Swimming in the Pensieve

The lesson I was teaching my two youngest daughters, about René Decartes, was interrupted by a phone call from Guillermo Jimenez, of Millikan High, at 12:03 this afternoon. Permit me to tell you what another one of LBUSD’s “good, little, policy-drones” has to say about the provisos and quid-pro-quos of a FAPE in LBUSD; while he waits for a pat on his head from the table scrap gods.

At 11:42 this morning my son’s English teacher, Kevin Fielder, removed him from his last class of the day. The manner in which this was performed was by Mr. Fielder’s beginning class, then picking up the phone by the classroom door, stepping outside and making a call to the On Campus Suspension squad. When the “OCS Officer” arrived, Fielder stood at the front of the class, pointed at my son and ordered him to leave with the “OCS Officer” and, “Take your stuff, also.”

Evidently, none of my son’s other teachers had a problem with the particular shade of his pants today; as none of them actioned him at all. They are, most likely, reasonable individuals. Fielder, on the other hand–though he may be an otherwise good teacher (which remains to be seen)–certainly seems to have his clock wound just a bit too tight over this black-vs-navy blue pants issue; or is nursing a simple vendetta. He’s the only teacher to turn this into the fiasco that it is today.

Why is it a fiasco?

Mainly because after sending an email regarding the issue to each of:

Maggie Webster <mwebster@lbusd.k12.ca.us>,Chris Steinhauser <csteinhauser@lbusd.k12.ca.us>,Jeffrey Cornejo <jcornejo@lbusd.k12.ca.us>,Donald Keller <dkeller@lbusd.k12.ca.us>,

and

Guillermo Jimenez <gjimenez@lbusd.k12.ca.us>

on “Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:09:24 -0700,” according to my email server logs; not one of these individuals had the civility to reply to said email. (IMHO: Steinhauser, timid tail-wagger that he is, will never respond to us directly; because it isn’t pleasant being out-classed in a battle wherein the requisite armament is a fully-functioning set of wits. In the few instances of contact between him and our family, he has been only half-armed.)I really don’t care what you may happen to think of me, or my ability to see the law for what it is. If you lack the capacity to proffer an intelligent (or any) reply to an issue that I have raised with you; then you have cast yourself in the coward’s role and will be treated accordingly. I don’t have time to waste being “P.C.” with people who are too immature to handle everyday life. In short, you will get yourself verbally smacked-upside the head by me, and you more than deserve the treatment.

Moreover, if you happen to be one of those all-too-common, district, policy-drones who intone, “You need to understand that I’m not here to question policy, I’m just here to enforce policy. I’m just doing my job.” you need to realize that I have no consideration for brainless fools, and you are paid to take whatever I can dish-out in what will probably constitute a vain attempt at educating you. Spinless Nazi guards deserved the noose. You deserve my utter and vocal disdain. Call it a public service.

Fine. Millikan admin built a bonfire and set a match to it; and, in doing so, handed me the basis for a lawsuit that I neither want, nor have the time, to bother myself with. However, if it comes to that, here’s the basis of the reasoning:

California Education Code

§ 35183

(a) The Legislature finds and declares each of the following:
(1) The children of this state have the right to an effective public school education. Both students and staff of the primary, elementary, junior and senior high school campuses have the constitutional right to be safe and secure in their persons at school. However, children in many of our public schools are forced to focus on the threat of violence and the messages of violence contained in many aspects of our society, particularly reflected in gang regalia that disrupts the learning environment.(2) “Gang-related apparel” is hazardous to the health and safety of the school environment.(3) Instructing teachers and administrators on the subtleties of identifying constantly changing gang regalia and gang affiliation takes an increasing amount of time away from educating our children.(4) Weapons, including firearms and knives, have become common place upon even our elementary school campuses. Students often conceal weapons by wearing clothing, such as jumpsuits and overcoats, and by carrying large bags.

(5) The adoption of a schoolwide uniform policy is a reasonable way to provide some protection for students. A required uniform may protect students from being associated with any particular gang. Moreover, by requiring schoolwide uniforms teachers and administrators may not need to occupy as much of their time learning the subtleties of gang regalia.

(6) To control the environment in public schools to facilitate and maintain an effective learning environment and to keep the focus of the classroom on learning and not personal safety, schools need the authorization to implement uniform clothing requirements for our public school children.

(7) Many educators believe that school dress significantly influences pupil behavior. This influence is evident on school dressup days and color days. Schools that have adopted school uniforms experience a “coming together feeling,” greater school pride, and better behavior in and out of the classroom.

