However last Thursday, the board rejected this resolution by a 4-1 vote placing the future of Valley Oak in severe doubt.
That leaves the petitioners with a choice as to whether to continue the fight. The next step if they choose to continue would be to appeal it to the County Board of Education. If the county were to accept the charter, they would become the authorizing agency and the charter would form under their auspices. If the county rejects the charter, it goes to the state. The state does not have the infrastructure to become an authorizing agency and they would assign the charter to a local district, possibly DJUSD to administer.
But first things first. In order to both appeal and get a school open for the 2008-2009, the only opening that makes any sort of sense, the charter petitioners have a very tight time line.
According to a release, they need to engage the community members and especially the parents to decide if there is sufficient interest to keep Valley Oak open.
Everyone who supports Valley Oak–parents, neighbors, community members should come to the meeting this Saturday.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
6:30 PM
Valley Oak Elementary School
Multipurpose Room
1400 East Eighth St.Food will be served.
Spanish translation will be provided, and people in need of translation in another language, or in need of transportation to the meeting, may call Sarah at (530) 758-3728.
Response to the LETTER TO EDITOR from Janice Bridge
For those of you who get the Enterprise or read it online, Janice Bridge wrote a letter to the editor on Tuesday. It praises the school board for their 4-1 vote to deny the resolution that would have established the Valley Oak Charter School.
According to the Former School Board member,
“This was the right decision, for the right reasons, in a very difficult school climate.”
The Davis Enterprise fails to disclose the fact that Janice Bridge was Vice Chair of the Best Uses of Schools Task Force that made the decision to close the school in the first place, so it is not entirely surprising that Ms. Bridge would support the board’s decision.
There are a number of inaccuracies in the letter that ought to be addressed.
“Although no one questioned the good will and hard work of those who had brought forth the petition for the Valley Oak charter”
Actually, Board Member Susan Lovenburg, who Janice Bridge campaigned for, did exactly that when she asked the petitioners if they had put in the blood and sweat to draft the petition as Superintendent James Hammond had.
“The deficiencies of the charter became increasingly noticeable as the meeting progressed.”
The main problem that the board cited with the charter was the $300,000 it would cost the district to implement at the minimum student attendance level. Without this problem, it is not clear that the board would have denied the charter school. The fact that the district now faces a $4 million deficit was a huge part of the reason to deny.
“Trustee Susan Lovenburg’s questions of Scot Yarnell, lawyer for DJUSD, brought to light the legal basis on which the charter could be denied.”
This was actually a pretty murky area of the meeting. Susan Lovenburg insisted the fiscal concerns had to be a reason to deny the petition and that she would write her legislator to change the law. Tim Taylor also suggested that it would be irresponsible not to look at the fiscal impact of the school district. The lawyer was vague on this point, but charter law seems clear that fiscal impact CANNOT be a reason to deny the petition. So it is not clear where Ms. Bridge is getting this argument from.
“Many in the chambers urged the board to approve the resolution even though they assumed ‘the chartering group may fail to meet any one of the rigid elements of the timeline.’ To take that route would have been cowardice, not leadership.”
I did not see this coming from members of the public. I think everyone acknowledged that the timeline was a challenging proposition to complete. There is no denying that. But the Superintendent believed that they should get a chance to meet that challenge as did most of the members of the public. I disagree that that allowing them to go forward would not be leadership. The Superintendent believed in the value and the mission of the charter and thought that they deserved the chance to make it work. I do not see anything cowardly about that position. What I do see is a member of the committee that chose to close the school fighting to preserve that decision and not be proven wrong.
“During the next 10 weeks, the Davis school board will need to cut approximately $4 million worth of programs from an already tight budget. The courageous actions of the board last week give me confidence in the leadership of the school board.”
And many have an opposite reaction to the decision by the board. From my perspective everyone in the district will be harmed by the impact of cutting $4 million from the budget. I am hopeful that it will not come to that, but clearly we must plan for it.
The question is who should bear the brunt of the impact. An argument can be made that it probably should not be disadvantaged kids who already face overwhelming obstacles in their path of success. The district had the option to spread the impact across the entire student population, which they will have to do anyway and to which this expense really amounts to a drop in the bucket or to make the most vulnerable students feel a sharp impact. It’s obvious where people such as Janice Bridge come down on this question.
“The community of Davis needs to support those we have elected to lead. “
In a litany of ridiculous arguments and claims, this is the most absurd. Just because we as a collective have elected these individuals does not bind us to support them when they do things we believe are wrong. We are not going to blindly follow them into the abyss and when they are wrong, we have the obligation to tell them so.
I am disappointed but not surprised by the tenure and misleading nature of the letter from Janice Bridge, I can only hope the community sees through this kind of rhetoric and looks at the tough road that these children have to walk down in order to rescue their school.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
For those of us who were in Davis around the mid-90s, we might remember Jan Bridge’s term as a schoolboard member. Actually, most of us are trying to forget it. Her letter to the editor did not surprise me in the least other than the fact that she believes her opinion actually carries any weight in this community. She is also of the ‘holier-than-thou’, ‘I know what’s best for you’ mindset that seems to characterize the current schoolboard.
For those of us who were in Davis around the mid-90s, we might remember Jan Bridge’s term as a schoolboard member. Actually, most of us are trying to forget it. Her letter to the editor did not surprise me in the least other than the fact that she believes her opinion actually carries any weight in this community. She is also of the ‘holier-than-thou’, ‘I know what’s best for you’ mindset that seems to characterize the current schoolboard.
For those of us who were in Davis around the mid-90s, we might remember Jan Bridge’s term as a schoolboard member. Actually, most of us are trying to forget it. Her letter to the editor did not surprise me in the least other than the fact that she believes her opinion actually carries any weight in this community. She is also of the ‘holier-than-thou’, ‘I know what’s best for you’ mindset that seems to characterize the current schoolboard.
For those of us who were in Davis around the mid-90s, we might remember Jan Bridge’s term as a schoolboard member. Actually, most of us are trying to forget it. Her letter to the editor did not surprise me in the least other than the fact that she believes her opinion actually carries any weight in this community. She is also of the ‘holier-than-thou’, ‘I know what’s best for you’ mindset that seems to characterize the current schoolboard.
Others have asked this before, but I haven’t seen an answer (might have missed it): how much has the district spent/will spend going forward to close Valley Oak? Buildings + grounds will need to be maintained, unless they plan to just board it up.
So far looks like spending dollars to save farthings.
Others have asked this before, but I haven’t seen an answer (might have missed it): how much has the district spent/will spend going forward to close Valley Oak? Buildings + grounds will need to be maintained, unless they plan to just board it up.
So far looks like spending dollars to save farthings.
Others have asked this before, but I haven’t seen an answer (might have missed it): how much has the district spent/will spend going forward to close Valley Oak? Buildings + grounds will need to be maintained, unless they plan to just board it up.
So far looks like spending dollars to save farthings.
Others have asked this before, but I haven’t seen an answer (might have missed it): how much has the district spent/will spend going forward to close Valley Oak? Buildings + grounds will need to be maintained, unless they plan to just board it up.
So far looks like spending dollars to save farthings.
The DJUSD will HAVE to supply bus
transportation to the kids of Valley Oak families who used to walk to their neighborhood school. Many of these families have only one car at most that goes off in the morning with the breadwinner of the household. This is going to open up a whole new fiscal can-of- worms as the rest of the Davis parent population demands equal transportation treatment for their children.
The DJUSD will HAVE to supply bus
transportation to the kids of Valley Oak families who used to walk to their neighborhood school. Many of these families have only one car at most that goes off in the morning with the breadwinner of the household. This is going to open up a whole new fiscal can-of- worms as the rest of the Davis parent population demands equal transportation treatment for their children.
The DJUSD will HAVE to supply bus
transportation to the kids of Valley Oak families who used to walk to their neighborhood school. Many of these families have only one car at most that goes off in the morning with the breadwinner of the household. This is going to open up a whole new fiscal can-of- worms as the rest of the Davis parent population demands equal transportation treatment for their children.
