As I read news stories about the latest happenings in Sacramento, I often ask myself the question, "What are they thinking?" This Flashreport opinion piece by Assembly Republican Caucus Chairman Bob Huff is no exception. In his smackdown of democratic education priorities, Assemblyman Huff points out the opposition to SB 1105 Margett, which would "revoke the teaching credentials of those convicted of sex offenses, drug crimes and other violent crimes if they plead guilty or no contest." He goes on to talk of the opposition to the bill by CTA:

I was surprised to hear representatives of the California Teachers Association testify in opposition. Keeping sex offenders and other dangerous individuals out of our schools should be something we can all agree upon. It is just plain wrong to put both students and teachers at risk in our schools just to keep more dues-paying union members on the payroll.

I verified on their site that they oppose the bill and according to Assemblyman Huff apparently testified against the bill. I just don't get it. I'd love to hear their justification for opposing the bill. It seems like a no-brainer.

The education code already requires the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to revoke the credential of any teacher or administrator:

• who has been convicted of any sex offense defined under Education Code Section 44010
• who has been convicted of any narcotics offense defined under Education Code Section 44011
• who has been convicted of any crime listed in Education Code section 44424, or
• who has been found to be insane by a federal or state court
• who has been judicially determined to be a mentally disordered sex offender under the law.

This measure simply adds pleas of no-contest to this process. From reading the bill's legislative analysis, it appears that a no-contest plea wasn't considered a "conviction" under this process. That's a pretty big loophole. I'd love to CTA's excuse for opposing this bill. I've searched their site, but I haven't been able to find it. If you can point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it.

I've been pondering the two propositions on next week's ballot. At this point, unless I get new information in the next few days, I'm going to vote no on both Proposition 98 and 99. As I understand it, both purport to be about Eminent Domain Reform. In general, I support the idea of reforming eminent domain. I don't believe governments should be able to take property from one taxpayer and give it to another simply because it will improve their tax base.

My problem with Proposition 98 is the other things that it does. It eliminates rent control. While I'm not a particular fan of rent control, if someone wants to create an initiative to get rid of it, they shouldn't hide that change in a proposition that many voters think is about something else, like eminent domain.

My problem with Proposition 99 is that it is too narrow. As I understand it, the change it makes only affects single family residences. Since I believe the biggest problems with eminent domain are associated with commercial property, I don't believe this proposition will make much of a difference.

For that reason, I'm planning to vote no on both of them. If you have reasons why I should vote yes for one of them, please post a comment and let me know.

I thought that the Trail of Tall Tales, a "three-part series focusing on misstatements, prevarications and falsehoods proclaimed by the three major presidential candidates" that FoxNews put out over the last three days was interesting. It is a good way to remind yourself of some of the boo-boos made by your favorite, or least favorite candidate.

• Hillary Clinton
• John McCain
• Barak Obama

Coach Brown has suggested more than once that the editor of our local paper, the Ukiah Daily Journal seems to have a problem with the local school district. I haven't really agreed with him until now. This morning, I saw this blog posting from the editor entitled Wondering about UUSD policy.

I got a call from a single Mom who has two children, a kindergartner heading to first grade next year and a fourth grader heading to fifth grade. The two children both go to Frank Zeek School, which is not their neighborhood school. This woman got permission to put her kids into Frank Zeek (Nokomis is her neighborhood school according to UUSD) because she thought they would get a better education there and their father lives in the Frank Zeek neighborhood. The other day, this Mom got a letter from the principal of Frank Zeek saying that because her fourth grader had been absent from school four times in the past year and tardy 14 times, he was no longer welcome at Frank Zeek and that she would have to go register him at Nokomis next year. I understand she got a similar letter for her daughter who she admits had a tough kindergarten year tardiness wise, not wanting to go to a different school after a happy pre-school experience.

This woman lives in the neighborhood of the Grace Hudson School which she thinks would be a good place for her children, but was told by the administration there that her children would not be eligible to go because they do not speak Spanish. According to this Mom, she was told by the Grace Hudson School that kids going to that school must enter at kindergarten because of the immersion Spanish program which teaches English speakers to speak Spanish.

Apparently the waiting lists for local charter schools is long and her only option is to try for the lotteries at each school, which does not guarantee her children will go tot he same school.

