Valley Oak Charter Passes Signature Threshold

This is great news! Congratulations to the teachers and parents of the Valley Oak community for completing the first step necessary to achieve charter school status. When people of good will come together, great things can happen.

Val Dolcini

This is great news! Congratulations to the teachers and parents of the Valley Oak community for completing the first step necessary to achieve charter school status. When people of good will come together, great things can happen.

Val Dolcini

While the new School Board candidates may not be able easily scuttle the VO Charter
School, they CAN impede or encourage its success. On Tuesday, Nov.6, this exciting NEW Davis educational enterprise should be the determinative consideration in selecting the new Board candidates.

While the new School Board candidates may not be able easily scuttle the VO Charter
School, they CAN impede or encourage its success. On Tuesday, Nov.6, this exciting NEW Davis educational enterprise should be the determinative consideration in selecting the new Board candidates.

I find it noteworthy that Mace Ranch parents were largely demonized for “their passion, their vision, and their tenacity” in establishing Korematsu Elementary while the Valley Oak parents receive their well-deserved respect.

I’m a big supporter of neighborhood schools, so I’m glad so many kids are going to be able to walk to school at Korematsu. I also wish Valley Oakers luck in creating something other than a neighborhood school (really).

I find it noteworthy that Mace Ranch parents were largely demonized for “their passion, their vision, and their tenacity” in establishing Korematsu Elementary while the Valley Oak parents receive their well-deserved respect.

I’m a big supporter of neighborhood schools, so I’m glad so many kids are going to be able to walk to school at Korematsu. I also wish Valley Oakers luck in creating something other than a neighborhood school (really).

well, it’s not so much that the mace ranch parents were “demonized” as that the inequality between the two neighborhoods led to one group’s lobbyibng being dismissed out of hand while the other got immediate response.

the problem is in that disparity, and in a school board that cannot find a way to serve both sets of parents at once. there needn’t have been a loser in that school closure standoff.

congratulations to the valley oak parents and students for getting this off the ground. i wish them the very best of luck.

well, it’s not so much that the mace ranch parents were “demonized” as that the inequality between the two neighborhoods led to one group’s lobbyibng being dismissed out of hand while the other got immediate response.

the problem is in that disparity, and in a school board that cannot find a way to serve both sets of parents at once. there needn’t have been a loser in that school closure standoff.

congratulations to the valley oak parents and students for getting this off the ground. i wish them the very best of luck.

I was in favor of opening Korematsu and keeping Valley Oak open, I agree we need to have neighborhood schools.

I was in favor of opening Korematsu and keeping Valley Oak open, I agree we need to have neighborhood schools.

“In the meantime, the school district is probably going to have to work up two budgets for next year, one to include the Valley Oak Charter School and one to not include the Valley Oak Charter School.”

An emailer asked me an interesting question that I don’t know the answer to. Perhaps someone who reads this blog can help: Will the Measure Q dollars be equally available to Valley Oak Charter students/teachers as they will be to all other schools inside the DJUSD?

My assumption is that those dollars will not be. They will exclusively go to the other 8 public elementaries. Before I was asked about the nexus of Measure Q and VOC, I had assumed that the loss of 300 or so students would create a small financial loss for the district. However, if Measure Q dollars do not follow kids to VOC, then it very well may be the case that the DJUSD will have more money per remaining student with VOC than it would have had without them.

“In the meantime, the school district is probably going to have to work up two budgets for next year, one to include the Valley Oak Charter School and one to not include the Valley Oak Charter School.”

An emailer asked me an interesting question that I don’t know the answer to. Perhaps someone who reads this blog can help: Will the Measure Q dollars be equally available to Valley Oak Charter students/teachers as they will be to all other schools inside the DJUSD?

My assumption is that those dollars will not be. They will exclusively go to the other 8 public elementaries. Before I was asked about the nexus of Measure Q and VOC, I had assumed that the loss of 300 or so students would create a small financial loss for the district. However, if Measure Q dollars do not follow kids to VOC, then it very well may be the case that the DJUSD will have more money per remaining student with VOC than it would have had without them.

Rich: My understanding is that VO gets the same general fund dollars as any other school in the district. For budget purposes they are in the district, but they are administratively autonomous.

Rich: My understanding is that VO gets the same general fund dollars as any other school in the district. For budget purposes they are in the district, but they are administratively autonomous.

“Many of them believe that they were singled out because they are working people and therefore would be easy pickings for a school closure.”

I don’t believe there is any substantive evidence to support this “singled out” claim. While I continue to believe that the closure of VO was a big mistake and was done by people who failed to appreciate the full value of a neighborhood school (and failed to look for more creative ways to reduce the admin/overhead costs that were at the root of the problem), the committee and school board clearly, patently and obviously selected Valley Oak for closure (and Korematsu for opening) due to the physical proximity of far more children living in the Korematsue neighborhood and a very small number (as the consultant showed) living near Valley Oak.

“Many of them believe that they were singled out because they are working people and therefore would be easy pickings for a school closure.”

I don’t believe there is any substantive evidence to support this “singled out” claim. While I continue to believe that the closure of VO was a big mistake and was done by people who failed to appreciate the full value of a neighborhood school (and failed to look for more creative ways to reduce the admin/overhead costs that were at the root of the problem), the committee and school board clearly, patently and obviously selected Valley Oak for closure (and Korematsu for opening) due to the physical proximity of far more children living in the Korematsue neighborhood and a very small number (as the consultant showed) living near Valley Oak.

Like a fine wine, sitting for decades, Valley Oak has become a novalty of some sort that once open (or closed) it will never go back to being the same. Time is money and Valley Oak is in many ways priceless.
If I lived in Mace Ranch I would never want VO to close and when the money is available I would want Korematsu to open. (although, Korematsu was funded differently. another newer school in the district should have been up for closure)
I normally would not put wine and schools in the same paragraph but I just couldn’t think of something else that really portrays what happens when a school has been around for so long and is so fabulous and recognized as VO.

What loyal and brave teachers and parents in that school. Charter schools are new territory but I’ll bet they do faboulously.

Like a fine wine, sitting for decades, Valley Oak has become a novalty of some sort that once open (or closed) it will never go back to being the same. Time is money and Valley Oak is in many ways priceless.
If I lived in Mace Ranch I would never want VO to close and when the money is available I would want Korematsu to open. (although, Korematsu was funded differently. another newer school in the district should have been up for closure)
I normally would not put wine and schools in the same paragraph but I just couldn’t think of something else that really portrays what happens when a school has been around for so long and is so fabulous and recognized as VO.

What loyal and brave teachers and parents in that school. Charter schools are new territory but I’ll bet they do faboulously.

“VO gets the same general fund dollars as any other school in the district.”

