Last night, there were no tears, only smiles and laughter as the Davis Joint Unified School Board was presented by a number of individuals who have poured their heart and soul into this process, the Valley Oak Charter.
There were many tough questions that were asked by the school board during this process–rightly so as this will have a dramatic impact on their budget and their planning. This was not their formal response to the charter, only a questions at a public hearing.
What is important to understand despite their tough questions was that according to the education code, there are only a few reasons by which the board could deny the charter.
In addition to Board Member-elect Susan Lovenburg, both Bob Schelen and Joe Spector–the two strongest supporters of Valley Oak among the four school board candidates were in attendance. Nowhere to be seen on this night was Board Member-elect Richard Harris. Mr. Harris has been seen as the strongest critic of Valley Oak School and the charter process. Also in attendance was Jan Bridge, sitting next to Susan Lovenburg, who was on the Best Uses of Schools Task Force.
The Education Code specifies five grounds to deny a charter: (1) the charter school presents an unsound educational program for the students to be enrolled in the charter school; (2) the petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition; (3) the petition does not contain the number of signatures required; (4) the petition does not contain an affirmation of each of the conditions prescribed by law; and/or (5) the petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of the sixteen charter elements in prescribed by law.
Concerns from the board appeared primarily centered on admission policies, enrollment numbers and overall concerns that if Valley Oak either failed to attract enough students or failed to attract students from outside of the district, that the district would have other problems with which they needed to deal with.
According to the Charter which is available online.
“Valley Oak Charter School shall admit and enroll all students who wish to attend the school provided that the school’s capacity is not exceeded.”
If that capacity is exceeded here is the enrollment preference:
1. Students residing in current attendance boundaries of the former Valley Oak Elementary School
2. Children of current Valley Oak Charter School Employees
3. Students enrolled in the district
4. Sibling of students enrolled in the district
5. Students who reside in the District
6. All others
Discussion centered on how budgetary figures would be reached if Valley Oak filled up from within the district. Steve Kelleher suggested that boards often use Charter Schools as a tactic to draw ADA money from outside of the district, but the general feeling by the petitioners was that a reduction of staff from the non-Valley Oak portion of the district would off-set the cost. Board Member Tim Taylor believes that one of the reasons that the board closed Valley Oak would be the eventual reduction of teachers district-wide if enrollment was reduced.
This discussion prompted outgoing Board Member Keltie Jones to suggest that the district may have to consider closing another school if enrollment declines due to the Valley Oak Charter School. But she stressed the point that this could not be a reason to deny the charter.
A couple of other key points that came up during the process.
First, Tim Paulson, the current President of the Davis Teachers Association stressed that the Valley Oak Charter School had the full support of the DTA.
Second, the point was made that for the purposes of collective bargaining, the district was the employer and that the money would flow through the district. This was in response to a question from Keltie Jones as to whether Valley Oak would be a dependent or independent charter school. By this definition they would be dependent.
Third, Valley Oak would not be automatically entitled to parcel tax money but that could be done by agreement with the school district.
The overall sense from the petitioners and the teacher’s association is that if there are concerns by the district they are willing to sit down and find agreements on this issue.
Finally, the petitioners were able to gather over 200 signatures but project 305 students to start with. The board was concerned about the viability economically of a 305 student school but also and just as importantly whether they would get to that number.
According to a number of the petitioners, the problem for charter schools is usually over-enrollment rather than under-enrollment. People are reluctant to sign petitions but more willing to send their children there once the school opens for enrollment. Several stressed that they felt that 305 was very attainable and that they actually expected it to have a waiting list.
From my perspective, I think the board raised legitimate concerns. I also think that this charter was very carefully drafted, they have support of the teacher’s association, they have utilized a consultant from CTA in the drafting of their charter, so teachers who have signed up to teach their–and they had 19 teachers sign the petition–will be well taken care of.
