text:
Wine, or W.I.N.E. Is Not an Emulator, is a set of compatibility libraries that allow some Windows applications to run pseudo naively on Linux by mapping Windows API calls to native Linux calls. In the past I have been sort of successful with using Wine but I have never really given it a good go. So I decided that I should put Wine through it's paces!
Rather than approach this from an expert's standpoint I am going to use Wine starting from a novice's ability and then move up if needed.
- Try and run program from graphical shell
- Try and run program from terminal
- Try and adjust WINE settings to see if I can make it work
- Search the web for ideas and consult Wine's App DB
The Programs
I have selected a number of different applications to test with Wine – some productive software and some games. I have done no research as to the compatibility of these programs under Wine, they just happen to be easy to use for testing, so it's going to be a surprise for me no matter what happens. As I'm sure you can tell it's been a while since I've played games on my PC…
- Command & Conquer: Red Alert
- Windows 95+/DOS
- 75 MHz Pentium Processor (120 MHz recommended)
- 8 MB RAM (16 MB recommended)
- 4x CD-ROM
- 1 MB video card
- SimCity 3000 Unlimited
- Windows 98+
- 233 MHz Pentium Processor
- 2 MB DirectX 7.0a-compatible video card
- Stronghold
- Windows 95+
- 300 MHz Processor (550+ recommended)
- 8x CD-ROM
- 4MB DirectX 7.0-compatible video card
- Notepad++
- Unknown requirements
- µTorrent
- Windows 95+
- Internet Explorer 8
- Windows XP+
First thing we need to do is make sure Wine is installed!
How to install Wine on Fedora 11
Technically all you need to do is:
sudo yum install wine
but you might want to install some of the additional packages as well, just in case!
Command & Conquer: Red Alert
Now that EA has released this game as free getting a copy of it was a simple download. Once downloaded and unzipped I mounted it and tried running the autorun script.
Sadly this resulted in the above error. Next I tried opening it using a simple double-click on the SETUP.EXE. This launched the program but gave me the following error message:
1. Try and run program from graphical shell: FAILURE
With that failure I decided to try and run it from the terminal so that I would at least be able to see errors in the print outs.
wine SETUP.EXE
This however only resulted in the same error message.
2. Try and run program from terminal: FAILURE
If this problem is truly related to the fact that it thinks I'm running Windows XP maybe I can change that. So off to the Wine configuration menu I went and lo and behold I found an option to do just that!
This time I got a different error message about not being able to find all of the files. I decided to burn the ISO to a disc to eliminate any problems with the way I mounted it. Putting the newly burned disc into the drive and using the terminal to launch autorun.exe made everything work and the installation finished. A simple click of the menu icon and I was playing Red Alert!
3. Try and adjust Wine settings to see if I can make it work: SUCCESS
Command & Conquer: Red Alert Final Result: SUCCESS
Well that wasn't so bad. Let's try the others!
SimCity 3000 Unlimited
The first thing I did was pop the CD in the computer.
Which promptly gave me this:
I even tried browsing to the setup exe's location and running it directly. Still no luck.
1. Try and run program from graphical shell: FAILED
Next I tried to run the game from the terminal. I navigated to the setup folder and ran the exe with wine.
cd /media/SIMCITY3000/SETUP/ENGLISH/
wine SETUP.EXE
To my amazement this resulted in the installer starting correctly! A couple of quick Next button clicks and some typing of my serial key and the game began to install. Exactly 3 minutes later the game was finished installing. I then navigated to the application through the GNOME menubar:
Applications > Wine > Programs > Maxis > SimCity 3000 Unlimited > SimCity 3000 Unlimited
Holding my breath I clicked the button and… nothing. Hmm. Turning back to the terminal I browsed to the location where Wine installed SimCity on my hard drive and ran the program from there.
cd /home/tyler/.wine/drive_c/Program\ Files/Maxis/SimCity\ 3000\ Unlimited/Apps/
wine sc3U.exe
This presented me with the following error screen… about 30 times until I killed it from the terminal.
2. Try and run program from terminal: FAILED
I looked around in the Wine settings and couldn't find anything that would be causing the game to fail so miserably so I gave up on this step.
3. Try and adjust Wine settings to see if I can make it work: FAILED
Turning to the web I quickly looked up "SimCity 3000" on Wine's App DB. From the look of things SimCity 3000 works with Wine but SimCity 3000 Unlimited does not.
4. Search the web for ideas and consult Wine's App DB: FAILED
SimCity 3000 Unlimited Final Result: FAILED
Try as I might SimCity 3000 Unlimited just does not work under Wine.
Once again I started by inserting the CD-ROM and tried to run the autorun that popped up.
Next I tried once again browsing to the CD-ROM in Nautilus.
Unfortunately once again no success using the graphical shell.
1. Try and run program from graphical shell: FAILURE
After that, and recognizing the limited success I had with SimCity, I repeated the steps but this time using the terminal. To my surprise the installer appeared!
cd /media/030819_1208/
wine autoplay.exe
A little over 4 minutes later the game finished installing and I was presented with the launch screen. Again I held my breath and clicked on Play. It launched! Holy crap it's actually working… well… sort of. Something wasn't quite right so I closed the application and opened up Wine configuration. In that window I checked the box next to "emulate a virtual desktop" and set the resolution to 800×600. Once again I restarted Stronghold… GREAT SUCCESS! It worked flawlessly!
2. Try and run program from terminal: SUCCESS
Stronghold Final Result: SUCCESS
Stronghold proves that Wine is capable of providing a seemingly fully compatible Windows experience.
After a quick download from the SourceForge website I began, again, by trying to run the installer from the graphical shell.
1. Try and run program from graphical shell: FAILURE
Back to the command line I went and after entering the typical commands I was once again presented with the installer.
cd ~/Desktop/
wine npp.5.5.1.Installer.exe
By this point I honestly don't know why Wine has a graphical launch option or why it fails so badly. Less than a minute later, using the terminal, Notepad++ was up and running perfectly, albeit with some odd graphical issues.
2. Try and run program from terminal: SUCCESS
Notepad++ Final Result: SUCCESS
While not without its odd graphical problems, Notepad++ seems completely stable and quite usable on the Linux desktop.
After three successes I was on a roll and jumped over to the µTorrent website in anticipation of another success.
I'll save you the details,
1. Try and run program from graphical shell: FAILURE
Turning to the trusty terminal (wow that was a lot of t-words) I started up utorrent.exe with Wine.
wine utorrent.exe
The install went fine and even placed a desktop launcher on my desktop when I clicked the 'Create Desktop Icon' box. Running the application proved to be a bit more challenging and when I tried to run it from Wine's Program Files using the following command,
wine ~/.wine/drive_c/Program\ Files/uTorrent/uTorrent.exe
I was presented with some rather odd behaviour in the form of another installation. In fact no matter what I did I couldn't get it to work.
2. Try and run program from terminal: FAILURE
Again I poked around in the Wine settings but there just didn't seem to be anything in there that would help.
3. Try and adjust Wine settings to see if I can make it work: FAILURE
Getting frustrated I turned to the internet, specifically Wine's App DB, for help. I tried following a number of suggestions but nothing seemed to work. I even ended up on µTorrent's Wikipedia page but still nothing. On a funny note, Wikipedia lists µTorrent's platforms as "Wine officially supported".
4. Search the web for ideas and consult WINE's App DB: FAILURE
µTorrent Final Result: FAILURE
Try as I might I just can't get this BitTorrent client to work properly.
Internet Explorer 8
Once again I started by using the graphical shell – although I honestly didn't believe it would work. And guess what?
1. Try and run program from graphical shell: FAILURE
Following the pattern I tried the terminal next. This started up the application but ended abruptly when IE prompted me saying that "This installation does not support your system architecture (32/64 bits)". That doesn't make sense though because the Internet Explorer I downloaded was for x86…
2. Try and run program from terminal: FAILURE
Poking around again in Wine's configuration proved to be fruitless. There just didn't seem to be any way to tell it to run the application as x86.
3. Try and adjust Wine settings to see if I can make it work: FAILURE
Finally I turned to the web and searched the App DB for Internet Explorer 8. This made it pretty clear that I wasn't going to get IE 8 to work under Wine as every version listed, aside from 1.0 and 1.5, had a rating of Garbage – Wine's worst compatibility rating.
4. Search the web for ideas and consult Wine's App DB: FAILURE
Internet Explorer 8 Final Result: FAILURE
I guess Microsoft's iconic browser was just not meant to play nicely with Tux.
Well there you have it
I have put Wine through its paces and while there were quite a bit of failures I am very impressed. Wine might just spark a trip down memory lane with my favorite Windows game classics!


text: Fiscal Year Voucher Num Agency Num Vendor Name Amount Account Code CFI Voucher Date 2018-2019D9000091103V0014660001STATE SALE$14,374.2541202021034411005000010077700 08/22/20182017-2018D8000565152V0090040001STATE SALE$14,374.2541202021034411005000010077700 05/16/20182017-2018D8000532652V0085160001STATE SALE$14,374.2541202021034411005000010077700 04/30/2018 Payments are also referred to as expenditures (creating or incurring a legal obligation to disburse money) or disbursements (the payment of expenditures). Payments include disbursements and accounting adjustments made on a contract. Payments are always positive amounts while accounting adjustments may be positive or negative depending on the type of adjustment. If a payment or adjustment to a contract was made before July 1, 2012, the information may not be posted in this system. Maximum of 1000 entries will be displayed.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
When Disabling IE6 (or Java, or whatever) is not an Option...
Last Updated: 2013-01-15 17:49:34 UTC
by Rob VandenBrink (Version: 1)
We're getting a whole lot of bad advice regarding the latest crop of vulnerabilities. Folks are saying things like "disable Java", or "Migrate away from IE6/7/8", or even "Migrate to IE10 or Firefox".