Why doesn't she want her children at Nokomis? She says she knows that children there get bullied and beat up regularly and that the campus security is lax.

So, I am wondering:

• if it's true that only kindergartners or kids who already speak Spanish are allowed to enroll at Grace Hudson School even if they live in that neighborhood?
• if four absences in a 9-month long school year can result in your kid basically being expelled from the school?
• if Nokomis's reputation - and I recall our own news stories from four or five years ago about the bullying at Nokomis - is deserved and what the school district is doing about it?

After reading the posting, what "I am wondering" is why KC posted this item without actually confirming any of this mom's assertions or giving the school district the opportunity to respond. It just blows me away that she's basing this posting entirely upon one phone call. That shouldn't fly on the front page of her paper, so I'm not sure why she thinks it is OK on her blog.

Personally, I don't know if any of this is true. It might be nice however to hear from the school district about it.

I could easily write something similar about the local paper without any confirmations or research. I wonder how she would enjoy that.

I got a call from a subscriber to the local paper. She's taken the paper for a number of years. All of the sudden she got a letter from the paper saying that because she has missed a subscription payment and bounced a few checks to the paper that they're canceling her subscription.

She tried to subscribe to the Willits News, but they said they wouldn't give her a subscription either because they only deliver in Willits.

She doesn't want to subscribe to the Lake County Record-Bee because she knows that they just make up their stories.

So, I'm wondering:

• if it is true that the Ukiah Daily Journal would cancel a subscription just because someone missed a payment.
• if it is true that the Willits News discriminates against Ukiah residents.
• If the Lake County Record-Bee's reputation is deserved and what the California Newspaper Partnership and MediaNews Group, Inc. is doing about it.

It wouldn't be so much fun if the shoe was on the other foot.

A friend of Dave forwarded this little announcement:

Right to Learn Day of Action!

On April 18, 2008, more than 10,000 young people throughout the state will speak up against more than $5 billion in cuts proposed for California public schools and demand that "We Deserve Better!" as part of a statewide Day of Action. Using the RTL web platform as a dynamic organizing tool, over 100 student leaders will host actions on their individual school campuses. During the Day of Action, students will be encouraged to upload pictures from their cell phones and digital cameras and the website will highlight this media to unite the collective and powerful student voice to denounce these budget cuts. Get involved today at www.RightToLearnCA.org!

I'm so disappointed. What a waste. If these kids want to get politically active in education issues, why not protest dismal graduation rates or gigantic achievement gaps? I'm not thrilled about the $2.2B cut in next year's education budget either, but to be honest, there are lots of other issues. There is so much in public education that deserves serious outrage from our young people. It is too bad they're being co-opted by the protectors of the status quo in the "Education Coalition" to do their will.

My sister Michelle has joined the world of bloggers with her new political blog:

http://4obama08.blogspot.com.

Be sure to check it out. Even if you're like me and hardly ever agree with her, I'm sure you'll find it interesting.

Living in Mendocino County, I sometimes feel surrounded by the "marijuana culture" which frequently pops up in our county. One of my ongoing jokes has been that I wanted to create a charter school called, "Hemp High", which would utilize the production and distribution of marijuana as the basis of its curriculum. For example, science instruction would include determining the THC potency of their crop. Mathematics instruction would be focused on the distribution and profits from the crop. Anyway, you get the idea. Clearly, this was only a marginally humorous joke on my part. I'd usually get a few chuckles, but it never went beyond that.

Apparently, not everyone thinks my idea is a joke. Today, I read this Oakland Tribune piece about Oaksterdam University, a trade school that provides instruction in the cultivation of marijuana.

I found this Fresno Bee story to be very frustrating. The article tells the story of Lincoln Elementary in Lindsay Unified forgoing federal Title I money in order to avoid accountability under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. The tone of the article seems to suggest that this cute little rural elementary school is defying the big, evil George Bush-loving federal bureaucracy.

As the father of five daughters, fortunately all of them much older than six, I thought this New York Sun story was hilarious. I couldn't agree more with Celia Rivenbark, the author of Stop Dressing Your Six-year-old Like a Skank. I'm appalled at the attire of some of the young girls I see walking to school or in the store. Glenn Beck calls them "prostitots" and I think he's right.