Category: Education News

Position Paper from SMUHSD Trustee Area 3 Incumbent Jennifer Jacobson

10/14/2026 – Introduction by EduIssues Founder David Kristofferson:

I recently announced the possibility of an online debate here between the candidates in our upcoming election for the San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) Area 3 Board of Trustees seat.  The incumbent Jennifer Jacobson is running against challenger Diana Harris.  Invitations were delivered to both candidates over a week ago.  The debate format was to include a position paper from both candidates posted with neither candidate seeing the other’s document beforehand.  These position papers were to be followed by one rebuttal post for each side.  The rebuttals were not to be published until both were received by me.  Blog comments were to be turned off on all posts.  In the event that only one candidate agreed to participate, that candidate’s position paper would be posted and there would be no further posts from either one.

I am not endorsing either candidate but wished to provide both of them with an unfettered opportunity to present their views directly to the public and respond at length to each other.  Other public events prior to this did not provide an opportunity for a discussion at length.

Jennifer Jacobson agreed to participate and sent me the position paper that follows this Introduction.

Diana Harris yesterday sent me a cordial email thanking me for the invitation but saying that “With the campaign in full swing, my schedule is stretched very thin, and unfortunately I’m not able to take part in a debate with my opponent on your blog.”  She referenced her website www.votedianaharris.com as well as the BHNA candidate forum that I also linked to in my previous blog post.

According to the rules above, this will be the only post in this event.

My role was to write this Introduction, paste Jennifer Jacobson’s text into this WordPress blog post, check that the formatting in the WordPress software used here was correct, check that the hyperlinks were working, give the author a chance to review the text in WordPress prior to public release, and make any final  edits requested by the candidate.

The following text below the separator line was written by Jennifer Jacobson.

First, my words are my own and I am not writing on behalf of the SMUSHD Board. I am writing as an incumbent candidate running for the Area 3 Trustee seat of the SMUHSD Governing Board.  Comments or questions can be directed to me personally at info@jenniferjacobsonforsmuhsd.com.

As I’ve spoken to countless constituents over the course of this local campaign knocking on doors, at the Farmers’ Market, and other events, national politics never comes up. Most people would agree with David as he laments the politicization of public education. At the end of the day, I believe the purpose of public education is to provide young people with a solid foundation of the knowledge, skills, and character-development needed to be respectful, responsible adults who can function within and contribute to our society. This is what I benefitted from growing up in CA public schools and what I want for my own five children.

That said, as a government-funded institution, public education has a political element to it, especially in a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” (Gettysburg Address). Prior to the Constitution, the 1785 Land Ordinance set aside land for public schools and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 identified knowledge as “necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind.” Together, these documents framed the federal priority that “schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” As such, public education should prepare rising generations for the responsibilities and duties of citizenship within our nation. Our system of government as a democratic republic depends on individuals understanding the principles within our founding documents and governing themselves accordingly. A government-funded institution should promote the preservation of the very institution providing it.

The general public would find most of what we do at board meetings boring: approving agenda items like budgets, job descriptions, field trips, policy updates required by law, construction contracts, etc.; reporting on events or site visits we as board members have attended; and hearing reports from staff on topics ranging from curriculum/instruction, construction, human resources, business services, and student services. Over the course of my first term, my work on several of these topics has led to a track record of success. While I don’t take sole credit for every positive outcome, on my website I point out how I have personally driven, initiated or contributed to many of them, including:

  • A districtwide phone-free school day policy
  • New Career Technical Education courses & pathways, including dual-enrollment courses that earn college credit
  • Real AI guidance for our district staff, students, and families
  • Greater access to the data-driven student support program Empowerment Through Action
  • Twice-yearly reading and math assessments across the district for 9th-10th graders
  • A policy revision to better support students learning English and the educators who teach them
  • A PE study hall option for student athletes

As I’ve spoken to local residents during this campaign, a few topics matter to most people across ages and stages of life. I will write about each of them below, plus a couple of the “controversial” ones my critics have raised.

College & Career Readiness

A diploma should mean something. It’s a reasonable expectation that when students graduate, they do so with a plan and ready for what’s next, whether it’s a two- or four-year college, a career, or skilled trade apprenticeship, military service, etc. In our district we have historically focused on college-prep, but college isn’t the path every student wants. Some people love working with their hands, but we have largely done away with shop classes. I am endorsed by the Carpenters Union, and when I visited their training facility in Pleasanton, I learned that the average age someone starts as an apprentice is 27. What have they been doing since age 18? Ideally our students can take a hands-on course like our Construction Trades course, get an industry credential, and begin a skilled trade apprenticeship right out of high school with a starting wage of $40+/hour. Approved during my time on the Board, this course is the only one like it in the county, and more students should be able to access it.

We need pathways to successful careers for students who want to earn more than minimum wage or who want to work within their field while pursuing higher education. I have been beating this drum steadily during my first term, and thankfully we now have multi-year career pathways in more industries than ever: biotech, business, healthcare, interior design, architecture, engineering, computer science, hospitality, and more. Next, staff need to help students find room in their schedules to take them earlier so they can complete a multi-year pathway before graduation. Career Technical Education (CTE) should not be stigmatized, nor should it impose barriers for students seeking college admissions. Many CTE classes are dual-enrollment, meaning students can earn college credit for them while still in high school. This is not an “either-or.” It is a “yes-and.” CTE benefits all kinds of students.

We also need to keep the academic rigor at a level that prepares students for college-level coursework. Unlike other districts on the Peninsula, we haven’t eliminated honors or AP classes. Students should be challenged at the level they are ready for, and given extra support when they don’t meet grade-level proficiency.

Before my time on the Board, we had only one districtwide measure of academic proficiency, aside from grades: the state CAASPP test at the end of 11th grade. Results from this test were always presented with the disclaimer that students don’t take the test seriously, so we can’t really take the results seriously. As the saying about data goes, “garbage in, garbage out,” and our data wasn’t telling us what we needed to know to inform intervention. I requested districtwide common assessments in math and reading. Now 9th and 10th-grade students are assessed twice a year using the NWEA MAP assessments (Measures of Academic Progress). This way we can compare data across sites and learn what interventions are working. For example, Aragon introduced “roaming” Algebra 1 teachers who pull students out of class as needed to give 1:1 or small group instruction. The idea sounded promising, but there was no system for measuring it. Using the MAP data, we learned matched Algebra I students demonstrated significant test-scale growth relative to grade-level norms on MAP assessments compared to their peers. (Spotlight on Student Learning Presentation, slide 28) In other words, the data suggested the intervention was working, and students were growing faster than expected in math.

