Although schools knew who made the hit list back in February, the DOE wasn’t exactly looking to sing the results from the rooftops. After all, it took more than basic reading and math skills to calculate what have been deemed the lowest five percent of the state’s schools, and those marked with the scarlet ‘5’ have to do a whole lot more than gussy up their curtains.

Schools will be asked to choose one of four options by June: Either boot the principal and increase instruction time, boot the principal and send half the staff out the door with him, become a charter school, or just call the whole thing off and close.

Understanding all the possible scenarios comes in somewhere above Fly’s reading level—there nothing in state law that specifies when changes must be implemented, and it remains unclear what would happen should California finally bag some of that Race to the Top money in the second round—or how schools who’re already preparing for a March 15 tickertape parade of pink slips ought to re-strategize if they’re also going to have to make a massive staff change. The schools will, however, be eligible for $50,000 to $2 million in funds to help them make the changes.

Fly was denied entrance to the conference (killing a dream of reenacting a scene from “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”), but spoke to Goff just before the event. He said that while the final report Is not complete, the SJPD is correct in assuming that his findings look good. “If the PD is deciding, for political reasons, to say ‘hey, the CPLE has done this analysis and here’s what it says,’ factually, they are 100 percent right,” Goff says.

“Look, I follow the news in San Jose, and I know there are other people saying this is a nonsense report. That’s a political consideration for which we have no comment.” Goff said he and his team are still waist-deep in research and have no idea when their final findings will be published (bad sign?). He is due to update the city council on his research this May, though.

“We’re professional nerds here,” Goff says. “I have this very radical position politically, which is that I’m pro-good, and anti-evil. I am just interested in
finding answers, that’s what we’re trying to do.”

Sounds simple enough…but it’s not. City Auditors Courtney Ruby and Ann-Marie Hogan go on to explain that the process is not that easy because some services are valued by certain residents more than others, and city services tend to create their own constituencies. 

“Identifying core services must be a dispassionate process that involves the citizenry.  Cities need to determine: 1) To what extent is government legally obligated to provide the service? 2) To what extent do residents expect the service to be provided? 3) What are the service’s direct and indirect impacts on residents?”
It would be a very illuminating and useful exercise to pass San Jose’s budget priorities through these same three questions, particularly the first one…“To what extent is government legally obligated to provide the service?” The City of San Jose spends all kinds of money on all kinds things that are not related to what most people would consider basic and fundamental core services, like keeping the streets maintained and opening park restrooms on weekends.

Just last week, we learned from the city manager that San Jose’s budget deficit has grown another $16 million. Roughly two month’s ago, the number cited was $100 million. In eight weeks, the deficit has gone up $16 million, or two million per week. Shouldn’t there be some increased level of concern about this on the part of San Jose city officials? Where’s the sense of urgency in addressing this problem?

Robert Cortese, the second cousin of Santa Clara County Supervisor David Cortese, announced his intention to run for the District 9 seat last Friday. Pegram and Cortese will be running against Jim Cogan, who now works as Pete Constant’s chief of staff, as well as city redevelopment officer Don Rocha, financial consultant David Cueva, and Santa Clara University student Chad Greer.

Another new entry into the June 8 election is vintner Tom Kruse, who has entered the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors District 1 race to replace termed-out Don Gage. Kruse owns Thomas Kruse Winery in Gilroy.

Kruse will be going up against Teresa Alvarado, the daughter of former supervisor Blanca Alvarado, former San Jose Councilmember Forrest Williams, Gilroy Councilmember Peter Arellano and former Los Gatos Mayor Mike Wasserman. —Tommy Wright

Although he concedes that the figures cited in the article are accurate and paint a picture of a troubled company—lagging ticket sales, an operating loss of $406,812 from ’09—he points out that subscriptions are up 14 percent compared to last year, and fundraising is up seven percent. Coupled with the fact that the Rep has made it through what are traditionally its toughest months—December, January and February—Nichols says he isn’t sure why the article seems to indicate the theater is raising death’s pale flag, especially since the audit quoted in the piece came out way back in November.

Out of concern that the article will send a faint cold fear through the philanthropic veins of donors, the Rep’s board is sending a letter to their subscribers today assuring them “we will not only finish out this season, but move into next season,” Nichols says. “We want to make sure this article doesn’t slow that momentum.” If there’s one lesson to be learned from Shakespeare, it’s to take a pulse first.

On Monday, March 8, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan marched across the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma with students and civil rights activists commemorating the 45th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday.” On March 7, 1965, 600 civil rights marchers headed from Selma to Montgomery only made it to this bridge when state and local law enforcement officers attacked them with tear gas and billy clubs.

In Sandra Bullock’s acceptance speech for Best Actress on Sunday night she thanked her mother, Helga Bullock, for teaching her “that there’s no race, no religion, no class system, no color, nothing, no sexual orientation that makes us better than anyone else.” Not only was I taught similarly, my parents implored me to use whatever skills I had for teaching fairness and justice. My four years at Bellarmine taught me to be a “man for others.”

That is why I ran for school board and worked for 20 years as a principal. Our system of public education, unintentionally in most cases, perpetuates a system that works more effectively for whites than Latinos and African-Americans.

