Bill Storm, science teacher and proponent of Valley Oak Charter School told the Davis Enterprise yesterday:
“The draft resolution severely distorts both our proposal and the requirements of the Charter Schools Act and makes serious errors of fact in denying the petition… We continue to be willing to work with the district in resolving any legitimate issues. Such work would require that all parties act swiftly and in good faith… f the Davis school board acts to deny the charter, we are confident that the charter will be authorized through the appeal process outlined in the Charter Schools Act… We have made presentations, provided drafts of the educational plan, governance design and budget presentations (to the district), and have repeatedly requested meaningful dialogue and feedback. Instead, last Friday (the district) posted a draft resolution to deny the petition for the Valley Oak Charter School.”
Mr. Storm has sent the Vanguard a lengthy response to the resolution which is also posted on the Valley Oak Charter web page.
In response to the assertion by district that:
“The petitions submitted fail to affirm that the Charter was attached to the petition at the time of execution of the petition by the signatory as required by Education Code section 47605(a)(3).”
The Valley Oak drafters contend:
“47605(a)(3) provides that
‘A petition shall include a prominent statement that a signature on the petition means that the parent or guardian is meaningfully interested in having his or her child, or ward, attend the charter school, or in the case of a teacher’s signature, means that the teacher is meaningfully interested in teaching at the charter school. The proposed charter shall be attached to the petition.’
In fact, the signature pages were attached, and the signature page included a statement that it was attached to the petition.”
Second in response to the charge that they failed to claim they would not discriminate against any pupil on the basis of sexual orientation:
“This “finding” is a misstatement of the law and is factually untrue. The sections of the Charter School Act that are cited specifically require that the charter school shall be nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations, shall not charge tuition, and shall not discriminate against any pupil on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, gender, or disability. VOCS Charter, page 60, DOES make those assurances and specifically references the relevant code sections. The Charter School Act does not anywhere mention the issue of discrimination against pupils on the basis of sexual orientation. By raising this issue, the drafters of the resolution apparently seek to imply that the school will discriminate against pupils on that basis. Such an implication is shameful.”
Many of the other objections to the district resolution can be summarized as follows.
There are several things that the district claims that the charter does not do, that the charter petitioners claim they do.
For example the district claims:
“The proposed Charter does not contain a reasonably comprehensive description of measurable pupil outcomes. The Charter does not identify specific pupil outcome goals in the subject matter areas of Reading and Language Arts, Mathematics, History and Social Science, Science, or Health and Nutrition.”
The charter petitioners respond:
“Presented finding is not factual. The VOCS document employs district assessment protocols. For the district to say the charter does not contain a “reasonably comprehensive description of measurable pupil outcomes” is an indictment of its own practice. “Specific pupil outcome goals” in the content areas specified are indeed detailed in the VOCS Charter, pages 40 to 41, thus this finding has no basis in fact.”
There are a number of such claims and counter-claims through this exchange. Part of the problem at this point may be the definition of “reasonable” and whether that adds enough subjectivity to enable the district to legitimately reject the petition.
Another example of this claim is found in response three by the district:
“The proposed Charter does not contain a reasonably comprehensive description of the charter school’s methods to assess pupil progress. The Charter does not identify which assessment instruments will be used in all core areas, except English language acquisition. The Charter does not describe specific interventions for any core areas, except English language acquisition, or identify the criteria for placing students in an intervention program.”
Once again the petitioners respond by arguing that they do indeed address this point:
“Presented finding is not factual. Each item the resolution says is deficient is indeed detailed in the charter. Refer to pages 40 and 41 in the charter. Specific interventions are detailed in the VOCS Charter, pages 29 through 32. Assessments (STAR, BEAR, salmon/blue cards, etc) are identified in both primary and intermediate grade level sections as well as in the MSO portion. Specific assessments in each content area will be dictated by the publisher’s tests for each textbook adoption. Present adoptions are listed by publisher’s name in the grade level sections.”
There are also a number of objections that the charter petition is not required by law to contain some provisos.
One example was the sexual orientation claim by the district, here is another example.
“The proposed Charter does not contain a reasonably comprehensive description of dispute resolution procedures. The proposed dispute resolution process fails to expressly exempt revocation proceedings from the dispute resolution process. The District cannot be compelled through the charter granting process to submit to disputes to binding arbitration or relinquish its right to seek resolution of disputes through legal process. The proposal that the District pay the costs of arbitration is unsound by removing financial incentives for the charter school to resolve disputes without recourse to arbitration.”
The petitioners respond:
“Presented finding is not factual. There is no requirement that the charter contain any notice that revocation proceedings be exempt from a dispute resolution process. The dispute resolution mechanism provides arbitration before a neutral third party arbitrator. By raising this issue it is grasping at straws.”
In response to claim that the Charter does not provide a preference of District residents immediately after pupils currently attending the charter school and
“unlawfully grants priority preferences to: students residing within the Valley Oak attendance area, children of Valley Oak School employees, and siblings of students enrolled in the District or the charter school. The description of the public random drawing process in the event of over enrollment is ambiguous, incomplete, and fails to admit students entitled to an attendance preference ahead of other students.”
According to the petitioners, once again this finding is not factual.
“Ed Code specifically permits enrollment preferences to neighborhood students in charter schools. Refer to Section 47605 (d)(2). Also, the paragraph is internally contradictory. It initially says preferences are unlawful, and then later says we fail to admit students from a preferred attendance area. If the district is not happy with how we state how preference will be designated and how the attendance lottery will be run, those issues are easily negotiated.”
The school board itself will hear tonight what ought to be a bitterly contentious meeting. This is unfortunate.
Vanguard Commentary
It is the opinion of the Vanguard that the initial resolution response was inappropriate, unnecessary, incendiary, and inflammatory.
As we suggested on Monday, most of the findings are subjective and nitpicky. The entire response seems to be bent on breaking on the will of the petitioners rather than addressing gaping holes in the charter petition. Much more could have accomplished with a meeting to flesh out concerns and tighten up language if so needed.
At this point the Vanguard is extremely disappointed in the district staff. While for the time being, the new Superintendent, who has not been involved in this process, is likely unfamiliar with Charter Law, gets a pass from us, we will be VERY closely watching how he responds to this situation and whether he can act to be a voice of reason toward resolution on the one hand or on the other hand help the existing staff to pile on in their apparent attempt to torpedo the Valley School Charter Program.
Additionally, this now becomes a burden for the outgoing school board. The Vanguard will particularly look toward three board members who will be staying: Sheila Allen, Gina Daleiden, and Tim Taylor to provide the necessary guidance and leadership to avoid what appears at this point to be almost inevitably a lengthy and destructive legal show that will only harm the students in this school district.
Make no mistake, this district is on the brink and only strong leadership from the school board and new superintendent can avoid metaphorical bloodshed from occurring. It is our hope that cooler heads will prevail in this and that the board can be the voice of reason and compromise, because quite frankly there does not seem to be a huge gap in the opinions here. However, if lines are drawn in the sand, this could become contentious, bitter and ugly. Again, it is our hope that this be avoided.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
You are right substantively, but your sanctimony and self-importance is getting to be too much. My goodness.
You are right substantively, but your sanctimony and self-importance is getting to be too much. My goodness.
You are right substantively, but your sanctimony and self-importance is getting to be too much. My goodness.
You are right substantively, but your sanctimony and self-importance is getting to be too much. My goodness.
I think it’s anger
I think it’s anger
I think it’s anger
I think it’s anger
My measure Q parcel tax payment will have to get in line behind my support for any legal fund that is created by the VO charter petitioners.
My measure Q parcel tax payment will have to get in line behind my support for any legal fund that is created by the VO charter petitioners.
My measure Q parcel tax payment will have to get in line behind my support for any legal fund that is created by the VO charter petitioners.
My measure Q parcel tax payment will have to get in line behind my support for any legal fund that is created by the VO charter petitioners.
The district staff is tedious. This is purely vindictive and has nothing to do with substance. My own position was pretty ambivalent at the start of this whole thing- but I have become very supportive of the Charter school, in fact, I would love to see all the campuses become Charter schools so we can dump the district entirely!
The district staff is tedious. This is purely vindictive and has nothing to do with substance. My own position was pretty ambivalent at the start of this whole thing- but I have become very supportive of the Charter school, in fact, I would love to see all the campuses become Charter schools so we can dump the district entirely!
The district staff is tedious. This is purely vindictive and has nothing to do with substance. My own position was pretty ambivalent at the start of this whole thing- but I have become very supportive of the Charter school, in fact, I would love to see all the campuses become Charter schools so we can dump the district entirely!
The district staff is tedious. This is purely vindictive and has nothing to do with substance. My own position was pretty ambivalent at the start of this whole thing- but I have become very supportive of the Charter school, in fact, I would love to see all the campuses become Charter schools so we can dump the district entirely!
I don’t see sanctimony there, I see frustration. Frankly I share it. This is disgraceful.
I don’t see sanctimony there, I see frustration. Frankly I share it. This is disgraceful.
I don’t see sanctimony there, I see frustration. Frankly I share it. This is disgraceful.
I don’t see sanctimony there, I see frustration. Frankly I share it. This is disgraceful.
Certainly there are aspects that could be called nitpicky (such as the sexual orientation issue), but what about the financial ones? That to me is the most serious concern. It needs the money to stay afloat and if the budgeting is off, that’s a problem.
Certainly there are aspects that could be called nitpicky (such as the sexual orientation issue), but what about the financial ones? That to me is the most serious concern. It needs the money to stay afloat and if the budgeting is off, that’s a problem.
Certainly there are aspects that could be called nitpicky (such as the sexual orientation issue), but what about the financial ones? That to me is the most serious concern. It needs the money to stay afloat and if the budgeting is off, that’s a problem.
Certainly there are aspects that could be called nitpicky (such as the sexual orientation issue), but what about the financial ones? That to me is the most serious concern. It needs the money to stay afloat and if the budgeting is off, that’s a problem.