The DJUSD will HAVE to supply bus
transportation to the kids of Valley Oak families who used to walk to their neighborhood school. Many of these families have only one car at most that goes off in the morning with the breadwinner of the household. This is going to open up a whole new fiscal can-of- worms as the rest of the Davis parent population demands equal transportation treatment for their children.
I don’t believe that to be true. Those kids will not have to walk much over a mile to get to school. As far as I know there will be no busing.
I don’t believe that to be true. Those kids will not have to walk much over a mile to get to school. As far as I know there will be no busing.
I don’t believe that to be true. Those kids will not have to walk much over a mile to get to school. As far as I know there will be no busing.
I don’t believe that to be true. Those kids will not have to walk much over a mile to get to school. As far as I know there will be no busing.
As the growth crazed cities of Woodland and West Sacramento burst at the seams, there are a lot of families there who would pay a lot to get into Davis schools. Here we have an amazing marketing opportunity- think of Valley Oak as a magnet for those people who want an education for their children in “Davis Schools”. Just charge enough to fill the deficit. Yes, people could pay for a public education.
As the growth crazed cities of Woodland and West Sacramento burst at the seams, there are a lot of families there who would pay a lot to get into Davis schools. Here we have an amazing marketing opportunity- think of Valley Oak as a magnet for those people who want an education for their children in “Davis Schools”. Just charge enough to fill the deficit. Yes, people could pay for a public education.
As the growth crazed cities of Woodland and West Sacramento burst at the seams, there are a lot of families there who would pay a lot to get into Davis schools. Here we have an amazing marketing opportunity- think of Valley Oak as a magnet for those people who want an education for their children in “Davis Schools”. Just charge enough to fill the deficit. Yes, people could pay for a public education.
As the growth crazed cities of Woodland and West Sacramento burst at the seams, there are a lot of families there who would pay a lot to get into Davis schools. Here we have an amazing marketing opportunity- think of Valley Oak as a magnet for those people who want an education for their children in “Davis Schools”. Just charge enough to fill the deficit. Yes, people could pay for a public education.
“…Lovenburg insisted the fiscal concerns had to be a reason to deny the petition and that she would write her legislator to change the law.”
New lows for the Davis Board of Ed!
Maybe we should just ask her which laws she likes…
“…Lovenburg insisted the fiscal concerns had to be a reason to deny the petition and that she would write her legislator to change the law.”
New lows for the Davis Board of Ed!
Maybe we should just ask her which laws she likes…
“…Lovenburg insisted the fiscal concerns had to be a reason to deny the petition and that she would write her legislator to change the law.”
New lows for the Davis Board of Ed!
Maybe we should just ask her which laws she likes…
“…Lovenburg insisted the fiscal concerns had to be a reason to deny the petition and that she would write her legislator to change the law.”
New lows for the Davis Board of Ed!
Maybe we should just ask her which laws she likes…
The district has been working with Unitrans to get a route down Olive Drive.
Can these kids really not be served adequately at another DJUSD school? There are plenty of low SES kids elsewhere in Davis who succeed at other Davis schools. Montgomery has a new ELL program; other Davis schools also serve low income and ELL students. The charter won’t have the resources necessary to provide the kinds of supports currently available at VO that are possible with a school size of 500+. The money isn’t there to provide the extra teachers and aides those students need when you only have a minimal student population.
The district has been working with Unitrans to get a route down Olive Drive.
Can these kids really not be served adequately at another DJUSD school? There are plenty of low SES kids elsewhere in Davis who succeed at other Davis schools. Montgomery has a new ELL program; other Davis schools also serve low income and ELL students. The charter won’t have the resources necessary to provide the kinds of supports currently available at VO that are possible with a school size of 500+. The money isn’t there to provide the extra teachers and aides those students need when you only have a minimal student population.
The district has been working with Unitrans to get a route down Olive Drive.
Can these kids really not be served adequately at another DJUSD school? There are plenty of low SES kids elsewhere in Davis who succeed at other Davis schools. Montgomery has a new ELL program; other Davis schools also serve low income and ELL students. The charter won’t have the resources necessary to provide the kinds of supports currently available at VO that are possible with a school size of 500+. The money isn’t there to provide the extra teachers and aides those students need when you only have a minimal student population.
The district has been working with Unitrans to get a route down Olive Drive.
Can these kids really not be served adequately at another DJUSD school? There are plenty of low SES kids elsewhere in Davis who succeed at other Davis schools. Montgomery has a new ELL program; other Davis schools also serve low income and ELL students. The charter won’t have the resources necessary to provide the kinds of supports currently available at VO that are possible with a school size of 500+. The money isn’t there to provide the extra teachers and aides those students need when you only have a minimal student population.
The point is that they have a successful program already, why displace them? Yes, the fiscal reasons are there, but that’s a drop in the barrel compared to what they need to cut.
The point is that they have a successful program already, why displace them? Yes, the fiscal reasons are there, but that’s a drop in the barrel compared to what they need to cut.
The point is that they have a successful program already, why displace them? Yes, the fiscal reasons are there, but that’s a drop in the barrel compared to what they need to cut.
The point is that they have a successful program already, why displace them? Yes, the fiscal reasons are there, but that’s a drop in the barrel compared to what they need to cut.
But the larger point is that the new charter school won’t be the old Valley Oak. The old VO programs may well be worth saving, but we’re not talking about them. They won’t be there. There isn’t the money to provide them.
But the larger point is that the new charter school won’t be the old Valley Oak. The old VO programs may well be worth saving, but we’re not talking about them. They won’t be there. There isn’t the money to provide them.
But the larger point is that the new charter school won’t be the old Valley Oak. The old VO programs may well be worth saving, but we’re not talking about them. They won’t be there. There isn’t the money to provide them.
But the larger point is that the new charter school won’t be the old Valley Oak. The old VO programs may well be worth saving, but we’re not talking about them. They won’t be there. There isn’t the money to provide them.
It won’t be identical but it will be very similar.
It won’t be identical but it will be very similar.
It won’t be identical but it will be very similar.
It won’t be identical but it will be very similar.
It doesn’t take much to understand why the idea of adding kids from outside of Davis who could benefit from Valley Oak’s special programs for English Learners was a non-starter for this School Board.
It doesn’t take much to understand why the idea of adding kids from outside of Davis who could benefit from Valley Oak’s special programs for English Learners was a non-starter for this School Board.
It doesn’t take much to understand why the idea of adding kids from outside of Davis who could benefit from Valley Oak’s special programs for English Learners was a non-starter for this School Board.
It doesn’t take much to understand why the idea of adding kids from outside of Davis who could benefit from Valley Oak’s special programs for English Learners was a non-starter for this School Board.
The population might be very similar for the non-GATE classes, but the programs available won’t be; they can’t afford to provide them. And don’t those students rely upon those supports? Those extra programs are what makes them able to serve those students.
The population might be very similar for the non-GATE classes, but the programs available won’t be; they can’t afford to provide them. And don’t those students rely upon those supports? Those extra programs are what makes them able to serve those students.
The population might be very similar for the non-GATE classes, but the programs available won’t be; they can’t afford to provide them. And don’t those students rely upon those supports? Those extra programs are what makes them able to serve those students.
The population might be very similar for the non-GATE classes, but the programs available won’t be; they can’t afford to provide them. And don’t those students rely upon those supports? Those extra programs are what makes them able to serve those students.
As far as I know there will be no busing.
….. wait until the first VO kid wanders off while trekking to their new school.
As far as I know there will be no busing.
….. wait until the first VO kid wanders off while trekking to their new school.
As far as I know there will be no busing.
….. wait until the first VO kid wanders off while trekking to their new school.
As far as I know there will be no busing.
….. wait until the first VO kid wanders off while trekking to their new school.
Davis doesn’t need busing because it has embraced the “neighborhood school” concept. That is a neighborhood school for all of the “right” neighborhoods.
