There is no doubt that this blog has devoted considerable time to covering Valley Oak. Indeed, if we look at the labels (along the side bar of the People’s Vanguard of Davis blog) we notice that Valley Oak has 46 mentions. That is just more than the Yolo County General Plan (43) and just under Target (48).
Whether that makes it the most important issue overall in Davis facing the schools is debatable, but one thing about the issue of Valley Oak, is that it is one of the very few issues in which you can see clear and distinct lines between the candidates on the issue of Valley Oak. Listening to candidates debates, there was a sense that the differences between these candidates were simply in their real world experiences.
However, the Valley Oak issue, is different. The Valley Oak charter school process is moving on. They are currently circulating a petition to establish a starter school.
The school will be founded on three pillars:
- the maintenance of a successful neighborhood program
- a system of cooperative school governance that encourages innovation, effectiveness and efficiency
- the utilization of education technology for bridging the digital divide for students and their families
“We are asking parents who are ‘meaningfully interested’ in having their children attend the school described in the charter to sign the petition. If you are one of those parents, or know a parent who may be interested, petitions will be available to sign at a number of locations. “
“Petitions can also be found at tables at Valley Oak Elementary near the bike racks and MPR during the week of Monday, October 29th through Friday, November 2nd (Conference Week) from 8 to 9 a.m. and from 1:30 to 5 p.m.”
The full charter is available here.
The Valley Oak Charter School is an issue that strongly divides the candidates.
Joe Spector who has extensively campaigned on keeping Valley Oak open, strongly supports the charter initiative.
He was recently quoted in the Davis Enterprise:
“The charter school is forward-looking in its development of a magnet school program for career/technology… The charter school provides educational opportunity for the neighborhood students. The school presents an attractive education alternative for parents who live nearby, or work in our community. So we are likely to bring new students to our district who can benefit from our programs and help create district enrollment growth… [The Valley Oak staff] is highly dedicated and successful in teaching and addressing all students’ issues, including English language learners, GATE (Gifted And Talented Education), and special education.”
Bob Schelen has said that keeping Valley Oak open was one of the reasons he got into the school board race to begin with.
Back in August, Mr. Schelen told the Vanguard:
“I think that the closing of Valley was a mistake. I think that it should have stayed open. It’s the only elementary school in the core area or the downtown area and it has a strong historical significance.”
He added:
“I think the idea of a charter school is an excellent one and it’s very unique to have a teacher’s association anywhere in the state support the idea of charter schools. They’re very controversial and with good reason. However, in this case, the Davis Teacher’s Association is looking to put together the proposal for the charter school. When you have the teacher’s association saying this is what we want to do—then that idea excites me. And I would work as hard as I could to find a way that we could do the charter school…”
Richard Harris has expressed concerns about a Charter at Valley Oak. He stopped short in the recent Davis Enterprise of out right opposing it.
“The burden of proof is on the charter school proponents to show how the school district’s budget and programs will not be negatively impacted by opening a charter school.”
“I take very seriously the responsibility to look at the specific proposal and assess its fiscal and program impacts on the district as a whole… To do any less is an abdication of the fiduciary responsibility of a board of education trustee.
“The troubling factor is the charter school adoption process itself. The community is being forced into a discussion and decision on the creation of a new magnet school through the very narrow lens and timetable of this singular proposal driven by one small group of parents and teachers.
“As a board member, I’ll always welcome the opportunity to discuss creation of magnet schools or innovative programs to serve varying student interests or educational goals, but this current process feels like a shotgun marriage.”
Finally, Susan Lovenburg supported the decision to close Valley Oak made by the Best Uses of Schools Task Force.
She told us in August:
“I closely followed the work of the Best Uses of Schools Task Force and publicly supported their recommendation to close Valley Oak as a K-6 campus. Though I initially sought to maintain nine campuses, I came to believe that the decision to close best serves the students of Valley Oak and the District as a whole, not just financially but educationally. It was a heart-wrenching and difficult decision for me as an individual, for the Task Force, and for the Board – and I understand that it is one the families of Valley Oak find difficult to accept – but it has been made and it is time to look forward.”
On the Charter issue she seems supportive of charter schools in general.
On the Valley Oak charter school, she told us in August:
“With regard to the proposed charter school, legislation requires that a well-written charter with a good educational plan, sound finances, and commitment from sufficient teachers and families with students to participate, must be approved by the Board. It is my hope that the planners of the charter school are looking carefully at new approaches and new strategies for addressing the needs of low socioeconomic income and English Language Learners, rather than simply trying to preserve the existing Valley Oak program.”
She more recently told the Davis Enterprise:
“Organizers of the Valley Oak charter program are preparing a petition that must include a sound educational program, a plan for successful implementation which includes measurable student outcomes, and signatures from parents interested in having their students attend… This petition will be submitted to the district, and staff will evaluate its merits prior to submission to the school board for consideration. If approved, the district will have continuing oversight of the charter school.”
“I will work with district staff and charter petitioners to understand the goals of the charter school and its potential relationship to the district, both programmatically and financially, and do my best to see that the charter school realizes its own potential by successfully serving our students.”
From these statements there seems to be key differences between the candidates on the issue of Valley Oak and the continuing issue of whether it should stay open. The voters of Davis have a clear choice depending on where they stand on the issue of Valley Oak.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Once again, the Vanguard has hit the nail, or in this case, the Dragon, on the head. Only one member of the “Best Use of Schools Task Force” got it right-KEEP VALLEY OAK SCHOOL OPEN! Let’s look at the facts: (1) Declining enrollment in the DJUSD is a moving target. Our enrollment actually went UP in 2006-07 over the previous year. (2) Slating Valley Oak School to close has more to do with preserving the new school in Mace Ranch, than shutting V.O. (3) The DJUSD is crying “cash poor”. What better way to raise short term bucks than shutting Valley Oak, moving the district office operations there, and cashing in big time on the S.B. Anthony city block. Developers are standing in line for this core property. How do you say ” high rise condos”? (4) Is the issue of “push back” important? At least one BOE member advocated closing a different school. Would the district have a harder time closing a school in a more affluent part of town? Duh!
The issue of Valley Oak School does divide the four candidates right down the center, Spector and Schelen for keeping the school alive with the charter, Harris and Lovenburg against keeping the school open. The voters have a sure-fire issue here upon which to base their votes. Mine will go to Spector and Schelen!