According to the charter group, Colby has seen their budgets many times and has had no objections, then came out of left field.
Sand bagging?
There are many thriving CTA charter schools in the area.
Sowing doubt in the public mind regarding finances could negatively affect enrollment numbers.
Lowered enrollment would adversely affect the finances.
Hmmm…
According to the charter group, Colby has seen their budgets many times and has had no objections, then came out of left field.
Sand bagging?
There are many thriving CTA charter schools in the area.
Sowing doubt in the public mind regarding finances could negatively affect enrollment numbers.
Lowered enrollment would adversely affect the finances.
Hmmm…
According to the charter group, Colby has seen their budgets many times and has had no objections, then came out of left field.
Sand bagging?
There are many thriving CTA charter schools in the area.
Sowing doubt in the public mind regarding finances could negatively affect enrollment numbers.
Lowered enrollment would adversely affect the finances.
Hmmm…
According to the charter group, Colby has seen their budgets many times and has had no objections, then came out of left field.
Sand bagging?
There are many thriving CTA charter schools in the area.
Sowing doubt in the public mind regarding finances could negatively affect enrollment numbers.
Lowered enrollment would adversely affect the finances.
Hmmm…
The district needs to work with, not against, the charter school proponents.
Otherwise, it will alienate one of the strongest blocs of support for district bond measures in the city.
I lived in Davis a long time, and don’t recall any issue that was as contentious and nasty as this one is going to be if the district proceeds in this manner.
It will be a catastrophe.
–Richard Estes
The district needs to work with, not against, the charter school proponents.
Otherwise, it will alienate one of the strongest blocs of support for district bond measures in the city.
I lived in Davis a long time, and don’t recall any issue that was as contentious and nasty as this one is going to be if the district proceeds in this manner.
It will be a catastrophe.
–Richard Estes
The district needs to work with, not against, the charter school proponents.
Otherwise, it will alienate one of the strongest blocs of support for district bond measures in the city.
I lived in Davis a long time, and don’t recall any issue that was as contentious and nasty as this one is going to be if the district proceeds in this manner.
It will be a catastrophe.
–Richard Estes
The district needs to work with, not against, the charter school proponents.
Otherwise, it will alienate one of the strongest blocs of support for district bond measures in the city.
I lived in Davis a long time, and don’t recall any issue that was as contentious and nasty as this one is going to be if the district proceeds in this manner.
It will be a catastrophe.
–Richard Estes
I think DPD and others have touched on this, but I think it is worth repeating.
staff recommends denial of the charter. They do not try to work with anyone to implement a charter that does address the issues. just a flat NO.
I think that speaks volumes about how much they really care about all the points they raised.
I think DPD and others have touched on this, but I think it is worth repeating.
staff recommends denial of the charter. They do not try to work with anyone to implement a charter that does address the issues. just a flat NO.
I think that speaks volumes about how much they really care about all the points they raised.
I think DPD and others have touched on this, but I think it is worth repeating.
staff recommends denial of the charter. They do not try to work with anyone to implement a charter that does address the issues. just a flat NO.
I think that speaks volumes about how much they really care about all the points they raised.
I think DPD and others have touched on this, but I think it is worth repeating.
staff recommends denial of the charter. They do not try to work with anyone to implement a charter that does address the issues. just a flat NO.
I think that speaks volumes about how much they really care about all the points they raised.
If our brand new Superintendent buys into this strategy of trotting out as many roadblocks as possible to frighten prospective VO Charter School parents, he needs to think twice about unpacking his suitcases.
If our brand new Superintendent buys into this strategy of trotting out as many roadblocks as possible to frighten prospective VO Charter School parents, he needs to think twice about unpacking his suitcases.
If our brand new Superintendent buys into this strategy of trotting out as many roadblocks as possible to frighten prospective VO Charter School parents, he needs to think twice about unpacking his suitcases.
If our brand new Superintendent buys into this strategy of trotting out as many roadblocks as possible to frighten prospective VO Charter School parents, he needs to think twice about unpacking his suitcases.
Why are the district staffers so against a charter school at Valley Oak? For all their efforts at being nitpicky and throwing up roadblocks, is this simply a case of a bureaucracy digging in because the bureaucrats feel its power is threatened?
Or is there some other hidden agenda motivating the roadblocks?
Why are the district staffers so against a charter school at Valley Oak? For all their efforts at being nitpicky and throwing up roadblocks, is this simply a case of a bureaucracy digging in because the bureaucrats feel its power is threatened?
Or is there some other hidden agenda motivating the roadblocks?
Why are the district staffers so against a charter school at Valley Oak? For all their efforts at being nitpicky and throwing up roadblocks, is this simply a case of a bureaucracy digging in because the bureaucrats feel its power is threatened?
Or is there some other hidden agenda motivating the roadblocks?
Why are the district staffers so against a charter school at Valley Oak? For all their efforts at being nitpicky and throwing up roadblocks, is this simply a case of a bureaucracy digging in because the bureaucrats feel its power is threatened?
Or is there some other hidden agenda motivating the roadblocks?
Financial concerns are not considered a reason to deny, no?
Financial concerns are not considered a reason to deny, no?
Financial concerns are not considered a reason to deny, no?
Financial concerns are not considered a reason to deny, no?
I am glad it was uncovered that Marty West/Sallee started this Valley Oak closing mess.
I’m getting an uncomfortable feeling however, that Jim Provenza is being let off the hook by some.
Provenza Voted against the closure of valley oak, but in a vote went down overwhelminly against valley oak. Therefore Provenza could claim to support valley oak to save his political hyde while at the same time knowing full well his vote wouldn’t prevent the school’s closure and ridding the board of the Valley Oak problem.
Second, Provenza was hardly supportive of the valley oak charter proposal at the last school board meeting. The meeting began and he told Charter proponents to limit their proposal to ten minutes. I find that request rediculous because the Charter supporters had to make their case before the board and address all possible concerns. No way that could be done in that time. I don’t believe Provenza is that stupid either.
I also found the ten minute rule rediculous because they just finished using 10 minutes to throw a victory party about Measure Q. Perhaps Valley Oak was a little more important than Provenza’s celebration time.
Provenza also said he was waiting for “the staff report” to make up his mind. That sounds like using the staff report as political cover to me. He knew full well what that report was going to say.
can’t stand west, but I’m weary of Provenza. Watch him.
I am glad it was uncovered that Marty West/Sallee started this Valley Oak closing mess.
I’m getting an uncomfortable feeling however, that Jim Provenza is being let off the hook by some.
Provenza Voted against the closure of valley oak, but in a vote went down overwhelminly against valley oak. Therefore Provenza could claim to support valley oak to save his political hyde while at the same time knowing full well his vote wouldn’t prevent the school’s closure and ridding the board of the Valley Oak problem.
Second, Provenza was hardly supportive of the valley oak charter proposal at the last school board meeting. The meeting began and he told Charter proponents to limit their proposal to ten minutes. I find that request rediculous because the Charter supporters had to make their case before the board and address all possible concerns. No way that could be done in that time. I don’t believe Provenza is that stupid either.
I also found the ten minute rule rediculous because they just finished using 10 minutes to throw a victory party about Measure Q. Perhaps Valley Oak was a little more important than Provenza’s celebration time.
Provenza also said he was waiting for “the staff report” to make up his mind. That sounds like using the staff report as political cover to me. He knew full well what that report was going to say.
can’t stand west, but I’m weary of Provenza. Watch him.
I am glad it was uncovered that Marty West/Sallee started this Valley Oak closing mess.
I’m getting an uncomfortable feeling however, that Jim Provenza is being let off the hook by some.
Provenza Voted against the closure of valley oak, but in a vote went down overwhelminly against valley oak. Therefore Provenza could claim to support valley oak to save his political hyde while at the same time knowing full well his vote wouldn’t prevent the school’s closure and ridding the board of the Valley Oak problem.
Second, Provenza was hardly supportive of the valley oak charter proposal at the last school board meeting. The meeting began and he told Charter proponents to limit their proposal to ten minutes. I find that request rediculous because the Charter supporters had to make their case before the board and address all possible concerns. No way that could be done in that time. I don’t believe Provenza is that stupid either.
I also found the ten minute rule rediculous because they just finished using 10 minutes to throw a victory party about Measure Q. Perhaps Valley Oak was a little more important than Provenza’s celebration time.
Provenza also said he was waiting for “the staff report” to make up his mind. That sounds like using the staff report as political cover to me. He knew full well what that report was going to say.
can’t stand west, but I’m weary of Provenza. Watch him.
I am glad it was uncovered that Marty West/Sallee started this Valley Oak closing mess.
I’m getting an uncomfortable feeling however, that Jim Provenza is being let off the hook by some.
Provenza Voted against the closure of valley oak, but in a vote went down overwhelminly against valley oak. Therefore Provenza could claim to support valley oak to save his political hyde while at the same time knowing full well his vote wouldn’t prevent the school’s closure and ridding the board of the Valley Oak problem.
Second, Provenza was hardly supportive of the valley oak charter proposal at the last school board meeting. The meeting began and he told Charter proponents to limit their proposal to ten minutes. I find that request rediculous because the Charter supporters had to make their case before the board and address all possible concerns. No way that could be done in that time. I don’t believe Provenza is that stupid either.
I also found the ten minute rule rediculous because they just finished using 10 minutes to throw a victory party about Measure Q. Perhaps Valley Oak was a little more important than Provenza’s celebration time.
Provenza also said he was waiting for “the staff report” to make up his mind. That sounds like using the staff report as political cover to me. He knew full well what that report was going to say.
can’t stand west, but I’m weary of Provenza. Watch him.
Financial concerns could be a reason to deny if “(2) The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition.”
(Cal. education code 47605)
Financial concerns could be a reason to deny if “(2) The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition.”
(Cal. education code 47605)
Financial concerns could be a reason to deny if “(2) The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition.”
(Cal. education code 47605)
Financial concerns could be a reason to deny if “(2) The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition.”