While these will certainly mitigate the current vulnerability, it's often not a practical way to go. If you pick the right week, almost anything could be your target "disable that" component - everyone has a zero day at one time or another. Specific to this week's issues, there are lots of business applications that are tied to older browsers - I've got a number of clients who have business critical applications that are tied to a specific version of IE (often IE6), or to a specific, old version of Java. Or if you still have a few thousand XP workstations, you're going to top out at IE8.
In the several fields, there are applications that *must* be used, that can only be run from within older browsers. For instance, some common K-12 education applications require an older version of the browser. More commonly, some healthcare and pharmaceutical manufacturing applications are only "certified" on specific - and often older - versions of the browser.
The worst situation is on embedded devices. It's not uncommon to see embedded OS's running on any number of things: SCADA components, hospital gear (IV pumps, heart monitors and the like), barcode scanners, price guns, elevator controls, ABM Banking Machines almost anything really. These are sometimes running old Linux versions, but just as frequently these days you'll see an embedded Windows OS on these units.
Even today, you'll find manufacturers who will void your warantee if you upgrade an embedded OS - this is often the case when you are dealing with obsolete product (where the vendor wants to sell you the new version), but in lots of cases it costs big money / effort for the manufacturer to re-certify the product on a different OS. Or the upgrade may require different hardware (another way to spell this is "no budget" or sometimes "next years budget", neither of which helps you today). Even if you can upgrade, these embedded units might not be centrally managed or remotely upgradable. In that case you need to go find these units, which might be squirreled away all over a manufacturing facility, hospital or university that might be multiple buildings and millions of square feet.
So, in a lot of cases we're just stuck with these old browsers and/or old java versions - what to do?
What we normally recommend is - first of all, stop finger pointing and making blanket recommendations that can't be followed (like "disable Java"). At a practical level, almost always you can limit your exposure. In the case of barcode scanners for instanced, we'll often put them on their own SSID (and matching subnet) that only has access to the host that they're scanning to, and the management server if there is one. This is also a good recommendation for manufacturing gear or healthcare appliances - they're usually well-known devices that can be segragated by subnet.
But in more mobile situations, you might have healthcare appliances on wheels, conference call units or video projectors, which might be plugged into any handy ethernet port. Because of this, it's also advisable to start filtering outbound browser traffic by looking at the user agent string. In this way, you can user the required older version of a browser or Java on a specific subnet, but when the traffic leaves that network, likely to get to the public internet, you can enforce a minimum version of your browser (IE in this case), or Java.
The user agent strings for various versions of Java are simple, it's just the version of Java. So for Java 6.0 Update 26, the User Agent String is "Java/1.6.0_26". This same standardized format is followed for all versions.
So it's simple enough to block by version, or if you want to block all outbound Java to a network (for instance, the internet or part of it), using the expression "Java/" is a decent way to go.
IE has various user agent strings, but using expression matching you can simplify the criteria tremendously. For instance, depending on the version of the browser and OS, IE6 can have any one of dozens of strings, but for the purposes of blocking or permitting traffic, you can usually simplify to a match on "MSIE 6."
Similarly, you can permit or block based on user agent strings of Firefox, Safari, Opera or any other browser. Note that these in particular may have different strings on different OS's - you'll find these on tablets, phones, and various desktop/laptop OS's.
This method is easily implemented on most firewalls, and given the current state of Browsers and Java, this is something that should be set up on your at your internet perimter. The blocking policy is likely something that will change with the security landscape, but if you still have IE6 or 7 for business reasons, blocking those outbound is a good idea. Watching the agent strings that are logged going outbound can be a good way to find those mouldy-oldy computers that got installed 6 (or 10) years back and haven't been updated in a while, if ever.
As in most "least privilege" configurations, we'd recommend a list of permitted browsers, with a default deny for all other versions. This does mean that you'll need to be quick when new browser versions come out though. It might be prudent to permit newer versions that do not yet exist (for instance, as of today IE 9.1 and 11 do not exist), so that when one thing or another auto-updates at 1am one evening, you've at least got a shot that you won't be disrupting service for your user community. Using regular expressions to winnow out the good from the bad is likely a better way to go here as well.
It's important to note that you can modify your user agent strings, either in the browser configuration or in the registry (for IE), but the goal here is to protect yourself from the folks who don't know any better. Hopefully anyone who's savvy enough to change their identifiers like this will be running a brand-new browser, and will want it to masquerade as something older or from a different vendor, so that one app or another will run for them.
As a side note, Microsoft has a few articles on how they construct their user agent strings, one is here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms537503%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
and another:
There are a bunch of sites that describe how exactly to filter on user agent strings at your firewall or IPS, I'm not covering the details in this article. Some decent starting points (though not actual how-to type documentation) for Snort and Bluecoat are here:
and here:
The SANS Reading Room is also a good place to start for material of this type - for instance Dan Manners has a good paper here that starts towards the detection aspect (not blocking) using Snort and tcpdump/wireshark:
There are a ton of sites out there dedicated to listing user agent strings for various browsers, languages and apps out there - if you've got a particular favourite reference site, please share on our comment form. Or if you've had a situation where filtering of this type has saved your bacon (or caused a problem), we'd love to hear about that as well!
Rob VandenBrink
This is a poster-event for the broad lack of true risk analysis that I encounter in the industry. Yes, this could be a big issue, but we NEVER rely on a sole technology nor a sole security control. I don't know what else to say, its just a bad situation.
2. Block .jar files and the java-archive mime type by default. Enable them for trusted domains if you want.
Header fields:
URL path:
Content Type:
Magic Number:
If it block jar files is that going to stop existing java from updating?
In the case of JAVA uninstall it and if something breaks reinstall it.
I have never had JAVA installed at home and have removed it from all but 3 of my company's workstations.
For wast majority of people (who are not security admins at big organizations) disabling Java in web browsers is good advice.
But like most general advices, there are exceptions (that you mentioned in your post).
Other than that great post.


text:
The new issue of Tennis Week ("The Best of 2007") includes these two fun spreads on fashion… and tattoos!
Tattoo watch: A mix of our usual suspects (the armband on Carlos Moya, Mark Philippoussis, Marat Safin's monkey) plus ones we hadn't seen before, like the tattoos on Mara Santangelo and bad boy John McEnroe.
Best fashion statements: Kudos for including Marat's necklaces (Butter: are you paying attention?), Arnaud Clement's buffs, and the great style of Maria Kirilenko in adidas. But really, did we need to see Roger Federer's white Wimbledon get-up again? My choice would've been the U.S. Open tuxedo.
>> tennisweek.com relaunches
>> sharapova to be tennis week contributing editor
>> more tennis week backlash


text:
[This was originally published on the OSVDB blog.]
On January 17, 2007, SnoSoft / Netragard LLC announced a new Exploit Acquisition Program designed to compete with iDefense, TippingPoint and others. Nothing special or different other than the suggestion that they would pay more for high end vulnerabilities. A little over a year later, and they announced they were shutting down the Exploit Acquisition Program. From their post:
We regret to say that its true, we've shut down the Exploit Acquisition Program. The reason for the shutdown was that it was taking our buyers too long to complete a single transaction and it wasn't fair to the researchers. While we'd expect a single transaction to take no more than a month, the average transaction time for our buyer was 4 months. The last transaction that we attempted took 7 months at which point the issues were silently patched and the transaction was dead. As it stands right now, we can't justify asking anyone to wait that long to move a single item. So until the end players learn how to move faster, the high price bug brokering market just isn't viable.
No offense to SnoSoft / Netragard, but their competitors have proven that the market is viable. I guess the trick is how you 'sell' the information. For iDefense it is early warning for their customers in case the same vulnerability is being exploited by others. For TippingPoint it is early warning and IPS signatures. For WabiSabiLabi it is more like the SnoSoft program, where one buyer gets exclusive rights to the information, and it appears to be working to some degree.


text:
Spanish Word for casino
Interested in travelling to a Spanish-speaking country? Read the travel blog below:
Casco Viejo (Bilbao, Spain)
I had a great time in Gernika. It was sad to leave, but again, I get sad every time I have to leave a place. By the way, Gernika is the place immortalized by Picasso in his painting of the bombing raids perpetrated during the Civil War. I'm in Bilbao now, so I better start taking it in. There is so much to do. One of my goals when I'm in this area is to visit Santimamiñe caves, well...
[ view entire travel blog ]
Popular Phrase: spanish until | Hello in Spanish | Conjugated Verb: nublar - to become cloudy [ click for full conjugation ]


text:
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, May 25, 2012, 9:04 AM
Town Square
School board under pressure on counseling
Original post made on May 25, 2012
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, May 25, 2012, 9:04 AM
Comments (47)
a resident of Gunn High School
on May 25, 2012 at 10:45 am
I have been involved in 3 school districts and 2 private schools around the country, and I have had children graduate from both Paly and Gunn - I will always completely support a dedicated counselor system like the current system at Gunn High School.
At Gunn, counselors are completely dedicated to their job counseling students, and teachers are completely dedicated to teaching students in their academic area of expertise.
Counselors counsel; Teachers teach.
My advice is to hire more dedicated counselors at Gunn as enrollment rises, not copy the Paly model.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 25, 2012 at 11:04 am
Sounds like a directive from the Superintendent to me. It was never suggested to "copy the Paly model". Teacher advisory is just what it says, "advisory"..........those teachers are still teaching and the counselors are still counseling. It sounds like you haven't really researched what is being proposed for improving the Gunn system (and Paly as well). Nobody has ever accused the hardworking counselors at Gunn of not being dedicated. If you have attended any of the meetings you would have this knowledge. Teacher advisors are a supplement to counselors.......not a replacement. Please don't condemn without first investigating what is being proposed. There is always room for improvement and I think Gunn deserves a better system regardless of what the Supt. thinks. Let's get the best for all of our students. They deserve nothing less!
a resident of another community
on May 25, 2012 at 11:08 am
As a Gunn grad and former Paly teacher, I agree with the first post. Let teachers teach and counselors counsel.
a resident of Gunn High School
on May 25, 2012 at 11:39 am
Interesting. Has there been ever an anonymous survey/poll among Paly and Gunn teachers on this subject? I think this would be helpful to understand the teachers' perspective on this subject.
