From our October 2006 issue

 

Another Loma board meeting
A Visit to Oz

Neil Wiley

I have just returned from the Land of Oz, a place where the Loma school board and superintendent live. Each board meeting is a place of strange imaginings where spin is in. It is an isolated world that seems out of touch with reality.

Some have escaped from this world. More than one-third of the teaching staff is gone. Although the California Department of Education reported last year that Loma Prieta teachers averaged 13 years of teaching in the district with no first-year teachers, the statistics will be unhappily different this year. And morale is low for those remaining. No wonder. They are poorly paid compared to teachers in other Santa Clara County districts, and they appear to get little respect from the administration.

The superintendent answers this by saying that most of our children live in Santa Cruz County, so it doesn’t matter that our school is a Santa Clara County school, or that the vast majority of our kids will go to Los Gatos High or other Santa Clara County schools. He seems to think Santa Cruz County standards are good enough, but in the recent API tests, of the 69 schools in Santa Cruz County, only two scored over 900. (All our 95033 schools had scores above 900.) Salaries and educational standards are higher in Santa Clara County. This is the world we live in, the real one, not the Oz one.

I was surprised when the superintendent asked the board to drop a published district goal—"The district’s goal is to find ways to compensate its staff at the fiftieth percentile within Santa Clara County." I was surprised because I always thought that it was the board not the administration that determined district policy and goals. Nevertheless, the superintendent and board spent considerable time discussing this goal, as if it made a difference.

It doesn’t, because teachers live in a real world, and they can look off the hill for better jobs. Several have proved it by moving to other Santa Clara County schools. More will, which will mean more turnover, less experienced teachers, and a decline in educational performance.

More strange sightings

The superintendent also presented his view of the recent STAR test results. Although he said the results were good, his own graphs displayed some serious shortcomings. For example, according to the test, half of the eighth-grade algebra students were not proficient in mathematics. This is not good. In fact, it’s downright unacceptable. (In fairness, the administration does recognize the problem.)

Recent STAR and API test scores suggest that Lexington and Lakeside are enjoying better educational performance than Loma. The schools seem quite comparable in terms of environment and demographics, but the superintendent said these schools are too small to compare with Loma. This is convenient but Oz-like. Also, in tests comparing other "similar" schools in ‘05, Loma was ranked 2 out of 10.

Although Loma’s API score was up 41 points to exceed the 900 level, some of this improvement may have been due to the elimination of Independent Home Study. The real test will come next year, with the same students (except for eighth grade) and higher teacher turnover.

The superintendent and board also suggest that many of the district’s problems are caused by declining enrollment. These excuses will become less valid when the district’s funding comes from local property taxes (basic aid) rather than ADA enrollment. By the way, the State determines the move from ADA to basic aid, not the board.

The superintendent said that enrollment is down by 27 percent. While this may justify reducing the number of teachers, it also suggests that administrative costs should be reduced, perhaps by 27 percent. And perhaps rather than increasing the pay of administrators, they should have reduced their salaries by 27 percent. Or perhaps we should reduce the number of administrators. (For as long as I can remember, Lakeside has provided exceptional education with one administrator.) Let’s look at downsizing from the top.

The superintendent also said that declining enrollment over the next few years could lead to a CTE with less than fifty students. It makes you wonder why the board built a new five-million dollar school.

Budgets and budgeting are a high art in the Land of Oz. We were told how the administration had saved us from ruin, yet year after year the Loma district maintained the required four-percent reserve, but the district’s financial officer predicts (maybe) that the district will deficit spend this year, not have enough money to pay cost of living raises, and not maintain the four-percent reserve. We were also told that the new CTE will be built within budget, but it looks as if the budget has changed from the original, with less school for more money.

The board has finally accepted that teacher morale is a problem, but I haven’t seen much in the way of positive action. In this case, talk is cheaper than action.

They also voted to invest up to $25,000 toward a campaign for another parcel tax. The first step will be a survey to find out if and how much voters are willing to pay. It might be good if they ask whether voters might accept more cost if they had more choice in how and where the money is spent. They might also prefer limiting the power of an unelected LPEF foundation.

