That was quite an interesting commentary from Greg Stratton this morning in the Star. He’ll probably be taken out and shot for airing this kind of information. How many of you realized that there were not enough science sections? How much science should a kid be taking to get into a top-100 university? How many other classes are your kids not able to take if they want to? How do you know that?

I am confused. Was this a matter of students not being able to take the classes or being able to choose not to? That is an important distinction for me.

Greg will have to speak to that but what he wrote was "Right now, we couldn't offer all of the eighth-graders a full year of science if they wanted it." My interpretation is that if every kid in a given school asked to take a science class, many would be out of luck because there are not enough teachers. How would you feel if one day your kid came home from school and told you that he/she had gone to a counselor to add a science class and was told that all the classes were filled? What would you do then?

That would be bad. But it misses the point. Greg said "If". What do we do when students won't sign up for the classes they need to go to the UC or CSU. Is that a school system failure?

If we are arguing there isn't enough classrooms for students that don't want the class and we can't force them, doesn't that sound silly?

We also don't have enough fields if every student that could signed by for athletics. They should give it a try at least once. But they won't and we currently are trying to make them. Does that mean we should:

1. Divert resources.
2. Force them to sign up for the courses that they should be signing up for?

To piggy back on the ideas of "Confused," when I was in high school, there were a few times I was told that a class I wanted to take was full. Most were electives, but a few were academic classes. I was called by my counselor the summer before my freshman year and told that I could not take German 1 since it was offered 2nd period (Geometry Honors) or 6th period (Athletics). I was forced to choose a different language because the school did not have enough room.

Now the question is, Am I angry? No. I understand that there are certain times I do not get to take the classes I want (College wasn't that long ago). I made the best of it. I still went directly to a four year UC school, got my undergrad in three years and my Masters of Education (M.Ed.) and single subject teaching credential in one year.

Alan, it sounds like you are depending on luck to get the classes you need. The president on the company I work for has often counseled program managers that "luck is not a strategy."

I agree with Mr. Reimers. It is a sad day when not every student that wants to take German has the chance. I would go to a private school in the area that offers German instead.

But I liked the public school system (hence becomming a teacher. I realized that I could not take German, so I took Spanish instead. Quite honestly I am glad that I did. It was not luck that I got the classes I needed (note the word needed and not wanted). Buena did an excellent job of staggering most of the commonly taken honors/AP classes so that students can take a variety. There was no "luck" involved.

Since my daughter just graduated from Sinaloa, perhaps I can shed a little light on the situation. First, Greg is correct and I am grateful that he has the courage to say it.

My daughter took the science exam BEFORE having 8th grade science since she did not have that class until 2nd semester. This was true for many of the 8th graders - so the test scores will probably be low. It is unfortunate since it impacts the student's placement at high school. The lower scores will also negatively reflect on teachers and administrators who were put into this position by a negligent (as usual) school board and their masters - the teachers union. (One more, of many, example of the union working against their own constituency.)
Thank you, Greg for speaking your mind. It is at least reassuring that 1 member of the school board gets it.

The purpose of the initial staff report was to change the requirement for eigth grade science to a full year and hire the new science teachers that are required. An additional semester of science for half the eigth graders requires another full time teacher for each middle school. So we can't just change the requirement without changing the staff. Middle school science teachers are rare and in demand, so we need to coordinate the change with the hiring.

Any adjustment that changes teaching assignments is difficult. We have to find spots for the teachers that have the existing classes, so this ripples. Even private schools can't handle a big adjustment without planning.

This also brings up a different, though indirectly related issue. Our schools simply don't have enough qualified science and math teachers, with a fifth of the teachers in our math and science classrooms that aren't even minimally qualified to teach those subjects. One common complaint is that the teaching profession doesn't offer competitive salaries as compared to the private sector to attract candidates with the necessary math and science credentials. I agree. If we have a shortage of people then salaries must be attractive to bring qualified people into the teaching profession.