I don’t understand all the criticism of Janice Bridge’s leadership comment. First you all don’t walk lockstep with our school board leadership and next thing you know you’ll be criticizing Mr. Bush’s policies in Iraq. After all, by Jan’s thinking, we elected him to lead as well.
Davis doesn’t need busing because it has embraced the “neighborhood school” concept. That is a neighborhood school for all of the “right” neighborhoods.
I don’t understand all the criticism of Janice Bridge’s leadership comment. First you all don’t walk lockstep with our school board leadership and next thing you know you’ll be criticizing Mr. Bush’s policies in Iraq. After all, by Jan’s thinking, we elected him to lead as well.
Davis doesn’t need busing because it has embraced the “neighborhood school” concept. That is a neighborhood school for all of the “right” neighborhoods.
I don’t understand all the criticism of Janice Bridge’s leadership comment. First you all don’t walk lockstep with our school board leadership and next thing you know you’ll be criticizing Mr. Bush’s policies in Iraq. After all, by Jan’s thinking, we elected him to lead as well.
Davis doesn’t need busing because it has embraced the “neighborhood school” concept. That is a neighborhood school for all of the “right” neighborhoods.
I don’t understand all the criticism of Janice Bridge’s leadership comment. First you all don’t walk lockstep with our school board leadership and next thing you know you’ll be criticizing Mr. Bush’s policies in Iraq. After all, by Jan’s thinking, we elected him to lead as well.
Anonymous 10:18 said:
they can’t afford to provide them.
Our School Superintendent said,”Give them a chance!!”.
There are all sorts of grants that are available for a school like VO Charter.Enthusiastic business supporters,parent and Davis volunteers also will take up the slack. The nightmare of the DJUSD entrenched bureaucracy is that the VO Charter School model will offer BETTER programs and service.
Anonymous 10:18 said:
they can’t afford to provide them.
Our School Superintendent said,”Give them a chance!!”.
There are all sorts of grants that are available for a school like VO Charter.Enthusiastic business supporters,parent and Davis volunteers also will take up the slack. The nightmare of the DJUSD entrenched bureaucracy is that the VO Charter School model will offer BETTER programs and service.
Anonymous 10:18 said:
they can’t afford to provide them.
Our School Superintendent said,”Give them a chance!!”.
There are all sorts of grants that are available for a school like VO Charter.Enthusiastic business supporters,parent and Davis volunteers also will take up the slack. The nightmare of the DJUSD entrenched bureaucracy is that the VO Charter School model will offer BETTER programs and service.
Anonymous 10:18 said:
they can’t afford to provide them.
Our School Superintendent said,”Give them a chance!!”.
There are all sorts of grants that are available for a school like VO Charter.Enthusiastic business supporters,parent and Davis volunteers also will take up the slack. The nightmare of the DJUSD entrenched bureaucracy is that the VO Charter School model will offer BETTER programs and service.
If they are already getting grants, they should let people know, because that would help build support. As it is VO has had the lowest PTA budget of any Davis school, and has had a difficult time fundraising, so the idea that parents and community members are going to step up to the plate to make up the financial difference seems a little hard to believe.
If they are already getting grants, they should let people know, because that would help build support. As it is VO has had the lowest PTA budget of any Davis school, and has had a difficult time fundraising, so the idea that parents and community members are going to step up to the plate to make up the financial difference seems a little hard to believe.
If they are already getting grants, they should let people know, because that would help build support. As it is VO has had the lowest PTA budget of any Davis school, and has had a difficult time fundraising, so the idea that parents and community members are going to step up to the plate to make up the financial difference seems a little hard to believe.
If they are already getting grants, they should let people know, because that would help build support. As it is VO has had the lowest PTA budget of any Davis school, and has had a difficult time fundraising, so the idea that parents and community members are going to step up to the plate to make up the financial difference seems a little hard to believe.
Have never voted for any parcel tax(for education)and never will-especially so after reading all that I have about the closing of VO and the whole charter process. Taxing myself sends a message to certain individuals that “its okay to p**s away my money, I’ll be dumb enough to tax myself and give you more”.
Have never voted for any parcel tax(for education)and never will-especially so after reading all that I have about the closing of VO and the whole charter process. Taxing myself sends a message to certain individuals that “its okay to p**s away my money, I’ll be dumb enough to tax myself and give you more”.
Have never voted for any parcel tax(for education)and never will-especially so after reading all that I have about the closing of VO and the whole charter process. Taxing myself sends a message to certain individuals that “its okay to p**s away my money, I’ll be dumb enough to tax myself and give you more”.
Have never voted for any parcel tax(for education)and never will-especially so after reading all that I have about the closing of VO and the whole charter process. Taxing myself sends a message to certain individuals that “its okay to p**s away my money, I’ll be dumb enough to tax myself and give you more”.
Interesting how they went after these children. Look at Korematsu, it’s not looking too good, but they wouldn’t dream of closing it down, because of the population it serves.
What’s quite disturbing is that there is talk of opening up another school at Hunt Wesson if and when that area is developed with homes.
Absurd, isn’t it?
Interesting how they went after these children. Look at Korematsu, it’s not looking too good, but they wouldn’t dream of closing it down, because of the population it serves.
What’s quite disturbing is that there is talk of opening up another school at Hunt Wesson if and when that area is developed with homes.
Absurd, isn’t it?
Interesting how they went after these children. Look at Korematsu, it’s not looking too good, but they wouldn’t dream of closing it down, because of the population it serves.
What’s quite disturbing is that there is talk of opening up another school at Hunt Wesson if and when that area is developed with homes.
Absurd, isn’t it?
Interesting how they went after these children. Look at Korematsu, it’s not looking too good, but they wouldn’t dream of closing it down, because of the population it serves.
What’s quite disturbing is that there is talk of opening up another school at Hunt Wesson if and when that area is developed with homes.
Absurd, isn’t it?
anonymous 10:57 said:
As it is VO has had the lowest PTA budget of any Davis school….
I never said that the support from the parents would be $$$$.. this is YOUR perspective, sad to say. Volunteerism is time, sweat,passion, commitment, enthusiasm. Monetary grants cannot be gotten until the program exists.. hence Hammond’s plea, “GIVE THEM A CHANCE!!”
anonymous 10:57 said:
As it is VO has had the lowest PTA budget of any Davis school….
I never said that the support from the parents would be $$$$.. this is YOUR perspective, sad to say. Volunteerism is time, sweat,passion, commitment, enthusiasm. Monetary grants cannot be gotten until the program exists.. hence Hammond’s plea, “GIVE THEM A CHANCE!!”
anonymous 10:57 said:
As it is VO has had the lowest PTA budget of any Davis school….
I never said that the support from the parents would be $$$$.. this is YOUR perspective, sad to say. Volunteerism is time, sweat,passion, commitment, enthusiasm. Monetary grants cannot be gotten until the program exists.. hence Hammond’s plea, “GIVE THEM A CHANCE!!”
anonymous 10:57 said:
As it is VO has had the lowest PTA budget of any Davis school….
I never said that the support from the parents would be $$$$.. this is YOUR perspective, sad to say. Volunteerism is time, sweat,passion, commitment, enthusiasm. Monetary grants cannot be gotten until the program exists.. hence Hammond’s plea, “GIVE THEM A CHANCE!!”
Dr. Hammond is way ahead of the board. I wish they would have listened to him. Who on the school board has DIRECT education experience and background? No one on the board does.
No, Susan Lovenburg attending meetings and belonging to the PTA does not qualify her.
Dr. Hammond knew what he was talking about when he said, “give them a chance.” They failed to listen and failed the community and children.
I hope they succeed in getting their charter school. I would or will gladly make a donation if they open it up to the public. I will no longer support taxing myself for the school board’s inept decisions.
Dr. Hammond is way ahead of the board. I wish they would have listened to him. Who on the school board has DIRECT education experience and background? No one on the board does.
No, Susan Lovenburg attending meetings and belonging to the PTA does not qualify her.