Getting out of Oz

In the Land of Oz, teachers, parents, and students appear to be invisible. I don’t think that the board is intentionally misleading us, or that the superintendent is an egomaniac. They must, however, lift their defensive veil to share unpleasant truths, listen more carefully, and reach out to teachers and the community for solutions. We don’t need a weaker superintendent; we need a stronger, more independently minded board, respected teachers, and more creative, diverse, and open-ended funding.

There is much to build on. The Loma district has new facilities, many fine teachers, eager students, and an involved and supportive community. Our schools are good, but they could be great.

The way out of Oz requires less authoritarian management, more diversity; less spin, more truth.

 

 

 

Old columns I call Oldies but Goodies. You be the judge.

 

From our July 2003 issue

New CTE Poses Problems for Loma Board
Neil Wiley

If you haven’t attended any Loma Prieta school board meetings about building a new school for CTE, don’t worry. You haven’t missed a thing. At the June 9 meeting, the board admitted that they don’t know how much money they have to spend, how much it will cost, or even what kind of construction they will use. And they don’t know when they can start building or plan for a completion date. They also don’t have an interim-housing plan, including when and where CTE students will be housed. In addition, recent revelations suggest revisiting the priority of the Measure K wish list.

Some of the "not knowing" can be explained. The state won’t tell the district how much money will be available until August or September. The board doesn’t know the cost because bids for custom modular construction were considered too high, so final construction costs have not been bid. And they don’t have an interim housing plan, partly because the community opposed their plan to place portables on the Loma playfield/park, and partly because they don’t know when they will need to move CTE students to temporary housing.

We do know some things. There is general agreement that the primary objective of Measure K was to build a new CTE middle school. And according to school board president Lydia Dobyns, even under the worst-case funding, there is enough money to build the school¾$4.9 million funding to pay the roughly estimated cost of $4.8 million. I also agree with Lydia Dobyns that the Community Center should be retrofitted for better earthquake safety. Estimated cost: $50,000 to 60,000. The problem is that in this worst-case estimate, there is little or no money left for interim housing, water system improvements, etc.

Faced with these conditions, the board made two decisions. Although they didn’t vote, they unofficially agreed to postpone some decisions until they have more information, especially on funding. They did vote in a unanimous decision to temporarily move portables to a location near the existing CTE, if necessary, in time for new school construction. Although this may mean moving the portables twice, the many unknowns make this a practical solution.

It appears that the move of interim housing to the Loma playfield/park was proposed to satisfy the needs of Independent Home Study. It seemed like an easy solution. Use the portables for temporary CTE classrooms, then turn them over to Independent Home Study.

The problem is that this not a good location for either school. The location is too far away from continuing CTE classes and the Community Center and gym on the south side of Summit. According to CTE principal Lorrie Wernick, the move would require 13 minutes extra per day between classes, and two supervisors to watch children during the walk between the two campuses. I’ve also heard that a bus and driver may be necessary to move students during inclement weather.

Moving students back and forth between two schools compromises health and safety, lengthens the school day, and makes administration more difficult. It would also be a continuing problem for Independent Home Study as they make greater use of school facilities and resources.

It also presents the loss of an existing community park and poor aesthetics. The portables are ugly, and they would continue to be ugly for many years.

Although it is claimed that IHS must be moved because of earthquake faults, this risk was known when the facility was placed at this location. Also, it hasn’t appeared to bother anyone that the Building Blocks pre-school is also sitting on top of a fault. Are younger children more expendable?

So, placing portables across the road doesn’t make sense except for permanent use by Independent Home Study. If, however, the only use is for temporary CTE classrooms, other locations closer to the school could be used. And they can be truly temporary.

Tough times for schools and citizens

With shortfalls in state support, local school districts must make up the difference through local parcel taxes, bond issues, formation of assessment districts, grants, and fundraisers. Our local citizens are paying a regressive parcel tax and for a bond issue. They are supporting the school through volunteer work and fundraising.