(Cal. education code 47605)
The biggest concern I have about the VO charter is the financial issue. Honestly, the only thing I have read of the charter documents is what shows up in news stories, so I concede I may be missing something.
In my own head, I don’t see how the district can fund the charter w/o losing money for programs in other parts of the district.
It’s a given that the district is not going to have as much money from the state in the future because of gradually declining enrollments (not to speak of a not so great economy right now).
There’s a common sense understanding that it is fiscally cheaper to run fewer schools.
That was the public rationale for closing VOE in the first place.
And that’s what keeps me from wanting to go out of my way to offer support for this effort.
I don’t mind that the district raises objections, if they are operating out of a similar concern. To me, it’s fiscal prudence, which is something a lot of critics of the district have been clamoring for (note issues mentioned in connection w/ paying two SI salaries, not having things clear for funding the new King HS, etc.). Yes, maybe the district is being nitpicky in its response, but to me it’s in the service of a responsible motivation.
It seems you can’t have it both ways: slamming the district for not being more fiscally responsible, and then slamming them again for not supporting this charter effort. Which do you want? I don’t see how you can have it both ways. Add to that the desire of teachers for a salary improvement!
If the VO charter movement could specifically, succinctly address this question, I’m open to changing my mind, and I think others in Davis might change their minds as well.
Otherwise, the VOC proponents’ arguments to me come across as “screw everyone else, the cost and the consequences, we’ve been following the rules, so it’s our right to have a charter school.”
I’m not happy about that because some programs that benefit my children have already been threatened by dwindling funds/enrollment.
Anyone out there w/ a better understanding of this, please speak up! Please convince me that I shouldn’t worry about the cost issue.
The biggest concern I have about the VO charter is the financial issue. Honestly, the only thing I have read of the charter documents is what shows up in news stories, so I concede I may be missing something.
In my own head, I don’t see how the district can fund the charter w/o losing money for programs in other parts of the district.
It’s a given that the district is not going to have as much money from the state in the future because of gradually declining enrollments (not to speak of a not so great economy right now).
There’s a common sense understanding that it is fiscally cheaper to run fewer schools.
That was the public rationale for closing VOE in the first place.
And that’s what keeps me from wanting to go out of my way to offer support for this effort.
I don’t mind that the district raises objections, if they are operating out of a similar concern. To me, it’s fiscal prudence, which is something a lot of critics of the district have been clamoring for (note issues mentioned in connection w/ paying two SI salaries, not having things clear for funding the new King HS, etc.). Yes, maybe the district is being nitpicky in its response, but to me it’s in the service of a responsible motivation.
It seems you can’t have it both ways: slamming the district for not being more fiscally responsible, and then slamming them again for not supporting this charter effort. Which do you want? I don’t see how you can have it both ways. Add to that the desire of teachers for a salary improvement!
If the VO charter movement could specifically, succinctly address this question, I’m open to changing my mind, and I think others in Davis might change their minds as well.
Otherwise, the VOC proponents’ arguments to me come across as “screw everyone else, the cost and the consequences, we’ve been following the rules, so it’s our right to have a charter school.”
I’m not happy about that because some programs that benefit my children have already been threatened by dwindling funds/enrollment.
Anyone out there w/ a better understanding of this, please speak up! Please convince me that I shouldn’t worry about the cost issue.
The biggest concern I have about the VO charter is the financial issue. Honestly, the only thing I have read of the charter documents is what shows up in news stories, so I concede I may be missing something.
In my own head, I don’t see how the district can fund the charter w/o losing money for programs in other parts of the district.
It’s a given that the district is not going to have as much money from the state in the future because of gradually declining enrollments (not to speak of a not so great economy right now).
There’s a common sense understanding that it is fiscally cheaper to run fewer schools.
That was the public rationale for closing VOE in the first place.
And that’s what keeps me from wanting to go out of my way to offer support for this effort.
I don’t mind that the district raises objections, if they are operating out of a similar concern. To me, it’s fiscal prudence, which is something a lot of critics of the district have been clamoring for (note issues mentioned in connection w/ paying two SI salaries, not having things clear for funding the new King HS, etc.). Yes, maybe the district is being nitpicky in its response, but to me it’s in the service of a responsible motivation.
It seems you can’t have it both ways: slamming the district for not being more fiscally responsible, and then slamming them again for not supporting this charter effort. Which do you want? I don’t see how you can have it both ways. Add to that the desire of teachers for a salary improvement!
If the VO charter movement could specifically, succinctly address this question, I’m open to changing my mind, and I think others in Davis might change their minds as well.
Otherwise, the VOC proponents’ arguments to me come across as “screw everyone else, the cost and the consequences, we’ve been following the rules, so it’s our right to have a charter school.”
I’m not happy about that because some programs that benefit my children have already been threatened by dwindling funds/enrollment.
Anyone out there w/ a better understanding of this, please speak up! Please convince me that I shouldn’t worry about the cost issue.
The biggest concern I have about the VO charter is the financial issue. Honestly, the only thing I have read of the charter documents is what shows up in news stories, so I concede I may be missing something.
In my own head, I don’t see how the district can fund the charter w/o losing money for programs in other parts of the district.
It’s a given that the district is not going to have as much money from the state in the future because of gradually declining enrollments (not to speak of a not so great economy right now).
There’s a common sense understanding that it is fiscally cheaper to run fewer schools.
That was the public rationale for closing VOE in the first place.
And that’s what keeps me from wanting to go out of my way to offer support for this effort.
I don’t mind that the district raises objections, if they are operating out of a similar concern. To me, it’s fiscal prudence, which is something a lot of critics of the district have been clamoring for (note issues mentioned in connection w/ paying two SI salaries, not having things clear for funding the new King HS, etc.). Yes, maybe the district is being nitpicky in its response, but to me it’s in the service of a responsible motivation.
It seems you can’t have it both ways: slamming the district for not being more fiscally responsible, and then slamming them again for not supporting this charter effort. Which do you want? I don’t see how you can have it both ways. Add to that the desire of teachers for a salary improvement!
If the VO charter movement could specifically, succinctly address this question, I’m open to changing my mind, and I think others in Davis might change their minds as well.
Otherwise, the VOC proponents’ arguments to me come across as “screw everyone else, the cost and the consequences, we’ve been following the rules, so it’s our right to have a charter school.”
I’m not happy about that because some programs that benefit my children have already been threatened by dwindling funds/enrollment.
Anyone out there w/ a better understanding of this, please speak up! Please convince me that I shouldn’t worry about the cost issue.
The finances of the district are not a legal reason for the district to reject the charter proposal, so while I understand your point, it misses an essential point which is the law in this case.
As far as finances go, that’s a matter of differing opinions. The district came to the conclusion that there was a financial burden to having VO open, but that cannot be a reason for denial of the charter.
The finances of the district are not a legal reason for the district to reject the charter proposal, so while I understand your point, it misses an essential point which is the law in this case.
As far as finances go, that’s a matter of differing opinions. The district came to the conclusion that there was a financial burden to having VO open, but that cannot be a reason for denial of the charter.
The finances of the district are not a legal reason for the district to reject the charter proposal, so while I understand your point, it misses an essential point which is the law in this case.
As far as finances go, that’s a matter of differing opinions. The district came to the conclusion that there was a financial burden to having VO open, but that cannot be a reason for denial of the charter.
The finances of the district are not a legal reason for the district to reject the charter proposal, so while I understand your point, it misses an essential point which is the law in this case.
As far as finances go, that’s a matter of differing opinions. The district came to the conclusion that there was a financial burden to having VO open, but that cannot be a reason for denial of the charter.
I was confused by the financial analysis by the district. Isn’t there already a fully supplied school there so why would there be all these start up costs? Maybe I am missing something.
I think the issue here is that the district thought that they had solved this and wanted to move on. That was the position that won in the school board race. So it seems a charter school takes the district back to square one on dealing with their enrollment issues. While I understand the predicament the charter school places the district in the response does seem to be too negative and heavy handed.
My guess is that the district will play for time trying to slow down the process in the hope that the charter can’t be done in time for the next school year and then try to do something with the Valley Oak site so that it becomes unavailable. It will be a divisive and nasty fight. While closing a school in Davis could erupt into contention any time, this situation, where a school in a weaker economic area of Davis is replaced by one in a wealthier neighborhood has made the Valley Oak closing look bad. The economic strength of the winners which include all the rest of the schools contrasted against the less wealthy population of the Valley Oak neighborhood makes it hard to swollow. The appearent victory of the rich against the poor overhangs all the other reasons for the decision to close the school. It is what makes the district look bad.
I wonder what would have happened if another school had been closed would it have been as contentious? Well, we could have that debate if the district came up with a proposal to close another school because of the impact of opening a Valley Oak charter school, but I don’t think that will happen.
Finally, there is a solution that makes you need to wonder why the district has not moved on. If they allowed interdistrict transfers they could raise the enrollment enough to keep the schools afloat. Of course that raises all sorts of other issues about development, the value of housing and parcel taxes supporting the education of children from other communities but sometimes it takes more than a village to raise a child.
Ron Glick
I was confused by the financial analysis by the district. Isn’t there already a fully supplied school there so why would there be all these start up costs? Maybe I am missing something.
I think the issue here is that the district thought that they had solved this and wanted to move on. That was the position that won in the school board race. So it seems a charter school takes the district back to square one on dealing with their enrollment issues. While I understand the predicament the charter school places the district in the response does seem to be too negative and heavy handed.
My guess is that the district will play for time trying to slow down the process in the hope that the charter can’t be done in time for the next school year and then try to do something with the Valley Oak site so that it becomes unavailable. It will be a divisive and nasty fight. While closing a school in Davis could erupt into contention any time, this situation, where a school in a weaker economic area of Davis is replaced by one in a wealthier neighborhood has made the Valley Oak closing look bad. The economic strength of the winners which include all the rest of the schools contrasted against the less wealthy population of the Valley Oak neighborhood makes it hard to swollow. The appearent victory of the rich against the poor overhangs all the other reasons for the decision to close the school. It is what makes the district look bad.