Dr. Hammond knew what he was talking about when he said, “give them a chance.” They failed to listen and failed the community and children.
I hope they succeed in getting their charter school. I would or will gladly make a donation if they open it up to the public. I will no longer support taxing myself for the school board’s inept decisions.
Dr. Hammond is way ahead of the board. I wish they would have listened to him. Who on the school board has DIRECT education experience and background? No one on the board does.
No, Susan Lovenburg attending meetings and belonging to the PTA does not qualify her.
Dr. Hammond knew what he was talking about when he said, “give them a chance.” They failed to listen and failed the community and children.
I hope they succeed in getting their charter school. I would or will gladly make a donation if they open it up to the public. I will no longer support taxing myself for the school board’s inept decisions.
Dr. Hammond is way ahead of the board. I wish they would have listened to him. Who on the school board has DIRECT education experience and background? No one on the board does.
No, Susan Lovenburg attending meetings and belonging to the PTA does not qualify her.
Dr. Hammond knew what he was talking about when he said, “give them a chance.” They failed to listen and failed the community and children.
I hope they succeed in getting their charter school. I would or will gladly make a donation if they open it up to the public. I will no longer support taxing myself for the school board’s inept decisions.
“Volunteerism is time, sweat,passion, commitment, enthusiasm.”
Sure, but ELL teachers and reading aides need to get paid in cash, not sweat.
“Volunteerism is time, sweat,passion, commitment, enthusiasm.”
Sure, but ELL teachers and reading aides need to get paid in cash, not sweat.
“Volunteerism is time, sweat,passion, commitment, enthusiasm.”
Sure, but ELL teachers and reading aides need to get paid in cash, not sweat.
“Volunteerism is time, sweat,passion, commitment, enthusiasm.”
Sure, but ELL teachers and reading aides need to get paid in cash, not sweat.
“What’s quite disturbing is that there is talk of opening up another school at Hunt Wesson if and when that area is developed with homes.”
This fits in perfectly with the understanding of the people in the know concerning the background of the VO closing. Developer interests LOVE to offer some dirt(as part of their “contributions” to the city) for a NEW school for their peripheral residential developments. It’s cheap for them and increases the marketability of their new homes. It’s critical for them to keep the school vacancy rate to a minimum(hence 2 birds with one stone with the VO closing-minimize empty school seats and remove a school that,if destined for their customers, would
reduce their homes’ marketability) when the school-age population curve begins to rise again.
“What’s quite disturbing is that there is talk of opening up another school at Hunt Wesson if and when that area is developed with homes.”
This fits in perfectly with the understanding of the people in the know concerning the background of the VO closing. Developer interests LOVE to offer some dirt(as part of their “contributions” to the city) for a NEW school for their peripheral residential developments. It’s cheap for them and increases the marketability of their new homes. It’s critical for them to keep the school vacancy rate to a minimum(hence 2 birds with one stone with the VO closing-minimize empty school seats and remove a school that,if destined for their customers, would
reduce their homes’ marketability) when the school-age population curve begins to rise again.
“What’s quite disturbing is that there is talk of opening up another school at Hunt Wesson if and when that area is developed with homes.”
This fits in perfectly with the understanding of the people in the know concerning the background of the VO closing. Developer interests LOVE to offer some dirt(as part of their “contributions” to the city) for a NEW school for their peripheral residential developments. It’s cheap for them and increases the marketability of their new homes. It’s critical for them to keep the school vacancy rate to a minimum(hence 2 birds with one stone with the VO closing-minimize empty school seats and remove a school that,if destined for their customers, would
reduce their homes’ marketability) when the school-age population curve begins to rise again.
“What’s quite disturbing is that there is talk of opening up another school at Hunt Wesson if and when that area is developed with homes.”
This fits in perfectly with the understanding of the people in the know concerning the background of the VO closing. Developer interests LOVE to offer some dirt(as part of their “contributions” to the city) for a NEW school for their peripheral residential developments. It’s cheap for them and increases the marketability of their new homes. It’s critical for them to keep the school vacancy rate to a minimum(hence 2 birds with one stone with the VO closing-minimize empty school seats and remove a school that,if destined for their customers, would
reduce their homes’ marketability) when the school-age population curve begins to rise again.
I will no longer support taxing myself for the school board’s inept decisions.
DITTO!
Just to remind everyone of the rank duplicity of the new School Board members, they dodged the issue during the election saying that THE LAW set down clear parameters for denial so that the issue was not relevant to their campaign. Who would have believed that, after winning election, they would have the arrogance to then just IGNORE THE LAW that they used as a political cover.
I will no longer support taxing myself for the school board’s inept decisions.
DITTO!
Just to remind everyone of the rank duplicity of the new School Board members, they dodged the issue during the election saying that THE LAW set down clear parameters for denial so that the issue was not relevant to their campaign. Who would have believed that, after winning election, they would have the arrogance to then just IGNORE THE LAW that they used as a political cover.
I will no longer support taxing myself for the school board’s inept decisions.
DITTO!
Just to remind everyone of the rank duplicity of the new School Board members, they dodged the issue during the election saying that THE LAW set down clear parameters for denial so that the issue was not relevant to their campaign. Who would have believed that, after winning election, they would have the arrogance to then just IGNORE THE LAW that they used as a political cover.
I will no longer support taxing myself for the school board’s inept decisions.
DITTO!
Just to remind everyone of the rank duplicity of the new School Board members, they dodged the issue during the election saying that THE LAW set down clear parameters for denial so that the issue was not relevant to their campaign. Who would have believed that, after winning election, they would have the arrogance to then just IGNORE THE LAW that they used as a political cover.
“What’s quite disturbing is that there is talk of opening up another school at Hunt Wesson if and when that area is developed with homes.”
This is wrong information. Look at the Cannery Park plans. No school sites.
Isn’t Jan Bridge the woman who started the non-profit group in Davis which brings together native Spanish-speaking UC Davis students with Latino immigrant children as mentors? That program has been a success in helping immigrant kids in Davis get off to a good start in school and, by using UC Davis students, provided good role models for them. If the people on this blog are going to eviscerate Ms. Bridge for her support of Trustee Lovenburg, you should at least recognize some of the good Ms. Bridge has done.
“What’s quite disturbing is that there is talk of opening up another school at Hunt Wesson if and when that area is developed with homes.”
This is wrong information. Look at the Cannery Park plans. No school sites.
Isn’t Jan Bridge the woman who started the non-profit group in Davis which brings together native Spanish-speaking UC Davis students with Latino immigrant children as mentors? That program has been a success in helping immigrant kids in Davis get off to a good start in school and, by using UC Davis students, provided good role models for them. If the people on this blog are going to eviscerate Ms. Bridge for her support of Trustee Lovenburg, you should at least recognize some of the good Ms. Bridge has done.
“What’s quite disturbing is that there is talk of opening up another school at Hunt Wesson if and when that area is developed with homes.”
This is wrong information. Look at the Cannery Park plans. No school sites.
Isn’t Jan Bridge the woman who started the non-profit group in Davis which brings together native Spanish-speaking UC Davis students with Latino immigrant children as mentors? That program has been a success in helping immigrant kids in Davis get off to a good start in school and, by using UC Davis students, provided good role models for them. If the people on this blog are going to eviscerate Ms. Bridge for her support of Trustee Lovenburg, you should at least recognize some of the good Ms. Bridge has done.
“What’s quite disturbing is that there is talk of opening up another school at Hunt Wesson if and when that area is developed with homes.”
This is wrong information. Look at the Cannery Park plans. No school sites.
Isn’t Jan Bridge the woman who started the non-profit group in Davis which brings together native Spanish-speaking UC Davis students with Latino immigrant children as mentors? That program has been a success in helping immigrant kids in Davis get off to a good start in school and, by using UC Davis students, provided good role models for them. If the people on this blog are going to eviscerate Ms. Bridge for her support of Trustee Lovenburg, you should at least recognize some of the good Ms. Bridge has done.