Once again, the Vanguard has hit the nail, or in this case, the Dragon, on the head. Only one member of the “Best Use of Schools Task Force” got it right-KEEP VALLEY OAK SCHOOL OPEN! Let’s look at the facts: (1) Declining enrollment in the DJUSD is a moving target. Our enrollment actually went UP in 2006-07 over the previous year. (2) Slating Valley Oak School to close has more to do with preserving the new school in Mace Ranch, than shutting V.O. (3) The DJUSD is crying “cash poor”. What better way to raise short term bucks than shutting Valley Oak, moving the district office operations there, and cashing in big time on the S.B. Anthony city block. Developers are standing in line for this core property. How do you say ” high rise condos”? (4) Is the issue of “push back” important? At least one BOE member advocated closing a different school. Would the district have a harder time closing a school in a more affluent part of town? Duh!
The issue of Valley Oak School does divide the four candidates right down the center, Spector and Schelen for keeping the school alive with the charter, Harris and Lovenburg against keeping the school open. The voters have a sure-fire issue here upon which to base their votes. Mine will go to Spector and Schelen!
Once again, the Vanguard has hit the nail, or in this case, the Dragon, on the head. Only one member of the “Best Use of Schools Task Force” got it right-KEEP VALLEY OAK SCHOOL OPEN! Let’s look at the facts: (1) Declining enrollment in the DJUSD is a moving target. Our enrollment actually went UP in 2006-07 over the previous year. (2) Slating Valley Oak School to close has more to do with preserving the new school in Mace Ranch, than shutting V.O. (3) The DJUSD is crying “cash poor”. What better way to raise short term bucks than shutting Valley Oak, moving the district office operations there, and cashing in big time on the S.B. Anthony city block. Developers are standing in line for this core property. How do you say ” high rise condos”? (4) Is the issue of “push back” important? At least one BOE member advocated closing a different school. Would the district have a harder time closing a school in a more affluent part of town? Duh!
The issue of Valley Oak School does divide the four candidates right down the center, Spector and Schelen for keeping the school alive with the charter, Harris and Lovenburg against keeping the school open. The voters have a sure-fire issue here upon which to base their votes. Mine will go to Spector and Schelen!
Once again, the Vanguard has hit the nail, or in this case, the Dragon, on the head. Only one member of the “Best Use of Schools Task Force” got it right-KEEP VALLEY OAK SCHOOL OPEN! Let’s look at the facts: (1) Declining enrollment in the DJUSD is a moving target. Our enrollment actually went UP in 2006-07 over the previous year. (2) Slating Valley Oak School to close has more to do with preserving the new school in Mace Ranch, than shutting V.O. (3) The DJUSD is crying “cash poor”. What better way to raise short term bucks than shutting Valley Oak, moving the district office operations there, and cashing in big time on the S.B. Anthony city block. Developers are standing in line for this core property. How do you say ” high rise condos”? (4) Is the issue of “push back” important? At least one BOE member advocated closing a different school. Would the district have a harder time closing a school in a more affluent part of town? Duh!
The issue of Valley Oak School does divide the four candidates right down the center, Spector and Schelen for keeping the school alive with the charter, Harris and Lovenburg against keeping the school open. The voters have a sure-fire issue here upon which to base their votes. Mine will go to Spector and Schelen!
What is interesting is that this should be a non-issue. If the charter school folks present a plan which meets the state criteria, they have no valid basis for voting against it.
Susan Lovenburg’s comments are perfectly accurate. While she supported the decision to close it, I see nothing in what she has said that indicates she would vote against the charter school petition if it follows the rules. Why? Because she knows she can’t. The basis for rejecting a charter school petition is clearly spelled out in the education code.
Richard Harris suggested that he would consider the impact on the school district finances and programs in deciding how to vote. Assessing “the fiscal and program impacts on the district” is not a consideration in reviewing a charter proposal. Any serious candidate for school board should already know that.
The education code is very clear, and has been revised several times to be specific and unambiguous so that school districts can’t just reject petitions for vague reasons. You can find it all online. The grounds for rejection are narrow and must be stated in writing. The petitioners would appeal, and their appeal would almost certainly be upheld. Unless you happen to think that Carlson, Kelleher, Storm, Coker, and Arvin are sloppy and don’t know what they’re doing. My kids had all of those teachers. I guarantee the petition will meet or exceed the state requirements.
Plus, his comments about the “community…being forced into a discussion,” and “a small group of parents and teachers” are just insulting.
Spector and Schelen opposed the closing and strongly support the charter proposal. But again, the only thing the board has to do is review the petition, make sure it follows the rules, and vote to ratify it. The only candidate who would probably fail to fulfill that responsibility would be Richard Harris.
What is interesting is that this should be a non-issue. If the charter school folks present a plan which meets the state criteria, they have no valid basis for voting against it.
Susan Lovenburg’s comments are perfectly accurate. While she supported the decision to close it, I see nothing in what she has said that indicates she would vote against the charter school petition if it follows the rules. Why? Because she knows she can’t. The basis for rejecting a charter school petition is clearly spelled out in the education code.
Richard Harris suggested that he would consider the impact on the school district finances and programs in deciding how to vote. Assessing “the fiscal and program impacts on the district” is not a consideration in reviewing a charter proposal. Any serious candidate for school board should already know that.
The education code is very clear, and has been revised several times to be specific and unambiguous so that school districts can’t just reject petitions for vague reasons. You can find it all online. The grounds for rejection are narrow and must be stated in writing. The petitioners would appeal, and their appeal would almost certainly be upheld. Unless you happen to think that Carlson, Kelleher, Storm, Coker, and Arvin are sloppy and don’t know what they’re doing. My kids had all of those teachers. I guarantee the petition will meet or exceed the state requirements.
Plus, his comments about the “community…being forced into a discussion,” and “a small group of parents and teachers” are just insulting.
Spector and Schelen opposed the closing and strongly support the charter proposal. But again, the only thing the board has to do is review the petition, make sure it follows the rules, and vote to ratify it. The only candidate who would probably fail to fulfill that responsibility would be Richard Harris.
What is interesting is that this should be a non-issue. If the charter school folks present a plan which meets the state criteria, they have no valid basis for voting against it.
Susan Lovenburg’s comments are perfectly accurate. While she supported the decision to close it, I see nothing in what she has said that indicates she would vote against the charter school petition if it follows the rules. Why? Because she knows she can’t. The basis for rejecting a charter school petition is clearly spelled out in the education code.
Richard Harris suggested that he would consider the impact on the school district finances and programs in deciding how to vote. Assessing “the fiscal and program impacts on the district” is not a consideration in reviewing a charter proposal. Any serious candidate for school board should already know that.
The education code is very clear, and has been revised several times to be specific and unambiguous so that school districts can’t just reject petitions for vague reasons. You can find it all online. The grounds for rejection are narrow and must be stated in writing. The petitioners would appeal, and their appeal would almost certainly be upheld. Unless you happen to think that Carlson, Kelleher, Storm, Coker, and Arvin are sloppy and don’t know what they’re doing. My kids had all of those teachers. I guarantee the petition will meet or exceed the state requirements.
