It certainly would be Alameda if an issue did not get resolved without a little side drama. What issue am I referring to? Why none other than the Kindergarten roundup. The School Board on Tuesday night voted to go ahead with the random selection/lottery for individual schools if there are more prospective students than slots and they can’t figure out a way to increase capacity at the site. However, evidently that night a few Edison parents and a member of the PTA took issue with School Board member Tracy Jensen’s participation in this episode of Alameda Currents in which the issue was featured.
The feature starts at about 12:15 into the video itself. It starts with ancedotal stories from parents that camped out in order to get their children into the 2008 Kindergarten class. Then goes to interview a few key members of AUSD staff, then goes back out to get reflections from four individuals from the Edison neighborhood.
The complaint was alleged that the show was biased because there was so much time was given to David Dierking, from AUSD, and that there were two interviews of parents for the lottery and only one against, although the last person was clearly in the “let’s look at all sides again” side. If you watch, the David Dierking portion was pretty much just a run down of where we are since parents stood in line for the 2008 Kindergarten class until now and clarification of the proposed then (but approved now) policy of lottery rather than first come, first serve.
Additionally, and here’s where it becomes more serious, they complaint further goes on to allege that Board Member Jensen was in violation of the Brown Act, because of her participation in the Alameda Currents feature and because the feature was “biased” it intentionally influenced and swayed the votes of the other members prior to the meeting.
Personally I find these allegations to be completely unfounded, without merit, and not supported by any evidence. I think it’s rather disappointing that someone’s participation in a vehicle to present information to the public is under such scrutiny because she eventually voted the way that you didn’t want her to. It smacks of retailiation rather than honest critical concern and assessment of possible improprities.
Such a large steaming pile of horseshit, it’s difficult to know just where to begin, but in random order, here’s a start:
-Ms. Jensen’s actions MIGHT well be above board, but they fairly deserve at least an explanation. She could have uttered a sentence or three at the meeting that would have satisfied the need for a minimal fig leaf of propriety, but she did not. Indeed late in the meeting, she waved off (with a look of some panic) a request from a fellow board memebr to clarify her involvement. What our blogmistress ascribes to sour grapes or paranoia is actually a fair question of a public servant’s conduct. Why does she refuse to answer a fair question?
-Dierking’s lengthy presence in that video is its bias. The naive and uninformed might well think he is just providing a run-down, but therer is more here than meets the eye. Dierking, a paid employee of the district, spent months openly advocating for a lottery and bluntly shutting down proposals for other solutions (I witnessed this personally).
Tangentially, his, and Dailey’s, actions in this regard are evidence that the lottery was a forgone conclusion and that “discussion” of the issue was a cynical waste of the public’s time. The board behaved this way throughtout the 3 months of “discussion” even using such phrases as “when we have a lottery” etc (Forbes in partic) before a vote even occurred.
-The phrase in the intro “if they can’t figure out capacity” is laughably blind to how the process unfolded. The board declined to address the issue, ignoring many valid suggestions from the public. Dierking took the additional step of not simply failing to discuss but bluntly refusing to consider capacity alternatives. The lottery IS their solution.
-Brown Act? I got your Brown Act violations right here. The board obviously discussed the issue among themselves and decised the outcome well before the vote. At the meeting Tuesday, when asked about this, Scahff mentioned the board’s various peronalities and opinions on the subject, making it painfully clear that they had talked about it outside of public view.
-The video’s pro-lottery particpants were infuriatingly hypocritical. This is not a legal issue; it’s perfectly legal to be a hypocrite. But consider what was said by a few of the interviewees, effectively:
–I enjoyed the benefit of controlling my child’s education, but others do not deserve this right. I earned my piece of the pie but the next people in line can’t earn it, they have to win it on a roll of the dice.–
That’s pretty goddamn hypocritcal, dontcha think?
