point to the purported lower administrative costs of Medicare (the closest thing we have to single-payer right now) as “proof” that there are huge savings to be gained by single-payer. Administrative costs in the voluntary sector have been estimated at 11-14% of premiums while Medicare’s administrative costs are estimated at 3%. The reasons cited for the higher voluntary insurance companies’ expenditures are the superior efficiency of government, voluntary insurance companies’ charges on marketing, efforts to deny claims, unrestrained profit, and higher executive salaries. Superior efficiency of government—we won’t touch that one! The problem here is that they aren’t comparing apples to apples. Medicare administrative costs are being measured as a percentage of total costs, and with Medicare patients being older, disabled, and generally with more health problems than the general population, it stands to reason that Medicare administrative costs are going to be lower because of the much larger denominator. Furthermore, voluntary insurance companies provide disease management services for patients with chronic conditions and on-call nurses for patients to consult by phone, and most states impose a premium tax on health insurers—obviously Medicare is exempt—and both of these extra costs count as “administrative” costs. Also, other government agencies help administer Medicare: the IRS collects the taxes, the Social Security Administration helps collect some of the premiums paid by the beneficiaries, and the Department of Health & Human Services helps to arrange accounting, auditing, fraud control, and marketing; voluntary insurance companies do not have this off-budget help. Lastly, denying claims is a legitimate part of the health insurance industry where fraud is concerned, and while voluntary insurance companies do spend more money combating fraud than Medicare, is that so terrible? Fraud prevention is said to return $15 back for every dollar spent, so if voluntary insurance companies spend more, that benefits their customers but makes their administrative costs look higher than Medicare’s. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, “The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services estimated that about $9.8 billion in erroneous payments were made in the fee-for-service program in 2007, a figure more than double what CMS spent for claims processing and review activities. In Medicare Advantage, CMS estimates that erroneous payments equaled $6.8 billion in 2006, or approximately 10.6% of payments…The significant size of Medicare’s erroneous payments suggests that the program’s low administrative costs may come at a price.” If you actually compare the administrative costs of Medicare versus voluntary insurance on a per-person basis, rather than as a percentage, the “efficiency” of the government-run program doesn’t look so great. In fact, in 2005 it was $453 per beneficiary for voluntary insurance companies and $509 per beneficiary paid by Medicare—and that’s with all the differences noted above.

Finally, no discussion of SB 562’s problems would be complete without mention of the legendary wait times experienced by Canadian residents in their single-payer system that at least allows some voluntary insurance in some areas. In 2004 Canadian provincial governments committed to a 10-year plan to reduce waiting times in 5 primary areas: cardiac care, cancer care, diagnostic imaging, joint replacement, and sight restoration. Ten years—and many tax dollars—later Canadian residents have seen little improvement in the wait times. But according to the Wait Time Alliance, an organization formed by Canadian doctors in 2004, “Don’t forget to congratulate your elected representatives and health care providers when you have received timely access to care!” As for the Veterans Administration scandal in Phoenix, the secret waiting time list, and the 40 (at least) deaths caused by the bureaucratic nightmare of single-payer in action, we won’t even go there.

As usual, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors feels the need to act like our mothers and fathers. Recently they voted unanimously to ban the sale of flavored nicotine-based liquid used in e-cigarettes and flavored tobacco products in San Francisco. The justification of the ban is that nicotine masked in fruity flavors like cotton candy, banana cream, mint, and other flavors entices children into the sordid life of nicotine addiction. Another “Save The Children” law. Supervisor Malia Cohen, who represents the historically black Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood, also doesn’t think too highly of the intelligence of adults in black neighborhoods and the LGBT community since she said, “Big Tobacco loves vulnerable populations. They advertise 10 times more in black neighborhoods, and market gummy bears and cotton candy flavors near schools and in the LGBT community.” These adults apparently must be treated and “protected” like children too.