Plus, his comments about the “community…being forced into a discussion,” and “a small group of parents and teachers” are just insulting.
Spector and Schelen opposed the closing and strongly support the charter proposal. But again, the only thing the board has to do is review the petition, make sure it follows the rules, and vote to ratify it. The only candidate who would probably fail to fulfill that responsibility would be Richard Harris.
What is interesting is that this should be a non-issue. If the charter school folks present a plan which meets the state criteria, they have no valid basis for voting against it.
Susan Lovenburg’s comments are perfectly accurate. While she supported the decision to close it, I see nothing in what she has said that indicates she would vote against the charter school petition if it follows the rules. Why? Because she knows she can’t. The basis for rejecting a charter school petition is clearly spelled out in the education code.
Richard Harris suggested that he would consider the impact on the school district finances and programs in deciding how to vote. Assessing “the fiscal and program impacts on the district” is not a consideration in reviewing a charter proposal. Any serious candidate for school board should already know that.
The education code is very clear, and has been revised several times to be specific and unambiguous so that school districts can’t just reject petitions for vague reasons. You can find it all online. The grounds for rejection are narrow and must be stated in writing. The petitioners would appeal, and their appeal would almost certainly be upheld. Unless you happen to think that Carlson, Kelleher, Storm, Coker, and Arvin are sloppy and don’t know what they’re doing. My kids had all of those teachers. I guarantee the petition will meet or exceed the state requirements.
Plus, his comments about the “community…being forced into a discussion,” and “a small group of parents and teachers” are just insulting.
Spector and Schelen opposed the closing and strongly support the charter proposal. But again, the only thing the board has to do is review the petition, make sure it follows the rules, and vote to ratify it. The only candidate who would probably fail to fulfill that responsibility would be Richard Harris.
Don said:
Plus, his comments about the “community…being forced into a discussion,” and “a small group of parents and teachers” are just insulting.
Absolutely, I’m a Valley Oak parent, and I don’t necessary think the charter is right for our family, but I certainly support the people who are pursuing it. I found the comment very insulting. This “small group of parents and teachers” may turn out to be a force to be reckoned with. They did not force this upon the district, the district forced this upon us.
VO mom
Don said:
Plus, his comments about the “community…being forced into a discussion,” and “a small group of parents and teachers” are just insulting.
Absolutely, I’m a Valley Oak parent, and I don’t necessary think the charter is right for our family, but I certainly support the people who are pursuing it. I found the comment very insulting. This “small group of parents and teachers” may turn out to be a force to be reckoned with. They did not force this upon the district, the district forced this upon us.
VO mom
Don said:
Plus, his comments about the “community…being forced into a discussion,” and “a small group of parents and teachers” are just insulting.
Absolutely, I’m a Valley Oak parent, and I don’t necessary think the charter is right for our family, but I certainly support the people who are pursuing it. I found the comment very insulting. This “small group of parents and teachers” may turn out to be a force to be reckoned with. They did not force this upon the district, the district forced this upon us.
VO mom
Don said:
Plus, his comments about the “community…being forced into a discussion,” and “a small group of parents and teachers” are just insulting.
Absolutely, I’m a Valley Oak parent, and I don’t necessary think the charter is right for our family, but I certainly support the people who are pursuing it. I found the comment very insulting. This “small group of parents and teachers” may turn out to be a force to be reckoned with. They did not force this upon the district, the district forced this upon us.
VO mom
Thank you Don for your clear comments. You have made my decision in the polling booth a bit easier. Eliminating one choice is much easier than eliminating two choices.
Thank you Don for your clear comments. You have made my decision in the polling booth a bit easier. Eliminating one choice is much easier than eliminating two choices.
Thank you Don for your clear comments. You have made my decision in the polling booth a bit easier. Eliminating one choice is much easier than eliminating two choices.
Thank you Don for your clear comments. You have made my decision in the polling booth a bit easier. Eliminating one choice is much easier than eliminating two choices.
Don Shor wrote: “Richard Harris suggested that he would consider the impact on the school district finances and programs in deciding how to vote. Assessing “the fiscal and program impacts on the district” is not a consideration in reviewing a charter proposal. Any serious candidate for school board should already know that.”
Don,
In reading Harris’s comments as reported here, I don’t believe he ever said “he would consider the impact on the school district finances and programs in deciding how to vote.”
As you have stated four or five times now, the vote will be based on the specific criteria determined by the state in approving a charter. But just because a trustee would vote to approve, based on the legal criteria, doesn’t mean that the same trustee would conclude that the proposal is in the best interests of the district as a whole. And it is the latter which seems to be, and frankly should be, the question Harris wants examined.
I interpret Harris’s words, “I take very seriously the responsibility to look at the specific proposal and assess its fiscal and program impacts on the district as a whole,” to mean that Harris is interested first and foremost in how this proposal will impact the DJUSD. Any candidate or sitting trustee who doesn’t consider that is violating his responsibility.
Nevertheless, the fault in this matter lies with the Board’s decision to shut down Valley Oak — done so entirely because of the need to save on the administrative overhead costs of operating three elementaries in East Davis — without ever considering a more creative way to reduce the existing per pupil overhead administrative costs (such as having one administration for two schools).
I think one of the great benefits of the new V.O. charter will be that it will provide a model for how to run a stream-lined operation. Valley Oak is going to have to pay its teachers the same amount that the other schools pay. As such, the charter will have less money for administration and overhead per pupil. So it will have to be far more creative and lean, and hopefully that will provide an example to the DJUSD on how it should be doing business.
Don Shor wrote: “Richard Harris suggested that he would consider the impact on the school district finances and programs in deciding how to vote. Assessing “the fiscal and program impacts on the district” is not a consideration in reviewing a charter proposal. Any serious candidate for school board should already know that.”
Don,
In reading Harris’s comments as reported here, I don’t believe he ever said “he would consider the impact on the school district finances and programs in deciding how to vote.”
As you have stated four or five times now, the vote will be based on the specific criteria determined by the state in approving a charter. But just because a trustee would vote to approve, based on the legal criteria, doesn’t mean that the same trustee would conclude that the proposal is in the best interests of the district as a whole. And it is the latter which seems to be, and frankly should be, the question Harris wants examined.
I interpret Harris’s words, “I take very seriously the responsibility to look at the specific proposal and assess its fiscal and program impacts on the district as a whole,” to mean that Harris is interested first and foremost in how this proposal will impact the DJUSD. Any candidate or sitting trustee who doesn’t consider that is violating his responsibility.
Nevertheless, the fault in this matter lies with the Board’s decision to shut down Valley Oak — done so entirely because of the need to save on the administrative overhead costs of operating three elementaries in East Davis — without ever considering a more creative way to reduce the existing per pupil overhead administrative costs (such as having one administration for two schools).