Phone-Free Schools

When the state of CA passed a law requiring all school districts to create a policy restricting mobile devices during the school day, SMUSHD faced a choice. Do we codify our current practice of teachers telling students to place their phones in a classroom cubby during each class, or do we lock them up in pouches all day as San Mateo High School has been successfully doing for years? I joined the working group of students, parents, and teachers to study the issue, including the latest research, storage options, and practices in other districts. At the end of a months-long process, I was surprised that this group easily came to the consensus that our students would be best served by a full-day device restriction, or “bell-to-bell” policy, and I strongly advocated for it in our board meetings. Following a survey to all parents, students, and teachers, we learned over 60% of teachers favored a bell-to-bell policy. Even though administrators initially resisted, the community rallied and the Board unanimously voted for a phone-free school day.

It has proven to be a good choice for our students. At our October 8th Board Meeting, staff reported on the implementation now that we are two-months in. While there are some minor issues–to be expected with any new major policy shift–the rollout has been smooth overall and staff are seeing positive outcomes:

  • Students are connecting more face to face with their peers and their teachers
  • Students are more focused in class
  • Fewer trips to the bathroom during instruction time
  • 50% lower suspensions at Mills High School
  • More participation in clubs at lunch
  • More food eaten at brunch/lunch
  • Number of phones connected to school WiFi during peak hours went from 200+ per campus to 15-25 per campus.

Jesse Boise, Assistant Principal at Hillsdale, thanked the Board for taking a risk and declared, “I can’t imagine going to school another way.”

Artificial Intelligence in Education

Chat GPT released its first major LLM during my first year on the Board. This event has rapidly changed many aspects of our lives, including education. Over the last decade, and especially through the pandemic, schools have leaned into “EdTech” products. More recently some researchers are questioning the efficacy of these tools, while others think AI should transform K-12 education.

It seemed prudent to me to examine our overall technology usage and strategy. As a result, the Board directed the district to convene an AI Task Force, and I was the only trustee to sit on it. A variety of stakeholders attended: students, staff, and community members–some of whom were parents of students in the district, others work in tech. The question “What should artificial intelligence never replace?” framed our discussion. We discussed many hopes and fears, and if you watch the movie The AI Doc: Or How I Became an Apocaloptimist you’ll know what I’m talking about. We hope AI can be a means to remove barriers and customize learning in ways that meet students where they are and challenge and support them accordingly. Teachers worry about academic integrity, undetected bias within AI models, and students losing the “productive struggle” that learning requires. Parents worry about safety and the social, emotional, and academic development of their children. Students worry about being prepared to find a job when AI is changing the career landscape so quickly.

We all recognize the capacity artificial intelligence has to save time, increase productivity, eliminate busywork, and augment human effort, but what about when human effort is the outcome sought?  Teachers don’t want essays on Romeo and Juliet generated by a cleverly worded prompt and later tweaked with errors to elude AI detectors. They want students who can read and comprehend an entire novel, identify rhetorical devices and themes, analyze a character’s motivation and actions, and use the English language to articulate their ideas. While AI can in some ways support these learning objectives, it cannot make a student the kind of reader, writer, or thinker capable of evaluating the AI output. That is the collaborative job of teachers and students together.

Deliverables from the Task Force included a vision and principles statement for how AI fits into our human-centered institution and guidance for district staff, parents, and students going forward. Before the 2026-2027 school year started, every teacher was asked to include specific expectations in each course syllabus regarding AI use. Further, the Board also approved a no personal device policy in alignment with our phone-free policy. This creates a “walled garden” on campus where students can use technology within the defined boundaries of their school-issued chromebooks while connected to the district network, without accessing restricted sites. If students could bring personal laptops to school as they had in the past, it would continue to be an equity issue.

The AI Task Force continues this year, and teachers will continue to need more granular guidance when it comes to instructional design and strategies to assess student mastery of knowledge and skills.

Ethnic Studies

AB101 required a single-semester ethnic studies course to be a graduation requirement beginning with the class of 2030. The SMUHSD Board approved the course and graduation requirement before my time on the board and ahead of AB101. This course has been the subject of controversy throughout the state of CA, so it is no surprise that there would be some controversy about it within our own district.

Proponents praise the course for its inclusivity, for increasing student engagement, for helping more students of color see themselves in the curriculum, and for telling their untold stories. Critics focus on the ideological lens it introduces.

According to SMUHSD’s Ethnic Studies Curriculum Guide, the course explicitly centers on themes of intersectional identity, unequal power relationships, privilege, and systemic oppression. It frames historical and contemporary society in terms of dominant and historically marginalized groups, and it requires students to analyze multiple forms of oppression. The guide also explicitly promotes social justice, civic participation, grassroots advocacy, and action to dismantle systems of oppression and create a more equal society. It emphasizes lived experience, the social construction of racial and ethnic categories, and students as co-constructors of knowledge.

Related, and also before my time on the Board, the social science department took steps to re-orient the entire social science sequence toward these ethnic studies themes, emphasizing structural power, privilege, marginalization, and the ways institutions can perpetuate inequality. The 10th grade Modern World History and 11th grade US History courses of study were re-written to de-emphasize Western political thought and the “Narrow Eurocentric Lens of Historiography.” (Board Meeting, March 11, 2021)

I attend district professional development days and have been present in multiple workshops where educators demonstrate how Ethnic Studies themes can be extended to other subjects, even the “non-partisan” ones like math and science that David Kristofferson praised as being unbiased.  I oppose this type of academic mission creep.

How does Ethnic Studies relate to antisemitism? Some of the main “tenets” of Ethnic Studies are decolonialization and Third World solidarity. These themes are fertile ground for a narrative in which the modern state of Israel being a “settler-colonial” project of White Europeans and oppressive to the Palestinian people who are the rightful indigenous people of that land. In their letter to the UC Board of Regents on October 16, 2023, UC Ethnic Studies professors claimed the Board was wrong to call the October 7 attacks on civilians an act of “terror” because “to hold the oppressed accountable for ‘terrorism’ reinscribes a colonial narrative.” They called on the UC administrative leadership “to retract its charges of terrorism, to uplift the Palestinian freedom struggle, and to stand against Israel’s war crimes against and ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinian people.”

Whether or not you agree with calling the October 7 massacre a “freedom struggle” or the subsequent attacks in Gaza a “genocide,” one can see how this framing, aligned to an ethnic studies lens, can easily give way to antisemitism. It has in other districts, inviting lawsuits and settlements. Last year, CA passed AB 715 which strengthens anti-discrimination protections in K-12 public schools and establishes a framework focused on preventing antisemitism and other forms of bias. Thankfully, to my knowledge, the course content in our district has not crossed that line during my time on the board.  Though many CPRA (California Public Records Act) requests have been filed and hundreds of course documents produced, they have not resulted in a lawsuit. From time to time posters are hung in classrooms that don’t belong there, and when they are, the Superintendent takes prompt action. That said, as I mentioned earlier, the framework presented in Ethnic Studies based on power and privilege lays the groundwork for certain narratives to flourish.