(b) The governing board of any school district may adopt or rescind a reasonable dress code policy that requires pupils to wear a schoolwide uniform or prohibits pupils from wearing “gang-related apparel” if the governing board of the school district approves a plan that may be initiated by an individual school’s principal, staff, and parents and determines that the policy is necessary for the health and safety of the school environment. Individual schools may include the reasonable dress code policy as part of its school safety plan, pursuant to § 35294.1. ^[*](d) A dress code policy that requires pupils to wear a schoolwide uniform shall not be implemented with less than six months- notice to parents and the availability of resources to assist economically disadvantaged pupils.

(e) The governing board shall provide a method whereby parents may choose not to have their children comply with an adopted school uniform policy.

(f) If a governing board chooses to adopt a policy pursuant to this section, the policy shall include a provision that no pupil shall be penalized academically or otherwise discriminated against nor denied attendance to school if the pupil’s parents chose not to have the pupil comply with the school uniform policy. The governing board shall continue to have responsibility for the appropriate education of those pupils.

^[*] § 35294.1

(a) The governing board of a school district, on behalf of one or more schools within the district that have developed a school safety plan, may apply to the Superintendent of Public Instruction for a grant to implement school safety plans. A grant shall be awarded only for school safety plans that include the following criteria:
(1) Assessment of the recent incidence of crime committed on the school campus.(2) Identification of appropriate strategies and programs that will provide or maintain a high level of school safety.(3) Development of an action plan, in conjunction with local law enforcement agencies, for implementing appropriate safety strategies and programs, and determining the fiscal impact of executing the strategies and programs. The action plan shall identify available resources which will provide for implementation of the plan.

(b) The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall award grants pursuant to this section to school districts for the implementation of individual school safety plans in an amount not to exceed fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for each school. No grant shall be made unless the school district makes available, for purposes of implementing the school safety plans, an amount of funds equal to the amount of the grant. Grants should be awarded through a competitive process, based upon criteria including, but not limited to,

(1) the merit of the proposal and(2) the need for imposing school safety, based on school crime rates.

(c) Any school district receiving a grant under this section shall report to the Superintendent of Public Instruction annually for three consecutive years following the receipt of the grant concerning the impact of the implementation of the school safety plan on the incidence of crime on the campus of the school.

Additionally:

Letter from ACLU Foundation of So. CalACLU’s L.A. based affiliate says it believes LBUSD “intends to transfer Millikan High School students whose parents do not ‘opt out’ to a school that has no uniform requirement.” The letter declares, “Transfers are a form of reprisal and would violate state law.”It adds, “Even if a school does not take action against students who ‘opt out,’ the school would still [sic] in violation of state law if the notice sent to parents mentions the possibility of a school transfer.”The ACLU letter continues: “Any policy that contains restrictions on a parent’s statutory right to choose that their child ‘opt out’ of wearing a uniform, or which allows reprisals against students who ‘opt out,’ is illegal.”

It advises Superintendent Steinhauser to “take immediate action to change the mandatory uniform policy proposed for Millikan” and said notices about the uniform policy “must inform parents of the ‘opt out’ provision and make clear that no reprisals will be taken against students whose parents follow the ‘opt out’ procedures. No mention can be made of school transfers.”

The ACLU letter requests a response by February 7 and adds that “[f]ailure to respond will be interpreted as a refusal to change the illegal language in the uniform notices.”

LBUSD response citing its key facts 1. Our school uniforms for Millikan will comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law. 2. No student will be denied attendance to school. 3. No Millikan student will be transferred out.

4. All parents of eighth graders, wherever they may live throughout the district, may apply for admission for their son or daughter to Millikan for the fall semester.

5. Millikan is a school of choice with priority given to students living in the Millikan area.

6. Parents who do not choose the Millikan program can choose from up to 11 other high school options.

7. Millikan can enroll a maximum of 980 ninth graders and expects to have a capacity enrollment plus a waiting list for admission.

8. Economically disadvantaged students will receive school uniform assistance from the Assistance League of Long Beach.

9. Parents and school staff at Millikan requested school uniforms and support the Board of Education’s decision this month to approve uniforms for Millikan.

10. Millikan is the second high school in Long Beach to offer parents the opportunity to choose such a program. Wilson took a similar step in 1997 which has resulted in major school improvements and attracted hundreds of private and parochial school students.

