Commentary: Tough Challenges Still Ahead for the Valley Oak

By David GreenwaldNovember 19, 2007268 comments
The folks at Valley Oak likely left the meeting on Thursday evening feeling uneasy about their status. About the only thing that they probably have going at this point is state law is on their side and the school board has very limited opportunity to actually deny their charter petition.

Nevertheless, at the meeting there was anguish over the board’s response to their charter. And an even wider-spread belief that there were no strong allies on the board. Perhaps adding to that anxiety is the fact that joining the board shortly will be two new members, one closely tied with members of the Best Uses of Schools Task Force that recommending closing Valley Oak and the other expressing outright opposition to charter.

Still state law is on the clear side of the petitioners, with only limited opportunities for the board to deny the application:

The Education Code specifies five grounds to deny a charter: (1) the charter school presents an unsound educational program for the students to be enrolled in the charter school; (2) the petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition; (3) the petition does not contain the number of signatures required; (4) the petition does not contain an affirmation of each of the conditions prescribed by law; and/or (5) the petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of the sixteen charter elements in prescribed by law.

The next step will be the analysis by Associate superintendents Ginni Davis and Bruce Colby. That analysis will likely map out the district’s response to the charter petition. President of the board, Jim Provenza, stated at the outset that the board would be waiting until the staff report to offer their own comments.

This stance drew criticism from many supporters of the charter school, fearful that the board may use the staff report as political cover to make unpopular decisions.

The board spoke loudly however through a series of tough questions. I don’t mind the tough questions. But there were at times almost veiled threats as well, for instance Keltie Jones verbally wondering if Valley Oak’s charter will lead to another school closing. There seemed to be little point to making that statement other than perhaps causing fear and panic in the rest of the school district by throwing that out as a possibility out of shear speculation.

The bottom line there and she acknowledged it, the point that she made could not be used as reason to deny the petition. That being the case, why bring it up? What purpose does it serve?

And that’s the problem I had with the entire question and answer process.

Questions centered on the number of students that they would be likely to draw from. That is an important question no doubt, but it is not a question that can be considered by the board in approving or denying the petition. The question that is considered–do they have enough signatures? Yes they do. Then end of story.

Next they asked a series of questions about budgetary impact and whether the school would draw from outside the district or draw ADA money from inside. Nothing wrong with the question except, cannot be considered in the decision to approve the charter.

I am not sure of rules here, but frankly it would seem to me that these questions are almost out of order since they do not bear on the charter question. And yet round after round of tough questions came down on the petitioners and not one was a question that could be considered in the final decision.

The final piece of concern comes from the decision by the district to post the list of names, which was in apparent violation of the law. Most likely this was inadvertent and as soon as complaints were made and it was recognized, they pulled it down. However, we cannot help but note it fits the general tenor demonstrated on Thursday, which despite all indication from before was greeted with hostility and skepticism rather than appreciation and support.

The drafters of the charter have been extremely diligent and thorough. They have generated tremendous support both within the teaching staff as well as their community. And they deserve praise and congratulations rather than criticism and skepticism.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Budget/Taxes

268 comments

  1. As I watched the meeting, there wasn’t so much anguish on the part of the Valley Oak group as there was gracious forebearance. The charter is well-written, well-researched, and viable. The board has no choice but to vote for it.
    The board merely showed more incompetence in their lines of questions and in their comments. There are only five criteria on which the board can refuse this charter. They need to swallow the pill and get on with it.

  2. As I watched the meeting, there wasn’t so much anguish on the part of the Valley Oak group as there was gracious forebearance. The charter is well-written, well-researched, and viable. The board has no choice but to vote for it.
    The board merely showed more incompetence in their lines of questions and in their comments. There are only five criteria on which the board can refuse this charter. They need to swallow the pill and get on with it.

  3. As I watched the meeting, there wasn’t so much anguish on the part of the Valley Oak group as there was gracious forebearance. The charter is well-written, well-researched, and viable. The board has no choice but to vote for it.
    The board merely showed more incompetence in their lines of questions and in their comments. There are only five criteria on which the board can refuse this charter. They need to swallow the pill and get on with it.

  4. As I watched the meeting, there wasn’t so much anguish on the part of the Valley Oak group as there was gracious forebearance. The charter is well-written, well-researched, and viable. The board has no choice but to vote for it.
    The board merely showed more incompetence in their lines of questions and in their comments. There are only five criteria on which the board can refuse this charter. They need to swallow the pill and get on with it.

  5. I am tremendously impressed with the Charter proponents while I am disappointed by the school board’s lack of creativity in dealing with the problem. Davis is “THE” education town in region- most parents from any of the surrounding towns would love to have their kids come to a “Davis School”. How in the world can anyone say we have a low enrollment issue? Just open the door to students from surrounding areas and let them pay for the privilege- Davis should never have a vacant seat at any of our schools! Davis may no longer produce tomatoes, but we still can produce education for export!

  6. I am tremendously impressed with the Charter proponents while I am disappointed by the school board’s lack of creativity in dealing with the problem. Davis is “THE” education town in region- most parents from any of the surrounding towns would love to have their kids come to a “Davis School”. How in the world can anyone say we have a low enrollment issue? Just open the door to students from surrounding areas and let them pay for the privilege- Davis should never have a vacant seat at any of our schools! Davis may no longer produce tomatoes, but we still can produce education for export!

  7. I am tremendously impressed with the Charter proponents while I am disappointed by the school board’s lack of creativity in dealing with the problem. Davis is “THE” education town in region- most parents from any of the surrounding towns would love to have their kids come to a “Davis School”. How in the world can anyone say we have a low enrollment issue? Just open the door to students from surrounding areas and let them pay for the privilege- Davis should never have a vacant seat at any of our schools! Davis may no longer produce tomatoes, but we still can produce education for export!

  8. I am tremendously impressed with the Charter proponents while I am disappointed by the school board’s lack of creativity in dealing with the problem. Davis is “THE” education town in region- most parents from any of the surrounding towns would love to have their kids come to a “Davis School”. How in the world can anyone say we have a low enrollment issue? Just open the door to students from surrounding areas and let them pay for the privilege- Davis should never have a vacant seat at any of our schools! Davis may no longer produce tomatoes, but we still can produce education for export!

  9. The Davis School Board is our political minor leagues where novice players demonstrate if they have what it takes to move on to the major league political Show. Under the 9th inning pressure of the Valley Oak Charter School petition,Keltie Jones and Time Taylor struck out. Jim Provenza’s position, at the first hearing on the petition, to adhere to the process without publicly denigrating or promoting the VO Charter plan, was the correct public position.

  10. The Davis School Board is our political minor leagues where novice players demonstrate if they have what it takes to move on to the major league political Show. Under the 9th inning pressure of the Valley Oak Charter School petition,Keltie Jones and Time Taylor struck out. Jim Provenza’s position, at the first hearing on the petition, to adhere to the process without publicly denigrating or promoting the VO Charter plan, was the correct public position.

  11. The Davis School Board is our political minor leagues where novice players demonstrate if they have what it takes to move on to the major league political Show. Under the 9th inning pressure of the Valley Oak Charter School petition,Keltie Jones and Time Taylor struck out. Jim Provenza’s position, at the first hearing on the petition, to adhere to the process without publicly denigrating or promoting the VO Charter plan, was the correct public position.

  12. The Davis School Board is our political minor leagues where novice players demonstrate if they have what it takes to move on to the major league political Show. Under the 9th inning pressure of the Valley Oak Charter School petition,Keltie Jones and Time Taylor struck out. Jim Provenza’s position, at the first hearing on the petition, to adhere to the process without publicly denigrating or promoting the VO Charter plan, was the correct public position.

  13. I don’t think that the open enrollment can be limited to students from outside the district, but I can’t see many students wanting to transfer from their neighborhood schools to VO.

    I do have a question – Would students outside the District who are admitted to the Charter school be allowed to continue their education past 6th grade in the District? Or will they need to return to their home districts for 7-12 grade? Are we going to have a yearly melt-down for charter students trying to get the district to approve interdistrict transfers to Junior High and High School?

  14. I don’t think that the open enrollment can be limited to students from outside the district, but I can’t see many students wanting to transfer from their neighborhood schools to VO.

    I do have a question – Would students outside the District who are admitted to the Charter school be allowed to continue their education past 6th grade in the District? Or will they need to return to their home districts for 7-12 grade? Are we going to have a yearly melt-down for charter students trying to get the district to approve interdistrict transfers to Junior High and High School?

  15. I don’t think that the open enrollment can be limited to students from outside the district, but I can’t see many students wanting to transfer from their neighborhood schools to VO.

    I do have a question – Would students outside the District who are admitted to the Charter school be allowed to continue their education past 6th grade in the District? Or will they need to return to their home districts for 7-12 grade? Are we going to have a yearly melt-down for charter students trying to get the district to approve interdistrict transfers to Junior High and High School?

  16. I don’t think that the open enrollment can be limited to students from outside the district, but I can’t see many students wanting to transfer from their neighborhood schools to VO.

    I do have a question – Would students outside the District who are admitted to the Charter school be allowed to continue their education past 6th grade in the District? Or will they need to return to their home districts for 7-12 grade? Are we going to have a yearly melt-down for charter students trying to get the district to approve interdistrict transfers to Junior High and High School?

  17. To Anonymous 9:52

    An interesting question. I would imagine that there would be space for all the Valley Oak Charter School students in the higher grades of our Davis public educational system as long as the Charter School population did not greatly exceed the current VOE population. An additional contribution of the VO Charter School is its potential to soften the inevitable future reductions in teachers and facilities at the JHS and HS level as the Davis low enrollment bubble moves through the system.

  18. To Anonymous 9:52

    An interesting question. I would imagine that there would be space for all the Valley Oak Charter School students in the higher grades of our Davis public educational system as long as the Charter School population did not greatly exceed the current VOE population. An additional contribution of the VO Charter School is its potential to soften the inevitable future reductions in teachers and facilities at the JHS and HS level as the Davis low enrollment bubble moves through the system.

  19. To Anonymous 9:52

    An interesting question. I would imagine that there would be space for all the Valley Oak Charter School students in the higher grades of our Davis public educational system as long as the Charter School population did not greatly exceed the current VOE population. An additional contribution of the VO Charter School is its potential to soften the inevitable future reductions in teachers and facilities at the JHS and HS level as the Davis low enrollment bubble moves through the system.

  20. To Anonymous 9:52

    An interesting question. I would imagine that there would be space for all the Valley Oak Charter School students in the higher grades of our Davis public educational system as long as the Charter School population did not greatly exceed the current VOE population. An additional contribution of the VO Charter School is its potential to soften the inevitable future reductions in teachers and facilities at the JHS and HS level as the Davis low enrollment bubble moves through the system.

  21. Students can always apply for interdistrict transfers. I suspect though I do not know for sure, students current in the system would get priority for such transfers.

  22. Students can always apply for interdistrict transfers. I suspect though I do not know for sure, students current in the system would get priority for such transfers.

  23. Students can always apply for interdistrict transfers. I suspect though I do not know for sure, students current in the system would get priority for such transfers.

  24. Students can always apply for interdistrict transfers. I suspect though I do not know for sure, students current in the system would get priority for such transfers.

  25. I did a little work with the parents and teachers of Valley Oak on the charter issue. I have never been involved with nicer, more gracious, more dedicated, more sincere, and more positive people in my life. The charter is beyond reproach. It is an excellent piece of work, and I do not see how it can possibly be denied. The school board asked some tough questions, because, I believe, some of them would like to be able to deny the charter, and want reasons (to satisfy themselves) to find an acceptable reason to vote it down. That would be such a shame. Valley Oak and her teachers are the among the best in Davis. As a charter school, it will draw students from all our surrounding communities. just as Mike says, open the door to students from the surrounding area, and they will come. This school will be a real benefit to this community. The school board members who showed their incompetence and pettiness at the last meeting should be ashamed of themselves. They should be applauding the teachers and parents of the Valley Oak community, not criticizing them and their efforts.

  26. I did a little work with the parents and teachers of Valley Oak on the charter issue. I have never been involved with nicer, more gracious, more dedicated, more sincere, and more positive people in my life. The charter is beyond reproach. It is an excellent piece of work, and I do not see how it can possibly be denied. The school board asked some tough questions, because, I believe, some of them would like to be able to deny the charter, and want reasons (to satisfy themselves) to find an acceptable reason to vote it down. That would be such a shame. Valley Oak and her teachers are the among the best in Davis. As a charter school, it will draw students from all our surrounding communities. just as Mike says, open the door to students from the surrounding area, and they will come. This school will be a real benefit to this community. The school board members who showed their incompetence and pettiness at the last meeting should be ashamed of themselves. They should be applauding the teachers and parents of the Valley Oak community, not criticizing them and their efforts.

  27. I did a little work with the parents and teachers of Valley Oak on the charter issue. I have never been involved with nicer, more gracious, more dedicated, more sincere, and more positive people in my life. The charter is beyond reproach. It is an excellent piece of work, and I do not see how it can possibly be denied. The school board asked some tough questions, because, I believe, some of them would like to be able to deny the charter, and want reasons (to satisfy themselves) to find an acceptable reason to vote it down. That would be such a shame. Valley Oak and her teachers are the among the best in Davis. As a charter school, it will draw students from all our surrounding communities. just as Mike says, open the door to students from the surrounding area, and they will come. This school will be a real benefit to this community. The school board members who showed their incompetence and pettiness at the last meeting should be ashamed of themselves. They should be applauding the teachers and parents of the Valley Oak community, not criticizing them and their efforts.

  28. I did a little work with the parents and teachers of Valley Oak on the charter issue. I have never been involved with nicer, more gracious, more dedicated, more sincere, and more positive people in my life. The charter is beyond reproach. It is an excellent piece of work, and I do not see how it can possibly be denied. The school board asked some tough questions, because, I believe, some of them would like to be able to deny the charter, and want reasons (to satisfy themselves) to find an acceptable reason to vote it down. That would be such a shame. Valley Oak and her teachers are the among the best in Davis. As a charter school, it will draw students from all our surrounding communities. just as Mike says, open the door to students from the surrounding area, and they will come. This school will be a real benefit to this community. The school board members who showed their incompetence and pettiness at the last meeting should be ashamed of themselves. They should be applauding the teachers and parents of the Valley Oak community, not criticizing them and their efforts.

  29. Mike said –

    “Davis is “THE” education town in region- most parents from any of the surrounding towns would love to have their kids come to a “Davis School”.

    Davis used to be “the” education town. It no longer is. As a matter of fact, some of the issues that should be “no brainers” that we have to deal with in our district are quite embarrassing. I know at least 10 families that have chosen to move away from Davis because they want their child, or children to have a more positive well-rounded education.

    The teachers are great, but all too often the leadership on the school board and the administrators leave a lot to be desired.

  30. Mike said –

    “Davis is “THE” education town in region- most parents from any of the surrounding towns would love to have their kids come to a “Davis School”.

    Davis used to be “the” education town. It no longer is. As a matter of fact, some of the issues that should be “no brainers” that we have to deal with in our district are quite embarrassing. I know at least 10 families that have chosen to move away from Davis because they want their child, or children to have a more positive well-rounded education.

    The teachers are great, but all too often the leadership on the school board and the administrators leave a lot to be desired.

  31. Mike said –

    “Davis is “THE” education town in region- most parents from any of the surrounding towns would love to have their kids come to a “Davis School”.

    Davis used to be “the” education town. It no longer is. As a matter of fact, some of the issues that should be “no brainers” that we have to deal with in our district are quite embarrassing. I know at least 10 families that have chosen to move away from Davis because they want their child, or children to have a more positive well-rounded education.

    The teachers are great, but all too often the leadership on the school board and the administrators leave a lot to be desired.

  32. Mike said –

    “Davis is “THE” education town in region- most parents from any of the surrounding towns would love to have their kids come to a “Davis School”.

    Davis used to be “the” education town. It no longer is. As a matter of fact, some of the issues that should be “no brainers” that we have to deal with in our district are quite embarrassing. I know at least 10 families that have chosen to move away from Davis because they want their child, or children to have a more positive well-rounded education.

    The teachers are great, but all too often the leadership on the school board and the administrators leave a lot to be desired.

  33. “…one closely tied with members of the Best Uses of Schools Task Force that recommending closing Valley Oak and the other expressing outright opposition to charter.”

    Outright opposition? I get the implication to Richard Harris. However, I think it’s misplaced. To the best of my knowledge, he never has expressed “outright opposition.” Rather, I think he declared that he wanted what he thought was “best for the District as a whole.”

    “Would students outside the District who are admitted to the Charter school be allowed to continue their education past 6th grade in the District? Or will they need to return to their home districts for 7-12 grade?”

    When Korematsu was ready to open a few years ago — and we lacked the elementary age students to fill it — I asked your questions to Marty West, who was then a District Trustee. I wanted to know why we simply didn’t invite in children from neighboring towns, who would bring along with them state monies.

    It seemed like a win-win. They want a better educational opportunity. And we want the cash.

    Marty told me that once a student was admitted as an inter-district transfer, state law would not allow the DJUSD to boot those kids, even if our schools became overcrowded in the future. And therefore, West said, that was a problem with inviting in outside kids — that we lacked the capacity at the higher grades to accommodate them down the road.

    (Her answer, while presumably legally true — Marty’s a law prof; I assume she knows the law — never made much sense to me. If we had 20% fewer Davis elementary kids than we expected in Year X and filled those slots with Woodland and West Sac kids, then we would have 100% of the expected number of high school student when those children reached the 10th grade in Year X+9. It’s not as if we would have 120% of the expected amount.)

  34. “…one closely tied with members of the Best Uses of Schools Task Force that recommending closing Valley Oak and the other expressing outright opposition to charter.”

    Outright opposition? I get the implication to Richard Harris. However, I think it’s misplaced. To the best of my knowledge, he never has expressed “outright opposition.” Rather, I think he declared that he wanted what he thought was “best for the District as a whole.”

    “Would students outside the District who are admitted to the Charter school be allowed to continue their education past 6th grade in the District? Or will they need to return to their home districts for 7-12 grade?”

    When Korematsu was ready to open a few years ago — and we lacked the elementary age students to fill it — I asked your questions to Marty West, who was then a District Trustee. I wanted to know why we simply didn’t invite in children from neighboring towns, who would bring along with them state monies.

    It seemed like a win-win. They want a better educational opportunity. And we want the cash.

    Marty told me that once a student was admitted as an inter-district transfer, state law would not allow the DJUSD to boot those kids, even if our schools became overcrowded in the future. And therefore, West said, that was a problem with inviting in outside kids — that we lacked the capacity at the higher grades to accommodate them down the road.

    (Her answer, while presumably legally true — Marty’s a law prof; I assume she knows the law — never made much sense to me. If we had 20% fewer Davis elementary kids than we expected in Year X and filled those slots with Woodland and West Sac kids, then we would have 100% of the expected number of high school student when those children reached the 10th grade in Year X+9. It’s not as if we would have 120% of the expected amount.)

  35. “…one closely tied with members of the Best Uses of Schools Task Force that recommending closing Valley Oak and the other expressing outright opposition to charter.”

    Outright opposition? I get the implication to Richard Harris. However, I think it’s misplaced. To the best of my knowledge, he never has expressed “outright opposition.” Rather, I think he declared that he wanted what he thought was “best for the District as a whole.”

    “Would students outside the District who are admitted to the Charter school be allowed to continue their education past 6th grade in the District? Or will they need to return to their home districts for 7-12 grade?”

    When Korematsu was ready to open a few years ago — and we lacked the elementary age students to fill it — I asked your questions to Marty West, who was then a District Trustee. I wanted to know why we simply didn’t invite in children from neighboring towns, who would bring along with them state monies.

    It seemed like a win-win. They want a better educational opportunity. And we want the cash.

    Marty told me that once a student was admitted as an inter-district transfer, state law would not allow the DJUSD to boot those kids, even if our schools became overcrowded in the future. And therefore, West said, that was a problem with inviting in outside kids — that we lacked the capacity at the higher grades to accommodate them down the road.

    (Her answer, while presumably legally true — Marty’s a law prof; I assume she knows the law — never made much sense to me. If we had 20% fewer Davis elementary kids than we expected in Year X and filled those slots with Woodland and West Sac kids, then we would have 100% of the expected number of high school student when those children reached the 10th grade in Year X+9. It’s not as if we would have 120% of the expected amount.)

  36. “…one closely tied with members of the Best Uses of Schools Task Force that recommending closing Valley Oak and the other expressing outright opposition to charter.”

    Outright opposition? I get the implication to Richard Harris. However, I think it’s misplaced. To the best of my knowledge, he never has expressed “outright opposition.” Rather, I think he declared that he wanted what he thought was “best for the District as a whole.”

    “Would students outside the District who are admitted to the Charter school be allowed to continue their education past 6th grade in the District? Or will they need to return to their home districts for 7-12 grade?”

    When Korematsu was ready to open a few years ago — and we lacked the elementary age students to fill it — I asked your questions to Marty West, who was then a District Trustee. I wanted to know why we simply didn’t invite in children from neighboring towns, who would bring along with them state monies.

    It seemed like a win-win. They want a better educational opportunity. And we want the cash.

    Marty told me that once a student was admitted as an inter-district transfer, state law would not allow the DJUSD to boot those kids, even if our schools became overcrowded in the future. And therefore, West said, that was a problem with inviting in outside kids — that we lacked the capacity at the higher grades to accommodate them down the road.

    (Her answer, while presumably legally true — Marty’s a law prof; I assume she knows the law — never made much sense to me. If we had 20% fewer Davis elementary kids than we expected in Year X and filled those slots with Woodland and West Sac kids, then we would have 100% of the expected number of high school student when those children reached the 10th grade in Year X+9. It’s not as if we would have 120% of the expected amount.)

  37. “I know at least 10 families that have chosen to move away from Davis because they want their child, or children to have a more positive well-rounded education.”

    Name names or I don’t believe you.

  38. “Would students outside the District who are admitted to the Charter school be allowed to continue their education past 6th grade in the District?”

    That depends on how the district interprets the state education code on the subject of interdistrict transfers.

    I assume that anyone transferring from a nearby district will apply for an interdistrict transfer into the district; the transfer is not on a school-by-school basis.

    When they tried to throw my kids out (interdistrict transfers were discontinued in the late 1990’s due to crowding), it seemed pretty clear to us — and to other districts facing the same issue, such as Elk Grove — that once a child is in the district, that child continues through high school graduation. DJUSD argued otherwise. Most parents simply went away, but some of us appealed to the county board. The county board ruled narrowly in each case, allowing our kids to continue but not ruling on the issue.

  39. “I know at least 10 families that have chosen to move away from Davis because they want their child, or children to have a more positive well-rounded education.”

    Name names or I don’t believe you.

  40. “Would students outside the District who are admitted to the Charter school be allowed to continue their education past 6th grade in the District?”

    That depends on how the district interprets the state education code on the subject of interdistrict transfers.

    I assume that anyone transferring from a nearby district will apply for an interdistrict transfer into the district; the transfer is not on a school-by-school basis.

    When they tried to throw my kids out (interdistrict transfers were discontinued in the late 1990’s due to crowding), it seemed pretty clear to us — and to other districts facing the same issue, such as Elk Grove — that once a child is in the district, that child continues through high school graduation. DJUSD argued otherwise. Most parents simply went away, but some of us appealed to the county board. The county board ruled narrowly in each case, allowing our kids to continue but not ruling on the issue.

  41. “I know at least 10 families that have chosen to move away from Davis because they want their child, or children to have a more positive well-rounded education.”

    Name names or I don’t believe you.

  42. “Would students outside the District who are admitted to the Charter school be allowed to continue their education past 6th grade in the District?”

    That depends on how the district interprets the state education code on the subject of interdistrict transfers.

    I assume that anyone transferring from a nearby district will apply for an interdistrict transfer into the district; the transfer is not on a school-by-school basis.

    When they tried to throw my kids out (interdistrict transfers were discontinued in the late 1990’s due to crowding), it seemed pretty clear to us — and to other districts facing the same issue, such as Elk Grove — that once a child is in the district, that child continues through high school graduation. DJUSD argued otherwise. Most parents simply went away, but some of us appealed to the county board. The county board ruled narrowly in each case, allowing our kids to continue but not ruling on the issue.

  43. “I know at least 10 families that have chosen to move away from Davis because they want their child, or children to have a more positive well-rounded education.”

    Name names or I don’t believe you.

  44. “Would students outside the District who are admitted to the Charter school be allowed to continue their education past 6th grade in the District?”

    That depends on how the district interprets the state education code on the subject of interdistrict transfers.

    I assume that anyone transferring from a nearby district will apply for an interdistrict transfer into the district; the transfer is not on a school-by-school basis.

    When they tried to throw my kids out (interdistrict transfers were discontinued in the late 1990’s due to crowding), it seemed pretty clear to us — and to other districts facing the same issue, such as Elk Grove — that once a child is in the district, that child continues through high school graduation. DJUSD argued otherwise. Most parents simply went away, but some of us appealed to the county board. The county board ruled narrowly in each case, allowing our kids to continue but not ruling on the issue.

  45. “Marty told me that once a student was admitted as an inter-district transfer, state law would not allow the DJUSD to boot those kids, even if our schools became overcrowded in the future. And therefore, West said, that was a problem with inviting in outside kids — that we lacked the capacity at the higher grades to accommodate them down the road.

    (Her answer, while presumably legally true — Marty’s a law prof; I assume she knows the law…”

    The district’s counsel argued strenuously otherwise. I have lots and lots and lots of info on this subject, as it was applied to my children along with about 100 others.
    If Marty believes that, then I’m not sure why she voted to throw out all the interdistrict kids at the time — apparently in violation of the law, according to what she is now telling you.

  46. “Marty told me that once a student was admitted as an inter-district transfer, state law would not allow the DJUSD to boot those kids, even if our schools became overcrowded in the future. And therefore, West said, that was a problem with inviting in outside kids — that we lacked the capacity at the higher grades to accommodate them down the road.

    (Her answer, while presumably legally true — Marty’s a law prof; I assume she knows the law…”

    The district’s counsel argued strenuously otherwise. I have lots and lots and lots of info on this subject, as it was applied to my children along with about 100 others.
    If Marty believes that, then I’m not sure why she voted to throw out all the interdistrict kids at the time — apparently in violation of the law, according to what she is now telling you.

  47. “Marty told me that once a student was admitted as an inter-district transfer, state law would not allow the DJUSD to boot those kids, even if our schools became overcrowded in the future. And therefore, West said, that was a problem with inviting in outside kids — that we lacked the capacity at the higher grades to accommodate them down the road.

    (Her answer, while presumably legally true — Marty’s a law prof; I assume she knows the law…”

    The district’s counsel argued strenuously otherwise. I have lots and lots and lots of info on this subject, as it was applied to my children along with about 100 others.
    If Marty believes that, then I’m not sure why she voted to throw out all the interdistrict kids at the time — apparently in violation of the law, according to what she is now telling you.

  48. “Marty told me that once a student was admitted as an inter-district transfer, state law would not allow the DJUSD to boot those kids, even if our schools became overcrowded in the future. And therefore, West said, that was a problem with inviting in outside kids — that we lacked the capacity at the higher grades to accommodate them down the road.

    (Her answer, while presumably legally true — Marty’s a law prof; I assume she knows the law…”

    The district’s counsel argued strenuously otherwise. I have lots and lots and lots of info on this subject, as it was applied to my children along with about 100 others.
    If Marty believes that, then I’m not sure why she voted to throw out all the interdistrict kids at the time — apparently in violation of the law, according to what she is now telling you.

  49. This may seem a bit off track, but it really isn’t. DPD, did you catch the outrageous Op-Ed piece in the Davis Enterprise on Sunday, in which two former school board members (Joan Sallee and Marty West) blame the fiscal problems of the district on the current seated school board of 2006/2007? According to these two, “When we left the school board in December 2005, the finances of the school district were in good shape. Any financial mismanagement that has occurred has been on the 2006 and 2007 school board’s watch.”

    There are so many “interesting” items in this article, I hardly know where to begin. But most importantly, in relation to your latest post about Valley Oak on this blog – I now better understand why Valley Oak was slated for closure, which I find appalling.

    Sallee and West state clearly they (along with the superintendent) went ahead and encouraged construction of Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School at a time of declining enrollment – over the objections of state staff who did not think much of their decision. If you know there is a decrease in the number of enrolling students, it is a no brainer there will most likely be less state funding available for running current schools. I suspect Valley Oak was slated for closure long before the Best Uses of Schools Task Force (which I doubt very much were truly independent of the district and board) actually made the formal announcement.

    You don’t build a brand new school, which you will have to find new funding to run, if there is declining enrollment and less money projected to come in. You would be setting up the school district for having to close a school, or somehow cut pet programs to the bone to keep all ten elementary schools open. Talk about fiscal irresponsibility! I also find it curious that certain politicians (Wolk, Thompson, Machado) had a hand in this – and Richard Harris’s neighborhood is the one that benefitted with a brand new school the district could not afford. Connect the dots! Shameful.

    The closure of Valley Oak was a result of years of fiscal irresponsibility and political maneuvering of the worst kind – that could have been avoided with a bit of common sense and fiscal prudence. Slating Valley Oak for closure should have never happened. And now the very architects of what occurred in jeopardizing the very existence of Valley Oak, which serves our minority students – the most at-risk in the school system – are laying the blame elsewhere. Sallee and West should be looking in the mirror on this one.

    Now the school board has been left with an untenable mess they cannot get out of. They know there is declining enrollment, Valley Oak as a charter school is only going to exacerbate the fiscal crisis of the district – yet the board cannot deny the survival of Valley Oak on any legal grounds. They made their own bed, and now have to lie in it. It is a bitter pill to swallow (evidenced by the mean spirited and pointless questioning of charter school proponents by the school board the other night). What to do?

    Don’t be surprised if John Q. Taxpayer is asked to cough up some more money. A request for the issuance of new school bonds will probably be floated out there as a way to clean up this pickle. Take a close look at the Op-Ed piece. The entire King High debacle makes for chilling reading – “The superintendent told the current board in August 2006 that additional borrowing would be needed [to build King High School], secured by future receipts from existing bond measures.” The fix was in on this one, when the board – particulary Marty West – could not find allocation of funding for King High anywhere in past board minutes.

    I could go on and on about the absolutely gross misstatements in the Op-Ed article – but more importantly the reader can glean insight into the workings of the school district and school board. And it is not a very pretty picture. DPD, I would love it if you would get a hold of that Op-Ed piece, and give us your comments – especially in light of the latest school board meeting and the hostility shown Valley Oak as a charter school.