I am not sure whether I can trust postings here. However, I do trust the data collected from the survey, and the insight the open-ended questions provided on this matter. The survey shows a distinctive difference in quality of counseling/advising in PALY versus GUNN. I would really like to see the science-supported-information shape the future of the programs, rather than subjective comments shape the future of our kids.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 25, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Recently the Daily Beast published at national high school ranking—
America's Best High Schools--2012:
Web Link
Seems that even with the difference in guidance counseling between Gunn and Paly, Gunn's students performed significantly better than Paly's students—
#71: Gunn High
#178: Palo Alto High
Got to wonder why this ranking has not made it into any of the local papers? Also got to wonder if the Counseling system at Paly is responsible for the lower performance of the school, compared to Gunn?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 25, 2012 at 1:06 pm
"Counselors counsel. Teachers teach." Is that your best response to hundreds and hundreds of students who took the time to share their experience with the current structure at Gunn and Paly? Have you read the comments?
If a solution must be limited to two sentences, here are mine:
Students responded to surveys. Adults should listen, study, and respond - objectively, professionally, thoroughly.
Pom poms and defenses should be left at the door - all models on the table for consideration - PLEASE. Let's get busy and deliver the world-class education and structures that our young people NEED and deserve (and that our reputation suggests). This is where we are aligned, yes?
a resident of Fairmeadow
on May 25, 2012 at 2:16 pm
@ Going Down?
I fail to see what the Newsweek High School ratings have to do with the question of improving counseling services. The rankings are based on self reporting of graduation rates, college acceptance rates, SAT/ACT/AP test scores and the number of AP course offerings. Web Link
Are you suggesting that it is the Gunn guidance model that is responsible for the higher ranking? I have heard that student stress is very high at Gunn and that many students have written comments that they need additional time and support from their counselors. I vote for more student support at Gunn. Maybe that way they will be happier and rise to number 1!
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 25, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Yeah for the board! About time they stood up. This was always a situation that needed to be resolved by Gunn and not by WKBPA.
a resident of Barron Park School
on May 25, 2012 at 6:59 pm
The real story is more complicated than is presented here and in the comments. The school board is looking to the Gunn administration to come back with a plan for counseling at the June 12 school board meeting, but it has given the administration some significant constraints that aren't detailed in the story. However, senior district staff intervened very early, in early April, to direct the process at Gunn in a way that will make it difficult for the administration to meet the school board's requirements. The question now is how that will all play out. This is a lengthy post but I think it's useful to lay this all out in some detail.
As the story notes, at the March 27 school board meeting our parent organization, We Can Do Better Palo Alto, presented data drawn from PAUSD that shows that students at Paly are much more satisfied with their guidance services than are students at Gunn, and that they report that they have much more access to a varied set of services than do Gunn students. The school board recognized the service gap, and (with the exception of Barb Mitchell) spoke strongly in favor of change at Gunn to make guidance services comparable between the two high schools. The board also directed Gunn to strongly consider adopting teacher advisory in order to achieve comparability. (You can read about that meeting at Web Link
At the meeting on Tuesday night, the school board reiterated its commitment to comparable services, its conclusion that the services are not now comparable, and its instruction to Gunn to strongly consider teacher advisory. The following is drawn from a summer of the meeting I posed to our Facebook group page, at Web Link and you can check my summary by viewing the meeting yourself, at Web Link (scroll down to item G, about the open-ended student responses).
Three of the four Board members present (Camille Townsend left early because of an ongoing health issue, and Barb Mitchell continues to oppose significant change at Gunn) reached consensus on the following directions to staff.
Barbara Klausner made two points:
1. The data analyses and comparisons that We Can Do Better has performed should be sent to the high schools for use in understanding the current state of counseling at the two schools. This is important because the district's data does not allow comparison, does not fully capture the benefits of multiple overlapping guidance roles in advisory, and does not allow easy access to the student comments. It also does not allow analysis of the effect of the different guidance modes on services for minority students.
2. Gunn's plan must provide for comparable services to Paly. Klausner explained that comparability means that Gunn's plan must provide a similar number of touchpoints over time, overlapping roles between adults (for example, both TAs and college advisors deliver college information to students, making it harder for students to slip between the cracks), a division of labor among adults, and multiple adults in guidance roles for each student.
Dana Tom said that Gunn must seriously consider a change to a teacher advisory system or another major change that delivers comparable services, and must be prepared to discuss in detail how it considered that change and how it reached its conclusion. (Ironically, he wondered aloud how to ensure that this message would get communicated to Gunn).
Melissa Caswell agreed with Klausner's and Tom's points, and added the explicit instruction that guidance models be compared on their own terms, without attention to speculations about impacts such as larger class sizes, fewer electives, etc. These supposed negative effects have been a major part of the district's rhetoric in resisting change at Gunn, even though, as we've pointed out repeatedly, the financial impact is relatively small and there are many options for funding this change other than cuts to classroom teaching.
Taken together, the Board's action strongly underlined its March 27 direction, and provided an even more detailed set of criteria and expectations. Clearly Board members felt frustrated by the resistance to their directive of March 27, and felt that they had to set forth specific language to limit discretion.
If anything, the Gunn administration is more constrained than it was after the March 27 meeting, because the Board reaffirmed its commitment to comparable services, described in some detail what "comparable" means, required that Gunn take into account the data comparing the two high schools, and clearly stated the expectation that Gunn should consider a structural change to its counseling model, and be prepared to defend a recommendation not to make such a change with clear and explicit evidence.
However, the Gunn administration is operating within another set of constraints, these imposed from above by senior district leadership, most importantly Superintendent Skelly. As has been reported, Dr. Skelly wrote a memo to the school board on April 20, telling them that he had met with senior district staff, including the director of secondary education, Michael Milliken, and the Gunn principal, Katya Villalobos, and decided that Gunn should make incremental improvements in counseling rather than make a change to teacher advisory, including hiring 2 additional counselors. Dr. Skelly told the board that he was communicating that down to Gunn staff. (It's important to note that in addition to the direction already noted in the March 27 meeting, the board told Dr. Skelly not to hire more counselors at Gunn, as those resources would be needed for teacher advisory if that was the ultimate decision). That memo is the subject of the Brown Act discussion that will be the subject of a special meeting of the school board next Thursday. We received the memo via a Public Records Act request, which we made after it became clear that there was a private process going on that was not consistent with the school board's March 27 direction.
What has not yet been reported is that Dr. Skelly wrote a memo to his senior staff 2 weeks earlier, on April 6, laying out his rationale for opposing the school board's decision on March 27. We also received that memo via another Public Records Act request. That memo can be seen at Web Link The memo consists mostly of commentary interspersed into a long email from the district's consultant on counseling, Kelun Zhang, sent following her presentation to the Board on March 27. Dr. Skelly asked senior district staff, including Charles Young, the associate superintendent, to take the lead on next steps. What is most useful about the memo is that it lays out in very clear terms the basis for Dr. Skelly's opposition to counseling changes at Gunn. In brief, Dr. Skelly believes that guidance counseling is largely about college counseling, and therefore that the service gaps identified by the PAUSD data in the areas of academic advising and social-emotional support are mostly irrelevant. For example, he writes "AS A PARENT, I DON'T REALLY CARE IF THE GUIDANCE COUNSELOR MEETS WITH MY FRESHMAN OR SOPHOMORE STUDENT. THEY DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH TO TALK ABOUT AND I DON'T WANT TOO MUCH HYPE ABOUT COLLEGE TOO EARLY. I AM FINE IF, AS A PRACTICE, OUR COUNSELORS FOCUS ON STRUGGLING KIDS. BUT THIS MEANS MANY STUDENTS DON'T HAVE A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR COUNSELOR. AND SURVEY RESULTS ARE LOWER." In fact, of course, there is little likelihood that students struggling with social-emotional issues will be noticed by counselors who don't have time to meet with them. But Dr. Skelly's memo at least sets out clearly his vision for guidance at Gunn, and it bears careful reading.
The problem is not that Dr. Skelly opposes implementing teacher advisory at Gunn, although I think most parents disagree with his argument that freshman and sophomores don't need guidance, and that students don't need personal relationships with their counselors. It is that he has not made his disagreement with the school board public so that we can have an open and honest debate, and has instead directed a process at Gunn that is not responsive to the school board's direction at its March 27 meeting. We can get a hint of that in his instruction to senior staff that "we should be courageous in terms of our next steps but also cognizant of the conversation we had at the last board meeting" in the April 6 memo, and a full acknowledgement in his April 20 memo to the school board. That was followed on May 5 by a letter from Dr. Skelly and Principal Villalobos to the entire Gunn parent community, assuring them that Gunn would make no major changes to counseling, and by an announcement to the press by Principal Villalobos of a process of further study that will return to the school board in March 2013, even though the school board has made no such decision.
Dr. Skelly has also played a direct role in opposing teacher advisory at Gunn. He met with instructional supervisors and restated his opposition to teacher advisory. He recounted to me personally an encounter with a Gunn math teacher who told Dr. Skelly that he was interested in teacher advisory, and might be interested in being a teacher advisor himself. Dr. Skelly responded with a long list of negative consequences, to which (at least in Dr. Skelly's telling), the teacher responded by saying that he was no longer interested in teacher advisory.