I wonder what would have happened if another school had been closed would it have been as contentious? Well, we could have that debate if the district came up with a proposal to close another school because of the impact of opening a Valley Oak charter school, but I don’t think that will happen.
Finally, there is a solution that makes you need to wonder why the district has not moved on. If they allowed interdistrict transfers they could raise the enrollment enough to keep the schools afloat. Of course that raises all sorts of other issues about development, the value of housing and parcel taxes supporting the education of children from other communities but sometimes it takes more than a village to raise a child.
Ron Glick
I was confused by the financial analysis by the district. Isn’t there already a fully supplied school there so why would there be all these start up costs? Maybe I am missing something.
I think the issue here is that the district thought that they had solved this and wanted to move on. That was the position that won in the school board race. So it seems a charter school takes the district back to square one on dealing with their enrollment issues. While I understand the predicament the charter school places the district in the response does seem to be too negative and heavy handed.
My guess is that the district will play for time trying to slow down the process in the hope that the charter can’t be done in time for the next school year and then try to do something with the Valley Oak site so that it becomes unavailable. It will be a divisive and nasty fight. While closing a school in Davis could erupt into contention any time, this situation, where a school in a weaker economic area of Davis is replaced by one in a wealthier neighborhood has made the Valley Oak closing look bad. The economic strength of the winners which include all the rest of the schools contrasted against the less wealthy population of the Valley Oak neighborhood makes it hard to swollow. The appearent victory of the rich against the poor overhangs all the other reasons for the decision to close the school. It is what makes the district look bad.
I wonder what would have happened if another school had been closed would it have been as contentious? Well, we could have that debate if the district came up with a proposal to close another school because of the impact of opening a Valley Oak charter school, but I don’t think that will happen.
Finally, there is a solution that makes you need to wonder why the district has not moved on. If they allowed interdistrict transfers they could raise the enrollment enough to keep the schools afloat. Of course that raises all sorts of other issues about development, the value of housing and parcel taxes supporting the education of children from other communities but sometimes it takes more than a village to raise a child.
Ron Glick
I was confused by the financial analysis by the district. Isn’t there already a fully supplied school there so why would there be all these start up costs? Maybe I am missing something.
I think the issue here is that the district thought that they had solved this and wanted to move on. That was the position that won in the school board race. So it seems a charter school takes the district back to square one on dealing with their enrollment issues. While I understand the predicament the charter school places the district in the response does seem to be too negative and heavy handed.
My guess is that the district will play for time trying to slow down the process in the hope that the charter can’t be done in time for the next school year and then try to do something with the Valley Oak site so that it becomes unavailable. It will be a divisive and nasty fight. While closing a school in Davis could erupt into contention any time, this situation, where a school in a weaker economic area of Davis is replaced by one in a wealthier neighborhood has made the Valley Oak closing look bad. The economic strength of the winners which include all the rest of the schools contrasted against the less wealthy population of the Valley Oak neighborhood makes it hard to swollow. The appearent victory of the rich against the poor overhangs all the other reasons for the decision to close the school. It is what makes the district look bad.
I wonder what would have happened if another school had been closed would it have been as contentious? Well, we could have that debate if the district came up with a proposal to close another school because of the impact of opening a Valley Oak charter school, but I don’t think that will happen.
Finally, there is a solution that makes you need to wonder why the district has not moved on. If they allowed interdistrict transfers they could raise the enrollment enough to keep the schools afloat. Of course that raises all sorts of other issues about development, the value of housing and parcel taxes supporting the education of children from other communities but sometimes it takes more than a village to raise a child.
Ron Glick
I think there are three key reasons that the district can do this and still be fiscally responsible:
1. Are you going tell me that the district is so fiscally sound it cannot find the budget to cut elsewhere–I do not believe this option was adequately explored
2. The projections on enrollment are unstable at best and heavily reliant upon the underlying assumptions of the model, small changes in assumptions produce large swings in enrollment projection
3. Some of the costs can be mitigated with a strong push from the district and VOC to sell the program to out of district transfers.
I think there are three key reasons that the district can do this and still be fiscally responsible:
1. Are you going tell me that the district is so fiscally sound it cannot find the budget to cut elsewhere–I do not believe this option was adequately explored
2. The projections on enrollment are unstable at best and heavily reliant upon the underlying assumptions of the model, small changes in assumptions produce large swings in enrollment projection
3. Some of the costs can be mitigated with a strong push from the district and VOC to sell the program to out of district transfers.
I think there are three key reasons that the district can do this and still be fiscally responsible:
1. Are you going tell me that the district is so fiscally sound it cannot find the budget to cut elsewhere–I do not believe this option was adequately explored
2. The projections on enrollment are unstable at best and heavily reliant upon the underlying assumptions of the model, small changes in assumptions produce large swings in enrollment projection
3. Some of the costs can be mitigated with a strong push from the district and VOC to sell the program to out of district transfers.
I think there are three key reasons that the district can do this and still be fiscally responsible:
1. Are you going tell me that the district is so fiscally sound it cannot find the budget to cut elsewhere–I do not believe this option was adequately explored
2. The projections on enrollment are unstable at best and heavily reliant upon the underlying assumptions of the model, small changes in assumptions produce large swings in enrollment projection
3. Some of the costs can be mitigated with a strong push from the district and VOC to sell the program to out of district transfers.
I hope the rest of Davis gets behind the Valley Oak charter because it really does serve students who have needs but command little political value to the district. Too many people in Davis are comfortable, so they become apathetic and unsympathetic. The district and school board members always give certain reasons for decisions they make, but they are not the real reasons. It would be good if those in the know could bring the real reasons for why they want to get rid of Valley Oak with its history of excellence. I know that with the teachers that want to stay, Valley Oak will shine. If the district disperses all these great teachers to other schools, the lower morale will affect the quality of education students will get and we might even lose these teachers—and maybe even students…
As for the fiscal responsibility argument: Why did the district spend tons of money on the school upgrade just to shut it down two years later?
I hope the rest of Davis gets behind the Valley Oak charter because it really does serve students who have needs but command little political value to the district. Too many people in Davis are comfortable, so they become apathetic and unsympathetic. The district and school board members always give certain reasons for decisions they make, but they are not the real reasons. It would be good if those in the know could bring the real reasons for why they want to get rid of Valley Oak with its history of excellence. I know that with the teachers that want to stay, Valley Oak will shine. If the district disperses all these great teachers to other schools, the lower morale will affect the quality of education students will get and we might even lose these teachers—and maybe even students…
As for the fiscal responsibility argument: Why did the district spend tons of money on the school upgrade just to shut it down two years later?
I hope the rest of Davis gets behind the Valley Oak charter because it really does serve students who have needs but command little political value to the district. Too many people in Davis are comfortable, so they become apathetic and unsympathetic. The district and school board members always give certain reasons for decisions they make, but they are not the real reasons. It would be good if those in the know could bring the real reasons for why they want to get rid of Valley Oak with its history of excellence. I know that with the teachers that want to stay, Valley Oak will shine. If the district disperses all these great teachers to other schools, the lower morale will affect the quality of education students will get and we might even lose these teachers—and maybe even students…
As for the fiscal responsibility argument: Why did the district spend tons of money on the school upgrade just to shut it down two years later?
I hope the rest of Davis gets behind the Valley Oak charter because it really does serve students who have needs but command little political value to the district. Too many people in Davis are comfortable, so they become apathetic and unsympathetic. The district and school board members always give certain reasons for decisions they make, but they are not the real reasons. It would be good if those in the know could bring the real reasons for why they want to get rid of Valley Oak with its history of excellence. I know that with the teachers that want to stay, Valley Oak will shine. If the district disperses all these great teachers to other schools, the lower morale will affect the quality of education students will get and we might even lose these teachers—and maybe even students…
As for the fiscal responsibility argument: Why did the district spend tons of money on the school upgrade just to shut it down two years later?
“The finances of the district are not a legal reason for the district to reject the charter proposal, so while I understand your point, it misses an essential point which is the law in this case.
As far as finances go, that’s a matter of differing opinions. The district came to the conclusion that there was a financial burden to having VO open, but that cannot be a reason for denial of the charter.”
I posted the 11:22 comment.
I understand that the district can’t use that as the official reason for denial, but to me it looks like the de facto reason.
This is brutal politics, here. You can be legally right and lose the conflict.
To succeed VOC proponents need to tackle the financial argument head on. Successfully, it would deflate a significant (maybe all?) amount of opposition. If financial issues are a matter of differing opinion, then offer a strong argument why it doesn’t matter.
“The finances of the district are not a legal reason for the district to reject the charter proposal, so while I understand your point, it misses an essential point which is the law in this case.
As far as finances go, that’s a matter of differing opinions. The district came to the conclusion that there was a financial burden to having VO open, but that cannot be a reason for denial of the charter.”
I posted the 11:22 comment.
I understand that the district can’t use that as the official reason for denial, but to me it looks like the de facto reason.
This is brutal politics, here. You can be legally right and lose the conflict.
To succeed VOC proponents need to tackle the financial argument head on. Successfully, it would deflate a significant (maybe all?) amount of opposition. If financial issues are a matter of differing opinion, then offer a strong argument why it doesn’t matter.
“The finances of the district are not a legal reason for the district to reject the charter proposal, so while I understand your point, it misses an essential point which is the law in this case.
As far as finances go, that’s a matter of differing opinions. The district came to the conclusion that there was a financial burden to having VO open, but that cannot be a reason for denial of the charter.”
I posted the 11:22 comment.
I understand that the district can’t use that as the official reason for denial, but to me it looks like the de facto reason.
This is brutal politics, here. You can be legally right and lose the conflict.
To succeed VOC proponents need to tackle the financial argument head on. Successfully, it would deflate a significant (maybe all?) amount of opposition. If financial issues are a matter of differing opinion, then offer a strong argument why it doesn’t matter.
“The finances of the district are not a legal reason for the district to reject the charter proposal, so while I understand your point, it misses an essential point which is the law in this case.