    Parents have made it clear to the district that their fiscal mismanagement cannot be corrected by closing a school. The school board will look for any way out, but in the end will have to approve what they know is going to end up being the big elephant in the room.

  50. This may seem a bit off track, but it really isn’t. DPD, did you catch the outrageous Op-Ed piece in the Davis Enterprise on Sunday, in which two former school board members (Joan Sallee and Marty West) blame the fiscal problems of the district on the current seated school board of 2006/2007? According to these two, “When we left the school board in December 2005, the finances of the school district were in good shape. Any financial mismanagement that has occurred has been on the 2006 and 2007 school board’s watch.”

    There are so many “interesting” items in this article, I hardly know where to begin. But most importantly, in relation to your latest post about Valley Oak on this blog – I now better understand why Valley Oak was slated for closure, which I find appalling.

    Sallee and West state clearly they (along with the superintendent) went ahead and encouraged construction of Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School at a time of declining enrollment – over the objections of state staff who did not think much of their decision. If you know there is a decrease in the number of enrolling students, it is a no brainer there will most likely be less state funding available for running current schools. I suspect Valley Oak was slated for closure long before the Best Uses of Schools Task Force (which I doubt very much were truly independent of the district and board) actually made the formal announcement.

    You don’t build a brand new school, which you will have to find new funding to run, if there is declining enrollment and less money projected to come in. You would be setting up the school district for having to close a school, or somehow cut pet programs to the bone to keep all ten elementary schools open. Talk about fiscal irresponsibility! I also find it curious that certain politicians (Wolk, Thompson, Machado) had a hand in this – and Richard Harris’s neighborhood is the one that benefitted with a brand new school the district could not afford. Connect the dots! Shameful.

    The closure of Valley Oak was a result of years of fiscal irresponsibility and political maneuvering of the worst kind – that could have been avoided with a bit of common sense and fiscal prudence. Slating Valley Oak for closure should have never happened. And now the very architects of what occurred in jeopardizing the very existence of Valley Oak, which serves our minority students – the most at-risk in the school system – are laying the blame elsewhere. Sallee and West should be looking in the mirror on this one.

    Now the school board has been left with an untenable mess they cannot get out of. They know there is declining enrollment, Valley Oak as a charter school is only going to exacerbate the fiscal crisis of the district – yet the board cannot deny the survival of Valley Oak on any legal grounds. They made their own bed, and now have to lie in it. It is a bitter pill to swallow (evidenced by the mean spirited and pointless questioning of charter school proponents by the school board the other night). What to do?

    Don’t be surprised if John Q. Taxpayer is asked to cough up some more money. A request for the issuance of new school bonds will probably be floated out there as a way to clean up this pickle. Take a close look at the Op-Ed piece. The entire King High debacle makes for chilling reading – “The superintendent told the current board in August 2006 that additional borrowing would be needed [to build King High School], secured by future receipts from existing bond measures.” The fix was in on this one, when the board – particulary Marty West – could not find allocation of funding for King High anywhere in past board minutes.

    I could go on and on about the absolutely gross misstatements in the Op-Ed article – but more importantly the reader can glean insight into the workings of the school district and school board. And it is not a very pretty picture. DPD, I would love it if you would get a hold of that Op-Ed piece, and give us your comments – especially in light of the latest school board meeting and the hostility shown Valley Oak as a charter school.

    Parents have made it clear to the district that their fiscal mismanagement cannot be corrected by closing a school. The school board will look for any way out, but in the end will have to approve what they know is going to end up being the big elephant in the room.

  51. This may seem a bit off track, but it really isn’t. DPD, did you catch the outrageous Op-Ed piece in the Davis Enterprise on Sunday, in which two former school board members (Joan Sallee and Marty West) blame the fiscal problems of the district on the current seated school board of 2006/2007? According to these two, “When we left the school board in December 2005, the finances of the school district were in good shape. Any financial mismanagement that has occurred has been on the 2006 and 2007 school board’s watch.”

    There are so many “interesting” items in this article, I hardly know where to begin. But most importantly, in relation to your latest post about Valley Oak on this blog – I now better understand why Valley Oak was slated for closure, which I find appalling.

    Sallee and West state clearly they (along with the superintendent) went ahead and encouraged construction of Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School at a time of declining enrollment – over the objections of state staff who did not think much of their decision. If you know there is a decrease in the number of enrolling students, it is a no brainer there will most likely be less state funding available for running current schools. I suspect Valley Oak was slated for closure long before the Best Uses of Schools Task Force (which I doubt very much were truly independent of the district and board) actually made the formal announcement.

    You don’t build a brand new school, which you will have to find new funding to run, if there is declining enrollment and less money projected to come in. You would be setting up the school district for having to close a school, or somehow cut pet programs to the bone to keep all ten elementary schools open. Talk about fiscal irresponsibility! I also find it curious that certain politicians (Wolk, Thompson, Machado) had a hand in this – and Richard Harris’s neighborhood is the one that benefitted with a brand new school the district could not afford. Connect the dots! Shameful.

    The closure of Valley Oak was a result of years of fiscal irresponsibility and political maneuvering of the worst kind – that could have been avoided with a bit of common sense and fiscal prudence. Slating Valley Oak for closure should have never happened. And now the very architects of what occurred in jeopardizing the very existence of Valley Oak, which serves our minority students – the most at-risk in the school system – are laying the blame elsewhere. Sallee and West should be looking in the mirror on this one.

    Now the school board has been left with an untenable mess they cannot get out of. They know there is declining enrollment, Valley Oak as a charter school is only going to exacerbate the fiscal crisis of the district – yet the board cannot deny the survival of Valley Oak on any legal grounds. They made their own bed, and now have to lie in it. It is a bitter pill to swallow (evidenced by the mean spirited and pointless questioning of charter school proponents by the school board the other night). What to do?

    Don’t be surprised if John Q. Taxpayer is asked to cough up some more money. A request for the issuance of new school bonds will probably be floated out there as a way to clean up this pickle. Take a close look at the Op-Ed piece. The entire King High debacle makes for chilling reading – “The superintendent told the current board in August 2006 that additional borrowing would be needed [to build King High School], secured by future receipts from existing bond measures.” The fix was in on this one, when the board – particulary Marty West – could not find allocation of funding for King High anywhere in past board minutes.

    I could go on and on about the absolutely gross misstatements in the Op-Ed article – but more importantly the reader can glean insight into the workings of the school district and school board. And it is not a very pretty picture. DPD, I would love it if you would get a hold of that Op-Ed piece, and give us your comments – especially in light of the latest school board meeting and the hostility shown Valley Oak as a charter school.

    Parents have made it clear to the district that their fiscal mismanagement cannot be corrected by closing a school. The school board will look for any way out, but in the end will have to approve what they know is going to end up being the big elephant in the room.

  52. This may seem a bit off track, but it really isn’t. DPD, did you catch the outrageous Op-Ed piece in the Davis Enterprise on Sunday, in which two former school board members (Joan Sallee and Marty West) blame the fiscal problems of the district on the current seated school board of 2006/2007? According to these two, “When we left the school board in December 2005, the finances of the school district were in good shape. Any financial mismanagement that has occurred has been on the 2006 and 2007 school board’s watch.”

    There are so many “interesting” items in this article, I hardly know where to begin. But most importantly, in relation to your latest post about Valley Oak on this blog – I now better understand why Valley Oak was slated for closure, which I find appalling.

    Sallee and West state clearly they (along with the superintendent) went ahead and encouraged construction of Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School at a time of declining enrollment – over the objections of state staff who did not think much of their decision. If you know there is a decrease in the number of enrolling students, it is a no brainer there will most likely be less state funding available for running current schools. I suspect Valley Oak was slated for closure long before the Best Uses of Schools Task Force (which I doubt very much were truly independent of the district and board) actually made the formal announcement.

    You don’t build a brand new school, which you will have to find new funding to run, if there is declining enrollment and less money projected to come in. You would be setting up the school district for having to close a school, or somehow cut pet programs to the bone to keep all ten elementary schools open. Talk about fiscal irresponsibility! I also find it curious that certain politicians (Wolk, Thompson, Machado) had a hand in this – and Richard Harris’s neighborhood is the one that benefitted with a brand new school the district could not afford. Connect the dots! Shameful.

    The closure of Valley Oak was a result of years of fiscal irresponsibility and political maneuvering of the worst kind – that could have been avoided with a bit of common sense and fiscal prudence. Slating Valley Oak for closure should have never happened. And now the very architects of what occurred in jeopardizing the very existence of Valley Oak, which serves our minority students – the most at-risk in the school system – are laying the blame elsewhere. Sallee and West should be looking in the mirror on this one.

    Now the school board has been left with an untenable mess they cannot get out of. They know there is declining enrollment, Valley Oak as a charter school is only going to exacerbate the fiscal crisis of the district – yet the board cannot deny the survival of Valley Oak on any legal grounds. They made their own bed, and now have to lie in it. It is a bitter pill to swallow (evidenced by the mean spirited and pointless questioning of charter school proponents by the school board the other night). What to do?

    Don’t be surprised if John Q. Taxpayer is asked to cough up some more money. A request for the issuance of new school bonds will probably be floated out there as a way to clean up this pickle. Take a close look at the Op-Ed piece. The entire King High debacle makes for chilling reading – “The superintendent told the current board in August 2006 that additional borrowing would be needed [to build King High School], secured by future receipts from existing bond measures.” The fix was in on this one, when the board – particulary Marty West – could not find allocation of funding for King High anywhere in past board minutes.

    I could go on and on about the absolutely gross misstatements in the Op-Ed article – but more importantly the reader can glean insight into the workings of the school district and school board. And it is not a very pretty picture. DPD, I would love it if you would get a hold of that Op-Ed piece, and give us your comments – especially in light of the latest school board meeting and the hostility shown Valley Oak as a charter school.

    Parents have made it clear to the district that their fiscal mismanagement cannot be corrected by closing a school. The school board will look for any way out, but in the end will have to approve what they know is going to end up being the big elephant in the room.

  53. Marty West’s “critical thinking” skills also appeared to have failed her when as a public advocate for the Yes on X campaign(support for the massive Covell Village development). She apparently failed to recognize that the $50 million coming to the School District was from the taxes of the potential new residents to pay for their own kid’s needs and not from the CV developers.

  54. Marty West’s “critical thinking” skills also appeared to have failed her when as a public advocate for the Yes on X campaign(support for the massive Covell Village development). She apparently failed to recognize that the $50 million coming to the School District was from the taxes of the potential new residents to pay for their own kid’s needs and not from the CV developers.

  55. Marty West’s “critical thinking” skills also appeared to have failed her when as a public advocate for the Yes on X campaign(support for the massive Covell Village development). She apparently failed to recognize that the $50 million coming to the School District was from the taxes of the potential new residents to pay for their own kid’s needs and not from the CV developers.

  56. Marty West’s “critical thinking” skills also appeared to have failed her when as a public advocate for the Yes on X campaign(support for the massive Covell Village development). She apparently failed to recognize that the $50 million coming to the School District was from the taxes of the potential new residents to pay for their own kid’s needs and not from the CV developers.

  57. “If Marty believes that, then I’m not sure why she voted to throw out all the interdistrict kids at the time — apparently in violation of the law, according to what she is now telling you.”

    Don, I think you are confusing time-lines, here. When Marty told me that the District could not kick out interdistrict transfers due to later overcrowding, it was a few years after the situation arose that affected your family. It is likely that the situation you went through, when the district tried and failed to kick out interdistrict transfers, is what informed Marty of the state of state law. As such, by the time I spoke with her, her opinion on the law had changed. (Or perhaps the law itself had changed.)

  58. “If Marty believes that, then I’m not sure why she voted to throw out all the interdistrict kids at the time — apparently in violation of the law, according to what she is now telling you.”

    Don, I think you are confusing time-lines, here. When Marty told me that the District could not kick out interdistrict transfers due to later overcrowding, it was a few years after the situation arose that affected your family. It is likely that the situation you went through, when the district tried and failed to kick out interdistrict transfers, is what informed Marty of the state of state law. As such, by the time I spoke with her, her opinion on the law had changed. (Or perhaps the law itself had changed.)

  59. “If Marty believes that, then I’m not sure why she voted to throw out all the interdistrict kids at the time — apparently in violation of the law, according to what she is now telling you.”

    Don, I think you are confusing time-lines, here. When Marty told me that the District could not kick out interdistrict transfers due to later overcrowding, it was a few years after the situation arose that affected your family. It is likely that the situation you went through, when the district tried and failed to kick out interdistrict transfers, is what informed Marty of the state of state law. As such, by the time I spoke with her, her opinion on the law had changed. (Or perhaps the law itself had changed.)

  60. “If Marty believes that, then I’m not sure why she voted to throw out all the interdistrict kids at the time — apparently in violation of the law, according to what she is now telling you.”

    Don, I think you are confusing time-lines, here. When Marty told me that the District could not kick out interdistrict transfers due to later overcrowding, it was a few years after the situation arose that affected your family. It is likely that the situation you went through, when the district tried and failed to kick out interdistrict transfers, is what informed Marty of the state of state law. As such, by the time I spoke with her, her opinion on the law had changed. (Or perhaps the law itself had changed.)

  61. In the op-ed piece cited above, Marty West and Joan Sallee criticize the current board:
    “…when Superintendent Murphy moved to increase interdistrict transfers to offset declining enrollment, they did not follow through on his efforts, thereby losing at least another $500,000.”

    I believe the law was clear at the time, and I don’t believe it has changed. When Elk Grove faced the same situation within a year or two or ours, the superintendent there felt it was unambiguous; they stopped allowing new ID transfers, but all current ones were allowed to continue.
    What I am hearing is that Marty West took a politically expedient position at the time, in spite of parents of ID students having provided all board members with copies of the relevant state ed code. That is disappointing.

  62. In the op-ed piece cited above, Marty West and Joan Sallee criticize the current board:
    “…when Superintendent Murphy moved to increase interdistrict transfers to offset declining enrollment, they did not follow through on his efforts, thereby losing at least another $500,000.”

    I believe the law was clear at the time, and I don’t believe it has changed. When Elk Grove faced the same situation within a year or two or ours, the superintendent there felt it was unambiguous; they stopped allowing new ID transfers, but all current ones were allowed to continue.
    What I am hearing is that Marty West took a politically expedient position at the time, in spite of parents of ID students having provided all board members with copies of the relevant state ed code. That is disappointing.

  63. In the op-ed piece cited above, Marty West and Joan Sallee criticize the current board:
    “…when Superintendent Murphy moved to increase interdistrict transfers to offset declining enrollment, they did not follow through on his efforts, thereby losing at least another $500,000.”

    I believe the law was clear at the time, and I don’t believe it has changed. When Elk Grove faced the same situation within a year or two or ours, the superintendent there felt it was unambiguous; they stopped allowing new ID transfers, but all current ones were allowed to continue.
    What I am hearing is that Marty West took a politically expedient position at the time, in spite of parents of ID students having provided all board members with copies of the relevant state ed code. That is disappointing.

  64. In the op-ed piece cited above, Marty West and Joan Sallee criticize the current board:
    “…when Superintendent Murphy moved to increase interdistrict transfers to offset declining enrollment, they did not follow through on his efforts, thereby losing at least another $500,000.”

    I believe the law was clear at the time, and I don’t believe it has changed. When Elk Grove faced the same situation within a year or two or ours, the superintendent there felt it was unambiguous; they stopped allowing new ID transfers, but all current ones were allowed to continue.
    What I am hearing is that Marty West took a politically expedient position at the time, in spite of parents of ID students having provided all board members with copies of the relevant state ed code. That is disappointing.

  65. I believe that if we welcome kids into the District, then they should be able to complete their entire education here. However, would the Charter school would be outside of the “District”? If the interdistrict transfer child did not do well at Valley Oak, he/she would not be able to just transfer to another DJUSD school – the acceptance at the Charter school would not equal an interdistrict transfer into the District, right? If this is the case, then VO charter students from outside of the District would have to apply for an interdistrict transfer when they reached 7th grade and it would not be automatic, unless there is an agreement that students accepted by the charter school would be accomodated when they were ready for junior and senior high school.

    I’m not trying to split hairs here, but these issues need to be brought to light and discussed at the onset to avoid upset students and parents later on. Nothing can be left to assumption. If parents know what the plan is, then they can make plans accordingly and prepare their children ahead of time.

  66. I believe that if we welcome kids into the District, then they should be able to complete their entire education here. However, would the Charter school would be outside of the “District”? If the interdistrict transfer child did not do well at Valley Oak, he/she would not be able to just transfer to another DJUSD school – the acceptance at the Charter school would not equal an interdistrict transfer into the District, right? If this is the case, then VO charter students from outside of the District would have to apply for an interdistrict transfer when they reached 7th grade and it would not be automatic, unless there is an agreement that students accepted by the charter school would be accomodated when they were ready for junior and senior high school.

    I’m not trying to split hairs here, but these issues need to be brought to light and discussed at the onset to avoid upset students and parents later on. Nothing can be left to assumption. If parents know what the plan is, then they can make plans accordingly and prepare their children ahead of time.

  67. I believe that if we welcome kids into the District, then they should be able to complete their entire education here. However, would the Charter school would be outside of the “District”? If the interdistrict transfer child did not do well at Valley Oak, he/she would not be able to just transfer to another DJUSD school – the acceptance at the Charter school would not equal an interdistrict transfer into the District, right? If this is the case, then VO charter students from outside of the District would have to apply for an interdistrict transfer when they reached 7th grade and it would not be automatic, unless there is an agreement that students accepted by the charter school would be accomodated when they were ready for junior and senior high school.

    I’m not trying to split hairs here, but these issues need to be brought to light and discussed at the onset to avoid upset students and parents later on. Nothing can be left to assumption. If parents know what the plan is, then they can make plans accordingly and prepare their children ahead of time.

  68. I believe that if we welcome kids into the District, then they should be able to complete their entire education here. However, would the Charter school would be outside of the “District”? If the interdistrict transfer child did not do well at Valley Oak, he/she would not be able to just transfer to another DJUSD school – the acceptance at the Charter school would not equal an interdistrict transfer into the District, right? If this is the case, then VO charter students from outside of the District would have to apply for an interdistrict transfer when they reached 7th grade and it would not be automatic, unless there is an agreement that students accepted by the charter school would be accomodated when they were ready for junior and senior high school.

    I’m not trying to split hairs here, but these issues need to be brought to light and discussed at the onset to avoid upset students and parents later on. Nothing can be left to assumption. If parents know what the plan is, then they can make plans accordingly and prepare their children ahead of time.

  69. Someone from the district answered the question about inter-district transfers at the meeting the other night. As the Charter would not be a DJUSD school, any student from outside of Davis who enrolled at the school would not be part of the DJUSD; so therefore if a student wanted to stay in Davis until 12th grade, he or she would have to apply for an ITD.

    The demographer has not predicted the same decline for 7-12th grades as we have seen in the elementary grades. I believe this is why the DJUSD has been reluctant to accept too many ITDs at the elementary level since there is an obligatin to educate those kids through 12th grade. Last year’s unexpected “bump up” in enrollment was almost exclusively at the 7-12th grade level.

  70. Someone from the district answered the question about inter-district transfers at the meeting the other night. As the Charter would not be a DJUSD school, any student from outside of Davis who enrolled at the school would not be part of the DJUSD; so therefore if a student wanted to stay in Davis until 12th grade, he or she would have to apply for an ITD.

    The demographer has not predicted the same decline for 7-12th grades as we have seen in the elementary grades. I believe this is why the DJUSD has been reluctant to accept too many ITDs at the elementary level since there is an obligatin to educate those kids through 12th grade. Last year’s unexpected “bump up” in enrollment was almost exclusively at the 7-12th grade level.

  71. Someone from the district answered the question about inter-district transfers at the meeting the other night. As the Charter would not be a DJUSD school, any student from outside of Davis who enrolled at the school would not be part of the DJUSD; so therefore if a student wanted to stay in Davis until 12th grade, he or she would have to apply for an ITD.

    The demographer has not predicted the same decline for 7-12th grades as we have seen in the elementary grades. I believe this is why the DJUSD has been reluctant to accept too many ITDs at the elementary level since there is an obligatin to educate those kids through 12th grade. Last year’s unexpected “bump up” in enrollment was almost exclusively at the 7-12th grade level.

  72. Someone from the district answered the question about inter-district transfers at the meeting the other night. As the Charter would not be a DJUSD school, any student from outside of Davis who enrolled at the school would not be part of the DJUSD; so therefore if a student wanted to stay in Davis until 12th grade, he or she would have to apply for an ITD.

    The demographer has not predicted the same decline for 7-12th grades as we have seen in the elementary grades. I believe this is why the DJUSD has been reluctant to accept too many ITDs at the elementary level since there is an obligatin to educate those kids through 12th grade. Last year’s unexpected “bump up” in enrollment was almost exclusively at the 7-12th grade level.

  73. Maybe there will be a ground swell to create a charter school for Middle School years in Davis…..couldn’t hurt.
    and ‘gasp’….maybe even HS! though there are more options there. Go for it VO; the community is behind you…..

  74. Maybe there will be a ground swell to create a charter school for Middle School years in Davis…..couldn’t hurt.
    and ‘gasp’….maybe even HS! though there are more options there. Go for it VO; the community is behind you…..

  75. Maybe there will be a ground swell to create a charter school for Middle School years in Davis…..couldn’t hurt.
    and ‘gasp’….maybe even HS! though there are more options there. Go for it VO; the community is behind you…..

  76. Maybe there will be a ground swell to create a charter school for Middle School years in Davis…..couldn’t hurt.
    and ‘gasp’….maybe even HS! though there are more options there. Go for it VO; the community is behind you…..

  77. To Anonymous 2:365 PM

    Where are the students supposed to come from that would fill the seats of the current declining Elementary enrollment? The “bump” in JHS and HS enrollment that your demographer “found” would have already moved through and out of the system when the VO Charter School kids are ready to fill their seats.

  78. To Anonymous 2:365 PM

    Where are the students supposed to come from that would fill the seats of the current declining Elementary enrollment? The “bump” in JHS and HS enrollment that your demographer “found” would have already moved through and out of the system when the VO Charter School kids are ready to fill their seats.

  79. To Anonymous 2:365 PM

    Where are the students supposed to come from that would fill the seats of the current declining Elementary enrollment? The “bump” in JHS and HS enrollment that your demographer “found” would have already moved through and out of the system when the VO Charter School kids are ready to fill their seats.

  80. To Anonymous 2:365 PM

    Where are the students supposed to come from that would fill the seats of the current declining Elementary enrollment? The “bump” in JHS and HS enrollment that your demographer “found” would have already moved through and out of the system when the VO Charter School kids are ready to fill their seats.

  81. Davis school system is under pressure because of declining enrollment..to generate more students, the choices at present are peripheral sprawl residential development or alternatives like the VO Charter School. It is no surprise who the developers and collateral special interests that financially benefit from residential development sprawl
    backed in the recent School Board election.

  82. Davis school system is under pressure because of declining enrollment..to generate more students, the choices at present are peripheral sprawl residential development or alternatives like the VO Charter School. It is no surprise who the developers and collateral special interests that financially benefit from residential development sprawl
    backed in the recent School Board election.

  83. Davis school system is under pressure because of declining enrollment..to generate more students, the choices at present are peripheral sprawl residential development or alternatives like the VO Charter School. It is no surprise who the developers and collateral special interests that financially benefit from residential development sprawl
    backed in the recent School Board election.

  84. Davis school system is under pressure because of declining enrollment..to generate more students, the choices at present are peripheral sprawl residential development or alternatives like the VO Charter School. It is no surprise who the developers and collateral special interests that financially benefit from residential development sprawl
    backed in the recent School Board election.

  85. “… to generate more students, the choices at present are peripheral sprawl residential development or alternatives like the VO Charter School.”

    Maybe we could use a fertility clinic?

    “It is no surprise who the developers and collateral special interests that financially benefit from residential development sprawl backed in the recent School Board election.”

    How can school board trustees affect peripheral housing development?

    I don’t think the gist of your opinion is wrong — that some school board people would like more residential growth in order to generate new students for the existing schools. I simply don’t see how school board policies can affect any decisions on urban growth. And as such, I cannot see how developers who favor peripheral land development financially benefit from having person X on the Board as opposed to person Y.

    (If your point is solely that the school board is a launching platform for a later run at the city council, I understand that contention. However, your “sprawl” vs. “charter” argument suggests you are thinking otherwise.)

  86. “… to generate more students, the choices at present are peripheral sprawl residential development or alternatives like the VO Charter School.”

    Maybe we could use a fertility clinic?

    “It is no surprise who the developers and collateral special interests that financially benefit from residential development sprawl backed in the recent School Board election.”

    How can school board trustees affect peripheral housing development?

    I don’t think the gist of your opinion is wrong — that some school board people would like more residential growth in order to generate new students for the existing schools. I simply don’t see how school board policies can affect any decisions on urban growth. And as such, I cannot see how developers who favor peripheral land development financially benefit from having person X on the Board as opposed to person Y.

    (If your point is solely that the school board is a launching platform for a later run at the city council, I understand that contention. However, your “sprawl” vs. “charter” argument suggests you are thinking otherwise.)

  87. “… to generate more students, the choices at present are peripheral sprawl residential development or alternatives like the VO Charter School.”

    Maybe we could use a fertility clinic?

    “It is no surprise who the developers and collateral special interests that financially benefit from residential development sprawl backed in the recent School Board election.”

    How can school board trustees affect peripheral housing development?

    I don’t think the gist of your opinion is wrong — that some school board people would like more residential growth in order to generate new students for the existing schools. I simply don’t see how school board policies can affect any decisions on urban growth. And as such, I cannot see how developers who favor peripheral land development financially benefit from having person X on the Board as opposed to person Y.

    (If your point is solely that the school board is a launching platform for a later run at the city council, I understand that contention. However, your “sprawl” vs. “charter” argument suggests you are thinking otherwise.)

  88. “… to generate more students, the choices at present are peripheral sprawl residential development or alternatives like the VO Charter School.”

    Maybe we could use a fertility clinic?

    “It is no surprise who the developers and collateral special interests that financially benefit from residential development sprawl backed in the recent School Board election.”

    How can school board trustees affect peripheral housing development?

    I don’t think the gist of your opinion is wrong — that some school board people would like more residential growth in order to generate new students for the existing schools. I simply don’t see how school board policies can affect any decisions on urban growth. And as such, I cannot see how developers who favor peripheral land development financially benefit from having person X on the Board as opposed to person Y.

    (If your point is solely that the school board is a launching platform for a later run at the city council, I understand that contention. However, your “sprawl” vs. “charter” argument suggests you are thinking otherwise.)

  89. One effect of the current housing situation in Davis that has been looked at is that most homes are not affordable for young families, but attract families with 2 full incomes and older children (junior/high school age). So declining enrollment in elementary years does not equate a wave of declining enrollment at the High School.

  90. One effect of the current housing situation in Davis that has been looked at is that most homes are not affordable for young families, but attract families with 2 full incomes and older children (junior/high school age). So declining enrollment in elementary years does not equate a wave of declining enrollment at the High School.

  91. One effect of the current housing situation in Davis that has been looked at is that most homes are not affordable for young families, but attract families with 2 full incomes and older children (junior/high school age). So declining enrollment in elementary years does not equate a wave of declining enrollment at the High School.

  92. One effect of the current housing situation in Davis that has been looked at is that most homes are not affordable for young families, but attract families with 2 full incomes and older children (junior/high school age). So declining enrollment in elementary years does not equate a wave of declining enrollment at the High School.

  93. Rich Rifkin said…

    “… to generate more students, the choices at present are peripheral sprawl residential development or alternatives like the VO Charter School.”

    Maybe we could use a fertility clinic?

    this comes close to the heart of the problem

    peripheral sprawl development, by itself, will not solve the declining enrollment problem, unless there is a correlation between the kind of housing built and people with kids

    and, that means much higher densities, so that affordable homes in the $200,000 to $400,000 range are built that can be purchased by younger couples with children

    for example, there are a number of condominium projects in downtown Sacramento, as well as a nice zero lot home project around 21st and T Streets, but I doubt that any of them will significantly increase enrollment for the schools that serve this area

    if developed properly, Covell Center could be a dynamic solution to this problem, a solution that socially and culturally reenergizes the city, but longtime residents are too reactionary (in the true meaning of the term) and lack sufficient vision to embrace the benefits of a high density, socioeconomically diverse development there

    with the lonely exception of Wu Ming, that is

    –Richard Estes

  94. Rich Rifkin said…

    “… to generate more students, the choices at present are peripheral sprawl residential development or alternatives like the VO Charter School.”

    Maybe we could use a fertility clinic?

    this comes close to the heart of the problem

    peripheral sprawl development, by itself, will not solve the declining enrollment problem, unless there is a correlation between the kind of housing built and people with kids

    and, that means much higher densities, so that affordable homes in the $200,000 to $400,000 range are built that can be purchased by younger couples with children

    for example, there are a number of condominium projects in downtown Sacramento, as well as a nice zero lot home project around 21st and T Streets, but I doubt that any of them will significantly increase enrollment for the schools that serve this area

    if developed properly, Covell Center could be a dynamic solution to this problem, a solution that socially and culturally reenergizes the city, but longtime residents are too reactionary (in the true meaning of the term) and lack sufficient vision to embrace the benefits of a high density, socioeconomically diverse development there

    with the lonely exception of Wu Ming, that is

    –Richard Estes

  95. Rich Rifkin said…

    “… to generate more students, the choices at present are peripheral sprawl residential development or alternatives like the VO Charter School.”

    Maybe we could use a fertility clinic?

    this comes close to the heart of the problem

    peripheral sprawl development, by itself, will not solve the declining enrollment problem, unless there is a correlation between the kind of housing built and people with kids

    and, that means much higher densities, so that affordable homes in the $200,000 to $400,000 range are built that can be purchased by younger couples with children

    for example, there are a number of condominium projects in downtown Sacramento, as well as a nice zero lot home project around 21st and T Streets, but I doubt that any of them will significantly increase enrollment for the schools that serve this area

    if developed properly, Covell Center could be a dynamic solution to this problem, a solution that socially and culturally reenergizes the city, but longtime residents are too reactionary (in the true meaning of the term) and lack sufficient vision to embrace the benefits of a high density, socioeconomically diverse development there

    with the lonely exception of Wu Ming, that is

    –Richard Estes

  96. Rich Rifkin said…

    “… to generate more students, the choices at present are peripheral sprawl residential development or alternatives like the VO Charter School.”