During my first year on the Board, we received hundreds of emails from constituents sent through an advocacy group with concerns over ideological content in the Ethnic Studies course and the professional development provider. We also received many emails from community members, including teachers, praising the course and the training they had received from the provider and from district personnel. The district held a study session in response. Following that, the PD contract was not renewed. In an effort to provide greater transparency to course content, the superintendent directed teachers to create a curriculum guide with sample lesson plans and coursework from across our sites.

As a parent watching my daughters take these courses in real time, I observed all these adjustments to the social science courses and had some concerns of my own, including major historical events that were excluded and certain activities that seemed overly political. In February 2025 I accepted the invitation to speak at an online statewide Ethnic Studies Forum. Most of the speakers were students or parents of students who had encountered antisemitic content as part of their Ethnic Studies or history lessons or experienced antisemitism at school. I informed the audience of Board Policy 6144, which most districts in CA have adopted and outlines how teachers are to handle controversial issues, and what to do if biased or inappropriate content is presented in class.

That forum was a moment where I was speaking as a parent, in a parent context, and I later recognized I should have been clear about that distinction when identifying myself in a non-district, public setting. I met with the District Teachers’ Association president afterward, we talked it through honestly, and we’ve had a good working relationship since.

Personally, I believe Ethnic Studies is best-suited for senior year, after students have learned the facts of the events of modern world and US history with a neutral framing rather than having the Ethnic Studies lens applied. Having that foundational knowledge and added maturity would lend more nuance and rigor to the course, in my opinion. Others would argue that placing Ethnic Studies in 9th grade is a feature, not a bug, precisely because it frames the rest of the social science sequence and introduces a lens and set of vocabulary to be referenced in other courses.

Safe & Connected Schools

I care deeply about all people. I have a special concern for young people who are vulnerable to bullying, harassment, or exclusion for any reason. I sincerely believe every person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. All students and staff deserve to be physically safe and respected within their school community, and to learn and work in an environment free from bullying, harassment or discrimination.

During my time on the board the district has made efforts to improve the culture on campus with the intent to protect those who face dehumanizing language or targeting based on race, immigration status, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.

I have already discussed my perspective on the district’s approach to anti-racism here.

In September 2025, our Board unanimously approved an emergency response protocol for situations where unidentified individuals come onto a campus and try to remove a student, parent, or staff member without proper identification or a judicial warrant. The goal is to slow the situation down, keep everyone isolated and safe, and bring in district leadership. It’s one of the ways we’re working to make sure every student and family feels safe and supported at school.

In the September 10, 2025 board meeting, we had a discussion about a board policy outlining practices to support transgender and gender-nonconforming students. I asked for more time to review that policy because I wanted to fully understand what was changing before voting on it — and I wasn’t the only one. Other trustees and several community members, including one of our own teachers, raised similar questions about parental notification practices. If I had to do it over again, I would have chosen different words to express myself. Some people took offense to my questions and comments although none was intended. Others have taken my words and twisted them. I’m not “anti-trans,” I never called LGBTQ+ people a “contagion” or said we support them “too much.” These are lies. They are not true. They are mischaracterizations of a nuanced argument I made, which is my job as a trustee. Adults should know the difference. My whole statement is available in the public record.

In the end, I voted yes because I believe in preventing bullying and complying with the law, even where I had reservations on points of tension between competing rights of safety, inclusion, privacy, and free speech. That’s what thoughtful governance looks like — asking hard questions, listening to the community, and still being able to reach a decision. Since then I have done more learning on the topic as I’ve engaged with more families with LGBTQ+ youth.

Respectful Discussion

During my time on the board, I learned that some students censor their own speech to avoid social consequences. In order to quantify this tendency, I proposed adding questions about it to the annual SMUHSD student survey on school climate. It turns out only 32% of students feel comfortable expressing views on controversial topics in class, and 67% feel they can’t share an opinion for fear of how it will be received.

School should be the place where young people are free to ask questions to discover the world and to form their viewpoints through open inquiry and civil discourse. This is how genuine consensus can be achieved, rather than through fear and intimidation. Applying labels to certain ideas and to people who express them creates conflict, stifles expression, and limits learning. In extreme cases, it leads to violence.

The Foundation for Individual Rights & Expression tracks free speech on college campuses. In a grim coincidence, FIRE released new findings after a shooting on a college campus, and they were chilling. In 2020, 1 in 5 students said violence was acceptable to stop a speaker from speaking on campus. In 2025, that number is 1 in 3. That’s a 79% increase in just five years. This trend is true on both sides of the political spectrum. 1 in 3 hold some level of acceptance for using violence to stop a speaker. Of note, these are college students–which means that they were recently high school students, and that they were educated well enough to get into college. And yet, they believe violence is justified to stop someone from saying words they don’t like. This is truly alarming. We’ve now seen what happens when such violence is carried out under such a permission structure.

As adults we need to model this better for our kids. In January 2024 we updated BP 1313 on Civility to reflect our commitment to civil discourse. I am willing to listen to anyone on any topic, because when I do, I learn. I have deep respect for people with that attitude. When I hear something negative about another person, or encounter new information that raises questions, I believe the best course of action is to ask whether there’s more to the story. These conversations are best held face to face, not keyboard to keyboard.

Final Remarks

Few candidates tick all the boxes on every issue, and every individual must weigh what issues matter most to them. I hope this post helps you do that.

A vote for me doesn’t mean you agree with everything I do or say. It means you believe the Board as a whole would continue to benefit from including a person who is experienced with the job at hand, willing to ask hard questions, listen to varying viewpoints while pursuing what is best for kids, work collaboratively with others, and be willing to reconsider my stance when I encounter new information. It also means you see the work I’ve done so far and trust that it represents the level of preparation, dedication, and commitment I have to pushing this district forward in a positive way.

A debate between our SMUHSD Area 3 Trustee Candidates?

The San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) Board of Trustees Area 3 election reflects some of our national divisions. Both candidates have strengths and weaknesses. Let them debate!

10/12/2026 – I have tried to avoid political topics in this education blog.  However, the political environment in the United States is currently the most toxic that I have seen in my 73 years on this planet, and this is even now pervading the upcoming election for the Area 3 seat on the SMUHSD Board of Trustees

Nationally we see our universities and public health agencies under attack, scientific grants cancelled for containing certain keywords, and rampant profiteering by public office holders and/or their relatives.