I think one of the great benefits of the new V.O. charter will be that it will provide a model for how to run a stream-lined operation. Valley Oak is going to have to pay its teachers the same amount that the other schools pay. As such, the charter will have less money for administration and overhead per pupil. So it will have to be far more creative and lean, and hopefully that will provide an example to the DJUSD on how it should be doing business.
Don Shor wrote: “Richard Harris suggested that he would consider the impact on the school district finances and programs in deciding how to vote. Assessing “the fiscal and program impacts on the district” is not a consideration in reviewing a charter proposal. Any serious candidate for school board should already know that.”
Don,
In reading Harris’s comments as reported here, I don’t believe he ever said “he would consider the impact on the school district finances and programs in deciding how to vote.”
As you have stated four or five times now, the vote will be based on the specific criteria determined by the state in approving a charter. But just because a trustee would vote to approve, based on the legal criteria, doesn’t mean that the same trustee would conclude that the proposal is in the best interests of the district as a whole. And it is the latter which seems to be, and frankly should be, the question Harris wants examined.
I interpret Harris’s words, “I take very seriously the responsibility to look at the specific proposal and assess its fiscal and program impacts on the district as a whole,” to mean that Harris is interested first and foremost in how this proposal will impact the DJUSD. Any candidate or sitting trustee who doesn’t consider that is violating his responsibility.
Nevertheless, the fault in this matter lies with the Board’s decision to shut down Valley Oak — done so entirely because of the need to save on the administrative overhead costs of operating three elementaries in East Davis — without ever considering a more creative way to reduce the existing per pupil overhead administrative costs (such as having one administration for two schools).
I think one of the great benefits of the new V.O. charter will be that it will provide a model for how to run a stream-lined operation. Valley Oak is going to have to pay its teachers the same amount that the other schools pay. As such, the charter will have less money for administration and overhead per pupil. So it will have to be far more creative and lean, and hopefully that will provide an example to the DJUSD on how it should be doing business.
Don Shor wrote: “Richard Harris suggested that he would consider the impact on the school district finances and programs in deciding how to vote. Assessing “the fiscal and program impacts on the district” is not a consideration in reviewing a charter proposal. Any serious candidate for school board should already know that.”
Don,
In reading Harris’s comments as reported here, I don’t believe he ever said “he would consider the impact on the school district finances and programs in deciding how to vote.”
As you have stated four or five times now, the vote will be based on the specific criteria determined by the state in approving a charter. But just because a trustee would vote to approve, based on the legal criteria, doesn’t mean that the same trustee would conclude that the proposal is in the best interests of the district as a whole. And it is the latter which seems to be, and frankly should be, the question Harris wants examined.
I interpret Harris’s words, “I take very seriously the responsibility to look at the specific proposal and assess its fiscal and program impacts on the district as a whole,” to mean that Harris is interested first and foremost in how this proposal will impact the DJUSD. Any candidate or sitting trustee who doesn’t consider that is violating his responsibility.
Nevertheless, the fault in this matter lies with the Board’s decision to shut down Valley Oak — done so entirely because of the need to save on the administrative overhead costs of operating three elementaries in East Davis — without ever considering a more creative way to reduce the existing per pupil overhead administrative costs (such as having one administration for two schools).
I think one of the great benefits of the new V.O. charter will be that it will provide a model for how to run a stream-lined operation. Valley Oak is going to have to pay its teachers the same amount that the other schools pay. As such, the charter will have less money for administration and overhead per pupil. So it will have to be far more creative and lean, and hopefully that will provide an example to the DJUSD on how it should be doing business.
I support the Valley Oak Charter school and I am therefore not voting for either Susan Lovenburg or Richard Harris.
They have made it very clear where they stand on the issue.
As I look back at what they have stated over the months I honestly don’t believe that they would serve our children the best.
It’s good that they are involved in other capacities in our school district. It should remain that way. They do not need to sit on the board that will make decisions which will have a long-term effect on children.
Bob Schelen and Joe Spector have our votes.
I support the Valley Oak Charter school and I am therefore not voting for either Susan Lovenburg or Richard Harris.
They have made it very clear where they stand on the issue.
As I look back at what they have stated over the months I honestly don’t believe that they would serve our children the best.
It’s good that they are involved in other capacities in our school district. It should remain that way. They do not need to sit on the board that will make decisions which will have a long-term effect on children.
Bob Schelen and Joe Spector have our votes.
I support the Valley Oak Charter school and I am therefore not voting for either Susan Lovenburg or Richard Harris.
They have made it very clear where they stand on the issue.
As I look back at what they have stated over the months I honestly don’t believe that they would serve our children the best.
It’s good that they are involved in other capacities in our school district. It should remain that way. They do not need to sit on the board that will make decisions which will have a long-term effect on children.
Bob Schelen and Joe Spector have our votes.
I support the Valley Oak Charter school and I am therefore not voting for either Susan Lovenburg or Richard Harris.
They have made it very clear where they stand on the issue.
As I look back at what they have stated over the months I honestly don’t believe that they would serve our children the best.
It’s good that they are involved in other capacities in our school district. It should remain that way. They do not need to sit on the board that will make decisions which will have a long-term effect on children.
Bob Schelen and Joe Spector have our votes.
“I interpret Harris’s words, “I take very seriously the responsibility to look at the specific proposal and assess its fiscal and program impacts on the district as a whole,….”
I’m quite sure that Rich Rikin’s tortured logic here in Harris’ defense leaves even Rifkin unconvinced when he reads it over.
“I interpret Harris’s words, “I take very seriously the responsibility to look at the specific proposal and assess its fiscal and program impacts on the district as a whole,….”
I’m quite sure that Rich Rikin’s tortured logic here in Harris’ defense leaves even Rifkin unconvinced when he reads it over.
“I interpret Harris’s words, “I take very seriously the responsibility to look at the specific proposal and assess its fiscal and program impacts on the district as a whole,….”
I’m quite sure that Rich Rikin’s tortured logic here in Harris’ defense leaves even Rifkin unconvinced when he reads it over.
“I interpret Harris’s words, “I take very seriously the responsibility to look at the specific proposal and assess its fiscal and program impacts on the district as a whole,….”
I’m quite sure that Rich Rikin’s tortured logic here in Harris’ defense leaves even Rifkin unconvinced when he reads it over.
I overheard Richard Harris at Farmer’s Market flat out tell someone he was against the charter school at Valley Oak and that it was based strictly on budgetary concerns.
I overheard Richard Harris at Farmer’s Market flat out tell someone he was against the charter school at Valley Oak and that it was based strictly on budgetary concerns.
I overheard Richard Harris at Farmer’s Market flat out tell someone he was against the charter school at Valley Oak and that it was based strictly on budgetary concerns.