REFERENCE: LBReport.com: Millikan High Mandatory Uniform Policy For Fall ‘03 Illegal Without “Opt Out” Or Exemption Procedure

Further:

Millikan High School Uniform Dress Code
Beginning with the Class of 2007
June 9, 2003 UpdateThe Millikan High School Uniform Dress Code is in addition to the LBUSD Dress Code. Students who fail to comply with the Uniform Dress Code are, after counseling and parent conference, subject to being transferred to another school.BOYS:Khaki (tan)/Navy (dark blue) pants or shorts (denim is not acceptable)
• Pants must be hemmed and fitted at the waist and crotch without the need of a belt.
• Shorts may not be shorter than mid-thigh.
• Long pants cannot drag on the ground.

GIRLS:Khaki (tan)/Navy (dark blue) pants, shorts, jumpers, overalls, or skirts

• Pants must be hemmed and fitted at the waist and crotch without the need of a belt.
• Shorts may not be shorter than mid-thigh.
• Long pants cannot drag on the ground.

GIRLS AND BOYS:White or navy (dark blue) shirts

• Shirts must have collars or turtlenecks.
• Shirts must be tucked into the waistband.
• Shirts must be logo free unless they have Millikan High School, ASB chartered club or Millikan High School athletic logos.
• Millikan spirit gear and aloha shirts may be worn on Fridays.
• Only white, short-sleeved undershirts may be worn.
• All sweaters, sweatshirts, sweat jackets, fleece pullovers, and fleece jackets must be white, khaki(tan), navy(dark blue) or gold.
• No logos except Millikan High School, ASB chartered club, or Millikan High School athletic logos.^[1]

Coats and jackets (except fleece and sweat jackets) may be any color. (Coats and jackets are defined as outerwear which either zip or button up the entire front.)

• No logos except Millikan High School, ASB chartered club, or Millikan High School athletic logos.
• Coats may not be worn in the classroom. Only cover-ups in school colors may be worn in the classroom.
• Hoods must be worn down except when outside in winter weather.

The Long Beach Unified School District requires all students who attend Millikan High School to wear a uniform. In cases of economic hardship, help in obtaining uniforms is available. For more information, please call Doug Stewart, assistant principal at (562) 425-7441. If you are unable to resolve your concerns, you may obtain a Parent/Guardian Complaint Form in the school office.

^[1] Swastikas will be gradually phased-in over the next eight years.

REFERENCE: Illegal Millikan High Mandatory Uniform Policy as of June 9, 2003

Even thought I am the one who added the footnote about the swastikas…just a dog-gone-cornfuzzeled-minute! I just saw the following pieces of information over at http://www.gate.net/~rwms/UniformDWilliams.html

‘’In Long Beach, California, the first district to have a widespread mandatory uniform policy in the public schools, the initial reports concerning drops in crime and discipline were astonishing. Assault dropped by sixty-seven percent, vandalism by eighty-two percent, and robbery by thirty-five percent. Overall crime was reduced by seventy-three percent the first year the policy was in place (”K-8″ 1). Unfortunately, these radical improvements were, at times, attributed exclusively to the new, mandatory uniform policy. During a telephone interview in April 1996, Dick Van Der Laan, Long Beach Unified School District spokesman, stated that the only change which had occurred in the district, prior to the improved discipline results, was the implementation of the uniform policy. However, in the study conducted by Drs. David L. Brunsma and Kerry A. Rockquemore of the University of Notre Dame, a closer look at the Long Beach case revealed that several other reforms were put in place at the same time or shortly prior to the implementation of the uniform policy. So, while uniforms were the most visible change, the improvements were more likely attributable to the other programs which included, among other initiatives, a $1 million grant from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation for the improvement of teaching methods (Brunsma and Rockquemore 16). Concerning the tendency of Long Beach sources to give credit for the improvements exclusively to uniforms, the study states, “It seems curious given these substantive reform efforts, administrators continue to insist that uniforms are the sole factor causing a variety of positive educational outcome” (16). In response to such scrutiny, Van Der Laan now states that while the district believes uniforms were a contributing factor to the improved discipline rates, they were not the only cause (United 4). The University of Notre Dame study also belies the claims that uniforms improve discipline: “Our findings indicate that student uniforms have no direct effect on . . . behavioral problems” (Brunsma and Rockquemore 1). So, despite the claims that the improving disciplinary numbers being issued by Long Beach, California, are attributable to uniforms, the data seems to contradict those assertions.'’‘’Another example of a district’s policy failing to produce the results often touted by uniform supporters is the Miami-Dade County, Florida policy. In an effort to obtain the dramatically positive discipline results reported by Long Beach, Miami-Dade County implemented a similar policy in many of their elementary and middle schools beginning in the 1996-97 school year. The results were, at best, disappointing and, at worst, alarming. The elementary schools with mandatory uniforms saw a slight decrease in discipline problems. Unfortunately, the high hopes held by the district for immediate, significant improvement in discipline were not realized. Sabrina Walters, a reporter for the Miami Herald writes, “The drastic decline uniform supporters had envisioned did not occur” (1). Alarmingly, in middle schools, where uniforms were mandatory, fights nearly doubled over a four-year period from 186 in 1996-97 to 284 in 1997-98. The district administrators attempted to explain away this startling fact by pointing out that fights increased at nonuniform schools as well from 152 to 201 over the same period (1). The conclusion of the Miami-Dade Study states,
This study has not proven the unequivocal effectiveness of mandatory uniforms. If school uniforms promoted educative behavior, as powerfully as conjectured, the incidents of safety infractions should have declined dramatically subsequent to the establishment of uniform policies at elementary schools in Miami-Dade County. However, as indicated the changes in frequency of these infractions were independent of which dress code was operative at a school. (Miami-Dade 4-5)