What do the scientists have to say about vaping? Regardless of what the Board of Supervisors proclaims, as with so many issues, there is no consensus. The pro-vaping scientists say the benefits of vaping as a no-smoking aid outweigh potential harms. They point to the estimated 480,000 deaths in the US annually attributed to smoking and note that if vaping can help reduce the horrendous damage of cigarette smoke, then the government should not be making it harder to obtain such products. They point out that nicotine, while powerfully addictive and present in both tobacco and e-cigarettes, is not the cause of cancer, lung disease, or vascular disease—rather, it’s the combustion products of smoke that cause all the health problems. On the other side, the anti-vaping scientists say studies show that folks using e-cigarettes were less likely to quit smoking tobacco and most e-cigarette users continue to smoke tobacco. The point out that the e-cigarette market has evolved quickly in recent years, and most of the earlier studies were on first-generation products, while many of the products available today have not been studied enough. They concede that while some of the newer vaping products may deliver nicotine more efficiently than the earlier products, which should make them better quitting tools, they also generate more heat and produce more chemicals and fine particles, which could create new health problems. Clearly, the science is not settled on this issue yet.

It’s also notable that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report recently that found the number of high school and middle school students using e-cigarettes dropped from 3 million in 2015 to 2.2 million in 2016. The CDC also estimated that tobacco use among high school and middle schoolers showed a similar drop from 4.7 million in 2015 to 3.9 million in 2016. But even this trend in the healthier direction was not good enough for the Board of Supervisors.

Then there’s the issue of the ban hurting San Francisco small businesses, which the Board proclaims to champion but passes one ordinance and mandate after another which hurt mom and pop stores. Small businesses complained that flavored tobacco products are anchor products that bring folks in to their stores, and it’s hard enough trying to compete with big-box stores like Safeway and Walgreen’s, not to mention online retailers, without losing up to 15% of your sales due to the ban. Customers can just as easily buy the banned flavors in nearby cities or simply order them online and have them delivered to their San Francisco residences. Not to worry though, promises Cohen—government will come charging to the rescue: she said that she would support increased city funding to “help” small stores adjust their business models under the Healthy Food Retail program. Hmm… we pass that a law that creates a new problem, but we will spend hard-earned taxpayer money to try and solve the problem we created with another useless bureaucrat’s “program.”

Of course none of this should matter regarding “protecting” the kids, since just last year, the Board of Supervisors passed a law banning the sale of all tobacco products (including e-cigarettes) to anyone under 21. Since we know how effective such ridiculous laws are—as none of us has ever seen anyone under 21 smoking since the law went into effect!—just who were the supervisors protecting when they passed this latest ban? Apparently the work of The Nanny State will never be done.

“From the first day of the first congress at the moment of the passage of the first law, we became weaker. The extra-large B. Franklin said it well that you can test the strength of a society by the paucity of the pages in its book of laws. Today we are surrounded by laws—Tax Law, civil law, criminal law, Statutes, and Bills. Laws that make large and small criminals of us all. And sometimes just doin’ something that you like to do that hurts no one is also criminal, or at least strongly discouraged. Seems we can’t be trusted to live well and safely on our own. On our own we would all probably descend quickly into mayhem, cannibalism, and ultimately shoplifting and jaywalking. If only we could all be trusted. It is good to have such wise fathers looking out for us… Isn’t it…? Whatever.”

At times, it seems like the busybodies at City Hall and in Sacramento are so intent in running our lives that the American spirit of personal freedom, self-reliance, adulthood, and entrepreneurship is sadly disappearing, at least in the Bay Area. So we were pleasantly surprised to run into the quote above from a local business that truly embodies the liberty-leaning spirit that we Libertarians love—Lagunitas Brewing, which is based in Petaluma.