I overheard Richard Harris at Farmer’s Market flat out tell someone he was against the charter school at Valley Oak and that it was based strictly on budgetary concerns.
“I’m quite sure that Rich Rikin’s tortured logic here in Harris’ defense leaves even Rifkin unconvinced when he reads it over.”
If it’s not too much to ask, assuming you are not operating a few cards short of a full deck, please explain your ascription of my “tortured logic.” Your lack of elucidation makes it impossible to reply other than to assume your stricture was entirely ad hominem.
“I’m quite sure that Rich Rikin’s tortured logic here in Harris’ defense leaves even Rifkin unconvinced when he reads it over.”
If it’s not too much to ask, assuming you are not operating a few cards short of a full deck, please explain your ascription of my “tortured logic.” Your lack of elucidation makes it impossible to reply other than to assume your stricture was entirely ad hominem.
“I’m quite sure that Rich Rikin’s tortured logic here in Harris’ defense leaves even Rifkin unconvinced when he reads it over.”
If it’s not too much to ask, assuming you are not operating a few cards short of a full deck, please explain your ascription of my “tortured logic.” Your lack of elucidation makes it impossible to reply other than to assume your stricture was entirely ad hominem.
“I’m quite sure that Rich Rikin’s tortured logic here in Harris’ defense leaves even Rifkin unconvinced when he reads it over.”
If it’s not too much to ask, assuming you are not operating a few cards short of a full deck, please explain your ascription of my “tortured logic.” Your lack of elucidation makes it impossible to reply other than to assume your stricture was entirely ad hominem.
Rich: Richard Harris said “”The burden of proof is on the charter school proponents to show how the school district’s budget and programs will not be negatively impacted by opening a charter school.”
Nope. The burden is on them to present a charter petition which meets the state guidelines. If they do, the new board will have to revisit the enrollment figures and come up with some other way of dealing with them. A new VO charter school might help with that, or it might hurt — nobody knows.
In theory, the ADA simply shifts from the district to the charter school and is fiscally neutral. The district has one less school to staff and administer. But the burden is on the staff to present that fiscal analysis, and those considerations aren’t relevant to the board’s decision.
I know of no other reasonable way to read Richard Harris’ comments then to indicate that he would consider voting against the petition on the grounds of the fiscal impact. If he wants to clarify that, I’m guessing he’s aware of this blog. But all the public statements I’ve seen have been hostile to the VO charter proposal.
Rich: Richard Harris said “”The burden of proof is on the charter school proponents to show how the school district’s budget and programs will not be negatively impacted by opening a charter school.”
Nope. The burden is on them to present a charter petition which meets the state guidelines. If they do, the new board will have to revisit the enrollment figures and come up with some other way of dealing with them. A new VO charter school might help with that, or it might hurt — nobody knows.
In theory, the ADA simply shifts from the district to the charter school and is fiscally neutral. The district has one less school to staff and administer. But the burden is on the staff to present that fiscal analysis, and those considerations aren’t relevant to the board’s decision.
I know of no other reasonable way to read Richard Harris’ comments then to indicate that he would consider voting against the petition on the grounds of the fiscal impact. If he wants to clarify that, I’m guessing he’s aware of this blog. But all the public statements I’ve seen have been hostile to the VO charter proposal.
Rich: Richard Harris said “”The burden of proof is on the charter school proponents to show how the school district’s budget and programs will not be negatively impacted by opening a charter school.”
Nope. The burden is on them to present a charter petition which meets the state guidelines. If they do, the new board will have to revisit the enrollment figures and come up with some other way of dealing with them. A new VO charter school might help with that, or it might hurt — nobody knows.
In theory, the ADA simply shifts from the district to the charter school and is fiscally neutral. The district has one less school to staff and administer. But the burden is on the staff to present that fiscal analysis, and those considerations aren’t relevant to the board’s decision.
I know of no other reasonable way to read Richard Harris’ comments then to indicate that he would consider voting against the petition on the grounds of the fiscal impact. If he wants to clarify that, I’m guessing he’s aware of this blog. But all the public statements I’ve seen have been hostile to the VO charter proposal.
Rich: Richard Harris said “”The burden of proof is on the charter school proponents to show how the school district’s budget and programs will not be negatively impacted by opening a charter school.”
Nope. The burden is on them to present a charter petition which meets the state guidelines. If they do, the new board will have to revisit the enrollment figures and come up with some other way of dealing with them. A new VO charter school might help with that, or it might hurt — nobody knows.
In theory, the ADA simply shifts from the district to the charter school and is fiscally neutral. The district has one less school to staff and administer. But the burden is on the staff to present that fiscal analysis, and those considerations aren’t relevant to the board’s decision.
I know of no other reasonable way to read Richard Harris’ comments then to indicate that he would consider voting against the petition on the grounds of the fiscal impact. If he wants to clarify that, I’m guessing he’s aware of this blog. But all the public statements I’ve seen have been hostile to the VO charter proposal.
“I know of no other reasonable way to read Richard Harris’ comments then to indicate that he would consider voting against the petition on the grounds of the fiscal impact.”
To my knowledge, he has never said what you have concluded about his “vote.” I’m happy to see that you have changed your positive assertion that he would vote no to “he would consider” voting no.
I don’t know if it’s a good analogy, but in a few weeks, I will be voting yes to certify the FEIR on the Miska’s Cafe Project, a proposal I strongly oppose. I have tried with our HRMC hearings to expose what I think is wrong with the project, but won’t vote to stop the process, as the EIR meets its legal requirements in my judgment. It seems that Harris opposes the VO Charter, as it impacts the district. That is not what I question. I just doubt whether he will vote to deny the Charter, if it meets its statutory requirements.
“But all the public statements I’ve seen have been hostile to the VO charter proposal.”
Again, he could be hostile, but still will fulfill his legal requirement as a trustee. They are not mutually exclusive and your conclusion seems to be that they are.
“I know of no other reasonable way to read Richard Harris’ comments then to indicate that he would consider voting against the petition on the grounds of the fiscal impact.”
To my knowledge, he has never said what you have concluded about his “vote.” I’m happy to see that you have changed your positive assertion that he would vote no to “he would consider” voting no.
I don’t know if it’s a good analogy, but in a few weeks, I will be voting yes to certify the FEIR on the Miska’s Cafe Project, a proposal I strongly oppose. I have tried with our HRMC hearings to expose what I think is wrong with the project, but won’t vote to stop the process, as the EIR meets its legal requirements in my judgment. It seems that Harris opposes the VO Charter, as it impacts the district. That is not what I question. I just doubt whether he will vote to deny the Charter, if it meets its statutory requirements.
“But all the public statements I’ve seen have been hostile to the VO charter proposal.”