    Maybe we could use a fertility clinic?

    this comes close to the heart of the problem

    peripheral sprawl development, by itself, will not solve the declining enrollment problem, unless there is a correlation between the kind of housing built and people with kids

    and, that means much higher densities, so that affordable homes in the $200,000 to $400,000 range are built that can be purchased by younger couples with children

    for example, there are a number of condominium projects in downtown Sacramento, as well as a nice zero lot home project around 21st and T Streets, but I doubt that any of them will significantly increase enrollment for the schools that serve this area

    if developed properly, Covell Center could be a dynamic solution to this problem, a solution that socially and culturally reenergizes the city, but longtime residents are too reactionary (in the true meaning of the term) and lack sufficient vision to embrace the benefits of a high density, socioeconomically diverse development there

    with the lonely exception of Wu Ming, that is

    –Richard Estes

  97. Rich Rifkin said
    “And as such, I cannot see how developers who favor peripheral land development financially benefit from having person X on the Board as opposed to personY.”

    Developer/realtor interests and District/School Board decisions are interconnected. Developers like to have new schools as part of or near their residential development. They like to include property for a school in their development agreements as their “dirt” is a relatively easy payout for them. In addition, their property/homes are easier to sell at higher prices when a nearby future new school can be pitched by the realtors. Closing Valley Oak Elementary removes an older city-core facility with a majority minority student body that is seen as a liability to developer/realtor business interests.

  98. Rich Rifkin said
    “And as such, I cannot see how developers who favor peripheral land development financially benefit from having person X on the Board as opposed to personY.”

    Developer/realtor interests and District/School Board decisions are interconnected. Developers like to have new schools as part of or near their residential development. They like to include property for a school in their development agreements as their “dirt” is a relatively easy payout for them. In addition, their property/homes are easier to sell at higher prices when a nearby future new school can be pitched by the realtors. Closing Valley Oak Elementary removes an older city-core facility with a majority minority student body that is seen as a liability to developer/realtor business interests.

  99. Rich Rifkin said
    “And as such, I cannot see how developers who favor peripheral land development financially benefit from having person X on the Board as opposed to personY.”

    Developer/realtor interests and District/School Board decisions are interconnected. Developers like to have new schools as part of or near their residential development. They like to include property for a school in their development agreements as their “dirt” is a relatively easy payout for them. In addition, their property/homes are easier to sell at higher prices when a nearby future new school can be pitched by the realtors. Closing Valley Oak Elementary removes an older city-core facility with a majority minority student body that is seen as a liability to developer/realtor business interests.

  100. Rich Rifkin said
    “And as such, I cannot see how developers who favor peripheral land development financially benefit from having person X on the Board as opposed to personY.”

    Developer/realtor interests and District/School Board decisions are interconnected. Developers like to have new schools as part of or near their residential development. They like to include property for a school in their development agreements as their “dirt” is a relatively easy payout for them. In addition, their property/homes are easier to sell at higher prices when a nearby future new school can be pitched by the realtors. Closing Valley Oak Elementary removes an older city-core facility with a majority minority student body that is seen as a liability to developer/realtor business interests.

  101. “Developer/realtor interests and District/School Board decisions are interconnected. Developers like to have new schools as part of or near their residential development. …. Closing Valley Oak Elementary removes an older city-core facility with a majority minority student body that is seen as a liability to developer/realtor business interests.”

    This might make sense in a vacuum. But in the context of the Davis reality, it doesn’t. We have too few kids for the number of elementary classrooms we currently have. The idea that a developer would get more support for his project because he was throwing in a school site (or even a school building) ignores that reality. Gifting a school would not get him one extra vote for his proposal, but would cost him actual money.

    Further, school board members don’t have any authority over peripheral development deals. To the extent that they have influence as members of our community at a time when we have serious under-crowding, DJUSD trustees would obviously argue against more school construction. It would just represent more costs for them to manage without resources.

    Finally, your “logic” on Valley Oak ignores a hugely important point: the DJUSD’s consultant’s report — I think the man’s name was Davis — said three salient things: 1) we lack elementary aged kids now; 2) we will continue to lack kids for a number of years; and 3) the part of town most lacking in kids is the area around Valley Oak.

    I opposed the closure of Valley Oak. The current board nevertheless thought it was necessary to save on overhead costs, given the reduced and shrinking student population. I felt they could have saved the overhead money by combining the admin of Korematsu and Valley Oak. But to suggest that the closure of Valley Oak was done for the benefit of some hypothetical peripheral home builder is without any factual basis, as far as I know.

  102. “Developer/realtor interests and District/School Board decisions are interconnected. Developers like to have new schools as part of or near their residential development. …. Closing Valley Oak Elementary removes an older city-core facility with a majority minority student body that is seen as a liability to developer/realtor business interests.”

    This might make sense in a vacuum. But in the context of the Davis reality, it doesn’t. We have too few kids for the number of elementary classrooms we currently have. The idea that a developer would get more support for his project because he was throwing in a school site (or even a school building) ignores that reality. Gifting a school would not get him one extra vote for his proposal, but would cost him actual money.

    Further, school board members don’t have any authority over peripheral development deals. To the extent that they have influence as members of our community at a time when we have serious under-crowding, DJUSD trustees would obviously argue against more school construction. It would just represent more costs for them to manage without resources.

    Finally, your “logic” on Valley Oak ignores a hugely important point: the DJUSD’s consultant’s report — I think the man’s name was Davis — said three salient things: 1) we lack elementary aged kids now; 2) we will continue to lack kids for a number of years; and 3) the part of town most lacking in kids is the area around Valley Oak.

    I opposed the closure of Valley Oak. The current board nevertheless thought it was necessary to save on overhead costs, given the reduced and shrinking student population. I felt they could have saved the overhead money by combining the admin of Korematsu and Valley Oak. But to suggest that the closure of Valley Oak was done for the benefit of some hypothetical peripheral home builder is without any factual basis, as far as I know.

  103. “Developer/realtor interests and District/School Board decisions are interconnected. Developers like to have new schools as part of or near their residential development. …. Closing Valley Oak Elementary removes an older city-core facility with a majority minority student body that is seen as a liability to developer/realtor business interests.”

    This might make sense in a vacuum. But in the context of the Davis reality, it doesn’t. We have too few kids for the number of elementary classrooms we currently have. The idea that a developer would get more support for his project because he was throwing in a school site (or even a school building) ignores that reality. Gifting a school would not get him one extra vote for his proposal, but would cost him actual money.

    Further, school board members don’t have any authority over peripheral development deals. To the extent that they have influence as members of our community at a time when we have serious under-crowding, DJUSD trustees would obviously argue against more school construction. It would just represent more costs for them to manage without resources.

    Finally, your “logic” on Valley Oak ignores a hugely important point: the DJUSD’s consultant’s report — I think the man’s name was Davis — said three salient things: 1) we lack elementary aged kids now; 2) we will continue to lack kids for a number of years; and 3) the part of town most lacking in kids is the area around Valley Oak.

    I opposed the closure of Valley Oak. The current board nevertheless thought it was necessary to save on overhead costs, given the reduced and shrinking student population. I felt they could have saved the overhead money by combining the admin of Korematsu and Valley Oak. But to suggest that the closure of Valley Oak was done for the benefit of some hypothetical peripheral home builder is without any factual basis, as far as I know.

  104. “Developer/realtor interests and District/School Board decisions are interconnected. Developers like to have new schools as part of or near their residential development. …. Closing Valley Oak Elementary removes an older city-core facility with a majority minority student body that is seen as a liability to developer/realtor business interests.”

    This might make sense in a vacuum. But in the context of the Davis reality, it doesn’t. We have too few kids for the number of elementary classrooms we currently have. The idea that a developer would get more support for his project because he was throwing in a school site (or even a school building) ignores that reality. Gifting a school would not get him one extra vote for his proposal, but would cost him actual money.

    Further, school board members don’t have any authority over peripheral development deals. To the extent that they have influence as members of our community at a time when we have serious under-crowding, DJUSD trustees would obviously argue against more school construction. It would just represent more costs for them to manage without resources.

    Finally, your “logic” on Valley Oak ignores a hugely important point: the DJUSD’s consultant’s report — I think the man’s name was Davis — said three salient things: 1) we lack elementary aged kids now; 2) we will continue to lack kids for a number of years; and 3) the part of town most lacking in kids is the area around Valley Oak.

    I opposed the closure of Valley Oak. The current board nevertheless thought it was necessary to save on overhead costs, given the reduced and shrinking student population. I felt they could have saved the overhead money by combining the admin of Korematsu and Valley Oak. But to suggest that the closure of Valley Oak was done for the benefit of some hypothetical peripheral home builder is without any factual basis, as far as I know.

  105. “Still state law is on the clear side of the petitioners…The Education Code specifies five grounds to deny a charter:”

    I have great respect for those working on the VO Charter, and believe the goal is worthy of the passion and long days/nights spent working on it. However, I find the VO Charter presented to the Board sufficiently lacking in specificity that one could argue that “the petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition”. For those who already have faith, it’s easy to believe — to see all you want to see in the generalities put forward. For the skeptic, “The xxxx program is based on state standards and addresses the needs of all learners.” and “All strands of the California Department of Education Content Standards…are addressed under the
    VOCS curriculum program. The curriculum offers a balanced instructional program…” just isn’t enough.

    The Charter is proposed as being supported by 3 pillars, one of which is the utilization of education technology for bridging the digital divide for
    students and their families; yet there are no concrete details of how this will be accomplished. Instead, we are left with a few short paragraphs on the benefits of technology in education, and references to being able to get internet access into each student’s home (how?). There is nothing concrete on how this will be accomplished in a school wihtout a single computer, no grants that would supply equipment, and nothing obvious in the proposed budget that would provide for acquisition and maintenance of this equipment.

    I think it was appropriate that the Board expressed reservation.

  106. “Still state law is on the clear side of the petitioners…The Education Code specifies five grounds to deny a charter:”

    I have great respect for those working on the VO Charter, and believe the goal is worthy of the passion and long days/nights spent working on it. However, I find the VO Charter presented to the Board sufficiently lacking in specificity that one could argue that “the petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition”. For those who already have faith, it’s easy to believe — to see all you want to see in the generalities put forward. For the skeptic, “The xxxx program is based on state standards and addresses the needs of all learners.” and “All strands of the California Department of Education Content Standards…are addressed under the
    VOCS curriculum program. The curriculum offers a balanced instructional program…” just isn’t enough.

    The Charter is proposed as being supported by 3 pillars, one of which is the utilization of education technology for bridging the digital divide for
    students and their families; yet there are no concrete details of how this will be accomplished. Instead, we are left with a few short paragraphs on the benefits of technology in education, and references to being able to get internet access into each student’s home (how?). There is nothing concrete on how this will be accomplished in a school wihtout a single computer, no grants that would supply equipment, and nothing obvious in the proposed budget that would provide for acquisition and maintenance of this equipment.

    I think it was appropriate that the Board expressed reservation.

  107. “Still state law is on the clear side of the petitioners…The Education Code specifies five grounds to deny a charter:”

    I have great respect for those working on the VO Charter, and believe the goal is worthy of the passion and long days/nights spent working on it. However, I find the VO Charter presented to the Board sufficiently lacking in specificity that one could argue that “the petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition”. For those who already have faith, it’s easy to believe — to see all you want to see in the generalities put forward. For the skeptic, “The xxxx program is based on state standards and addresses the needs of all learners.” and “All strands of the California Department of Education Content Standards…are addressed under the
    VOCS curriculum program. The curriculum offers a balanced instructional program…” just isn’t enough.

    The Charter is proposed as being supported by 3 pillars, one of which is the utilization of education technology for bridging the digital divide for
    students and their families; yet there are no concrete details of how this will be accomplished. Instead, we are left with a few short paragraphs on the benefits of technology in education, and references to being able to get internet access into each student’s home (how?). There is nothing concrete on how this will be accomplished in a school wihtout a single computer, no grants that would supply equipment, and nothing obvious in the proposed budget that would provide for acquisition and maintenance of this equipment.

    I think it was appropriate that the Board expressed reservation.

  108. “Still state law is on the clear side of the petitioners…The Education Code specifies five grounds to deny a charter:”

    I have great respect for those working on the VO Charter, and believe the goal is worthy of the passion and long days/nights spent working on it. However, I find the VO Charter presented to the Board sufficiently lacking in specificity that one could argue that “the petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition”. For those who already have faith, it’s easy to believe — to see all you want to see in the generalities put forward. For the skeptic, “The xxxx program is based on state standards and addresses the needs of all learners.” and “All strands of the California Department of Education Content Standards…are addressed under the
    VOCS curriculum program. The curriculum offers a balanced instructional program…” just isn’t enough.

    The Charter is proposed as being supported by 3 pillars, one of which is the utilization of education technology for bridging the digital divide for
    students and their families; yet there are no concrete details of how this will be accomplished. Instead, we are left with a few short paragraphs on the benefits of technology in education, and references to being able to get internet access into each student’s home (how?). There is nothing concrete on how this will be accomplished in a school wihtout a single computer, no grants that would supply equipment, and nothing obvious in the proposed budget that would provide for acquisition and maintenance of this equipment.

    I think it was appropriate that the Board expressed reservation.

  109. ”Developer/realtor interests and District/School Board decisions are interconnected.”

    Not that it is likely to change your mind, but I looked up all of the partners and principals in the Covell Village project, to see how much each gave to candidates in the most recent school board election. This is what actually happened:

    Mike Corbett: $0
    John Whitcombe: $0
    Bill and Nancy Roe: $0
    Bill Streng: $100 (Schelen)
    Karmen Streng: $0
    Dave and Kathy Schulze: $0
    Lawrence and Nancy Shepherd: $0
    Blaine Juchau: $0
    Diane and Paul Makley: $0

    All of these peripheral developers are Davis residents. It seems like they had no stake at all in the school board election.

    Likewise, no one from Lewis Homes, which has a live housing proposal before the city (Cannery Park) gave a penny to any of the DJUSD candidates.

    There were 5 others in the real estate business (one from Sacramento, one from NY) who gave $100 each, for a total of $500. The recipients were Harris, Schelen and Lovenburg. So added with Bill Streng’s $100 for Schelen, all real estate professionals and developers gave a total of $600 to all candidates in the most recent school board election. By contrast, the Plumbers Pipefitters Local 447 political action fund contributed $2,500 to Bob Schelen.

    In total, the four candidates raised about $75,000. In other words, your real estate villains represented 8/10ths of 1 percent.

  110. ”Developer/realtor interests and District/School Board decisions are interconnected.”

    Not that it is likely to change your mind, but I looked up all of the partners and principals in the Covell Village project, to see how much each gave to candidates in the most recent school board election. This is what actually happened:

    Mike Corbett: $0
    John Whitcombe: $0
    Bill and Nancy Roe: $0
    Bill Streng: $100 (Schelen)
    Karmen Streng: $0
    Dave and Kathy Schulze: $0
    Lawrence and Nancy Shepherd: $0
    Blaine Juchau: $0
    Diane and Paul Makley: $0

    All of these peripheral developers are Davis residents. It seems like they had no stake at all in the school board election.

    Likewise, no one from Lewis Homes, which has a live housing proposal before the city (Cannery Park) gave a penny to any of the DJUSD candidates.

    There were 5 others in the real estate business (one from Sacramento, one from NY) who gave $100 each, for a total of $500. The recipients were Harris, Schelen and Lovenburg. So added with Bill Streng’s $100 for Schelen, all real estate professionals and developers gave a total of $600 to all candidates in the most recent school board election. By contrast, the Plumbers Pipefitters Local 447 political action fund contributed $2,500 to Bob Schelen.

    In total, the four candidates raised about $75,000. In other words, your real estate villains represented 8/10ths of 1 percent.

  111. ”Developer/realtor interests and District/School Board decisions are interconnected.”

    Not that it is likely to change your mind, but I looked up all of the partners and principals in the Covell Village project, to see how much each gave to candidates in the most recent school board election. This is what actually happened:

    Mike Corbett: $0
    John Whitcombe: $0
    Bill and Nancy Roe: $0
    Bill Streng: $100 (Schelen)
    Karmen Streng: $0
    Dave and Kathy Schulze: $0
    Lawrence and Nancy Shepherd: $0
    Blaine Juchau: $0
    Diane and Paul Makley: $0

    All of these peripheral developers are Davis residents. It seems like they had no stake at all in the school board election.

    Likewise, no one from Lewis Homes, which has a live housing proposal before the city (Cannery Park) gave a penny to any of the DJUSD candidates.

    There were 5 others in the real estate business (one from Sacramento, one from NY) who gave $100 each, for a total of $500. The recipients were Harris, Schelen and Lovenburg. So added with Bill Streng’s $100 for Schelen, all real estate professionals and developers gave a total of $600 to all candidates in the most recent school board election. By contrast, the Plumbers Pipefitters Local 447 political action fund contributed $2,500 to Bob Schelen.

    In total, the four candidates raised about $75,000. In other words, your real estate villains represented 8/10ths of 1 percent.

  112. ”Developer/realtor interests and District/School Board decisions are interconnected.”

    Not that it is likely to change your mind, but I looked up all of the partners and principals in the Covell Village project, to see how much each gave to candidates in the most recent school board election. This is what actually happened:

    Mike Corbett: $0
    John Whitcombe: $0
    Bill and Nancy Roe: $0
    Bill Streng: $100 (Schelen)
    Karmen Streng: $0
    Dave and Kathy Schulze: $0
    Lawrence and Nancy Shepherd: $0
    Blaine Juchau: $0
    Diane and Paul Makley: $0

    All of these peripheral developers are Davis residents. It seems like they had no stake at all in the school board election.

    Likewise, no one from Lewis Homes, which has a live housing proposal before the city (Cannery Park) gave a penny to any of the DJUSD candidates.

    There were 5 others in the real estate business (one from Sacramento, one from NY) who gave $100 each, for a total of $500. The recipients were Harris, Schelen and Lovenburg. So added with Bill Streng’s $100 for Schelen, all real estate professionals and developers gave a total of $600 to all candidates in the most recent school board election. By contrast, the Plumbers Pipefitters Local 447 political action fund contributed $2,500 to Bob Schelen.

    In total, the four candidates raised about $75,000. In other words, your real estate villains represented 8/10ths of 1 percent.

  113. Rich Rifkin said:
    “This might make sense in a vacuum…”

    You characterize my position as being in a vacuum… yours is clearly short-sighted and suffering from tunnel vision. Closing Valley Oak Elementary diminishes the vacancy reserve in the system that could absorb new young students who would arrive when the peripheral development pressure begins(successfully?) again in the next few years after the current excess housing inventory is absorbed. I find the rest of your commment missing the points of my argument,critically labored and unconvincing.
    I did not address the financial support attached to developer names. We do know that Harris raised more than all of the other candidates combined according to the Enterprise. The specific names attached to donations are useful at times but just as often are politically anonymous although still solicited and generated by special interests.

  114. Rich Rifkin said:
    “This might make sense in a vacuum…”

    You characterize my position as being in a vacuum… yours is clearly short-sighted and suffering from tunnel vision. Closing Valley Oak Elementary diminishes the vacancy reserve in the system that could absorb new young students who would arrive when the peripheral development pressure begins(successfully?) again in the next few years after the current excess housing inventory is absorbed. I find the rest of your commment missing the points of my argument,critically labored and unconvincing.
    I did not address the financial support attached to developer names. We do know that Harris raised more than all of the other candidates combined according to the Enterprise. The specific names attached to donations are useful at times but just as often are politically anonymous although still solicited and generated by special interests.

  115. Rich Rifkin said:
    “This might make sense in a vacuum…”

    You characterize my position as being in a vacuum… yours is clearly short-sighted and suffering from tunnel vision. Closing Valley Oak Elementary diminishes the vacancy reserve in the system that could absorb new young students who would arrive when the peripheral development pressure begins(successfully?) again in the next few years after the current excess housing inventory is absorbed. I find the rest of your commment missing the points of my argument,critically labored and unconvincing.
    I did not address the financial support attached to developer names. We do know that Harris raised more than all of the other candidates combined according to the Enterprise. The specific names attached to donations are useful at times but just as often are politically anonymous although still solicited and generated by special interests.

  116. Rich Rifkin said:
    “This might make sense in a vacuum…”

    You characterize my position as being in a vacuum… yours is clearly short-sighted and suffering from tunnel vision. Closing Valley Oak Elementary diminishes the vacancy reserve in the system that could absorb new young students who would arrive when the peripheral development pressure begins(successfully?) again in the next few years after the current excess housing inventory is absorbed. I find the rest of your commment missing the points of my argument,critically labored and unconvincing.
    I did not address the financial support attached to developer names. We do know that Harris raised more than all of the other candidates combined according to the Enterprise. The specific names attached to donations are useful at times but just as often are politically anonymous although still solicited and generated by special interests.

  117. Clint… Is it fair to assume that you have read other charter school applications that have been rejected or approved? If not, your evaluation as to what level of detail is required is not really relevant, is it?

  118. Clint… Is it fair to assume that you have read other charter school applications that have been rejected or approved? If not, your evaluation as to what level of detail is required is not really relevant, is it?

  119. Clint… Is it fair to assume that you have read other charter school applications that have been rejected or approved? If not, your evaluation as to what level of detail is required is not really relevant, is it?

  120. Clint… Is it fair to assume that you have read other charter school applications that have been rejected or approved? If not, your evaluation as to what level of detail is required is not really relevant, is it?

  121. that pretty much nails it, richard. declining enrollments are a direct result of housing being out of reach for young families (and students, and people who work in davis’ many service jobs). what families that do move in nearly always have equity from an even more inflated housing market. so the shape of the community (and the depth of its collective memory, and its relationship with the university) changes, and you get more jr high students than elementary students in the educational system.

    granted, it’s easier to notice that correlation if you’re priced out of the market, than if you have a home and a financial stake in rising property values. our interests color our perceptions, to be sure.

  122. that pretty much nails it, richard. declining enrollments are a direct result of housing being out of reach for young families (and students, and people who work in davis’ many service jobs). what families that do move in nearly always have equity from an even more inflated housing market. so the shape of the community (and the depth of its collective memory, and its relationship with the university) changes, and you get more jr high students than elementary students in the educational system.

    granted, it’s easier to notice that correlation if you’re priced out of the market, than if you have a home and a financial stake in rising property values. our interests color our perceptions, to be sure.

  123. that pretty much nails it, richard. declining enrollments are a direct result of housing being out of reach for young families (and students, and people who work in davis’ many service jobs). what families that do move in nearly always have equity from an even more inflated housing market. so the shape of the community (and the depth of its collective memory, and its relationship with the university) changes, and you get more jr high students than elementary students in the educational system.

    granted, it’s easier to notice that correlation if you’re priced out of the market, than if you have a home and a financial stake in rising property values. our interests color our perceptions, to be sure.

  124. that pretty much nails it, richard. declining enrollments are a direct result of housing being out of reach for young families (and students, and people who work in davis’ many service jobs). what families that do move in nearly always have equity from an even more inflated housing market. so the shape of the community (and the depth of its collective memory, and its relationship with the university) changes, and you get more jr high students than elementary students in the educational system.

    granted, it’s easier to notice that correlation if you’re priced out of the market, than if you have a home and a financial stake in rising property values. our interests color our perceptions, to be sure.

  125. “Closing Valley Oak Elementary diminishes the vacancy reserve in the system that could absorb new young students who would arrive when the peripheral development pressure begins(successfully?) again in the next few years after the current excess housing inventory is absorbed.”

    Yes, closing VO “diminishes the vacancy reserve in the system that could absorb new young students who would arrive when the peripheral development pressure begins.” No doubt that is true.

    But unless I am misunderstanding your larger point — which I thought was that it was in the interests of peripheral real estate developers to close VO — I don’t see how closing an interior elementary school affects peripheral development pressures at all.

    You have stated that the pressure for development will rise when “the current excess housing inventory is absorbed.” I understand that. That makes sense. The demand for housing outstrips the supply: pressure for growth rises. But closing Valley Oak doesn’t add to peripheral development pressure. (A lack of students does, though that didn’t help Covell Village win support.)

    If we approve 1,000 new SFH and apartment units 3 years from now — say in the Cannery Park and Covell Village area — those new Davis children would absorb “the vacancy reserve in the system.” But developers would still neither profit or lose from the current closure of Valley Oak. (I simply don’t see how your conclusion follows your premise. You haven’t connected the dots.)

    “We do know that Harris raised more than all of the other candidates combined according to the Enterprise. The specific names attached to donations are useful at times but just as often are politically anonymous although still solicited and generated by special interests.”

    No donations were anonymous. Look them up. Every one has the person’s name, the amount and his/her occupation and address. Harris’s money did not come from real estate. It largely came from the people who work in his industry — legislative politics — in Sacramento. A similar story is true with Bob Schelen, who also works in Sacramento.

  126. “Closing Valley Oak Elementary diminishes the vacancy reserve in the system that could absorb new young students who would arrive when the peripheral development pressure begins(successfully?) again in the next few years after the current excess housing inventory is absorbed.”

    Yes, closing VO “diminishes the vacancy reserve in the system that could absorb new young students who would arrive when the peripheral development pressure begins.” No doubt that is true.

    But unless I am misunderstanding your larger point — which I thought was that it was in the interests of peripheral real estate developers to close VO — I don’t see how closing an interior elementary school affects peripheral development pressures at all.

    You have stated that the pressure for development will rise when “the current excess housing inventory is absorbed.” I understand that. That makes sense. The demand for housing outstrips the supply: pressure for growth rises. But closing Valley Oak doesn’t add to peripheral development pressure. (A lack of students does, though that didn’t help Covell Village win support.)

    If we approve 1,000 new SFH and apartment units 3 years from now — say in the Cannery Park and Covell Village area — those new Davis children would absorb “the vacancy reserve in the system.” But developers would still neither profit or lose from the current closure of Valley Oak. (I simply don’t see how your conclusion follows your premise. You haven’t connected the dots.)

    “We do know that Harris raised more than all of the other candidates combined according to the Enterprise. The specific names attached to donations are useful at times but just as often are politically anonymous although still solicited and generated by special interests.”

    No donations were anonymous. Look them up. Every one has the person’s name, the amount and his/her occupation and address. Harris’s money did not come from real estate. It largely came from the people who work in his industry — legislative politics — in Sacramento. A similar story is true with Bob Schelen, who also works in Sacramento.

  127. “Closing Valley Oak Elementary diminishes the vacancy reserve in the system that could absorb new young students who would arrive when the peripheral development pressure begins(successfully?) again in the next few years after the current excess housing inventory is absorbed.”

    Yes, closing VO “diminishes the vacancy reserve in the system that could absorb new young students who would arrive when the peripheral development pressure begins.” No doubt that is true.

    But unless I am misunderstanding your larger point — which I thought was that it was in the interests of peripheral real estate developers to close VO — I don’t see how closing an interior elementary school affects peripheral development pressures at all.

    You have stated that the pressure for development will rise when “the current excess housing inventory is absorbed.” I understand that. That makes sense. The demand for housing outstrips the supply: pressure for growth rises. But closing Valley Oak doesn’t add to peripheral development pressure. (A lack of students does, though that didn’t help Covell Village win support.)

    If we approve 1,000 new SFH and apartment units 3 years from now — say in the Cannery Park and Covell Village area — those new Davis children would absorb “the vacancy reserve in the system.” But developers would still neither profit or lose from the current closure of Valley Oak. (I simply don’t see how your conclusion follows your premise. You haven’t connected the dots.)

    “We do know that Harris raised more than all of the other candidates combined according to the Enterprise. The specific names attached to donations are useful at times but just as often are politically anonymous although still solicited and generated by special interests.”

    No donations were anonymous. Look them up. Every one has the person’s name, the amount and his/her occupation and address. Harris’s money did not come from real estate. It largely came from the people who work in his industry — legislative politics — in Sacramento. A similar story is true with Bob Schelen, who also works in Sacramento.

  128. “Closing Valley Oak Elementary diminishes the vacancy reserve in the system that could absorb new young students who would arrive when the peripheral development pressure begins(successfully?) again in the next few years after the current excess housing inventory is absorbed.”

    Yes, closing VO “diminishes the vacancy reserve in the system that could absorb new young students who would arrive when the peripheral development pressure begins.” No doubt that is true.

    But unless I am misunderstanding your larger point — which I thought was that it was in the interests of peripheral real estate developers to close VO — I don’t see how closing an interior elementary school affects peripheral development pressures at all.

    You have stated that the pressure for development will rise when “the current excess housing inventory is absorbed.” I understand that. That makes sense. The demand for housing outstrips the supply: pressure for growth rises. But closing Valley Oak doesn’t add to peripheral development pressure. (A lack of students does, though that didn’t help Covell Village win support.)

    If we approve 1,000 new SFH and apartment units 3 years from now — say in the Cannery Park and Covell Village area — those new Davis children would absorb “the vacancy reserve in the system.” But developers would still neither profit or lose from the current closure of Valley Oak. (I simply don’t see how your conclusion follows your premise. You haven’t connected the dots.)

    “We do know that Harris raised more than all of the other candidates combined according to the Enterprise. The specific names attached to donations are useful at times but just as often are politically anonymous although still solicited and generated by special interests.”

    No donations were anonymous. Look them up. Every one has the person’s name, the amount and his/her occupation and address. Harris’s money did not come from real estate. It largely came from the people who work in his industry — legislative politics — in Sacramento. A similar story is true with Bob Schelen, who also works in Sacramento.

  129. Actually, declining enrollments are occurring statewide. I suppose you could correlate enrollment with housing prices to some degree, as shown below. But Davis reflects a larger trend (and is, of course, not even close to being one of the more expensive places in the state to live).

    Mostly what we seem to have is a local imbalance of facilities with respect to the current, possibly short-term decline in population of kids in certain school ages. It is difficult to plan for how many (or even whether) new schools are needed given the kinds of figures districts are working with.

    When the two new elementary schools were proposed, I don’t recall anybody arguing against them on the basis of demographic data.

    From the California Department of Finance:

    “State Enrollment

    Graded K-12 enrollment in California will be relatively stable over the next ten years, with enrollment declines in the early years of the projection followed by modest enrollment growth. In 2005, K-12 enrollment showed the first decline in enrollment since 1980 with a loss of nearly 8,000 students. Although a reporting change resulted in an increase in graded enrollment in 2006, enrollment is expected to exhibit small annual declines as the high birth cohorts of the early 1990’s age out of the K-12 system, returning to 2006 levels by 2016. By the end of the decade the forecast reflects a moderate annual 1 percent growth.

    In recent years, California’s K-12 enrollment growth level peaked in 1990 at nearly 4 percent, which was the highest rate since the 1960s….