The company has an interesting history, not just because it started out as a typical family business in someone’s kitchen and now has annual sales of $40 million and over 600 employees and sells its products in 35 states, but because of its irreverent attitude toward The Nanny State. It was such an attitude that got the company in hot water with the State of California in 2005. The ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control) got wind of the fact that the company was allowing pot consumption on its premises, so it conducted a sting undercover operation at Lagunitas for 8 weeks to nab someone—anyone—to send a message. As founder Tony Magee put it, “Once in a while, God—the ABC—drops in and tells you he’s in charge.” The ABC was trying to catch anyone selling pot, but in the jovial and friendly spirit of the weekly beer tastings, they had no luck because folks were trying to share it, not sell it. Frustrated, the ABC finally conducted a St. Patrick’s Day “Massacre” on Thursday, March 17, 2005, complete with handcuffs, badges, what seemed like every police car in Petaluma blocking all roads to and from the brewery according to witnesses, and cops in riot gear mode. In the end, three people were cited (two for possession of marijuana and one for possession for sale), but all charges against the three were dropped after the big hullabaloo. However, Lagunitas was charged with being in violation of Section 24200 of California’s Business & Professions Code, otherwise known as “Disorderly House” Law, which is a facility that “disturbs the neighborhood or is maintained for purposes which are injurious to the public morals, health, convenience or safety.” The ABC did suspend Lagunitas’ license to sell beer for 20 days and placed the company on one year’s probation, so that did manage to disrupt the business and threaten all the employees’ livelihoods for a short while. One has to wonder: is crime so low in Petaluma that the police had no real crimes to tend to like murder, assault, and break-ins instead of harassing a small business and its patrons who were bothering no one?

We are happy to report that not only is the company thriving and growing, but again in the truly American spirit of skepticism towards overbearing government, Lagunitas had the final word on the incident. In 2006 it released a seasonal beer with the name of Undercover Investigation Shut-Down Ale, which has proven to be quite popular. Furthermore, taking a philosophical jab at the ABC for its heavy handedness, Magee designed a label aptly for the ale. The ABC agent who returned the suspended license to Lagunitas was asked by one of its employees what the agent (as a child) had wanted to be when he grew up, rather than harassing small businesses and threatening livelihoods, and the agent replied, “An astronaut.” The label for Undercover Investigation Shut-Down Ale says, “Especially bitter ale in dedication to all the world’s would-be astronauts.”

To support this liberty-leaning business which embodies the Live And Let Live spirit that Libertarians love—and put our money where our mouth is—the LPSF will be hosting a strictly social get-together at Lagunitas in Ghirardelli Square Beer Garden in the upcoming weeks. The pop-up tent is a summertime experiment in San Francisco only open between noon and 7:00 PM Thursdays through Sundays. Let’s help to make this experiment a success for a company that celebrates the original spirit of the holiday that just passed last week that most folks have forgotten the true meaning of (Independence Day). The details of the date and time of our social will be forthcoming. Please join us for lively spirits and conversation!

Is there no limit to the hypocrisy spouted by our local politicians? Did you read about the recent resolutions introduced by Supervisor Aaron Peskin at both the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA), which he chairs, and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors calling on state legislators to give government officials the right to review the confidential business data of Uber and Lyft? The reason for this nosiness is because the rideshare companies are allegedly causing traffic congestion in The City. The resolution, which was authored by Peskin and co-sponsored at the Board of Supervisors by Supervisor Sandra Fewer, argues that access to the trip data is necessary so government bureaucrats can study it and figure out what to do about traffic congestion. Peskin is unhappy that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has the data from Uber and Lyft but will not share it with the public or the bureaucrats. According to Mayor Lee, “I think asking for data is good, and that data should inform us how to relieve that (traffic) congestion.”

In the first place, while 100% transparency is necessary for good government, in the voluntary economy, its’s a completely different matter. In order for healthy competition to occur between firms in the same industry, companies’ business data should be kept confidential and regarded as sacred and proprietary—and definitely none of the government’s business. The CPUC granted confidentiality of trip data to Uber and Lyft so each company would not get a competitive edge on the other. “Asking” for data might sound harmless, but where government officials are involved, they “ask” first, then demand, and then quickly move on to threats, fines, and penalties the moment compliance doesn’t occur.

