Running for Office in 2010, Vote

Dear Leonard Martin,

Thank you for running for Superintendent of Instruction.  In our local school district of east San Jose, there is a lack of available educational services as compared to other school districts:

Local and State authorities have been contacted regarding the above inequity and seem to lack interest.  At least one elected State official asserts that the following provision of federal law does not apply to all children in public schools:

“Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.“  U.S. Supreme Court, BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

1) Would you order the State to take control of a school district when the local education agency fails to provide educational services on equal terms?

2) Would you begin having the CDE monitor local education agencies each year for providing specific “level of service” metrics and require no less than the level that the State provides for financially bankrupt school districts?

I look forward to hearing from you regarding these questions.

Thank you,

Parent

Dear   Parent:

I have read your email with great interest but my answer will not likely satisfy you.  Having said that, you are likely to find my answer to be a more appropriate one than you are likely to receive, if you receive anything, from Romero, Moorlands, Gutierrez – the leading candidates – or from any of the lesser names.

You have made a bad comparison – using Oakland High as the counterpart of a high school in East San Jose.  We both know that Oakland was under state control for some time although it now is back in the hands of a local board.  The figures you cite for Oakland will not be true when the next budget kicks in, since Oakland will be cutting drastically.  A year from now an Oakland parent could well write a similar letter, wondering why East San Jose has more counselors, teachers per 1000 students, etc.

I do not know, and frankly I doubt that any other candidate knows, how those statistics stack up with statewide averages on number of class hours, librarians, etc.  We do know that some of those staff positions, statewide, will take a terrific hit in the 2010-11 school year.

Do I believe in equality in educational opportunity?  YES!!!!  But what you have described is far more complicated.  If there were two high schools in East San Jose and one of them was denied it proper share of funds so that the other school could offer frills to its students, then that is a problem that the state should do something about if the local board fails to correct the situation.  Of course, the first question to ask is why haven’t the parents elected a board that offers equal educational opportunity?  If the answer to that question reveals a situation where the electoral process is so rigged that parental control of the board is impossible, then the state needs to act.

But you are concerned that your district falls behind a norm the state has apparently set as indicated by the statistics from Oakland.  Oakland is not the test.  You may be correct in arguing that Oakland got too much, but, as I noted earlier, we don’t know what circumstances could have legitimately caused what appears to be an unfair allocation of funds to that high school.  Again, what you really have to show is statewide stats on those specific categories in your chart.  Does East San Jose fall short in that comparison?  If so, then we have to ask if it is because your district failed to seek other forms of revenue, such as the parcel tax – which I detest but which might account for more librarians in some districts than others, etc.

I strongly support the Serrano decision of many years ago that required the state to equalize, in a manner, the amount of money available per pupil in each district.  Before Serrano, districts with a refinery or other valuable property got far more money per pupil from the local property tax than bedroom communities.  Serrano somewhat balanced that out, but it still left inequities.  Did you see the documentary on PBS that contrasted San Pablo with Orinda?  The schools in the Orinda area have all that anyone could ask for, in part because the parents are wealthy enough to contribute vast amounts of money for the arts, etc.  The folks in San Pablo can’t do that.  They need all their money for running a household. I confess I don’t know much about East San Jose but it is not likely that you match Orinda, and I hope you are better off than San Pablo.

2]  As to your second question, I do not believe that the level of services provided to a bankrupt district ought to be the threshold by which everything else is judged.  Again, as in Oakland, there may be extenuating circumstances that justify the situation that disturbs you.  I don’t know, and I doubt if any other candidate knows.  And I doubt that any of them will be willing to send a communication as detailed as this to you.  I can only say that if elected – which is not likely considering the political power of either Torlakson or Romero – I pledge that I will insist on fairness in the distribution of the state’s $37 billion education budget.  If we stop the mad rush to charter schools our real public schools will not be as short of funds as they currently are, with charters draining off a billion or more of that money to line the pockets of the privateers who run them. 

Your district is entitled to adequate financing, and if we would tax commercial property as vigorously as we tax homes, the problem would be largely solved. But too many vested interests do not want to tinker with Prop 13, so residents of bedroom communities, which I assume is what East San Jose is, must suffer when it comes to school finance. 

I won’t apologize for the long answer.  You asked serious questions but the answers are not simple.  If you feel, having read this, that you can trust me to direct the department of education, I would welcome your support in June. If you will be satisfied with more of the same that you have suffered through in East San Jose, elect one of the others.

Sincerely,

Leonard James Martin

Candidate for the State of California, Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010

Leonardj.martin@gmail.com

P.O.  Box 802888

Santa Clarita, California 91380-2888

P. S. Feel free to share this with whomever you wish to read it.

 _________________________________________________________

Question;

Please let me know what types of healthy food are you interested in implementing. What are your views on regarding health and what are you planning to change in the schools?

Cordially,

G. S.

Answer;

To answer your question, I am building my platform on what the public schools, teachers and students want. As to what type of healthy food, I propose fresh fruit and vegetables, “Feed our students like they are eating in a healthy home” and hot fresh cooked meals. As to my views on health, is to have an offsite environmental company do some testing periodically. We need more one on one with the students, this means more teachers, and after school teachers for those students that need the extra help. These after school teachers could be college students working for extra credit. Money should not ever be an issue, our students and teachers should be our number one interest, as they are our future. Education in our schools should never have a cap. If you put a cap over a flower it will not grow. If you put a cap our education system, our students will not grow. It is very simple, “Today’s student is tomorrows future.”  “No today…No tomorrow.” Words from Leonard James Martin, your Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of California 2010. It is time that the Public has someone in Office for the Public. Thank you for reading.

Question;

What are you going to do about Chevron Corporation?  This is really important…Chevron also has their pipes running under schools (mine) and when they have vapor intrusion into the school, they don’t give a sh–.  Also bury their crap under schools….