It is exciting to watch this process go forward and the next step appears to be some sort of official response from the school district.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Thank goodness that the DJUSD will be relieved of Keltie Jones’ participation in very short order. Why on earth publicly ruminate about having to close another school when it was purely speculation into the future and had no bearing on this preliminary discussion. Its obvious effect(deliberate?) is to sow fear and hostility in other school parent populations to the Valley Oak Charter School.
Thank goodness that the DJUSD will be relieved of Keltie Jones’ participation in very short order. Why on earth publicly ruminate about having to close another school when it was purely speculation into the future and had no bearing on this preliminary discussion. Its obvious effect(deliberate?) is to sow fear and hostility in other school parent populations to the Valley Oak Charter School.
Thank goodness that the DJUSD will be relieved of Keltie Jones’ participation in very short order. Why on earth publicly ruminate about having to close another school when it was purely speculation into the future and had no bearing on this preliminary discussion. Its obvious effect(deliberate?) is to sow fear and hostility in other school parent populations to the Valley Oak Charter School.
Thank goodness that the DJUSD will be relieved of Keltie Jones’ participation in very short order. Why on earth publicly ruminate about having to close another school when it was purely speculation into the future and had no bearing on this preliminary discussion. Its obvious effect(deliberate?) is to sow fear and hostility in other school parent populations to the Valley Oak Charter School.
To deny Davis residents attending the Valley Oak Charter School their fair share of the parcel tax(Measure Q)that they voted for and are going to have to pay would prompt a political firestorm that could easily result in a School Board recall effort.
To deny Davis residents attending the Valley Oak Charter School their fair share of the parcel tax(Measure Q)that they voted for and are going to have to pay would prompt a political firestorm that could easily result in a School Board recall effort.
To deny Davis residents attending the Valley Oak Charter School their fair share of the parcel tax(Measure Q)that they voted for and are going to have to pay would prompt a political firestorm that could easily result in a School Board recall effort.
To deny Davis residents attending the Valley Oak Charter School their fair share of the parcel tax(Measure Q)that they voted for and are going to have to pay would prompt a political firestorm that could easily result in a School Board recall effort.
I think it’s healthy for Keltie to say out loud what most informed people are already thinking. There are only so many kids to go around.
I’ve seen a couple anonymous posts now threatening school board candidates with a recall…the first was after I pointed out that the district does not have to locate the charter school at the old Valley Oak site. Talk about sowing fear and hostility.
I think it’s healthy for Keltie to say out loud what most informed people are already thinking. There are only so many kids to go around.
I’ve seen a couple anonymous posts now threatening school board candidates with a recall…the first was after I pointed out that the district does not have to locate the charter school at the old Valley Oak site. Talk about sowing fear and hostility.
I think it’s healthy for Keltie to say out loud what most informed people are already thinking. There are only so many kids to go around.
I’ve seen a couple anonymous posts now threatening school board candidates with a recall…the first was after I pointed out that the district does not have to locate the charter school at the old Valley Oak site. Talk about sowing fear and hostility.
I think it’s healthy for Keltie to say out loud what most informed people are already thinking. There are only so many kids to go around.
I’ve seen a couple anonymous posts now threatening school board candidates with a recall…the first was after I pointed out that the district does not have to locate the charter school at the old Valley Oak site. Talk about sowing fear and hostility.
The Davis Spanish Immersion program met with similar DJUSD skeptisim in its beginnings. Very quickly, Davis parents were sitting out all night on chaises in front of the District office on the night before registration to make sure that their kids had a spot in the program. Parents, teachers, the community coming together to create something quite special.. It CAN be done.
The Davis Spanish Immersion program met with similar DJUSD skeptisim in its beginnings. Very quickly, Davis parents were sitting out all night on chaises in front of the District office on the night before registration to make sure that their kids had a spot in the program. Parents, teachers, the community coming together to create something quite special.. It CAN be done.
The Davis Spanish Immersion program met with similar DJUSD skeptisim in its beginnings. Very quickly, Davis parents were sitting out all night on chaises in front of the District office on the night before registration to make sure that their kids had a spot in the program. Parents, teachers, the community coming together to create something quite special.. It CAN be done.