How long will they support an Independent Home Study program where 85% of the students do not live in the district, and their parents don’t pay our parcel taxes and bonds? Although at this meeting, Independent Home Study supporters said they turned a profit for the district, business manager June Salisbury reported that Independent Home Study has not made money for the district for five or six years. In addition, many IHS parents refused standardized testing, threatening the school district’s academic standing and eligibility for added funding.

Can we solve our interim housing problem more easily by eliminating Independent Home Study? And can we afford to lose local community support for our local students in order to continue Independent Home Study?

Several larger school districts in Santa Cruz and Santa Clara counties have recently closed school buildings. Perhaps they could better afford to provide this alternative education. I’m not sure that we can.

 

 

What Does Our Community Need?
Neil Wiley

The Santa Cruz Mountains is a great place to live, but it’s a bit short when it comes to community infrastructure. We have little local government support, no chamber of commerce and no Rotary Club. Although we do have community social groups, they tend to focus within a small geographical area (Loma Prieta Club, Redwood Estates Community Club) or a special interest (Mountain Art Guild, Summit Riders).

Our mountain schools have tended to become our local community hubs. At least for families with children, the schools are natural centers where people can come together to socialize, recreate and work toward improving their community. But it is also natural that most of these activities are child-centered. What about adult programs and facilities? And what about building a community that embraces everyone, including those without children or a direct interest in schools?

For years, the Loma Prieta Community Foundation has been attempting to fill this need, at least for those living in the Loma Prieta School District. It now may serve as an instrument to serve a wider mountain community, including Lakeside, Lexington, Redwood Estates, Glenwood and other rural areas above Los Gatos.

 
In late November, the Foundation invited community leaders and volunteers to an evening meeting to discuss community needs. After an introduction by Foundation president Richard Lyness, past Foundation president Leslie Meehan outlined the role of the Foundation, its organization and special assets. 

She did an excellent job of presenting the Foundation, and we can applaud Foundation efforts, even if my own view is slightly more critical.

 
Their most notable achievement is the Community Center. Although countless other organizations, volunteers, county governments and the voting public contributed, the Foundation provided the focus for development. Unfortunately, the Community Center has provided many problems and conflicts. Groups have complained about cost, competition for limited space and poor maintenance. The Foundation finally gave up ownership in return for school district maintenance. Hopefully, school boards and administrators will remember that the district has an ethical responsibility to support these facilities for public (but not free) use.

Even with these problems, the Center has lived up to its name. It is a center not only for the Summit area but also for schools and organizations throughout the mountains.

Theatre in the Mountains is a wonderful success story. Although the Foundation almost killed the Theatre by taking too much money out too soon, they did provide an instrument for large grants from the Packard Foundation and others. By joining the Foundation board, Theatre directors were able to make themselves heard, but as with many other mountain organizations, Theatre in the Mountains is successful because of a huge contribution by a very few people. If you have an interest in the performing arts, you could gain some great satisfaction, complete with laughs and tears, by volunteering for this group. 

Recreation programs have been less successful, especially the adult programs. Enrollments have been spotty at best. Sports tournaments and childrens’ activities, however, have worked well. This fall the Foundation turned over the recreation program to Los Gatos Rec. Although it may appear that the Foundation simply gave up, Los Gatos Rec can bring a wider range of programs to a wider community, including local classes and activities for Lexington, Lakeside and Redwood Estates. 

This service includes running Building Blocks at Loma Prieta, and possibly managing day care facilities for Loma and Lakeside. Los Gatos Rec already manages Lexington day care. The question --Will synergy and more resources more than balance the loss of local control? Los Gatos Rec has created an excellent day care program for Lexington. It doesn’t hurt that they underwrote a loan of $250,000 for a new portable building. 

There is also concern that Los Gatos Rec summer camps will conflict with existing Kids and Company and Theatre in the Mountains’ TIMPACC. These groups must get together to thrash out the competition for facilities and students. Let’s find a way to support all working programs. 


Whatever the decision, many of us would like to see all of Loma’s child-oriented programs (Kids and Company, Building Blocks and IHS) and their rickety old structures removed from the old school site, perhaps saving one building for a safety center for police, fire, etc. The State of California said that this area was not safe for a school. This area was abandoned before the earthquake because it wasn’t safe. The earthquake only proved it. These children are not expendable. The fact that school boards have ignored these warnings for over ten years is unconscionable. 