Again, he could be hostile, but still will fulfill his legal requirement as a trustee. They are not mutually exclusive and your conclusion seems to be that they are.
“I know of no other reasonable way to read Richard Harris’ comments then to indicate that he would consider voting against the petition on the grounds of the fiscal impact.”
To my knowledge, he has never said what you have concluded about his “vote.” I’m happy to see that you have changed your positive assertion that he would vote no to “he would consider” voting no.
I don’t know if it’s a good analogy, but in a few weeks, I will be voting yes to certify the FEIR on the Miska’s Cafe Project, a proposal I strongly oppose. I have tried with our HRMC hearings to expose what I think is wrong with the project, but won’t vote to stop the process, as the EIR meets its legal requirements in my judgment. It seems that Harris opposes the VO Charter, as it impacts the district. That is not what I question. I just doubt whether he will vote to deny the Charter, if it meets its statutory requirements.
“But all the public statements I’ve seen have been hostile to the VO charter proposal.”
Again, he could be hostile, but still will fulfill his legal requirement as a trustee. They are not mutually exclusive and your conclusion seems to be that they are.
“I know of no other reasonable way to read Richard Harris’ comments then to indicate that he would consider voting against the petition on the grounds of the fiscal impact.”
To my knowledge, he has never said what you have concluded about his “vote.” I’m happy to see that you have changed your positive assertion that he would vote no to “he would consider” voting no.
I don’t know if it’s a good analogy, but in a few weeks, I will be voting yes to certify the FEIR on the Miska’s Cafe Project, a proposal I strongly oppose. I have tried with our HRMC hearings to expose what I think is wrong with the project, but won’t vote to stop the process, as the EIR meets its legal requirements in my judgment. It seems that Harris opposes the VO Charter, as it impacts the district. That is not what I question. I just doubt whether he will vote to deny the Charter, if it meets its statutory requirements.
“But all the public statements I’ve seen have been hostile to the VO charter proposal.”
Again, he could be hostile, but still will fulfill his legal requirement as a trustee. They are not mutually exclusive and your conclusion seems to be that they are.
“In theory, the ADA simply shifts from the district to the charter school and is fiscally neutral.”
I don’t believe that’s true. The cost is not very high to the district, per my calculations, but it is not neutral.
Not counting Valley Oak and Fairfield, we will have 8 DJUSD elementary schools next year: Patwin, Willet, Chavez, North, Birch, Korematsu, Montgomery and Pioneer. For argument’s sake, let’s say it costs $400,000 in administrative costs per school. That would be $3.2 million. And let’s assume we have 4,300 enrolled elementary students in those 8 DJUSD schools. As such, the onsite admin/overhead costs would be $744.19 per kid.
However, if Valley Oak Charter attracted, for example, 400 students from the other district schools, then the $3.2 million would be spread over 3,900 kids, and hence would cost $820.51 in admin/overhead expenses per kid. On a per campus basis, that would cost the district $3,816 per year, or $30,528 for the 8 schools (or roughly the cost of one-half of one teacher, which of course is far, far less than the district wasted in the Murphy buy out situation).
“In theory, the ADA simply shifts from the district to the charter school and is fiscally neutral.”
I don’t believe that’s true. The cost is not very high to the district, per my calculations, but it is not neutral.
Not counting Valley Oak and Fairfield, we will have 8 DJUSD elementary schools next year: Patwin, Willet, Chavez, North, Birch, Korematsu, Montgomery and Pioneer. For argument’s sake, let’s say it costs $400,000 in administrative costs per school. That would be $3.2 million. And let’s assume we have 4,300 enrolled elementary students in those 8 DJUSD schools. As such, the onsite admin/overhead costs would be $744.19 per kid.
However, if Valley Oak Charter attracted, for example, 400 students from the other district schools, then the $3.2 million would be spread over 3,900 kids, and hence would cost $820.51 in admin/overhead expenses per kid. On a per campus basis, that would cost the district $3,816 per year, or $30,528 for the 8 schools (or roughly the cost of one-half of one teacher, which of course is far, far less than the district wasted in the Murphy buy out situation).
“In theory, the ADA simply shifts from the district to the charter school and is fiscally neutral.”
I don’t believe that’s true. The cost is not very high to the district, per my calculations, but it is not neutral.
Not counting Valley Oak and Fairfield, we will have 8 DJUSD elementary schools next year: Patwin, Willet, Chavez, North, Birch, Korematsu, Montgomery and Pioneer. For argument’s sake, let’s say it costs $400,000 in administrative costs per school. That would be $3.2 million. And let’s assume we have 4,300 enrolled elementary students in those 8 DJUSD schools. As such, the onsite admin/overhead costs would be $744.19 per kid.
However, if Valley Oak Charter attracted, for example, 400 students from the other district schools, then the $3.2 million would be spread over 3,900 kids, and hence would cost $820.51 in admin/overhead expenses per kid. On a per campus basis, that would cost the district $3,816 per year, or $30,528 for the 8 schools (or roughly the cost of one-half of one teacher, which of course is far, far less than the district wasted in the Murphy buy out situation).
“In theory, the ADA simply shifts from the district to the charter school and is fiscally neutral.”
I don’t believe that’s true. The cost is not very high to the district, per my calculations, but it is not neutral.
Not counting Valley Oak and Fairfield, we will have 8 DJUSD elementary schools next year: Patwin, Willet, Chavez, North, Birch, Korematsu, Montgomery and Pioneer. For argument’s sake, let’s say it costs $400,000 in administrative costs per school. That would be $3.2 million. And let’s assume we have 4,300 enrolled elementary students in those 8 DJUSD schools. As such, the onsite admin/overhead costs would be $744.19 per kid.
However, if Valley Oak Charter attracted, for example, 400 students from the other district schools, then the $3.2 million would be spread over 3,900 kids, and hence would cost $820.51 in admin/overhead expenses per kid. On a per campus basis, that would cost the district $3,816 per year, or $30,528 for the 8 schools (or roughly the cost of one-half of one teacher, which of course is far, far less than the district wasted in the Murphy buy out situation).
“Again, he could be hostile, but still will fulfill his legal requirement as a trustee. They are not mutually exclusive and your conclusion seems to be that they are.”
One of the reasons that Charter Schools do not succeed is that either the district or the teacher’s are hostile to it. Hostile school board members may not block it per se, but they can do damage to it. I think this is a legitimate concern if you are a strong a proponent of the VOC.
“Again, he could be hostile, but still will fulfill his legal requirement as a trustee. They are not mutually exclusive and your conclusion seems to be that they are.”
One of the reasons that Charter Schools do not succeed is that either the district or the teacher’s are hostile to it. Hostile school board members may not block it per se, but they can do damage to it. I think this is a legitimate concern if you are a strong a proponent of the VOC.