The summary further states that while some safety violations declined at mandatory uniform schools, the same problems were reduced at nonuniform schools as well (1). Empirical data does not support the anecdotal accounts of discipline and safety improvements cited by uniform proponents.'’‘’Improved academic achievement is an additional benefit frequently attributed to mandatory uniform policies. Consistently, however, data from true scientific study seems to contradict this claim. In the study performed by Drs. Brunsma and Rockquemore, test scores at schools having mandatory uniforms actually dropped (1). The school district in Long Beach, California, continues to produce test scores significantly below the state average despite years of mandatory uniforms (”STAR California” and “STAR Long”). Despite claims set forth by proponents that uniforms improve academic performance, there is no empirical data to lend validation to these claims.'’

‘’Supporters further claim that uniforms improve attendance. According to proponents of these policies, uniforms improve school attitude and spirit which brings about a net decrease in truancy and absenteeism. In Long Beach, California, attendance has slowly improved in elementary and middle schools since their mandatory uniform policy has been in effect. Attendance has also improved at the high schools where no uniforms are required, at a more statistically significant rate (”In Schools” 2). This would seem to indicate an overall trend rather than uniform-induced improvement. Further study of these statistics indicates that the trend of improved attendance has been ongoing since 1990 (2). In Polk County, Florida, where the most restrictive, district wide uniform policy in the nation was set in place in 1999, the opposite of Long Beach attendance results is emerging. In the 1998-99 school year there were 506 truancy cases investigated in Polk County. By January 2000, the district was on track to break that record for the 1999-2000 school year (McBride “Schools” 1). The truancy rate is so bad that in an effort to curtail it, the Superintendent of Schools is seeking to criminally prosecute the worst offenders, including a seven-year-old boy (Shah 1). The effect of truancy and absenteeism was also addressed in the University of Notre Dame study. No direct causation was shown (Brunsma and Rockquemore 1). There is no scientific data which shows that uniforms have a positive impact on attendance. In fact, it is possible that in some cases, absenteeism and truancy may increase under these policies.'’

Another thing that interests me is that, credible, scientific studies prove the claims of LBUSD, with respect to uniforms, to be unethical at best.

The Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Use, and Academic Achievement

School Uniforms: An Empirical Analysis and Observational Study of the Implications in Public Schools.

School Uniforms: Prevention or Suppression? concludes:

‘’In order to emphasis [sic] his position on the school uniform proposal and its apparent effectiveness, President Clinton draws attention to the Long Beach Unified School District as the model system. As Siegel points out, in an obvious attempt to demonstrate its success, President Clinton misleadingly reports the Long Beach School’s self-generated data showing decreases in student misconduct. Unfortunately, there was no mention of the other steps taken by the School District to improve school behavior during the experimental year. Siegel reports, at the same time the school uniform policy was implemented, the District began “increasing the number of teachers patrolling the hallways during class changes” (Siegel 1). Clearly, no one can be sure which change had the most effect on student behavior. Furthermore, we need to remember who the gate-keeper of this conclusive data is. Could the school administrators, in an attempt to promote the effectiveness of their new policy and in light of the national attention it had drawn, have possibly overlooked certain infractions during the year?'’ [Stranger things have happened.]

So…LBUSD can’t do credible research. What, then, are ignorant people like this doing in charge of educating our children? Please remember that a school administrator’s facts are more what that person wants to believe than they are based upon truth. Here’s one man’s experience with a supposedly educated school administrator, and her inability to do proper research. His experience is the norm, not the exception.