Locally in the San Mateo Union High School District over the last few years, there have been contentious Board meetings about the District’s ethnic studies program, its history curriculum, and transgender issues among others.  These have led to charges against people of being “racist”, “anti-trans”, “anti-semitic”, and so on.  People on the left blame what they view as a vocal minority of MAGA supporters represented by an incumbent Trustee who is termed “an eager accomplice to the Trump administration’s attacks on public education.”  People on the right blame activist teachers who are trying to indoctrinate their children with leftist political views or interfering in a parent’s right to raise their own children.  Claims are also made that students are afraid to express their real views if they differ from the views expressed in class.

I spoke at a Board meeting last year and said the following:

Public education is funded from taxes paid by both Democrats and Republicans.  It is a BIG mistake to politicize public education.

I was an antiwar demonstrator in college and a Peace Corps teacher afterwards.  I know the excitement that comes with political activism and the feeling that one is making the world a better place.  I am sure that many teachers who study in programs like the social justice program at Stanford feel that calling too, and believe that they are “bending the arc of history towards justice.”

As teachers, however, it is our job to teach students how to think, not sway them to our view of politics.  This is why subjects such as math and science, which we are here to discuss later today, are so important.   They represent non-partisan methods of thought that have played a critical role in pulling humanity out of superstitious darkness and advancing human welfare.  It pained me, when I watched the ethnic studies meeting video recently, that repeated comments from both teachers and students emphasized how ethnic studies was far more “engaging” than other classes.

Our country is now a poster child for what happens when people are emotionally “engaged” and constantly fighting for their side.  It is very easy to unintentionally open the doors of ethnic division; it is much harder to foster hope and bring people together.  The road to division and hatred leads to Gaza, Syria, and Ukraine.

It was not the path that Nelson Mandela chose after he was released from years in prison!

The sad thing is that, even though each side today claims to be fighting “the good fight” and thinks the opposite of their opponents, there is very likely at least a bit of truth in the charges coming from both sides.  I can not possibly write the tome required to analyze these issues before the upcoming election, nor do I flatter myself into thinking that such a tome would change the minds of partisans.

Instead, I decided to invite the candidates in the Area 3 Trustee election to speak for themselves here on this EduIssues blog.

The offer I made to both the incumbent Jennifer Jacobson and the challenger Diana Harris was for one position paper from each candidate containing links if needed to the candidate’s website and with no length limitations.  After posting these first documents, each candidate could then write a rebuttal statement, again including hyperlinks to their websites and with no length limitations.  Submitted rebuttals would be posted only after both rebuttals were received, so that no candidate would have an advantage in seeing the other’s rebuttal.  This format follows that of the CA voter guides for ballot propositions.  Finally, although I normally allow commenting on my blog, I moderate each comment, and did not want to undertake that possibly arduous and tricky task for this election, so commenting will be turned off.

I went to Diana Harris’ campaign event in the San Mateo Highlands on Saturday, October 3rd, talked to her privately at length about school board issues, and extended this invitation to her in person.  Diana gave a very warm and welcoming presentation in the Highlands, but this was not a “meet the candidates” style of forum as was hosted by the Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association.  I also talked with many SMUHSD teachers at that event who I know from my past teaching and lobbying efforts at Board meetings.  Diana is strongly supported by the SMUHSD teachers’ union.

I had previously met Trustee Jacobson on a project to review a math textbook for a proposed Financial Algebra class, so I extended the offer to her via text message.  I gave both candidates a few days to think about it and then followed up with a joint text message invitation formalizing the rules listed above.  I was out of town for a family vacation with my grandkids during the recent autumn school break week, but I continued to check in with an occasional text message to both candidates as well as voicemails.

As of today, Trustee Jacobson has agreed to participate, but I have yet to receive a response from candidate Harris.  Many of her teacher supporters have seen my blog articles and know that I have been critical of some district science and math policies in the past.  The thought has crossed my mind that Diana may have been advised not to participate because of concerns that I might be biased to her opponent (I did review a math textbook for Trustee Jacobson as noted above).  However, I have significant political differences with Trustee Jacobson, so such a concern is completely unwarranted.

I see weaknesses and strengths in both candidates, queried both candidates personally and bluntly about issues of grave concern to me, and am not endorsing either one.  I am concerned mainly that the public hear from both candidates directly and base their votes upon verifiable facts, not upon the kind of emotionally charged innuendo such as I mentioned in the third paragraph of this article.

My motivation is to provide a level forum for an exchange between both candidates.  Neither the San Mateo Highlands event with only candidate Harris, nor the two candidate Beresford event with its severe time limitations came close to a debate format.

Stay tuned and let’s hope that this discussion will commence soon!

UPDATE added 10/15/2026:  The Candidates Forum is now available here!

Update After 7 Years: Finally an NGSS-aligned Textbook

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were a major national change to the non-AP science curriculum. We are still feeling the shocks locally 7 years later.

5/22/2025 – After 7 years, the San Mateo Union High School District is this very evening holding a public hearing to discuss adoption of a Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) physics textbook. I only learned about this development from a District email sent out on May 19th, three days before the meeting, at which time they announced this topic and opened the floor for public comment. The book will be on the agenda for final approval at the June 12th Board meeting. I apologize in advance for any typos, etc., but because of the ridiculously limited time to get this information to the Board prior to the meeting, I will be publishing this article as soon as possible and then continuing to do edits afterwards

Before I provide comments on this textbook, first some background information for those less familiar with the NGSS topic:

In January 2018, I first learned about major changes to the non-AP, i.e., “College Prep” science curriculum when my Aragon physics tutoring students started bringing home new error-ridden homework worksheets instead of the excellent problem sets that had been used in the college prep physics class for many years prior. Therefore, on 1/27/2018 I sent out the following warning article to parents.

I made many inquiries about why this was happening, held meetings with SMUHSD administrators, spoke to the SMUHSD Board, and wrote several subsequent articles over the next year describing the unfolding changes:

An Open Letter to the SMUHSD and SMFCSD Boards of Trustees

3/1/2018 – The public deserves better notification and input into major changes in the math and science curricula.

My Speech to the SMUHSD Board on NGSS

3/16/2018 – We must take action to stop educational experiments on our children.