David,

So what you are saying is that Measure Q dollars will be considered ‘general fund dollars’? That makes sense. And it seems fair.

I know that the state funds the public schools from two different pots: 1) revenue limit dollars; and 2) categorical funds.

The former is the pot of money that is supposed to be more-less equal among all districts in the state, adjusted however for unified districts or elementary districts or high school only districts, etc, based on Average Daily Attendance (ADA). My assumption is that the VOC would get the revenue limit funds from the DJUSD, based on its ADA.

Far bigger differences come in categorical funds. These pay for special programs (such as GATE or special education or reading augmentation programs). Federal funding of the schools, such as Title I, are a form of categoricals. My assumption was that the VOC would get all of the categorical monies its students qualify for.

But Measure Q dollars are unique in that they don’t pass through the state’s hands. As such, I was unsure if they would be divided on a per capita basis; or if the DJUSD would have the power to decide exactly where they are and are not spent.

In thinking about it, it would seem unfair if a Davis family, paying the Measure Q tax, sent their kids to VOC and those kids could not benefit from Measure Q. On the other hand, if VOC brings in students from surrounding districts, it seems unfair that those kids will benefit from Measure Q, but their families will eschew the tax.

“VO gets the same general fund dollars as any other school in the district.”

David,

So what you are saying is that Measure Q dollars will be considered ‘general fund dollars’? That makes sense. And it seems fair.

I know that the state funds the public schools from two different pots: 1) revenue limit dollars; and 2) categorical funds.

The former is the pot of money that is supposed to be more-less equal among all districts in the state, adjusted however for unified districts or elementary districts or high school only districts, etc, based on Average Daily Attendance (ADA). My assumption is that the VOC would get the revenue limit funds from the DJUSD, based on its ADA.

Far bigger differences come in categorical funds. These pay for special programs (such as GATE or special education or reading augmentation programs). Federal funding of the schools, such as Title I, are a form of categoricals. My assumption was that the VOC would get all of the categorical monies its students qualify for.

But Measure Q dollars are unique in that they don’t pass through the state’s hands. As such, I was unsure if they would be divided on a per capita basis; or if the DJUSD would have the power to decide exactly where they are and are not spent.

In thinking about it, it would seem unfair if a Davis family, paying the Measure Q tax, sent their kids to VOC and those kids could not benefit from Measure Q. On the other hand, if VOC brings in students from surrounding districts, it seems unfair that those kids will benefit from Measure Q, but their families will eschew the tax.

David,

I found this site which explains how charter schools are funded in California and it seems to cast doubt onto whether VOC will automatically receive Measure Q dollars. In fact, as I read it, that is open to negotiation:

LOCAL REVENUE SOURCES
“Though the new funding model was supposed to address all operational funding sources, it does not specifically address how many local operational revenue sources should be shared with charter schools. These local sources are not available in all districts, but could include local parcel taxes and sales taxes, mineral and timber taxes, “basic aid,” local property taxes in excess of the revenue limit, and others. AB 1115 does, however, provide that charter schools may negotiate with districts regarding these local sources. Charter schools may find that districts are reluctant to share these funds and may need to aggressively pursue them, perhaps by including a provision in their charter that calls for the district to share the funds on some mutually agreeable basis.”

David,

I found this site which explains how charter schools are funded in California and it seems to cast doubt onto whether VOC will automatically receive Measure Q dollars. In fact, as I read it, that is open to negotiation:

LOCAL REVENUE SOURCES
“Though the new funding model was supposed to address all operational funding sources, it does not specifically address how many local operational revenue sources should be shared with charter schools. These local sources are not available in all districts, but could include local parcel taxes and sales taxes, mineral and timber taxes, “basic aid,” local property taxes in excess of the revenue limit, and others. AB 1115 does, however, provide that charter schools may negotiate with districts regarding these local sources. Charter schools may find that districts are reluctant to share these funds and may need to aggressively pursue them, perhaps by including a provision in their charter that calls for the district to share the funds on some mutually agreeable basis.”

“….another newer school in the district should have been up for closure”

Rebecca may be referring to North Davis Elementary. Those who believe that socio-economic/political power was irrelevant in making this choice also believe in the tooth fairy.

As a point of information,rumor has it(can anyone substantiate this?) that Koramematsu was approved for construction, not because of need but rather because the Mace Ranch property agreement with Ramos stipulated that school construction had to occur within a certain timeline,which was near its deadline, or the property would revert back to Ramos ownership.
If true,was this a decision where DJUSD property assets trumped
the school district’s education mission ?

“….another newer school in the district should have been up for closure”

Rebecca may be referring to North Davis Elementary. Those who believe that socio-economic/political power was irrelevant in making this choice also believe in the tooth fairy.

As a point of information,rumor has it(can anyone substantiate this?) that Koramematsu was approved for construction, not because of need but rather because the Mace Ranch property agreement with Ramos stipulated that school construction had to occur within a certain timeline,which was near its deadline, or the property would revert back to Ramos ownership.
If true,was this a decision where DJUSD property assets trumped
the school district’s education mission ?

…Charter schools may find that districts are reluctant to share these funds and may need to aggressively pursue them, perhaps by including a provision in their charter that calls for the district to share the funds on some mutually agreeable basis.”

The above is a good reason to not approve Measure Q now but rather wait for the new School Board to work this out with the VO Charter School before deciding whether to give the second edition of the school parcel tax the 2/3 approval vote it requires.

…Charter schools may find that districts are reluctant to share these funds and may need to aggressively pursue them, perhaps by including a provision in their charter that calls for the district to share the funds on some mutually agreeable basis.”

The above is a good reason to not approve Measure Q now but rather wait for the new School Board to work this out with the VO Charter School before deciding whether to give the second edition of the school parcel tax the 2/3 approval vote it requires.

i continue to suspect that another unspoken reason for closing valley oak was concern for the high % of english language learners running afoul of the draconian No Child Left Behind test standards. napa high had a terrible time, despite an award winning ELL program, because it didn’t meet a NCLB test threshold for a large eniough majority of its ELL students, just this last year. splitting those students up might have been a strategy to avoid a similar probelm in the DJUSD.

to be clear, this is rank speculation.

i continue to suspect that another unspoken reason for closing valley oak was concern for the high % of english language learners running afoul of the draconian No Child Left Behind test standards. napa high had a terrible time, despite an award winning ELL program, because it didn’t meet a NCLB test threshold for a large eniough majority of its ELL students, just this last year. splitting those students up might have been a strategy to avoid a similar probelm in the DJUSD.

to be clear, this is rank speculation.

Wu-ming…Watch these ABSOLUTE threshold scores be abandoned as a projected 25% of CA schools do not meet the minimum threshold in the next year or two. A more realistic improvement curve will become the measure for NCLB.