This brings up the Old Loma Park, which the school board and administrators now call “play field,” probably because the State of California funded a play field, not a park. This said, there is no reason that the community can’t overlay this play field, not with unsafe structures, but with park-like accommodations, including a full-time bathroom, benches, play equipment, shade trees, landscaped gardens, the large donated gazebo, etc. 

There are two ways to fund such a park. One is to find a source of public money through the Foundation. Another is to ask local organizations to adopt one phase of the park. For example, perhaps the Loma Prieta Club would assume responsibility for landscaping and gardens. Either way, we’ll need a project manager to coordinate the plan. I hope that Art Hunt, who managed to get the first phase built, will stay on to direct continued development. 

Every dream comes with problems. You can’t keep people out of a public area. Maintenance is again a sticky, often “litterly” sticky problem. Who cleans up the mess? Who polices the bathrooms? And who pays for it? 


I don’t have an answer, but perhaps you do. Write us or tell it to someone on the Foundation board. 

The Foundation’s community breakfast has been quite successful. I only wish they would sponsor more events to bring people together. It doesn’t have to be a big deal, but more social interaction would help us know our neighbors better. It would make it easier to find volunteers, and it would be fun.

A closer relationship with the Red Cross, MERC, Sheriffs’ offices, CHP and mountain fire teams and the Foundation would improve disaster planning. Safety groups should be represented on the board.

At the November meeting, we broke into small groups to discuss what our mountain community needed. As you might expect, the list was long and often unrealistic. We talked about desirable services, new facilities, cooperative lobbying efforts and other ideas.

 
Although senior services appeared to be a need, further investigation indicates that many good programs, sponsored by churches, social groups and the two counties, already exist. The problem is that these programs need more publicity. (That’s one place where MNN can help.)
Although there was talk of a dedicated community center, I think it would be more realistic to modify and renovate existing facilities. I heard one idea for a new facility that sounds doable. Why not include a small auditorium/theater in plans for a new C.T. English? During the day, CTE could use the auditorium for assemblies, presentations and special events. At night, the theater could be used for plays, a concert series and other events. A bond issue providing a school and a theater could have wider appeal, especially for the majority of residents who don’t have kids in school.

In a memo distributed at the meeting, Foundation president Richard Lyness said, “We need a more organized and articulate way to represent our common interests (with county governments).” John Haak suggested that if each mountain organization would send one person to a Board of Supervisors’ meeting, we could be far more effective at presenting the needs of our area. What a great idea! We can get help without getting mad. We just have to show our political will.

The Foundation board has agreed that they should move away from providing services and programs to being a catalyst for collaborative projects. This makes sense. The Foundation could also serve the role of a venture capitalist, providing support for worthwhile services and facilities. I can see them as an unofficial “Chamber of Commerce” or Rotary Club that brings people and organizations together to network and share the load of big projects.

Most of the people I talked to agreed that the Foundation shouldn’t be some super steering committee. Rather than attempting “world government,” all the mountain organizations could join a loose confederacy of equal states. We can learn a lot from each other. So let’s keep the ball in play. Encourage the Foundation and members of your favorite organization to keep meeting. You have our support. 

A sense of community

When Loma Prieta district superintendent Mary Ellen Lewis asked me to attend the fifth grade promotion, I thought about not going. After all, the fifth graders are just going to another school on the same site. And with four grown daughters, I’ve been to many graduation ceremonies.

But she coaxed me with a "photo opportunity." Steve Wozniak was presenting some awards. I couldn’t resist. After more than thirty years of advertising and publicity work in Silicon Valley I’ve met many business and technology leaders. Of these, three displayed a special quality. Bob Noyce, a co-founder of Intel, Al Shugart, founder of Shugart Associates and Seagate Technology, and Steve Wozniak, co-founder and soul of Apple Computer.