As far as finances go, that’s a matter of differing opinions. The district came to the conclusion that there was a financial burden to having VO open, but that cannot be a reason for denial of the charter.”
I posted the 11:22 comment.
I understand that the district can’t use that as the official reason for denial, but to me it looks like the de facto reason.
This is brutal politics, here. You can be legally right and lose the conflict.
To succeed VOC proponents need to tackle the financial argument head on. Successfully, it would deflate a significant (maybe all?) amount of opposition. If financial issues are a matter of differing opinion, then offer a strong argument why it doesn’t matter.
anon 11:12 and 11:44:
I don’t disagree. The district I think as others have said are stalling for time, because I think they lose if this goes to court, maybe they still believe the proponents of VOC will go away.
anon 11:12 and 11:44:
I don’t disagree. The district I think as others have said are stalling for time, because I think they lose if this goes to court, maybe they still believe the proponents of VOC will go away.
anon 11:12 and 11:44:
I don’t disagree. The district I think as others have said are stalling for time, because I think they lose if this goes to court, maybe they still believe the proponents of VOC will go away.
anon 11:12 and 11:44:
I don’t disagree. The district I think as others have said are stalling for time, because I think they lose if this goes to court, maybe they still believe the proponents of VOC will go away.
“Isn’t there already a fully supplied school there so why would there be all these start up costs?”
Because those resources (books, materials, etc.) belong to the District, not to the charter. The District will redistribute the materials to its own schools when VO closes. The charter wants to operate separately from the District – therefore they don’t automatically get all those resources.
“Isn’t there already a fully supplied school there so why would there be all these start up costs?”
Because those resources (books, materials, etc.) belong to the District, not to the charter. The District will redistribute the materials to its own schools when VO closes. The charter wants to operate separately from the District – therefore they don’t automatically get all those resources.
“Isn’t there already a fully supplied school there so why would there be all these start up costs?”
Because those resources (books, materials, etc.) belong to the District, not to the charter. The District will redistribute the materials to its own schools when VO closes. The charter wants to operate separately from the District – therefore they don’t automatically get all those resources.
“Isn’t there already a fully supplied school there so why would there be all these start up costs?”
Because those resources (books, materials, etc.) belong to the District, not to the charter. The District will redistribute the materials to its own schools when VO closes. The charter wants to operate separately from the District – therefore they don’t automatically get all those resources.
two things:
1. the attorney was looking for legal reasons the charter could be denied. this report outlines what legal basis (cover) the board has should they vote to deny. it is a procedural thing, and even though I’m quite the supporter of the charter i think people are getting too excited about this. it is report by an attorney doing his job- looking for legitimate reasons to deny the charter which gives the board options. hopefully they’ll do the right thing and approve the charter and work through the findings together.
2. the enterprise mentioned that there was no non-profit to actually run the charter. does anyone else see a problem with this. can’t somebody draw up some articles of incorporation and get that ball rolling? i haven’t seen a response to that- even something to the effect of “no nonprofit needed until approval” or something like that. it would be comforting to know the organization in charge of the charter is official or will be official in some way- this seems like a legitimate concern.
two things:
1. the attorney was looking for legal reasons the charter could be denied. this report outlines what legal basis (cover) the board has should they vote to deny. it is a procedural thing, and even though I’m quite the supporter of the charter i think people are getting too excited about this. it is report by an attorney doing his job- looking for legitimate reasons to deny the charter which gives the board options. hopefully they’ll do the right thing and approve the charter and work through the findings together.
2. the enterprise mentioned that there was no non-profit to actually run the charter. does anyone else see a problem with this. can’t somebody draw up some articles of incorporation and get that ball rolling? i haven’t seen a response to that- even something to the effect of “no nonprofit needed until approval” or something like that. it would be comforting to know the organization in charge of the charter is official or will be official in some way- this seems like a legitimate concern.
two things:
1. the attorney was looking for legal reasons the charter could be denied. this report outlines what legal basis (cover) the board has should they vote to deny. it is a procedural thing, and even though I’m quite the supporter of the charter i think people are getting too excited about this. it is report by an attorney doing his job- looking for legitimate reasons to deny the charter which gives the board options. hopefully they’ll do the right thing and approve the charter and work through the findings together.
2. the enterprise mentioned that there was no non-profit to actually run the charter. does anyone else see a problem with this. can’t somebody draw up some articles of incorporation and get that ball rolling? i haven’t seen a response to that- even something to the effect of “no nonprofit needed until approval” or something like that. it would be comforting to know the organization in charge of the charter is official or will be official in some way- this seems like a legitimate concern.
two things:
1. the attorney was looking for legal reasons the charter could be denied. this report outlines what legal basis (cover) the board has should they vote to deny. it is a procedural thing, and even though I’m quite the supporter of the charter i think people are getting too excited about this. it is report by an attorney doing his job- looking for legitimate reasons to deny the charter which gives the board options. hopefully they’ll do the right thing and approve the charter and work through the findings together.
2. the enterprise mentioned that there was no non-profit to actually run the charter. does anyone else see a problem with this. can’t somebody draw up some articles of incorporation and get that ball rolling? i haven’t seen a response to that- even something to the effect of “no nonprofit needed until approval” or something like that. it would be comforting to know the organization in charge of the charter is official or will be official in some way- this seems like a legitimate concern.
To Supporter looking for facts:
You omitted a key fact. The District
staff took this attorney’s report and is recommending DENIAL.
To Supporter looking for facts:
You omitted a key fact. The District
staff took this attorney’s report and is recommending DENIAL.
To Supporter looking for facts:
You omitted a key fact. The District
staff took this attorney’s report and is recommending DENIAL.
To Supporter looking for facts:
You omitted a key fact. The District
staff took this attorney’s report and is recommending DENIAL.
“I am glad it was uncovered that Marty West/Sallee started this Valley Oak closing mess.”
Really?
West and Sallee had been off the school board for a long time when the best uses task force suggested that VO should be closed. West and Sallee had no influence over the task force. West and Sallee were not on the school board when the board decided to close VO. I don’t see how West and Sallee can be blamed for this decision, which was made by the board members which replaced them.
“I am glad it was uncovered that Marty West/Sallee started this Valley Oak closing mess.”
Really?
West and Sallee had been off the school board for a long time when the best uses task force suggested that VO should be closed. West and Sallee had no influence over the task force. West and Sallee were not on the school board when the board decided to close VO. I don’t see how West and Sallee can be blamed for this decision, which was made by the board members which replaced them.
“I am glad it was uncovered that Marty West/Sallee started this Valley Oak closing mess.”
Really?
West and Sallee had been off the school board for a long time when the best uses task force suggested that VO should be closed. West and Sallee had no influence over the task force. West and Sallee were not on the school board when the board decided to close VO. I don’t see how West and Sallee can be blamed for this decision, which was made by the board members which replaced them.
“I am glad it was uncovered that Marty West/Sallee started this Valley Oak closing mess.”
Really?
West and Sallee had been off the school board for a long time when the best uses task force suggested that VO should be closed. West and Sallee had no influence over the task force. West and Sallee were not on the school board when the board decided to close VO. I don’t see how West and Sallee can be blamed for this decision, which was made by the board members which replaced them.
“….therefore they don’t automatically get all those resources.”
The DJUSD pulled the same stuff in the Spanish Immersion start-up years. No library books and limited school supplies even though we WERE part of the District. The SI PTA purchased the program’s library books.
I understand that the district can’t use that as the official reason for denial, but to me it looks like the de facto reason.
This is brutal politics, here. You can be legally right and lose the conflict.
To succeed VOC proponents need to tackle the financial argument head on. Successfully, it would deflate a significant (maybe all?) amount of opposition. If financial issues are a matter of differing opinion, then offer a strong argument why it doesn’t matter.
12/6/07 11:44 AM
In a rational world, this would be true.
But, from what I’ve read and heard here and elsewhere, I think that there are other motivations. This doesn’t look like a factual problem, a problem about implementation and finances, but, rather, just a power struggle, plain and simple. Staff wants to get their way, and doesn’t want a precedent established that community organizing can overturn a decision approved by the Board.
There may also be some developmemt undercurrents, but, at this point, it is hard to know what they might be.
This is going to be the ugliest thing to hit Davis in a long, long time. The Buzayan case will be considered minor by comparison. Will the District and the Board recognize that the damage inflicted by such a fight will far surpass the potential financial consequences?
–Richard Estes
“….therefore they don’t automatically get all those resources.”
The DJUSD pulled the same stuff in the Spanish Immersion start-up years. No library books and limited school supplies even though we WERE part of the District. The SI PTA purchased the program’s library books.
I understand that the district can’t use that as the official reason for denial, but to me it looks like the de facto reason.
This is brutal politics, here. You can be legally right and lose the conflict.
To succeed VOC proponents need to tackle the financial argument head on. Successfully, it would deflate a significant (maybe all?) amount of opposition. If financial issues are a matter of differing opinion, then offer a strong argument why it doesn’t matter.
12/6/07 11:44 AM
In a rational world, this would be true.
But, from what I’ve read and heard here and elsewhere, I think that there are other motivations. This doesn’t look like a factual problem, a problem about implementation and finances, but, rather, just a power struggle, plain and simple. Staff wants to get their way, and doesn’t want a precedent established that community organizing can overturn a decision approved by the Board.
There may also be some developmemt undercurrents, but, at this point, it is hard to know what they might be.
This is going to be the ugliest thing to hit Davis in a long, long time. The Buzayan case will be considered minor by comparison. Will the District and the Board recognize that the damage inflicted by such a fight will far surpass the potential financial consequences?
–Richard Estes
“….therefore they don’t automatically get all those resources.”
The DJUSD pulled the same stuff in the Spanish Immersion start-up years. No library books and limited school supplies even though we WERE part of the District. The SI PTA purchased the program’s library books.
I understand that the district can’t use that as the official reason for denial, but to me it looks like the de facto reason.
This is brutal politics, here. You can be legally right and lose the conflict.