    California births peaked in the early 1990s and then generally declined until 2001 when they rose for the first time in a decade. Since 2001, births have continued to increase, with slow annual growth expected over the next ten years. Births that occurred in the peak birth years of 1990 and 1991, age out of the K-12 system by 2009.

    Elementary enrollment is projected to continue declining until 2009. Beginning in 2010 and continuing through the projection, elementary enrollment is predicted to grow, rising over 200,000 by 2016 to 4,497,367.

    Secondary enrollment is projected to increase slightly from 1,991,088 in 2006 to 1,997,542 in 2007, and then annually decrease through 2015, generally stabilizing after that.

    As a result, total enrollment is projected to be relatively stable over the decade, showing an annual average increase of just 0.1 percent.

    Over the decade high school graduates are expected to decrease by 0.3 percent. Large cohorts from the 1990 and 1991 birth peak years increase graduates in the early part of the projection followed by a gradual decline to June 2006 levels.

    County Enrollment

    The counties projected to have the strongest growth in total graded enrollment in the next year are Riverside, Santa Clara, Kern, Contra Costa, and Tulare, each with at least 1,000 additional students, with Riverside forecast to have more new students than the rest of the growing counties in the state combined.

    Over the decade, projected county enrollments have Riverside leading the State with an increase of 205,000 additional students, followed by San Bernardino, adding 53,000 students. Other counties with large enrollment growth from 2006 levels are Kern, San Joaquin, and Fresno. Enrollment growth in these counties can be attributed to increasing county births and continuing county in-migration.

    …

    Although Los Angeles County has the largest number of students statewide, the enrollment is projected to continue to decline in the next year, by 2.3 percent. Los Angeles County enrollment should decrease by about 17 percent by 2016, caused by declining birth cohorts and expected continuing family out-migration to lower cost neighboring counties.

    From 2006 to 2007, enrollment is projected to decline in 34 of the state’s 58 counties, whereas by 2016 only 23 counties are projected to have declining enrollment levels.

  130. Actually, declining enrollments are occurring statewide. I suppose you could correlate enrollment with housing prices to some degree, as shown below. But Davis reflects a larger trend (and is, of course, not even close to being one of the more expensive places in the state to live).

    Mostly what we seem to have is a local imbalance of facilities with respect to the current, possibly short-term decline in population of kids in certain school ages. It is difficult to plan for how many (or even whether) new schools are needed given the kinds of figures districts are working with.

    When the two new elementary schools were proposed, I don’t recall anybody arguing against them on the basis of demographic data.

    From the California Department of Finance:

    “State Enrollment

    Graded K-12 enrollment in California will be relatively stable over the next ten years, with enrollment declines in the early years of the projection followed by modest enrollment growth. In 2005, K-12 enrollment showed the first decline in enrollment since 1980 with a loss of nearly 8,000 students. Although a reporting change resulted in an increase in graded enrollment in 2006, enrollment is expected to exhibit small annual declines as the high birth cohorts of the early 1990’s age out of the K-12 system, returning to 2006 levels by 2016. By the end of the decade the forecast reflects a moderate annual 1 percent growth.

    In recent years, California’s K-12 enrollment growth level peaked in 1990 at nearly 4 percent, which was the highest rate since the 1960s….

    California births peaked in the early 1990s and then generally declined until 2001 when they rose for the first time in a decade. Since 2001, births have continued to increase, with slow annual growth expected over the next ten years. Births that occurred in the peak birth years of 1990 and 1991, age out of the K-12 system by 2009.

    Elementary enrollment is projected to continue declining until 2009. Beginning in 2010 and continuing through the projection, elementary enrollment is predicted to grow, rising over 200,000 by 2016 to 4,497,367.

    Secondary enrollment is projected to increase slightly from 1,991,088 in 2006 to 1,997,542 in 2007, and then annually decrease through 2015, generally stabilizing after that.

    As a result, total enrollment is projected to be relatively stable over the decade, showing an annual average increase of just 0.1 percent.

    Over the decade high school graduates are expected to decrease by 0.3 percent. Large cohorts from the 1990 and 1991 birth peak years increase graduates in the early part of the projection followed by a gradual decline to June 2006 levels.

    County Enrollment

    The counties projected to have the strongest growth in total graded enrollment in the next year are Riverside, Santa Clara, Kern, Contra Costa, and Tulare, each with at least 1,000 additional students, with Riverside forecast to have more new students than the rest of the growing counties in the state combined.

    Over the decade, projected county enrollments have Riverside leading the State with an increase of 205,000 additional students, followed by San Bernardino, adding 53,000 students. Other counties with large enrollment growth from 2006 levels are Kern, San Joaquin, and Fresno. Enrollment growth in these counties can be attributed to increasing county births and continuing county in-migration.

    …

    Although Los Angeles County has the largest number of students statewide, the enrollment is projected to continue to decline in the next year, by 2.3 percent. Los Angeles County enrollment should decrease by about 17 percent by 2016, caused by declining birth cohorts and expected continuing family out-migration to lower cost neighboring counties.

    From 2006 to 2007, enrollment is projected to decline in 34 of the state’s 58 counties, whereas by 2016 only 23 counties are projected to have declining enrollment levels.

  131. Actually, declining enrollments are occurring statewide. I suppose you could correlate enrollment with housing prices to some degree, as shown below. But Davis reflects a larger trend (and is, of course, not even close to being one of the more expensive places in the state to live).

    Mostly what we seem to have is a local imbalance of facilities with respect to the current, possibly short-term decline in population of kids in certain school ages. It is difficult to plan for how many (or even whether) new schools are needed given the kinds of figures districts are working with.

    When the two new elementary schools were proposed, I don’t recall anybody arguing against them on the basis of demographic data.

    From the California Department of Finance:

    “State Enrollment

    Graded K-12 enrollment in California will be relatively stable over the next ten years, with enrollment declines in the early years of the projection followed by modest enrollment growth. In 2005, K-12 enrollment showed the first decline in enrollment since 1980 with a loss of nearly 8,000 students. Although a reporting change resulted in an increase in graded enrollment in 2006, enrollment is expected to exhibit small annual declines as the high birth cohorts of the early 1990’s age out of the K-12 system, returning to 2006 levels by 2016. By the end of the decade the forecast reflects a moderate annual 1 percent growth.

    In recent years, California’s K-12 enrollment growth level peaked in 1990 at nearly 4 percent, which was the highest rate since the 1960s….

    California births peaked in the early 1990s and then generally declined until 2001 when they rose for the first time in a decade. Since 2001, births have continued to increase, with slow annual growth expected over the next ten years. Births that occurred in the peak birth years of 1990 and 1991, age out of the K-12 system by 2009.

    Elementary enrollment is projected to continue declining until 2009. Beginning in 2010 and continuing through the projection, elementary enrollment is predicted to grow, rising over 200,000 by 2016 to 4,497,367.

    Secondary enrollment is projected to increase slightly from 1,991,088 in 2006 to 1,997,542 in 2007, and then annually decrease through 2015, generally stabilizing after that.

    As a result, total enrollment is projected to be relatively stable over the decade, showing an annual average increase of just 0.1 percent.

    Over the decade high school graduates are expected to decrease by 0.3 percent. Large cohorts from the 1990 and 1991 birth peak years increase graduates in the early part of the projection followed by a gradual decline to June 2006 levels.

    County Enrollment

    The counties projected to have the strongest growth in total graded enrollment in the next year are Riverside, Santa Clara, Kern, Contra Costa, and Tulare, each with at least 1,000 additional students, with Riverside forecast to have more new students than the rest of the growing counties in the state combined.

    Over the decade, projected county enrollments have Riverside leading the State with an increase of 205,000 additional students, followed by San Bernardino, adding 53,000 students. Other counties with large enrollment growth from 2006 levels are Kern, San Joaquin, and Fresno. Enrollment growth in these counties can be attributed to increasing county births and continuing county in-migration.

    …

    Although Los Angeles County has the largest number of students statewide, the enrollment is projected to continue to decline in the next year, by 2.3 percent. Los Angeles County enrollment should decrease by about 17 percent by 2016, caused by declining birth cohorts and expected continuing family out-migration to lower cost neighboring counties.

    From 2006 to 2007, enrollment is projected to decline in 34 of the state’s 58 counties, whereas by 2016 only 23 counties are projected to have declining enrollment levels.

  132. Actually, declining enrollments are occurring statewide. I suppose you could correlate enrollment with housing prices to some degree, as shown below. But Davis reflects a larger trend (and is, of course, not even close to being one of the more expensive places in the state to live).

    Mostly what we seem to have is a local imbalance of facilities with respect to the current, possibly short-term decline in population of kids in certain school ages. It is difficult to plan for how many (or even whether) new schools are needed given the kinds of figures districts are working with.

    When the two new elementary schools were proposed, I don’t recall anybody arguing against them on the basis of demographic data.

    From the California Department of Finance:

    “State Enrollment

    Graded K-12 enrollment in California will be relatively stable over the next ten years, with enrollment declines in the early years of the projection followed by modest enrollment growth. In 2005, K-12 enrollment showed the first decline in enrollment since 1980 with a loss of nearly 8,000 students. Although a reporting change resulted in an increase in graded enrollment in 2006, enrollment is expected to exhibit small annual declines as the high birth cohorts of the early 1990’s age out of the K-12 system, returning to 2006 levels by 2016. By the end of the decade the forecast reflects a moderate annual 1 percent growth.

    In recent years, California’s K-12 enrollment growth level peaked in 1990 at nearly 4 percent, which was the highest rate since the 1960s….

    California births peaked in the early 1990s and then generally declined until 2001 when they rose for the first time in a decade. Since 2001, births have continued to increase, with slow annual growth expected over the next ten years. Births that occurred in the peak birth years of 1990 and 1991, age out of the K-12 system by 2009.

    Elementary enrollment is projected to continue declining until 2009. Beginning in 2010 and continuing through the projection, elementary enrollment is predicted to grow, rising over 200,000 by 2016 to 4,497,367.

    Secondary enrollment is projected to increase slightly from 1,991,088 in 2006 to 1,997,542 in 2007, and then annually decrease through 2015, generally stabilizing after that.

    As a result, total enrollment is projected to be relatively stable over the decade, showing an annual average increase of just 0.1 percent.

    Over the decade high school graduates are expected to decrease by 0.3 percent. Large cohorts from the 1990 and 1991 birth peak years increase graduates in the early part of the projection followed by a gradual decline to June 2006 levels.

    County Enrollment

    The counties projected to have the strongest growth in total graded enrollment in the next year are Riverside, Santa Clara, Kern, Contra Costa, and Tulare, each with at least 1,000 additional students, with Riverside forecast to have more new students than the rest of the growing counties in the state combined.

    Over the decade, projected county enrollments have Riverside leading the State with an increase of 205,000 additional students, followed by San Bernardino, adding 53,000 students. Other counties with large enrollment growth from 2006 levels are Kern, San Joaquin, and Fresno. Enrollment growth in these counties can be attributed to increasing county births and continuing county in-migration.

    …

    Although Los Angeles County has the largest number of students statewide, the enrollment is projected to continue to decline in the next year, by 2.3 percent. Los Angeles County enrollment should decrease by about 17 percent by 2016, caused by declining birth cohorts and expected continuing family out-migration to lower cost neighboring counties.

    From 2006 to 2007, enrollment is projected to decline in 34 of the state’s 58 counties, whereas by 2016 only 23 counties are projected to have declining enrollment levels.

  133. Rich Rifkin: “Finally, your “logic” on Valley Oak ignores a hugely important point: the DJUSD’s consultant’s report — I think the man’s name was Davis — said three salient things: 1) we lack elementary aged kids now; 2) we will continue to lack kids for a number of years; and 3) the part of town most lacking in kids is the area around Valley Oak.

    I opposed the closure of Valley Oak. The current board nevertheless thought it was necessary to save on overhead costs, given the reduced and shrinking student population. I felt they could have saved the overhead money by combining the admin of Korematsu and Valley Oak.”

    That is just the point Rich, there were other alternatives to closing Valley Oak that were more sensible but ignored by the school board. Why? For instance, why not redraw the boundary lines for Valley Oak – which is a solution up for discussion right now? After all, the school board was going to ship Valley Oak students off to other schools by shifting boundaries! What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!

    From other sources I have since discovered there was talk of closing Valley Oak as far back as 2002! Again I posit the question: Why build a brand new school if it is well known there is declining enrollment? Why were all those political folks and school district administrators like Lois Wolk, Helen Thompson, Mike Machado, Marty West, Joan Sallee and Supt David Murphy pushing to build an elementary school over the obvious and reasonable objections of the state, IN THE FACE OF DECLINING ENROLLMENT? Why a brand new school conveniently in the neighborhood of Richard Harris – who is clearly being groomed for higher office? Too many coincidences for me. The only explanation I can think of is “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”.

    To me, the move to close Valley Oak appears to be political maneuvering of the worst kind. Political friends do political friends favors all the time – including developer friends who contribute to campaigns. It’s an insidious cancer in local governance. Important decisions are made about land use planning or structuring schools for all the wrong reasons.

    To me the crux of this issue is that there are too darn many political fingers in the “Valley Oak closing while building Marguerite Montgomery” pie, to think there is no connection somewhere in here. Note Marty West seems to be on the side of developers – she pushed for the passage of Measure X (Covell Village). Who knows what the quid pro quo might have been?

    Granted, there is much speculation in my theories – but oh so many coincidences that just keep coming. If it doesn’t make you feel uncomfortable, then you have a much stronger stomach than mine!

  134. Rich Rifkin: “Finally, your “logic” on Valley Oak ignores a hugely important point: the DJUSD’s consultant’s report — I think the man’s name was Davis — said three salient things: 1) we lack elementary aged kids now; 2) we will continue to lack kids for a number of years; and 3) the part of town most lacking in kids is the area around Valley Oak.

    I opposed the closure of Valley Oak. The current board nevertheless thought it was necessary to save on overhead costs, given the reduced and shrinking student population. I felt they could have saved the overhead money by combining the admin of Korematsu and Valley Oak.”

    That is just the point Rich, there were other alternatives to closing Valley Oak that were more sensible but ignored by the school board. Why? For instance, why not redraw the boundary lines for Valley Oak – which is a solution up for discussion right now? After all, the school board was going to ship Valley Oak students off to other schools by shifting boundaries! What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!

    From other sources I have since discovered there was talk of closing Valley Oak as far back as 2002! Again I posit the question: Why build a brand new school if it is well known there is declining enrollment? Why were all those political folks and school district administrators like Lois Wolk, Helen Thompson, Mike Machado, Marty West, Joan Sallee and Supt David Murphy pushing to build an elementary school over the obvious and reasonable objections of the state, IN THE FACE OF DECLINING ENROLLMENT? Why a brand new school conveniently in the neighborhood of Richard Harris – who is clearly being groomed for higher office? Too many coincidences for me. The only explanation I can think of is “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”.

    To me, the move to close Valley Oak appears to be political maneuvering of the worst kind. Political friends do political friends favors all the time – including developer friends who contribute to campaigns. It’s an insidious cancer in local governance. Important decisions are made about land use planning or structuring schools for all the wrong reasons.

    To me the crux of this issue is that there are too darn many political fingers in the “Valley Oak closing while building Marguerite Montgomery” pie, to think there is no connection somewhere in here. Note Marty West seems to be on the side of developers – she pushed for the passage of Measure X (Covell Village). Who knows what the quid pro quo might have been?

    Granted, there is much speculation in my theories – but oh so many coincidences that just keep coming. If it doesn’t make you feel uncomfortable, then you have a much stronger stomach than mine!

  135. Rich Rifkin: “Finally, your “logic” on Valley Oak ignores a hugely important point: the DJUSD’s consultant’s report — I think the man’s name was Davis — said three salient things: 1) we lack elementary aged kids now; 2) we will continue to lack kids for a number of years; and 3) the part of town most lacking in kids is the area around Valley Oak.

    I opposed the closure of Valley Oak. The current board nevertheless thought it was necessary to save on overhead costs, given the reduced and shrinking student population. I felt they could have saved the overhead money by combining the admin of Korematsu and Valley Oak.”

    That is just the point Rich, there were other alternatives to closing Valley Oak that were more sensible but ignored by the school board. Why? For instance, why not redraw the boundary lines for Valley Oak – which is a solution up for discussion right now? After all, the school board was going to ship Valley Oak students off to other schools by shifting boundaries! What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!

    From other sources I have since discovered there was talk of closing Valley Oak as far back as 2002! Again I posit the question: Why build a brand new school if it is well known there is declining enrollment? Why were all those political folks and school district administrators like Lois Wolk, Helen Thompson, Mike Machado, Marty West, Joan Sallee and Supt David Murphy pushing to build an elementary school over the obvious and reasonable objections of the state, IN THE FACE OF DECLINING ENROLLMENT? Why a brand new school conveniently in the neighborhood of Richard Harris – who is clearly being groomed for higher office? Too many coincidences for me. The only explanation I can think of is “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”.

    To me, the move to close Valley Oak appears to be political maneuvering of the worst kind. Political friends do political friends favors all the time – including developer friends who contribute to campaigns. It’s an insidious cancer in local governance. Important decisions are made about land use planning or structuring schools for all the wrong reasons.

    To me the crux of this issue is that there are too darn many political fingers in the “Valley Oak closing while building Marguerite Montgomery” pie, to think there is no connection somewhere in here. Note Marty West seems to be on the side of developers – she pushed for the passage of Measure X (Covell Village). Who knows what the quid pro quo might have been?

    Granted, there is much speculation in my theories – but oh so many coincidences that just keep coming. If it doesn’t make you feel uncomfortable, then you have a much stronger stomach than mine!

  136. Rich Rifkin: “Finally, your “logic” on Valley Oak ignores a hugely important point: the DJUSD’s consultant’s report — I think the man’s name was Davis — said three salient things: 1) we lack elementary aged kids now; 2) we will continue to lack kids for a number of years; and 3) the part of town most lacking in kids is the area around Valley Oak.

    I opposed the closure of Valley Oak. The current board nevertheless thought it was necessary to save on overhead costs, given the reduced and shrinking student population. I felt they could have saved the overhead money by combining the admin of Korematsu and Valley Oak.”

    That is just the point Rich, there were other alternatives to closing Valley Oak that were more sensible but ignored by the school board. Why? For instance, why not redraw the boundary lines for Valley Oak – which is a solution up for discussion right now? After all, the school board was going to ship Valley Oak students off to other schools by shifting boundaries! What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!

    From other sources I have since discovered there was talk of closing Valley Oak as far back as 2002! Again I posit the question: Why build a brand new school if it is well known there is declining enrollment? Why were all those political folks and school district administrators like Lois Wolk, Helen Thompson, Mike Machado, Marty West, Joan Sallee and Supt David Murphy pushing to build an elementary school over the obvious and reasonable objections of the state, IN THE FACE OF DECLINING ENROLLMENT? Why a brand new school conveniently in the neighborhood of Richard Harris – who is clearly being groomed for higher office? Too many coincidences for me. The only explanation I can think of is “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”.

    To me, the move to close Valley Oak appears to be political maneuvering of the worst kind. Political friends do political friends favors all the time – including developer friends who contribute to campaigns. It’s an insidious cancer in local governance. Important decisions are made about land use planning or structuring schools for all the wrong reasons.

    To me the crux of this issue is that there are too darn many political fingers in the “Valley Oak closing while building Marguerite Montgomery” pie, to think there is no connection somewhere in here. Note Marty West seems to be on the side of developers – she pushed for the passage of Measure X (Covell Village). Who knows what the quid pro quo might have been?

    Granted, there is much speculation in my theories – but oh so many coincidences that just keep coming. If it doesn’t make you feel uncomfortable, then you have a much stronger stomach than mine!

  137. Just for demonstration purposes – Richard Harris gets a brand new school in his district, complements of Wolk, Thompson, Machado (Democratic machinery). Some developer approaches Democratic machinery with offer to contribute to campaign coffers of these three (Wolk, Thompson, Machado), in exchange for their influence in obtaining a zoning change; closing of a school in somebody’s else’s backyard; you name it. Wolk, Thompson, Machado have friends on Davis School Board or the Davis City Council, that will be glad to do them a favor. Get the picture?

    As long as developers contribute to campaigns, politicians can be bought. As long as politicians can be bought, important decisions are not necessarily made for the correct reasons. Influence peddling is a hidden cancer that results in huge wastes in money, poor city planning, and stupid decisions that don’t make sense.

  138. Just for demonstration purposes – Richard Harris gets a brand new school in his district, complements of Wolk, Thompson, Machado (Democratic machinery). Some developer approaches Democratic machinery with offer to contribute to campaign coffers of these three (Wolk, Thompson, Machado), in exchange for their influence in obtaining a zoning change; closing of a school in somebody’s else’s backyard; you name it. Wolk, Thompson, Machado have friends on Davis School Board or the Davis City Council, that will be glad to do them a favor. Get the picture?

    As long as developers contribute to campaigns, politicians can be bought. As long as politicians can be bought, important decisions are not necessarily made for the correct reasons. Influence peddling is a hidden cancer that results in huge wastes in money, poor city planning, and stupid decisions that don’t make sense.

  139. Just for demonstration purposes – Richard Harris gets a brand new school in his district, complements of Wolk, Thompson, Machado (Democratic machinery). Some developer approaches Democratic machinery with offer to contribute to campaign coffers of these three (Wolk, Thompson, Machado), in exchange for their influence in obtaining a zoning change; closing of a school in somebody’s else’s backyard; you name it. Wolk, Thompson, Machado have friends on Davis School Board or the Davis City Council, that will be glad to do them a favor. Get the picture?

    As long as developers contribute to campaigns, politicians can be bought. As long as politicians can be bought, important decisions are not necessarily made for the correct reasons. Influence peddling is a hidden cancer that results in huge wastes in money, poor city planning, and stupid decisions that don’t make sense.

  140. Just for demonstration purposes – Richard Harris gets a brand new school in his district, complements of Wolk, Thompson, Machado (Democratic machinery). Some developer approaches Democratic machinery with offer to contribute to campaign coffers of these three (Wolk, Thompson, Machado), in exchange for their influence in obtaining a zoning change; closing of a school in somebody’s else’s backyard; you name it. Wolk, Thompson, Machado have friends on Davis School Board or the Davis City Council, that will be glad to do them a favor. Get the picture?

    As long as developers contribute to campaigns, politicians can be bought. As long as politicians can be bought, important decisions are not necessarily made for the correct reasons. Influence peddling is a hidden cancer that results in huge wastes in money, poor city planning, and stupid decisions that don’t make sense.

  141. “Is it fair to assume that you have read other charter school applications that have been rejected or approved? If not, your evaluation as to what level of detail is required is not really relevant, is it?”

    I haven’t read any other charter school applications, and I’m not going to claim to be an expert. However, I believe my opinion is as relevant as any other on this blog.

  142. “Is it fair to assume that you have read other charter school applications that have been rejected or approved? If not, your evaluation as to what level of detail is required is not really relevant, is it?”

    I haven’t read any other charter school applications, and I’m not going to claim to be an expert. However, I believe my opinion is as relevant as any other on this blog.

  143. “Is it fair to assume that you have read other charter school applications that have been rejected or approved? If not, your evaluation as to what level of detail is required is not really relevant, is it?”

    I haven’t read any other charter school applications, and I’m not going to claim to be an expert. However, I believe my opinion is as relevant as any other on this blog.

  144. “Is it fair to assume that you have read other charter school applications that have been rejected or approved? If not, your evaluation as to what level of detail is required is not really relevant, is it?”

    I haven’t read any other charter school applications, and I’m not going to claim to be an expert. However, I believe my opinion is as relevant as any other on this blog.

  145. Rich Rifkin.. you again are missing the point of my argument..

    1.I indicated POLITICALLY anonymous, a phrase that I thought would be understood as different from just the name.
    2. My argument concerning developer interest in closing Valley Oak has nothing to do with encouraging peripheral development. Closing Valley Oak removes reserve space and makes it more likely that a NEW
    facility will be needed when(and developers who have speculated on farm land on our periphery are total believers in the inevitability of turning their property into housing developments) future development agreements will be negotiated. As we all know, schools are a major consideration for home buyers and new peripheral neighborhood schools translate into easier sales and larger developer/realtor profit margins.

  146. Rich Rifkin.. you again are missing the point of my argument..

    1.I indicated POLITICALLY anonymous, a phrase that I thought would be understood as different from just the name.
    2. My argument concerning developer interest in closing Valley Oak has nothing to do with encouraging peripheral development. Closing Valley Oak removes reserve space and makes it more likely that a NEW
    facility will be needed when(and developers who have speculated on farm land on our periphery are total believers in the inevitability of turning their property into housing developments) future development agreements will be negotiated. As we all know, schools are a major consideration for home buyers and new peripheral neighborhood schools translate into easier sales and larger developer/realtor profit margins.

  147. Rich Rifkin.. you again are missing the point of my argument..

    1.I indicated POLITICALLY anonymous, a phrase that I thought would be understood as different from just the name.
    2. My argument concerning developer interest in closing Valley Oak has nothing to do with encouraging peripheral development. Closing Valley Oak removes reserve space and makes it more likely that a NEW
    facility will be needed when(and developers who have speculated on farm land on our periphery are total believers in the inevitability of turning their property into housing developments) future development agreements will be negotiated. As we all know, schools are a major consideration for home buyers and new peripheral neighborhood schools translate into easier sales and larger developer/realtor profit margins.

  148. Rich Rifkin.. you again are missing the point of my argument..

    1.I indicated POLITICALLY anonymous, a phrase that I thought would be understood as different from just the name.
    2. My argument concerning developer interest in closing Valley Oak has nothing to do with encouraging peripheral development. Closing Valley Oak removes reserve space and makes it more likely that a NEW
    facility will be needed when(and developers who have speculated on farm land on our periphery are total believers in the inevitability of turning their property into housing developments) future development agreements will be negotiated. As we all know, schools are a major consideration for home buyers and new peripheral neighborhood schools translate into easier sales and larger developer/realtor profit margins.

  149. Anonymous said…

    “I know at least 10 families that have chosen to move away from Davis because they want their child, or children to have a more positive well-rounded education.”

    Name names or I don’t believe you. 11/19/07 10:33 AM

    Name names? Why don’t you name or your name? What are you going to do, hunt them down? He, he…

    I know families who left for the same reason as the poster who wrote this post. The schools and the community gave them reason to move to Davis but they said that their children had bad experiences at DJUSD and they could not allow their children’s future to be destroyed by keeping them in DJUSD schools.

    When I asked the people that I know how their children are performing in other school districts they all said that they are happy, well developed, and excelling academically.

    I agree with the previous poster and would even go so far as to say that it was the last sup. that allowed this.

    Many parents are very happy that Murphy is gone. That was long overdue.

    Rumor has it that he wants to be Superintendent of Schools after Dr. Jorge Ayala retires. That would be a disaster for our county.

  150. Anonymous said…

    “I know at least 10 families that have chosen to move away from Davis because they want their child, or children to have a more positive well-rounded education.”

    Name names or I don’t believe you. 11/19/07 10:33 AM

    Name names? Why don’t you name or your name? What are you going to do, hunt them down? He, he…

    I know families who left for the same reason as the poster who wrote this post. The schools and the community gave them reason to move to Davis but they said that their children had bad experiences at DJUSD and they could not allow their children’s future to be destroyed by keeping them in DJUSD schools.

    When I asked the people that I know how their children are performing in other school districts they all said that they are happy, well developed, and excelling academically.

    I agree with the previous poster and would even go so far as to say that it was the last sup. that allowed this.

    Many parents are very happy that Murphy is gone. That was long overdue.

    Rumor has it that he wants to be Superintendent of Schools after Dr. Jorge Ayala retires. That would be a disaster for our county.

  151. Anonymous said…

    “I know at least 10 families that have chosen to move away from Davis because they want their child, or children to have a more positive well-rounded education.”

    Name names or I don’t believe you. 11/19/07 10:33 AM

    Name names? Why don’t you name or your name? What are you going to do, hunt them down? He, he…

    I know families who left for the same reason as the poster who wrote this post. The schools and the community gave them reason to move to Davis but they said that their children had bad experiences at DJUSD and they could not allow their children’s future to be destroyed by keeping them in DJUSD schools.

    When I asked the people that I know how their children are performing in other school districts they all said that they are happy, well developed, and excelling academically.

    I agree with the previous poster and would even go so far as to say that it was the last sup. that allowed this.

    Many parents are very happy that Murphy is gone. That was long overdue.

    Rumor has it that he wants to be Superintendent of Schools after Dr. Jorge Ayala retires. That would be a disaster for our county.

  152. Anonymous said…

    “I know at least 10 families that have chosen to move away from Davis because they want their child, or children to have a more positive well-rounded education.”

    Name names or I don’t believe you. 11/19/07 10:33 AM

    Name names? Why don’t you name or your name? What are you going to do, hunt them down? He, he…

    I know families who left for the same reason as the poster who wrote this post. The schools and the community gave them reason to move to Davis but they said that their children had bad experiences at DJUSD and they could not allow their children’s future to be destroyed by keeping them in DJUSD schools.

    When I asked the people that I know how their children are performing in other school districts they all said that they are happy, well developed, and excelling academically.

    I agree with the previous poster and would even go so far as to say that it was the last sup. that allowed this.

    Many parents are very happy that Murphy is gone. That was long overdue.

    Rumor has it that he wants to be Superintendent of Schools after Dr. Jorge Ayala retires. That would be a disaster for our county.

  153. Voice of Reason: “Why build a brand new school if it is well known there is declining enrollment?”

    When Korematsu was planned and paid for and construction began, every elementary school in Davis and both junior highs were bursting at the seems. Your argument about ‘declining enrollment’ is counterfactual and ignores what was actually happening in Davis at that time.

    “Why were all those political folks and school district administrators like Lois Wolk, Helen Thompson, Mike Machado, Marty West, Joan Sallee and Supt David Murphy pushing to build an elementary school over the obvious and reasonable objections of the state, IN THE FACE OF DECLINING ENROLLMENT?”

    Again, this is simply untrue. When the plans were made in the 1990s to add two new elementaries, we absolutely needed them. The city of Davis was growing rapidly. Remember also that the voters passed a bond measure (I think it was M) in 2000, in order to pay for the new schools, because everyone agreed we needed them badly.

    “Why a brand new school conveniently in the neighborhood of Richard Harris – who is clearly being groomed for higher office?”

    This could be your silliest point, yet. Back in the 1990s, when Korematsu and Montgomery were being planned, who had ever even heard of Richard Harris in Davis? He was not then a well-known figure in town. Further, your silly claim ignores two fundamentally important facts: 1) no area of town had less political pull than south Davis; and 2) no school was in worse shape due to overcrowding than Pioneer.