At the same time, the teacher's unions are also at fault for killing any attempts to offer pay differentials for math and science teachers. The unions have continually insisted that compensation be based exclusively on factors such as seniority and education, but without any distinction on the specific type of education and skills. That means that, all other things being equal, a teacher with a liberal arts degree earns the same as a teacher with a degree in computer science, chemistry, or mathematics.

I believe that this type of thinking is contributing to the teacher shortage in these areas. This is a simple issue of supply and demand. Simply put, a person with a chemistry degree has a lot more earning potential in other industries than a person with a liberal arts degree. Whether that is fair or unfair is irrelevant. If our school district needs to hire more chemistry teachers then chemistry teachers should be compensated at a higher rate than other teachers in order to attract them to the profession.

The simple truth is that in any private sector occupation employees compensation is based on the amount of money necessary to attract the required talent. As a result people who have highly technical skills are often compensated at a higher rate than those with less technical skills. When IBM wants to hire more computer programmers they offer competitive wages to attract people with that particular skillset. But in our public education systems we have adopted a very socialistic approach to employee compensation that has contributed to the shortage of qualified teachers.

Forcing MORE rote science testing on middle school kids today is a sure way to guarantee a lack of problem-solving adults tomorrow. We're fast turning a generation of young minds off to learning, even as we bankrupt our classrooms, simply to boost the self esteem of a lot of incompetent politicans in Washington. Anyone that falls for the silly argument that, as a Nation, we're falling behind in Science has been bamboozled. What we're falling behind ALL developed nations in is classroom funding, classroom size and access to an education that encourages cognitive thinking and deductive reasoning.

The problems with our public education systems have nothing to do with funding. There has never been a substantiated correlelation between funding and student performance. Some of the states and school districts with the highest level of per-pupil funding in the nation have some of the worst scores, and vice-versa. The fact is that average per-pupil expenditures for public elemantary and secondary schools almost doubled between 1970 and 2000, after adjusting for inflation (according to U.S. Department of Education statistics).

This continual blaming problems on lack of fuding is, at the very least, a simplistic argument. But more importantly, it isn't even close to accurate. For us to get serious about improving public education we need to start having informed debates on these issues and be willing to address the real issues instead of side-stepping significant problems because of concerns over political correctness or an unwillingness to attack sacred cows. We can no longer allow special interest groups with a vested interest in the status quo to control the discussion, otherwise we will only end up with more of the same. To continue to throw more money at the problem is no different than standing in a bucket while trying to lift yourself up by the handles. No matter how much effort you put into it you'll get the same result, unless you're willing to re-think the solution.

If you leave out increases in Special Ed funding, additional funds for standardized testing, the increased share of the education dollar going to services and facilities costs, debt management and other NON-classroom expenses expenditures haven't gotten close to double. It's a gross distortion of the facts to say different. Yes, we spend more on "public education" today but less on educating our children.

CountyMan, you won't get any disagreement from me that we need to increase classroom funding. You are correct in stating that too many of the dollars in our education budgets are going to things that have nothing to do with educating our children. So it seems that we are in agreement on that point. The real issue is how we address that problem.

My point is that the increases in education funding have been ineffective, in part because the resources don't always get spent in a way that actually improves education. Simply throwing more money into the system isn't going to improve how the money gets spent. I think what we need is more fundamental reform that improves our return on investment. Within the education establishment there is a group-think mentality that seems to blind many of them to real solutions. There is also a lack of political will to stand up to the powerful interests that are resistant to any kind of substantial change.

We agree about the need for another solution. I KNOW that adding another semester of remembering answers so that a 12 year old can score high on a test designed to make voters feel good is NOT the right solution. In fact it will compund the many problems we already face in giving every child access to a broad educational experience.

I think the issue over testing is more symptomatic of the problem. I've heard lots of educators complain about having to teach to the test, and for the most part that seems to be what is going on. Again, I will agree with you on this issue. Having students go through repetative drills until they can memorize answers to a standardized test is hardly the way we should be educating our children. And to gut other programs, such as music, science, and physical education so that students can spend more time cramming for math and english tests is self-defeating.