Among all the millionaire businessmen and technowizards of Santa Clara Valley, these three men stand out. Not because of their achievements. Not because of their money and power. But because of their dedication to the public good and their sense of community. All three men gave not only money. They gave of themselves, contributing significant time to community.

I remember seeing Bob Noyce, who was then Intel’s vice-CEO, spend hours to help a young student with a science project. I worked with Al Shugart for many years. Although he was president of the world’s largest disc drive company, he devoted many hours to political and social causes. But perhaps I respect Steve Wozniak the most, because in addition to inventing "the computer for the rest of us," and generous financial philanthropy, his gifts of time are the most personal. He has read stories to school children, acted in plays and presented hundreds of awards. And he does it all with a gentle humility that is so good for children (and us) to see.

Steve was the perfect presenter of the "Autonomous Learner Degree," to five students who completed a new program discovered and implemented by Sharon Regner. In this program, the student meets twenty broadly defined learning requirements through independent study. (See Sharon’s article—Autonomous Learning.) It’s a great program that goes far beyond objective education to develop initiative, stimulate love of learning and create a more socially aware person.

It was also a beautiful experience to see the Loma forum packed with happy, enthusiastic, respectful children supported by parents, teachers, administrators and community members. What made it even better was the knowledge that the recent parcel tax measure was passed by an overwhelming 81% of those voting. This means that not only parents, but the community at large support our local public schools. Lakeside and Lexington schools also received more local financial support last year, so it’s unanimous. The mountain community is going the extra mile to get quality public education.

As the fifth-graders received their certificates of promotion, each and every student spoke a few words about his or her fifth grade experience. It was innovative, educational, entertaining and charming. I believe that every person in the room learned something about community, diversity and the value of public education. As one student said, "In fifth grade I learned that schoolwork was important but that relationships were even more of a challenge."

What wisdom! Our local public schools support satisfying relationships and social interaction. They bring us together in common cause. They are a basis for community.

Thank you, Mary Ellen, for helping me learn a little more about learning and a sense of community.

The Second Class Citizens of Schulties Road

Their road is considered by many to be one of the worst county roads in Santa Cruz County. Schulties Road children go to school under an "inter-district transfer" that could be taken away at any time. And the name of their road isn’t even spelled right.

Why are the residents of Schulties Road treated so badly? They pay taxes. They don’t seem to be any more incorrigible than their mountain neighbors. And some are downright friendly. Yet they are treated like dirt.

The "road"

As Schulties resident Frank Rosati says, "Schulties Road is the worst through road in Santa Cruz County or at least in the MNN area." In fact, the term "road" is an overstatement. Although the first mile from Old Santa Cruz Highway is simply bad (narrow, pot-holed and cracked), it becomes less than a road through much of its 3.3-mile length. You know you are in trouble when you see a cluster of mailboxes signaling the end of the postal route more than two miles from the road’s end. You also know you are in trouble when some driveways are wider and in better shape than the main road.

I’m not exaggerating. Some sections are so covered with heavy rock that they couldn’t be considered a good trail. It’s heavy going for a bicyclist, and not much better for my fat-tired Corvette all the way down to Stage Stop Way. Did you ever drive through a dry stream bed, rock garden or a gravel pit? It’s like that, only worse. The rocks are bigger.

This is one road that justifies the need for a SUV, especially one with high ground clearance and four wheel drive. A tank might be better, but the path is too narrow.

According to Mr. Rosati, Schulties Road was adopted as a county road in 1900. In over a century, the road hasn’t improved very much. It certainly doesn’t meet county standards for a road, or for that matter, a driveway.

The "school"

In May, the Loma Prieta Board of Trustees turned down a petition from Schulties Road residents asking that 16 parcels along Schulties be added to the Loma Prieta School District. This decision was made even though the school district is facing a continuing decline in enrollment.

The petitioners had logic on their side. The top of Schulties Road is only 1.9 miles from the Loma Prieta School exit. This is a far shorter distance from Loma Prieta schools than from Hutchinson or Mountain Charlie on the other side of Highway 17. The road is just across Burns Creek from the Summit Tunnel, a short cross-country walk from Villa del Monte.