    “Too many coincidences for me.”

    If you are capable of it, you need to think harder and consider what people in Davis knew at the time the decisions were made, not the facts that came out years later. If you did that, you would be a Voice of Reason, and not a shallow conspiracy theorist.

  154. Voice of Reason: “Why build a brand new school if it is well known there is declining enrollment?”

    When Korematsu was planned and paid for and construction began, every elementary school in Davis and both junior highs were bursting at the seems. Your argument about ‘declining enrollment’ is counterfactual and ignores what was actually happening in Davis at that time.

    “Why were all those political folks and school district administrators like Lois Wolk, Helen Thompson, Mike Machado, Marty West, Joan Sallee and Supt David Murphy pushing to build an elementary school over the obvious and reasonable objections of the state, IN THE FACE OF DECLINING ENROLLMENT?”

    Again, this is simply untrue. When the plans were made in the 1990s to add two new elementaries, we absolutely needed them. The city of Davis was growing rapidly. Remember also that the voters passed a bond measure (I think it was M) in 2000, in order to pay for the new schools, because everyone agreed we needed them badly.

    “Why a brand new school conveniently in the neighborhood of Richard Harris – who is clearly being groomed for higher office?”

    This could be your silliest point, yet. Back in the 1990s, when Korematsu and Montgomery were being planned, who had ever even heard of Richard Harris in Davis? He was not then a well-known figure in town. Further, your silly claim ignores two fundamentally important facts: 1) no area of town had less political pull than south Davis; and 2) no school was in worse shape due to overcrowding than Pioneer.

    “Too many coincidences for me.”

    If you are capable of it, you need to think harder and consider what people in Davis knew at the time the decisions were made, not the facts that came out years later. If you did that, you would be a Voice of Reason, and not a shallow conspiracy theorist.

  155. Voice of Reason: “Why build a brand new school if it is well known there is declining enrollment?”

    When Korematsu was planned and paid for and construction began, every elementary school in Davis and both junior highs were bursting at the seems. Your argument about ‘declining enrollment’ is counterfactual and ignores what was actually happening in Davis at that time.

    “Why were all those political folks and school district administrators like Lois Wolk, Helen Thompson, Mike Machado, Marty West, Joan Sallee and Supt David Murphy pushing to build an elementary school over the obvious and reasonable objections of the state, IN THE FACE OF DECLINING ENROLLMENT?”

    Again, this is simply untrue. When the plans were made in the 1990s to add two new elementaries, we absolutely needed them. The city of Davis was growing rapidly. Remember also that the voters passed a bond measure (I think it was M) in 2000, in order to pay for the new schools, because everyone agreed we needed them badly.

    “Why a brand new school conveniently in the neighborhood of Richard Harris – who is clearly being groomed for higher office?”

    This could be your silliest point, yet. Back in the 1990s, when Korematsu and Montgomery were being planned, who had ever even heard of Richard Harris in Davis? He was not then a well-known figure in town. Further, your silly claim ignores two fundamentally important facts: 1) no area of town had less political pull than south Davis; and 2) no school was in worse shape due to overcrowding than Pioneer.

    “Too many coincidences for me.”

    If you are capable of it, you need to think harder and consider what people in Davis knew at the time the decisions were made, not the facts that came out years later. If you did that, you would be a Voice of Reason, and not a shallow conspiracy theorist.

  156. Voice of Reason: “Why build a brand new school if it is well known there is declining enrollment?”

    When Korematsu was planned and paid for and construction began, every elementary school in Davis and both junior highs were bursting at the seems. Your argument about ‘declining enrollment’ is counterfactual and ignores what was actually happening in Davis at that time.

    “Why were all those political folks and school district administrators like Lois Wolk, Helen Thompson, Mike Machado, Marty West, Joan Sallee and Supt David Murphy pushing to build an elementary school over the obvious and reasonable objections of the state, IN THE FACE OF DECLINING ENROLLMENT?”

    Again, this is simply untrue. When the plans were made in the 1990s to add two new elementaries, we absolutely needed them. The city of Davis was growing rapidly. Remember also that the voters passed a bond measure (I think it was M) in 2000, in order to pay for the new schools, because everyone agreed we needed them badly.

    “Why a brand new school conveniently in the neighborhood of Richard Harris – who is clearly being groomed for higher office?”

    This could be your silliest point, yet. Back in the 1990s, when Korematsu and Montgomery were being planned, who had ever even heard of Richard Harris in Davis? He was not then a well-known figure in town. Further, your silly claim ignores two fundamentally important facts: 1) no area of town had less political pull than south Davis; and 2) no school was in worse shape due to overcrowding than Pioneer.

    “Too many coincidences for me.”

    If you are capable of it, you need to think harder and consider what people in Davis knew at the time the decisions were made, not the facts that came out years later. If you did that, you would be a Voice of Reason, and not a shallow conspiracy theorist.

  157. Afraid of Giving His Own Name said: “1.I indicated POLITICALLY anonymous, a phrase that I thought would be understood as different from just the name.”

    You thought would be understood? Maybe you should actually, at one point in this discussion, explain what you are trying to say, rather than speak in the penumbrae.

    You singled out Richard Harris. Are you saying that the lobbyists and lawyers in Sacramento who gave him a hundred bucks each are secret agents of Davis developers, none of whom gave anything to him? If that is your opinion, then just say it. (And if it is your opinion, it’s beyond ridiculous.)

    “2. My argument concerning developer interest in closing Valley Oak has nothing to do with encouraging peripheral development.”

    Good. That’s the most reasonable sentence you’ve yet written.

    “Closing Valley Oak removes reserve space and makes it more likely that a NEW facility will be needed when future development agreements will be negotiated.”

    No it doesn’t. That’s just factually incorrect. Valley Oak is not being torn down. Prior to the VO Charter plan, Valley Oak was going to be mothballed. If new development in Davis increased the population of elementary-aged kids, it could have been reopened. That is exactly what happened to an elementary school near my relatives’ house in Palo Alto. The school their kids went to closed for almost 20 years. But then in the ’90s was reopened when the demand for elementary classroom space grew in that city.

  158. Afraid of Giving His Own Name said: “1.I indicated POLITICALLY anonymous, a phrase that I thought would be understood as different from just the name.”

    You thought would be understood? Maybe you should actually, at one point in this discussion, explain what you are trying to say, rather than speak in the penumbrae.

    You singled out Richard Harris. Are you saying that the lobbyists and lawyers in Sacramento who gave him a hundred bucks each are secret agents of Davis developers, none of whom gave anything to him? If that is your opinion, then just say it. (And if it is your opinion, it’s beyond ridiculous.)

    “2. My argument concerning developer interest in closing Valley Oak has nothing to do with encouraging peripheral development.”

    Good. That’s the most reasonable sentence you’ve yet written.

    “Closing Valley Oak removes reserve space and makes it more likely that a NEW facility will be needed when future development agreements will be negotiated.”

    No it doesn’t. That’s just factually incorrect. Valley Oak is not being torn down. Prior to the VO Charter plan, Valley Oak was going to be mothballed. If new development in Davis increased the population of elementary-aged kids, it could have been reopened. That is exactly what happened to an elementary school near my relatives’ house in Palo Alto. The school their kids went to closed for almost 20 years. But then in the ’90s was reopened when the demand for elementary classroom space grew in that city.

  159. Afraid of Giving His Own Name said: “1.I indicated POLITICALLY anonymous, a phrase that I thought would be understood as different from just the name.”

    You thought would be understood? Maybe you should actually, at one point in this discussion, explain what you are trying to say, rather than speak in the penumbrae.

    You singled out Richard Harris. Are you saying that the lobbyists and lawyers in Sacramento who gave him a hundred bucks each are secret agents of Davis developers, none of whom gave anything to him? If that is your opinion, then just say it. (And if it is your opinion, it’s beyond ridiculous.)

    “2. My argument concerning developer interest in closing Valley Oak has nothing to do with encouraging peripheral development.”

    Good. That’s the most reasonable sentence you’ve yet written.

    “Closing Valley Oak removes reserve space and makes it more likely that a NEW facility will be needed when future development agreements will be negotiated.”

    No it doesn’t. That’s just factually incorrect. Valley Oak is not being torn down. Prior to the VO Charter plan, Valley Oak was going to be mothballed. If new development in Davis increased the population of elementary-aged kids, it could have been reopened. That is exactly what happened to an elementary school near my relatives’ house in Palo Alto. The school their kids went to closed for almost 20 years. But then in the ’90s was reopened when the demand for elementary classroom space grew in that city.

  160. Afraid of Giving His Own Name said: “1.I indicated POLITICALLY anonymous, a phrase that I thought would be understood as different from just the name.”

    You thought would be understood? Maybe you should actually, at one point in this discussion, explain what you are trying to say, rather than speak in the penumbrae.

    You singled out Richard Harris. Are you saying that the lobbyists and lawyers in Sacramento who gave him a hundred bucks each are secret agents of Davis developers, none of whom gave anything to him? If that is your opinion, then just say it. (And if it is your opinion, it’s beyond ridiculous.)

    “2. My argument concerning developer interest in closing Valley Oak has nothing to do with encouraging peripheral development.”

    Good. That’s the most reasonable sentence you’ve yet written.

    “Closing Valley Oak removes reserve space and makes it more likely that a NEW facility will be needed when future development agreements will be negotiated.”

    No it doesn’t. That’s just factually incorrect. Valley Oak is not being torn down. Prior to the VO Charter plan, Valley Oak was going to be mothballed. If new development in Davis increased the population of elementary-aged kids, it could have been reopened. That is exactly what happened to an elementary school near my relatives’ house in Palo Alto. The school their kids went to closed for almost 20 years. But then in the ’90s was reopened when the demand for elementary classroom space grew in that city.

  161. don shor said…

    Actually, declining enrollments are occurring statewide. I suppose you could correlate enrollment with housing prices to some degree, as shown below. But Davis reflects a larger trend (and is, of course, not even close to being one of the more expensive places in the state to live).

    Mostly what we seem to have is a local imbalance of facilities with respect to the current, possibly short-term decline in population of kids in certain school ages. It is difficult to plan for how many (or even whether) new schools are needed given the kinds of figures districts are working with.

    I understand this, but, note that any implication that the decline is anywhere near uniform throughout the state is easily refuted by personal observation.

    My sense is that Davis is going through a transformation that will result in a significant reduction in the number of students attending K-12 than anticipated, because there aren’t a lot of families that can afford homes that cost over $500,000.

    Housing prices will create a permanent barrier to significant future increases in enrollment, unlike areas like Elk Grove, Lincoln, West Sacramento, possibly, even Woodland.

    Of course, that assumes that we aren’t about to experience a decline in housing prices that is catastrophic. Even then, the price relationship between Davis and surrounding valley communities could still render it cost prohibitive.

    –Richard Estes

  162. don shor said…

    Actually, declining enrollments are occurring statewide. I suppose you could correlate enrollment with housing prices to some degree, as shown below. But Davis reflects a larger trend (and is, of course, not even close to being one of the more expensive places in the state to live).

    Mostly what we seem to have is a local imbalance of facilities with respect to the current, possibly short-term decline in population of kids in certain school ages. It is difficult to plan for how many (or even whether) new schools are needed given the kinds of figures districts are working with.

    I understand this, but, note that any implication that the decline is anywhere near uniform throughout the state is easily refuted by personal observation.

    My sense is that Davis is going through a transformation that will result in a significant reduction in the number of students attending K-12 than anticipated, because there aren’t a lot of families that can afford homes that cost over $500,000.

    Housing prices will create a permanent barrier to significant future increases in enrollment, unlike areas like Elk Grove, Lincoln, West Sacramento, possibly, even Woodland.

    Of course, that assumes that we aren’t about to experience a decline in housing prices that is catastrophic. Even then, the price relationship between Davis and surrounding valley communities could still render it cost prohibitive.

    –Richard Estes

  163. don shor said…

    Actually, declining enrollments are occurring statewide. I suppose you could correlate enrollment with housing prices to some degree, as shown below. But Davis reflects a larger trend (and is, of course, not even close to being one of the more expensive places in the state to live).

    Mostly what we seem to have is a local imbalance of facilities with respect to the current, possibly short-term decline in population of kids in certain school ages. It is difficult to plan for how many (or even whether) new schools are needed given the kinds of figures districts are working with.

    I understand this, but, note that any implication that the decline is anywhere near uniform throughout the state is easily refuted by personal observation.

    My sense is that Davis is going through a transformation that will result in a significant reduction in the number of students attending K-12 than anticipated, because there aren’t a lot of families that can afford homes that cost over $500,000.

    Housing prices will create a permanent barrier to significant future increases in enrollment, unlike areas like Elk Grove, Lincoln, West Sacramento, possibly, even Woodland.

    Of course, that assumes that we aren’t about to experience a decline in housing prices that is catastrophic. Even then, the price relationship between Davis and surrounding valley communities could still render it cost prohibitive.

    –Richard Estes

  164. don shor said…

    Actually, declining enrollments are occurring statewide. I suppose you could correlate enrollment with housing prices to some degree, as shown below. But Davis reflects a larger trend (and is, of course, not even close to being one of the more expensive places in the state to live).

    Mostly what we seem to have is a local imbalance of facilities with respect to the current, possibly short-term decline in population of kids in certain school ages. It is difficult to plan for how many (or even whether) new schools are needed given the kinds of figures districts are working with.

    I understand this, but, note that any implication that the decline is anywhere near uniform throughout the state is easily refuted by personal observation.

    My sense is that Davis is going through a transformation that will result in a significant reduction in the number of students attending K-12 than anticipated, because there aren’t a lot of families that can afford homes that cost over $500,000.

    Housing prices will create a permanent barrier to significant future increases in enrollment, unlike areas like Elk Grove, Lincoln, West Sacramento, possibly, even Woodland.

    Of course, that assumes that we aren’t about to experience a decline in housing prices that is catastrophic. Even then, the price relationship between Davis and surrounding valley communities could still render it cost prohibitive.

    –Richard Estes

  165. I think your overall assessment of the article is allright, but I take issue with this statement:

    “While one can respect the fact that they did not want to cause a stir during the election”(referring to passage of measure Q)

    I don’t respect this kind of deception it at all. Excuse me Doug, but not telling the taxpayers the truth about mismanagement of their money is unethical. The taxpayers need to know about fiscal mismanagement BEFORE their taxes are raised so they are able to make informed decisions at the polls. People should not be lied to to get a measure passed.

  166. I think your overall assessment of the article is allright, but I take issue with this statement:

    “While one can respect the fact that they did not want to cause a stir during the election”(referring to passage of measure Q)

    I don’t respect this kind of deception it at all. Excuse me Doug, but not telling the taxpayers the truth about mismanagement of their money is unethical. The taxpayers need to know about fiscal mismanagement BEFORE their taxes are raised so they are able to make informed decisions at the polls. People should not be lied to to get a measure passed.

  167. I think your overall assessment of the article is allright, but I take issue with this statement:

    “While one can respect the fact that they did not want to cause a stir during the election”(referring to passage of measure Q)

    I don’t respect this kind of deception it at all. Excuse me Doug, but not telling the taxpayers the truth about mismanagement of their money is unethical. The taxpayers need to know about fiscal mismanagement BEFORE their taxes are raised so they are able to make informed decisions at the polls. People should not be lied to to get a measure passed.

  168. I think your overall assessment of the article is allright, but I take issue with this statement:

    “While one can respect the fact that they did not want to cause a stir during the election”(referring to passage of measure Q)

    I don’t respect this kind of deception it at all. Excuse me Doug, but not telling the taxpayers the truth about mismanagement of their money is unethical. The taxpayers need to know about fiscal mismanagement BEFORE their taxes are raised so they are able to make informed decisions at the polls. People should not be lied to to get a measure passed.

  169. “I don’t respect this kind of deception it at all. Excuse me Doug, but not telling the taxpayers the truth about mismanagement of their money is unethical. The taxpayers need to know about fiscal mismanagement BEFORE their taxes are raised so they are able to make informed decisions at the polls. People should not be lied to to get a measure passed. “

    I guess your perception of that depends on your view of the veracity of their claims. I tend to side with Provenza and Taylor on this and so I can respect the fact that they decided not to air their dirty laundry during the campaign.

  170. “I don’t respect this kind of deception it at all. Excuse me Doug, but not telling the taxpayers the truth about mismanagement of their money is unethical. The taxpayers need to know about fiscal mismanagement BEFORE their taxes are raised so they are able to make informed decisions at the polls. People should not be lied to to get a measure passed. “

    I guess your perception of that depends on your view of the veracity of their claims. I tend to side with Provenza and Taylor on this and so I can respect the fact that they decided not to air their dirty laundry during the campaign.

  171. “I don’t respect this kind of deception it at all. Excuse me Doug, but not telling the taxpayers the truth about mismanagement of their money is unethical. The taxpayers need to know about fiscal mismanagement BEFORE their taxes are raised so they are able to make informed decisions at the polls. People should not be lied to to get a measure passed. “

    I guess your perception of that depends on your view of the veracity of their claims. I tend to side with Provenza and Taylor on this and so I can respect the fact that they decided not to air their dirty laundry during the campaign.

  172. “I don’t respect this kind of deception it at all. Excuse me Doug, but not telling the taxpayers the truth about mismanagement of their money is unethical. The taxpayers need to know about fiscal mismanagement BEFORE their taxes are raised so they are able to make informed decisions at the polls. People should not be lied to to get a measure passed. “

    I guess your perception of that depends on your view of the veracity of their claims. I tend to side with Provenza and Taylor on this and so I can respect the fact that they decided not to air their dirty laundry during the campaign.

  173. “Even then, the price relationship between Davis and surrounding valley communities could still render it cost prohibitive.”

    This is a fair point. However, it focuses on the cost of owner-occupied single family housing. That is (for most young families) prohibitively expensive. Yet Davis has a large amount of rental housing, both apartments and SFH’s. And while they are not cheap (unless you compare them to rentals in the Bay Area or Los Angeles), they are affordable to a much larger percentage of young families. Three bedroom houses rent from $1,300 and up. In the current listings for house rentals in The Enterprise, most 3/2s go for around $1,500, give or take $100.

    So if families with kids wanted to have their children live in this town and have their kids go to our schools, they could (in most cases) rent, rather than own.

    To purchase a $600,000 house with a 6.25%, 30-year nothing down loan, you’d have to pay $3,700/month for your mortgage. With property taxes, city services and all of the other myriad expenses, you’d probably need an additional $1,500/month for that house. That truly is prohibitive.

    What is odd in Davis, from a financial perspective, is the huge disconnect between the price of a house and the rent it achieves. Except when the market is loose (as it is right now), I don’t understand the financial sense in owning a house in Davis as an investment property. It would make far more sense to sell the house and invest that money in the S&P 500. Rents simply are not high enough to justify buying a house for the purpose of renting it out.

  174. “Even then, the price relationship between Davis and surrounding valley communities could still render it cost prohibitive.”

    This is a fair point. However, it focuses on the cost of owner-occupied single family housing. That is (for most young families) prohibitively expensive. Yet Davis has a large amount of rental housing, both apartments and SFH’s. And while they are not cheap (unless you compare them to rentals in the Bay Area or Los Angeles), they are affordable to a much larger percentage of young families. Three bedroom houses rent from $1,300 and up. In the current listings for house rentals in The Enterprise, most 3/2s go for around $1,500, give or take $100.

    So if families with kids wanted to have their children live in this town and have their kids go to our schools, they could (in most cases) rent, rather than own.

    To purchase a $600,000 house with a 6.25%, 30-year nothing down loan, you’d have to pay $3,700/month for your mortgage. With property taxes, city services and all of the other myriad expenses, you’d probably need an additional $1,500/month for that house. That truly is prohibitive.

    What is odd in Davis, from a financial perspective, is the huge disconnect between the price of a house and the rent it achieves. Except when the market is loose (as it is right now), I don’t understand the financial sense in owning a house in Davis as an investment property. It would make far more sense to sell the house and invest that money in the S&P 500. Rents simply are not high enough to justify buying a house for the purpose of renting it out.

  175. “Even then, the price relationship between Davis and surrounding valley communities could still render it cost prohibitive.”

    This is a fair point. However, it focuses on the cost of owner-occupied single family housing. That is (for most young families) prohibitively expensive. Yet Davis has a large amount of rental housing, both apartments and SFH’s. And while they are not cheap (unless you compare them to rentals in the Bay Area or Los Angeles), they are affordable to a much larger percentage of young families. Three bedroom houses rent from $1,300 and up. In the current listings for house rentals in The Enterprise, most 3/2s go for around $1,500, give or take $100.

    So if families with kids wanted to have their children live in this town and have their kids go to our schools, they could (in most cases) rent, rather than own.

    To purchase a $600,000 house with a 6.25%, 30-year nothing down loan, you’d have to pay $3,700/month for your mortgage. With property taxes, city services and all of the other myriad expenses, you’d probably need an additional $1,500/month for that house. That truly is prohibitive.

    What is odd in Davis, from a financial perspective, is the huge disconnect between the price of a house and the rent it achieves. Except when the market is loose (as it is right now), I don’t understand the financial sense in owning a house in Davis as an investment property. It would make far more sense to sell the house and invest that money in the S&P 500. Rents simply are not high enough to justify buying a house for the purpose of renting it out.

  176. “Even then, the price relationship between Davis and surrounding valley communities could still render it cost prohibitive.”

    This is a fair point. However, it focuses on the cost of owner-occupied single family housing. That is (for most young families) prohibitively expensive. Yet Davis has a large amount of rental housing, both apartments and SFH’s. And while they are not cheap (unless you compare them to rentals in the Bay Area or Los Angeles), they are affordable to a much larger percentage of young families. Three bedroom houses rent from $1,300 and up. In the current listings for house rentals in The Enterprise, most 3/2s go for around $1,500, give or take $100.

    So if families with kids wanted to have their children live in this town and have their kids go to our schools, they could (in most cases) rent, rather than own.

    To purchase a $600,000 house with a 6.25%, 30-year nothing down loan, you’d have to pay $3,700/month for your mortgage. With property taxes, city services and all of the other myriad expenses, you’d probably need an additional $1,500/month for that house. That truly is prohibitive.

    What is odd in Davis, from a financial perspective, is the huge disconnect between the price of a house and the rent it achieves. Except when the market is loose (as it is right now), I don’t understand the financial sense in owning a house in Davis as an investment property. It would make far more sense to sell the house and invest that money in the S&P 500. Rents simply are not high enough to justify buying a house for the purpose of renting it out.

  177. “This could be your silliest point, yet. Back in the 1990s, when Korematsu and Montgomery were being planned, who had ever even heard of Richard Harris in Davis? He was not then a well-known figure in town.”

    Richard Harris though unknown to the masses at that time, was well-known by all the politicos in this debacle due to his lobbying ties.

  178. “This could be your silliest point, yet. Back in the 1990s, when Korematsu and Montgomery were being planned, who had ever even heard of Richard Harris in Davis? He was not then a well-known figure in town.”

    Richard Harris though unknown to the masses at that time, was well-known by all the politicos in this debacle due to his lobbying ties.

  179. “This could be your silliest point, yet. Back in the 1990s, when Korematsu and Montgomery were being planned, who had ever even heard of Richard Harris in Davis? He was not then a well-known figure in town.”

    Richard Harris though unknown to the masses at that time, was well-known by all the politicos in this debacle due to his lobbying ties.

  180. “This could be your silliest point, yet. Back in the 1990s, when Korematsu and Montgomery were being planned, who had ever even heard of Richard Harris in Davis? He was not then a well-known figure in town.”

    Richard Harris though unknown to the masses at that time, was well-known by all the politicos in this debacle due to his lobbying ties.

  181. Rich Rifkin…”yelling” does not strengthen your argument. The future of Valley Oak Elementary, if the Charter School plan can be extinguished, will likely be the future home of the District administration with the current District location being sold off for development. Board member Delaiden probed the Charter proponents specifically about the availablity of unused space at their planned Valley Oak Charter School site. As I recall, it was in the in the context of the District admininstration space needs.

  182. Rich Rifkin…”yelling” does not strengthen your argument. The future of Valley Oak Elementary, if the Charter School plan can be extinguished, will likely be the future home of the District administration with the current District location being sold off for development. Board member Delaiden probed the Charter proponents specifically about the availablity of unused space at their planned Valley Oak Charter School site. As I recall, it was in the in the context of the District admininstration space needs.

  183. Rich Rifkin…”yelling” does not strengthen your argument. The future of Valley Oak Elementary, if the Charter School plan can be extinguished, will likely be the future home of the District administration with the current District location being sold off for development. Board member Delaiden probed the Charter proponents specifically about the availablity of unused space at their planned Valley Oak Charter School site. As I recall, it was in the in the context of the District admininstration space needs.

  184. Rich Rifkin…”yelling” does not strengthen your argument. The future of Valley Oak Elementary, if the Charter School plan can be extinguished, will likely be the future home of the District administration with the current District location being sold off for development. Board member Delaiden probed the Charter proponents specifically about the availablity of unused space at their planned Valley Oak Charter School site. As I recall, it was in the in the context of the District admininstration space needs.

  185. Voice of Reason: “Why build a brand new school if it is well known there is declining enrollment?”

    Rich Rifkin: “When Korematsu was planned and paid for and construction began, every elementary school in Davis and both junior highs were bursting at the seems. Your argument about ‘declining enrollment’ is counterfactual and ignores what was actually happening in Davis at that time.”

    Said who, the school board? The school administration? The consultant they paid to do the research? Do you necessarily think they have any credibility after what is beginning to come out about all of this?

    Don’t you find it a bit curious
    1) that as of 2002 there was talk of closing Valley Oak; 2)a push was made to apply for construction funds for Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School in 2003; 3) sometime later there was a “discovery” of declining enrollment; 4)yet all the politicos and Supt. Murphy pushed to build Marguerite Montgomery Elementary despite state staffs objections it was a bad idea in light of the declining enrollment (see Op-Ed piece by Sallee and West); 5) Marguerite Montgomery just happens to be in district of Richard Harris, a well known political lobbyist; 6) “suddenly” in 2007 there is decision to close Valley Oak because of “declining enrollment.

    Rich, connect the dots. Even if there were “plans …made in the 1990s to add two new elementaries” because “we absolutely needed them” as you claim, why does that necessarily mean the district should blindly go ahead with plans that are not appropriate for the current climate? To be more specific, the district went after construction funds for Marguerite Elementary when they knew there was declining enrollment, and that it would be a continuing trend!

    As for your next statement: “This could be your silliest point, yet. Back in the 1990s, when Korematsu and Montgomery were being planned, who had ever even heard of Richard Harris in Davis? He was not then a well-known figure in town.”

    Apparently Richard Harris was a well known lobbyist in Sacramento political circles – and would have had the opportunity to hobb-nobb with Wolk, Thompson and Machado – who pushed for building a new school in Harris’ neighborhood in face of declining enrollment! Get the connection yet?

    In reponse to your last comment: “If you are capable of it, you need to think harder and consider what people in Davis knew at the time the decisions were made, not the facts that came out years later. If you did that, you would be a Voice of Reason, and not a shallow conspiracy theorist.”

    Rich, don’t get so defensive. I didn’t attack you personally, just tried to pose some alternative thinking. In my opinion your argument that building Marguerite Montgomery was in no way connected with the closing of Valley Oak just isn’t convincing. Your time line doesn’t mesh with reality. At the time the appeal to override the state’s decision not to give construction funds to build Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School occurred when the district knew about declining enrollment in Davis. Thus they would know there would not be enough money to go around to fund all ten elementary schools. The school board did not opt to keep MME closed until funding was available, but instead elected to keep it open and make some other school in a much poorer neighborhood the sacrificial lamb.

    Now if you cannot see the logic in that, what more can I say…but many others in town seem to be getting it!

  186. Voice of Reason: “Why build a brand new school if it is well known there is declining enrollment?”

    Rich Rifkin: “When Korematsu was planned and paid for and construction began, every elementary school in Davis and both junior highs were bursting at the seems. Your argument about ‘declining enrollment’ is counterfactual and ignores what was actually happening in Davis at that time.”

    Said who, the school board? The school administration? The consultant they paid to do the research? Do you necessarily think they have any credibility after what is beginning to come out about all of this?

    Don’t you find it a bit curious
    1) that as of 2002 there was talk of closing Valley Oak; 2)a push was made to apply for construction funds for Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School in 2003; 3) sometime later there was a “discovery” of declining enrollment; 4)yet all the politicos and Supt. Murphy pushed to build Marguerite Montgomery Elementary despite state staffs objections it was a bad idea in light of the declining enrollment (see Op-Ed piece by Sallee and West); 5) Marguerite Montgomery just happens to be in district of Richard Harris, a well known political lobbyist; 6) “suddenly” in 2007 there is decision to close Valley Oak because of “declining enrollment.

    Rich, connect the dots. Even if there were “plans …made in the 1990s to add two new elementaries” because “we absolutely needed them” as you claim, why does that necessarily mean the district should blindly go ahead with plans that are not appropriate for the current climate? To be more specific, the district went after construction funds for Marguerite Elementary when they knew there was declining enrollment, and that it would be a continuing trend!

    As for your next statement: “This could be your silliest point, yet. Back in the 1990s, when Korematsu and Montgomery were being planned, who had ever even heard of Richard Harris in Davis? He was not then a well-known figure in town.”

    Apparently Richard Harris was a well known lobbyist in Sacramento political circles – and would have had the opportunity to hobb-nobb with Wolk, Thompson and Machado – who pushed for building a new school in Harris’ neighborhood in face of declining enrollment! Get the connection yet?

    In reponse to your last comment: “If you are capable of it, you need to think harder and consider what people in Davis knew at the time the decisions were made, not the facts that came out years later. If you did that, you would be a Voice of Reason, and not a shallow conspiracy theorist.”

    Rich, don’t get so defensive. I didn’t attack you personally, just tried to pose some alternative thinking. In my opinion your argument that building Marguerite Montgomery was in no way connected with the closing of Valley Oak just isn’t convincing. Your time line doesn’t mesh with reality. At the time the appeal to override the state’s decision not to give construction funds to build Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School occurred when the district knew about declining enrollment in Davis. Thus they would know there would not be enough money to go around to fund all ten elementary schools. The school board did not opt to keep MME closed until funding was available, but instead elected to keep it open and make some other school in a much poorer neighborhood the sacrificial lamb.

    Now if you cannot see the logic in that, what more can I say…but many others in town seem to be getting it!