But in the larger context the real problem is not the test but the poor standards that allow students to progress without first mastering basic skills. It is troubling that we have 10% of our graduating seniors who can't score 60% on a middle school level math and english test. So I have mixed feelings on this. Elimination of testing hides the problem. At the same time we want our children to have a solid education that doesn't require memorization drills. It seems to me that the reason why we are forced to teach to the test is because we have so many kids that have been left behind and we have failed to implement the necessary reforms so that our kids don't have to cram in their senior year to pass a dumbed-down math test.

Testing to assess a CA school's performance is not only meaningless when a third or more of your classroom consists of non-English speaking students and another third are continually disruptive.

Does a science or a math teacher work harder once they are hired? I am thinking of all the correcting and reading that English teachers do.

Also, you say there is a shortage for math teacher? Is this a local problem? Our local schools facing a shortage? I don't see any math positions at the school distrcits website.

There's no shortage of teachers in any subject, only a shortage of positive classroom environments in which to place them. Make classroom education our number one investment (in community effort as well as in money spent IN the classroom & on teaching) and you WILL attract more than enough of the brightest minds. In the end that investment will pay dividends we could never imagine.

This response it to Not a science/math teacher:

This is not an issue of whether any teachers work harder than others. The fact is that it costs more money to hire people with different credentials and skills. Does an engineer work harder than a janitor? Probably not. But does that mean that janitors should make the same money as an engineer? If we are to base pay on effort alone then possession critical skills becomes meaningless.

The the real world doesn't work that way. The truth is that people with science and mathematics degrees have more employment options available that typically pay more than they might otherwise receive in the teaching profession. If you want to attract qualified people with those types of credentials then you need to pay them accordingly. It is simple supply and demand. The problem is that school districts don't provide a pay differential that compensates employees for having highly sought after skills. As a result we have math and science classes being taught by people who don't have the minimum qualifications to be teaching those subjects.

A fundamental principle of education should be having qualified teachers in the classroom. One way to address that is to pay teachers according to their skills and background instead of having a socialistic compensation system that discourages highly qualified individuals from entering the profession.

Points taken. But I make an exception to the " real world" part. If it is not the real world, what is the school system? I think you should change that to the for profit world.

Also, do we have a local shortage or state wide shortage?

It wouldn't make sense to tinker with the pay for a problem not impacting an area.

Do we offer a lifetime of higher pay for a temporary shortage? It might be tough one year to find a French teacher. If we find one should we pay ALL French teachers across the state higher for their whole work life at a school?

Pay is NOT an issue. Classroom environment IS. My guess is classroom management, mandated non-teaching paperwork & added workloads and the shift from teaching to surrogate parenting is what's keeping the best teachers away from the classroom.

If I get you right CountyMan you think the best teachers are not currently teaching?

Actually there is a nationwide teacher shortage in all subjects, though the shortage of math and science teachers is particularly accute.

According to the NCES (using U.S. Department of Education statistics), many classrooms are being taught by "out-of-field" instructors who don't have a degree in the field they are teaching.

Here is an exerpt:

According to a 2002 NCES report on qualifications of public school teachers, 37% of high school math teachers and 31% of science teachers lack a major or certification in their field. Similarly, 69% of math teachers and 57% of science teachers lack a major or certification in their field. According to RNT's 2000 study of the largest urban school districts, nearly 98% of responding districts noted an immediate demand for science teachers and 95% reported an immediate demand for mathematics teachers. Shortage of qualified mathematics and science teachers comes just when the expectations for what students should know in these subjects are rising.

http://www.recruitingteachers.org/channels/clearinghouse/becometeacher/121_teachershort.htm

http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/8DE64524-592E-4C83-A13A-6B1DF1CF8D3E/0/AllTalk.pdf

CountyMan,

I agree that classroom environment is also a critically important issue. But the question is how we can make substantial change in how classrooms are managed. This is a very complex issue, but there are some fundamental problems that need to be addressed.

First, I think we need to take litigation and the threat of litigation out of our school systems. There needs to be some basic legal reforms to prevent school districts from being intimidated based on lawsuits and threats of lawsuits. These days it seems that teachers and administrators are afraid of their own shadows and unwilling to deal with difficult students and parents due to fear of the legal consequences. We should have independent arbitration panels that can review and resove disputes between parents and schools without getting lawyers involved. We shouldn't have a system that is so concerned about legalities that teachers are afraid to discipline or even hug students.