Again, not a legal issue. The producers of third-rate TV shows have the right to be hypocrites, or interview such people, but they shouldn’t feign such Rainesian shock when they are called out for it.
–
But I must say I anxiously await the lottery’s arrival at Ruby Bridges, a distinct possibility in a couple of years. It will be affirming and refreshing to see our blogmistress stick to her lofty principles & cheerfully submit to it and happily send her progeny to Lum or other far-flung schools. As a dedicated Smart Growther, rumored to have purchased in Baport for the “greater good” she’ll probably utilize AC Transit to get them off to Kindrgarten each day.
Comment by dave — November 15, 2007 @ 9:19 am
I think it’s too bad that people have jumped on accusations of actual wrongdoing (illegal activities) as opposed to offering their valid opinions that they felt it was inappropriate for someone involved in the issue to be involved in creating a story about the issue.
I’m not really sure what Tracy’s “involvement” really was BUT since she’s not on camera, I’m not sure that I agree with the appropriateness issues, but i can certain understand how some may come to that conclusion. But to take it to the level of accusing people of crimes is a bit much.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — November 15, 2007 @ 9:33 am
Paragraph 2 should say that Dierking’s presence in that video IS TELLING of its bias.
Comment by dave — November 15, 2007 @ 9:35 am
Why does she fail to explain her involvement? If she had no involvemnet in the content, why not say so? Really, it would take just a moment for her to answer this question.
Comment by dave — November 15, 2007 @ 9:44 am
As one of the people interviewed on the Alameda Currents show, I can say quite emphatically that the opinions I stated were purely my own. As is quite evident by my somewhat rambling speech, none of what I said was rehearsed or prepared. I didn’t know I was going to be interviewed until a minute before the taping began.
I don’t think anything I said was hypocritical, I stated that I did indeed wait in line and my children got in. Since the above post (#1) likes the pie comparison so much here we go:
The year I waited in line there were 58 people (incoming K students) for a 60 piece pie. Everyone who wanted a piece of the pie got one.
Unfortunately that is not the case now. There will continue to be a fixed number of pieces of pie (60, 80?) for a greater number of people. Not everyone will get a piece.
The same amount of children will be diverted whether the policy is First Come/First Served (survival of the fittest) or Lottery (Random Drawing).
Is the Lottery perfect? No. Should capacity issues be disscussed? Of course.
There are going to be unhappy people no matter which way the School Board voted. But, should a School Board member be attacked for being involved in the production of a show that asked parents to comment on one of the most divisive issues school-age parents are facing right now?
I don’t think so.
Comment by Kerri L. — November 15, 2007 @ 10:57 am
I am unaware of Ms. Jensen being attacked.
She IS being asked a reasonable question. She is not answering it, at least not yet.
Comment by dave — November 15, 2007 @ 10:59 am
boy… that there is some fine film making… who in the heck watches these?
Comment by edvard — November 15, 2007 @ 11:17 am
This is going nowhere. The whole matter is pointless and a waste of time. There are far more important matters for our elected officials to be dealing with right now.
There are far too many overprivileged people in Alameda and the fuss that they are kicking up is way out of proportion to the actual problem. Those children at the most risk do not have parents with the time and resources to kick up this type of sh*t storm.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — November 15, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
I’m curious who these “over-priveleged” people are. What specific priveleges do they enjoy in greater abundance than others?
Comment by dave — November 16, 2007 @ 7:49 am
#9
They believe that they have a right to send their children to Edison and are willing to take matters to extremes (as noted in this blog article) if they do not get their way.
You are right, they have no special privleges. The problem is that they believe that they do.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 16, 2007 @ 9:11 am
Hi Lauren-
I think you may have written something inaccurate in your post about this. I was at the meeting and was one of the speakers on this issue, but I don’t recall anyone accusing Ms. Jensen of violating the Brown Act? Where did you get that from?
Thanks for clarifying this.
Comment by Whitney — November 16, 2007 @ 10:18 am