  187. Voice of Reason: “Why build a brand new school if it is well known there is declining enrollment?”

    Rich Rifkin: “When Korematsu was planned and paid for and construction began, every elementary school in Davis and both junior highs were bursting at the seems. Your argument about ‘declining enrollment’ is counterfactual and ignores what was actually happening in Davis at that time.”

    Said who, the school board? The school administration? The consultant they paid to do the research? Do you necessarily think they have any credibility after what is beginning to come out about all of this?

    Don’t you find it a bit curious
    1) that as of 2002 there was talk of closing Valley Oak; 2)a push was made to apply for construction funds for Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School in 2003; 3) sometime later there was a “discovery” of declining enrollment; 4)yet all the politicos and Supt. Murphy pushed to build Marguerite Montgomery Elementary despite state staffs objections it was a bad idea in light of the declining enrollment (see Op-Ed piece by Sallee and West); 5) Marguerite Montgomery just happens to be in district of Richard Harris, a well known political lobbyist; 6) “suddenly” in 2007 there is decision to close Valley Oak because of “declining enrollment.

    Rich, connect the dots. Even if there were “plans …made in the 1990s to add two new elementaries” because “we absolutely needed them” as you claim, why does that necessarily mean the district should blindly go ahead with plans that are not appropriate for the current climate? To be more specific, the district went after construction funds for Marguerite Elementary when they knew there was declining enrollment, and that it would be a continuing trend!

    As for your next statement: “This could be your silliest point, yet. Back in the 1990s, when Korematsu and Montgomery were being planned, who had ever even heard of Richard Harris in Davis? He was not then a well-known figure in town.”

    Apparently Richard Harris was a well known lobbyist in Sacramento political circles – and would have had the opportunity to hobb-nobb with Wolk, Thompson and Machado – who pushed for building a new school in Harris’ neighborhood in face of declining enrollment! Get the connection yet?

    In reponse to your last comment: “If you are capable of it, you need to think harder and consider what people in Davis knew at the time the decisions were made, not the facts that came out years later. If you did that, you would be a Voice of Reason, and not a shallow conspiracy theorist.”

    Rich, don’t get so defensive. I didn’t attack you personally, just tried to pose some alternative thinking. In my opinion your argument that building Marguerite Montgomery was in no way connected with the closing of Valley Oak just isn’t convincing. Your time line doesn’t mesh with reality. At the time the appeal to override the state’s decision not to give construction funds to build Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School occurred when the district knew about declining enrollment in Davis. Thus they would know there would not be enough money to go around to fund all ten elementary schools. The school board did not opt to keep MME closed until funding was available, but instead elected to keep it open and make some other school in a much poorer neighborhood the sacrificial lamb.

    Now if you cannot see the logic in that, what more can I say…but many others in town seem to be getting it!

  188. Voice of Reason: “Why build a brand new school if it is well known there is declining enrollment?”

    Rich Rifkin: “When Korematsu was planned and paid for and construction began, every elementary school in Davis and both junior highs were bursting at the seems. Your argument about ‘declining enrollment’ is counterfactual and ignores what was actually happening in Davis at that time.”

    Said who, the school board? The school administration? The consultant they paid to do the research? Do you necessarily think they have any credibility after what is beginning to come out about all of this?

    Don’t you find it a bit curious
    1) that as of 2002 there was talk of closing Valley Oak; 2)a push was made to apply for construction funds for Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School in 2003; 3) sometime later there was a “discovery” of declining enrollment; 4)yet all the politicos and Supt. Murphy pushed to build Marguerite Montgomery Elementary despite state staffs objections it was a bad idea in light of the declining enrollment (see Op-Ed piece by Sallee and West); 5) Marguerite Montgomery just happens to be in district of Richard Harris, a well known political lobbyist; 6) “suddenly” in 2007 there is decision to close Valley Oak because of “declining enrollment.

    Rich, connect the dots. Even if there were “plans …made in the 1990s to add two new elementaries” because “we absolutely needed them” as you claim, why does that necessarily mean the district should blindly go ahead with plans that are not appropriate for the current climate? To be more specific, the district went after construction funds for Marguerite Elementary when they knew there was declining enrollment, and that it would be a continuing trend!

    As for your next statement: “This could be your silliest point, yet. Back in the 1990s, when Korematsu and Montgomery were being planned, who had ever even heard of Richard Harris in Davis? He was not then a well-known figure in town.”

    Apparently Richard Harris was a well known lobbyist in Sacramento political circles – and would have had the opportunity to hobb-nobb with Wolk, Thompson and Machado – who pushed for building a new school in Harris’ neighborhood in face of declining enrollment! Get the connection yet?

    In reponse to your last comment: “If you are capable of it, you need to think harder and consider what people in Davis knew at the time the decisions were made, not the facts that came out years later. If you did that, you would be a Voice of Reason, and not a shallow conspiracy theorist.”

    Rich, don’t get so defensive. I didn’t attack you personally, just tried to pose some alternative thinking. In my opinion your argument that building Marguerite Montgomery was in no way connected with the closing of Valley Oak just isn’t convincing. Your time line doesn’t mesh with reality. At the time the appeal to override the state’s decision not to give construction funds to build Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School occurred when the district knew about declining enrollment in Davis. Thus they would know there would not be enough money to go around to fund all ten elementary schools. The school board did not opt to keep MME closed until funding was available, but instead elected to keep it open and make some other school in a much poorer neighborhood the sacrificial lamb.

    Now if you cannot see the logic in that, what more can I say…but many others in town seem to be getting it!

  189. “The future of Valley Oak Elementary, if the Charter School plan can be extinguished, will likely be the future home of the District administration with the current District location being sold off for development.”

    To the best of my knowledge, there is no plan (by anyone) to sell the B Street property. The redevelopment would, I understand, include all the necessary office space for the school district, as well as space for other users.

  190. “The future of Valley Oak Elementary, if the Charter School plan can be extinguished, will likely be the future home of the District administration with the current District location being sold off for development.”

    To the best of my knowledge, there is no plan (by anyone) to sell the B Street property. The redevelopment would, I understand, include all the necessary office space for the school district, as well as space for other users.

  191. “The future of Valley Oak Elementary, if the Charter School plan can be extinguished, will likely be the future home of the District administration with the current District location being sold off for development.”

    To the best of my knowledge, there is no plan (by anyone) to sell the B Street property. The redevelopment would, I understand, include all the necessary office space for the school district, as well as space for other users.

  192. “The future of Valley Oak Elementary, if the Charter School plan can be extinguished, will likely be the future home of the District administration with the current District location being sold off for development.”

    To the best of my knowledge, there is no plan (by anyone) to sell the B Street property. The redevelopment would, I understand, include all the necessary office space for the school district, as well as space for other users.

  193. “Said who, the school board? The school administration? The consultant they paid to do the research? Do you necessarily think they have any credibility after what is beginning to come out about all of this?”

    You must be a new resident to Davis, or perhaps someone who never visited any of our elementary schools in the late 1990s up to about 2002. If you had gone to any of the schools at that time, you would have seen the massive overcrowding with your own eyes. The evidence of that still remains — look at all of the permanent “temporary” classroom space on each of the older campuses. All of that was installed in the period when Korematsu and Montgomery were planned.

    “To be more specific, the district went after construction funds for Marguerite Elementary when they knew there was declining enrollment, and that it would be a continuing trend!”

    This is incorrect. There had been an increase in our K-6 population every year up to and including the year Montgomery was opened. Check the stats on the DJUSD website for enrollment figures.

    “At the time the appeal to override the state’s decision not to give construction funds to build Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School occurred when the district knew about declining enrollment in Davis.”

    You seem to be confused. The appeal to override the state’s decision came after Montgomery was built. And even when Montgomery had opened, the K-6 population had not declined. You can look up the enrollment figures to see that.

    “The school board did not opt to keep MME closed until funding was available, but instead elected to keep it open and make some other school in a much poorer neighborhood the sacrificial lamb.”

    You are confusing operational funding with construction funding. Operational funding comes from ADA and categoricals tied to our student body. The money to build Montgomery came at first entirely from the bond measure Davis voters passed (and later from the state matching funds, which the DJUSD originally screwed up).

  194. “Said who, the school board? The school administration? The consultant they paid to do the research? Do you necessarily think they have any credibility after what is beginning to come out about all of this?”

    You must be a new resident to Davis, or perhaps someone who never visited any of our elementary schools in the late 1990s up to about 2002. If you had gone to any of the schools at that time, you would have seen the massive overcrowding with your own eyes. The evidence of that still remains — look at all of the permanent “temporary” classroom space on each of the older campuses. All of that was installed in the period when Korematsu and Montgomery were planned.

    “To be more specific, the district went after construction funds for Marguerite Elementary when they knew there was declining enrollment, and that it would be a continuing trend!”

    This is incorrect. There had been an increase in our K-6 population every year up to and including the year Montgomery was opened. Check the stats on the DJUSD website for enrollment figures.

    “At the time the appeal to override the state’s decision not to give construction funds to build Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School occurred when the district knew about declining enrollment in Davis.”

    You seem to be confused. The appeal to override the state’s decision came after Montgomery was built. And even when Montgomery had opened, the K-6 population had not declined. You can look up the enrollment figures to see that.

    “The school board did not opt to keep MME closed until funding was available, but instead elected to keep it open and make some other school in a much poorer neighborhood the sacrificial lamb.”

    You are confusing operational funding with construction funding. Operational funding comes from ADA and categoricals tied to our student body. The money to build Montgomery came at first entirely from the bond measure Davis voters passed (and later from the state matching funds, which the DJUSD originally screwed up).

  195. “Said who, the school board? The school administration? The consultant they paid to do the research? Do you necessarily think they have any credibility after what is beginning to come out about all of this?”

    You must be a new resident to Davis, or perhaps someone who never visited any of our elementary schools in the late 1990s up to about 2002. If you had gone to any of the schools at that time, you would have seen the massive overcrowding with your own eyes. The evidence of that still remains — look at all of the permanent “temporary” classroom space on each of the older campuses. All of that was installed in the period when Korematsu and Montgomery were planned.

    “To be more specific, the district went after construction funds for Marguerite Elementary when they knew there was declining enrollment, and that it would be a continuing trend!”

    This is incorrect. There had been an increase in our K-6 population every year up to and including the year Montgomery was opened. Check the stats on the DJUSD website for enrollment figures.

    “At the time the appeal to override the state’s decision not to give construction funds to build Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School occurred when the district knew about declining enrollment in Davis.”

    You seem to be confused. The appeal to override the state’s decision came after Montgomery was built. And even when Montgomery had opened, the K-6 population had not declined. You can look up the enrollment figures to see that.

    “The school board did not opt to keep MME closed until funding was available, but instead elected to keep it open and make some other school in a much poorer neighborhood the sacrificial lamb.”

    You are confusing operational funding with construction funding. Operational funding comes from ADA and categoricals tied to our student body. The money to build Montgomery came at first entirely from the bond measure Davis voters passed (and later from the state matching funds, which the DJUSD originally screwed up).

  196. “Said who, the school board? The school administration? The consultant they paid to do the research? Do you necessarily think they have any credibility after what is beginning to come out about all of this?”

    You must be a new resident to Davis, or perhaps someone who never visited any of our elementary schools in the late 1990s up to about 2002. If you had gone to any of the schools at that time, you would have seen the massive overcrowding with your own eyes. The evidence of that still remains — look at all of the permanent “temporary” classroom space on each of the older campuses. All of that was installed in the period when Korematsu and Montgomery were planned.

    “To be more specific, the district went after construction funds for Marguerite Elementary when they knew there was declining enrollment, and that it would be a continuing trend!”

    This is incorrect. There had been an increase in our K-6 population every year up to and including the year Montgomery was opened. Check the stats on the DJUSD website for enrollment figures.

    “At the time the appeal to override the state’s decision not to give construction funds to build Marguerite Montgomery Elementary School occurred when the district knew about declining enrollment in Davis.”

    You seem to be confused. The appeal to override the state’s decision came after Montgomery was built. And even when Montgomery had opened, the K-6 population had not declined. You can look up the enrollment figures to see that.

    “The school board did not opt to keep MME closed until funding was available, but instead elected to keep it open and make some other school in a much poorer neighborhood the sacrificial lamb.”

    You are confusing operational funding with construction funding. Operational funding comes from ADA and categoricals tied to our student body. The money to build Montgomery came at first entirely from the bond measure Davis voters passed (and later from the state matching funds, which the DJUSD originally screwed up).

  197. anonymous 1:51 said:
    “at their planned Valley Oak Charter School site”

    I think we need to remember that it is the DJUSD site until they decide what to do with it. The Charter can ask for that space, but the school district is under no obligation to give them the exact space that they ask for. As I have followed this issue, from the first whiff that VO might be closed the discussion has focussed on consolidating the varied pre-schools run by the district. Without naming Valley Oak as the future site, they have talked all around it. I would be very surprised to see the district offices there anytime soon. If I had to make a guess, I would say that they want to put the preschools and maybe DSIS on that site.

  198. anonymous 1:51 said:
    “at their planned Valley Oak Charter School site”

    I think we need to remember that it is the DJUSD site until they decide what to do with it. The Charter can ask for that space, but the school district is under no obligation to give them the exact space that they ask for. As I have followed this issue, from the first whiff that VO might be closed the discussion has focussed on consolidating the varied pre-schools run by the district. Without naming Valley Oak as the future site, they have talked all around it. I would be very surprised to see the district offices there anytime soon. If I had to make a guess, I would say that they want to put the preschools and maybe DSIS on that site.

  199. anonymous 1:51 said:
    “at their planned Valley Oak Charter School site”

    I think we need to remember that it is the DJUSD site until they decide what to do with it. The Charter can ask for that space, but the school district is under no obligation to give them the exact space that they ask for. As I have followed this issue, from the first whiff that VO might be closed the discussion has focussed on consolidating the varied pre-schools run by the district. Without naming Valley Oak as the future site, they have talked all around it. I would be very surprised to see the district offices there anytime soon. If I had to make a guess, I would say that they want to put the preschools and maybe DSIS on that site.

  200. anonymous 1:51 said:
    “at their planned Valley Oak Charter School site”

    I think we need to remember that it is the DJUSD site until they decide what to do with it. The Charter can ask for that space, but the school district is under no obligation to give them the exact space that they ask for. As I have followed this issue, from the first whiff that VO might be closed the discussion has focussed on consolidating the varied pre-schools run by the district. Without naming Valley Oak as the future site, they have talked all around it. I would be very surprised to see the district offices there anytime soon. If I had to make a guess, I would say that they want to put the preschools and maybe DSIS on that site.

  201. South Davis was long overdue for an elementary school, and anyone with a kid in any of the Davis schools at the time knew they were all overcrowded. I don’t recall discussion of future enrollment projections at the time.

    As for the history of MME, this is
    from the March 30, 2006 Best Uses task force minutes:

    “District Consultant Vern Weber attended the meeting along
    with about 15 members of the public.
    Chair Trost introduced the Task Force members and Mr. Weber and explained the charge as
    defined by the School Board. Mr. Weber briefly explained the history behind the building of
    Korematsu. He mentioned that a decline in K­6 enrollment was forecast, but not quite as much
    as actually occurred. The opportunity to use State funds for a portion of the capital cost of the
    Korematsu facility was a factor in the (1999) Board’s decision to build the school. Mr. Weber
    and Tom Duffy collaborated on an explanation of the differing purposes of capital funds
    (generally building and renovating) and General Funds (operating costs.) General Funds depend
    directly on student enrollment. Mr. Weber pointed out that the delay in opening Korematsu has
    always been due to a shortage of General Funds in the District.”

  202. South Davis was long overdue for an elementary school, and anyone with a kid in any of the Davis schools at the time knew they were all overcrowded. I don’t recall discussion of future enrollment projections at the time.

    As for the history of MME, this is
    from the March 30, 2006 Best Uses task force minutes:

    “District Consultant Vern Weber attended the meeting along
    with about 15 members of the public.
    Chair Trost introduced the Task Force members and Mr. Weber and explained the charge as
    defined by the School Board. Mr. Weber briefly explained the history behind the building of
    Korematsu. He mentioned that a decline in K­6 enrollment was forecast, but not quite as much
    as actually occurred. The opportunity to use State funds for a portion of the capital cost of the
    Korematsu facility was a factor in the (1999) Board’s decision to build the school. Mr. Weber
    and Tom Duffy collaborated on an explanation of the differing purposes of capital funds
    (generally building and renovating) and General Funds (operating costs.) General Funds depend
    directly on student enrollment. Mr. Weber pointed out that the delay in opening Korematsu has
    always been due to a shortage of General Funds in the District.”

  203. South Davis was long overdue for an elementary school, and anyone with a kid in any of the Davis schools at the time knew they were all overcrowded. I don’t recall discussion of future enrollment projections at the time.

    As for the history of MME, this is
    from the March 30, 2006 Best Uses task force minutes:

    “District Consultant Vern Weber attended the meeting along
    with about 15 members of the public.
    Chair Trost introduced the Task Force members and Mr. Weber and explained the charge as
    defined by the School Board. Mr. Weber briefly explained the history behind the building of
    Korematsu. He mentioned that a decline in K­6 enrollment was forecast, but not quite as much
    as actually occurred. The opportunity to use State funds for a portion of the capital cost of the
    Korematsu facility was a factor in the (1999) Board’s decision to build the school. Mr. Weber
    and Tom Duffy collaborated on an explanation of the differing purposes of capital funds
    (generally building and renovating) and General Funds (operating costs.) General Funds depend
    directly on student enrollment. Mr. Weber pointed out that the delay in opening Korematsu has
    always been due to a shortage of General Funds in the District.”

  204. South Davis was long overdue for an elementary school, and anyone with a kid in any of the Davis schools at the time knew they were all overcrowded. I don’t recall discussion of future enrollment projections at the time.

    As for the history of MME, this is
    from the March 30, 2006 Best Uses task force minutes:

    “District Consultant Vern Weber attended the meeting along
    with about 15 members of the public.
    Chair Trost introduced the Task Force members and Mr. Weber and explained the charge as
    defined by the School Board. Mr. Weber briefly explained the history behind the building of
    Korematsu. He mentioned that a decline in K­6 enrollment was forecast, but not quite as much
    as actually occurred. The opportunity to use State funds for a portion of the capital cost of the
    Korematsu facility was a factor in the (1999) Board’s decision to build the school. Mr. Weber
    and Tom Duffy collaborated on an explanation of the differing purposes of capital funds
    (generally building and renovating) and General Funds (operating costs.) General Funds depend
    directly on student enrollment. Mr. Weber pointed out that the delay in opening Korematsu has
    always been due to a shortage of General Funds in the District.”

  205. Apologies to everyone on this blog – it seems I may have been mistaken on the timeline with respect to the construction of Marguerite Montgomery Elementary (I misinterpreted some wording I read elsewhere – twenty lashes with a wet noodle to me!!!). I will assume it was 2002 that construction was begun, then declining enrollment occurred later, then there was a push to finish up despite the fall in enrollment. Do I have the sequence correctly now?

    In Don Shor’s post, of past minutes of the Best Uses Task Force, it states: “As for the history of MME, this is from the March 30, 2006 Best Uses task force minutes:

    “…Mr. Weber briefly explained the history behind the building of
    Korematsu. He mentioned that a decline in K­-6 enrollment was forecast, but not quite as much
    as actually occurred. The opportunity to use State funds for a portion of the capital cost of the Korematsu facility was a factor in the (1999) Board’s decision to build the school.”

    A decline in K-6 enrollment was forecast, with the implication that because state funds were available to construct a new school, they went ahead and built it anyway. What is being said here? The general policy of the district is to build new schools whether or not they are needed, because funding is available for construction? Only problem with that concept is guess what? There may not be enough funding to RUN A RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED SCHOOL – if enrollment is down, as happened in the case of Valley Oak!!!

    Operational funding is not the same as funding for construction. But the two most certainly should be correlated. Too much construction can lead to too little operational funding. After all, for each school that is built, there must be corresponding money to run it.

    Nor do I put much faith in any statistics put out by our school district. Think about it – first of all these are the same people that:
    1) did not want a whiff of fiscal mismanagement to come out in public – to ensure the passage of Measure Q – to keep the public in the dark as to what was really going on;
    2) hired an incompetent superintendent who allowed a questionable asst superintendent under him to operate with impunity – and as a result, a deadline was missed to apply for funding because the asst supt was too busy running a business on the side instead of doing what he was paid for;
    3) forgot to allocate funding for King High, so covered up their goof by “additional borrowing… secured by future receipts from existing bond measures”;
    4) are paying for two superintendents for the work of only one;
    5) did not forecast future enrollment correctly at all – missed it by a mile, which resulted in the closing of Valley Oak;
    6) won’t pay the teachers a decent wage, while paying $240,000 a year for an inept superintendent, then $190,000 for another one as a replacement;
    7) allow creation of new programs by ambitious faculty for nothing more than stepping stones to administrative positions;
    8) encourage new programs to fix previous failures as in the vending machine debacle;
    9) came up with a truancy policy that no one liked and would not help the very students it was designed to assist;
    10) had to come up with a policy against bullying even though it is well known this has been going on for years and teachers / administrators have just looked the other way;
    11) funding the AVID program at DHS, which is nothing more than a catch-all for lumping together those students with problems, whether they have a learning disability or a behavioral problem – which has led to bullying;
    12) are proposing selling off school property as a quick fix for their own fiscal mismanagement, etc, etc, etc. ad nauseum.

    Furthermore, boundary lines can be tweaked either way to get the result desired – a school that is undercrowded or overcrowded. Remember, there was talk in 2002 of closing Valley Oak, even though a new school had just come on line – Margaruerite Montgomery Elementary, constructed because of “overcrowding”.

    Our illustrious school board members would have us believe that there was terrible overcrowding up until 2002, when suddenly there was declining enrollment so severe the state was hesitant to provide funding to finish up? Or that everything was fiscally sound until 2005, when all of a sudden everything went south financially as soon as Sallee and West left? Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze!!!

    By the way, I have had three children go through Davis schools, and Davis has no idea what real crowding is. In 1973 I used to teach public school outside Baltimore, MD in a portable classroom with 42 teens in there at a time. Made for an interesting teaching challenge! Californians these days are just spoiled! (I know, I know, our state law requires smaller class sizes, particularly for elementary schools!)

    I suspect the Valley Oak Charter School will pass muster (best thing that could have ever happened to the public school system in Davis if it does) – leaving the School Board no choice but to approve it. It’s either that or have the whole thing appealed to the county/state board, which will most likely approve it. So then what does the school board / district do, if there is not enough operational funding, which is most likely what is going to happen with declining enrollment?

    Get ready for a request from John Q. Taxpayer to fork over more tax dollars to clean up the mess created by past and present school boards / administrations. If we balk, expect the threat of reducing art and music programs or basic services – the usual blackmail that is used by the district/board to convince us to open our wallets and shell out more dough.

    I say let’s say NO TO MEASURE R – because it is sure to come sooner than later!!

  206. Apologies to everyone on this blog – it seems I may have been mistaken on the timeline with respect to the construction of Marguerite Montgomery Elementary (I misinterpreted some wording I read elsewhere – twenty lashes with a wet noodle to me!!!). I will assume it was 2002 that construction was begun, then declining enrollment occurred later, then there was a push to finish up despite the fall in enrollment. Do I have the sequence correctly now?

    In Don Shor’s post, of past minutes of the Best Uses Task Force, it states: “As for the history of MME, this is from the March 30, 2006 Best Uses task force minutes:

    “…Mr. Weber briefly explained the history behind the building of
    Korematsu. He mentioned that a decline in K­-6 enrollment was forecast, but not quite as much
    as actually occurred. The opportunity to use State funds for a portion of the capital cost of the Korematsu facility was a factor in the (1999) Board’s decision to build the school.”

    A decline in K-6 enrollment was forecast, with the implication that because state funds were available to construct a new school, they went ahead and built it anyway. What is being said here? The general policy of the district is to build new schools whether or not they are needed, because funding is available for construction? Only problem with that concept is guess what? There may not be enough funding to RUN A RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED SCHOOL – if enrollment is down, as happened in the case of Valley Oak!!!

    Operational funding is not the same as funding for construction. But the two most certainly should be correlated. Too much construction can lead to too little operational funding. After all, for each school that is built, there must be corresponding money to run it.

    Nor do I put much faith in any statistics put out by our school district. Think about it – first of all these are the same people that:
    1) did not want a whiff of fiscal mismanagement to come out in public – to ensure the passage of Measure Q – to keep the public in the dark as to what was really going on;
    2) hired an incompetent superintendent who allowed a questionable asst superintendent under him to operate with impunity – and as a result, a deadline was missed to apply for funding because the asst supt was too busy running a business on the side instead of doing what he was paid for;
    3) forgot to allocate funding for King High, so covered up their goof by “additional borrowing… secured by future receipts from existing bond measures”;
    4) are paying for two superintendents for the work of only one;
    5) did not forecast future enrollment correctly at all – missed it by a mile, which resulted in the closing of Valley Oak;
    6) won’t pay the teachers a decent wage, while paying $240,000 a year for an inept superintendent, then $190,000 for another one as a replacement;
    7) allow creation of new programs by ambitious faculty for nothing more than stepping stones to administrative positions;
    8) encourage new programs to fix previous failures as in the vending machine debacle;
    9) came up with a truancy policy that no one liked and would not help the very students it was designed to assist;
    10) had to come up with a policy against bullying even though it is well known this has been going on for years and teachers / administrators have just looked the other way;
    11) funding the AVID program at DHS, which is nothing more than a catch-all for lumping together those students with problems, whether they have a learning disability or a behavioral problem – which has led to bullying;
    12) are proposing selling off school property as a quick fix for their own fiscal mismanagement, etc, etc, etc. ad nauseum.

    Furthermore, boundary lines can be tweaked either way to get the result desired – a school that is undercrowded or overcrowded. Remember, there was talk in 2002 of closing Valley Oak, even though a new school had just come on line – Margaruerite Montgomery Elementary, constructed because of “overcrowding”.

    Our illustrious school board members would have us believe that there was terrible overcrowding up until 2002, when suddenly there was declining enrollment so severe the state was hesitant to provide funding to finish up? Or that everything was fiscally sound until 2005, when all of a sudden everything went south financially as soon as Sallee and West left? Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze!!!

    By the way, I have had three children go through Davis schools, and Davis has no idea what real crowding is. In 1973 I used to teach public school outside Baltimore, MD in a portable classroom with 42 teens in there at a time. Made for an interesting teaching challenge! Californians these days are just spoiled! (I know, I know, our state law requires smaller class sizes, particularly for elementary schools!)

    I suspect the Valley Oak Charter School will pass muster (best thing that could have ever happened to the public school system in Davis if it does) – leaving the School Board no choice but to approve it. It’s either that or have the whole thing appealed to the county/state board, which will most likely approve it. So then what does the school board / district do, if there is not enough operational funding, which is most likely what is going to happen with declining enrollment?

    Get ready for a request from John Q. Taxpayer to fork over more tax dollars to clean up the mess created by past and present school boards / administrations. If we balk, expect the threat of reducing art and music programs or basic services – the usual blackmail that is used by the district/board to convince us to open our wallets and shell out more dough.

    I say let’s say NO TO MEASURE R – because it is sure to come sooner than later!!

  207. Apologies to everyone on this blog – it seems I may have been mistaken on the timeline with respect to the construction of Marguerite Montgomery Elementary (I misinterpreted some wording I read elsewhere – twenty lashes with a wet noodle to me!!!). I will assume it was 2002 that construction was begun, then declining enrollment occurred later, then there was a push to finish up despite the fall in enrollment. Do I have the sequence correctly now?

    In Don Shor’s post, of past minutes of the Best Uses Task Force, it states: “As for the history of MME, this is from the March 30, 2006 Best Uses task force minutes:

    “…Mr. Weber briefly explained the history behind the building of
    Korematsu. He mentioned that a decline in K­-6 enrollment was forecast, but not quite as much
    as actually occurred. The opportunity to use State funds for a portion of the capital cost of the Korematsu facility was a factor in the (1999) Board’s decision to build the school.”

    A decline in K-6 enrollment was forecast, with the implication that because state funds were available to construct a new school, they went ahead and built it anyway. What is being said here? The general policy of the district is to build new schools whether or not they are needed, because funding is available for construction? Only problem with that concept is guess what? There may not be enough funding to RUN A RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED SCHOOL – if enrollment is down, as happened in the case of Valley Oak!!!

    Operational funding is not the same as funding for construction. But the two most certainly should be correlated. Too much construction can lead to too little operational funding. After all, for each school that is built, there must be corresponding money to run it.

    Nor do I put much faith in any statistics put out by our school district. Think about it – first of all these are the same people that:
    1) did not want a whiff of fiscal mismanagement to come out in public – to ensure the passage of Measure Q – to keep the public in the dark as to what was really going on;
    2) hired an incompetent superintendent who allowed a questionable asst superintendent under him to operate with impunity – and as a result, a deadline was missed to apply for funding because the asst supt was too busy running a business on the side instead of doing what he was paid for;
    3) forgot to allocate funding for King High, so covered up their goof by “additional borrowing… secured by future receipts from existing bond measures”;
    4) are paying for two superintendents for the work of only one;
    5) did not forecast future enrollment correctly at all – missed it by a mile, which resulted in the closing of Valley Oak;
    6) won’t pay the teachers a decent wage, while paying $240,000 a year for an inept superintendent, then $190,000 for another one as a replacement;
    7) allow creation of new programs by ambitious faculty for nothing more than stepping stones to administrative positions;
    8) encourage new programs to fix previous failures as in the vending machine debacle;
    9) came up with a truancy policy that no one liked and would not help the very students it was designed to assist;
    10) had to come up with a policy against bullying even though it is well known this has been going on for years and teachers / administrators have just looked the other way;
    11) funding the AVID program at DHS, which is nothing more than a catch-all for lumping together those students with problems, whether they have a learning disability or a behavioral problem – which has led to bullying;
    12) are proposing selling off school property as a quick fix for their own fiscal mismanagement, etc, etc, etc. ad nauseum.

    Furthermore, boundary lines can be tweaked either way to get the result desired – a school that is undercrowded or overcrowded. Remember, there was talk in 2002 of closing Valley Oak, even though a new school had just come on line – Margaruerite Montgomery Elementary, constructed because of “overcrowding”.

    Our illustrious school board members would have us believe that there was terrible overcrowding up until 2002, when suddenly there was declining enrollment so severe the state was hesitant to provide funding to finish up? Or that everything was fiscally sound until 2005, when all of a sudden everything went south financially as soon as Sallee and West left? Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze!!!