“Many in the chambers urged the board to approve the resolution even though they assumed ‘the chartering group may fail to meet any one of the rigid elements of the timeline.’
That is untrue. I’ll just assume Janice wasn’t there.
“Many in the chambers urged the board to approve the resolution even though they assumed ‘the chartering group may fail to meet any one of the rigid elements of the timeline.’
That is untrue. I’ll just assume Janice wasn’t there.
“Many in the chambers urged the board to approve the resolution even though they assumed ‘the chartering group may fail to meet any one of the rigid elements of the timeline.’
That is untrue. I’ll just assume Janice wasn’t there.
“Many in the chambers urged the board to approve the resolution even though they assumed ‘the chartering group may fail to meet any one of the rigid elements of the timeline.’
That is untrue. I’ll just assume Janice wasn’t there.
“…you should at least recognize some of the good Ms. Bridge has done.”
Though not relevant to this discussion, I find her reputation somewhat stained by her letter recommending that merchants who opposed Target be boycotted.
The BUST force could have presented the board with multiple options about school closures or reconfigurations, but chose instead to make only the specific VO recommendation. I’m curious whether she was among the BUST members who advocated the one-option report. If so, this letter amounts to a rationalization of her prior position. The board members didn’t cite deficiencies in the program, as the proposal before them had been significantly strengthened by the negotiations between the charter group and the district staff. They only cited the fiscal impact on the district.
The lawyer didn’t give them any basis for that decision. Why? Because there IS NO basis for rejecting a charter for fiscal reasons. Susan Lovenburg’s comment about writing a letter to her legislator reflects her frustration about that. But she then, like the others, proceeded to violate the charter law and vote it down anyway, for that specific reason.
Charter law has been written and revised specifically to address the hostility of school boards. Their lawyer knows that. Maybe the DJUSD members didn’t read the charter law before the meeting. It’s all available online.
The concern I have is that the county board members are not lawyers, so they may be vulnerable to the same arguments.
Somebody really needs to transcribe the meeting so that the statements of the board members are available.
“…you should at least recognize some of the good Ms. Bridge has done.”
Though not relevant to this discussion, I find her reputation somewhat stained by her letter recommending that merchants who opposed Target be boycotted.
The BUST force could have presented the board with multiple options about school closures or reconfigurations, but chose instead to make only the specific VO recommendation. I’m curious whether she was among the BUST members who advocated the one-option report. If so, this letter amounts to a rationalization of her prior position. The board members didn’t cite deficiencies in the program, as the proposal before them had been significantly strengthened by the negotiations between the charter group and the district staff. They only cited the fiscal impact on the district.
The lawyer didn’t give them any basis for that decision. Why? Because there IS NO basis for rejecting a charter for fiscal reasons. Susan Lovenburg’s comment about writing a letter to her legislator reflects her frustration about that. But she then, like the others, proceeded to violate the charter law and vote it down anyway, for that specific reason.
Charter law has been written and revised specifically to address the hostility of school boards. Their lawyer knows that. Maybe the DJUSD members didn’t read the charter law before the meeting. It’s all available online.
The concern I have is that the county board members are not lawyers, so they may be vulnerable to the same arguments.
Somebody really needs to transcribe the meeting so that the statements of the board members are available.
“…you should at least recognize some of the good Ms. Bridge has done.”
Though not relevant to this discussion, I find her reputation somewhat stained by her letter recommending that merchants who opposed Target be boycotted.
The BUST force could have presented the board with multiple options about school closures or reconfigurations, but chose instead to make only the specific VO recommendation. I’m curious whether she was among the BUST members who advocated the one-option report. If so, this letter amounts to a rationalization of her prior position. The board members didn’t cite deficiencies in the program, as the proposal before them had been significantly strengthened by the negotiations between the charter group and the district staff. They only cited the fiscal impact on the district.
The lawyer didn’t give them any basis for that decision. Why? Because there IS NO basis for rejecting a charter for fiscal reasons. Susan Lovenburg’s comment about writing a letter to her legislator reflects her frustration about that. But she then, like the others, proceeded to violate the charter law and vote it down anyway, for that specific reason.
Charter law has been written and revised specifically to address the hostility of school boards. Their lawyer knows that. Maybe the DJUSD members didn’t read the charter law before the meeting. It’s all available online.
The concern I have is that the county board members are not lawyers, so they may be vulnerable to the same arguments.
Somebody really needs to transcribe the meeting so that the statements of the board members are available.
“…you should at least recognize some of the good Ms. Bridge has done.”
Though not relevant to this discussion, I find her reputation somewhat stained by her letter recommending that merchants who opposed Target be boycotted.
The BUST force could have presented the board with multiple options about school closures or reconfigurations, but chose instead to make only the specific VO recommendation. I’m curious whether she was among the BUST members who advocated the one-option report. If so, this letter amounts to a rationalization of her prior position. The board members didn’t cite deficiencies in the program, as the proposal before them had been significantly strengthened by the negotiations between the charter group and the district staff. They only cited the fiscal impact on the district.
The lawyer didn’t give them any basis for that decision. Why? Because there IS NO basis for rejecting a charter for fiscal reasons. Susan Lovenburg’s comment about writing a letter to her legislator reflects her frustration about that. But she then, like the others, proceeded to violate the charter law and vote it down anyway, for that specific reason.
Charter law has been written and revised specifically to address the hostility of school boards. Their lawyer knows that. Maybe the DJUSD members didn’t read the charter law before the meeting. It’s all available online.
The concern I have is that the county board members are not lawyers, so they may be vulnerable to the same arguments.
Somebody really needs to transcribe the meeting so that the statements of the board members are available.
“That is untrue. I’ll just assume Janice wasn’t there.”
Don:
She sat two rows in front of me, right in front of Bob Schelen and Rick Gonzales, Jr.
“That is untrue. I’ll just assume Janice wasn’t there.”
Don:
She sat two rows in front of me, right in front of Bob Schelen and Rick Gonzales, Jr.
“That is untrue. I’ll just assume Janice wasn’t there.”
Don:
She sat two rows in front of me, right in front of Bob Schelen and Rick Gonzales, Jr.
“That is untrue. I’ll just assume Janice wasn’t there.”
Don:
She sat two rows in front of me, right in front of Bob Schelen and Rick Gonzales, Jr.
My recollection is that the ethnic make-up of the County Board of Education may make it more sympathetic to the Valley Oak Charter School petition and lead them to, in contrast to our School Board,decide according to THE LAW. I would think that Bill Storm is already in the process of getting our School Board’s damning public arguments transcribed for his presentationl
My recollection is that the ethnic make-up of the County Board of Education may make it more sympathetic to the Valley Oak Charter School petition and lead them to, in contrast to our School Board,decide according to THE LAW. I would think that Bill Storm is already in the process of getting our School Board’s damning public arguments transcribed for his presentationl
My recollection is that the ethnic make-up of the County Board of Education may make it more sympathetic to the Valley Oak Charter School petition and lead them to, in contrast to our School Board,decide according to THE LAW. I would think that Bill Storm is already in the process of getting our School Board’s damning public arguments transcribed for his presentationl
My recollection is that the ethnic make-up of the County Board of Education may make it more sympathetic to the Valley Oak Charter School petition and lead them to, in contrast to our School Board,decide according to THE LAW. I would think that Bill Storm is already in the process of getting our School Board’s damning public arguments transcribed for his presentationl
The only BUSTF member to oppose the one option report was V. Dolcini.
In prepared remarks to the board of ed. he decried the method used by the task force that made the only option to close a school, and that that school had to be valley Oak.
The only BUSTF member to oppose the one option report was V. Dolcini.
In prepared remarks to the board of ed. he decried the method used by the task force that made the only option to close a school, and that that school had to be valley Oak.
The only BUSTF member to oppose the one option report was V. Dolcini.
In prepared remarks to the board of ed. he decried the method used by the task force that made the only option to close a school, and that that school had to be valley Oak.
The only BUSTF member to oppose the one option report was V. Dolcini.
