I researched into several of you false statements about Life Academy. They are one of the lowest performing schools in Oakland. You noted the following, “this is a school that has the highest attendance rate, (false) parent/student/staff satisfaction rate,(false)(CHSEE) passage rate by 12th grade, (false)University of California eligibity rates in ALL OUSD high school(false)! Why did you make-up such false statements about Life Academy?

This is a low performing school, go to the California Department of Education web site and low at the facts!

I’m not saying the public schools should all adapt a boot camp atmosphere but the schools need to make it completely clear that the student doesn’t control much of anything, that they are subservient to teachers and staff, that the operation of the place isn’t for their comfort and not everybody is welcome or expected to make it at every campus. Kind of like having a job.

Coming from a messed up family doesn’t mean the students are worthless or even dull. There is usually a place for everybody and something everybody has a gift at doing. The trick is to sort the students so that they are kept challenged and don’t get too happy or too comfortable. The schools need to establish and keep an esprit de corps – which used to be done with school sports teams and competitions and other rah-rah type activities. Uniforms and controlled access might help.

Students from messed up families, etc., may find themselves in situations where they get attention from adults, get to use pricey or impressive equipment, go to a clean an orderly campus where violence and threatening behavior is ruthlessly suppressed unless by staff or police, and if required the schools should run a cafeteria like before so that everybody does have enough scheduled meals so that basic nutrition and meals are no hinderence to school performance. The cafeteria is more important to Urban Schools than wealthy schools and funding should be adjusted accordingly.

I also think that male staffing is crucial to students from messed up families – if they have a female headed household, a big liability in life, we should try to compensate with more male instructors or husband/wife teaching combos in classrooms. I’d also like to see more life skills integrated in reading/english/math/social studies classes. Basic algebra classes could perhaps include components of credit/investing/budgeting/consumer financing/business subjects.

Unless the kids are mentally ill, retarded or psychotic I expect the public schools to get them ready for age 18, I don’t care if the parents are dead or in prison or just unfit. I would love to see social workers on campus with office hours at any campus that can use them. I’m in favor of social work, School based workers should help find the kids housing, jobs, medical help, other schools, and any assistance needed to make it through age 18.

“Good Family” as you use the word has a lot to do with genetic pedigree. You “have” good family like you “have” good teeth. But remember that even siblings get different hands from the game of life. One sibling may have weak teeth, cavities all the time, while the others don’t.

As I often have said I expect the public schools to take everybody, sort as needed, and do the best they can with the students enrolled regardless of how good or how supportive the parents are.

That can’t happen currently because the public schools are run without discipline and order. Even children with potential are made undisciplined self centered people due to the bad environment comment in urban public schools. They don’t develop to potential thereafter – they pick up “problems” like a rolling stone (as in “Poppa was a”).

True with messy, undisciplined, schools only the children with the biological advantage of strong, smart family tend to turn out well.

If the schools provided a better lower common denominator – like they used to – this country would again have social mobility we used to have. Now it’s just rich getting richer, poor getting poorer with unwanted unsupported kids.

Somehow, I can’t imagine GWB getting a BA from anywhere, let alone Yale, without his family connections, or getting into any business school (forget Harvard) without those connections. My mental image of that man – without the Bush family background, fortune and connections – looks a whole lot like a former brother-in-law, career marine now retired, alcoholic, divorced his first wife (they married during h.s. when he got her pregnant, and neither finished h.s.) and abandoned their children (who also failed to complete h.s.), then my sister finally dumped him when she couldn’t tolerate his self-destructive alcohol abuse any more.

I can’t imagine OUSD kids without good family supports doing much better than that brother-in-law, no matter how good OUSD becomes. With a strong family (or a strong surrogate family, like my husband found in foster care), maybe one day we’ll see a graduate of OUSD schools residing in the White House.

But that’s just a couple of anecdotes, and doesn’t prove anything (except, maybe that I lack imagination). You’re big on statistics, so are there any studies available on the outcomes of kids with good family supports, verses the outcomes for kids without?

You got that right. W is a perfect example of how the dullest child in a family grouping can still do whatever he wants with support and guidance from a strong family and family retainers. IQ is not everything, it helps, but Ruthlessness, Cunning, Treachery, and Perserverence counts for a whole lot. And if you can control the Cocaine you do better in life also.

This is a good example of why OUSD should be able to produce more results with the population they work with. Being dull DOES NOT mean you have to fail in life. You can still find a four year college if you are willing to do most of what’s required to graduate in something. You can find a nice civil service job, maybe a succession of them.

But you do need to learn how to speak, read and write english at least as well as W, keep the rap sheet under control – and get everything expunged, and avoid the Baby Mamma albatross. Don’t take a job where only the brights survive, look for opportunities that make the most of what you have – like Obama – politics in any form is always a possibility.

Oh, wait, I think he illustrates your point far better than your own words did.

Exactly what kinds of kids go to college and become successful? I would pose that it’s not C students from OUSD. I don’t think such students are generally (4 year) college material.

I believe C students from OUSD need good and maybe expensive vocational education. The type that if we’re lucky is offered by Jr Colleges – or the more expensive private trade schools. I’d love to see OUSD get their “C” students ready and placed into voc ed programs especially the programs leading to $50k a year and up.

And that means making sure that the “C” students are so disciplined that they speak standard english, have a realistic understanding of American Society, have excellent deportment and ability to fit in to training and the workforce. That’s where I believe OUSD fails the most and where students who might have made it were not prepared to cross over into career life. Teaching delayed gratification, and that the student has no right to impose on other people.

The untrained & unhousebroken wind up in the courts on petty things that snowball into damaged lives. The females get pregnant and bear unwanted children they can’t properly care for. The males – fathers of some of those children – have anchors around their necks in the form of child support for the unwanted children. They are kept from driver’s licenses and state occupational licenses. Certain behaviors are associated with poverty and premature death. The students should be taught the odds – as well as the need to shun people that will take them there.

Most OUSD students are not college material as shown by the low testing. OUSD must have a plan to give these students a decent future.