Driving their kids to Scotts Valley would take twenty minutes longer, and would require driving on a dangerous Highway 17. And, of course, there is no bus service.

The board trustees attempted to justify their position by claiming that the Los Gatos High School district was against such an addition. I don’t buy this argument. Our board wasn’t elected to represent the high school. Their responsibility is to our mountain community and our children. Although the board voted three to one to exclude these children from our district, they belong here.

They did say that they would continue to allow the nine children on Schulties to come to Loma Prieta as inter-district transfers. In other words, you aren’t our children, but we’ll adopt you on a temporary basis. If this impacts class size, the district can drop you like an unwanted foster child.

On the other hand, the residents of Schulties Road get the last laugh. While the rest of us pay an annual $150 parcel tax, they don’t. And why should they? They are treated as second class citizens.

The "name"

Schulties Road is named for a mountain pioneer family by the name of Schultheis. Somehow an "h" disappeared and "ei" became "ie." This Bavarian family deserved better. Sometime in the late 1800’s, John Schultheis cut the 3 ½ mile road down the hill through lumberman Hihn’s property to reach the railroad. The road was used to bring fruits and grapes down to the train. As important, the road brought their children down to school in the town of Highland, later called Laurel. They certainly needed school access. According to the 1870 census, John and Susan Schultheis had eight children.*

The people of Schulties (Schultheis) Road are our neighbors. They should have better roads and be a part of the Loma Prieta School District. To give them less is to make them second-class citizens.

Do you care? E-mail news@mnn.net or call 408-353-1901.

*MacGregor, Bruce and Richard Truesdale, South Pacific Coast—A Centennial, Pruett Publishing Company, Boulder, Colorado, 1982. Donated to the Mountain History Group collection by William A. Wulf, Los Gatos historian.

Skateboarding?

To Skate or not to skate?

That is the question.

 

During the last several Loma Prieta school board meetings, hours have been devoted to discussing where, if anywhere, skateboarding should be allowed. Although the number of skateboarding students is small, perhaps ten to twenty, the board has patiently considered skateboarding options.

My take is that there are three alternatives:

1. Denial. Pretend that there is no problem. Ignore skateboarders and other skaters who are using school benches, walkways, driveways and parking lots.

2. Prohibition. Prohibit skating on school property.

3. Pro-active investment. Build a special skateboarding area, and limit skating to that area.

At first denial looks like the easiest path. Life is casual up here in mountains, and nobody wants to spoil the fun of a few boys. And nobody wants to take on angry parents who want positive recreation for their kids.

The problem is that denial can be expensive and dangerous. As the district superintendent told the board, doing nothing gives tacit approval to the activity, and that means the school district is legally and ethically responsible. "Grinding," flips and other popular skating maneuvers are dangerous. Only a few weeks ago, a neighborhood boy received a serious concussion while skateboarding downtown. This brings up the real risk of a lawsuit.

Hard wheels and slamming boards are also destructive to school property, especially painted areas. Limited maintenance funds preclude an easy fix.

Lawsuits and paint only cost money. But more importantly, what school board trustee or administrator would be willing to endanger a child? Doing nothing is imprudent and irresponsible.

Alternative 2, prohibition, is an easy answer. The school simply posts a sign saying "Skating and Skateboarding Prohibited (Santa Cruz County Code Section 8.23.020." This regulation states that it is unlawful for any person(s) riding in or on, by any means of any skateboard, roller skates, roller blades, coaster, or similar device to go in or on prohibited areas. The areas include walls, steps, driveways, parking lots, etc. In Zone A of Soquel Village, skating is also prohibited on streets and sidewalks. The penalty is an infraction of a county regulation.

School administrators and teachers could issue oral warnings. If that didn’t win compliance, then the skater could be ticketed by a sheriff or deputy sheriff. The penalty: a significant fine.

Both Lexington and Lakeside schools prohibit skateboarding. Raf Strudley, Lexington principal, says they are considering posting the prohibition. Martin St. John, superintendent of Lakeside, admits that enforcement is difficult over weekends. Both agree that skateboarding is dangerous and destructive of public property.