“Again, he could be hostile, but still will fulfill his legal requirement as a trustee. They are not mutually exclusive and your conclusion seems to be that they are.”
One of the reasons that Charter Schools do not succeed is that either the district or the teacher’s are hostile to it. Hostile school board members may not block it per se, but they can do damage to it. I think this is a legitimate concern if you are a strong a proponent of the VOC.
“Again, he could be hostile, but still will fulfill his legal requirement as a trustee. They are not mutually exclusive and your conclusion seems to be that they are.”
One of the reasons that Charter Schools do not succeed is that either the district or the teacher’s are hostile to it. Hostile school board members may not block it per se, but they can do damage to it. I think this is a legitimate concern if you are a strong a proponent of the VOC.
Rich, how do you interpret the phrase “burden of proof”?
Rich, how do you interpret the phrase “burden of proof”?
Rich, how do you interpret the phrase “burden of proof”?
Rich, how do you interpret the phrase “burden of proof”?
“The burden of proof is on the charter school proponents to show how the school district’s budget and programs will not be negatively impacted by opening a charter school.”
Don, I can’t and don’t speak for Richard Harris on this. (In fact, I disagree with his general position on Valley Oak. I like the idea of charter schools in general; and I really like the direction and emphasis of the Valley Oak charter.) Nonetheless, his ‘burden of proof’ statement seems to me to have been said in doubt of claims, such as you made (and perhaps other VOC supporters have made) that there will be no pecuniary loss to the rest of the district from the initiation of VOC. That is, in his mind (I guess) the ‘burden of proof’ for those financial claims is on the people who are saying that the VOC won’t cost the district some money.
As I stated (and calculated) above, I think there will be some cost to the district if it loses a few hundred elementary aged kids to VOC. (I am happy to be proved wrong on that.) But I believe the amount will be small and if the DJSUD would cut out some of its administrative excess on B Street or perhaps some more on its campuses, no one would notice the small amount of marginal loss the VOC will cause.
“The burden of proof is on the charter school proponents to show how the school district’s budget and programs will not be negatively impacted by opening a charter school.”
Don, I can’t and don’t speak for Richard Harris on this. (In fact, I disagree with his general position on Valley Oak. I like the idea of charter schools in general; and I really like the direction and emphasis of the Valley Oak charter.) Nonetheless, his ‘burden of proof’ statement seems to me to have been said in doubt of claims, such as you made (and perhaps other VOC supporters have made) that there will be no pecuniary loss to the rest of the district from the initiation of VOC. That is, in his mind (I guess) the ‘burden of proof’ for those financial claims is on the people who are saying that the VOC won’t cost the district some money.
As I stated (and calculated) above, I think there will be some cost to the district if it loses a few hundred elementary aged kids to VOC. (I am happy to be proved wrong on that.) But I believe the amount will be small and if the DJSUD would cut out some of its administrative excess on B Street or perhaps some more on its campuses, no one would notice the small amount of marginal loss the VOC will cause.
“The burden of proof is on the charter school proponents to show how the school district’s budget and programs will not be negatively impacted by opening a charter school.”
Don, I can’t and don’t speak for Richard Harris on this. (In fact, I disagree with his general position on Valley Oak. I like the idea of charter schools in general; and I really like the direction and emphasis of the Valley Oak charter.) Nonetheless, his ‘burden of proof’ statement seems to me to have been said in doubt of claims, such as you made (and perhaps other VOC supporters have made) that there will be no pecuniary loss to the rest of the district from the initiation of VOC. That is, in his mind (I guess) the ‘burden of proof’ for those financial claims is on the people who are saying that the VOC won’t cost the district some money.
As I stated (and calculated) above, I think there will be some cost to the district if it loses a few hundred elementary aged kids to VOC. (I am happy to be proved wrong on that.) But I believe the amount will be small and if the DJSUD would cut out some of its administrative excess on B Street or perhaps some more on its campuses, no one would notice the small amount of marginal loss the VOC will cause.
“The burden of proof is on the charter school proponents to show how the school district’s budget and programs will not be negatively impacted by opening a charter school.”
Don, I can’t and don’t speak for Richard Harris on this. (In fact, I disagree with his general position on Valley Oak. I like the idea of charter schools in general; and I really like the direction and emphasis of the Valley Oak charter.) Nonetheless, his ‘burden of proof’ statement seems to me to have been said in doubt of claims, such as you made (and perhaps other VOC supporters have made) that there will be no pecuniary loss to the rest of the district from the initiation of VOC. That is, in his mind (I guess) the ‘burden of proof’ for those financial claims is on the people who are saying that the VOC won’t cost the district some money.
As I stated (and calculated) above, I think there will be some cost to the district if it loses a few hundred elementary aged kids to VOC. (I am happy to be proved wrong on that.) But I believe the amount will be small and if the DJSUD would cut out some of its administrative excess on B Street or perhaps some more on its campuses, no one would notice the small amount of marginal loss the VOC will cause.
It the certainty of declining enrollment that prompted the decision to close one elementary school. It was this loss that District is preparing for. The loss of enrollment caused by Valley Oak’s charter school should be able to be included in the planning that is taking place.
UCD Admissions is talking about the need to actually go out and recruit students to come and study at UCD in response to the decline in High School graduates over the coming decade.
Maybe DJUSD should be out there recruiting students to come do their K-12 studies in Davis as a way to maintain enrollment.
Regardless, I don’t think that this election revolves around Valley Oak, though it is the deciding factor for some. For me, it is a commitment to invest in programs that will help all students succeed in some way or another and definitely not just going with the status quo.
It the certainty of declining enrollment that prompted the decision to close one elementary school. It was this loss that District is preparing for. The loss of enrollment caused by Valley Oak’s charter school should be able to be included in the planning that is taking place.
UCD Admissions is talking about the need to actually go out and recruit students to come and study at UCD in response to the decline in High School graduates over the coming decade.
Maybe DJUSD should be out there recruiting students to come do their K-12 studies in Davis as a way to maintain enrollment.
Regardless, I don’t think that this election revolves around Valley Oak, though it is the deciding factor for some. For me, it is a commitment to invest in programs that will help all students succeed in some way or another and definitely not just going with the status quo.
It the certainty of declining enrollment that prompted the decision to close one elementary school. It was this loss that District is preparing for. The loss of enrollment caused by Valley Oak’s charter school should be able to be included in the planning that is taking place.
UCD Admissions is talking about the need to actually go out and recruit students to come and study at UCD in response to the decline in High School graduates over the coming decade.
Maybe DJUSD should be out there recruiting students to come do their K-12 studies in Davis as a way to maintain enrollment.
Regardless, I don’t think that this election revolves around Valley Oak, though it is the deciding factor for some. For me, it is a commitment to invest in programs that will help all students succeed in some way or another and definitely not just going with the status quo.