So the reality is more complicated than this story indicates. The school board has asked the Gunn administration to return with a plan for comparable services, but with a substantial set of conditions attached. The Gunn administration, however, is contending with a senior district leadership that opposes consideration of teacher advisory, which is realistically the best (and probably the only) way to satisfy the school board's demand for truly comparable services with Paly. According to school board members, as of two weeks ago Gunn staff had not even met with Paly teachers to discuss teacher advisory, despite having had over a month to do so. It's difficult to see how Gunn can return to the school board, in the face of the position of senior district leadership, with anything other than a plan for more delay. Unfortunately, the school board is likely to accept that delay unless parents communicate clearly to board members that they really do want guidance services at Gunn as effective as those the district is delivering at Paly.
For more details and links to data, you can visit http://wecandobetterpaloalto.org.
a resident of Gunn High School
on May 25, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Let teachers teach and professional counselors counsel at Gunn. Gunn's counseling & teaching staff must be doing something right - ask the folks at Newsweek. How can an advisory system which meets MONTHLY be of any real help to students? Paly students see advisory period as a great time to work on their tan in the quad, or to visit T&C for food & drinks. TA's have no leverage to enforce attendance. Students don't take seriously anything that (1) offers no units, and (2) has no power to impact their lives such as a "cut."
a resident of Gunn High School
on May 25, 2012 at 8:36 pm
[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]
a resident of Professorville
on May 25, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Thanks, Ken, for sharing this memo from Skelley. I'm bothered by several of his remarks:
These rankings are flawed and a poor measure. But, I assure you that Skelley cares about them and college admission. I'd argue that's his main concern with counseling. But, it's this emphasis on getting into the "best" college that puts stress on our students. The district should set the tone and be advocating that each student finds the best post-high school plan for him and be less concerned about which colleges students are admitted to.
Popularity is not a measure of quality and/or excellence!!
College advising is not the most important work our counselors or TAs/college advisors do!! If students are struggling emotionally, these issues need to be addressed, first, before the professionals can even begin to think of worrying about them graduating from high school no less college admission.
a resident of Barron Park
on May 25, 2012 at 9:01 pm
First, Little Rock.
Second, I pay your salary. I don't mean to be too harsh, because I'm sure you are a great teacher, but the taxpayers and parents of this district have the final say as to what the schools should offer. As someone who lives in the Gunn district and has one student there and one on the way, I don't want to get worse services than parents at Paly are getting for the same investment. That is ridiculous. I have no connection to We Can Do Better, but wasn't it founded by a Google engineer and a Stanford professor? I have looked at the data and it is clear that Paly is better served. I want equal services -- seems fair. My kid has never even met his counselor and he is a sophomore. That's not fair.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 25, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Please, everyone who is reading this: don't take everything Mr. Dauber says at face value. He presents in such a way that it seems so believable. Much of what he states is his own opinion or interpretation of what he has read. I don't know what their agenda is, but forcing a change on a school is just asking for failure. There are many ways to deliver guidance and counseling services. TA is just one of them. Let the Gunn staff come to their own conclusions. They aren't saying no to TA, they just want the time to look in to it to come to a decision. There is no urgency around this. There were suicides at Paly when the TA system was in place. The advisory system at a school will not influence the decisions kids make no matter what the Daubers think or say. It is so much deeper than that.
a resident of Gunn High School
on May 25, 2012 at 9:55 pm
"Please, everyone who is reading this: don't take everything Mr. Dauber says at face value."
Don't worry parent from Another Palo Alto neighborhood. We don't. We know he is long winded.
And we have two kids in Gunn and like it just the way it is.
a resident of Gunn High School
on May 25, 2012 at 10:25 pm
As regards Mr. Dauber, and your assertions about him, "Much of what he states is his own opinion or interpretation of what he has read"
Would you please shed some light on this comment? Where are you finding his own opinions that are not backed up by solid facts? If you are making accusations you should be able to back these assertions up. I would appreciate you letting us all know. As far as I have observed, Mr. Dauber is posting things that other people have said (such as the student opinions from the survey) or the memo from Skelly which I can't see as being capable of being interpreted any other way than than what Skelly stated in his own words.
"The advisory system at a school will not influence the decisions kids make no matter what the Daubers think or say. It is so much deeper than that." What does this mean? What is so much deeper than that? I am glad that the Daubers are thinking and saying things that need to be thought and said. Our children deserve better and I don't want to see the school board drop the ball on this. Thank you
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on May 25, 2012 at 10:33 pm
I'm tired of the silent majority of "we can do better" and the Daubers pushing their views and wants on the rest of us. I am happy with the Gunn counseling model. I don't want any changes. Stop pushing your views on the rest of us and the school district.
LET THE TEACHERS TEACH and THE COUNSELORS COUNSEL!
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 25, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Hi Paul. I genuinely want to know why you think teachers would be foolish to go along with an advisory model. Would you mind posting your thoughts on that? I get that you don't want to be forced. But I'd like to know what it is about this model that you think Gunn teachers would see as problematic (or foolish). If you have an opinion as to why or how PALY has overcome those challenges in their 20 year history with advisory, I'd be interested to hear that as well.
Mary, I find the over 700 students who took the time to actually write about their experience with guidance at Gunn far more compelling than the results of an equation employed by "the folks at Newsweek". And I reject your characterization of Paly students and teens in general. Unfair and inaccurate. Read the open coments from your own community's teens. Seems like they took the survey seriously enough and were very articulate in their open responses (even though no units were conveyed). Perhaps they believed in the power of the survey, believing that adults would hear their concerns and make changes that could actually "impact their lives".
It could happen.
a resident of Gunn High School
on May 26, 2012 at 8:26 am
I don't want to debate my colleagues on an Internet bulletin board, but I want to assure Gunn parents that teachers are by no means united in opposition to teacher advisory, despite what you might conclude from posts here. Most of my colleagues got into teaching in order to be of service to students, and are willing to look at evidence that we need to improve. Many of us signed up to participate in Titan 101 for freshmen, because we know that students don't get enough time to figure out how Gunn works, how to put together a schedule, etc. I'm sure that if we do get TA, many of my colleagues will be willing to serve as TAs, particularly for a prep period. We will need training and support, which was lacking for Titan 101 and is probably part of the problem. I will probably sign up for it myself.
Mr. Dauber's post is interesting but also disturbing. There is a lot going on behind the scenes that I didn't know about. I do think that Dr. Skelly means well, but it makes me sad to read what he wrote about our students not needing help and personal relationships except for college. We are still recovering from the tragedies. I think he may be too distant from Gunn to really understand what students face day-to-day. I spend a fair amount of my time on trying to help students deal with issues that could probably be handled better with TA. Our counselors really are great but overworked.
I have also wondered why our administration has been so negative about TA. I saw the post on another story from one of my fellow teachers who talked about not having enough information about TA. I have friends at Paly so I know how it works but there is definitely a lot of confusion at Gunn among teachers.
I hope that whatever process comes out of this is not so political and defensive. I am hearing that we are going to have a committee including parents and teachers. To me, I worry that this seems like a recipe for more fighting. Speaking for myself, I would rather have the school board just decide rather than put us through another year of this. Are we going to get any new information? It would be more productive to talk about how to implement TA than fighting about whether it is a good idea.
P.S., the Little Rock reference took me a minute to get, but I really don't think it will get to that point. Funny though, I have to admit. I do appreciate Palo Alto for moments like that.
a resident of Gunn High School
on May 26, 2012 at 9:17 am
My child has attended Gunn for 3 years. We have witnessed firsthand how some of the guidance office staff are not empathetic or invested in the students.
Why not add more counselors to Gunn's staff? Some counselors are overburdened because all the students want to switch to them. What if the good counselors burn out?
While teachers may not want to follow the Paly model, it would be very helpful for counselors to be able to confer with them more. The feedback from some teachers about my child has been helpful, insightful and reflects a great deal of investment and thought in an individual child.
Please find a way to work together for the student's sake.
a resident of Gunn High School
on May 26, 2012 at 11:16 am
Ken, thanks for your long and informative post. This careful work and the data you have pulled together makes me proud to be a fellow Googler.
Because many people won't read what you wrote and it's important, let me summarize it as I understand it (warning I'm not as nice as you are). The school board told Gunn to design a plan for comparable guidance services with Paly, with a list of requirements that makes it pretty clear that only teacher advisory will do the job. Skelly thinks that counseling is actually about college, so building in more student contact and better academic advising for high school classes is not worth doing. Instead of saying that publicly (probably because parents would be up in arms) he told Gunn staff to fix it privately, and let the school board know in a confidential memo. I don't know why the school board didn't push back at Skelly, but reading that memo it is pretty clear Skelly is used to telling them how things are going to go behind the scenes.
All would have gone according to plan except that Ken found the memo to the school board and Skelly's memo to his reports. Then the school board had to go back and say, "No, we really meant it" to Skelly, and here we are. Gunn is coming back to the school board in 2 weeks. Unless Skelly changes his mind you can be sure Gunn won't be bringing a plan for advisory. Instead, we'll get a plan for more study, and Skelly will hope that the heat comes off over the next six months or year.
As a parent of junior at Gunn, I have two comments of my own. First, what is going on at the school district? I don't expect perfection, but I do expect reasonable public administration, and this isn't it. Second, Steven Tadelis is right. If I have a process that I can improve by 50%, with a high degree of predictability of success, at a small incremental cost, it makes no sense not to do it. That is the definition of low hanging fruit.
This won't be fixed in time for my kid, but I'll be watching what happens next and voting on this issue at the next school board election.
a resident of Community Center
on May 26, 2012 at 12:27 pm
As a Paly parent I am grateful for the parents and staff who lobbied to implement structural changes that better support my children. Twenty years ago a battle was waged to implement teacher advisory. I am thankful that parents,teachers and staff had the courage to fight for this program. My children reap the benefits of this twenty year experiment and the improvements that have been made along the way. I am excited to see what recommendations for improvement Phil Winston and his team bring back to the School Board in June.