    By the way, I have had three children go through Davis schools, and Davis has no idea what real crowding is. In 1973 I used to teach public school outside Baltimore, MD in a portable classroom with 42 teens in there at a time. Made for an interesting teaching challenge! Californians these days are just spoiled! (I know, I know, our state law requires smaller class sizes, particularly for elementary schools!)

    I suspect the Valley Oak Charter School will pass muster (best thing that could have ever happened to the public school system in Davis if it does) – leaving the School Board no choice but to approve it. It’s either that or have the whole thing appealed to the county/state board, which will most likely approve it. So then what does the school board / district do, if there is not enough operational funding, which is most likely what is going to happen with declining enrollment?

    Get ready for a request from John Q. Taxpayer to fork over more tax dollars to clean up the mess created by past and present school boards / administrations. If we balk, expect the threat of reducing art and music programs or basic services – the usual blackmail that is used by the district/board to convince us to open our wallets and shell out more dough.

    I say let’s say NO TO MEASURE R – because it is sure to come sooner than later!!

  208. Apologies to everyone on this blog – it seems I may have been mistaken on the timeline with respect to the construction of Marguerite Montgomery Elementary (I misinterpreted some wording I read elsewhere – twenty lashes with a wet noodle to me!!!). I will assume it was 2002 that construction was begun, then declining enrollment occurred later, then there was a push to finish up despite the fall in enrollment. Do I have the sequence correctly now?

    In Don Shor’s post, of past minutes of the Best Uses Task Force, it states: “As for the history of MME, this is from the March 30, 2006 Best Uses task force minutes:

    “…Mr. Weber briefly explained the history behind the building of
    Korematsu. He mentioned that a decline in K­-6 enrollment was forecast, but not quite as much
    as actually occurred. The opportunity to use State funds for a portion of the capital cost of the Korematsu facility was a factor in the (1999) Board’s decision to build the school.”

    A decline in K-6 enrollment was forecast, with the implication that because state funds were available to construct a new school, they went ahead and built it anyway. What is being said here? The general policy of the district is to build new schools whether or not they are needed, because funding is available for construction? Only problem with that concept is guess what? There may not be enough funding to RUN A RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED SCHOOL – if enrollment is down, as happened in the case of Valley Oak!!!

    Operational funding is not the same as funding for construction. But the two most certainly should be correlated. Too much construction can lead to too little operational funding. After all, for each school that is built, there must be corresponding money to run it.

    Nor do I put much faith in any statistics put out by our school district. Think about it – first of all these are the same people that:
    1) did not want a whiff of fiscal mismanagement to come out in public – to ensure the passage of Measure Q – to keep the public in the dark as to what was really going on;
    2) hired an incompetent superintendent who allowed a questionable asst superintendent under him to operate with impunity – and as a result, a deadline was missed to apply for funding because the asst supt was too busy running a business on the side instead of doing what he was paid for;
    3) forgot to allocate funding for King High, so covered up their goof by “additional borrowing… secured by future receipts from existing bond measures”;
    4) are paying for two superintendents for the work of only one;
    5) did not forecast future enrollment correctly at all – missed it by a mile, which resulted in the closing of Valley Oak;
    6) won’t pay the teachers a decent wage, while paying $240,000 a year for an inept superintendent, then $190,000 for another one as a replacement;
    7) allow creation of new programs by ambitious faculty for nothing more than stepping stones to administrative positions;
    8) encourage new programs to fix previous failures as in the vending machine debacle;
    9) came up with a truancy policy that no one liked and would not help the very students it was designed to assist;
    10) had to come up with a policy against bullying even though it is well known this has been going on for years and teachers / administrators have just looked the other way;
    11) funding the AVID program at DHS, which is nothing more than a catch-all for lumping together those students with problems, whether they have a learning disability or a behavioral problem – which has led to bullying;
    12) are proposing selling off school property as a quick fix for their own fiscal mismanagement, etc, etc, etc. ad nauseum.

    Furthermore, boundary lines can be tweaked either way to get the result desired – a school that is undercrowded or overcrowded. Remember, there was talk in 2002 of closing Valley Oak, even though a new school had just come on line – Margaruerite Montgomery Elementary, constructed because of “overcrowding”.

    Our illustrious school board members would have us believe that there was terrible overcrowding up until 2002, when suddenly there was declining enrollment so severe the state was hesitant to provide funding to finish up? Or that everything was fiscally sound until 2005, when all of a sudden everything went south financially as soon as Sallee and West left? Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze!!!

    By the way, I have had three children go through Davis schools, and Davis has no idea what real crowding is. In 1973 I used to teach public school outside Baltimore, MD in a portable classroom with 42 teens in there at a time. Made for an interesting teaching challenge! Californians these days are just spoiled! (I know, I know, our state law requires smaller class sizes, particularly for elementary schools!)

    I suspect the Valley Oak Charter School will pass muster (best thing that could have ever happened to the public school system in Davis if it does) – leaving the School Board no choice but to approve it. It’s either that or have the whole thing appealed to the county/state board, which will most likely approve it. So then what does the school board / district do, if there is not enough operational funding, which is most likely what is going to happen with declining enrollment?

    Get ready for a request from John Q. Taxpayer to fork over more tax dollars to clean up the mess created by past and present school boards / administrations. If we balk, expect the threat of reducing art and music programs or basic services – the usual blackmail that is used by the district/board to convince us to open our wallets and shell out more dough.

    I say let’s say NO TO MEASURE R – because it is sure to come sooner than later!!

  209. “The Charter can ask for that space, but the school district is under no obligation to give them the exact space that they ask for…”

    This argument is patently an attempt to “terrorize” the VO neighborhood parents. A District decision to scatter the Charter School in pieces throughout the District would be political dynamite for the
    Board majority that would support this idea and there is no question that, given the elective nature of the alternative use argument they would present, an appeal decision would reject this decision. The Valley Oak Charter “founding fathers”(amd mothers) have the backbone to withstand such “District-sponsonred terrorism”.

  210. “The Charter can ask for that space, but the school district is under no obligation to give them the exact space that they ask for…”

    This argument is patently an attempt to “terrorize” the VO neighborhood parents. A District decision to scatter the Charter School in pieces throughout the District would be political dynamite for the
    Board majority that would support this idea and there is no question that, given the elective nature of the alternative use argument they would present, an appeal decision would reject this decision. The Valley Oak Charter “founding fathers”(amd mothers) have the backbone to withstand such “District-sponsonred terrorism”.

  211. “The Charter can ask for that space, but the school district is under no obligation to give them the exact space that they ask for…”

    This argument is patently an attempt to “terrorize” the VO neighborhood parents. A District decision to scatter the Charter School in pieces throughout the District would be political dynamite for the
    Board majority that would support this idea and there is no question that, given the elective nature of the alternative use argument they would present, an appeal decision would reject this decision. The Valley Oak Charter “founding fathers”(amd mothers) have the backbone to withstand such “District-sponsonred terrorism”.

  212. “The Charter can ask for that space, but the school district is under no obligation to give them the exact space that they ask for…”

    This argument is patently an attempt to “terrorize” the VO neighborhood parents. A District decision to scatter the Charter School in pieces throughout the District would be political dynamite for the
    Board majority that would support this idea and there is no question that, given the elective nature of the alternative use argument they would present, an appeal decision would reject this decision. The Valley Oak Charter “founding fathers”(amd mothers) have the backbone to withstand such “District-sponsonred terrorism”.

  213. VOICE: “A decline in K-6 enrollment was forecast, with the implication that because state funds were available to construct a new school, they went ahead and built it anyway. What is being said here? The general policy of the district is to build new schools whether or not they are needed, because funding is available for construction?”

    No doubt the district made a big mistake here. I don’t question that. But there are two other significant factors which need to be understood:

    1) The massive increase in home prices. From 2000-05, home prices in Davis tripled. That was an unprecedented and unforeseen circumstance. It had, I believe, the effect of pricing out a lot of families with young kids. Those folks moved to Woodland, Natomas and Elk Grove, where a lot of “starter homes” were on the market. The people moving into Davis were in large part older folks and some old folks who didn’t have any children at all. Thus, while demographers were predicting a small baby dip at the time, it was compounded by the sudden real estate inflation; and

    2) Measure J. Davis had been growing rapidly from about 1992-1999. New neighborhoods were going up all over town. It became the norm to think that more and more people (and kids) would be added. With the existing congestion — some Davis schools in 2000 had 33% more kids than they were designed for — it was not surprising that the electorate in town voted overwhelmingly for the bonds to build 2 new elementaries and the new junior high school.

    But, coincidental with that bond vote, we approved Measure J, in order to slow down the growth on our periphery. And Measure J has worked. Since 2000, we have not approved any peripheral housing, and very little interior space is left for development. As a result, our total population is estimated to be lower now in 2007 than it was 5 years ago (with fewer people living in each residence). The freeze on growth was not foreseen by voters or the District when the plans were made to build the 3 new schools.

    If we didn’t have Measure J, Covell Village would have children living in it by now. Those kids would have gone to Birch Lane or Valley Oak. I think the District assumed growth was going to continue apace. But that was wrong and that has had a dampering effect on our K-6 population.

    ——

    By the way…. Had Covell Village been approved by the voters, I wonder if the developers would have had a hard time selling houses out there in this market? The plan was to build around 185 units a year (many of which were apartment units). I don’t know, given the lending market, if that would have been possible. Certainly, the lower prices would have hurt the bottom line for Covell Village Partners. And by adding almost 200 new units a year to Davis, it would have negatively impacted the prices existing homeowners in Davis could now expect, given this soft market.

  214. VOICE: “A decline in K-6 enrollment was forecast, with the implication that because state funds were available to construct a new school, they went ahead and built it anyway. What is being said here? The general policy of the district is to build new schools whether or not they are needed, because funding is available for construction?”

    No doubt the district made a big mistake here. I don’t question that. But there are two other significant factors which need to be understood:

    1) The massive increase in home prices. From 2000-05, home prices in Davis tripled. That was an unprecedented and unforeseen circumstance. It had, I believe, the effect of pricing out a lot of families with young kids. Those folks moved to Woodland, Natomas and Elk Grove, where a lot of “starter homes” were on the market. The people moving into Davis were in large part older folks and some old folks who didn’t have any children at all. Thus, while demographers were predicting a small baby dip at the time, it was compounded by the sudden real estate inflation; and

    2) Measure J. Davis had been growing rapidly from about 1992-1999. New neighborhoods were going up all over town. It became the norm to think that more and more people (and kids) would be added. With the existing congestion — some Davis schools in 2000 had 33% more kids than they were designed for — it was not surprising that the electorate in town voted overwhelmingly for the bonds to build 2 new elementaries and the new junior high school.

    But, coincidental with that bond vote, we approved Measure J, in order to slow down the growth on our periphery. And Measure J has worked. Since 2000, we have not approved any peripheral housing, and very little interior space is left for development. As a result, our total population is estimated to be lower now in 2007 than it was 5 years ago (with fewer people living in each residence). The freeze on growth was not foreseen by voters or the District when the plans were made to build the 3 new schools.

    If we didn’t have Measure J, Covell Village would have children living in it by now. Those kids would have gone to Birch Lane or Valley Oak. I think the District assumed growth was going to continue apace. But that was wrong and that has had a dampering effect on our K-6 population.

    ——

    By the way…. Had Covell Village been approved by the voters, I wonder if the developers would have had a hard time selling houses out there in this market? The plan was to build around 185 units a year (many of which were apartment units). I don’t know, given the lending market, if that would have been possible. Certainly, the lower prices would have hurt the bottom line for Covell Village Partners. And by adding almost 200 new units a year to Davis, it would have negatively impacted the prices existing homeowners in Davis could now expect, given this soft market.

  215. VOICE: “A decline in K-6 enrollment was forecast, with the implication that because state funds were available to construct a new school, they went ahead and built it anyway. What is being said here? The general policy of the district is to build new schools whether or not they are needed, because funding is available for construction?”

    No doubt the district made a big mistake here. I don’t question that. But there are two other significant factors which need to be understood:

    1) The massive increase in home prices. From 2000-05, home prices in Davis tripled. That was an unprecedented and unforeseen circumstance. It had, I believe, the effect of pricing out a lot of families with young kids. Those folks moved to Woodland, Natomas and Elk Grove, where a lot of “starter homes” were on the market. The people moving into Davis were in large part older folks and some old folks who didn’t have any children at all. Thus, while demographers were predicting a small baby dip at the time, it was compounded by the sudden real estate inflation; and

    2) Measure J. Davis had been growing rapidly from about 1992-1999. New neighborhoods were going up all over town. It became the norm to think that more and more people (and kids) would be added. With the existing congestion — some Davis schools in 2000 had 33% more kids than they were designed for — it was not surprising that the electorate in town voted overwhelmingly for the bonds to build 2 new elementaries and the new junior high school.

    But, coincidental with that bond vote, we approved Measure J, in order to slow down the growth on our periphery. And Measure J has worked. Since 2000, we have not approved any peripheral housing, and very little interior space is left for development. As a result, our total population is estimated to be lower now in 2007 than it was 5 years ago (with fewer people living in each residence). The freeze on growth was not foreseen by voters or the District when the plans were made to build the 3 new schools.

    If we didn’t have Measure J, Covell Village would have children living in it by now. Those kids would have gone to Birch Lane or Valley Oak. I think the District assumed growth was going to continue apace. But that was wrong and that has had a dampering effect on our K-6 population.

    ——

    By the way…. Had Covell Village been approved by the voters, I wonder if the developers would have had a hard time selling houses out there in this market? The plan was to build around 185 units a year (many of which were apartment units). I don’t know, given the lending market, if that would have been possible. Certainly, the lower prices would have hurt the bottom line for Covell Village Partners. And by adding almost 200 new units a year to Davis, it would have negatively impacted the prices existing homeowners in Davis could now expect, given this soft market.

  216. VOICE: “A decline in K-6 enrollment was forecast, with the implication that because state funds were available to construct a new school, they went ahead and built it anyway. What is being said here? The general policy of the district is to build new schools whether or not they are needed, because funding is available for construction?”

    No doubt the district made a big mistake here. I don’t question that. But there are two other significant factors which need to be understood:

    1) The massive increase in home prices. From 2000-05, home prices in Davis tripled. That was an unprecedented and unforeseen circumstance. It had, I believe, the effect of pricing out a lot of families with young kids. Those folks moved to Woodland, Natomas and Elk Grove, where a lot of “starter homes” were on the market. The people moving into Davis were in large part older folks and some old folks who didn’t have any children at all. Thus, while demographers were predicting a small baby dip at the time, it was compounded by the sudden real estate inflation; and

    2) Measure J. Davis had been growing rapidly from about 1992-1999. New neighborhoods were going up all over town. It became the norm to think that more and more people (and kids) would be added. With the existing congestion — some Davis schools in 2000 had 33% more kids than they were designed for — it was not surprising that the electorate in town voted overwhelmingly for the bonds to build 2 new elementaries and the new junior high school.

    But, coincidental with that bond vote, we approved Measure J, in order to slow down the growth on our periphery. And Measure J has worked. Since 2000, we have not approved any peripheral housing, and very little interior space is left for development. As a result, our total population is estimated to be lower now in 2007 than it was 5 years ago (with fewer people living in each residence). The freeze on growth was not foreseen by voters or the District when the plans were made to build the 3 new schools.

    If we didn’t have Measure J, Covell Village would have children living in it by now. Those kids would have gone to Birch Lane or Valley Oak. I think the District assumed growth was going to continue apace. But that was wrong and that has had a dampering effect on our K-6 population.

    ——

    By the way…. Had Covell Village been approved by the voters, I wonder if the developers would have had a hard time selling houses out there in this market? The plan was to build around 185 units a year (many of which were apartment units). I don’t know, given the lending market, if that would have been possible. Certainly, the lower prices would have hurt the bottom line for Covell Village Partners. And by adding almost 200 new units a year to Davis, it would have negatively impacted the prices existing homeowners in Davis could now expect, given this soft market.

  217. Rich, you are beginning to sound like an apoligist for the past and present mistakes of the school board/district. Yet you totally ignore the implications of the latest scandal – “MartyGate”. The district/school board are not necessarily making decisions based on criteria that are honorable, but may be self-serving/self-dealing. Why doesn’t that seem to bother you? If you don’t smell a rat here, then one has to wonder where or with whom your allegiances lie??? Your tortured logic in trying to excuse collosal blunders (which you even admit were mistakes) is telling…

  218. Rich, you are beginning to sound like an apoligist for the past and present mistakes of the school board/district. Yet you totally ignore the implications of the latest scandal – “MartyGate”. The district/school board are not necessarily making decisions based on criteria that are honorable, but may be self-serving/self-dealing. Why doesn’t that seem to bother you? If you don’t smell a rat here, then one has to wonder where or with whom your allegiances lie??? Your tortured logic in trying to excuse collosal blunders (which you even admit were mistakes) is telling…

  219. Rich, you are beginning to sound like an apoligist for the past and present mistakes of the school board/district. Yet you totally ignore the implications of the latest scandal – “MartyGate”. The district/school board are not necessarily making decisions based on criteria that are honorable, but may be self-serving/self-dealing. Why doesn’t that seem to bother you? If you don’t smell a rat here, then one has to wonder where or with whom your allegiances lie??? Your tortured logic in trying to excuse collosal blunders (which you even admit were mistakes) is telling…

  220. Rich, you are beginning to sound like an apoligist for the past and present mistakes of the school board/district. Yet you totally ignore the implications of the latest scandal – “MartyGate”. The district/school board are not necessarily making decisions based on criteria that are honorable, but may be self-serving/self-dealing. Why doesn’t that seem to bother you? If you don’t smell a rat here, then one has to wonder where or with whom your allegiances lie??? Your tortured logic in trying to excuse collosal blunders (which you even admit were mistakes) is telling…

  221. Clint said…

    “Still state law is on the clear side of the petitioners…The Education Code specifies five grounds to deny a charter:”

    I have great respect for those working on the VO Charter, and believe the goal is worthy of the passion and long days/nights spent working on it. However, I find the VO Charter presented to the Board sufficiently lacking in specificity that one could argue that “the petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition”. For those who already have faith, it’s easy to believe — to see all you want to see in the generalities put forward. For the skeptic, “The xxxx program is based on state standards and addresses the needs of all learners.” and “All strands of the California Department of Education Content Standards…are addressed under the
    VOCS curriculum program. The curriculum offers a balanced instructional program…” just isn’t enough.

    The Charter is proposed as being supported by 3 pillars, one of which is the utilization of education technology …. There is nothing concrete on how this will be accomplished in a school wihtout a single computer, no grants that would supply equipment, and nothing obvious in the proposed budget that would provide for acquisition and maintenance of this equipment.

    I think it was appropriate that the Board expressed reservation.

    ——-
    I agree that the board members should ask questions to get at some specifics. The petition does give a lot of information. I assume the board will do “due diligence” at the next meeting and ask some more detailed questions.

    I’m not an expert on this, but I have been on aq curriculum committee, site council, and an accreditation committee, and I quickly learned that there is a lot of jargon in the education field. The petition uses all the right jargon. “All strands of the California Department of Education Content Standards…” has specific meaning to accreditation folks and education professionals.

    If they are going to use the existing curriculum (at least for the first year) then it already meets the stated objectives as well as state and local standards. Page 11 describes the usual curriculum committee process, and says “in partnership with the DJUSD Curriculum … staff.” So they’ll probably use the existing texts and programs at first. There is a complete listing of those, and a description of assessment criteria.

    Regarding tech issues, they are stating their goals and objectives with Internet connectivity as a priority to be phased in and they have a specific plan for that. Implementation will obviously require a mix of resources, which they list (grants, reduced-cost equipment, on-site facilities for students, etc.).

    Looking more closely at the budget, I don’t see any computer equipment as an expenditure item in the first year (perhaps they will inherit all the VO computers? That would be a good question.) but I see $100,000 for “equipment replacement” in each subsequent year. By negotiating reduced-cost purchases, applying for grants, and developing a fundraising system, you can get a lot of tech supplies with $100K a year.

  222. Clint said…

    “Still state law is on the clear side of the petitioners…The Education Code specifies five grounds to deny a charter:”

    I have great respect for those working on the VO Charter, and believe the goal is worthy of the passion and long days/nights spent working on it. However, I find the VO Charter presented to the Board sufficiently lacking in specificity that one could argue that “the petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition”. For those who already have faith, it’s easy to believe — to see all you want to see in the generalities put forward. For the skeptic, “The xxxx program is based on state standards and addresses the needs of all learners.” and “All strands of the California Department of Education Content Standards…are addressed under the
    VOCS curriculum program. The curriculum offers a balanced instructional program…” just isn’t enough.

    The Charter is proposed as being supported by 3 pillars, one of which is the utilization of education technology …. There is nothing concrete on how this will be accomplished in a school wihtout a single computer, no grants that would supply equipment, and nothing obvious in the proposed budget that would provide for acquisition and maintenance of this equipment.

    I think it was appropriate that the Board expressed reservation.

    ——-
    I agree that the board members should ask questions to get at some specifics. The petition does give a lot of information. I assume the board will do “due diligence” at the next meeting and ask some more detailed questions.

    I’m not an expert on this, but I have been on aq curriculum committee, site council, and an accreditation committee, and I quickly learned that there is a lot of jargon in the education field. The petition uses all the right jargon. “All strands of the California Department of Education Content Standards…” has specific meaning to accreditation folks and education professionals.

    If they are going to use the existing curriculum (at least for the first year) then it already meets the stated objectives as well as state and local standards. Page 11 describes the usual curriculum committee process, and says “in partnership with the DJUSD Curriculum … staff.” So they’ll probably use the existing texts and programs at first. There is a complete listing of those, and a description of assessment criteria.

    Regarding tech issues, they are stating their goals and objectives with Internet connectivity as a priority to be phased in and they have a specific plan for that. Implementation will obviously require a mix of resources, which they list (grants, reduced-cost equipment, on-site facilities for students, etc.).

    Looking more closely at the budget, I don’t see any computer equipment as an expenditure item in the first year (perhaps they will inherit all the VO computers? That would be a good question.) but I see $100,000 for “equipment replacement” in each subsequent year. By negotiating reduced-cost purchases, applying for grants, and developing a fundraising system, you can get a lot of tech supplies with $100K a year.

  223. Clint said…

    “Still state law is on the clear side of the petitioners…The Education Code specifies five grounds to deny a charter:”

    I have great respect for those working on the VO Charter, and believe the goal is worthy of the passion and long days/nights spent working on it. However, I find the VO Charter presented to the Board sufficiently lacking in specificity that one could argue that “the petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition”. For those who already have faith, it’s easy to believe — to see all you want to see in the generalities put forward. For the skeptic, “The xxxx program is based on state standards and addresses the needs of all learners.” and “All strands of the California Department of Education Content Standards…are addressed under the
    VOCS curriculum program. The curriculum offers a balanced instructional program…” just isn’t enough.

    The Charter is proposed as being supported by 3 pillars, one of which is the utilization of education technology …. There is nothing concrete on how this will be accomplished in a school wihtout a single computer, no grants that would supply equipment, and nothing obvious in the proposed budget that would provide for acquisition and maintenance of this equipment.

    I think it was appropriate that the Board expressed reservation.

    ——-
    I agree that the board members should ask questions to get at some specifics. The petition does give a lot of information. I assume the board will do “due diligence” at the next meeting and ask some more detailed questions.

    I’m not an expert on this, but I have been on aq curriculum committee, site council, and an accreditation committee, and I quickly learned that there is a lot of jargon in the education field. The petition uses all the right jargon. “All strands of the California Department of Education Content Standards…” has specific meaning to accreditation folks and education professionals.

    If they are going to use the existing curriculum (at least for the first year) then it already meets the stated objectives as well as state and local standards. Page 11 describes the usual curriculum committee process, and says “in partnership with the DJUSD Curriculum … staff.” So they’ll probably use the existing texts and programs at first. There is a complete listing of those, and a description of assessment criteria.

    Regarding tech issues, they are stating their goals and objectives with Internet connectivity as a priority to be phased in and they have a specific plan for that. Implementation will obviously require a mix of resources, which they list (grants, reduced-cost equipment, on-site facilities for students, etc.).

    Looking more closely at the budget, I don’t see any computer equipment as an expenditure item in the first year (perhaps they will inherit all the VO computers? That would be a good question.) but I see $100,000 for “equipment replacement” in each subsequent year. By negotiating reduced-cost purchases, applying for grants, and developing a fundraising system, you can get a lot of tech supplies with $100K a year.

  224. Clint said…

    “Still state law is on the clear side of the petitioners…The Education Code specifies five grounds to deny a charter:”

    I have great respect for those working on the VO Charter, and believe the goal is worthy of the passion and long days/nights spent working on it. However, I find the VO Charter presented to the Board sufficiently lacking in specificity that one could argue that “the petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition”. For those who already have faith, it’s easy to believe — to see all you want to see in the generalities put forward. For the skeptic, “The xxxx program is based on state standards and addresses the needs of all learners.” and “All strands of the California Department of Education Content Standards…are addressed under the
    VOCS curriculum program. The curriculum offers a balanced instructional program…” just isn’t enough.

    The Charter is proposed as being supported by 3 pillars, one of which is the utilization of education technology …. There is nothing concrete on how this will be accomplished in a school wihtout a single computer, no grants that would supply equipment, and nothing obvious in the proposed budget that would provide for acquisition and maintenance of this equipment.

    I think it was appropriate that the Board expressed reservation.

    ——-
    I agree that the board members should ask questions to get at some specifics. The petition does give a lot of information. I assume the board will do “due diligence” at the next meeting and ask some more detailed questions.

    I’m not an expert on this, but I have been on aq curriculum committee, site council, and an accreditation committee, and I quickly learned that there is a lot of jargon in the education field. The petition uses all the right jargon. “All strands of the California Department of Education Content Standards…” has specific meaning to accreditation folks and education professionals.

    If they are going to use the existing curriculum (at least for the first year) then it already meets the stated objectives as well as state and local standards. Page 11 describes the usual curriculum committee process, and says “in partnership with the DJUSD Curriculum … staff.” So they’ll probably use the existing texts and programs at first. There is a complete listing of those, and a description of assessment criteria.

    Regarding tech issues, they are stating their goals and objectives with Internet connectivity as a priority to be phased in and they have a specific plan for that. Implementation will obviously require a mix of resources, which they list (grants, reduced-cost equipment, on-site facilities for students, etc.).

    Looking more closely at the budget, I don’t see any computer equipment as an expenditure item in the first year (perhaps they will inherit all the VO computers? That would be a good question.) but I see $100,000 for “equipment replacement” in each subsequent year. By negotiating reduced-cost purchases, applying for grants, and developing a fundraising system, you can get a lot of tech supplies with $100K a year.

  225. When I wrote that the district was not obligated to give the Charter the VO school site, I certainly did not intend “terrorism” as stated by anonymous (11/21). I was simply stating the fact of Charter School guidelines in the state. And, while I support the efforts of the Charter school founders, the BOE made a decision for the district, and they also get to decide what to do with district property. I think threatening the district is not appropriate either. Has the Charter group looked into any other locations as fall backs? I know charter schools that are located in churches and community centers. I have a friend who teaches at a charter school that shares a space with a christian academy– two VERY different communities co-existing side by side.

    I actually think it would be empowering for the Charter to set out on their own and not have to go begging to the district!

  226. When I wrote that the district was not obligated to give the Charter the VO school site, I certainly did not intend “terrorism” as stated by anonymous (11/21). I was simply stating the fact of Charter School guidelines in the state. And, while I support the efforts of the Charter school founders, the BOE made a decision for the district, and they also get to decide what to do with district property. I think threatening the district is not appropriate either. Has the Charter group looked into any other locations as fall backs? I know charter schools that are located in churches and community centers. I have a friend who teaches at a charter school that shares a space with a christian academy– two VERY different communities co-existing side by side.

    I actually think it would be empowering for the Charter to set out on their own and not have to go begging to the district!

  227. When I wrote that the district was not obligated to give the Charter the VO school site, I certainly did not intend “terrorism” as stated by anonymous (11/21). I was simply stating the fact of Charter School guidelines in the state. And, while I support the efforts of the Charter school founders, the BOE made a decision for the district, and they also get to decide what to do with district property. I think threatening the district is not appropriate either. Has the Charter group looked into any other locations as fall backs? I know charter schools that are located in churches and community centers. I have a friend who teaches at a charter school that shares a space with a christian academy– two VERY different communities co-existing side by side.

    I actually think it would be empowering for the Charter to set out on their own and not have to go begging to the district!

  228. When I wrote that the district was not obligated to give the Charter the VO school site, I certainly did not intend “terrorism” as stated by anonymous (11/21). I was simply stating the fact of Charter School guidelines in the state. And, while I support the efforts of the Charter school founders, the BOE made a decision for the district, and they also get to decide what to do with district property. I think threatening the district is not appropriate either. Has the Charter group looked into any other locations as fall backs? I know charter schools that are located in churches and community centers. I have a friend who teaches at a charter school that shares a space with a christian academy– two VERY different communities co-existing side by side.

    I actually think it would be empowering for the Charter to set out on their own and not have to go begging to the district!

  229. To anonymous 12:34 PM

    As you are well aware, the Valley Oak Charter School’s primary objective is to offer the Valley Oak families a neighborhood school facility that would also continue the outstanding programs that the Valley Oak teachers /parents have created. A district decision to”mothball” VO or move operations currently located and functioning quite well at DJUSD headquarters would very likely be successfully challenged on appeal by the Charter School. Suggesting that VO MAY not be offered as the site but rather would be “mothballed” would be a craven DJUSD attempt to intimidate the parents and erode the confidence, courage and optimism in their charter school’s future.

  230. To anonymous 12:34 PM

    As you are well aware, the Valley Oak Charter School’s primary objective is to offer the Valley Oak families a neighborhood school facility that would also continue the outstanding programs that the Valley Oak teachers /parents have created. A district decision to”mothball” VO or move operations currently located and functioning quite well at DJUSD headquarters would very likely be successfully challenged on appeal by the Charter School. Suggesting that VO MAY not be offered as the site but rather would be “mothballed” would be a craven DJUSD attempt to intimidate the parents and erode the confidence, courage and optimism in their charter school’s future.

  231. To anonymous 12:34 PM

    As you are well aware, the Valley Oak Charter School’s primary objective is to offer the Valley Oak families a neighborhood school facility that would also continue the outstanding programs that the Valley Oak teachers /parents have created. A district decision to”mothball” VO or move operations currently located and functioning quite well at DJUSD headquarters would very likely be successfully challenged on appeal by the Charter School. Suggesting that VO MAY not be offered as the site but rather would be “mothballed” would be a craven DJUSD attempt to intimidate the parents and erode the confidence, courage and optimism in their charter school’s future.