In prepared remarks to the board of ed. he decried the method used by the task force that made the only option to close a school, and that that school had to be valley Oak.
As far as the county Board not being lawyers; wouldn’t they ask County Counsel for ruling/input prior to the hearing in terms of the charter law (unlike apparently the BOE did with their counsel!)?
As far as the county Board not being lawyers; wouldn’t they ask County Counsel for ruling/input prior to the hearing in terms of the charter law (unlike apparently the BOE did with their counsel!)?
As far as the county Board not being lawyers; wouldn’t they ask County Counsel for ruling/input prior to the hearing in terms of the charter law (unlike apparently the BOE did with their counsel!)?
As far as the county Board not being lawyers; wouldn’t they ask County Counsel for ruling/input prior to the hearing in terms of the charter law (unlike apparently the BOE did with their counsel!)?
My recollection is that Jan Bridges was just as adamantly opposed to our Spanish Immersion program 25 years ago that challenged the status quo DJUSD Establishment…. what’s that saying says about … not changing its stripes?
My recollection is that Jan Bridges was just as adamantly opposed to our Spanish Immersion program 25 years ago that challenged the status quo DJUSD Establishment…. what’s that saying says about … not changing its stripes?
My recollection is that Jan Bridges was just as adamantly opposed to our Spanish Immersion program 25 years ago that challenged the status quo DJUSD Establishment…. what’s that saying says about … not changing its stripes?
My recollection is that Jan Bridges was just as adamantly opposed to our Spanish Immersion program 25 years ago that challenged the status quo DJUSD Establishment…. what’s that saying says about … not changing its stripes?
Another viewpoint: It is really quite inconceivable that Hammond did not know beforehand how the Board’s voting would go down. His public pleas were ,in all probability, pure theater that leaves him as the valient champion of diversity and the Board “taking the hit”, as Taylor said. The people who were really “sandbagged” were Bill Storm and his fellow VOC petitioners. Bill is quite correct that VOC is best rid of the lot of them.
Another viewpoint: It is really quite inconceivable that Hammond did not know beforehand how the Board’s voting would go down. His public pleas were ,in all probability, pure theater that leaves him as the valient champion of diversity and the Board “taking the hit”, as Taylor said. The people who were really “sandbagged” were Bill Storm and his fellow VOC petitioners. Bill is quite correct that VOC is best rid of the lot of them.
Another viewpoint: It is really quite inconceivable that Hammond did not know beforehand how the Board’s voting would go down. His public pleas were ,in all probability, pure theater that leaves him as the valient champion of diversity and the Board “taking the hit”, as Taylor said. The people who were really “sandbagged” were Bill Storm and his fellow VOC petitioners. Bill is quite correct that VOC is best rid of the lot of them.
Another viewpoint: It is really quite inconceivable that Hammond did not know beforehand how the Board’s voting would go down. His public pleas were ,in all probability, pure theater that leaves him as the valient champion of diversity and the Board “taking the hit”, as Taylor said. The people who were really “sandbagged” were Bill Storm and his fellow VOC petitioners. Bill is quite correct that VOC is best rid of the lot of them.
I can tell you categorically that he had no idea that he would get voted down. He did it because he thought it was the right thing to do.
I can tell you categorically that he had no idea that he would get voted down. He did it because he thought it was the right thing to do.
I can tell you categorically that he had no idea that he would get voted down. He did it because he thought it was the right thing to do.
I can tell you categorically that he had no idea that he would get voted down. He did it because he thought it was the right thing to do.
“My recollection is that the ethnic make-up of the County Board of Education may make it more sympathetic to the Valley Oak Charter School petition”
You do know that 100% of the minorities on the school board voted against the VOCS.
“My recollection is that the ethnic make-up of the County Board of Education may make it more sympathetic to the Valley Oak Charter School petition”
You do know that 100% of the minorities on the school board voted against the VOCS.
“My recollection is that the ethnic make-up of the County Board of Education may make it more sympathetic to the Valley Oak Charter School petition”
You do know that 100% of the minorities on the school board voted against the VOCS.
“My recollection is that the ethnic make-up of the County Board of Education may make it more sympathetic to the Valley Oak Charter School petition”
You do know that 100% of the minorities on the school board voted against the VOCS.
I appreciate reading the various opinions expressed here, but bashing DJUSD is just a little too much. If you find the Davis school system to be so despicable, you are free to explore neighboring districts. I have and that’s why I chose to send my kids to Davis schools. They have plenty of good things that most other neighboring districts lack.
I have met a few times w/ Dr. Hammond. Although I can’t really know him so well, I am prepared to take him at face value and believe that he negotiated in good faith.
I appreciate reading the various opinions expressed here, but bashing DJUSD is just a little too much. If you find the Davis school system to be so despicable, you are free to explore neighboring districts. I have and that’s why I chose to send my kids to Davis schools. They have plenty of good things that most other neighboring districts lack.
I have met a few times w/ Dr. Hammond. Although I can’t really know him so well, I am prepared to take him at face value and believe that he negotiated in good faith.
I appreciate reading the various opinions expressed here, but bashing DJUSD is just a little too much. If you find the Davis school system to be so despicable, you are free to explore neighboring districts. I have and that’s why I chose to send my kids to Davis schools. They have plenty of good things that most other neighboring districts lack.
I have met a few times w/ Dr. Hammond. Although I can’t really know him so well, I am prepared to take him at face value and believe that he negotiated in good faith.
I appreciate reading the various opinions expressed here, but bashing DJUSD is just a little too much. If you find the Davis school system to be so despicable, you are free to explore neighboring districts. I have and that’s why I chose to send my kids to Davis schools. They have plenty of good things that most other neighboring districts lack.
I have met a few times w/ Dr. Hammond. Although I can’t really know him so well, I am prepared to take him at face value and believe that he negotiated in good faith.
Hang a second. I agree that the district is being blamed a bit too much for this.
But I disagree with you in the implication of this statement:
“If you find the Davis school system to be so despicable, you are free to explore neighboring districts. “
This is the equivalent to the “love it or leave it” argument. It precludes people from trying to improve things and change them for the better. We shouldn’t leave because we don’t like something, we should work to improve it. For the life of me I don’t understand that mentality.
Hang a second. I agree that the district is being blamed a bit too much for this.
But I disagree with you in the implication of this statement:
“If you find the Davis school system to be so despicable, you are free to explore neighboring districts. “
This is the equivalent to the “love it or leave it” argument. It precludes people from trying to improve things and change them for the better. We shouldn’t leave because we don’t like something, we should work to improve it. For the life of me I don’t understand that mentality.
Hang a second. I agree that the district is being blamed a bit too much for this.
But I disagree with you in the implication of this statement:
“If you find the Davis school system to be so despicable, you are free to explore neighboring districts. “
This is the equivalent to the “love it or leave it” argument. It precludes people from trying to improve things and change them for the better. We shouldn’t leave because we don’t like something, we should work to improve it. For the life of me I don’t understand that mentality.
Hang a second. I agree that the district is being blamed a bit too much for this.
But I disagree with you in the implication of this statement:
“If you find the Davis school system to be so despicable, you are free to explore neighboring districts. “
This is the equivalent to the “love it or leave it” argument. It precludes people from trying to improve things and change them for the better. We shouldn’t leave because we don’t like something, we should work to improve it. For the life of me I don’t understand that mentality.
Robin said:
You do know that 100% of the minorities on the school board voted against the VOCS.
CUTE!….for those who may not be familiar with our school board, the 100% is ONE member.
As to your argument that there is no school site currently in the Hunt-Wessen proposal, this means nothing. What we see now in the current proposal are only the Developer opening moves in the future development-agreement political “chess-game”.
Robin said:
You do know that 100% of the minorities on the school board voted against the VOCS.
CUTE!….for those who may not be familiar with our school board, the 100% is ONE member.
As to your argument that there is no school site currently in the Hunt-Wessen proposal, this means nothing. What we see now in the current proposal are only the Developer opening moves in the future development-agreement political “chess-game”.