It the certainty of declining enrollment that prompted the decision to close one elementary school. It was this loss that District is preparing for. The loss of enrollment caused by Valley Oak’s charter school should be able to be included in the planning that is taking place.
UCD Admissions is talking about the need to actually go out and recruit students to come and study at UCD in response to the decline in High School graduates over the coming decade.
Maybe DJUSD should be out there recruiting students to come do their K-12 studies in Davis as a way to maintain enrollment.
Regardless, I don’t think that this election revolves around Valley Oak, though it is the deciding factor for some. For me, it is a commitment to invest in programs that will help all students succeed in some way or another and definitely not just going with the status quo.
“The burden of proof is on the charter school proponents to show how the school district’s budget and programs will not be negatively impacted by opening a charter school.” Richard Harris
Valley Oak is in no way responsible for what happens to the school district’s budget nor programs if Valley Oak becomes a successful charter school. Clearly this man has no clue.
“The burden of proof is on the charter school proponents to show how the school district’s budget and programs will not be negatively impacted by opening a charter school.” Richard Harris
Valley Oak is in no way responsible for what happens to the school district’s budget nor programs if Valley Oak becomes a successful charter school. Clearly this man has no clue.
“The burden of proof is on the charter school proponents to show how the school district’s budget and programs will not be negatively impacted by opening a charter school.” Richard Harris
Valley Oak is in no way responsible for what happens to the school district’s budget nor programs if Valley Oak becomes a successful charter school. Clearly this man has no clue.
“The burden of proof is on the charter school proponents to show how the school district’s budget and programs will not be negatively impacted by opening a charter school.” Richard Harris
Valley Oak is in no way responsible for what happens to the school district’s budget nor programs if Valley Oak becomes a successful charter school. Clearly this man has no clue.
A charter school adversely affects the district’s bottom line with a loss of ADA. The Task Force was so anxious to eliminate $450,000 from the operating budget by closing Valley Oak that it cost the district over 1,000,000 in ADA as Valley Oak Charter reaches full enrollment. (I believe 300 plus students has been proposed.)
The charter must give back to the district 3% of its ADA as rent for facilities, some services can be contracted with the district,(accounting, categorical funds, custodians,) but there will be a drain on the district of ADA.
Additionally, the elemntary school ADA typically support the secondary schools, which are more expensive to run. (Larger grounds, labs, sporting facilities, theatres etc…)
Sadly, a magnet school was proposed to the Task Force as an equitable solution, with a goal of bringing in out-of-district transfers. The idea was dismissed without discussion.
It was proposed to each board member. Only Ms. Allen supported the solution.
It appears Mr.Shor has taken the time to familiarize himself with Ca. charter law. Don’t you wish Harris and Daleiden would before they opened their mouths?
I agree with Mr. Shor that Harris diminished the Valley Oak Charter group with his comments. But with those comments, he betrayed the arrogance and the ignorance of the more affluent that has so permeated this whole process.
A charter school adversely affects the district’s bottom line with a loss of ADA. The Task Force was so anxious to eliminate $450,000 from the operating budget by closing Valley Oak that it cost the district over 1,000,000 in ADA as Valley Oak Charter reaches full enrollment. (I believe 300 plus students has been proposed.)
The charter must give back to the district 3% of its ADA as rent for facilities, some services can be contracted with the district,(accounting, categorical funds, custodians,) but there will be a drain on the district of ADA.
Additionally, the elemntary school ADA typically support the secondary schools, which are more expensive to run. (Larger grounds, labs, sporting facilities, theatres etc…)
Sadly, a magnet school was proposed to the Task Force as an equitable solution, with a goal of bringing in out-of-district transfers. The idea was dismissed without discussion.
It was proposed to each board member. Only Ms. Allen supported the solution.
It appears Mr.Shor has taken the time to familiarize himself with Ca. charter law. Don’t you wish Harris and Daleiden would before they opened their mouths?
I agree with Mr. Shor that Harris diminished the Valley Oak Charter group with his comments. But with those comments, he betrayed the arrogance and the ignorance of the more affluent that has so permeated this whole process.
A charter school adversely affects the district’s bottom line with a loss of ADA. The Task Force was so anxious to eliminate $450,000 from the operating budget by closing Valley Oak that it cost the district over 1,000,000 in ADA as Valley Oak Charter reaches full enrollment. (I believe 300 plus students has been proposed.)
The charter must give back to the district 3% of its ADA as rent for facilities, some services can be contracted with the district,(accounting, categorical funds, custodians,) but there will be a drain on the district of ADA.
Additionally, the elemntary school ADA typically support the secondary schools, which are more expensive to run. (Larger grounds, labs, sporting facilities, theatres etc…)
Sadly, a magnet school was proposed to the Task Force as an equitable solution, with a goal of bringing in out-of-district transfers. The idea was dismissed without discussion.
It was proposed to each board member. Only Ms. Allen supported the solution.
It appears Mr.Shor has taken the time to familiarize himself with Ca. charter law. Don’t you wish Harris and Daleiden would before they opened their mouths?
I agree with Mr. Shor that Harris diminished the Valley Oak Charter group with his comments. But with those comments, he betrayed the arrogance and the ignorance of the more affluent that has so permeated this whole process.
A charter school adversely affects the district’s bottom line with a loss of ADA. The Task Force was so anxious to eliminate $450,000 from the operating budget by closing Valley Oak that it cost the district over 1,000,000 in ADA as Valley Oak Charter reaches full enrollment. (I believe 300 plus students has been proposed.)
The charter must give back to the district 3% of its ADA as rent for facilities, some services can be contracted with the district,(accounting, categorical funds, custodians,) but there will be a drain on the district of ADA.
Additionally, the elemntary school ADA typically support the secondary schools, which are more expensive to run. (Larger grounds, labs, sporting facilities, theatres etc…)
Sadly, a magnet school was proposed to the Task Force as an equitable solution, with a goal of bringing in out-of-district transfers. The idea was dismissed without discussion.
It was proposed to each board member. Only Ms. Allen supported the solution.
It appears Mr.Shor has taken the time to familiarize himself with Ca. charter law. Don’t you wish Harris and Daleiden would before they opened their mouths?
I agree with Mr. Shor that Harris diminished the Valley Oak Charter group with his comments. But with those comments, he betrayed the arrogance and the ignorance of the more affluent that has so permeated this whole process.
I appreciate the vanguard’s public support of candidates. If the vanguard supports them I know to vote the opposite.
I appreciate the vanguard’s public support of candidates. If the vanguard supports them I know to vote the opposite.
I appreciate the vanguard’s public support of candidates. If the vanguard supports them I know to vote the opposite.
I appreciate the vanguard’s public support of candidates. If the vanguard supports them I know to vote the opposite.