Wu-ming…Watch these ABSOLUTE threshold scores be abandoned as a projected 25% of CA schools do not meet the minimum threshold in the next year or two. A more realistic improvement curve will become the measure for NCLB.

I am unfamiliar with the rumor that the district would have had to return the property to Ramos. As I saw the saga unfold lo these sixteen or so years…
Mace Ranchers were sold houses at inordinately cheap prices( for the time) because they would be paying Mello-Roos taxes out of pocket with their monthly property taxes, rather than have them folded into the purchase price of their home. A firend bought her house at $199,999 for $2000 squ. ft. They were promised a neighborhood school as part of a district building plan that included, in order of construction, Patwin, Montgomery, Harper, and Koramatsu. Mello-Roos are the fees developers usually pay the school district for building. THIS time, they were allowed to forego the Mello-Roos fees up front, sell the homes more cheaply, and pass the Mello-Roos onto the buyers.
The funds for this ambitious district building plan would come from a parcel tax and a matching funds agreement with the state. The parcel tax amount was to be decided by the board of ed. Polls showed that if the tax were too high, Mace Ranch would vote down the entire thing. They felt they were already paying more taxes than anyone else in town.
The parcel tax was modest, passed, and the state was to match the funds. Patwin was built, and then several less affluent districts in the state sued the state and won, claiming the matching funds should be made available on a need based basis, rather than on first come first serve. Davis had to get in line. That delayed the building plan. Portables sprang up on existing campuses like mushrooms after a downpour. The huge student population bubble from the front loading of building permits was aging. Applications were resubmitted and Montgomery was built. Another delay: the state asks for some oscure requirement be included in the applications and kicks DJUSD’s back. (A saga for another day.) Montgomery is half built. The district resubmits but the school-aged population bubble has passed and, based on ADA, and Davis is no longer entitled to $4.5 million in matching funds. Davis sues.
Montgomery is finished with other funds.
The population bubble is now at the high school level. Harper is built as a dual use site, leaving open the possibility that it may become a satelite campus, DHS Annex…
Finally, it is now time to build Korematsu. The funds are there. There is no demographic need for it anymore. Mace Ranch packs the board meeting and Public Comment goes far into the night. It would be political suicide to tell these long-suffering neighbors that their moment has passed. They no longer need a school.
The board votes to build the school, because the funds are available, but it is to remain closed.
Now my neighbors to the east HAVE a brand new school that they drive by every day because it has never opened. No wonder it was a burr under the saddle.

I am unfamiliar with the rumor that the district would have had to return the property to Ramos. As I saw the saga unfold lo these sixteen or so years…
Mace Ranchers were sold houses at inordinately cheap prices( for the time) because they would be paying Mello-Roos taxes out of pocket with their monthly property taxes, rather than have them folded into the purchase price of their home. A firend bought her house at $199,999 for $2000 squ. ft. They were promised a neighborhood school as part of a district building plan that included, in order of construction, Patwin, Montgomery, Harper, and Koramatsu. Mello-Roos are the fees developers usually pay the school district for building. THIS time, they were allowed to forego the Mello-Roos fees up front, sell the homes more cheaply, and pass the Mello-Roos onto the buyers.
The funds for this ambitious district building plan would come from a parcel tax and a matching funds agreement with the state. The parcel tax amount was to be decided by the board of ed. Polls showed that if the tax were too high, Mace Ranch would vote down the entire thing. They felt they were already paying more taxes than anyone else in town.
The parcel tax was modest, passed, and the state was to match the funds. Patwin was built, and then several less affluent districts in the state sued the state and won, claiming the matching funds should be made available on a need based basis, rather than on first come first serve. Davis had to get in line. That delayed the building plan. Portables sprang up on existing campuses like mushrooms after a downpour. The huge student population bubble from the front loading of building permits was aging. Applications were resubmitted and Montgomery was built. Another delay: the state asks for some oscure requirement be included in the applications and kicks DJUSD’s back. (A saga for another day.) Montgomery is half built. The district resubmits but the school-aged population bubble has passed and, based on ADA, and Davis is no longer entitled to $4.5 million in matching funds. Davis sues.
Montgomery is finished with other funds.
The population bubble is now at the high school level. Harper is built as a dual use site, leaving open the possibility that it may become a satelite campus, DHS Annex…
Finally, it is now time to build Korematsu. The funds are there. There is no demographic need for it anymore. Mace Ranch packs the board meeting and Public Comment goes far into the night. It would be political suicide to tell these long-suffering neighbors that their moment has passed. They no longer need a school.
The board votes to build the school, because the funds are available, but it is to remain closed.
Now my neighbors to the east HAVE a brand new school that they drive by every day because it has never opened. No wonder it was a burr under the saddle.

Anonymous 5:25

Your narrative sounds very complete except for the “political suicide” motivation. The Mace Ranchers had been publicly fuming for years about their Mello-Roos taxes and previous School Boards and City Councils had not given in to the political pressure. Why did the School Board cave in and build this unneeded school at that time?
The Ramos development agreement concerning this property may tell the tale.

Anonymous 5:25

Your narrative sounds very complete except for the “political suicide” motivation. The Mace Ranchers had been publicly fuming for years about their Mello-Roos taxes and previous School Boards and City Councils had not given in to the political pressure. Why did the School Board cave in and build this unneeded school at that time?
The Ramos development agreement concerning this property may tell the tale.

These uninformed theories on Mace Ranch land ignore the most salient fact: prior to the massive rise in home prices in Davis (which began in 2001), the big problem in our school district was TOO MANY KIDS for the amount of space we had in our schools. It was for that reason we planned and paid for Harper, Montgomery and Korematsu. Alas, by the time Korematsu was ready for occupation, the enrollment numbers had reversed, and we found ourselves with excess capacity. That is an undeniable fact, and knowing it undermines all of the “political power” and other fantastic theories of a conspiratorial nature. Also, no one denies the fact that of all the elementary schools in the DJUSD (save Fairfield), none had fewer kids in its area than Valley Oak. Not one of the others, including North Davis, was close.

These uninformed theories on Mace Ranch land ignore the most salient fact: prior to the massive rise in home prices in Davis (which began in 2001), the big problem in our school district was TOO MANY KIDS for the amount of space we had in our schools. It was for that reason we planned and paid for Harper, Montgomery and Korematsu. Alas, by the time Korematsu was ready for occupation, the enrollment numbers had reversed, and we found ourselves with excess capacity. That is an undeniable fact, and knowing it undermines all of the “political power” and other fantastic theories of a conspiratorial nature. Also, no one denies the fact that of all the elementary schools in the DJUSD (save Fairfield), none had fewer kids in its area than Valley Oak. Not one of the others, including North Davis, was close.