Second, we need a process that rewards the best teachers in the classroom so that compensation is based on the quality of teaching rather than years of service. I know that is asking for a lot and any kind of measurement is subjective. But then again, people in many industries are subject to performance reviews that may impact their pay. So this is not really that radical of a concept. The bottom line is that there are many outstanding teachers that should be rewarded for exceptional effort and contribution, while there are a few that maybe should consider a different career path. We owe it to our kids to make sure that the best people are attracted to the profession and rewarded, while the bad ones are shown the door.

Third, our school districts should be empowered to make and enforce tough rules on behavior. As I see it, a lot of the problems we have in many of our high schools is that students are running wild and educators have very little power to control conduct in their classrooms. It shouldn't be controversial if a school wants to implement uniforms or suspend a student for poor behavior. Losing control in the classroom inhibits learning and harms all students.

CountyMan, what specific ideas do you have to improve the classroom environment?

Ouch: You nailed me! I should have been more careful with my words. I will say that we have the most dedicated educators but too many others with equal or more qualifications have chosen to go elsewhere because of the non-teaching obligations of the career.

Bubba Kidd: 1) Forget about paying teachers more. Instead, give them a break on the non-classroom work load (that can easily add another 20 hrs or more to their week's work) or pay them overtime for that work. 2) Get the Feds OUT of local curriculum...they have no place teaching our children when they can't manage their own affairs. 3) Find a way to make the parents of disruptive students pay for the extra burdens such kids place on the system.

CountyMan,

I still think teacher compensation is an important issue. Clearly there are many who don't enter the profession because they can earn substantially more money in the private sector. Plus the existing compensation system is not fair to those who have specialized qualifications or who contribute more than some of their peers. The private sector rewards high performers with higher pay. Giving everyone the same pay regardless of performance is a disincentive to striving for excellence.

I agree that the Feds should not be in the business of local curriculum. But it is not only the Feds that are the problem. Our own state legislature is in the business of micromanaging curriculum as well. We have a state government that wrings its hands over dumbed-down exit exam testing while focusing its efforts on re-writing our history books so that they are more politically correct.

The issue of disruptive kids isn't just a parent issue. There is fault on both sides that includes both parents failing to become involved in managing their children and educators not asserting control in the classroom. This is a much more complex issue that can't be solved by simply sending a bill to parents who have unruly kids. Besides, the state legislature doesn't have the guts to bill parents for disruptive behavior, especially when many of these children come from poor families who are already on government assistance.

Paying for the extra burden doesnt necessarily have to be in money. There's a lot of things parents can do to make up for their lack of control over their children: they can be made to take parenting classes, perform community service, enforce curfews for their kids, suspend television and entertainment privileges, attend classroom with their kids, etc, ANYTHING that will get them more involved in making sure their kids act repsonsibly. And when it gets so bad that the schools can't cope with a kid, then that kid should be booted out and given a voucher for private school.

Before we start messing with local salaries, is there a local shortage? I knwo there might be a shortage in Alabama, but I don't think they teach science anyways.

Also, basic certifaction is not the same as competent. Being certified can be good, but is not a clear enough indicator. If Bill Clinton applied to be a teacher of US Government he would be deemed unqualified because he is not certified. I think he might know something though.

The following positions ara available in Ventura County. I tried posting the links yesterday, but the message was denied. You can verify this through each district's website. Many teachers have already done their hiring for the next school year. I do not know if thie is a shortage, just stating what is out there.

Ventura Unified
One high school Math Teacher

Simi Valley Unified
Math Teachers (Number unknown)
Science Teachers (Number unknown)

Rio Elementary District
One Math Teacher
One Science Teacher

Santa Paula Union High
One Alternative Education Science Teacher

Ojai Unified
One high school Math Teacher
One high school Science Teacher

Conejo Valley Unified
Math Teachers for 6th-12th (Number unknown)
One high school Science Teacher

I very much appreciate this thread, it is much needed discussion.