Robin said:
You do know that 100% of the minorities on the school board voted against the VOCS.
CUTE!….for those who may not be familiar with our school board, the 100% is ONE member.
As to your argument that there is no school site currently in the Hunt-Wessen proposal, this means nothing. What we see now in the current proposal are only the Developer opening moves in the future development-agreement political “chess-game”.
Robin said:
You do know that 100% of the minorities on the school board voted against the VOCS.
CUTE!….for those who may not be familiar with our school board, the 100% is ONE member.
As to your argument that there is no school site currently in the Hunt-Wessen proposal, this means nothing. What we see now in the current proposal are only the Developer opening moves in the future development-agreement political “chess-game”.
This is such an emotional issue. I wish there was a way for us to be sure we’re basing our comments on fact and not perception. No doubt my comments below are also clouded by my own biases and not just facts.
I watched the Board meeting, and watched it again on replay and video tape (which I have since recorded over). Finance was certainly part of the reason for the Board denying the petition. The financial impact to the Davis School District as a whole was mentioned on more than one occasion. However, the adequacy of the proposed Charter budget was also questioned by nearly every member of the Board.
For any who have followed the charter since the genesis of the idea, it was incredible that Mike Egan would tell us that somehow a misperception had grown in the community about the technology focus of the school…that the community belief of this “technology” charter (as it was so often promoted – note the Lemon Grove link on the Charter web site) providing computers for student, increased access to the tools of technology, and a drop-in computer lab for the community was wrong.
At this late date in the process, the Charter founders still didn’t understand that textbooks don’t just “come with the school”. When asked questions about discipline, the answer was essentially, “We’re experienced teachers, and we’ll figure it out.” As a parent, I want some assurance beyond the citation of experience.
When questioned about the academic program of instruction at the Charter, district staff affirmed that conversation lead them to believe that the intent was to have a strong curriculum, but that was not something that could be gleaned specifically from the Charter proposal.
I know that a lot of very hard work (blood, sweat, and tears) went into the process of creating and negotiating this charter. I’ve also heard a number of other parents refer to the charter proposal as the “just trust me” approach to creating a school. That’s not one of the California Education Code standards. Rather than blaming the Board of Trustees for illegally making their decision based on the financial impact to DJUSD, I suggest that the decision by Board members was more likely based on the criteria that, “Petitioners are unlikely to successfully implement the program described.”
This is such an emotional issue. I wish there was a way for us to be sure we’re basing our comments on fact and not perception. No doubt my comments below are also clouded by my own biases and not just facts.
I watched the Board meeting, and watched it again on replay and video tape (which I have since recorded over). Finance was certainly part of the reason for the Board denying the petition. The financial impact to the Davis School District as a whole was mentioned on more than one occasion. However, the adequacy of the proposed Charter budget was also questioned by nearly every member of the Board.
For any who have followed the charter since the genesis of the idea, it was incredible that Mike Egan would tell us that somehow a misperception had grown in the community about the technology focus of the school…that the community belief of this “technology” charter (as it was so often promoted – note the Lemon Grove link on the Charter web site) providing computers for student, increased access to the tools of technology, and a drop-in computer lab for the community was wrong.
At this late date in the process, the Charter founders still didn’t understand that textbooks don’t just “come with the school”. When asked questions about discipline, the answer was essentially, “We’re experienced teachers, and we’ll figure it out.” As a parent, I want some assurance beyond the citation of experience.
When questioned about the academic program of instruction at the Charter, district staff affirmed that conversation lead them to believe that the intent was to have a strong curriculum, but that was not something that could be gleaned specifically from the Charter proposal.
I know that a lot of very hard work (blood, sweat, and tears) went into the process of creating and negotiating this charter. I’ve also heard a number of other parents refer to the charter proposal as the “just trust me” approach to creating a school. That’s not one of the California Education Code standards. Rather than blaming the Board of Trustees for illegally making their decision based on the financial impact to DJUSD, I suggest that the decision by Board members was more likely based on the criteria that, “Petitioners are unlikely to successfully implement the program described.”
This is such an emotional issue. I wish there was a way for us to be sure we’re basing our comments on fact and not perception. No doubt my comments below are also clouded by my own biases and not just facts.
I watched the Board meeting, and watched it again on replay and video tape (which I have since recorded over). Finance was certainly part of the reason for the Board denying the petition. The financial impact to the Davis School District as a whole was mentioned on more than one occasion. However, the adequacy of the proposed Charter budget was also questioned by nearly every member of the Board.
For any who have followed the charter since the genesis of the idea, it was incredible that Mike Egan would tell us that somehow a misperception had grown in the community about the technology focus of the school…that the community belief of this “technology” charter (as it was so often promoted – note the Lemon Grove link on the Charter web site) providing computers for student, increased access to the tools of technology, and a drop-in computer lab for the community was wrong.
At this late date in the process, the Charter founders still didn’t understand that textbooks don’t just “come with the school”. When asked questions about discipline, the answer was essentially, “We’re experienced teachers, and we’ll figure it out.” As a parent, I want some assurance beyond the citation of experience.
When questioned about the academic program of instruction at the Charter, district staff affirmed that conversation lead them to believe that the intent was to have a strong curriculum, but that was not something that could be gleaned specifically from the Charter proposal.
I know that a lot of very hard work (blood, sweat, and tears) went into the process of creating and negotiating this charter. I’ve also heard a number of other parents refer to the charter proposal as the “just trust me” approach to creating a school. That’s not one of the California Education Code standards. Rather than blaming the Board of Trustees for illegally making their decision based on the financial impact to DJUSD, I suggest that the decision by Board members was more likely based on the criteria that, “Petitioners are unlikely to successfully implement the program described.”
This is such an emotional issue. I wish there was a way for us to be sure we’re basing our comments on fact and not perception. No doubt my comments below are also clouded by my own biases and not just facts.
I watched the Board meeting, and watched it again on replay and video tape (which I have since recorded over). Finance was certainly part of the reason for the Board denying the petition. The financial impact to the Davis School District as a whole was mentioned on more than one occasion. However, the adequacy of the proposed Charter budget was also questioned by nearly every member of the Board.
For any who have followed the charter since the genesis of the idea, it was incredible that Mike Egan would tell us that somehow a misperception had grown in the community about the technology focus of the school…that the community belief of this “technology” charter (as it was so often promoted – note the Lemon Grove link on the Charter web site) providing computers for student, increased access to the tools of technology, and a drop-in computer lab for the community was wrong.
At this late date in the process, the Charter founders still didn’t understand that textbooks don’t just “come with the school”. When asked questions about discipline, the answer was essentially, “We’re experienced teachers, and we’ll figure it out.” As a parent, I want some assurance beyond the citation of experience.
When questioned about the academic program of instruction at the Charter, district staff affirmed that conversation lead them to believe that the intent was to have a strong curriculum, but that was not something that could be gleaned specifically from the Charter proposal.
I know that a lot of very hard work (blood, sweat, and tears) went into the process of creating and negotiating this charter. I’ve also heard a number of other parents refer to the charter proposal as the “just trust me” approach to creating a school. That’s not one of the California Education Code standards. Rather than blaming the Board of Trustees for illegally making their decision based on the financial impact to DJUSD, I suggest that the decision by Board members was more likely based on the criteria that, “Petitioners are unlikely to successfully implement the program described.”
“I suggest that the decision by Board members was more likely based on the criteria that, “Petitioners are unlikely to successfully implement the program described”
Then why would the superintendent support the teachers who put it together? Perhaps they have years of experience and a history of success?
“I suggest that the decision by Board members was more likely based on the criteria that, “Petitioners are unlikely to successfully implement the program described”
Then why would the superintendent support the teachers who put it together? Perhaps they have years of experience and a history of success?
“I suggest that the decision by Board members was more likely based on the criteria that, “Petitioners are unlikely to successfully implement the program described”
Then why would the superintendent support the teachers who put it together? Perhaps they have years of experience and a history of success?