“Mello-Roos are the fees developers usually pay the school district for building. THIS time, they were allowed to forego the Mello-Roos fees up front, sell the homes more cheaply, and pass the Mello-Roos onto the buyers.”

This is partially incorrect. Mello-Roos fees are ALWAYS paid by property owners, not developers. There is (to the best of my knowledge) no exception to this.

However, because a parcel encumbered with a Mello-Roos lien is worth less than one without such a liability, ceteris paribus, the owner of the property at the time the Mello-Roos CFD was passed “paid for” all of the cost of the liability through lower home values.

In the case of Mace Ranch, Frank Ramos ate the cost of that CFD. Houses he built which would have gone for $250,000 at the time went for $200,000, because of the Mello-Roos liens. Ramos, therefore, could be said to have paid for the Community Facilities District in Mace Ranch.

Here is a little explanation of Mello-Roos from California Tax Data:

“Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts (referred to as “CFDs”) raise money through special taxes that must be approved by 2/3rds of the voters within the district. A CFD is formed to finance major improvements and services within the district which might include schools, roads, libraries, police and fire protection services, or ambulance services. The taxes are secured by a continuing lien and are levied annually against property within the district.”

“Mello-Roos are the fees developers usually pay the school district for building. THIS time, they were allowed to forego the Mello-Roos fees up front, sell the homes more cheaply, and pass the Mello-Roos onto the buyers.”

This is partially incorrect. Mello-Roos fees are ALWAYS paid by property owners, not developers. There is (to the best of my knowledge) no exception to this.

However, because a parcel encumbered with a Mello-Roos lien is worth less than one without such a liability, ceteris paribus, the owner of the property at the time the Mello-Roos CFD was passed “paid for” all of the cost of the liability through lower home values.

In the case of Mace Ranch, Frank Ramos ate the cost of that CFD. Houses he built which would have gone for $250,000 at the time went for $200,000, because of the Mello-Roos liens. Ramos, therefore, could be said to have paid for the Community Facilities District in Mace Ranch.

Here is a little explanation of Mello-Roos from California Tax Data:

“Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts (referred to as “CFDs”) raise money through special taxes that must be approved by 2/3rds of the voters within the district. A CFD is formed to finance major improvements and services within the district which might include schools, roads, libraries, police and fire protection services, or ambulance services. The taxes are secured by a continuing lien and are levied annually against property within the district.”

First, I would like to congratulate parents and teachers of Valley Oak, in jumping over the first difficult hurdles to make it a charter school. It took a lot of courage, tenacity, and good planning – at great risk I might add. If you ever have need of a volunteer on-site math tutor, I will donate my time free of charge. Just put out the word and I am there. I truly believe in your cause.

Secondly, I was fascinated by all the previous discussion of why Valley Oak was slated for closure, how schools are funded, how it fits with Mello-Roos taxes and such. Good input that was very enlightening. I always learn so much from this blog. However, it brings me to only one conclusion. Valley Oak as a charter school will benefit greatly by being more independent than other Davis public schools, and not as much a slave to local politics and poor planning, or “burps” in the state funding process.

Think about it. It is my understanding that the Davis School Board must cough up funding for all students attending Valley Oak Charter School who live within Davis city limits. Yet a charter school would have more flexibility to develop innovative programs that met their particular student needs, so long as they are sound educationally. This is because charter schools are non-profits that can mine for all sorts of donations and out-of-Davis-district student fees.

So Valley Oak would be free to convince small and big business to invest in their vision, seek specialized grant funding, etc. if they so choose. The door is wide open to innovation of all sorts, by a small independent school administration at Valley Oak that has every incentive to succeed. After all, if Valley Oak is a huge success, kids from all over, including outside Davis, will want to attend, bringing an infusion of new funding with them from elsewhere. Perhaps Information Technology companies in Sacramento would like Valley Oak to develop an exceptional math/science program, because of the lack of technologically trained employees at present. You need to start ’em young in math and science!

There could be an extra emphasis on improving the lot of minority students who have difficulty with English. There is already an existing program at Valley Oak that has proven its worth. I would guess improvements to such a program would be eligible for all sorts of grant monies, foundation stipends and the like.

Here is the irony in all these latest developments. Those students who live in Davis but go to Valley Oak, will decrease the average daily attendance (ADA) of Davis public schools overall – which is just what the School Board was trying to avoid! However, I will lay you odds if Valley Oak becomes a huge educational success, it will be just enough to embarrass the School Board into getting its act together, become more fiscally responsible, and race to catch up in quality. I am only seeing an up side here, of good things to come. Hooray for Valley Oak Charter School – better education for Davesite children is on the horizon! I’m lovin’ it!

First, I would like to congratulate parents and teachers of Valley Oak, in jumping over the first difficult hurdles to make it a charter school. It took a lot of courage, tenacity, and good planning – at great risk I might add. If you ever have need of a volunteer on-site math tutor, I will donate my time free of charge. Just put out the word and I am there. I truly believe in your cause.

Secondly, I was fascinated by all the previous discussion of why Valley Oak was slated for closure, how schools are funded, how it fits with Mello-Roos taxes and such. Good input that was very enlightening. I always learn so much from this blog. However, it brings me to only one conclusion. Valley Oak as a charter school will benefit greatly by being more independent than other Davis public schools, and not as much a slave to local politics and poor planning, or “burps” in the state funding process.

Think about it. It is my understanding that the Davis School Board must cough up funding for all students attending Valley Oak Charter School who live within Davis city limits. Yet a charter school would have more flexibility to develop innovative programs that met their particular student needs, so long as they are sound educationally. This is because charter schools are non-profits that can mine for all sorts of donations and out-of-Davis-district student fees.

So Valley Oak would be free to convince small and big business to invest in their vision, seek specialized grant funding, etc. if they so choose. The door is wide open to innovation of all sorts, by a small independent school administration at Valley Oak that has every incentive to succeed. After all, if Valley Oak is a huge success, kids from all over, including outside Davis, will want to attend, bringing an infusion of new funding with them from elsewhere. Perhaps Information Technology companies in Sacramento would like Valley Oak to develop an exceptional math/science program, because of the lack of technologically trained employees at present. You need to start ’em young in math and science!

There could be an extra emphasis on improving the lot of minority students who have difficulty with English. There is already an existing program at Valley Oak that has proven its worth. I would guess improvements to such a program would be eligible for all sorts of grant monies, foundation stipends and the like.