  232. To anonymous 12:34 PM

    As you are well aware, the Valley Oak Charter School’s primary objective is to offer the Valley Oak families a neighborhood school facility that would also continue the outstanding programs that the Valley Oak teachers /parents have created. A district decision to”mothball” VO or move operations currently located and functioning quite well at DJUSD headquarters would very likely be successfully challenged on appeal by the Charter School. Suggesting that VO MAY not be offered as the site but rather would be “mothballed” would be a craven DJUSD attempt to intimidate the parents and erode the confidence, courage and optimism in their charter school’s future.

  233. As I have been watching this issue over the course of the last couple of years, I would be very surprised if the district were to “mothball” the VO site. Nor do I think they have any plans to move the DJUSD operations anywhere in the near future.

    I have assumed all along that the district will move the preschools currently housed at Korematsu and Pioneer(?) and possibly DSIS to the VO school site. There may very well be room on the site for everyone. It will probably depend on how big the charter school is as well as what plans the district has for the portables currently on the VO site, i.e. do we own them or rent them?

    Again, it is admirable that the charter school founders want to provide a school for the neighborhood, but the BOE has decided– for better or worse– that the district can live without VOE; so therefore, the bottom line is, they get to use their building as they see fit.

    Of course, if they decided to mothball the site rather than give it to the charter that would be egregious; but I have never seen that as the conflict facing us.

  234. As I have been watching this issue over the course of the last couple of years, I would be very surprised if the district were to “mothball” the VO site. Nor do I think they have any plans to move the DJUSD operations anywhere in the near future.

    I have assumed all along that the district will move the preschools currently housed at Korematsu and Pioneer(?) and possibly DSIS to the VO school site. There may very well be room on the site for everyone. It will probably depend on how big the charter school is as well as what plans the district has for the portables currently on the VO site, i.e. do we own them or rent them?

    Again, it is admirable that the charter school founders want to provide a school for the neighborhood, but the BOE has decided– for better or worse– that the district can live without VOE; so therefore, the bottom line is, they get to use their building as they see fit.

    Of course, if they decided to mothball the site rather than give it to the charter that would be egregious; but I have never seen that as the conflict facing us.

  235. As I have been watching this issue over the course of the last couple of years, I would be very surprised if the district were to “mothball” the VO site. Nor do I think they have any plans to move the DJUSD operations anywhere in the near future.

    I have assumed all along that the district will move the preschools currently housed at Korematsu and Pioneer(?) and possibly DSIS to the VO school site. There may very well be room on the site for everyone. It will probably depend on how big the charter school is as well as what plans the district has for the portables currently on the VO site, i.e. do we own them or rent them?

    Again, it is admirable that the charter school founders want to provide a school for the neighborhood, but the BOE has decided– for better or worse– that the district can live without VOE; so therefore, the bottom line is, they get to use their building as they see fit.

    Of course, if they decided to mothball the site rather than give it to the charter that would be egregious; but I have never seen that as the conflict facing us.

  236. As I have been watching this issue over the course of the last couple of years, I would be very surprised if the district were to “mothball” the VO site. Nor do I think they have any plans to move the DJUSD operations anywhere in the near future.

    I have assumed all along that the district will move the preschools currently housed at Korematsu and Pioneer(?) and possibly DSIS to the VO school site. There may very well be room on the site for everyone. It will probably depend on how big the charter school is as well as what plans the district has for the portables currently on the VO site, i.e. do we own them or rent them?

    Again, it is admirable that the charter school founders want to provide a school for the neighborhood, but the BOE has decided– for better or worse– that the district can live without VOE; so therefore, the bottom line is, they get to use their building as they see fit.

    Of course, if they decided to mothball the site rather than give it to the charter that would be egregious; but I have never seen that as the conflict facing us.

  237. From the California Education Code, based on the voter-passed Prop 39 (2000):
    “47614. (a) The intent of the people in amending Section 47614 is
    that public school facilities should be shared fairly among all
    public school pupils, including those in charter schools.
    (b) Each school district shall make available, to each charter
    school operating in the school district, facilities sufficient for
    the charter school to accommodate all of the charter school’s
    in-district students in conditions reasonably equivalent to those in
    which the students would be accommodated if they were attending other
    public schools of the district. Facilities provided shall be
    contiguous, furnished, and equipped, and shall remain the property of
    the school district. The school district shall make reasonable
    efforts to provide the charter school with facilities near to where
    the charter school wishes to locate, and shall not move the charter
    school unnecessarily.”

    Can you think of any site the district could provide that would accommodate 300+ students, near where it “wishes to locate,” other than Valley Oak?
    The district has little choice in this issue.

  238. From the California Education Code, based on the voter-passed Prop 39 (2000):
    “47614. (a) The intent of the people in amending Section 47614 is
    that public school facilities should be shared fairly among all
    public school pupils, including those in charter schools.
    (b) Each school district shall make available, to each charter
    school operating in the school district, facilities sufficient for
    the charter school to accommodate all of the charter school’s
    in-district students in conditions reasonably equivalent to those in
    which the students would be accommodated if they were attending other
    public schools of the district. Facilities provided shall be
    contiguous, furnished, and equipped, and shall remain the property of
    the school district. The school district shall make reasonable
    efforts to provide the charter school with facilities near to where
    the charter school wishes to locate, and shall not move the charter
    school unnecessarily.”

    Can you think of any site the district could provide that would accommodate 300+ students, near where it “wishes to locate,” other than Valley Oak?
    The district has little choice in this issue.

  239. From the California Education Code, based on the voter-passed Prop 39 (2000):
    “47614. (a) The intent of the people in amending Section 47614 is
    that public school facilities should be shared fairly among all
    public school pupils, including those in charter schools.
    (b) Each school district shall make available, to each charter
    school operating in the school district, facilities sufficient for
    the charter school to accommodate all of the charter school’s
    in-district students in conditions reasonably equivalent to those in
    which the students would be accommodated if they were attending other
    public schools of the district. Facilities provided shall be
    contiguous, furnished, and equipped, and shall remain the property of
    the school district. The school district shall make reasonable
    efforts to provide the charter school with facilities near to where
    the charter school wishes to locate, and shall not move the charter
    school unnecessarily.”

    Can you think of any site the district could provide that would accommodate 300+ students, near where it “wishes to locate,” other than Valley Oak?
    The district has little choice in this issue.

  240. From the California Education Code, based on the voter-passed Prop 39 (2000):
    “47614. (a) The intent of the people in amending Section 47614 is
    that public school facilities should be shared fairly among all
    public school pupils, including those in charter schools.
    (b) Each school district shall make available, to each charter
    school operating in the school district, facilities sufficient for
    the charter school to accommodate all of the charter school’s
    in-district students in conditions reasonably equivalent to those in
    which the students would be accommodated if they were attending other
    public schools of the district. Facilities provided shall be
    contiguous, furnished, and equipped, and shall remain the property of
    the school district. The school district shall make reasonable
    efforts to provide the charter school with facilities near to where
    the charter school wishes to locate, and shall not move the charter
    school unnecessarily.”

    Can you think of any site the district could provide that would accommodate 300+ students, near where it “wishes to locate,” other than Valley Oak?
    The district has little choice in this issue.

  241. Again, I appreciate the information, but you are looking at VO as an empty site, and I am not sure that is the way that the district looks at it.

    At a board meeting a couple of months ago, Clark Bryant made a presentation regarding the needs of the preschools, and at the time I believe he said they needed around 12 classrooms on one site. To reiterate your point, is there another DJUSD site that has 12 empty classrooms? The discussion at that time was about how they are going to get the site ready without disrupting the current education happening on the site. Again, VO was like the huge elephant in the room. Everybody was thinking about it, but nobody said the name out loud.

    As I said earlier, there maybe room for everyone, and then this is a moot argument. Unfortunately, these things never seem to be that straight forward.

    I would be interested to find out what the Charter law says if there is not enough district space available at a single, “close” site. The lawyer who made a presentation to the BOE said that there was no actual definition of “close”. Remember, the BOE planned to distribute the district kids from VO into the other, existing elementary sites. The charter law seems to have been written leaving an incredible amount of room for interpretation by all concerned parties.

  242. Again, I appreciate the information, but you are looking at VO as an empty site, and I am not sure that is the way that the district looks at it.

    At a board meeting a couple of months ago, Clark Bryant made a presentation regarding the needs of the preschools, and at the time I believe he said they needed around 12 classrooms on one site. To reiterate your point, is there another DJUSD site that has 12 empty classrooms? The discussion at that time was about how they are going to get the site ready without disrupting the current education happening on the site. Again, VO was like the huge elephant in the room. Everybody was thinking about it, but nobody said the name out loud.

    As I said earlier, there maybe room for everyone, and then this is a moot argument. Unfortunately, these things never seem to be that straight forward.

    I would be interested to find out what the Charter law says if there is not enough district space available at a single, “close” site. The lawyer who made a presentation to the BOE said that there was no actual definition of “close”. Remember, the BOE planned to distribute the district kids from VO into the other, existing elementary sites. The charter law seems to have been written leaving an incredible amount of room for interpretation by all concerned parties.

  243. Again, I appreciate the information, but you are looking at VO as an empty site, and I am not sure that is the way that the district looks at it.

    At a board meeting a couple of months ago, Clark Bryant made a presentation regarding the needs of the preschools, and at the time I believe he said they needed around 12 classrooms on one site. To reiterate your point, is there another DJUSD site that has 12 empty classrooms? The discussion at that time was about how they are going to get the site ready without disrupting the current education happening on the site. Again, VO was like the huge elephant in the room. Everybody was thinking about it, but nobody said the name out loud.

    As I said earlier, there maybe room for everyone, and then this is a moot argument. Unfortunately, these things never seem to be that straight forward.

    I would be interested to find out what the Charter law says if there is not enough district space available at a single, “close” site. The lawyer who made a presentation to the BOE said that there was no actual definition of “close”. Remember, the BOE planned to distribute the district kids from VO into the other, existing elementary sites. The charter law seems to have been written leaving an incredible amount of room for interpretation by all concerned parties.

  244. Again, I appreciate the information, but you are looking at VO as an empty site, and I am not sure that is the way that the district looks at it.

    At a board meeting a couple of months ago, Clark Bryant made a presentation regarding the needs of the preschools, and at the time I believe he said they needed around 12 classrooms on one site. To reiterate your point, is there another DJUSD site that has 12 empty classrooms? The discussion at that time was about how they are going to get the site ready without disrupting the current education happening on the site. Again, VO was like the huge elephant in the room. Everybody was thinking about it, but nobody said the name out loud.

    As I said earlier, there maybe room for everyone, and then this is a moot argument. Unfortunately, these things never seem to be that straight forward.

    I would be interested to find out what the Charter law says if there is not enough district space available at a single, “close” site. The lawyer who made a presentation to the BOE said that there was no actual definition of “close”. Remember, the BOE planned to distribute the district kids from VO into the other, existing elementary sites. The charter law seems to have been written leaving an incredible amount of room for interpretation by all concerned parties.

  245. “Facilities provided shall be
    contiguous…”
    Sure, the district can deny the space, and sue when the denial is appealed to the county or the state board of education.
    That seems like an incredible waste of resources.

  246. “Facilities provided shall be
    contiguous…”
    Sure, the district can deny the space, and sue when the denial is appealed to the county or the state board of education.
    That seems like an incredible waste of resources.

  247. “Facilities provided shall be
    contiguous…”
    Sure, the district can deny the space, and sue when the denial is appealed to the county or the state board of education.
    That seems like an incredible waste of resources.

  248. “Facilities provided shall be
    contiguous…”
    Sure, the district can deny the space, and sue when the denial is appealed to the county or the state board of education.
    That seems like an incredible waste of resources.

  249. http://www.csba.org/EducationIssues/EducationIssues
    California School Boards Association
    Charter School Facilities and Proposition 39:
    Legal Implications for School Districts
    September 2005
    In July of this year, the California Court of Appeal handed down a ruling in the case of Ridgecrest Charter
    School v. Sierra Sands Unified School District which has an enormous impact on school districts and how
    Proposition 39 charter school facilities requests are handled.
    The court held that while school districts have discretion in determining whether a charter school will be
    housed in a single site, under Proposition 39 districts must, to the maximum extent practicable, consider
    the needs of charter students and district students equally.
    …

    The appellate court interpreted the
    terms “reasonably equivalent” and “shared fairly” to mean that, to the maximum extent practicable, the
    needs of the charter school must be given the same consideration as those of the district-run schools,
    subject to the requirement that the facilities provided to the charter school must be “contiguous. Thus,
    districts must begin with the assumption that all charter students will be assigned to a single school site
    and then adjust other factors to accommodate this goal. How those factors will be weighed and whether
    those factors would make a single school site feasible will be a case-by-case determination.
    In this case, the court found that the district abused its discretion because it failed to demonstrate that it
    could not accommodate the charter at a single school site
    ….
    The court also found that the district’s rationale in support of the multi-site offer was insufficient because
    the superintendent’s recommendation did not address the legal requirement for contiguous facilities.

    …., the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) has created
    a Charter Schools Legal Defense Fund which will be available to CCSA member charter schools and
    development groups facing legal challenges. The fund provides twenty-four month zero interest loans for
    qualifying member schools to cover legal expenses. Given the significant support this will give charter
    operators, it is expected that more charter schools will be willing to take districts to court over facilities
    issues.

  250. http://www.csba.org/EducationIssues/EducationIssues
    California School Boards Association
    Charter School Facilities and Proposition 39:
    Legal Implications for School Districts
    September 2005
    In July of this year, the California Court of Appeal handed down a ruling in the case of Ridgecrest Charter
    School v. Sierra Sands Unified School District which has an enormous impact on school districts and how
    Proposition 39 charter school facilities requests are handled.
    The court held that while school districts have discretion in determining whether a charter school will be
    housed in a single site, under Proposition 39 districts must, to the maximum extent practicable, consider
    the needs of charter students and district students equally.
    …

    The appellate court interpreted the
    terms “reasonably equivalent” and “shared fairly” to mean that, to the maximum extent practicable, the
    needs of the charter school must be given the same consideration as those of the district-run schools,
    subject to the requirement that the facilities provided to the charter school must be “contiguous. Thus,
    districts must begin with the assumption that all charter students will be assigned to a single school site
    and then adjust other factors to accommodate this goal. How those factors will be weighed and whether
    those factors would make a single school site feasible will be a case-by-case determination.
    In this case, the court found that the district abused its discretion because it failed to demonstrate that it
    could not accommodate the charter at a single school site
    ….
    The court also found that the district’s rationale in support of the multi-site offer was insufficient because
    the superintendent’s recommendation did not address the legal requirement for contiguous facilities.

    …., the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) has created
    a Charter Schools Legal Defense Fund which will be available to CCSA member charter schools and
    development groups facing legal challenges. The fund provides twenty-four month zero interest loans for
    qualifying member schools to cover legal expenses. Given the significant support this will give charter
    operators, it is expected that more charter schools will be willing to take districts to court over facilities
    issues.

  251. http://www.csba.org/EducationIssues/EducationIssues
    California School Boards Association
    Charter School Facilities and Proposition 39:
    Legal Implications for School Districts
    September 2005
    In July of this year, the California Court of Appeal handed down a ruling in the case of Ridgecrest Charter
    School v. Sierra Sands Unified School District which has an enormous impact on school districts and how
    Proposition 39 charter school facilities requests are handled.
    The court held that while school districts have discretion in determining whether a charter school will be
    housed in a single site, under Proposition 39 districts must, to the maximum extent practicable, consider
    the needs of charter students and district students equally.
    …

    The appellate court interpreted the
    terms “reasonably equivalent” and “shared fairly” to mean that, to the maximum extent practicable, the
    needs of the charter school must be given the same consideration as those of the district-run schools,
    subject to the requirement that the facilities provided to the charter school must be “contiguous. Thus,
    districts must begin with the assumption that all charter students will be assigned to a single school site
    and then adjust other factors to accommodate this goal. How those factors will be weighed and whether
    those factors would make a single school site feasible will be a case-by-case determination.
    In this case, the court found that the district abused its discretion because it failed to demonstrate that it
    could not accommodate the charter at a single school site
    ….
    The court also found that the district’s rationale in support of the multi-site offer was insufficient because
    the superintendent’s recommendation did not address the legal requirement for contiguous facilities.

    …., the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) has created
    a Charter Schools Legal Defense Fund which will be available to CCSA member charter schools and
    development groups facing legal challenges. The fund provides twenty-four month zero interest loans for
    qualifying member schools to cover legal expenses. Given the significant support this will give charter
    operators, it is expected that more charter schools will be willing to take districts to court over facilities
    issues.

  252. http://www.csba.org/EducationIssues/EducationIssues
    California School Boards Association
    Charter School Facilities and Proposition 39:
    Legal Implications for School Districts
    September 2005
    In July of this year, the California Court of Appeal handed down a ruling in the case of Ridgecrest Charter
    School v. Sierra Sands Unified School District which has an enormous impact on school districts and how
    Proposition 39 charter school facilities requests are handled.
    The court held that while school districts have discretion in determining whether a charter school will be
    housed in a single site, under Proposition 39 districts must, to the maximum extent practicable, consider
    the needs of charter students and district students equally.
    …

    The appellate court interpreted the
    terms “reasonably equivalent” and “shared fairly” to mean that, to the maximum extent practicable, the
    needs of the charter school must be given the same consideration as those of the district-run schools,
    subject to the requirement that the facilities provided to the charter school must be “contiguous. Thus,
    districts must begin with the assumption that all charter students will be assigned to a single school site
    and then adjust other factors to accommodate this goal. How those factors will be weighed and whether
    those factors would make a single school site feasible will be a case-by-case determination.
    In this case, the court found that the district abused its discretion because it failed to demonstrate that it
    could not accommodate the charter at a single school site
    ….
    The court also found that the district’s rationale in support of the multi-site offer was insufficient because
    the superintendent’s recommendation did not address the legal requirement for contiguous facilities.

    …., the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) has created
    a Charter Schools Legal Defense Fund which will be available to CCSA member charter schools and
    development groups facing legal challenges. The fund provides twenty-four month zero interest loans for
    qualifying member schools to cover legal expenses. Given the significant support this will give charter
    operators, it is expected that more charter schools will be willing to take districts to court over facilities
    issues.

  253. BTW, the judge in the appeal awarded attorney fees from the district to the plaintiff charter school.
    “Recognizing the substantial statewide impact
    and importance of the appellate court’s ruling clarifying a charter school’s right to contiguous
    facilities and entitlement to equal treatment, Judge Stewart found the award of attorneys’ fees
    was warranted. Such an award could serve as a future deterrent to school districts from violating
    the mandates of Proposition 39, as this ruling provides that school districts may not only face
    costs of defending the litigation, but opposing counsels’ fees as well where a charter school
    prevails and the court finds the award of fees appropriate.”

    There doesn’t seem to be much ambiguity about charter school law. It’s all in the education code, available online, and most of the subsequent rulings have been to the advantage of charter school proponents.

  254. BTW, the judge in the appeal awarded attorney fees from the district to the plaintiff charter school.
    “Recognizing the substantial statewide impact
    and importance of the appellate court’s ruling clarifying a charter school’s right to contiguous
    facilities and entitlement to equal treatment, Judge Stewart found the award of attorneys’ fees
    was warranted. Such an award could serve as a future deterrent to school districts from violating
    the mandates of Proposition 39, as this ruling provides that school districts may not only face
    costs of defending the litigation, but opposing counsels’ fees as well where a charter school
    prevails and the court finds the award of fees appropriate.”

    There doesn’t seem to be much ambiguity about charter school law. It’s all in the education code, available online, and most of the subsequent rulings have been to the advantage of charter school proponents.

  255. BTW, the judge in the appeal awarded attorney fees from the district to the plaintiff charter school.
    “Recognizing the substantial statewide impact
    and importance of the appellate court’s ruling clarifying a charter school’s right to contiguous
    facilities and entitlement to equal treatment, Judge Stewart found the award of attorneys’ fees
    was warranted. Such an award could serve as a future deterrent to school districts from violating
    the mandates of Proposition 39, as this ruling provides that school districts may not only face
    costs of defending the litigation, but opposing counsels’ fees as well where a charter school
    prevails and the court finds the award of fees appropriate.”

    There doesn’t seem to be much ambiguity about charter school law. It’s all in the education code, available online, and most of the subsequent rulings have been to the advantage of charter school proponents.

  256. BTW, the judge in the appeal awarded attorney fees from the district to the plaintiff charter school.
    “Recognizing the substantial statewide impact
    and importance of the appellate court’s ruling clarifying a charter school’s right to contiguous
    facilities and entitlement to equal treatment, Judge Stewart found the award of attorneys’ fees
    was warranted. Such an award could serve as a future deterrent to school districts from violating
    the mandates of Proposition 39, as this ruling provides that school districts may not only face
    costs of defending the litigation, but opposing counsels’ fees as well where a charter school
    prevails and the court finds the award of fees appropriate.”

    There doesn’t seem to be much ambiguity about charter school law. It’s all in the education code, available online, and most of the subsequent rulings have been to the advantage of charter school proponents.

  257. “to the maximum extent practicable, the
    needs of the charter school must be given the same consideration as those of the district-run schools,”

    This is what I find confusing. If the district has already been planning on moving programs to VO prior to the Charter petition, then do they have to change those plans?

    “How those factors will be weighed and whether
    those factors would make a single school site feasible will be a case-by-case determination.”

    Again, an amazing amount of interpretation room here. What is a case by case basis? What if there is enough room at VO for a 250 child charter, but not 300? Or what if there is enough space for classrooms, but not the support rooms requested??

    I understand that the district does not want to get caught up in messy appeals, but at the same time, from this case, I am not sure that the district would be sure to lose. It would all depend on their rationale for denying. (If they even do that.) If the goal of the district is and has been to consolidate the preschools at one central location (this, of course, is my interpretation. I have no special insight into this), then are they required to put that aside if they can not accommodate both that program and the Charter at the single site. I also believe that the district has some obligation in the contract with the county to provide an opportunity for special ed preschool kids to mainstream into regular ed preschool– another incentive for the consolidation.

    “the court found that the district abused its discretion because it failed to demonstrate that it
    could not accommodate the charter at a single school site”

    Since I hate to jump straight to litigation, what happens if the district does an adequate job demonstrating that they can not accommodate the charter at a single site or more specifically at VO?

    I just feel that there are so many unanswered questions– not just about the charter school, but also regarding the boundary shifts at both the elementary school and middle school levels. And, I do not think any of this information is clarifying it for me. I am sorry to say, but the ambiguity also does not give me any faith that the BOE/DJUSD will handle these decisions with leadership and grace.

  258. “to the maximum extent practicable, the
    needs of the charter school must be given the same consideration as those of the district-run schools,”

    This is what I find confusing. If the district has already been planning on moving programs to VO prior to the Charter petition, then do they have to change those plans?

    “How those factors will be weighed and whether
    those factors would make a single school site feasible will be a case-by-case determination.”

    Again, an amazing amount of interpretation room here. What is a case by case basis? What if there is enough room at VO for a 250 child charter, but not 300? Or what if there is enough space for classrooms, but not the support rooms requested??

    I understand that the district does not want to get caught up in messy appeals, but at the same time, from this case, I am not sure that the district would be sure to lose. It would all depend on their rationale for denying. (If they even do that.) If the goal of the district is and has been to consolidate the preschools at one central location (this, of course, is my interpretation. I have no special insight into this), then are they required to put that aside if they can not accommodate both that program and the Charter at the single site. I also believe that the district has some obligation in the contract with the county to provide an opportunity for special ed preschool kids to mainstream into regular ed preschool– another incentive for the consolidation.

    “the court found that the district abused its discretion because it failed to demonstrate that it
    could not accommodate the charter at a single school site”

    Since I hate to jump straight to litigation, what happens if the district does an adequate job demonstrating that they can not accommodate the charter at a single site or more specifically at VO?

    I just feel that there are so many unanswered questions– not just about the charter school, but also regarding the boundary shifts at both the elementary school and middle school levels. And, I do not think any of this information is clarifying it for me. I am sorry to say, but the ambiguity also does not give me any faith that the BOE/DJUSD will handle these decisions with leadership and grace.

  259. “to the maximum extent practicable, the
    needs of the charter school must be given the same consideration as those of the district-run schools,”

    This is what I find confusing. If the district has already been planning on moving programs to VO prior to the Charter petition, then do they have to change those plans?

    “How those factors will be weighed and whether
    those factors would make a single school site feasible will be a case-by-case determination.”

    Again, an amazing amount of interpretation room here. What is a case by case basis? What if there is enough room at VO for a 250 child charter, but not 300? Or what if there is enough space for classrooms, but not the support rooms requested??

    I understand that the district does not want to get caught up in messy appeals, but at the same time, from this case, I am not sure that the district would be sure to lose. It would all depend on their rationale for denying. (If they even do that.) If the goal of the district is and has been to consolidate the preschools at one central location (this, of course, is my interpretation. I have no special insight into this), then are they required to put that aside if they can not accommodate both that program and the Charter at the single site. I also believe that the district has some obligation in the contract with the county to provide an opportunity for special ed preschool kids to mainstream into regular ed preschool– another incentive for the consolidation.

    “the court found that the district abused its discretion because it failed to demonstrate that it
    could not accommodate the charter at a single school site”

    Since I hate to jump straight to litigation, what happens if the district does an adequate job demonstrating that they can not accommodate the charter at a single site or more specifically at VO?

    I just feel that there are so many unanswered questions– not just about the charter school, but also regarding the boundary shifts at both the elementary school and middle school levels. And, I do not think any of this information is clarifying it for me. I am sorry to say, but the ambiguity also does not give me any faith that the BOE/DJUSD will handle these decisions with leadership and grace.

  260. “to the maximum extent practicable, the
    needs of the charter school must be given the same consideration as those of the district-run schools,”

    This is what I find confusing. If the district has already been planning on moving programs to VO prior to the Charter petition, then do they have to change those plans?

    “How those factors will be weighed and whether
    those factors would make a single school site feasible will be a case-by-case determination.”

    Again, an amazing amount of interpretation room here. What is a case by case basis? What if there is enough room at VO for a 250 child charter, but not 300? Or what if there is enough space for classrooms, but not the support rooms requested??

    I understand that the district does not want to get caught up in messy appeals, but at the same time, from this case, I am not sure that the district would be sure to lose. It would all depend on their rationale for denying. (If they even do that.) If the goal of the district is and has been to consolidate the preschools at one central location (this, of course, is my interpretation. I have no special insight into this), then are they required to put that aside if they can not accommodate both that program and the Charter at the single site. I also believe that the district has some obligation in the contract with the county to provide an opportunity for special ed preschool kids to mainstream into regular ed preschool– another incentive for the consolidation.

    “the court found that the district abused its discretion because it failed to demonstrate that it
    could not accommodate the charter at a single school site”

    Since I hate to jump straight to litigation, what happens if the district does an adequate job demonstrating that they can not accommodate the charter at a single site or more specifically at VO?

    I just feel that there are so many unanswered questions– not just about the charter school, but also regarding the boundary shifts at both the elementary school and middle school levels. And, I do not think any of this information is clarifying it for me. I am sorry to say, but the ambiguity also does not give me any faith that the BOE/DJUSD will handle these decisions with leadership and grace.

  261. The VO Charter School petition requesting the VO site beat the District to the punch with regard to the District “thoughts” about a preschool VO site. No court would rule that the District’s ruminations about the future of VO trumped the charter school’s actual petition for the site. This could get really “messy” if the Board takes an obstructionist route. Recall petitions and escrow accounts holding withheld Measure Q tax payments may erupt like spring tulips here in Davis.

  262. The VO Charter School petition requesting the VO site beat the District to the punch with regard to the District “thoughts” about a preschool VO site. No court would rule that the District’s ruminations about the future of VO trumped the charter school’s actual petition for the site. This could get really “messy” if the Board takes an obstructionist route. Recall petitions and escrow accounts holding withheld Measure Q tax payments may erupt like spring tulips here in Davis.

  263. The VO Charter School petition requesting the VO site beat the District to the punch with regard to the District “thoughts” about a preschool VO site. No court would rule that the District’s ruminations about the future of VO trumped the charter school’s actual petition for the site. This could get really “messy” if the Board takes an obstructionist route. Recall petitions and escrow accounts holding withheld Measure Q tax payments may erupt like spring tulips here in Davis.

  264. The VO Charter School petition requesting the VO site beat the District to the punch with regard to the District “thoughts” about a preschool VO site. No court would rule that the District’s ruminations about the future of VO trumped the charter school’s actual petition for the site. This could get really “messy” if the Board takes an obstructionist route. Recall petitions and escrow accounts holding withheld Measure Q tax payments may erupt like spring tulips here in Davis.

  265. If you check the Davis Demographics report that the Task Force used, you can see that in the next few years there will be plenty of classroom space available in either South Davis school to house offices, pre-schools etc…The Task Force determined that there will always be a need for two schools on the south side, even if there is only enough enrollment for one and a half schools, because no one wants large numbers of children crossing I80 to get to and from school.
    There will also be a drop in elementary-aged population in North Davis in the next couple of years. NDE and BLE will be competing from the same shrinking pool of students for enrollment.

  266. If you check the Davis Demographics report that the Task Force used, you can see that in the next few years there will be plenty of classroom space available in either South Davis school to house offices, pre-schools etc…The Task Force determined that there will always be a need for two schools on the south side, even if there is only enough enrollment for one and a half schools, because no one wants large numbers of children crossing I80 to get to and from school.
    There will also be a drop in elementary-aged population in North Davis in the next couple of years. NDE and BLE will be competing from the same shrinking pool of students for enrollment.

  267. If you check the Davis Demographics report that the Task Force used, you can see that in the next few years there will be plenty of classroom space available in either South Davis school to house offices, pre-schools etc…The Task Force determined that there will always be a need for two schools on the south side, even if there is only enough enrollment for one and a half schools, because no one wants large numbers of children crossing I80 to get to and from school.
    There will also be a drop in elementary-aged population in North Davis in the next couple of years. NDE and BLE will be competing from the same shrinking pool of students for enrollment.

  268. If you check the Davis Demographics report that the Task Force used, you can see that in the next few years there will be plenty of classroom space available in either South Davis school to house offices, pre-schools etc…The Task Force determined that there will always be a need for two schools on the south side, even if there is only enough enrollment for one and a half schools, because no one wants large numbers of children crossing I80 to get to and from school.
    There will also be a drop in elementary-aged population in North Davis in the next couple of years. NDE and BLE will be competing from the same shrinking pool of students for enrollment.

Leave a Comment