Secondly, if the politicians are that concerned about the gridlock occurring in The City, they need to look at their own programs rather than looking for scapegoats. With the relentless rolling out of Plan Bay Area, it should be rather obvious that the continual removing of traffic lanes and parking spaces increases gridlock. For years now, the streets in one neighborhood after another are being quietly redesigned, and the end results are always less driving lanes for motorists and more bike lanes for bicyclists, along with bulb outs and wider sidewalks for pedestrians. The recent construction began a few months ago on Van Ness Avenue between Mission and Lombard to build bus traffic lanes in the middle of Highway 101 will probably improve mass transit—though no guarantee with the ever- unreliable MUNI—along that corridor. However, this will come at a cost of removing 2 out of 6 lanes of traffic for passenger cars. Where will the cars go? They’re not going to magically disappear, as the bureaucrats hope. Most likely they will end up on other less crowded streets or possibly that other major thoroughfare through The City—19th Avenue, which already handles thousands of cars every day. As anyone who ever attended Plan Bay Area public hearings for “input” can testify, the outcomes were pre-determined and contrary viewpoints are politely listened to—and then ignored. The fact of the matter is that the politicians and their cronies decided years ago that people should give up their cars and walk, ride, or take public transit. If a little nudging won’t do it, then perhaps making driving in The City more miserable might do the trick. As always, this is all by design.

While it should come as no surprise to politicians why traffic is getting worse, something else irks them no end. They not only prefer that folks give up riding in their own cars—they don’t want people riding in any cars. Uber and Lyft have proven to be wildly popular with consumers who need to get around, much to the dismay of the politicians. Hence the endless “requests” for driver data from the ridesharing companies. Peskin has said that transportation officials from the SFMTA and the SFCTA believe the surge of Uber and Lyft drivers may be impacting the congestion but “we need to back up the anecdotal experiences citywide.” The real motivation behind this sudden concern about traffic is contained in Peskin’s resolution as he cites a drop in BART ridership to SFO due to Uber and Lyft and also that having ridesharing companies draws people away from public transportation in general. Imagine that! Folks having access to all this wonderful government transportation but still preferring to use evil private (voluntary) services instead. Peskin and his henchmen need to get hold of more data to stop this outrage!

As we approach Tax Day, when millions of taxpayers deal with our convoluted tax laws, many San Francisco parents have more than taxes on their minds. This is the time of year when the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) mails out the school assignment letters to anxious parents awaiting the results of the government school lottery system. Many a hope realized or dashed rests on that single envelope received in the mail from the school district. This is not just an esoteric issue, but one that strikes at the core of things—the family budget. If the parents are lucky and get assigned to one of their schools of choice, they will save anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000 per year per child if they send their children to government schools.

And yet, despite the huge financial benefit of sending their kids to government schools, why do so many San Francisco parents choose private schools? Why is the percentage of families with school-age children choosing private schools over government schools so much higher in San Francisco (36%) than statewide (9%) or even a major city like New York (20%)? What factors are at work here that would turn off folks who would prefer not to have their kids in elitist schools for the rich? Why are new private schools popping up like wildflowers in San Francisco, of all places?

These are the private schools that have opened in San Francisco in the last 8 years: Proof School (7th – 12th grades and $35,000/year), Golden Bridge School (K-8 and $13,000/year), Alt School (K-8 and $19,100/year), LePort School (Pre-K to 8), Presidio Knolls (K-8 and $23,500/year), Brightworks (K-8 and $23,920/year), La Scuola (K-8 and $25,000/year), San Francisco Schoolhouse (K-8 and $10,000/year), Alta Vista (K-8 and $22,000/year), Marin Prep (K-8 and $22,070/year), Stratford School (K-8 and $16,220/year), and Millennium School (6th – 8th grades and $31,000/year). We’ll add in Live Oaks (K-8 and $23,500/year), which has been around for ages but is now doubling enrollment “to meet increasing demand” and dubs itself “The private school for public school parents.” Just why is there so much demand?