Here is the irony in all these latest developments. Those students who live in Davis but go to Valley Oak, will decrease the average daily attendance (ADA) of Davis public schools overall – which is just what the School Board was trying to avoid! However, I will lay you odds if Valley Oak becomes a huge educational success, it will be just enough to embarrass the School Board into getting its act together, become more fiscally responsible, and race to catch up in quality. I am only seeing an up side here, of good things to come. Hooray for Valley Oak Charter School – better education for Davesite children is on the horizon! I’m lovin’ it!

“Rebecca may be referring to North Davis Elementary”

North Davis is an old school that has gelled over the many decades and should never be up for closure.

Honestly, I just don’t understand how money could be coming from a different pot for Koramatsu that could be used for the continuation of VO.

The choice of money for programs and material for all schools VS. closing a school does not seem ethical as it seems the board was claiming this was the choice. Changing schools and knowing your school is closing could deeply effect a childs sense of security and connection to his or her community.

-Rifkin–thanks for the website. It would be intersting to find out about the changes good or bad in pay, benefits, retirement that the teachers may or may not have to face.

I have heard mostly great things about charter schools in general. Good input from Former Math teacher.

“Rebecca may be referring to North Davis Elementary”

North Davis is an old school that has gelled over the many decades and should never be up for closure.

Honestly, I just don’t understand how money could be coming from a different pot for Koramatsu that could be used for the continuation of VO.

The choice of money for programs and material for all schools VS. closing a school does not seem ethical as it seems the board was claiming this was the choice. Changing schools and knowing your school is closing could deeply effect a childs sense of security and connection to his or her community.

-Rifkin–thanks for the website. It would be intersting to find out about the changes good or bad in pay, benefits, retirement that the teachers may or may not have to face.

I have heard mostly great things about charter schools in general. Good input from Former Math teacher.

“Rebecca may be referring to North Davis Elementary”

North Davis is an old school that has gelled over the many decades and should never be up for closure.

Honestly, I just don’t understand how money could be coming from a different pot for Koramatsu that could be used for the continuation of VO.

The choice of money for programs and material for all schools VS. closing a school does not seem ethical as it seems the board was claiming this was the choice. Changing schools and knowing your school is closing could deeply effect a childs sense of security and connection to his or her community.

-Rifkin–thanks for the website. It would be intersting to find out about the changes good or bad in pay, benefits, retirement that the teachers may or may not have to face.

I have heard mostly great things about charter schools in general. Good input from Former Math teacher.

“Rebecca may be referring to North Davis Elementary”

North Davis is an old school that has gelled over the many decades and should never be up for closure.

Honestly, I just don’t understand how money could be coming from a different pot for Koramatsu that could be used for the continuation of VO.

The choice of money for programs and material for all schools VS. closing a school does not seem ethical as it seems the board was claiming this was the choice. Changing schools and knowing your school is closing could deeply effect a childs sense of security and connection to his or her community.

-Rifkin–thanks for the website. It would be intersting to find out about the changes good or bad in pay, benefits, retirement that the teachers may or may not have to face.

I have heard mostly great things about charter schools in general. Good input from Former Math teacher.

“Ramos, therefore, could be said to have paid for the Community Facilities District in Mace Ranch.”=”

Rich Rifkin..please explain. My understanding was that Ramos was able to sell the homes more cheaply and STILL make his profit because HIS costs for impacts(schools, roads, etc.) were much less. The home-owners assumed much of those costs with their monthly Mello-Roos taxes.

“Ramos, therefore, could be said to have paid for the Community Facilities District in Mace Ranch.”=”

Rich Rifkin..please explain. My understanding was that Ramos was able to sell the homes more cheaply and STILL make his profit because HIS costs for impacts(schools, roads, etc.) were much less. The home-owners assumed much of those costs with their monthly Mello-Roos taxes.

“HIS costs for impacts(schools, roads, etc.) were much less.”

That may well be true in an absolute sense. The county — which was the entity which approved the Mace Ranch development — may have, as you seem to understand, undercharged Ramos for the associated infrastructure costs with his development.

However, what the imposition of the CFD did was to lower in an absolute sense, the value of his entire development. As such, where he built a house that, all else held equal, would have sold for $250,000 in Davis, sold for (approximately) $50,000 less. Say, again for example purposes, that the marginal cost of building that house to Ramos was $150,000.* If Ramos could have sold it for $250,000, he would have profitted $100,000 on that unit. However, he could only sell it for $200,000 (due to the CFD lien), and as such his profits were reduced by one half.

Now, as you imply in your question to me, and I assume is true, Ramos was not required by the government entities to pay his fair share of infrastructure costs, then his loss in “profits” due to the CFD may have been cancelled out by his savings on the infrastructure expenses.

* Note that it matters not at all if Ramos’s company actually built any of the houses in Mace Ranch. My understanding is that they were largely built by other companies. Those companies paid Ramos for the right to develop those lots, and the lots were reduced in price (value), because of the Mello-Roos CFDs.

If that doesn’t explain the situation — and I concede that I don’t know everything about Mace Ranch — maybe someone better informed can fill in the gaps.

“HIS costs for impacts(schools, roads, etc.) were much less.”

That may well be true in an absolute sense. The county — which was the entity which approved the Mace Ranch development — may have, as you seem to understand, undercharged Ramos for the associated infrastructure costs with his development.

However, what the imposition of the CFD did was to lower in an absolute sense, the value of his entire development. As such, where he built a house that, all else held equal, would have sold for $250,000 in Davis, sold for (approximately) $50,000 less. Say, again for example purposes, that the marginal cost of building that house to Ramos was $150,000.* If Ramos could have sold it for $250,000, he would have profitted $100,000 on that unit. However, he could only sell it for $200,000 (due to the CFD lien), and as such his profits were reduced by one half.

Now, as you imply in your question to me, and I assume is true, Ramos was not required by the government entities to pay his fair share of infrastructure costs, then his loss in “profits” due to the CFD may have been cancelled out by his savings on the infrastructure expenses.

* Note that it matters not at all if Ramos’s company actually built any of the houses in Mace Ranch. My understanding is that they were largely built by other companies. Those companies paid Ramos for the right to develop those lots, and the lots were reduced in price (value), because of the Mello-Roos CFDs.

If that doesn’t explain the situation — and I concede that I don’t know everything about Mace Ranch — maybe someone better informed can fill in the gaps.

I could be wrong, but I don’t believe the school district would be obligated to locate a new charter school on the old Valley Oak site. Even if all the work to charter is successful, the school district could choose to house the charter school in some other building.

They could redo some boundaries and put the charter school at some other currently underutilized elementary school facility, still sell the B street property to get some $$$ for junior and senior high improvements and move the admin offices to the old Valley site.

I’m worried that the charter school folks are making a big assumption about the location of a charter school.

I could be wrong, but I don’t believe the school district would be obligated to locate a new charter school on the old Valley Oak site. Even if all the work to charter is successful, the school district could choose to house the charter school in some other building.