The Davis Spanish Immersion program met with similar DJUSD skeptisim in its beginnings. Very quickly, Davis parents were sitting out all night on chaises in front of the District office on the night before registration to make sure that their kids had a spot in the program. Parents, teachers, the community coming together to create something quite special.. It CAN be done.
I disagree with anonymous 9:14
I don’t think it is healthy for three reasons.
First, it cannot be a basis for the decision to approve or disapprove of the charter as Keltie Jones properly noted during the meeting.
Second, it is speculative.
Third, because it is speculative it has the potential to create a wedge in the community and to spawn fear.
She may end up being correct about this, but I see nothing good that comes out of mentioning it at this point in time. It is very premature.
I disagree with anonymous 9:14
I don’t think it is healthy for three reasons.
First, it cannot be a basis for the decision to approve or disapprove of the charter as Keltie Jones properly noted during the meeting.
Second, it is speculative.
Third, because it is speculative it has the potential to create a wedge in the community and to spawn fear.
She may end up being correct about this, but I see nothing good that comes out of mentioning it at this point in time. It is very premature.
I disagree with anonymous 9:14
I don’t think it is healthy for three reasons.
First, it cannot be a basis for the decision to approve or disapprove of the charter as Keltie Jones properly noted during the meeting.
Second, it is speculative.
Third, because it is speculative it has the potential to create a wedge in the community and to spawn fear.
She may end up being correct about this, but I see nothing good that comes out of mentioning it at this point in time. It is very premature.
I disagree with anonymous 9:14
I don’t think it is healthy for three reasons.
First, it cannot be a basis for the decision to approve or disapprove of the charter as Keltie Jones properly noted during the meeting.
Second, it is speculative.
Third, because it is speculative it has the potential to create a wedge in the community and to spawn fear.
She may end up being correct about this, but I see nothing good that comes out of mentioning it at this point in time. It is very premature.
DPD… do you have the timeline for the consideration of the charter proposal? I seem to remember that the legislature made it a fast-track kind of process. The reason for this may be to prevent the dragging out the process to make it more difficult for parents to consider this new option in planning for their children’s school future.
DPD… do you have the timeline for the consideration of the charter proposal? I seem to remember that the legislature made it a fast-track kind of process. The reason for this may be to prevent the dragging out the process to make it more difficult for parents to consider this new option in planning for their children’s school future.
DPD… do you have the timeline for the consideration of the charter proposal? I seem to remember that the legislature made it a fast-track kind of process. The reason for this may be to prevent the dragging out the process to make it more difficult for parents to consider this new option in planning for their children’s school future.
DPD… do you have the timeline for the consideration of the charter proposal? I seem to remember that the legislature made it a fast-track kind of process. The reason for this may be to prevent the dragging out the process to make it more difficult for parents to consider this new option in planning for their children’s school future.
“According to a number of the petitioners, the problem for charter schools is usually over-enrollment rather than under-enrollment. People are reluctant to sign petitions but more willing to send their children there once the school opens for enrollment.”
If I recall correctly, this was just what happened with the Sacramento High School Charter (the one organized by Kevin Johnson’s Project Hope). They had a modest number sign their petition. But when the school opened for business, far more students ultimately enrolled.
I think at Valley Oak Charter what might happen is that, because the lines are somewhat arbitrary as to where a family’s neighborhood school is, kids who are assigned to North Davis or Birch or Korematsu but find it more convenient (or otherwise better) to attend Valley Oak, will enroll at Valley Oak.
One other thing… In watching the VOC presenters last night, it’s quite apparent that this group has done everything they can to make VOC a success. I’m very impressed. Not that I have much experience in seeing charter schools come into being, but I can’t imagine any other group could have done a better job than the Valley Oak people have.
“According to a number of the petitioners, the problem for charter schools is usually over-enrollment rather than under-enrollment. People are reluctant to sign petitions but more willing to send their children there once the school opens for enrollment.”