Our family sponsored two fourth graders to attend Summer Science Camps this Summer. We awarded $1000 scholarships.

We sent out 6000 fliers to 3-5 graders. Students had to write an essay about why they wanted to attend camp, choose a camp, tell what area of science they would learn and provide the research. Our desire was that the students prior to attending middle school would become turned on to science or math and hopefully take an agressive pursuit in their math and science education during secondary school. If we are fortunate this seed money will inspire a future scientist.

Our intent was to raise awareness of science and Math Camps that are available, facilitate discussion with parents and make them aware of the resources while providing teachers a forum to make science fun.

Our families practice a variety of sciences, including engineering, physics, chemistry, biology and veterinary medicine. We often have many discussions about the need to educate the incoming workforce and the challenges employers will have replacing the baby boomers.

We were very disappointed to only have three applications out of 6000 fliers sent to students. We found out later that some teachers didn't even distribute the fliers to their students. We paid a lot of money to have them printed at our expense, bundled for each individual classroom so no administrative hours were spent and delivered them to the schools. We were sadden at the apathy and indifference.

Society has a real problem when we can not attract students to study science and math while majors in massage therapy are rising substantially.

Directors of Engineering are being asked to outsource jobs to China and India. We are recruiting scientists from out of the country to fill positions. When will we wake up!

People spend an outrageous amount of money on entertaining themselves. Why aren't they investing in their children and giving them opportunities to have enriching educational opportunities. We need to get our priorities in order.

I am still confused. Is there any student that was denied the ability to sign up for the class? That is the most critical question.

Maybe people DO have their priorities in order. Maybe most people have chosen to opt out of the work-til-you-die (and assume your employers going to steal your pension anyway) culture we've created for ourselves and are seeking easier, less stressful lifestyles. Maybe the answer ISNT to force feed kids into a math & science blender in another social engineering experiment, hoping theyll find their way into related careers. Maybe the answer is to find a way to get kids to enjoy going to school and be challenged, so that as adults theyll continue to challenge themselves.

Gee, I didn't realize that teaching math and science was a "social engineering experiment". While we need to make school enjoyable and challenging for our children, it should also offer then practical skills and knowledge. I certainly want my children to enjoy learning, but I also expect them to master certain basic skills.

Interesting thread. We've covered a lot of ground. Here are some observations on the discussion.

Math and Science (and some special Ed) teachers are hard to find. Fortunaly, Simi Valley had good salaries, excellant benefits and a good environment, so we are successful at filling our postions. LA may have a tougher time. I am not aware of any kids not getting 8th grade science, but you can't add another semester of science for half of 1700 kids without more teachers.

As far as improving education, the problem isn't the quality of the teachers, its the environment they teach in. Beleive it or not, many kids do not come to school wanting to learn. An many parents can't or won't apply the necessary home motivation to help the teachers. And the schools do not have the tools to overcome those problems. So call it social promotion or teacher self preservation, but kids that don't deserve to pass get promoted. Standardized testing has uncovered that problem and now we have to deal with it.

By the way, the for profit world is the real world. Economic systems that don't realize that eventually fail. Government - even schools - have to manage their business in such a way as to provide something of reasonable value in return for their price (taxes!!). If a competitor can demonstrate a better way, the voters can turn on public schools. Charter schools are demonstrating different approaches to education, and deregulation (vouchers) is always lurking around. Ignoring the economics of education is not a viable solution. We can debate it, but not ignore it.

Well, its clear that our School Trustee sees the cost of public education as SPENDING on a commodity while others see it as society's INVESTMENT in its Future. In the real world those that have the ability to push the envelope and turn creativity into applications are the ones that will find success. America is quickly losing ground to the workforces of those nations that are increasingly encouraging creative thinking and problem-solving even as it punishes those nations that rely on rote instruction to produce an over supply of workers. Adding another semester of pre-testing instyuction in Science is NOT progressive but retrogressive: it seeks to teach kids in the same manner that we taught kids throughout the Industrial Age and it wont work in the 21st century.