They could redo some boundaries and put the charter school at some other currently underutilized elementary school facility, still sell the B street property to get some $$$ for junior and senior high improvements and move the admin offices to the old Valley site.

I’m worried that the charter school folks are making a big assumption about the location of a charter school.

While I suppose they could provide another site, it would prompt the fastest recall petitions in history.

While I suppose they could provide another site, it would prompt the fastest recall petitions in history.

Another chapter to the timing of FTK construction:
The school board put to ballot an educatational measure/bond for building more schools that was voted down. 1995? 1996? (A first for Davis.)
When the city council issued most of the building permits for the ten year general plan to be constructed within the first three years of the plan, a group of voters, disgusted by the mushrooming growth that crowded our schools before we had new ones built, wanted to send the council a message by voting down the measure. The measure was defeated and school construction plans were delayed another couple of years. Ironically, the delay compounded the problem and caused a huge population bulge in our grade schools, then junior highs, etc. (Holmes enrollment swelled to 1100 the years my children attended.)

Another chapter to the timing of FTK construction:
The school board put to ballot an educatational measure/bond for building more schools that was voted down. 1995? 1996? (A first for Davis.)
When the city council issued most of the building permits for the ten year general plan to be constructed within the first three years of the plan, a group of voters, disgusted by the mushrooming growth that crowded our schools before we had new ones built, wanted to send the council a message by voting down the measure. The measure was defeated and school construction plans were delayed another couple of years. Ironically, the delay compounded the problem and caused a huge population bulge in our grade schools, then junior highs, etc. (Holmes enrollment swelled to 1100 the years my children attended.)

Measure Q: It’s within the district’s discretion whether it chooses to share the Q funds with a charter. The amount shared is usually calcualated by the number of in-district students that attend the charter.
The district is not obligated to do this.
It will be the new school board’s call.
The loss of ADA may be recouped in salaries the district WON’T be paying to those teachers who teach at the charter. All the teachers who’ve signed on to the charter look to be on the high end of the DJUSD payscale. (Those teachers are posted on the charter web page. Check it out fro a wealth of information about this new development.)
Charter law requires the charter to pay the host district 3% of its ADA for facilities use. Payroll and benefits usually account for more than 80% of ADA funds.
This may not be as financially detrimental to the district as it first seemed.
This VO charter is CTA so all its teachers would still be union.
ADA and categorical funds would be paid directly to the charter. Financial services for keeping track of categoricals could be negotiated with the host district on a fee basis, but not necessarily. There are companies that offer these services to charters.
Once the charter group submits its plan, the district is obligated to give them the requested site. The site has to be adequate and contiguous. The board has already accepted and voted the Task Force’s recommendation to close Valley Oak. There are no current plans to use the site for anything, and a charter school request supercedes office space and redevelopment plans. That’s the law.
I don’t think this group has assumed anything. From one who’s familiar with a charter in another district, this one looks awfully complete.

Measure Q: It’s within the district’s discretion whether it chooses to share the Q funds with a charter. The amount shared is usually calcualated by the number of in-district students that attend the charter.
The district is not obligated to do this.
It will be the new school board’s call.
The loss of ADA may be recouped in salaries the district WON’T be paying to those teachers who teach at the charter. All the teachers who’ve signed on to the charter look to be on the high end of the DJUSD payscale. (Those teachers are posted on the charter web page. Check it out fro a wealth of information about this new development.)
Charter law requires the charter to pay the host district 3% of its ADA for facilities use. Payroll and benefits usually account for more than 80% of ADA funds.
This may not be as financially detrimental to the district as it first seemed.
This VO charter is CTA so all its teachers would still be union.
ADA and categorical funds would be paid directly to the charter. Financial services for keeping track of categoricals could be negotiated with the host district on a fee basis, but not necessarily. There are companies that offer these services to charters.
Once the charter group submits its plan, the district is obligated to give them the requested site. The site has to be adequate and contiguous. The board has already accepted and voted the Task Force’s recommendation to close Valley Oak. There are no current plans to use the site for anything, and a charter school request supercedes office space and redevelopment plans. That’s the law.
I don’t think this group has assumed anything. From one who’s familiar with a charter in another district, this one looks awfully complete.

Closing Valley Oak was always about redeveloping B St. Any doubts?
Notice all of the questions directed to the charter expert hired for the last board meeting. They fell into two categories:
How can we stop the charter?
How can we relocate the B St facilities to the Valley Oak site?
This board should have done its homework on charter school law when this group first formed.

Closing Valley Oak was always about redeveloping B St. Any doubts?
Notice all of the questions directed to the charter expert hired for the last board meeting. They fell into two categories:
How can we stop the charter?
How can we relocate the B St facilities to the Valley Oak site?
This board should have done its homework on charter school law when this group first formed.

“How can we relocate the B St facilities to the Valley Oak site?”

Where is there any tangible proof of this assumption that closing Valley Oak was about redeveloping B Street? Am I completely out of my gourd to think that the VO campus is FAR BIGGER than what would be needed to house the central staff of the DJUSD?

In fact, as a neighborhood school, without GATE, I would think there will be plenty of room at Valley Oak for the Charter School and the entire staff on B Street with room to spare.

To the best of my knowledge, the school board has never formally discussed redevelopment plans of the B Street site. Is that correct? The first I heard about it was from Marty West — she was strongly in favor of redeveloping it — but she has long since left the school board. I don’t recall any current members of the board publicly making big plans for B Street, not that redevelopment is a bad idea.

“How can we relocate the B St facilities to the Valley Oak site?”

Where is there any tangible proof of this assumption that closing Valley Oak was about redeveloping B Street? Am I completely out of my gourd to think that the VO campus is FAR BIGGER than what would be needed to house the central staff of the DJUSD?

In fact, as a neighborhood school, without GATE, I would think there will be plenty of room at Valley Oak for the Charter School and the entire staff on B Street with room to spare.

To the best of my knowledge, the school board has never formally discussed redevelopment plans of the B Street site. Is that correct? The first I heard about it was from Marty West — she was strongly in favor of redeveloping it — but she has long since left the school board. I don’t recall any current members of the board publicly making big plans for B Street, not that redevelopment is a bad idea.

Frankly, I feel bad for the School Board on the Valley Oak closure issue. The School Board appointed a Task Force to evaluate the best uses of all of our district’s facilities in light of budget problems and enrollment.

The Task Force, not the Board, decided to limit the scope of their assignment to looking at the drop in enrollment at the elementary school level. Then, the Task Force decided they didn’t have the expertise (i.e., didn’t want to do the research) to evaluate alternative uses of extra space at the various elementary campuses — so the only option they saw for dealing with the budget and extra space at various elementary schools was to close a school.