In Selma Duncan said: “The struggle for equal opportunity in our nation’s schools and universities is not at an end…We will work with schools and enforce laws to ensure that all children, no matter what their race, gender, disability or native origin, have a fair chance at a good future.”

According to his prepared remarks, Duncan will admonish the past work of the Office of Civil Rights for not being vigilant enough in combating gender and racial discrimination in schools. He is setting markers down, and, under the direction of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlyn Ali, the Office of Civil Rights will step up enforcement of laws for schools and districts.

School leaders at site and district levels must look at their own data carefully and review their equity and fairness issues. I am certain many would be surprised by their findings. I suggest local school officials look at data by race and gender relative to grading, honor roll, discipline, suspensions, advanced placement, honors, gifted and talented, student government, and attendance.

According to the Office of Civil Rights, white students are six times as likely to be prepared and qualified to enroll in advanced placement biology courses as black students. In addition, white students are twice as likely to have taken advanced placement calculus classes as black or Latino high school graduates.

I wish that today in every American History and U.S. Government class in 8th grade and in high school “Bloody Sunday” was a case study discussed. I am nearly certain that did not happen. Federal Court Judge Frank M. Johnson granted the protection under the U.S. Constitution of the 3rd march on March 21, 1965 by stating, “the law is clear that the right to petition one’s government for the redress of grievances may be exercised in large groups…and these rights may be exercised by marching, even along public highways.”

About five months after the march, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. We will never reach our nation’s true ideals as the shining light for justice until we achieve equity for all. Schools are where it must be nourished.

Since 2007, the airport has experienced a 25 percent decline in the number of passengers and 33 percent reduction in number of flights. The airport competes with San Francisco and Oakland airports and is one of the few city assets that competes with other cities. Airports and airlines have been impacted negatively from terrorist threats, web meeting solutions. spiking fuel costs that pushed companies to adopt new web meeting technologies faster and of course the Great Recession.

Take all of these factors listed above into consideration and then add on government “feel good” measures like the new city of San Jose living wage policy that was passed by the council last year (I was the only no vote) that requires private companies at the airport to pay private sector workers above-market wages. It may “feel good” for politicos but it raises costs to the airlines and to the taxpayer as the city now has a city employee who makes $156,000 to oversee the living wage policy just at the airport.

In fact, we have a total of 11 full time people ($1,414,941) at City Hall who oversee that private sector workers are paid a certain wage. Personally, I would rather have 11 code inspectors or 11 planning dept staff. Another “feel good” measure is that the airport must spend $3 million extra every year on janitorial services because of another council policy that does not allow outsourcing, which again raises the costs to the airlines. (Well, technically we “allow” outsourcing but it takes nearly two years and multiple highly charged City Council votes that require at least six votes…so essentially NO). As Marvin Gaye said, “Mercy Mercy Me.”

If you put yourself in the airlines’ shoes and you know that the Bay Area has three airports and that residents will drive the short distance to fly, then you might be more likely to choose the airport where you can maintain a higher margin of profit that has the lowest cost. If you choose to not maximize your profit then consumers, mutual funds and even retirements funds may sell your airline stock and eventually you may get fired.

Some suggest that eliminating the curfew would solve the airport’s financial dilemmas. It is a big unknown that if eliminating the curfew would be the salvation of our airport. Will flights at 3am generate more revenue then the $12 million of savings that outsourcing would deliver at the airport as outlined by the airport director? I don’t think so.

What I do know is that approximately 100,000 people hear the airport flights today and they would prefer not to be awakened in the middle of the night. Now there are some areas of San Jose that do not hear the airplanes during the day, but I think that residents of Almaden Valley and Evergreen might start to hear the planes if they are arriving and departing at 1am, 2am, 3am, etc. The economic value of getting rid of the curfew is unknown however we do know the Council has the power to allow the airport to start saving money today without upsetting many residents.

My viewpoint is we need to have a successful airport and by that I mean a successful daytime airport that operates up to what the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) allows. The airport should be allowed to run itself like a private business, competing with San Francisco and Oakland without all of the city policies, while maintaining its successful curfew as other cities do so in the USA.

On another note: Tonight the General Plan 2040 Task Force will choose a scenario to recommend to the Council for San Jose’s growth by the year 2040.
Here is a link to a General Plan 2040 Task Force web survey prepared to solicit feedback.

Supporters of the proposition claim that it gives the taxpayers greater say in how their money is spent. Opponents insist that it simply entrenches PG&E’s position as the state’s leading electricity supplier.

“We feel it’s bad public policy that serves mainly to limit competition for PG&E,” says Mayor Patrick Burt of Palo Alto.

Among these opponents are the cities of Santa Clara and Palo Alto. In Santa Clara, for example, the nonprofit Silicon Valley Power significantly reduces electrical costs to its customers by 24 percent (for larger industrial customers) to 46 percent (for residential customers).

“We’ve had great success in our city with public power,” says Steve Van Dorn of the Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce, and several large businesses, including Yahoo, want to get hooked up as well. This could be hindered if the measure passes.

Obviously, PG&E supports the measure. A spokesman, Andrew Souvall, says that the company plans to spend between $25 and $ 35million to the pro-Prop 16 campaign. The California Chamber of Commerce supports it too, though it may have to contend with local chambers like Santa Clara’s, which are becoming more vocal in their opposition.
Read More at the Business Journal.