This from a Letter to THE STAR this past week:

"Re: Greg Stratton’s June 22 commentary, “School district fails its students”:

...the report on standardized testing prepared by Michael Selvaggio for the school board a couple of years ago. He compared science test results versus course work in school districts of similar size and socioeconomic backgrounds to Simi Valley. The conclusion was that an extra semester of science does not increase test scores. Competency in reading, writing and comprehension of the English language produce the best test results."

What about this report? Is the Board acting against its own conclusions? If so, WHY?? If not then where is the Board's rebuttal to the report?

The 'report' is by a former student and was not commissioned by the school district. It is not even clear that it was delivered to the district and was not included or analyzed for the staff report. It is not 'our' report.
Without seeing the report, it would be hard to comment on it. However, it is not hard to belive that science scores correlate to competency in english. They probably correlate even better to competency in math. The issue is the correlation to the amount of science instruction. Science is not something picked up in the normal course of life. It has to be taught and learned. To simply dismiss the effort of the science teachers as part of that process is to question the value of all teaching. Kids, especially in the 8th grade, need to be taught - not simply introduced to stuff that is fun. They'll find the fun stuff on their own.

Spending is investing when it is done to prepare our kids for the future. Whatever you call it, we want to get the most for our money. Not teaching science so that the kids can have fun in electives is not the way to invest in the nation's future.

Greg,

Well said.

Excellent comments Greg.

BK (AKA "Bubba")

Greg,

Thanks for your comments.

It makes me need to ask this question. Given than the taxpayers are investing in public education, and there does not seem to be the will by the public or the politicians to change wholesale how it's done, then if given the same funds, and a blank slate, what dollars should not be spent in favor of those that should?

In other words, if you had the same dollars, what would you NOT spend them on?

Tim

Possibly we should have more technical report writing opportunities and marry the two subjects.

Other opportunities would be to include more scientific fiction and non-fiction books on the reading list for secondary students.

Is that a more cost effective use of classroom time? I wonder what the teachers and administrators opinion would be on that matter?

We waste a lot of money in public education because it is against state law to have true competitive bidding. You could free up billions of dollars in funding for classrooms by using common sense outsourcing.

Anyone who has children understands the power of learning inherent in Video Games. There are awful VGs and there are great VGs but they all share the ability to get kids learning on many different levels, from cognitive & deductive mental exercizes to the development of intuitive skills & memorization skills. There isn't a kid that's ever played Sim City that can't talk circles around most adults when it comes to the notion of cause and effect, mathematical & formulaic balances, etc etc.

When our Education System finds a way to bring a similarsort of broad, educating and exciting academic experience to the classroom America's students will be unstoppable.

Tim,

There are lots of places money gets spent less effiently in the education system than it does in the private sector, even less efficient than other governments. The business management side of education is just now getting some stature. We still don't have voice mail for all our schools!

But our biggest and easist return would come from more flexability in class sizes. For example, we have limits of 20 in a class for K-3. Could we put 25 in a class and have a specialized reading teacher that covered four classes handling the slower readers? Not legally.

High school is even worse. Why is it colleges can have different size classes and high schools can't? Have we introduced technology to the classroom the way colleges have? Or are we still doing everything the old way?

We also need more support in our ability to handle parents of children who are not engaged. Kids are like horses, you can lead them to class, but you can't make them learn. So we need to be able to mandate longer school days, longer school years, even longer periods to the kids that aren't learning what they need. And somehow the schools can't be societies solution to all problems of children - physical, mental and social.

Its a big problem. We can throw more money at it, that works too, but eventually support for the public schools will fade, and when that happens we are all in big trouble.

Well, Trustee Stratton, you've just outlined several problems exacerbated by Bush's inane No Child Left Behind policies and their obsession with teaching-to-the-test: class sizes (pre-determined by the requirements that state schools rely on canned curriculums), leading kids to learn (ditto) and Society's reliance on the classroom teacher as surrogate parent, policeman & paper pusher (made all the more difficult because of the classroom being made an over costly & bureaucratic extension of that inane NCLB program).