“I suggest that the decision by Board members was more likely based on the criteria that, “Petitioners are unlikely to successfully implement the program described”
Then why would the superintendent support the teachers who put it together? Perhaps they have years of experience and a history of success?
“I’ve also heard a number of other parents refer to the charter proposal as the “just trust me” approach to creating a school. “
Okay—we have a school board that has a history of having to buy out superintendent contracts for hundreds of thousands of dollars, open schools that don’t have enough students, that still faces charges of insensitivity to the needs of ethnic minorities, and opening flaunt the law by denying the charter for financial reasons. We are suppose to trust these fine folks as opposed to the teachers who have run a great program for years?
“I’ve also heard a number of other parents refer to the charter proposal as the “just trust me” approach to creating a school. “
Okay—we have a school board that has a history of having to buy out superintendent contracts for hundreds of thousands of dollars, open schools that don’t have enough students, that still faces charges of insensitivity to the needs of ethnic minorities, and opening flaunt the law by denying the charter for financial reasons. We are suppose to trust these fine folks as opposed to the teachers who have run a great program for years?
“I’ve also heard a number of other parents refer to the charter proposal as the “just trust me” approach to creating a school. “
Okay—we have a school board that has a history of having to buy out superintendent contracts for hundreds of thousands of dollars, open schools that don’t have enough students, that still faces charges of insensitivity to the needs of ethnic minorities, and opening flaunt the law by denying the charter for financial reasons. We are suppose to trust these fine folks as opposed to the teachers who have run a great program for years?
“I’ve also heard a number of other parents refer to the charter proposal as the “just trust me” approach to creating a school. “
Okay—we have a school board that has a history of having to buy out superintendent contracts for hundreds of thousands of dollars, open schools that don’t have enough students, that still faces charges of insensitivity to the needs of ethnic minorities, and opening flaunt the law by denying the charter for financial reasons. We are suppose to trust these fine folks as opposed to the teachers who have run a great program for years?
“and opening flaunt the law by denying the charter for financial reasons.”
Perhaps you could point me to the Ed Code where it states that it’s against the law to cite finances if the proposed charter is “unlikely to successfully implement the program” based on the budget of the proposed charter.
“and opening flaunt the law by denying the charter for financial reasons.”
Perhaps you could point me to the Ed Code where it states that it’s against the law to cite finances if the proposed charter is “unlikely to successfully implement the program” based on the budget of the proposed charter.
“and opening flaunt the law by denying the charter for financial reasons.”
Perhaps you could point me to the Ed Code where it states that it’s against the law to cite finances if the proposed charter is “unlikely to successfully implement the program” based on the budget of the proposed charter.
“and opening flaunt the law by denying the charter for financial reasons.”
Perhaps you could point me to the Ed Code where it states that it’s against the law to cite finances if the proposed charter is “unlikely to successfully implement the program” based on the budget of the proposed charter.
Actually you want to look up charter law not the ed code and then examine the five reasons by which a charter can be legally denied. None of them are for fiscal.
* Charter school presents an unsound educational program
* Petitioners are unlikely to successfully implement the program described
* Petition does not have the required number of signatures
* Petition does not include required affirmations
* Petition does not include comprehensive description of 16 required elements
So the charter law does not prescribe fiscal however it only allows those five reasons for denial.
Actually you want to look up charter law not the ed code and then examine the five reasons by which a charter can be legally denied. None of them are for fiscal.
* Charter school presents an unsound educational program
* Petitioners are unlikely to successfully implement the program described
* Petition does not have the required number of signatures
* Petition does not include required affirmations
* Petition does not include comprehensive description of 16 required elements
So the charter law does not prescribe fiscal however it only allows those five reasons for denial.
Actually you want to look up charter law not the ed code and then examine the five reasons by which a charter can be legally denied. None of them are for fiscal.
* Charter school presents an unsound educational program
* Petitioners are unlikely to successfully implement the program described
* Petition does not have the required number of signatures
* Petition does not include required affirmations
* Petition does not include comprehensive description of 16 required elements
So the charter law does not prescribe fiscal however it only allows those five reasons for denial.
Actually you want to look up charter law not the ed code and then examine the five reasons by which a charter can be legally denied. None of them are for fiscal.
* Charter school presents an unsound educational program
* Petitioners are unlikely to successfully implement the program described
* Petition does not have the required number of signatures
* Petition does not include required affirmations
* Petition does not include comprehensive description of 16 required elements
So the charter law does not prescribe fiscal however it only allows those five reasons for denial.
As I recall, the lawyer hired by the Board for his special knowledge of Charter School law did not include fiscal District or Charter School budget issues in his denial analysis that the Board used to deny the Charter in the first go-round. I wonder why not?
As I recall, the lawyer hired by the Board for his special knowledge of Charter School law did not include fiscal District or Charter School budget issues in his denial analysis that the Board used to deny the Charter in the first go-round. I wonder why not?
As I recall, the lawyer hired by the Board for his special knowledge of Charter School law did not include fiscal District or Charter School budget issues in his denial analysis that the Board used to deny the Charter in the first go-round. I wonder why not?
As I recall, the lawyer hired by the Board for his special knowledge of Charter School law did not include fiscal District or Charter School budget issues in his denial analysis that the Board used to deny the Charter in the first go-round. I wonder why not?
I would like to clarify-Janet Bridge did NOT start the Davis Bridge Educational Program. As far as I know Janet Bridge never even visited VO during her time on the BUSTF during the school day to view its programs in action before she recommended to close the school. The Davis Bridge Program was created by Janet Boulware in 2004. I do understand how one could be confused. Janet Boulware recently told me that she would offer the Bridge Program at the VO Charter School because that is the population of students the program was designed to serve.
I would like to clarify-Janet Bridge did NOT start the Davis Bridge Educational Program. As far as I know Janet Bridge never even visited VO during her time on the BUSTF during the school day to view its programs in action before she recommended to close the school. The Davis Bridge Program was created by Janet Boulware in 2004. I do understand how one could be confused. Janet Boulware recently told me that she would offer the Bridge Program at the VO Charter School because that is the population of students the program was designed to serve.
I would like to clarify-Janet Bridge did NOT start the Davis Bridge Educational Program. As far as I know Janet Bridge never even visited VO during her time on the BUSTF during the school day to view its programs in action before she recommended to close the school. The Davis Bridge Program was created by Janet Boulware in 2004. I do understand how one could be confused. Janet Boulware recently told me that she would offer the Bridge Program at the VO Charter School because that is the population of students the program was designed to serve.
I would like to clarify-Janet Bridge did NOT start the Davis Bridge Educational Program. As far as I know Janet Bridge never even visited VO during her time on the BUSTF during the school day to view its programs in action before she recommended to close the school. The Davis Bridge Program was created by Janet Boulware in 2004. I do understand how one could be confused. Janet Boulware recently told me that she would offer the Bridge Program at the VO Charter School because that is the population of students the program was designed to serve.
oops, meant to say -Janice Bridge did NOT start the Davis Bridge program.
oops, meant to say -Janice Bridge did NOT start the Davis Bridge program.
oops, meant to say -Janice Bridge did NOT start the Davis Bridge program.
oops, meant to say -Janice Bridge did NOT start the Davis Bridge program.
Scott Yarnell is the lawyer the district brought in. The interesting thing is that Yarnell has a history and is known as a hired gun brought in to kill charter petitions. Go google him and see what you come up with.
Scott Yarnell is the lawyer the district brought in. The interesting thing is that Yarnell has a history and is known as a hired gun brought in to kill charter petitions. Go google him and see what you come up with.
Scott Yarnell is the lawyer the district brought in. The interesting thing is that Yarnell has a history and is known as a hired gun brought in to kill charter petitions. Go google him and see what you come up with.
Scott Yarnell is the lawyer the district brought in. The interesting thing is that Yarnell has a history and is known as a hired gun brought in to kill charter petitions. Go google him and see what you come up with.