To succeed VOC proponents need to tackle the financial argument head on. Successfully, it would deflate a significant (maybe all?) amount of opposition. If financial issues are a matter of differing opinion, then offer a strong argument why it doesn’t matter.
12/6/07 11:44 AM
In a rational world, this would be true.
But, from what I’ve read and heard here and elsewhere, I think that there are other motivations. This doesn’t look like a factual problem, a problem about implementation and finances, but, rather, just a power struggle, plain and simple. Staff wants to get their way, and doesn’t want a precedent established that community organizing can overturn a decision approved by the Board.
There may also be some developmemt undercurrents, but, at this point, it is hard to know what they might be.
This is going to be the ugliest thing to hit Davis in a long, long time. The Buzayan case will be considered minor by comparison. Will the District and the Board recognize that the damage inflicted by such a fight will far surpass the potential financial consequences?
–Richard Estes
“….therefore they don’t automatically get all those resources.”
The DJUSD pulled the same stuff in the Spanish Immersion start-up years. No library books and limited school supplies even though we WERE part of the District. The SI PTA purchased the program’s library books.
I understand that the district can’t use that as the official reason for denial, but to me it looks like the de facto reason.
This is brutal politics, here. You can be legally right and lose the conflict.
To succeed VOC proponents need to tackle the financial argument head on. Successfully, it would deflate a significant (maybe all?) amount of opposition. If financial issues are a matter of differing opinion, then offer a strong argument why it doesn’t matter.
12/6/07 11:44 AM
In a rational world, this would be true.
But, from what I’ve read and heard here and elsewhere, I think that there are other motivations. This doesn’t look like a factual problem, a problem about implementation and finances, but, rather, just a power struggle, plain and simple. Staff wants to get their way, and doesn’t want a precedent established that community organizing can overturn a decision approved by the Board.
There may also be some developmemt undercurrents, but, at this point, it is hard to know what they might be.
This is going to be the ugliest thing to hit Davis in a long, long time. The Buzayan case will be considered minor by comparison. Will the District and the Board recognize that the damage inflicted by such a fight will far surpass the potential financial consequences?
–Richard Estes
The school district will have a fiscal crisis if VO becomes a charter school? Hogwash! The school district/board doesn’t seem to have any problem paying an outgoing supt. $240,000 for doing nothing. The school district/board doesn’t seem to have any problem building two brand new schools that are not needed because they are sloppy at projections. They had to go back and review old tapes to determine if they ever allocated funding for King High. Oops!!!
Oh yes, and a number of former school district employees (including Marty West) turn up as employees of a consulting firm headed by the disgraced asst. supt. who almost lost the district $4.5 million. How much district business has been/will be funneled through this consulting firm?
The scandals at the school district are growing by leaps and bounds, and I doubt we have heard the last of them yet. The only fiscal crisis we have is the one manufactured by the school district when it suits their convenience. Think about it. We find out that at back to school night some teachers had to beg for textbook money from parents. The school board does not have enough money to pay for books – yet has enough money to pay for lets see… a $240,000 supt. who will not be working for a year; a new supt. at $190,000 (and don’t tell me we have to pay big bucks to get qualified people – that argument will not hold water anymore after the last supt fiasco); a brand new experimental Da Vinci High that resulted in its principal moving up to an administrative position as Director of Student Services; new laptop computers for these Da Vinci High students; new administrative bldg at DHS while kids don’t even have decent sized lockers; a huge new auditorium in partnership with the city in which the school was initially told they can’t use it bc the floor might get scratched; “upgrades” in Emerson, Holmes and DHS, etc, etc, etc….
The list goes on and on, but come tax increase time the district does not have enough money to pay for textbooks. Yeah right!!! Like I believe the school district/board. The best thing that ever happened to Davis was the closing of VO and the ascendency of the charter school idea. Its about time the school district/board were held accountable for their fiscal shennigans.
So, a couple more points / correction:
1. the staff recommends denial but it doesn’t matter because the Board is the “deciders” (bad grammar intended)- no reason to get worked up until your elected official doesn’t represent your will. being bitter over ‘staff’ and ‘attorneys’ being mean or not friendly is a waste of time and expectations, i.e. not a battle worth fighting. stick to your guns and go for the board is my main point.
2. i guess according to charter law you don’t have to be a non-profit. however, if the charter folks referred to a non-profit in their charter (one that will be incorporated upon approval) they should have included all documents (draft bylaws/articles/etc.) in the charter proposal. or not refer to it. referring to a legally non-existent non-profit is bad form unless you include the proposed incorporating documents, ready to be filed upon approval (as noted). i don’t think this makes it dead in the water, i just think it is slightly unprofessional, looking in.
The school district will have a fiscal crisis if VO becomes a charter school? Hogwash! The school district/board doesn’t seem to have any problem paying an outgoing supt. $240,000 for doing nothing. The school district/board doesn’t seem to have any problem building two brand new schools that are not needed because they are sloppy at projections. They had to go back and review old tapes to determine if they ever allocated funding for King High. Oops!!!
Oh yes, and a number of former school district employees (including Marty West) turn up as employees of a consulting firm headed by the disgraced asst. supt. who almost lost the district $4.5 million. How much district business has been/will be funneled through this consulting firm?
The scandals at the school district are growing by leaps and bounds, and I doubt we have heard the last of them yet. The only fiscal crisis we have is the one manufactured by the school district when it suits their convenience. Think about it. We find out that at back to school night some teachers had to beg for textbook money from parents. The school board does not have enough money to pay for books – yet has enough money to pay for lets see… a $240,000 supt. who will not be working for a year; a new supt. at $190,000 (and don’t tell me we have to pay big bucks to get qualified people – that argument will not hold water anymore after the last supt fiasco); a brand new experimental Da Vinci High that resulted in its principal moving up to an administrative position as Director of Student Services; new laptop computers for these Da Vinci High students; new administrative bldg at DHS while kids don’t even have decent sized lockers; a huge new auditorium in partnership with the city in which the school was initially told they can’t use it bc the floor might get scratched; “upgrades” in Emerson, Holmes and DHS, etc, etc, etc….
The list goes on and on, but come tax increase time the district does not have enough money to pay for textbooks. Yeah right!!! Like I believe the school district/board. The best thing that ever happened to Davis was the closing of VO and the ascendency of the charter school idea. Its about time the school district/board were held accountable for their fiscal shennigans.
So, a couple more points / correction:
1. the staff recommends denial but it doesn’t matter because the Board is the “deciders” (bad grammar intended)- no reason to get worked up until your elected official doesn’t represent your will. being bitter over ‘staff’ and ‘attorneys’ being mean or not friendly is a waste of time and expectations, i.e. not a battle worth fighting. stick to your guns and go for the board is my main point.
2. i guess according to charter law you don’t have to be a non-profit. however, if the charter folks referred to a non-profit in their charter (one that will be incorporated upon approval) they should have included all documents (draft bylaws/articles/etc.) in the charter proposal. or not refer to it. referring to a legally non-existent non-profit is bad form unless you include the proposed incorporating documents, ready to be filed upon approval (as noted). i don’t think this makes it dead in the water, i just think it is slightly unprofessional, looking in.
The school district will have a fiscal crisis if VO becomes a charter school? Hogwash! The school district/board doesn’t seem to have any problem paying an outgoing supt. $240,000 for doing nothing. The school district/board doesn’t seem to have any problem building two brand new schools that are not needed because they are sloppy at projections. They had to go back and review old tapes to determine if they ever allocated funding for King High. Oops!!!
Oh yes, and a number of former school district employees (including Marty West) turn up as employees of a consulting firm headed by the disgraced asst. supt. who almost lost the district $4.5 million. How much district business has been/will be funneled through this consulting firm?
The scandals at the school district are growing by leaps and bounds, and I doubt we have heard the last of them yet. The only fiscal crisis we have is the one manufactured by the school district when it suits their convenience. Think about it. We find out that at back to school night some teachers had to beg for textbook money from parents. The school board does not have enough money to pay for books – yet has enough money to pay for lets see… a $240,000 supt. who will not be working for a year; a new supt. at $190,000 (and don’t tell me we have to pay big bucks to get qualified people – that argument will not hold water anymore after the last supt fiasco); a brand new experimental Da Vinci High that resulted in its principal moving up to an administrative position as Director of Student Services; new laptop computers for these Da Vinci High students; new administrative bldg at DHS while kids don’t even have decent sized lockers; a huge new auditorium in partnership with the city in which the school was initially told they can’t use it bc the floor might get scratched; “upgrades” in Emerson, Holmes and DHS, etc, etc, etc….
The list goes on and on, but come tax increase time the district does not have enough money to pay for textbooks. Yeah right!!! Like I believe the school district/board. The best thing that ever happened to Davis was the closing of VO and the ascendency of the charter school idea. Its about time the school district/board were held accountable for their fiscal shennigans.
So, a couple more points / correction:
1. the staff recommends denial but it doesn’t matter because the Board is the “deciders” (bad grammar intended)- no reason to get worked up until your elected official doesn’t represent your will. being bitter over ‘staff’ and ‘attorneys’ being mean or not friendly is a waste of time and expectations, i.e. not a battle worth fighting. stick to your guns and go for the board is my main point.
2. i guess according to charter law you don’t have to be a non-profit. however, if the charter folks referred to a non-profit in their charter (one that will be incorporated upon approval) they should have included all documents (draft bylaws/articles/etc.) in the charter proposal. or not refer to it. referring to a legally non-existent non-profit is bad form unless you include the proposed incorporating documents, ready to be filed upon approval (as noted). i don’t think this makes it dead in the water, i just think it is slightly unprofessional, looking in.
The school district will have a fiscal crisis if VO becomes a charter school? Hogwash! The school district/board doesn’t seem to have any problem paying an outgoing supt. $240,000 for doing nothing. The school district/board doesn’t seem to have any problem building two brand new schools that are not needed because they are sloppy at projections. They had to go back and review old tapes to determine if they ever allocated funding for King High. Oops!!!