The answer is to find a way to remove all the classroom distractions and allow our schools to offer a wide ranging curriculum, to teach, to instill a love of learning and to set our children on a path to good citizenship.

County..

can you explain how you tie NCLB to class size reductionand parental responsibility? I don't believe they are even mentioned in the Elementary & Secondary Education act, or as you call it, the inane NCLB.

Inane indeed.

Saw this in the Star this morning...

Keep talking, Stratton

It's not surprising Simi Valley Unified School District trustee Greg Stratton is being attacked for his concerns and recent Star commentary that our students are being shortchanged. It's not surprising when you consider the source of the response attacks.

Stratton and I are not pals. I do respect him and consider him a friend. I've supported him in every one of his campaigns, except his first run for City Council. In that one, he and Elton Gallegly came in a few votes ahead of me. That will give you an idea of how long Stratton has been serving us.

When I first learned Stratton had decided to run for the school board after his years serving as our mayor and on the council, I called and asked if he'd lost his mind. I warned him that being on the school board was much different, especially if you expect to accomplish anything like reform or positive change. What with board makeup, professional management, bureaucracy, Education Code and unions, being a trustee is like volunteering for a public flogging.

But Stratton had good reasons, so I helped and endorsed him.

He has done the very frustrating and thankless job much longer than I did before "going public" with his concerns. I hope he continues, not just on matters of curriculum, but on all the misinformation coming out of the district; the mistakes, lack of planning and fiscal responsibility.

Stratton is truthful, intelligent and honorable. He has served us well for nearly three decades. He knows what he's talking about. I urge citizens, voters and parents of Simi Valley to listen to what he has to say. You can take it to the bank. I urge Stratton to tell us more.

— Doug Crosse,Westlake Village

(The writer was a Simi Valley Unified School District trustee from 1990 to 1994. — Editor)

Trustee Stratton,

Could you please elaborate on your statement below:

"And somehow the schools can't be societies solution to all problems of children - physical, mental and social."

What are your thoughts on IDEA and special education?

Tim, the bureaucratic overlay that the growing Culture of Testing is forcing upon our education system, is costly both in dollars and in time taken away from teaching. With budgets AND staff resources stretched as thin as they can be due to this growing overlay local districts are forced to find ways to make do; squeezing more and more students into each classroom and removing electives seem to be the preferred method, closely followed by pushing failing students out the back door at graduation time.

The former two merely encourage behavioral problems and poor performance in the classroom while the latter simply extends those problems into the next generation, resulting in more parents lacking the skills and/or resources needed to ensure their own children's academic success.

NCLB is not the cause of the problems in our public education system, and blaming it for everything is a copout. The education establishment continually whines about standardized testing, but without some type of objective way of measuring performance there can be no accountability. Standardized testing exists because parents and employers are fed up with social promotion and students getting high school diplomas who lack even the most basic skills.

There are many reasons for these problems and there isn't a single magic-bullet solution. The problems in our public education system must also be shared by students, parents and educators. But eliminating standardized testing only takes us back to the good old days when under performing schools could just sweep these problems under the rug. If we want to improve the performance of our schools we have to have ways of measuring performance. Anyone who objects to the current method of testing is free to suggest ways of improving the way we test. But the elimination of standardized testing is the elimination of accountability.

County,

I am curious about what the potential alternatives are as you see them?

When we didn't have the accountability systems in place (and by the way, don't just blame NCLB - you can blame Governors Wilson and Davis for the incomprehendable API score system) we had plague called social promotion. This assumed that the way to measure schools and districts was to judge them based on grad rates - well, when you graduate everyone, I guess you're doing a great job.

I don't really see why, when asking for Federal Funding for education, why it's such a big deal for the Feds to require accountability in return. When they give out highway funds, they require people drive safe speeds, require matching funds etc... What is so different?

Don't you think that if schools were actually doing their jobs, and providing a broad and comprehensive education, that the kids would generally score well on the tests to begin with?

A lot of people complain about "teaching to the test" but I would really prefer "testing to what's taught..." We'd probably have more well-rounded kids that way.