Paly students also have the benefits of late start, block scheduling and tutorial. All of these suggestions were met with opposition and I am thankful for those who walked ahead of me and persevered.
Teacher advisory is not the panacea for suicide prevention. It is however one of many support systems recommended by Project Safety Net under the P8 suicide prevention strategies for schools. Web Link
Here are some excerpts from P8 Supportive School Environment:
"Next Steps:
Study, discuss and implement additional environmental strategies that create a more supportive school and learning environment, such as finals prior to winter break, revised test and project calendars, revised homework policies addressing purpose and volume, academic integrity concerns, tutorials and ADVISORIES, and social and emotional skill development.
Apply positive strategies across all schools in the district. This would allow for a common language, economies of scale, cross training and SHARING OF WHAT WORKS.
Give careful consideration to the implementation of the following suggestions from the Youth Forum:
Improved connections with campus counselors/adults
• Exploration of ways to connect students with adults
• Improved visibility and physical access to counselors
• Increased opportunities for students and counselors to connect "in good/bad moments" at assemblies, sporting events, student activities
• Encouragement of a climate of staff-student connections BEYOND the classroom setting"
If Gunn teachers, parents and students would like to know more about the Paly Guidance model here is a link to Paly's guidance web page: Web Link
There is a wealth of information for parents and students that is applicable to all high school students. If you click on the Advisory Schedules you can get a feel for the guidance curriculum that is distributed to the students through the TA system.
a resident of Barron Park
on May 26, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Let the teachers teach
Let the counselors counsel
Let the devil take the hindmost.
No thanks.
a resident of Gunn High School
on May 26, 2012 at 6:00 pm
we still haven't heard what the trade-offs are, and there will be trade-offs despite what we can do better says
a resident of Gunn High School
on May 26, 2012 at 6:02 pm
and i don't see the two communities as homegeneous at all therefore disagree with steve tedelis, does he really know us?
a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2012 at 6:23 pm
The Paly TA system is about so much more than college. It's a dedicated teacher that actually knows your child. One who calls you at home if grades are slipping to talk over how to intervene. One who will even come with your child to meet with another teacher if there are problems. It's someone who answers your concerned e-mails right away. It's parent-teacher-child teamwork at its best.
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 26, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Annie- I'm so glad you have had such a great TA experience! It varies widely from TA to TA, my older son (Class of 2010) never talked to his TA outside of class, we never heard anything from him (even when failing grade a class), he never expressed concern about not meeting A-G requirements (deliberate in our case) and senior year, my son went to get something signed and he said "you have to have your TA sign this" forgetting that he was actually his TA! So some teachers make a great effort to get to know the students and some sign up mainly for the prep period.
Younger son - currently a freshman has had a much better experience with his Freshman TA.
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 27, 2012 at 9:50 am
Dear Another Paly Parent...
Thank you for your post and the reminder of the study, the logic and rationale, the work that has gone before. Very helpful to see how this current issue fits into a bigger vision for our teens' health and well-being.
a resident of Barron Park
on May 27, 2012 at 3:45 pm
I would like to know how this conversation moved from one about connectedness and supporting our students as Another Paly Parent documents to one about teacher and administrator control. I think this is a question worth spending some time thinking about as a community. We had a suicide epidemic that displayed some of the current weaknesses of Gunn's connectedness between students and counselors. It was hard for students to find someone to talk to as I understand it, and it had been so for years. On the WCDB website I saw the statistic from the 2008 WASC survey at Gunn that 78% of students supported adding advisory at that time, and that was BEFORE the crisis. So the lack of connectedness has been an issue of longstanding. It is not new -- but it burst into our awareness as the cluster took hold and there was little in the way of support for the kids who were traumatized by the losses to the school community.
Project Safety Net recommended advisory. Project Safety Net and the other things Paly Parent talked about were collective community wide responses to improve emotional supports for our kids.
So how is this conversation now about whether Ken Dauber is a nice person(I don't know him but he seems very clear and direct, though not mean -- I haven't heard him make any personal attacks the way he and his wife are personally attacked all the time. And didn't they lose a child by suicide? Do people have no shame going after them? Even if you disagree, people they lost a child. Where is your humanity?
So is this about connectedness for high schoolers at Gunn or is it about teacher autonomy? Because to me it is about my kid and the fact that he is a sophomore who has not yet met his counselor. I don't have autonomy at my job -- why do you teachers think you should have this when most people don't have the right to veto what the shareholders or owners of their company want. Taxpayers are the shareholders of this school district. Sorry, but you aren't self-employed. What is your union's position on advisory? I assume they don't oppose it since Paly teachers have the same union. So are you on a wildcat strike, those of you like Paul who think you can just refuse?
Why are we talking about the Daubers and the teachers and Kevin Skelly's hurt feelings from a year ago instead of connectedness for kids?
Those of you who think teachers should get to control the schools, please tell me your plan to enhance connectedness to the level of Paly.
a resident of Barron Park School
on May 27, 2012 at 8:19 pm
@Gunn Parent
First, thanks for defending Michele and I but it's not necessary. I'm not bothered by attacks.
Thanks also to Gunn parent and Another Paly parent for refocusing the conversation where it belongs -- on the nearly 1,900 students at Gunn. Advisory is one of the strategies mentioned in our community's suicide prevention plan -- Project Safety Net. That's because it fosters connections between adults and kids by putting many adults who can provide multiple contacts with students in guidance roles. PAUSD is one of the authors of the Project Safety Net plan, and increasing connectedness has been a focused goal for years. I don't think there is any other change that we could make in our schools that would increase connectedness for our kids as much as teacher advisory at Gunn.
We founded We Can Do Better Palo Alto a year and a half ago to advocate on behalf of implementing P-8, which is the section of the Project Safety Net plan that focuses on reducing "stress and distress" of teens in our schools. P-8 calls for the district to "study, discuss, and implement" changes in a number of areas that are part of the core operations of the schools, including guidance. P-8 has been the hardest part of the Project Safety Net plant to implement, precisely because it's not about adding mental health programs to our schools. It's about making changes in existing organizational practices, where there is always substantial resistance to change. It's no surprise, although it is quite disappointing, that so much of the discussion about teacher advisory has focused on the consequences for adults of having to change what they do, as opposed to the benefits to our children of bringing them more effective guidance services and more connection to adults.
Since Gunn Parent mentions Superintendent Skelly, and my earlier post also talks about his role in this decision, I'll share my thoughts. Dr. Skelly has many positive qualities and many commitments that I share (including to A-G for all students, where we have been among his strongest supporters) but I have been disappointed in his lack of enthusiasm and leadership on fostering connectedness and on social-emotional supports for students generally. His comments in the confidential memo to his staff that creating personal relationships between students is not an important part of a guidance system is a clear reflection of that position. I've spoken to him directly about this several times, including in a 2-hour meeting with him last week.
I doubt if Dr. Skelly harbors hurt feelings about our difference in opinion (he sent me a nice email after our meeting acknowledging our differences but reaffirming our shared commitment to our students), but it is an area of relative weakness from our perspective. Certainly I think he has missed an opportunity to exercise strong leadership in helping to guide Gunn towards a healthier guidance system for students, and has made it much more difficult for Gunn staff (including the teacher who commented earlier in this thread) to advocate for a change to teacher advisory.
But this is ultimately not about me or our group or about Dr. Skelly. It's about our kids. It's fine to ask "the Gunn community" to consider how to respond to the challenges and the opportunities in the data that we're brought forward, and also to the academic research about and our own district's experience with the benefits of teacher advisory. But we need to remember that at the center of that community is our kids. They have a right to expect that we will act in their interests and that we will place more weight on our hopes for them than on our fears for ourselves. All of us -- parents, teachers, counselors, and administrators -- have to put the needs of our children at the center of our thinking. If we do that now, honestly and fearlessly, then we will start to make positive change now. If we don't, we won't.
As I listen to the discussion, I discount the voices of adults who are not talking about the needs of kids, and I try to come back to the words of Gunn students as reflected in their hundreds of messages to us, as compiled here: Web Link I suggest that we all do the same. For more information on this issue, including links to the results of their survey responses, see our website at Web Link
a resident of Palo Verde
on May 27, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Ken- I appreciate the tone of your last post and it is the first time I have read a WCDBP response without my dislike of the group getting in the way of the message. When members of your group disrespectfully refer to Dr. Skelly as "Kevin", attack individual teachers (ie the math dept at Paly, which ironically has a high percent of its teachers serve as teacher advisors including the center of many of WCDBP attacks), and roll their eyes at the school board it becomes a challenge for me (and likely others) to separate the message from the messenger. Your last post finally allowed me to actually think about the topic of counseling at both schools and what will ultimately best serve all of our students, which you correctly point out should be the focus all along.
a resident of Barron Park School
on May 27, 2012 at 9:08 pm
At the risk of seeming long-winded, I want to comment on a point made by Lurker above. Lurker notes Superintendent Skelly's statement that "I TOTALLY AGREE. WE HAVE SOME COUNSELORS AT GUNN WHO ARE NOT AS POPULAR AS OTHERS. WE NEED TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE PEOPLE IN SOME OF THESE POSITIONS. SO MUCH OF EXCELLENCE COMES DOWN TO PEOPLE. " Lurker comments in response that "Popularity is not a measure of quality and/or excellence!!". (See page 3 of Dr. Skelly's confidential memo to his senior staff of April 6, here: Web Link
I think what's important about Dr. Skelly's comment here is not that it equates popularity with excellence. The mention of "popularity" actually seems to reflect Dr. Skelly's view that the student survey measured whether students like the guidance system, when in fact it measured whether students feel that they can access a quite detailed set of guidance services (I pointed this out to Dr. Skelly in our meeting last week, in fact).