Then the Task Force decided that it is so disruptive to kids to move school boundaries that they would evaluate the options (i.e., which school to close) based on the neighborhood population within each school’s existing boundaries. Note the assumptions: They did not look at the total enrollment at each school (which was not so small at VO because of the 6 GATE classes happily living there for over a decade) but, rather, would look only at the “neighborhood enrollment.” Then the Task Force restricted itself to looking at “neighborhood enrollment” as defined by existing school boundaries (they refused to consider redrawing boundaries, except for the kids who would be displaced by closing VO). Were these convoluted assumptions made in order to ensure that the school picked for closure was the only one with a majority minority enrollment? Either way, it was the Task Force that made these assumptions, not the School Board.

Somehow, despite significantly narrowing the scope of work assigned to them, and despite the complete absence of creativity with which they approached their job, the Task Force managed to take more than 18 months to come up with their final recommendations.

By the time the Task Force got its final recommendations to the School Board, the budget issues were entering crisis mode. How much choice did the School Board have at that point? While I would have voted with the 2 School Board members who voted against closing VO, I can understand how the 3 other School Board members felt when confronted with the horrific choice the Task Force handed them — either close VO or decimate the budget while going through the process of re-doing all of the work the Task Force should have done.

The decision to close VO was a terrible decision. But I am tired of listening to the continuing ranting about evil motives on the part of the School Board. We have a pretty good School Board right now (especially compared to what we’ve had in the not-too-distant past), despite this particular decision.

Frankly, I feel bad for the School Board on the Valley Oak closure issue. The School Board appointed a Task Force to evaluate the best uses of all of our district’s facilities in light of budget problems and enrollment.

The Task Force, not the Board, decided to limit the scope of their assignment to looking at the drop in enrollment at the elementary school level. Then, the Task Force decided they didn’t have the expertise (i.e., didn’t want to do the research) to evaluate alternative uses of extra space at the various elementary campuses — so the only option they saw for dealing with the budget and extra space at various elementary schools was to close a school.

Then the Task Force decided that it is so disruptive to kids to move school boundaries that they would evaluate the options (i.e., which school to close) based on the neighborhood population within each school’s existing boundaries. Note the assumptions: They did not look at the total enrollment at each school (which was not so small at VO because of the 6 GATE classes happily living there for over a decade) but, rather, would look only at the “neighborhood enrollment.” Then the Task Force restricted itself to looking at “neighborhood enrollment” as defined by existing school boundaries (they refused to consider redrawing boundaries, except for the kids who would be displaced by closing VO). Were these convoluted assumptions made in order to ensure that the school picked for closure was the only one with a majority minority enrollment? Either way, it was the Task Force that made these assumptions, not the School Board.

Somehow, despite significantly narrowing the scope of work assigned to them, and despite the complete absence of creativity with which they approached their job, the Task Force managed to take more than 18 months to come up with their final recommendations.

By the time the Task Force got its final recommendations to the School Board, the budget issues were entering crisis mode. How much choice did the School Board have at that point? While I would have voted with the 2 School Board members who voted against closing VO, I can understand how the 3 other School Board members felt when confronted with the horrific choice the Task Force handed them — either close VO or decimate the budget while going through the process of re-doing all of the work the Task Force should have done.

The decision to close VO was a terrible decision. But I am tired of listening to the continuing ranting about evil motives on the part of the School Board. We have a pretty good School Board right now (especially compared to what we’ve had in the not-too-distant past), despite this particular decision.

To all the friends of Valley Oak Charter School I wish to express my sincere thanks for your kindness and support. Not only has the development of the vision and actual charter document required the work of dozens of talented people, the community support we have experienced, evidenced by the overwhelming success of the petition drive, has given the vision actual momentum. Hardly the product of a “small group of people,” the charter effort is the voice of an entire community taking the form of an institution, and it has been our privilege to be a part of it.

I’d like to reply, if I may, to a few comments left here. I apologize that I cannot speak to the Measure Q issue, but I believe we have someone working on this for you.

Rich Rifkin: the committee and school board clearly, patently and obviously selected Valley Oak for closure (and Korematsu for opening) due to the physical proximity of far more children living in the Korematsu neighborhood and a very small number (as the consultant showed) living near Valley Oak

And here we get right to the meat of it. First, the use of the phrase “very small number” is a bit disingenuous. Lacking a Korematsu, Valley Oak would not have lost part of its base, and boundaries would have been drawn differently. The politics of Davis real estate aside, over time neighborhoods experience demographic shifts in populations, and school districts adjust boundaries accordingly. Sometimes more children from new neighborhoods have to travel farther than fewer children from older ones who live near the school site. Those districts typically redraw their busing routes and make it work equitably for all. Davis is highly invested in the idea of a livable city, with bike paths and family-oriented neighborhoods, to the degree it felt secure in the ending of a school bus system, ostensibly to redirect those funds to other uses. Once DJUSD decided it had no choice but to close a school, it forced itself, unnecessarily in my view, to make a decision about which neighborhood would no longer be able to participate in their livable city. I have no doubt that the maps drawn by the Task Force show a higher density of kid dots on the streets around Korematsu than around Valley Oak, but as a sole motivation to close a school it seems a bit thin, particularly when the district lacks compensatory means for getting a second grader to school across town.

More to the point as to why teachers and parents of Valley Oak coalesced around this issue is this: There is more to a school than its proximate location to a given number of children. The charge to the Best Uses Task Force was based on the erroneous assumption that all students are equally served by all sites in Davis. That error is clearly illuminated by testing data. That Valley Oak was chosen purely for that reason under that assumption is a magnificent demonstration for the existence of charter school law. Parents and teachers have been given the right by that law to take matters into their own hands when they feel the district has lost sight of the best interests of the children they wish to see educated in an optimal manner. No other site in the district does the job Valley Oak has done for a very long time, and a temporary shift in population densities is no justification for closing a proven beacon of best practices. If our students could be better served elsewhere, they should go there, but no evidence exists that such would be the case, and parents and teachers behind the charter know this to be true. The charter document is an elucidation of the program and culture that makes Valley Oak what it has been for a very long time, and once we all got to see it in black and white and appreciate it for what it is, the support was overwhelming.

Wu Ming: i continue to suspect that another unspoken reason for closing valley oak was concern for the high % of English language learners running afoul of the draconian No Child Left Behind test standards

I will refer you to the testing data. The work of Valley Oak in bringing its English learners to fluency is unsurpassed in the district. In fact, other sites in the district, with a lower percentage of English learners, have had difficulty meeting the standards you mention. Any concern needs to yield to data, and practice needs to follow.