As someone directly involved with a middle school, I am thrilled that students and their parents have a choice about their 8th grade science program. We have many great electives available to the students. Electives that enhance imagination and creativity. Not all students are as academically focused as others. Both of my children had only one semester of science in 8th grade. They are both currently attending universities. As a matter of fact, my daughter won quite a bit of money in scholarships this year. All without a yearlong 8th grade science program.

So much focus is paid to the "standards" that kids are losing out on a well rounded education. How many high school kids enjoy reading for pleasure? My kids used to. But then after having summer reading assignments each year and never having time to read for enjoyment, they have lost that love.

So maybe half of the 8th grade students won't do as well on their standarized tests or won't get to take the 9th science class their parents feel is needed, but just maybe a semester elective will open up a whole new world for them. Let the students and parents who want the year long science take it, but don't make it mandatory!

As someone directly involved with a middle school, I am thrilled that students and their parents have a choice about their 8th grade science program. We have many great electives available to the students. Electives that enhance imagination and creativity. Not all students are as academically focused as others. Both of my children had only one semester of science in 8th grade. They are both currently attending universities. As a matter of fact, my daughter won quite a bit of money in scholarships this year. All without a yearlong 8th grade science program.

So much focus is paid to the "standards" that kids are losing out on a well rounded education. How many high school kids enjoy reading for pleasure? My kids used to. But then after having summer reading assignments each year and never having time to read for enjoyment, they have lost that love.

So maybe half of the 8th grade students won't do as well on their standarized tests or won't get to take the 9th science class their parents feel is needed, but just maybe a semester elective will open up a whole new world for them. Let the students and parents who want the year long science take it, but don't make it mandatory!

Sorry....I accidently hit post twice.

Special Education has grown far beyond the 'education' part. School districts have become the lead for all governmental support in helping raise these kids. The other agencies (medical, social and mental) are quickly washing their hands of their responsibility.

This would great if we were funded or trained to do this. We are not. We struggle with the special ed costs taking up 10% of our general fund, money that is intended for the rest of the students. Educators are not trained to be doctors, sociologists or psychologists, so putting them in charge of managing a case that involves all those specialties is not the best use. But that's what the state government has done.

I'm glad MS's kids worked around missing the extra semeseter of science. But there are many who can't. BTW, I am not the one saying that all that science is necessary - the state board of education did. I happen to agree with them.

The set of required classes is designed to produce a common education. Not everyone needs all of it, but you might. So we have a set of required classes to graduate.

Life is full of tests, not all of them standardized. So we have to get used to them. If testing really cuts that much into teaching time, maybe we should have the tests after the teachers leave for the year. We could hire some college students to monitor the testing.

FYI...It is not just my children who "worked around" missing the full year of 8th grade science. All of their friends did also. Those students will be attending Cal Poly SLO, UCLA and UCSB, (to name a few) this fall. There are plenty of opportunities in high school, to get in all of the science needed.

I may be a bit behind on reading my hometown blogs, but I do feel obligated to defend my report (note the absence of quotation marks) to those who would call its validity or bias into question.

In a letter from July 6, Mr. Stratton refrains from jumping to conslusions until he knows my credentials.

I was trained in policy analysis by some of the University of California's best minds (Beck, Lakoff, et al) -- in San Diego and in Washington DC. The exact work in question was reviewed by the UCSD faculty before submission to the SVUSD Board.

Professionally, I have put that experience to work crafting policy for the State of Oregon -- crafting successful policy in the areas of tax reform, criminal justice, land use, and public health... and my public testimonies (in CA or in OR) have never been called into question.

I make my living in the field of policy development and communications, and an air of bias or political hackery may bode well in some circles, but not those in which I prefer to do business. I would not jeopardize my reputation by circulating faulty or uncited data, and I thank Mr. Stratton for keeping speculation to a minimum.

Suffice to say, that report can be summarized as follows: "Adding additional science courses to a school's curriculum have no measurable relationship to standardized science test scores." There are facts, and that's what they show.

Mike,

Thanks for your comments. There has been a lot made of this report. If you would like me to post the report in its entirety I would be happy to do that if anyone would like to review it.

Let me know.

Tim