No issue has been more contentious in recent years than how the SFUSD has handled the new Common Core mathematics curriculum. Algebra has been taught in middle school for ages, but because so many San Francisco middle schoolers have done so poorly at it, it is not even taught until high school anymore. Parents whose children didn’t do well with Algebra are OK with postponing it until the 9th grade, but for families eyeing college and looking ahead, this is a complete disaster. For one thing, the bright kids who are math proficient are held back from moving on to the next level and are basically “doing time” until high school. Furthermore, they are encouraged to help tutor their struggling contemporaries. While there is merit in picking up teaching experience as a middle school student and most San Francisco parents are not philosophically opposed to the compassionate angle of helping those less able than themselves, the cold hard fact is that it’s a competitive world out there and wasting a year in middle school will do nothing to improve the able students’ chances of getting into the college of their choice. Not to mention that if a student doesn’t take Algebra until the 9th grade, he/she is now a year behind in mathematics and won’t get to Calculus until the senior year, but most colleges making their decisions for admissions look at the junior year and before, so a Calculus course taken so late will put all such students at risk. True, parents who can afford it, can and will send their kids for private tutoring to catch up on their math skills, but what about those parents who can’t afford to pay for supplemental courses to make up for lost time? Summer school is often mentioned as an option, but for a school district that squanders its money on diversity training and environmental gardens, don’t count on the funding to be there for summer school if high school students start failing the “compression” option (take two difficult mathematics courses in either the junior or senior year to make it through the full Calculus sequence) chosen by the school district.

Even with Common Core, there were other options for teaching math, and the school district could have complied with the curriculum without writing off the most able students. It could have easily supported numerous high-level demanding magnet schools devoted to math and science for those who wanted them, but instead it quietly did away with all the honors math programs in the schools that did offer it. Indeed not very smart for a city full of high tech workers whose offspring might have innate math and science abilities in their genes. Furthermore, rather than force all 8th graders to wait until high school to take Algebra, why didn’t they show enough flexibility in their approach to allow those more advanced students to take it in the 8th grade? Just because so many of the students were so behind in their math skills, does that mean that a one-size-fits-all approach is best for everyone? Is it any wonder that several of the new schools listed above are geared toward accelerated learners with more emphasis on math and science?

The real issue here is the attitude and focus of the SFUSD. It’s all about equity and fairness and a matter of social justice. Why should some students do better than others just because they come from richer homes or more nurturing families? The practice of tracking and segregating students based on ability is a no-no because it might make the less able students feel like failures. We all know that government schools, by law, must accommodate all children once they become of school age, so clearly that will include many children from low socioeconomic backgrounds and many children learning English as a second language. That poses many challenges for government schools and explains why their academic scores can never compete with private schools. Nevertheless why ignore the bright ones and deny them the education they deserve? This is a complete slap in the face to the more financially comfortable families that pay the property taxes that fund the government schools and then have the GATE and honors programs discreetly ended for their children? One parent who toured a government school for her 4-year old who could already read was told that she could tutor other students still learning to read; she ended up in a private school because her mother felt there would be very little challenge for her with so few children at her level. Another parent reported that when her daughter applied at Lowell, the application was filled with an unsettling emphasis on hard luck life experiences, as if she were applying for disability. She also noted that when she toured another government school and asked about challenging her daughter with math, the teacher looked down her nose superiorly and informed her that it was wrong to give any child any opportunity all children didn’t receive and she would never let any kid do more advanced work than the others. That would be reason enough to pass up that school and find out why that teacher wasn’t fired right on the spot.

We will leave the last word about the dismal state of government schools to outspoken filmmaker Michael Moore, of all people. If anyone should be for government schools, it ought to be him, but he chose to put his daughter in a private school. When asked why, he said, “Our daughter is not the one to be sacrificed to make things better.”