Rewriting Your Child’s Science Curriculum – the Bold NGSS Experiment

12/26/2018 – Five years after the Next Generation Science Standards were released, many districts still do not have NGSS textbooks according to Education Week magazine. Another bold experiment in education puts our kids at risk…

My SMUHSD Board Report on NGSS – A Lot of People of Good Will Trying to Deal with a Tough Problem

3/10/2019 – Current problems may eventually be ironed out of the NGSS curriculum. There was a nice display of positive progress at the 3/7/19 Board meeting, but there is still a significant way to go. There will be problems during the transition. Parents unfortunately appear unaware of / unconcerned by this issue.

Now 12 years after the standards were released and 7 years after the teachers were tasked by the State of California with writing the curriculum without a supporting textbook while simultaneously trying to teach the class, we are finally looking to adopt a textbook.

In my article above Rewriting Your Child’s Science Curriculum – the Bold NGSS Experiment, I quoted at length from a June 5, 2018 Education Week article detailing the nationwide problems that implementing the standards without a textbook were creating.

The Education Week article also details the many problems that districts encounter when they try to adopt new textbooks. Teaching is already a very difficult job and textbook evaluations present additional major burdens. The article states:

Districts face major obstacles in trying to get a good handle on what’s out there: It’s labor intensive and it’s costly.

“Materials selection in general isn’t frequently given the time, effort, energy, and resources it deserves,” said Matt Krehbiel, the director of science at Achieve. “To really dig into the materials and look for evidence of these innovations takes time. And that means either during the summer or getting teachers out of classrooms for multiple days. And that’s not typical in a lot of districts.”

I have seen examples of failed textbook adoptions over the last 3 decades in both our local elementary and high school districts because of constraints like the above as I detailed in my article How Can We Reclaim Our Public Schools??.

Yet here we are once again! The public has been presented with a physics textbook on which we are asked to provide comments in a matter of days when ONLY A SINGLE CHAPTER on waves from the book was made available to review!

When I spoke to the Board on 3/8/2018 about the effects of these textbook adoption and curriculum failures I said:

Far too often curriculum changes are presented to the public as a fait accompli and then children and parents live with the consequences for years.

THIS HAS TO STOP!!

We have Citizens Oversight Committees for major construction projects, but when decisions are made that may affect students for a decade afterwards, the public is given almost no time to react!!

If parents in the area were predominantly uneducated, I might understand why the District would limit public input, but we live in one of the most scientifically and technically accomplished areas of the world.

I requested in the 3/8/2018 speech to be allowed to serve in a volunteer capacity on such an Oversight Committee and mentioned that there might be many other qualified people in the area who would also be interested in volunteering. It is now 7 years since those suggestions were made and SADLY business continues as usual…

Board members are the only people who can ask extended questions of the teachers who evaluated the textbooks, but they often do not have the requisite subject expertise to do so. Concerned citizens like myself are limited to 3 minutes, so the best that I can hope to do is list some of the following concerns and hope that the Board members will seek answers to them:

  • Did the teachers have access to more of the textbook than only the one chapter on waves that the public can see? If not, how do they know how well the entire textbook actually aligns with NGSS? We clearly do not want to rely on the publisher-provided marketing material that is part of online evaluation material! The teacher evaluation report only mentioned the wave chapter, so I am gravely concerned that the teacher evaluation was also limited to just this small amount of material!
  • During the 3/7/2019 SMUHSD Board meeting, physics teacher Melanie Cotter from Mills HS gave an excellent presentation on the NGSS lessons that local staff had prepared. She described how the teachers were collaborating to develop Common Learning Experiences (CLE) which are shared lessons and how big an improvement this was over the past when teachers would develop lesson plans in isolation. She gave examples of six CLE’s that she and her fellow teachers were very proud of. When I spoke following her presentation I applauded this effort but mentioned how time-consuming this work was, stating that “As an example of how hard this lesson planning task is, the Achieve organization that spearheaded the writing of the NGSS standards provided vetting tools for lesson compliance and began posting model lessons on their website according to the Education Week article that I sent to you.  As of last June when the article was written 100 lessons had been submitted and only 8 were selected and posted.  As of today three quarters of a year later, that number has risen to a whopping total of 14 for all of K-12!“
  • How many additional CLEs have the teachers developed over the seven years since that meeting and will the adoption of this textbook replace the use of those CLEs?
  • Will the textbook actually be used frequently as an active teaching source or is it merely to be provided as a student home reference to meet a state requirement to have a textbook for the class?
  • How much will the textbook cost the district?
  • Are there also materials for conducting the labs that come with the textbook? If so, how much do they add to the cost?
  • If the textbook will only be used as a reference and teachers will primarily use their own CLEs, why not just keep the Hewitt textbook as a reference and save the money, particularly if the teacher-created CLEs differ substantially from those in the textbook? Contrary to the statement in the Board material, the Hewitt textbook does not present students with obsolete scientific knowledge and the laboratory manual for that textbook was developed by a Presidential Teaching Award winner, our own Paul Robinson from San Mateo HS!!.
  • A critical component of any physics textbook is the quality of its homework problem sets! When I looked at the problem set on waves, the problems were routine and not very inspiring. The computer interface was also rather clunky. If the evaluation material was restricted to the chapter on waves, how can we know the quality of the problem sets in the vast majority of the book that remains unseen?
  • Is there also a hardcopy textbook or is the book entirely online?

I hope the Board will get answers to the above questions and make them publicly available. This list is all that I have been able to compile given the time limitation.

Finally, I appeal to Superintendent Booker and the Board to seriously consider creating a Citizens Oversight Committee for textbook and curriculum review. Sadly, due to the current contentious political environment, this might seem to be opening a Pandora’s box, so citizen participants should be required to have relevant teaching experience and preferably masters-level or higher subject area degrees.

Addendum added just after 12:00 AM, 5/23/25:

The Board meeting went past 10:00 PM. The video is at

https://www.youtube.com/live/ZiOUeJb_wM8

Before the meeting, I handed out paper copies of the blog article to the Board members in case they had not yet seen the online version that I emailed to them this afternoon. At 45:13 in the video, I made an initial 3 minute comment about the motivation for the blog article and what I hoped to learn from the meeting.

I apologize if my extemporaneous comments were at times disjointed tonight. I was working feverishly for hours on this article earlier today; unlike the District presenting their side of the debate, I am constrained by a 3 minute clock, have been lobbying local school districts on behalf of our kids for three decades now, and am still trying to do so at the age of 71 after sitting through a three hour meeting.

The textbook adoption presentation did not begin until 2:30:05. I encourage interested parties to watch it in its entirety starting at the 2:30:05 timestamp. I asked a couple of questions of physics teacher Janice Valletta beginning at 2:54:04, and then spoke briefly about improving public participation in this process starting at 2:57:08. The public hearing on the textbooks ended at 3:00:00.