Dr. Skelly's comment about poor quality counselors at Gunn follows, in his memo, an effort by the consultant to figure out how the difference in effectiveness of guidance between Paly and Gunn might be due to something other than the difference in the two guidance models. The primary purpose of Dr. Skelly's remark was to identify guidance staff quality as one factor distinguishing Gunn from Paly, and not primarily to equate "quality" with "popularity".
We, by contrast, have always insisted that staff at Gunn are equally committed, equally skilled, and equally qualified as those at Paly, and that the difference in effectiveness is due entirely to the different guidance models in use at both schools. It seems quite unfair to conclude that the counselors at Gunn who are laboring under extremely difficult work conditions are responsible for the fact that, for example, freshmen and sophomores may well never see a counselor. I and other members of We Can Do Better Palo Alto made this point repeatedly during the Open Forum section of the May 22 Board meeting (video is at Web Link scroll down to item D, Open Forum). We should be talking about which guidance system best serves our kids, rather than talking about the people in those systems, who are in our experience uniformly hard-working and committed.
a resident of Barron Park School
on May 27, 2012 at 9:14 pm
@Palo Verde Parent
Thanks, I really appreciate your note and your feedback. None of us is perfect by any means. I hope that we can continue to move this conversation to focus on the students at Gunn and what they need.
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 28, 2012 at 9:23 am
Seriously, Ken? A group that undertaken teacher character assassination, demeaned the board with descriptions of "flower pots" and positively abused admin staff now claim: "We, by contrast, have always insisted that staff at Gunn are equally committed, equally skilled, and equally qualified as those at Paly,"?
Dr. Skelly has always shown commitment to this district and support for it's students and teachers - unlike WKBPA.
a resident of Barron Park School
on May 28, 2012 at 10:11 am
@time to end this
I take it that you don't want to take up the challenge of substantive discussion. In any case, as I said at our parent education event on May 16, it's clear that the differences in effectiveness between guidance at Paly and at Gunn are due to the fact that Paly uses a teacher advisory model and Gunn uses a traditional counseling model. We have run, as Dr. Tadelis pointed out at Tuesday's board meeting, a 20-year natural experiment in which of these two models is most effective.
The results are striking, and I encourage readers to look at the spreadsheet with the comparative data from the 2012 survey here: Web Link You'll note that we've shaded the cell green when the result at Paly is 5 or more percentage points greater than the one at Gunn, and red when Gunn exceeds Paly. There are over 200 such comparisons where Paly is favored, and 6 for Gunn. For many comparisons Paly exceeds Gunn by 30, 40, or 50 percentage points. Moreover, these data are consistent with prior years of parent and student surveys of guidance at the two schools, and are also consistent with the academic research on the benefits of teacher advisory over traditional guidance models.
The idea that differences of this magnitude and persistence stem from differences in the quality of staff in guidance roles at the two schools is highly implausible. I think it's unfair and inaccurate to attribute the difference in effectiveness to staff, and neither I nor anyone else in our group has ever suggested that. That's why we have focused on the difference in models, in addition to the fact that our collective experience with guidance staff at Gunn convinces us that they are hardworking and dedicated. But if you disagree with that conclusion, you should make your case and state your evidence. Otherwise, I don't see what your comments have to do with making progress on bringing increased connectedness and more effective guidance services to our students at Gunn.
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 29, 2012 at 11:01 am
Your response to a question about whether we should trust WKBPA or the district board, staff & teachers is to re-post a survey?
You could at least apologize and try an engagement model. Until then, your "us vs. them" approach will leave you on the outside.
If you truly believed this was about students and not WKBPA members' egos, having the board nod politely and ignore you isn't going to help.
a resident of Community Center
on May 29, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Organizational change is often met with resistance. It took some cage rattling to increase district awareness of the Project Safety Net Suicide Prevention Strategy P8, Supportive School Environment, which includes teacher advisory. WCDB breathed life into this document and I am very thankful that the School Board has fully engaged in this work and is working with staff to move these initiatives forward.
a resident of Gunn High School
on May 29, 2012 at 2:53 pm
"time to end this": I think Ken's point is that rather than figuring out who to trust, you can just look at the data and make up your own mind. You seem to be way more invested in the "us vs. them" approach than WCDB. Since the School Board is actually pushing Gunn to improve counseling and telling them to look at WCDB's data, they also seem to more interested in talking about counseling than you seem to be. I agree with Ken and Another Paly Parent: let's talk about our students and counseling, not adults and their feelings.
a resident of Barron Park
on May 29, 2012 at 3:00 pm
@time to end this: From your description of living in the Crescent Park neighborhood you are presumably in the Paly part of the district. I've noticed that some of the strongest opposition to changing the Gunn model are similarly outside the Gunn attendance area. So I'm wondering, what's up with that? Why does the Gunn counseling debate concern you so? Do you believe that my kids and others who go to Gunn don't deserve comparable services to those who go to Paly? That connectedness is not a worthy goal? That people shouldn't participate in our democracy if they disagree with policy directions and just let the chips, which are in this case children's lives, fall by the way? I'll add my observations that the strongest attackers here never seem willing to stand by their words by including their name. Curious.
@Palo Verde parent: I think you raise an important point here about the messenger interfering with the message and I too want to acknowledge it. To a large extent, I think the discussion has been derailed by a focus on personalities rather than on what will best serve our students. And that has not been a good thing. At the same time, while some of us have been very critical of the Superintendent's handling of this matter, for example, I view this criticism as part of the sometimes messy process of democracy. Holding our public officials accountable should focus on actions, not attribute motive. And having followed this debate closely I believe that has in the majority of cases been done even as the discussion has at times been heated. I'll add that I think there has been much more venom directed at the Daubers personally than anyone has to the school board, Supt. Skelly or teachers (see latest examples above).
But in the end, none of this is the point. The point is to bring Gunn students (and Paly students to the extent that things there need improvement)the best possible services and give them the greatest level of support possible. And when one takes a dispassionate view of the literature and best practices from our district and others,and trends in the guidance profession, I think it is hard to conclude anything other than that a teacher advisory system is the way to go. So I believe the board and administration should set that as the goal and then have the Gunn community focus on how (not whether) it can be best implemented into our school. The consequences of continuing with an outdated model are too severe not to take this step at this time. I hope all will look through the rhetoric and study the facts and issue itself so we can move forward from here in a more positive way.
a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Thanks Mr. Hausser for being a voice of reason.
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 30, 2012 at 11:16 am
AGP, "You seem to be way more invested in the "us vs. them" approach than WCDB"
Really? You seem to have missed Ken's comment:
"We, by contrast, have always insisted that staff at Gunn are equally committed, equally skilled, and equally qualified as those at Paly,"
Given WKBPA's history and attitude towards Palo Alto teachers & departments, do you seriously believe that WKBPA hold the teachers in higher regard than does the board & staff?
a resident of Gunn High School
on May 30, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Time to end this: Ken was responding to Supt. Skelly's criticism of counselors at Gunn "I TOTALLY AGREE. WE HAVE SOME COUNSELORS AT GUNN WHO ARE NOT AS POPULAR AS OTHERS. WE NEED TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE PEOPLE IN SOME OF THESE POSITIONS. SO MUCH OF EXCELLENCE COMES DOWN TO PEOPLE" (from Skelly's "confidential" memo to his staff, Web Link I agree with WCDB that rather than blaming people for the problems with counseling at Gunn, it would be better to help them do better by giving them and students something that works better. What do you think?
You are very angry at Ken for some reason, but you never say anything here about counseling. I agree with Wynn Hauser "The point is to bring Gunn students (and Paly students to the extent that things there need improvement)the best possible services and give them the greatest level of support possible." I don't know any of the WCDB people but I have looked at the data and the video on YouTube with Denise Pope (Web Link starting at about 12 minutes). Teacher advisory seems like it's obviously the best choice for our students.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 31, 2012 at 8:37 pm
"The school board recognized the service gap, and (with the exception of Barb Mitchell) spoke strongly in favor of change at Gunn to make guidance services comparable between the two high schools."
Interesting to note that Barb Mitchell has gone through the Paly system with three or four of her children and she is the only one who is not "in favor of change" to the Paly system. Seems like she may know something others do not.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 1, 2012 at 8:37 am
AGP, Ken & co. have previously called for Dr. Skelly to be sacked, teachers replaced and departments closed down. Ken then stands up and says that he's supports teachers. And you then take his other comments as dogma?
The board was previously blind-sided. The first 5 paragraphs of the article show them getting back to where they were. It's indicative of WKBPA's influence waning. I guess that's why Ken chose to strike out at Dr. Skelly again in this way. Trying to undermine his relationship with the districts teachers.
I'll continue to support the district, staff, teachers and students. You can continue to support WKBPA.
a resident of Gunn High School
on Jun 1, 2012 at 10:38 am
Hi Time to end this. What do you mean the board was "blind-sided"? I think you mean, "the board saw the data on counseling at Paly and Gunn that I didn't want them to see, and now they want comparable services at the two schools."
I can see why you don't care about that, since you already have teacher advisory for your kids at Paly.
What's really happening is that WKBPA has provided data that shows that Gunn students are not getting the same services as Paly students. Some people in the district office, for some unknown reason, don't want to change (I'm thinking you are probably one of them, from your talking about "admin staff"). So rather than talking about the data or counseling they want to throw mud and falsehoods around hoping to distract people from the truth. I doubt it will work but it's pretty funny watching you try. I'm probably paying your salary though so I would rather you spend time figuring out how to make the schools better rather than posting anonymous slurs about parents.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 5, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Exit surveys taken by Gunn seniors give 80% approval rating for counseling dept. Why isn't WCDBPA pushing those statistics?
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 6, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Parent, it's simple. WKBPA took a point in time and extrapolated it to a 20 year timeframe. Anything that doesn't deal with this "point in time" gets ignored. Not only that, the point in time chosen was a survey designed for a completely different purpose. So, not only was the extrapolation suspect, the actual data was invalid and their conclusions a leap of faith.