This alternative is a reasonable solution, but it doesn’t give kids an opportunity to skate.

A third alternative is to create a special skateboarding area, either portable or permanent. Sounds like a good idea. One catch, however, is money. A permanent installation could cost as much as $250,000. A portable might be doable, but a location, other than the school, is necessary. Perhaps a group of parents could set up a non-profit corporation to lease a property. Or perhaps they could work with the Loma Prieta Community Foundation. In either case, the parents must be the driving force or it will never happen. The school district should not be responsible for such activities.

I would hope that any organization formed to sponsor skating would take every possible measure to protect safety. State law requires public agencies operating skate parks to pass ordinances "requiring the use of elbow pads, knee pads and a helmet." Santa Cruz County Parks Director Barry Samuel also suggests that skaters younger than eight years old must be accompanied by an adult. They must wear appropriate safety gear, including elbow guards and hand guards. Adult supervision and a signed parent release of liability are also essential.

What’s your opinion? Should skating be prohibited? Or should we develop a skateboard park? We welcome your letters.

 

 

 

What's wrong with this picture?

Is this machine a victim of the cola wars? It looks like commercialism is being imprisoned, right there against the wall of the Loma Prieta Community Center in the no-man’s land between Loma Prieta School and C.T. English.

Ah, if that were only true. The coke machine may not be the victim. In fact, it may well be the victimizer of your sons and daughters. Its bright colors promise the sweet buzz of sugar and caffeine but deliver an unhealthy stew of chemicals.

O.K., I’ll grant you that soft drinks are not the biggest problem facing the universe. Narcs don’t grab folks off the street for drinking this stuff. It’s cheaper than more potent drugs. And it’s better than coffee, booze and lots of other questionable consumables that pass for liquid refreshment. But it troubles me that we are making these syrupy concoctions so easily accessible to our children. Let’s face it. Soft drinks are not a food group.

Some researchers suggest that one of the most important predictors of childhood obesity is sugar-rich soft drinks. Teens are now drinking three times more calorie-laden drinks than they did in 1978. According to that pillar of medical wisdom, Dr. Dean, "Three out of four teenage boys consume an average of three 12-ounce sodas each day. Teenage girls consume about two cans a day."

So what? A typical soft drink contains 14 to 22 teaspoons of sugar. According to Barbara Levine, a Ph.D. nutritionist, this sets our children up for diabetes, certain cancers, heart disease and obesity. Of course, there is also the short run problem of "Mr. Tooth Decay." A sweet tooth can mean no tooth.

But more than sugar lurks in many of these popular drinks. They are also pumped up with Silicon Valley’s favorite drug—caffeine. A Coca-Cola has 45.6 mg of caffeine, but if you want to really get a child spinning like a top, give them a Mountain Dew, with its generous 54 mg of caffeine, or how about a 100 mg caffeine jolt of Jolt Cola. Just the thought of it can make your hands tremble.

The mix of sugar and caffeine does some troubling things, too. English researchers found that this combination fools the brain into believing that blood sugar level is too low, even when it is above the level of hypoglycemia. The result can be shaking, sweating, intense hunger, difficulty in thinking and impaired performance.

Questions have also been raised about the phosphoric acid that goes into all colas. Large doses of phosphorus may upset the calcium/phosphorus ratio, leading to bone problems. The acid may be a problem, too. It may produce acidic conditions that some diseases love. Even the innocent-looking caramel coloring has been implicated in birth defects.

I know that you have heard some of this "scare" talk before, and an occasional can of this liquid sludge probably won’t do any great harm. But I wonder if we should encourage our children to drink this stuff.

I have been told that a portion of the money dropped in the drink machines comes back to our school. That’s no justification. In fact, I think that commercializing our own children is sick. Sweden has made advertising to children under twelve illegal. Perhaps we should follow their example.

At the Mount Everest base camp, a sherpa will deliver a can of cola to your tent for seven dollars. We are delivering our children to the cola-makers for a little money to the school. Who is paying too much?

 

Click here for earlier editorials

 

(c) 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 mountain network news All rights reserved.