I have now written the follow-up to this article after the Board meeting.

New Developments in the Data Science Math Controversy

The University of California pushes back on high school data science mathematics classes.

3/14/24 – The following article from Edsource was recently released and provides an important additional perspective on the push for data science classes which was encouraged by the recent revision of the California Mathematical Framework. In particular, this article warns students NOT to skip Algebra 2 in favor of “data science” math courses:

Advanced math in high school prepares students for STEM and data science careers

A quote from the article in the link above:

We know from years of study and practice that learning math is cumulative. In order for California students to be adequately prepared for the science and technology majors they may choose to pursue in college — including data and computer science — the advanced math curriculum in high school is essential. While data science and statistics courses have been rapidly added to high school options and are welcome additions, these courses cannot replace the foundational math content found in Algebra II. We also acknowledge, and encourage, innovative curricula aiming to teach Algebra II via the context of data science, as such courses could be appropriate.

The following Edsource article presents multiple sides to this debate:

UC professors’ math problem: How does data science fit in?

and please note the following two quotes:

The Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools or BOARS reaffirmed its position by accepting the recommendations of a workgroup of math and statistics professors who examined the issue. That workgroup determined that none of these courses labeled as data science “even come close” to qualifying as a more advanced algebra course. 

Robert Gould, a teaching professor and vice chair of undergraduate studies in the statistics department at UCLA and lead author of Introduction to Data Science, said that he disagrees with BOARS’ decision. The course was created under the auspices of the National Science Foundation through a math and science partnership grant.

“We are disappointed, of course,” he said. “We believe our course is rigorous and challenging and, most importantly, contains knowledge and skills that all students need for both career and academic success.”

Will it help or hinder equity?

Critics of substituting introductory data sciences courses for advanced algebra include STEM professors at UC and CSU. Many say they support data science, but not courses lacking the full range of math topics in high schools that students need for STEM or any major requiring quantitative skills. Skipping foundational math in high school will set back the cause of equity for underserved students of color, not advance it, they argue, by creating the illusion that students are ready for statistics, computer science and data science majors when they aren’t. That may force them to take catch-up courses in community college.

Clearly, the battle between academic rigor and social justice rages on in our society.

Reducing the Achievement Gap

A different and hopefully somewhat novel approach to addressing this perennial problem.

Continue reading “Reducing the Achievement Gap”

The Battle Over the California Math Framework Revision

Two stories on the California Math Framework in the media today.

Continue reading “The Battle Over the California Math Framework Revision”

ALERT – “Draft California Mathematics Framework Shortchanges STEM”

4/5/2021 – Introduction by D. Kristofferson:

The California Department of Education publishes guideline documents for academic subject areas in K-12 education.  These documents influence teaching practices and textbook publishers and are updated on a seven year cycle.  I was alerted by the author of the following guest article, Michael Malione, that the revision for the K-12 California Mathematics Framework document is currently in progress and that public comments are being requested on the draft now.

Mr. Malione has spent considerable time studying the Framework document and has written the critique in his article entitled Draft California Mathematics Framework Shortchanges STEM.

The opinions expressed in the article are his alone, but I share his concern that the proposed 2021 revisions may have a significant and very likely negative impact on mathematics eduction in California public schools. I therefore encourage readers of this blog to consider Mr. Malione’s objections carefully and respond to the Department of Education survey via the link in his article before the April 8th deadline.

Note added 4/14/21 – The first public comment period is over. The committee working on the draft document will review the comments received, make revisions to the framework, and then put it out for a second 60 day round of public comments in June 2021.

The Local Math Wars Begin *Again* – Part 2

This is a continuation of the article at The Local Math Wars Begin *Again* . The San Mateo-Foster City School District (SMFCSD) recently cited a research study by Burris, Heubert and Levin in the American Educational Research Journal, Spring 2006, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 105–136 which supports detracting middle school mathematics. I have devoted several hours to this paper today and posted the following comments on Nextdoor. I continue to believe that we need to consider other ideas to close the achievement gap besides detracking.

I’ve been going through the paper by Burris et al. for close to three hours today. It is a very detailed and qualified study and I am not completely finished but have read enough to relate some important notes to all of you.

First, I highly doubt that most of the people that cite this study have actually taken the time to really study it.

This does not mean that it is a bad study, but it reflects the myriad complications faced by education researchers, and the text is consequently loaded with required qualifications that make a careful study very time-consuming.

Here are a few examples.

First of all, note that the study was based on a single district in a small Long Island (Nassau County) community. They tried detracking middle school students AND placing them into an accelerated math track as Gene McKenna noted earlier.

Detracking started in 1995 for sixth graders. Six years of students were followed through high school – students from the three class years before the detracking and the first three years of students who went through the detracked program. The last of these students graduated in 2002.

Note that our country has gone through many changes since 2002…

Most of the students in the school district were white with “upper middle class incomes” and the article implies that there was a single high school with an “average enrollment of 1,100 students.” African-Americans made up 8% of the students, Latinos 12% and Asians 2%. The majority of the African-American and Latino students came from lower income families and lives in subsidized or government-owned housing. This is pretty different from our local demographics.

From the paper:

“The district developed a multiyear plan to eliminate tracking in mathematics at the middle school level (Grades 6–8). In addition, it instituted changes in teaching and learning conditions that school leaders believed would help all students succeed. These changes involved the following: (a) revision of the curriculum in Grades 6–8, (b) creation of alternate-day support classes known as mathematics workshops to assist struggling students, (c) establishment of common preparation periods for mathematics teachers, (d) integration of calculators, and (e) a revised mathematics teacher schedule consisting of four accelerated classes and two mathematics workshops.

The district decided that all tracking for instruction in the middle school would end with the sixth-grade class that would enter in 1995 and that all subsequent sixth graders would study accelerated mathematics in heterogeneously grouped classes. The superintendent and the middle school leadership team believed that the combination of (a) heterogeneous grouping, (b) a high-track curriculum, and (c) mathematics workshops would enable all learners to be successful without reducing the achievement of the most proficient students.”

So note above that the district started out with the belief that this method would work and did a lot to make it so:

“Students were placed in the alternate-day mathematics workshops according to teacher recommendations or parent requests. Workshop class sizes averaged eight students, and students were allowed to enroll in or leave the class on the basis of how they were doing in their regular class and their personal desire for support. All work in these classes supported instruction in the regular mathematics classroom, and, whenever possible, students were assigned to a workshop taught by their regular mathematics teacher. Approximately 25% of all students took a workshop class at some time during the year, including a number of high-achieving students who wanted the additional instruction.”

It is clear that this small district thought this process through carefully and devoted resources to improve the odds of success.