If you pay attention to the California Educational Code snippet, you’ll see that the LBUSD policy is neither reasonable nor legal.

The stated goal of the legislation is one of preventing students from wearing “gang-related apparel” as a (dubious) means of enhancing school safety. Is this goal attained by the wearing of dark navy pants? The school district would submit to you that it is. The school district would submit, by bull-headed implication, that the wearing of black uniform pants does not attain the goals of the above-cited legislation. An aggregate darkening of only 9% will make you or break you at Millikan, it seems. (Trust me. Numerically-speaking, it works out exactly.)

Is this a reasonable stance, on the part of the district? Given that the color shades involved are nearly indistinguishable within the normal classroom environs, it most-assuredly is not. It’s nearly impossible to distinguish between the two colors at a distance–even in bright sunlight. My son, wearing a white shirt and black pants is in full conformity with LBUSD’s uniform policy, and substantial conformity with Millikan’s uniform policy; and anyone who singles out this kid for punishment–as they have done twice–is in violation of a state law that, as a matter of historical practice must be interpreted against the school district.

Going further, LBUSD stated (above) that no student would be transferred from Millikan for non-compliance with the uniform policy, yet includes a transfer punishment for non-compliance, a little over four months later. We can only conclude that it is the habit and practice of LBUSD to lie to parents and the media–as well as to officers of the court. Big surprise! They’ve done nothing but lie to us for years, so why should the leopard change his spots now?

Guillermo Jimenez had his little speech down pat, and told me how my son would be removed from class every time he was found to be out of compliance with the uniform policy of Millikan High. He went on to state that there would be an escalating process of punishment against my son, culminating in his involuntary, punitive, transfer out of Millikan High. The interim process would have my son sitting in an On Campus Suspension Center; not receiving an education, as mandated by law. (How can this guy look in the mirror? At least Michael Brown was a well-paid incompetent, but to do this to himself for the peanuts he’s making? What a joke!)

I clearly informed Jimenez that his precious uniform policy was against the law, and that he, as enforcer of the policy–thus advised–was performing his duties in bad-faith (knowingly violating California State law). Little Generalisimo Jimenez takes his small portion of power over kids very seriously, and stated that our only choice of opt-out was to transfer our child to another high school campus. Fat chance! (This guy sounds very much like Gutierrez–serious controll issues.)

Next up to bat came their pinch-hitter, Kevin Fielder, the original offender who has his panties permanently bunched-up. His job was to talk me down and buy time for risk management to assess the threat to their coffers over this matter. I told him what he wanted to hear, and he told me that he would lay-off the boy (like I belive him), and tried to engender some sort of empathy for him in me. I can say that I know what I would feel like if I had acted like he did; which is why I don’t act like a sycophant, blindly following the most ridiculous of district policies with zeal; instead of demanding that somebody order me to violate the law–in writing–which would probably stop such nonsense in its tracks.

…or just maybe I have more of a spine than most people? Are educators really that weak?

At any rate, he believes that he successfully talked me into a warm-n-fuzzy frame of mind, and that I’ll try to work things out with Cornejo; like a good, stupid, parent who takes orders from yet another district boot-lick who lacked the intestinal fortitude to respond to my first email to him. I’d rather keep looking for a decent attorney for this case, because I know that I’ll just be lied-to by Jimenez’s boss. I’m kind of tired of being lied-to, if you don’t mind.

He did admit with some surprise that, our son behaved politely and respectfully toward him on both occasions of his nit-picking the boy. You bet. It’s MY job to be the jerk about it–not his–and he’s very clear on the whole concept of letting us do the fighting for him.

Our son will remain at Millikan for the time being, and continue to wear the uniform pants that he has been wearing thus far. We will not transfer him from this school, nor will we allow him to be singled-out for ridicule or punishment. Should the district make further action necessary, we will litigate the issue–very publicly.

If it becomes necessary for us to take legal steps against LBUSD, or any individual therein, you will find all court documents published on this web site.

This is, more than likely, one of the top reasons why the district is seeing a drop in student enrollments. If that’s not good enough for you, then take a look at: http://www.aprod.org/statutes.htm and http://www.katyzerotolerance.com/webedition2/ourstories.html

I would love to see the observed drop in LBUSD enrollments accelerate exponentially, since they can’t seem to manage to teach our children something worthwhile. Do your child a favor and enroll him or her in The California Virtual Academies.