Oh yes, and a number of former school district employees (including Marty West) turn up as employees of a consulting firm headed by the disgraced asst. supt. who almost lost the district $4.5 million. How much district business has been/will be funneled through this consulting firm?
The scandals at the school district are growing by leaps and bounds, and I doubt we have heard the last of them yet. The only fiscal crisis we have is the one manufactured by the school district when it suits their convenience. Think about it. We find out that at back to school night some teachers had to beg for textbook money from parents. The school board does not have enough money to pay for books – yet has enough money to pay for lets see… a $240,000 supt. who will not be working for a year; a new supt. at $190,000 (and don’t tell me we have to pay big bucks to get qualified people – that argument will not hold water anymore after the last supt fiasco); a brand new experimental Da Vinci High that resulted in its principal moving up to an administrative position as Director of Student Services; new laptop computers for these Da Vinci High students; new administrative bldg at DHS while kids don’t even have decent sized lockers; a huge new auditorium in partnership with the city in which the school was initially told they can’t use it bc the floor might get scratched; “upgrades” in Emerson, Holmes and DHS, etc, etc, etc….
The list goes on and on, but come tax increase time the district does not have enough money to pay for textbooks. Yeah right!!! Like I believe the school district/board. The best thing that ever happened to Davis was the closing of VO and the ascendency of the charter school idea. Its about time the school district/board were held accountable for their fiscal shennigans.
So, a couple more points / correction:
1. the staff recommends denial but it doesn’t matter because the Board is the “deciders” (bad grammar intended)- no reason to get worked up until your elected official doesn’t represent your will. being bitter over ‘staff’ and ‘attorneys’ being mean or not friendly is a waste of time and expectations, i.e. not a battle worth fighting. stick to your guns and go for the board is my main point.
2. i guess according to charter law you don’t have to be a non-profit. however, if the charter folks referred to a non-profit in their charter (one that will be incorporated upon approval) they should have included all documents (draft bylaws/articles/etc.) in the charter proposal. or not refer to it. referring to a legally non-existent non-profit is bad form unless you include the proposed incorporating documents, ready to be filed upon approval (as noted). i don’t think this makes it dead in the water, i just think it is slightly unprofessional, looking in.
Unfortunately most of the time, the board approves the staff recommendations.
Unfortunately most of the time, the board approves the staff recommendations.
Unfortunately most of the time, the board approves the staff recommendations.
Unfortunately most of the time, the board approves the staff recommendations.
“..being bitter over ‘staff’ and ‘attorneys’ being mean or not friendly is a waste of time..”
The Board is,for the most part,insulated from public opinion until election time. On a daily basis, District staff(and their Superintendent)want “satisfied customers” so they can do their jobs with minimum stress. Public outrage and resultant disruptions do not go unnoticed by the District .
“..being bitter over ‘staff’ and ‘attorneys’ being mean or not friendly is a waste of time..”
The Board is,for the most part,insulated from public opinion until election time. On a daily basis, District staff(and their Superintendent)want “satisfied customers” so they can do their jobs with minimum stress. Public outrage and resultant disruptions do not go unnoticed by the District .
“..being bitter over ‘staff’ and ‘attorneys’ being mean or not friendly is a waste of time..”
The Board is,for the most part,insulated from public opinion until election time. On a daily basis, District staff(and their Superintendent)want “satisfied customers” so they can do their jobs with minimum stress. Public outrage and resultant disruptions do not go unnoticed by the District .
“..being bitter over ‘staff’ and ‘attorneys’ being mean or not friendly is a waste of time..”
The Board is,for the most part,insulated from public opinion until election time. On a daily basis, District staff(and their Superintendent)want “satisfied customers” so they can do their jobs with minimum stress. Public outrage and resultant disruptions do not go unnoticed by the District .
Richard Estes you are correct that this is going to be an ugly battle. It has already been ugly and it’s getting uglier. However, to say that it will make the Buzayan case look minor by comparison is incorrect. The Buzayan case is not even over. It’s barely getting to the courts in Sacramento and I’m sure 2008 will be an interesting year.
Two different bodies: school district and council, but both are going to be dishing out a lot of BS coverup in the year of 2008.
Keep your eyes open!
Richard Estes you are correct that this is going to be an ugly battle. It has already been ugly and it’s getting uglier. However, to say that it will make the Buzayan case look minor by comparison is incorrect. The Buzayan case is not even over. It’s barely getting to the courts in Sacramento and I’m sure 2008 will be an interesting year.
Two different bodies: school district and council, but both are going to be dishing out a lot of BS coverup in the year of 2008.
Keep your eyes open!
Richard Estes you are correct that this is going to be an ugly battle. It has already been ugly and it’s getting uglier. However, to say that it will make the Buzayan case look minor by comparison is incorrect. The Buzayan case is not even over. It’s barely getting to the courts in Sacramento and I’m sure 2008 will be an interesting year.
Two different bodies: school district and council, but both are going to be dishing out a lot of BS coverup in the year of 2008.
Keep your eyes open!
Richard Estes you are correct that this is going to be an ugly battle. It has already been ugly and it’s getting uglier. However, to say that it will make the Buzayan case look minor by comparison is incorrect. The Buzayan case is not even over. It’s barely getting to the courts in Sacramento and I’m sure 2008 will be an interesting year.
Two different bodies: school district and council, but both are going to be dishing out a lot of BS coverup in the year of 2008.
Keep your eyes open!
“According to the charter group, Colby has seen their budgets many times and has had no objections, then came out of left field.”
Wrong! There were many objections…
“According to the charter group, Colby has seen their budgets many times and has had no objections, then came out of left field.”
Wrong! There were many objections…
“According to the charter group, Colby has seen their budgets many times and has had no objections, then came out of left field.”
Wrong! There were many objections…
“According to the charter group, Colby has seen their budgets many times and has had no objections, then came out of left field.”
Wrong! There were many objections…
Do tell what objections Colby made prior to this report
Do tell what objections Colby made prior to this report
Do tell what objections Colby made prior to this report
Do tell what objections Colby made prior to this report
“To succeed VOC proponents need to tackle the financial argument head on. Successfully, it would deflate a significant (maybe all?) amount of opposition. If financial issues are a matter of differing opinion, then offer a strong argument why it doesn’t matter.”
Obviously they can only guess at their initial enrollment figures. Even the district, with the advantage of prior year enrollment and intent-to-return forms, cannot accurately predict its enrollment until the first week of school.
The petitioners only include 125K as a loan for charter school startup from the state. They are able to request up to twice that amount if necessary. In spite of that, they have 100K left over at the end of the first year.
If it is the district’s intent to strip the school bare, and move all those supplies over to Korematsu, it would be useful to make that clear. And if they are paying $1000 per computer, they need to revisit their bidding and procurement practices.
“To succeed VOC proponents need to tackle the financial argument head on. Successfully, it would deflate a significant (maybe all?) amount of opposition. If financial issues are a matter of differing opinion, then offer a strong argument why it doesn’t matter.”
Obviously they can only guess at their initial enrollment figures. Even the district, with the advantage of prior year enrollment and intent-to-return forms, cannot accurately predict its enrollment until the first week of school.
The petitioners only include 125K as a loan for charter school startup from the state. They are able to request up to twice that amount if necessary. In spite of that, they have 100K left over at the end of the first year.
If it is the district’s intent to strip the school bare, and move all those supplies over to Korematsu, it would be useful to make that clear. And if they are paying $1000 per computer, they need to revisit their bidding and procurement practices.
“To succeed VOC proponents need to tackle the financial argument head on. Successfully, it would deflate a significant (maybe all?) amount of opposition. If financial issues are a matter of differing opinion, then offer a strong argument why it doesn’t matter.”
Obviously they can only guess at their initial enrollment figures. Even the district, with the advantage of prior year enrollment and intent-to-return forms, cannot accurately predict its enrollment until the first week of school.
The petitioners only include 125K as a loan for charter school startup from the state. They are able to request up to twice that amount if necessary. In spite of that, they have 100K left over at the end of the first year.
If it is the district’s intent to strip the school bare, and move all those supplies over to Korematsu, it would be useful to make that clear. And if they are paying $1000 per computer, they need to revisit their bidding and procurement practices.
“To succeed VOC proponents need to tackle the financial argument head on. Successfully, it would deflate a significant (maybe all?) amount of opposition. If financial issues are a matter of differing opinion, then offer a strong argument why it doesn’t matter.”
Obviously they can only guess at their initial enrollment figures. Even the district, with the advantage of prior year enrollment and intent-to-return forms, cannot accurately predict its enrollment until the first week of school.
The petitioners only include 125K as a loan for charter school startup from the state. They are able to request up to twice that amount if necessary. In spite of that, they have 100K left over at the end of the first year.
If it is the district’s intent to strip the school bare, and move all those supplies over to Korematsu, it would be useful to make that clear. And if they are paying $1000 per computer, they need to revisit their bidding and procurement practices.
Darn it! I am honestly appalled by the District’s cavalier unwillingness to entertain this notion of a Valley Oak Charter. And I will be more appalled if the Trustees hide behind their hired flaks when it’s time to make a decision.
Don’t be a bunch of chickens, Trustees! If you are going to vote against these children in this neighborhood because you lack the imagination to find a way to support them and the backbone to order your own staff to implement support, then SAY IT, “We are sticking it to these families in this neighborhood because we can. We wouldn’t try this in West Davis.”
Darn it! I am honestly appalled by the District’s cavalier unwillingness to entertain this notion of a Valley Oak Charter. And I will be more appalled if the Trustees hide behind their hired flaks when it’s time to make a decision.
Don’t be a bunch of chickens, Trustees! If you are going to vote against these children in this neighborhood because you lack the imagination to find a way to support them and the backbone to order your own staff to implement support, then SAY IT, “We are sticking it to these families in this neighborhood because we can. We wouldn’t try this in West Davis.”
Darn it! I am honestly appalled by the District’s cavalier unwillingness to entertain this notion of a Valley Oak Charter. And I will be more appalled if the Trustees hide behind their hired flaks when it’s time to make a decision.