The researchers took the data from this district and analyzed it.

To place students into low, average, and high achievement groups, the only data that the researchers had to use was a national math competency test created in Iowa (Iowa Test of Basic Skills) and administered a single time in fifth grade.

Furthermore they had to deal with the problems of dropouts and people entering/leaving the district:

“Selection effects are possible, however, even in stable populations. For example, the inclusion of transfer students whose educational histories differ from the majority could bias a study’s results. A strategy for dealing with such effects is to include only data for the cohort members who have the most similar histories (Cook & Campbell, 1979). To reduce this possible source of bias, we included student data only for cohort members (entering high school in 1995–2000) in regular education who (a) were continuously enrolled in the school district from fifth grade to their exit from high school or completion of this study, (b) entered ninth grade between 1995 and 2000, and (c) had a permanent record folder containing all data of interest.”

This creates obvious problems with interpreting the data for the low achieving group.

The Iowa test mentioned above to define achievement levels creates an issue about interpreting data for the ill-defined high achieving group.

Overall, though, the superintendant and others in that district were happy with the results which is the most important take away.

However, the researchers note in their discussion:

“Nevertheless, it is important that further research explore the essential components of this reform. The district that implemented the reform is a suburban district that has allocated generous resources in providing support to struggling students. Fifth-grade stanine scores in mathematics indicate that students in the district earn higher scores than the national average, and the proportion of low achievers in this study was proportionally lower than the number of average and high achievers. Would the reform work in a district with fewer resources and larger numbers of struggling students?”

They do not know the answer to that question.

This study illustrates common problems with education research. The study is valuable in showing that one community attained the results that it desired. Such an outcome is not guaranteed without the desire to succeed, resources, and careful planning, and no representation is made in the paper that such a reform would necessarily succeed in areas with “larger numbers of struggling students.” This does NOT mean that we should therefore do nothing to help struggling students, but it does mean that simply detracking students in itself is not a magic bullet that will guarantee success.

I may have additional comments later, but this is about all of the time that I can spend on this today. I have not had time to go through the detailed data analysis, but am concerned from a first pass that, even though there was quite an improvement in the low performing group, the results still need detailed consideration.

For example, the “Seq II” high school math class in the paper, which is geometry, went from a 46% “low achiever” pass rate by 10th grade before the middle school curriculum change to a 64% pass rate after the change. Note that passing means a grade of >= 65%.

I don’t have the comparable “low achiever” numbers for our local high schools, but I would not be surprised if they are lower, meaning that this work might be a much heavier lift for local teachers.

The Local Math Wars Begin *Again*

3/27/2021 – A discussion began yesterday about a San Mateo-Foster City School District (SMFCSD) school Board effort “to get rid of the GATE program and all advanced math.” Nextdoor users who can access Baywood Park neighborhood posts can access the discussion entitled “The death of the San Mateo foster city school district” at https://nextdoor.com/p/Wtf3qFd5-J3w?utm_source=share&extras=Nzg3MzE3MQ%3D%3D

(Note – if this link does not work for you, please try cutting and pasting it into a new browser window. For some unknown reason WordPress is having a problem connecting to this link.).

I wrote the following response which I will quote here. Please read through to the end because the link to the slides has been made available and there is some controversy as to what was actually portrayed at the extremely long meeting. Stephen Floor on Nextdoor quoted the following from the meeting: “I want to make sure nobody walks away this evening with the idea that the district is proposing to get rid of compacted math. We understand the very important reasons that student want to accelerate in mathematics and the concern about getting to advanced math. We’re proposing to the board that due to the pandemic and related circumstances we really need to move to a heterogeneous math course and then engage with our stakeholders with what that would mean going forward for rising sixth graders in subsequent years.”

Unfortunately this comment was supposedly made at 5 hours and 28 minutes into the meeting…

Despite this comment immediately above, the concerns that I stated below remain relevant regarding reform efforts in mathematics education. There are several “progressive” influences that are currently impacting the California math curriculum.

I have been lobbying against efforts like these for years on my blog at www.eduissues.com. I call your attention to the following article

https://eduissues.com/2018/01/29/never-believe-educational-experts-or-me/

Jo Boaler is a Stanford professor of education whose work is highly influential in California. She is a strong influence on and is part of the group who is *** currently rewriting the CA Dept. of Education Math Framework *** so expect to see much more efforts like the above as time goes on if parents don’t get organized.

Parents can comment on the CA Math Framework revision through this link (or through the link on the CA Math Framework page entitled “Mathematics Framework Online Survey” if they obsolete the link), but note that the first page of the survey makes it look like you have to be an educator to comment. This is NOT the case. Just fill in your personal info in the required fields and then click Next to move on to the second page.

*** Comments are only being received through April 8th. ***

Note that Boaler’s research work is not without its critics. This is a hot topic so I will present Boaler’s case first followed by Milgram’s and Bishop’s replies. Both sides appear to have legitimate gripes, so your “homework assignment” is to read both carefully if you want to be informed.

https://web.stanford.edu/~joboaler/

https://www.nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Essays/v8n5.htm

https://www.nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Essays/v8n4.pdf

As I mention in my blog article cited above “Never Believe Educational Experts – (Or Me)!”, California has a long history of educational experimentation fostered by places like the Stanford School of Education which one would think is a prestigious organization.

In Silicon Valley we like to think that bold new ideas are great. I am a scientist by training who went back to teaching late in the game after a long career in science, scientific software, and biotech. I was in on the ground floor of the Human Genome Project and managed the national gene sequence database (GenBank) for the NIH in the early 90s. I have always been open to new ideas.

Unfortunately education research has many problems as I describe in my blog article above, and the sorry history of failed educational experiments in California that have resulted in damage to children is lengthy.

I wrote my blog to try to warn younger parents of these problems so that each generation does not keep repeating the same mistakes. I hope that you will find this information useful.

*** I want to be very clear though, that the inequities that the reformers on the school board are trying to address are very real and require action too. Please be respectful of this fact. We need to act in a way such that we raise the general level of our society; not just fight for our own children. ***

My concern remains though that we can hopefully achieve that goal without injuring our most talented students.

My experience working with local high school students is that better students who are put in mixed math classes are bored and feel held back. This is largely because our society has become so divided by income levels that there is a chasm in education levels among students of the same age.

At the same time, the opposite happens for students who are put into accelerated classes that are beyond their capabilities as the blurb cited at the top of this conversation indicates. I have addressed this problem at length in other articles on my blog.

Please get organized and speak up TOGETHER now, but PLEASE also heed my other concerns mentioned immediately above.

