There is a man-made category known as the "Peter Principle" and it has proven accurate in many cases regardless of what arena one works or plays in. For example, Jack O'connell the present Superintendent of Education under the formerly prestigious banner of the California Department of Education is an individual who fits this description almost perfectly.

As a California State Assembly member from 1982-1994, Jack was outstanding, beloved, and protected District 35. He continued in the State Senate from 1994-2002 and represented his constituency with great attention and kindness. Jack was for the people and by the people.

In 2002, Jack was elected to the post that he currently holds with 61% of the vote and was re-elected by an even greater majority in 2006.

Jack is and has been a politician and every person conjures up their own definition when that title is placed next to their name. I'm not here to denigrate Jack in any way for the work he did serving his district from 1982-2002, but after that something went awry...

As in the Peter Principle, people can and usually do reach a point where their effectiveness stalls. It could be their talent doesn't match their job or what they are doing. It might be a run of bad luck or poor decisions. In Jack's case, he succumbed to an alien "disease" which was reacting to the failing of the California Public Schools by some expert panel and budget cuts in education. Additionally, No Child Left Behind came along and pointed out that schools everywhere were being unsuccessful and the ESEA (Elementary &Secondary Education Act) was a bust.

So, in an effort to stem the tide and apparently not looking too closely at the reasons this might be happening (2nd language learners, an exploding population, shortage of funding, etc), Jack focused on the A to G curriculum and an exit exam (aka CAHSEE) that would be the linchpin of California's graduation standards. By ramrodding the exit exam, Jack honestly felt we [California]\would show the rest of the country how "it" should be done, would make voters happy, and would demonstrate just how well teachers taught and how good or bad, schools were! Makes sense huh? In effect, we would tell all kids that you go to school from the time you're 5-18 or19, you learn what we say you should be learning, get your 230 credits, and then pass this exam which is on the 7th-9th grade level and if you do all of these things, you get a real honest-to-God D-I-P-L-O-M-A. If not, you get a "Certificate of Completion". Oh, and by the way, California is 1 of 23 states that have this requirement. Incidentally, if you are a special needs individual, you could apply for a waiver (and that caveat is currently being tested in the courts).

This test is not an easy test and it doesn't really test what students are necessarily learning. It is also multiple choice except for the one writing segment that can be fair or not so. Supposedly, members of our state assembly took it and the results were not very pleasant to many who did, so I'm told.

The current story is that Jack claims that we have a 7% dropout rate but my sources tell me it's much higher. Jack also has been applauded by none other than Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education, the enforcer of NCLB, for coming down hard on those schools who are falling below the acceptable test scores (failing). (Note: And Jack had ample reason to challenge NCLB as unfair and biased)

My questions are: How often is negative reinforcement successful? How are we bettering our children's opportunity in the adult world? what happened to the "many paths" approach for education since obviously, not everyone is college material or has an interest in academia? Where did Jack develop the idea that we needed an exit exam? and finally, will we ever get back to the land of Common Sense?

Tune in...