Ina

Ina's Philosophy and Views on District Issues

2010 Update Coming Soon!

1. Open Enrollment

Problem: Currently, a newly enrolled child whose family wants placement at Millikin, our best-performing school and only “Basics-Plus” school, has over a 95% likelihood of “losing the lottery.” Hundreds of students who want to attend Millikin and Washington Open are turned away each year. Our District Administration has responded to parents who’ve raised this issue at recent Board meetings by asserting, “We’re not running private schools.”

Some District leaders have also expressed concern that Millikin, whose students do not receive District transportation services, attracts a narrow socioeconomic, racial, and cultural spectrum of students. There is also a concern that Millikin attracts the students and families with characteristics that most lead to success, thereby draining other schools of the “cream.”

Analysis: The teaching methodologies at Millikin have resulted in near-perfect API scores for children whose learning styles thrive in a Basics-Plus environment, and who have beat the odds in the District’s lottery. Millikin has enjoyed tremendous parent and student satisfaction, as well as outstanding academic success. Most importantly, we have proven that our District is able to provide an education that rivals even the most sought-after private schools, and we have a great demand for the kind of educational milieu that Millikin provides.

The geographic location of Millikin, in the context of the lack of District-provided transportation, makes the school relatively inaccessible to low-income families in the northern areas of the District, many of whom do not have the resources to transport children far from home. This exacerbates Millikin’s relative lack of diversity, so the best solution will take geographic factors into account, as well as expand the District’s opportunities for “Basics-Plus” education, while at the same time fostering diversity.

Solution: Over the course of meeting with Superintendent Rod Adams and various current Board members, I have proposed the following solution.

Kathryn Hughes and Montague have among the lowest API scores and highest percentage of low-income students. The District has considered closing Hughes due to declining enrollment, particularly now that Don Callejon has opened. I propose that the District transform Hughes into a second Basics-Plus school, and give Open Enrollment placement priority to students in the Hughes-Montague catchment areas. Montague-Hughes students who wanted Basics-Plus would attend Hughes, those who did not want Basics-Plus would attend Montague, and all Montague-Hughes students would receive the same transportation benefits as if they were attending their neighborhood schools. Then, after all the Hughes-Montague students had made their choice, then the Hughes Basics-Plus school would be opened to enrollment from the rest of the District, according the same priorities as exist for Millikin.

Result: This solution would increase the number of slots in Basics-Plus schools to meet the current demand of several hundred students. It would keep Hughes open, and put the campus to good use, to fill a felt need that our students, parents, and District employees have increasingly demanded. It would, at the same time, result in the opportunity for students in lower socioeconomic and achievement groups to access a Basics-Plus education in a school near their home. It would reduce transportation difficulties for Hughes-Montague families who wanted Basics-Plus for their children, but could not afford the cost of transportation all the way to Millikin. And, most importantly, it would attract high-achieving children and families to Hughes, thereby increasing our Basics-Plus academic and socioeconomic diversity.

2. Nutrition

Problem: The State of California has mandated changes in the foods we offer to public school children, with the goal of improving their nutrition in school. Although the changes are not effective Statewide until next academic year, the District has elected to impose many of the restrictions now, and even some restrictions that the State will not be requiring.

Many students and parents are unhappy with the District’s restrictive policy and its implementation. Booster clubs find themselves in increased financial binds. A substantial percent (estimated at 40%) of students entitled to a free lunch are not eating the school lunch at all. A black market in soda and candy has sprung up, especially on our High School campuses, which adversely impacts respect for the law and student morale. Of even greater concern, there was little or no expert medical input into the District’s decision-making, and so some of the current restrictions may actually impair nutrition, especially with respect intake of calcium, the only nutrient that has actually been scientifically proven to have medical import in children.

Analysis: The District erred by not including all stakeholders, particularly the students who have to eat the food, in its decision-making process. The District also erred in basing its decisions largely on the desires of the most vocal and emotional advocates of various current popular laypersons’ notions of what constitutes good “nutrition” and “wellness,” rather than researching the medical and scientific proven facts. The District disregarded the practical implications of overly restrictive rules, and the inevitability of a black market in nutritional contraband.

Solution: The District Board must revisit the food policy. We must at all times comply with State mandated rules, and we should carefully consider any more drastic restrictive measures. As you Trustee on the School Board, I will use my medical and scientific expertise to help the District make wise nutritional decisions, and will use my scientific and business expertise to identify potential pitfalls of new policies that the Board takes under its consideration.