In general I favor evolutionary change in educational practice. Abrupt changes affect too many kids and can not be undone. Kids should NOT be guinea pigs in educational experiments done to enhance the publication records of academics.

I’ve been told that Jo Boaler, originally from England, likes to end some of her writings with the phrase, “Viva la Revolution.” referring to shaking things up in math education. Proceed with caution…

This is a later comment that I made on Nextdoor.  Note that the slides for the meeting are available here: 7_2_MiddleSchoolMathProgramUpdate032521_0.

I skimmed through the slide deck (43 slides !!!). I am not surprised that this meeting went on till late at night. Slides 11-29 appear to be a “lesson” in Common Core Math, for example, probably intended to illustrate its “richness.”

This is another example of the problem that I often see at school board meetings. Administrators make up massive slide decks that people can not take in at a single sitting and then proceed to lose their audience. As a result, all kinds of misperceptions can occur. This is not my idea of good teaching technique.

I agree with Stephen Floor above that the slides do appear to show that there is still a path to Calculus in High School, but, not having heard the actual discussion, I do not know how much this was emphasized during the meeting. I have often seen slides skipped over quickly as time grows short and the Board and audience grows restless.

I DO know that Common Core has always tried to slow things down and delve more deeply into topics, and this has led to this exact same debate in years past. Common Core itself is a subject of massive controversy which has also been discussed in articles on my blog.

I will add a link to the slides in my blog article and add the qualifications above, but I don’t have the time to watch yet another five hour board meeting. Something is clearly wrong with this method of decision making.

NOTE – for those of you who are so motivated, the link to the Board meeting video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOKVK5VFzrQ. The meeting went on for SEVEN hours apparently.

NOTE added 3/27/21 at 9:30 PM: Gene McKenna has provided notes/comments on the Board meeting video on this topic at

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R41a3drvVVszgN7YQ4tsyKMj3tYz5YgAzHTyziS2pls/edit#heading=h.x4a5kbnpgepe

“Private Schools Are Indefensible” and a Speech for my Daughter’s Wedding

March 20,2021 – This morning I posted a note about the latest cover story in the April 2021 issue of The Atlantic entitled “Private Schools are Indefensible” to the “Public Affairs” discussion group that I administer on our local Nextdoor site.

I wrote:

Never having traveled in those elite circles of wealth, I suspect that there may be some exaggeration in the writing due to the clear disgust with what is described, but I don’t know how much.

It does strike me though that this is the logical end of a system that rewards money over all else…

This is probably the article that justifies my subscription price to The Atlantic  for this year. I will be writing up a detailed response later for my education blog.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/private-schools-are-indefensible/618078/

An interesting discussion ensued on Nextdoor and mention was made of a “landed gentry mentality” developing in our country along with references to the recent college admissions scandal which included people from our own backyard.

Regarding the subject of the influence of money in our lives, I felt that this was an appropriate time to share with the group a speech that I composed for my youngest daughter’s wedding in October 2018. The text follows below.

First, however, please note that this article is not the detailed response that I mentioned in the Nextdoor quote above. I am still pondering the article’s implications and am seeking other perspectives from readers before I write a response. After you read the Atlantic article, I welcome your opinions in the Comments section below.

Now for the wedding speech which, believe it or not, is relevant to the topic above. As it was not quite the appropriate time (plus a a bit late 😉 ) to give advice about sex, I spoke about the other big obstacle in many marriages – money. Obsession with riches has invaded many aspects of our society and leads to the behavior described in the Atlantic article.

 

Back in the early 1970s, while I was attending college at UC San Diego, one of my all time favorite movies was released, “Fiddler on the Roof.” I saw it on a truly enormous silver screen at the Loma Theater on Rosecrans Street in San Diego.

Little did I know that the girl who I would eventually marry lived just a short distance away from that theater, but I wouldn’t meet her for another decade and in a completely different city. That meeting would eventually lead me to this place today.

Why do I mention “Fiddler on the Roof?” Besides the memorable music, the picture it portrayed of traditional life being challenged by the powerful forces of modernity stayed with me, in particular Tevye’s haunting line, “… and because of our traditions every one of us knows who he is and what God expects him to do.”

This phrase resonated strongly in me, a member of a generation brought up on Simon and Garfunkel’s lyrics “‘Kathy, I’m lost,’ I said, though I knew she was sleeping. ‘I’m empty and aching and I don’t know why.’”

Those in the audience who remember that time might also recall that biologist Paul Ehrlich was predicting catastrophe by 1975 due to population growth outstripping the planet’s resources.

Well, folks, we survived, and, looking around the room, I can’t help but think how blessed we are. Yes, now we are confronting other challenges like climate change, but I remain confident that we will find a way forward and that our children’s children will continue to thrive.

But this will be “because of our traditions,” not in spite of them.

We live in one of the most exciting and beautiful areas of the world, the Bay Area, which is home to Silicon Valley. This is where the future is being made.

We pride ourselves on being “disrupters,” exhorting knowledge workers to “move fast and break things.”

But humans need a source of stability and tradition in their lives in order to thrive, something that is not “disrupted,” and that is what we are celebrating here today, the marriage of Amy and David.

They are one of the happiest couples that I have seen, and thoroughly enjoy each other’s company. There is a wisdom in their relationship that almost makes me hesitate to give them any fatherly advice at all.

It’s a little late for me to give the “Sex Talk,” so instead I will address the other source of strife that many people encounter in marriage – money.

Everyone has heard the old saw, “Time is Money.”

I believe whoever composed this line got it completely backwards:

Time is not Money. Money is Time.

So many people, both husbands and wives, work very long hours and exchange their time for money. They have no time left for their families. Life in the Bay Area is demanding and expensive, and there seems to be little choice but to submit.

My advice to the newlyweds is to live modestly and not become slaves to possessions.

Unless you are the richest person in the world, there will always be someone with a bigger house, a nicer car, a bigger yacht, or a fancier wine cellar than you have. In my opinion, that is the road to envy, not happiness.

It is too easy to become trapped into devoting all of your time to paying for a lifestyle instead of living it.

When you work, you exchange your time for money, not just to pay your bills, but, most importantly, to ultimately gain the freedom to spend your time the way you wish to do so.

If you remember that money is primarily your store of time, you will not squander it, but invest it wisely for growth.

But, as with everything, one must strike a balance. Not only would it be sad to be a slave to possessions; it would be just as sad if one deferred consumption completely in favor of savings, and then ran out of time to enjoy it.

Finding that balance is your challenge, but, ultimately, time is your most important asset, and your money should only be a means to make the most of it.

So please raise your glasses and let me end with a toast, using the words from another, more recent, song:

“I hope you” have “the time of your life.”