Former Math Teacher: Perhaps Information Technology companies in Sacramento would like Valley Oak to develop an exceptional math/science program, because of the lack of technologically trained employees at present. You need to start ’em young in math and science!

Speaking as one of the VO science teachers (ahem), we are all over what you say here. In the charter we refer to the urgent need for society to deal meaningfully with the digital gap, and our technology plan addresses that need systematically. “Belonging” in this culture means much more than feeling good about coming to school. “Belonging” means your family has access to on-line media and resources that anyone reading this blog takes for granted. Can you really “belong” if you have no access to Internet and your child’s school district has its resources on-line, the coach sends out schedule by e-mail, and your kids’ friends send out e-invites only? The digital divide is social, but it’s also educational and eventually manifests professionally. If we want a competitive workforce, we need a connected community.

The charter work has already brought a number of technology-based businesses, clubs and academic programs to our door. We’ve had to say, “Wait until we’re a school!” a number of times, and we are very much looking forward to exploring the various partnerships that await us. The charter school faculty already boasts technology degrees, math specialists, and teachers committed to the technology vision in the charter, and we are very excited about it.

As for getting involved, please stay in touch with us and watch the website for aspects of the program that would be of interest to you. It takes a village…

To all the friends of Valley Oak Charter School I wish to express my sincere thanks for your kindness and support. Not only has the development of the vision and actual charter document required the work of dozens of talented people, the community support we have experienced, evidenced by the overwhelming success of the petition drive, has given the vision actual momentum. Hardly the product of a “small group of people,” the charter effort is the voice of an entire community taking the form of an institution, and it has been our privilege to be a part of it.

I’d like to reply, if I may, to a few comments left here. I apologize that I cannot speak to the Measure Q issue, but I believe we have someone working on this for you.

Rich Rifkin: the committee and school board clearly, patently and obviously selected Valley Oak for closure (and Korematsu for opening) due to the physical proximity of far more children living in the Korematsu neighborhood and a very small number (as the consultant showed) living near Valley Oak

And here we get right to the meat of it. First, the use of the phrase “very small number” is a bit disingenuous. Lacking a Korematsu, Valley Oak would not have lost part of its base, and boundaries would have been drawn differently. The politics of Davis real estate aside, over time neighborhoods experience demographic shifts in populations, and school districts adjust boundaries accordingly. Sometimes more children from new neighborhoods have to travel farther than fewer children from older ones who live near the school site. Those districts typically redraw their busing routes and make it work equitably for all. Davis is highly invested in the idea of a livable city, with bike paths and family-oriented neighborhoods, to the degree it felt secure in the ending of a school bus system, ostensibly to redirect those funds to other uses. Once DJUSD decided it had no choice but to close a school, it forced itself, unnecessarily in my view, to make a decision about which neighborhood would no longer be able to participate in their livable city. I have no doubt that the maps drawn by the Task Force show a higher density of kid dots on the streets around Korematsu than around Valley Oak, but as a sole motivation to close a school it seems a bit thin, particularly when the district lacks compensatory means for getting a second grader to school across town.

More to the point as to why teachers and parents of Valley Oak coalesced around this issue is this: There is more to a school than its proximate location to a given number of children. The charge to the Best Uses Task Force was based on the erroneous assumption that all students are equally served by all sites in Davis. That error is clearly illuminated by testing data. That Valley Oak was chosen purely for that reason under that assumption is a magnificent demonstration for the existence of charter school law. Parents and teachers have been given the right by that law to take matters into their own hands when they feel the district has lost sight of the best interests of the children they wish to see educated in an optimal manner. No other site in the district does the job Valley Oak has done for a very long time, and a temporary shift in population densities is no justification for closing a proven beacon of best practices. If our students could be better served elsewhere, they should go there, but no evidence exists that such would be the case, and parents and teachers behind the charter know this to be true. The charter document is an elucidation of the program and culture that makes Valley Oak what it has been for a very long time, and once we all got to see it in black and white and appreciate it for what it is, the support was overwhelming.

Wu Ming: i continue to suspect that another unspoken reason for closing valley oak was concern for the high % of English language learners running afoul of the draconian No Child Left Behind test standards

I will refer you to the testing data. The work of Valley Oak in bringing its English learners to fluency is unsurpassed in the district. In fact, other sites in the district, with a lower percentage of English learners, have had difficulty meeting the standards you mention. Any concern needs to yield to data, and practice needs to follow.

Former Math Teacher: Perhaps Information Technology companies in Sacramento would like Valley Oak to develop an exceptional math/science program, because of the lack of technologically trained employees at present. You need to start ’em young in math and science!

Speaking as one of the VO science teachers (ahem), we are all over what you say here. In the charter we refer to the urgent need for society to deal meaningfully with the digital gap, and our technology plan addresses that need systematically. “Belonging” in this culture means much more than feeling good about coming to school. “Belonging” means your family has access to on-line media and resources that anyone reading this blog takes for granted. Can you really “belong” if you have no access to Internet and your child’s school district has its resources on-line, the coach sends out schedule by e-mail, and your kids’ friends send out e-invites only? The digital divide is social, but it’s also educational and eventually manifests professionally. If we want a competitive workforce, we need a connected community.

The charter work has already brought a number of technology-based businesses, clubs and academic programs to our door. We’ve had to say, “Wait until we’re a school!” a number of times, and we are very much looking forward to exploring the various partnerships that await us. The charter school faculty already boasts technology degrees, math specialists, and teachers committed to the technology vision in the charter, and we are very excited about it.

As for getting involved, please stay in touch with us and watch the website for aspects of the program that would be of interest to you. It takes a village…

Re: Building FTK.
The timing: board minutes of that meeting reflect the reasoning that although the school was unnecessary at the time, the money was available at that moment. The decision was to build while the money was available, but keep it closed.
District staff at the meeting stated that the school was unnecessary.
The Korematus neighbors were clamoring for a school.
Tough positions for eberyone.

Re: Building FTK.
The timing: board minutes of that meeting reflect the reasoning that although the school was unnecessary at the time, the money was available at that moment. The decision was to build while the money was available, but keep it closed.
District staff at the meeting stated that the school was unnecessary.
The Korematus neighbors were clamoring for a school.
Tough positions for eberyone.

Valley Oak is big enough to accommodate the district offices, the Children Center, and the School for Independent Study. All are currently housed at B St. All need more (or different) space.
Some of the VOE portables could be moved to other sites, as needed.
Centrally located, VOE offers a site parents could easily access to get their children to and from school or childcare.

Valley Oak is big enough to accommodate the district offices, the Children Center, and the School for Independent Study. All are currently housed at B St. All need more (or different) space.
Some of the VOE portables could be moved to other sites, as needed.
Centrally located, VOE offers a site parents could easily access to get their children to and from school or childcare.