Next they'll be taking the API scores at Hoover and Ohlone and advocating that Ohlone get's shut down or turn to Hoover's model. After all, we have had this 40 year natural experiment and Hoover's results have outstripped Ohlone's by nearly 100 points every year.
How on earth can the Board allow this to continue. They just sit there like potted plants and accept what is fed by the staff.
It's just not good enough. If the Board doesn't sort this out, we need to re-call them.
Look at this API data. It shows conclusively that Hoover is a much better school than Ohlone.
Sad really
Don't miss out
on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Stay informed.
Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.
Analysis/paralysis: The infamous 'Palo Alto Process' must go
By Diana Diamond | 8 comments | 2,589 views
Common Ground
By Sherry Listgarten | 3 comments | 2,209 views
The Time and Cost Savings of Avoiding a Long Commute
By Steve Levy | 6 comments | 1,838 views
Planting a Fall Garden?
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,273 views


text:
Raja Ravi Varma Oleograph / Lithograph
Title: Basawanna by M. A. Mali
Size: 14.0" x 20.0" (inches) Apprximate/Small Variation May Present
Condition: As per images/Request Details if needed. Refer images carefully.
Fittings: Unframed, Shipped as Mounted and Back Support
Material: Lithography on Paper
Remarks: Authentic Ravi Varma Press Lithograph / Oldeograph from 1910-1920's
Ravi Varma Lithograph: Basawanna by M. A. Mali
- Product Code:
- 10
Tags: Raja Ravi Varma, Lithograph, Oleograph, Print, Antique, Vintage, Basawanna, M. A. Mali


text:
Groups Seek 2012 Repeat of Year of the Woman
A redistricting year might mean the end of a safely drawn Congressional seat or a looming primary battle between two House incumbents for some. But for female politicians, a redistricting year has historically given them better odds at being elected to Congress.
"We look particularly at these cycles that allow the redistricting as pretty significant opportunities for women candidates across the country," said Stephanie Schriock, director of EMILY's List, a group dedicated to electing pro-abortion-rights Democratic women.
"It really opens up doors because you have new seats, you have new districts and new lines," Schriock told Roll Call. "Really for the last 10 years, we've worked to have a pipeline for women to be ready to run for office."
While nothing's certain, redistricting presents women with a chance they don't often get: a shot at an open seat rather than a challenge to an incumbent.
With so many factors going into a campaign, it's difficult to pinpoint whether gender is a factor in winning or losing. But women's groups such as EMILY's List believe the odds are in their favor in 2012 and are hoping on repeats of 1992 and 2002 to shore up their numbers.
"It creates more open seats, and it induces more incumbent retirement. And so any time that you've got a white-male-dominated political institution that sees an upsurge in retirements, any marginalized group stands to benefit," said Jennifer Lawless, director of the Women & Politics Institute at American University. "There's no question it creates a more favorable political opportunity structure."
In states such as Florida, Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico, which are gaining seats because of reapportionment, multiple one-term Congresswomen — including Democrats Ann Kirkpatrick (Ariz.), Dina Titus (Nev.) and Suzanne Kosmas (Fla.) — are looking to make a comeback.
"If the opportunity is there, I'm taking it," Titus said of 2012. "I don't feel burnt out, I don't feel the last session was indicative of what the future holds. It was a very close race."
Two dozen women were elected to the House in 1992 and five to the Senate. The controversial confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas led by an all-male Senate Judiciary Committee and the presidential election that swept Bill Clinton into office contributed to the wave that became known as "The Year of the Woman." But 1992 was also a redistricting year, and the dozens of open seats created throughout the country gave female candidates a fresh opportunity to run for office.
In California alone, which gained seven seats in 1992, six women were elected to the House. Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer were elected to the Senate that year, making the Golden State's the first all-female Senate delegation.
In 1982, five women were elected to the House, including Boxer and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio).
Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) and Allyson Schwartz (Pa.), who are in leadership at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, have already begun recruiting candidates for next year and notably reached out to some female former colleagues. Democratic operatives have also begun to search for strong candidates in state legislatures and county boards, which are strong breeding grounds for Congressional candidates. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) was a city council member before she ran in 1992 for the 6th district seat that Boxer vacated.
The example in that northern California district is one Democrats hope to repeat across the country this year. Hawaii Democratic Reps. Mazie Hirono and Colleen Hanabusa could leave their seats to run for the open Senate seat, creating an opening. If Rep. Shelley Berkley (D) launches a bid for Nevada's open Senate seat, Titus said she would likely vie for Berkley's Las Vegas-based 1st district.
"I've talked to the DCCC," Titus said. "At this point I'm staying active, I'm staying involved, I'm keeping options open and I'm certainly not looking away."
Titus noted that 2010 "was a tough election for women," particularly those in swing districts. Titus lost to now-Rep. Joe Heck (R) by 1 point, and Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.) lost to now-Rep. Joe Walsh (R) by 297 votes — one of the smallest margins in any House race.
First-time challengers including Ann McLane Kuster of New Hampshire, who lost to Rep. Charles Bass (R), are also said to be considering running again in 2012.
"It gives more opportunity to women who might not otherwise have an opportunity," Wasserman Schultz said. "It's important because with a drop in the number of women, we have even less chance to put our stamp on policymaking. There's a unique perspective that women have."
While the landscape could lean favorably toward Democratic women next year, the last redistricting cycle was not a total watershed for female candidates. Just seven women were elected to the House and one to the Senate in 2002, the most recent redistricting cycle but also the first election following the 9/11 attacks.
"Women still have a harder time garnering the credibility and support of women voters, particularly on issues relating to national security and foreign policy," Lawless said. "I see that as a challenge in making these candidates credible and viable. They are qualified, but I think there's more scrutiny."
Bean, who lost her first bid for Congress in 2002 before winning in 2004, recently became CEO of the Chicago Executives' Club. The former New Democrat Coalition member is said to be interested in making a political comeback, and her new post in Chicago promises to keep her in touch with political donors and consultants as she mulls a decision.
"I think she's looking. Right now she's not going to rush into that decision," one Democrat consultant said. "I know she's able to raise an awful lot of money, and that's why people like her so much. She doesn't have to start today."
Bean's successful House run in 2004 was helped by President Barack Obama's Senate bid that same year, and female candidates nationwide are looking for similar coattails when Obama is in cycle next year. Obama will have to heavily court female voters and focus on Western states in order to win a second term, and in both instances female candidates could reap substantial benefits.
While female Democratic ranks dropped last year, Republicans made historic gains — Sen. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) was elected along with nine Congresswomen, including Rep. Diane Black (Tenn.), who now serves in leadership at the National Republican Congressional Committee. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) led female recruiting efforts for the 2010 cycle.
Schwartz, who is in charge of the DCCC's national recruiting, said she recently traveled to Washington state and Arizona to meet with potential candidates and predicted a handful of female candidates will be announced in the coming weeks. In the meantime, Schwartz said, House Republicans are assisting in her recruitment efforts by pushing a legislative agenda that includes repealing the health care reform law and rolling back funding for Planned Parenthood.
"I think that the votes against family planning and Planned Parenthood — eliminating access for women's health services — really galvanized women and women voters," Schwartz said. "That's extremely important and an indication of Republicans going way further, and addressing social issues rather than the economy and jobs, which is on everyone's mind."


text:
In this series of tab and audio lessons, Guitar Techniques magazine's Stuart Ryan takes you through a gigantic acoustic method for playing fingerstyle blues. This is part three of the series - check out lesson number one here.
Part 3: Accompaniment and embellishing a blues
It's all about texture and harmony here as we take a stock 12-bar blues accompaniment idea and expand it to become something far more interesting and sophisticated. Use this section as an identikit for building a blues rhythm accompaniment - you can mix and match all the ideas here to give yourself a powerful arsenal of ideas for next time you have to relinquish lead duties yet still sound impressive! Even if you are not a fingerstyle player many of these ideas could be re-created with a hybrid (pick and fingers) approach.
Next page: tabbed examples and accompanying audio
Audio (for exercises 1-5):
Exercises 1-5: for chord I
Exercise 1
(Click tab to enlarge)
This hoary old riff may make you groan but it's at the heart of all blues rhythm playing and forms the foundations of the style.
Exercise 2
(Click tab to enlarge)
However, add a little harmony on the third string and you instantly expand the sound into something more interesting…
Exercise 3
(Click tab to enlarge)
Now a little more movement on the fifth string and the chords are taking shape! Some of these examples can sound a little clunky so be sure to use these full chords sparingly!
Exercise 4
(Click tab to enlarge)
The open fourth string throughout this sequence adds more of a dominant blues feel idea for those funkier sounds. The 3rd and 4th bars also illustrate how you can thin the sound out a little. Notice how the chords are also extended through the scale now so there is far greater melodic movement - this is the real gospel sound in practice.
Exercises 5 and 6
(Click tab to enlarge)
Exercise 5: Finally a full chord version that harmonises an E Mixolydian scale to give a full, rich and modern sounding blues accompaniment.
Exercise 6: See Exercise 7, which includes text for Exercises 6-10...
Audio (for exercises 6-10):
Exercises 6-10: for chord IV
Exercise 5 is great if we are just playing over the I chord (in this case E) so here are several examples of how to flesh out accompaniment when you move to the IV chord (here an A). Obviously the open strings form a large part of the success of these sounds so always make sure you can play these with a capo in case you have to change key! Doing this in F with no capo is also no fun!
Exercise 7
(Click tab to enlarge)
Exercise 8
(Click tab to enlarge)
Exercise 9
(Click tab to enlarge)
Exercise 10
(Click tab to enlarge)
Exercises 11-13: turnarounds
it's not much use if you can't actually end your blues sequence, so here are some turnarounds to get you back to the beginning!
Exercise 11
(Click tab to enlarge)
There is a 'passing chord' here - a Bb7 which links between the B7 and A7. This chord does not belong in this key but in this context gives a great sense of descending movement.