Don’t be a bunch of chickens, Trustees! If you are going to vote against these children in this neighborhood because you lack the imagination to find a way to support them and the backbone to order your own staff to implement support, then SAY IT, “We are sticking it to these families in this neighborhood because we can. We wouldn’t try this in West Davis.”
Darn it! I am honestly appalled by the District’s cavalier unwillingness to entertain this notion of a Valley Oak Charter. And I will be more appalled if the Trustees hide behind their hired flaks when it’s time to make a decision.
Don’t be a bunch of chickens, Trustees! If you are going to vote against these children in this neighborhood because you lack the imagination to find a way to support them and the backbone to order your own staff to implement support, then SAY IT, “We are sticking it to these families in this neighborhood because we can. We wouldn’t try this in West Davis.”
“If it is the district’s intent to strip the school bare, and move all those supplies over to Korematsu, it would be useful to make that clear.”
The staff did make that clear at a school board meeting when they stated they were planning to inventory all supplies at Valley Oak this past September and move them over the spring or summer of 08. (That was before the charter had been presented.)
“If it is the district’s intent to strip the school bare, and move all those supplies over to Korematsu, it would be useful to make that clear.”
The staff did make that clear at a school board meeting when they stated they were planning to inventory all supplies at Valley Oak this past September and move them over the spring or summer of 08. (That was before the charter had been presented.)
“If it is the district’s intent to strip the school bare, and move all those supplies over to Korematsu, it would be useful to make that clear.”
The staff did make that clear at a school board meeting when they stated they were planning to inventory all supplies at Valley Oak this past September and move them over the spring or summer of 08. (That was before the charter had been presented.)
“If it is the district’s intent to strip the school bare, and move all those supplies over to Korematsu, it would be useful to make that clear.”
The staff did make that clear at a school board meeting when they stated they were planning to inventory all supplies at Valley Oak this past September and move them over the spring or summer of 08. (That was before the charter had been presented.)
Once again, key personnel who should have the welfare and education of the kids as their first priority, demonstrate beyond any explanation that it is about THEM and what they want and to HELL with you and your offspring. Once again, I am relieved I don’t have children so I don’t really have to deal with nonsense such as this! I have NEVER voted in the affirmative for ANY parcel tax here and because of this fiasco one will be skiing in HELL before I do! Nice going DJUSD. You should be proud of yourselves, no one else is.
Fred W.
Once again, key personnel who should have the welfare and education of the kids as their first priority, demonstrate beyond any explanation that it is about THEM and what they want and to HELL with you and your offspring. Once again, I am relieved I don’t have children so I don’t really have to deal with nonsense such as this! I have NEVER voted in the affirmative for ANY parcel tax here and because of this fiasco one will be skiing in HELL before I do! Nice going DJUSD. You should be proud of yourselves, no one else is.
Fred W.
Once again, key personnel who should have the welfare and education of the kids as their first priority, demonstrate beyond any explanation that it is about THEM and what they want and to HELL with you and your offspring. Once again, I am relieved I don’t have children so I don’t really have to deal with nonsense such as this! I have NEVER voted in the affirmative for ANY parcel tax here and because of this fiasco one will be skiing in HELL before I do! Nice going DJUSD. You should be proud of yourselves, no one else is.
Fred W.
Once again, key personnel who should have the welfare and education of the kids as their first priority, demonstrate beyond any explanation that it is about THEM and what they want and to HELL with you and your offspring. Once again, I am relieved I don’t have children so I don’t really have to deal with nonsense such as this! I have NEVER voted in the affirmative for ANY parcel tax here and because of this fiasco one will be skiing in HELL before I do! Nice going DJUSD. You should be proud of yourselves, no one else is.
Fred W.
I wondered for many years why Ms. West is referred to as Marty when she’s on school board business and on campus she’s goes by Martha??? Can anyone explain why she seemingly has two identities?? And who would have thought that she’d be associated(don’t know her actual title and don’t really care either…) with, what else, King Hall. Argh!!!
I wondered for many years why Ms. West is referred to as Marty when she’s on school board business and on campus she’s goes by Martha??? Can anyone explain why she seemingly has two identities?? And who would have thought that she’d be associated(don’t know her actual title and don’t really care either…) with, what else, King Hall. Argh!!!
I wondered for many years why Ms. West is referred to as Marty when she’s on school board business and on campus she’s goes by Martha??? Can anyone explain why she seemingly has two identities?? And who would have thought that she’d be associated(don’t know her actual title and don’t really care either…) with, what else, King Hall. Argh!!!
I wondered for many years why Ms. West is referred to as Marty when she’s on school board business and on campus she’s goes by Martha??? Can anyone explain why she seemingly has two identities?? And who would have thought that she’d be associated(don’t know her actual title and don’t really care either…) with, what else, King Hall. Argh!!!
Addressing a previous comment, it seems to me that the entire district is saying “Screw the Valley Oak neighborhood, it is economically disadvantaged and many families are unable to articulate their opposition to the closure, therefore it will be simple to disregard their opinions. The best part is that none of the wealthy and influential residents of Davis are high-minded enough to care about such a neighborhood, because closing it benefits the rest of us”
I feel as though the real issue is whether the district and Davis residents as a whole will prove to be the open-minded community they claim to be. By closing VO the district said that they are willing to sacrifice the weak for the good of the rich, and by opposing the Charter School they prove that they simply don’t believe the economically disadvantaged have a place in the Davis community.
Addressing a previous comment, it seems to me that the entire district is saying “Screw the Valley Oak neighborhood, it is economically disadvantaged and many families are unable to articulate their opposition to the closure, therefore it will be simple to disregard their opinions. The best part is that none of the wealthy and influential residents of Davis are high-minded enough to care about such a neighborhood, because closing it benefits the rest of us”
I feel as though the real issue is whether the district and Davis residents as a whole will prove to be the open-minded community they claim to be. By closing VO the district said that they are willing to sacrifice the weak for the good of the rich, and by opposing the Charter School they prove that they simply don’t believe the economically disadvantaged have a place in the Davis community.
Addressing a previous comment, it seems to me that the entire district is saying “Screw the Valley Oak neighborhood, it is economically disadvantaged and many families are unable to articulate their opposition to the closure, therefore it will be simple to disregard their opinions. The best part is that none of the wealthy and influential residents of Davis are high-minded enough to care about such a neighborhood, because closing it benefits the rest of us”
I feel as though the real issue is whether the district and Davis residents as a whole will prove to be the open-minded community they claim to be. By closing VO the district said that they are willing to sacrifice the weak for the good of the rich, and by opposing the Charter School they prove that they simply don’t believe the economically disadvantaged have a place in the Davis community.
Addressing a previous comment, it seems to me that the entire district is saying “Screw the Valley Oak neighborhood, it is economically disadvantaged and many families are unable to articulate their opposition to the closure, therefore it will be simple to disregard their opinions. The best part is that none of the wealthy and influential residents of Davis are high-minded enough to care about such a neighborhood, because closing it benefits the rest of us”
I feel as though the real issue is whether the district and Davis residents as a whole will prove to be the open-minded community they claim to be. By closing VO the district said that they are willing to sacrifice the weak for the good of the rich, and by opposing the Charter School they prove that they simply don’t believe the economically disadvantaged have a place in the Davis community.
Well, quite a different tone at tonight’s board meeting. I won’t steal DPD’s story for tomorrow. Suffice to say there seems to be a new direction to the conversation.
Well, quite a different tone at tonight’s board meeting. I won’t steal DPD’s story for tomorrow. Suffice to say there seems to be a new direction to the conversation.
Well, quite a different tone at tonight’s board meeting. I won’t steal DPD’s story for tomorrow. Suffice to say there seems to be a new direction to the conversation.
Well, quite a different tone at tonight’s board meeting. I won’t steal DPD’s story for tomorrow. Suffice to say there seems to be a new direction to the conversation.
looking forward to your and DPD’s impressions, don.
as an aside, i have to say thanks to the vanguard for following this issue in as much detail as has been done. before this blog, i would have just read the occasional enterprise article and shook my head in confusion about what in the world people were upset about.
now i have more grist to try and make sense of this town. thanks a bunch.
i really hope this doesn’t turn ugly, and that the kids of valley oak get to keep their school without too much petty feuding, but i’m not optimistic. hopefully tomorrow’s news will give cause for optimism, it’s so senseless, working so hard to crush a neighborhood like this.
looking forward to your and DPD’s impressions, don.
as an aside, i have to say thanks to the vanguard for following this issue in as much detail as has been done. before this blog, i would have just read the occasional enterprise article and shook my head in confusion about what in the world people were upset about.
now i have more grist to try and make sense of this town. thanks a bunch.
i really hope this doesn’t turn ugly, and that the kids of valley oak get to keep their school without too much petty feuding, but i’m not optimistic. hopefully tomorrow’s news will give cause for optimism, it’s so senseless, working so hard to crush a neighborhood like this.
looking forward to your and DPD’s impressions, don.
as an aside, i have to say thanks to the vanguard for following this issue in as much detail as has been done. before this blog, i would have just read the occasional enterprise article and shook my head in confusion about what in the world people were upset about.
now i have more grist to try and make sense of this town. thanks a bunch.
i really hope this doesn’t turn ugly, and that the kids of valley oak get to keep their school without too much petty feuding, but i’m not optimistic. hopefully tomorrow’s news will give cause for optimism, it’s so senseless, working so hard to crush a neighborhood like this.
looking forward to your and DPD’s impressions, don.
as an aside, i have to say thanks to the vanguard for following this issue in as much detail as has been done. before this blog, i would have just read the occasional enterprise article and shook my head in confusion about what in the world people were upset about.
now i have more grist to try and make sense of this town. thanks a bunch.
i really hope this doesn’t turn ugly, and that the kids of valley oak get to keep their school without too much petty feuding, but i’m not optimistic. hopefully tomorrow’s news will give cause for optimism, it’s so senseless, working so hard to crush a neighborhood like this.