Exercise 12
This exercise starts with a classic triplet feel - very Robert Johnson - and then closes with a walking bass line against the chords. This is a great way of implying movement and making one guitar sound like two!
(Click tab to enlarge)
Exercise 13
(Click tab to enlarge)
Again, Johnson-ish descending dominant seventh chords played with a triplet rhythm followed by some chord substitutions/inversions to facilitate a descending melody on the first string. Getting all these chords under your fingers can be tricky so start slow and get all the shapes in place first!


text:
JROTC: Leadership course or recruiting tool?
San Francisco will vote in November on a ballot to save the military program in schools.
| San Francisco and Washington
Some San Francisco students are taking to the streets over military involvement in schools – to support it.
On a recent afternoon, they are on 24th Avenue. Adeline Wong and Michelle Ha knock on every door down the block touting a ballot proposition that would save a military-tied program in their school. The city's board of education narrowly voted in 2006 to phase out military education courses, known as junior ROTC, arguing it was a form of recruitment.
Adeline, a senior at Lincoln High and the school's senior battalion commander, is trying to tell voters that her favorite extracurricular activity isn't grooming her to be GI Jane. "It's funny hearing other people's understanding of the program. It's so limited, so stereotypical – if you're in a uniform, you are going to go into the military," says Adeline, who is gunning for a master's degree in biotech.
Students in the program shake their heads over the adult battle that's erupted. The issue has sharpened skirmishes for local government seats, drawn verbal volleys from national pundits and activist groups, and grabbed the Pentagon's attention.
No other major urban school district has followed San Francisco's phaseout, but with emotions high over an unpopular war in Iraq, efforts to curb military engagement with students have gained traction across the country.
Antirecruitment efforts have taken place in schools in Seattle; Madison, Wisconsin; Vermont; and Chicago.
Supporters of junior ROTC like Adeline say the program pushes college, not the military, and fosters leadership skills and trusted friendships. Opponents, however, counter that the Pentagon would hardly spend money without it paying recruitment dividends.
"The reason it exists is to encourage people to be positively disposed to military careers. And because it is targeted to children who are 13, 14, 15, it's very inappropriate," says Dan Kelly, a retired school board member and leading junior ROTC opponent.
He and others point to statements by military leadership over the years that cast the program in terms of recruitment, including former Defense Secretary William Cohen who told Congress in 2000 that "it's one of our best recruiting tools."
By large majorities, San Franciscan voters have backed measures to insulate students from military recruiters.
Some 90 percent of students in the district opt to not allow their information to be passed on to recruiters, says Alan Lessik, regional director of the American Friends Service Committee. The issue isn't just about local opinion but about international law – ratified by the US Senate – that sets 15 as a minimum age for recruitment.
"The military knows the reality that if you wait until [age] 18 it's too late," says Mr. Lessik. "The Pentagon can get you if they start talking with you at 13."
Opponents in the city also oppose the military's "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy for gays and lesbians. The San Francisco junior ROTC program allows openly gay students to join and rise through the ranks, even if the military itself does not.
Effect on recruitment
There are about half a million students participating in more than 3,600 junior ROTC programs across the country, with budget authorizations to expand the program by another 100 units by 2010. Pentagon officials say that there's a "waiting list" of another 700 schools nationwide looking to get junior ROTC.
The Pentagon says the program is merely an opportunity to help foster discipline, citizenship, and a sense of national service. Yet the military is aware of its effects on recruitment.
Chiefs of the military branches told Congress in 2000 that between 30 to 50 percent of their junior ROTC participants ultimately join the military.
Advocates for the program in San Francisco suggest only a small percent of local participants go into the military, which couldn't be confirmed.
While the Pentagon announced last week it had met its active-duty recruiting goals, some top brass lament the negative perceptions held by some Americans about military service. They also argue the job of recruiting should be thought of as a national – not just a military – responsibility, one taken up by coaches, teachers, and others.
Today's youth do show an interest in national service, say military officials, but they also increasingly seek the approval of their parents or other "influencers" belonging to a generation shaped by the Vietnam War. The current conflict in Iraq doesn't help either.
Pentagon officials are reluctant to talk about the San Francisco case, though they are "concerned" about the seven junior ROTC units in area high schools. "If the local government feels it can no longer properly support the program, we view that with regret, but understand the constraints local schools are sometimes under," says Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokeswoman.
Enrollment in the city stands at about 1,200 students, down from 1,600 in 2006, Pentagon officials say.
However, the department is worried that the San Francisco school board's decision to prohibit cadets from receiving physical education (PE) credit for junior ROTC participation is negatively affecting participation levels, adds Ms. Lainez.
That decision came this summer and meant the district needed to hire 11 new PE teachers.
That's an expense that could be offset by ultimately laying off the junior ROTC staff, all of whom are retired military personnel. The district and the military divide the costs of the program, with the military chipping in $600,000 and the district paying $1 million. But it's hard to gauge the long-term financial impacts.
"This program has been in San Francisco for so long – 90 years – that we have literally built our schools with the presumption that we have junior ROTC in the schools, so we don't have enough facilities to provide PE for all the kids. We might have to build more gymnasia or fields," says Jill Wince, a school board member supportive of junior ROTC.
For some, a confidence boost
Students enrolled in the program take a daily course that covers everything from map reading to first aid skills to leadership training. The latter happens through a discussion of what traits a leader ought to have, followed by group role-play. Students put the training to use as they move up the ranks and take leadership positions in after-school activities including a drum corps and color guard, and drill teams.
"I'm a lot more able to speak up in front of everyone," says Dana Lui, leader of the color guard.
As for learning about the military, it rarely comes up. Junior Judy Yin can't remember a single discussion about military careers in the two years she has been involved.
"Colonel has specifically told me that if you can choose, don't go into the military," says Adeline. "He didn't say it's a horrible experience. But he said pursue other careers, go to college."
"Colonel" refers to retired Col. Robert Powell, head of the city's junior ROTC program. He says if students ask him about joining the military, he immediately tells them to talk with their parents first. Then he asks if they have considered all their options – college, trade school. And then, a stark question: "Do you know there's a war going on?"
He says he does not meet with or pass information to recruiters, nor is he allowed to do so. "Our mission is to encourage young people to be better citizens. It's hard to get people to believe that's the pure and sole objective."


text:
Greater Houston
Jump to menu
About Greater Houston
Welcome, and thank you for visiting!
The Greater Houston Chapter is proud to serve the Houston and surrounding communities as a member of the Texas Professional Real Estate Inspectors Association (TPREIA) and InterNACHI now together is bigger and better in what we do.
As Professional Home Inspectors we are committed to maintaining customer trust and satisfaction, with the highest integrity, by delivering quality services conforming to our industry's premier standards.
Our reputation is built on our professionalism, a foundation of integrity, top technology and commitment to relationships.
We know that in order to achieve and maintain unparalleled technical knowledge while consistently providing our customers with the highest level of service and expertise we must remain vigilant to their needs and expectations.
TPREIA/InterNACHI helps us to achieve those goals through continued education that elevates our standards beyond minimum requirements.
Our goal is to provide fair and accurate information to our customers, documented in a manner that is easy to understand, thereby enabling our clients to make confident and fully informed decisions regarding the investment they are about to undertake.
We invite you to join us in our campaign to establish a reputation as the industry experts through character, integrity and service by meeting with us every third Tuesday for Friendship, Food and Fun. Our special guests and educational speakers provide information you can use.
Please click on the Chapter Events tab to find more information about our next meeting. Attendance is always free and some will leave with door prizes.
About Us
Past Events
Chapter Members
Join Chapter
Contact Chapter
Greater Houston Chapter of TPREIA
TPREIA Website
Find a Certified Home Inspector
About InterNACHI®
Member Marketing
Find an Inspector
Take Our Exam
Certification & Licensing
Become a CPI
Standards of Practice
Additional Certifications
Online Courses
House of Horrors®
Videos & Webinars
Exam Prep
Buy-Back Guarantee
Move-In Certified®
E&O Insurance
Business Development
1750 30th St., Ste. 301
Boulder, CO 80301
Contact Us
Copyright ©
InterNACHI® is a registered trademark of the International Association of Certified Home Inspectors
Terms of Use
Close Menu
Get Started
Start with InterNACHI® Membership
It all starts with InterNACHI®.
Access nearly all our benefits with All-Access Membership
and work towards certification at your own pace (at no additional cost).
Licensing & Certification
InterNACHI® can help you get licensed in your state or province, and provides certification to help you stand out from the crowd.
Training & Education
InterNACHI® offers
over 1,000 hours of free online education
for members.
Free Online Exam
Test & improve yourself.
Become a Home Inspector
15 steps to become successful
Get Insured
Exclusive discounts & enhanced coverage.
House of Horrors
The world's #1 training facility.
Free Design Services
Get your logo & more
for free
Membership Benefits
Everything you need, in one place.
Find a Certified Home Inspector
Grow Your Business
Grow Your Business with InterNACHI®
InterNACHI® membership is
so much more than training and certification
. Members get access to world-class resources to grow their business to the next level.
"We'll Buy Your Home" Guarantee
Stand out from the crowd by offering the
home inspection industry's strongest guarantee
Home Maintenance Book
Quadruple your inspection business and reduce your liability with the "Now That You've Had a Home Inspection" book.
Multi-Inspector Firms
Take your company to the next level.
Free business development guidance.
Engage with your local community.
Logo & Marketing Design
Build your brand and stand out.
Webinars & Videos
Live monthly educational broadcasts.
About InterNACHI
Standards & Policies
News & Announcements
Frequently Asked Questions
InterNACHI Forum
Calendar of Events
Contact Us
InterNACHI® School &
College Certificate Program
House of Horrors™
Find a Certified Home Inspector
Search NACHI.ORG…