If I recall correctly, this was just what happened with the Sacramento High School Charter (the one organized by Kevin Johnson’s Project Hope). They had a modest number sign their petition. But when the school opened for business, far more students ultimately enrolled.
I think at Valley Oak Charter what might happen is that, because the lines are somewhat arbitrary as to where a family’s neighborhood school is, kids who are assigned to North Davis or Birch or Korematsu but find it more convenient (or otherwise better) to attend Valley Oak, will enroll at Valley Oak.
One other thing… In watching the VOC presenters last night, it’s quite apparent that this group has done everything they can to make VOC a success. I’m very impressed. Not that I have much experience in seeing charter schools come into being, but I can’t imagine any other group could have done a better job than the Valley Oak people have.
“According to a number of the petitioners, the problem for charter schools is usually over-enrollment rather than under-enrollment. People are reluctant to sign petitions but more willing to send their children there once the school opens for enrollment.”
If I recall correctly, this was just what happened with the Sacramento High School Charter (the one organized by Kevin Johnson’s Project Hope). They had a modest number sign their petition. But when the school opened for business, far more students ultimately enrolled.
I think at Valley Oak Charter what might happen is that, because the lines are somewhat arbitrary as to where a family’s neighborhood school is, kids who are assigned to North Davis or Birch or Korematsu but find it more convenient (or otherwise better) to attend Valley Oak, will enroll at Valley Oak.
One other thing… In watching the VOC presenters last night, it’s quite apparent that this group has done everything they can to make VOC a success. I’m very impressed. Not that I have much experience in seeing charter schools come into being, but I can’t imagine any other group could have done a better job than the Valley Oak people have.
“According to a number of the petitioners, the problem for charter schools is usually over-enrollment rather than under-enrollment. People are reluctant to sign petitions but more willing to send their children there once the school opens for enrollment.”
If I recall correctly, this was just what happened with the Sacramento High School Charter (the one organized by Kevin Johnson’s Project Hope). They had a modest number sign their petition. But when the school opened for business, far more students ultimately enrolled.
I think at Valley Oak Charter what might happen is that, because the lines are somewhat arbitrary as to where a family’s neighborhood school is, kids who are assigned to North Davis or Birch or Korematsu but find it more convenient (or otherwise better) to attend Valley Oak, will enroll at Valley Oak.
One other thing… In watching the VOC presenters last night, it’s quite apparent that this group has done everything they can to make VOC a success. I’m very impressed. Not that I have much experience in seeing charter schools come into being, but I can’t imagine any other group could have done a better job than the Valley Oak people have.
My son attended the School Board meeting in person, and I watched it on television. My son’s comment was that the audience was angry with the School Board’s obvious hostility – and some members of the audience voiced their ire outside the chambers as they left. There is clearly a tension in the air between both sets of people – because the School Board is definitely worried about “competition” and the loss of revenue. Let’s face it, the Board is eating crow right now for making a very bad decision which has been overridden by the will of the people.
What I noticed, as I sat and watched the whole thing from home, was the inability of Gina Daleiden to come up with a coherent question; the obvious hostility of Tim Taylor; and the Charter School’s efforts to placate the very people who will decide their fate, but who also slated their school for closure initially. It is a tough spot for proponents of the Charter School to be in, but I think they stepped up to the plate and gave a bravura performance. Just outstanding.
If I were a parent, I would sign my child up for Valley Oak Charter School ASAP – because I know these folks have my children’s best interests at heart. Not so the School Board – which has some serious deficiencies in their attitude, fiscal management style, and particular Board Members who are not very adept or sensible. The absence of Richard Harris is telling; and Lovenberg trying to surround herself with “protection” is pathetic.
I would also note Jim Provenza’s first statement was both worrisome and telling. He said the Board would not voice any opinions that night until they received a Staff Report. Is this double speak for “We are going to wait for Staff to create a CYA report – to lend support for any decisions we make that the community might not like.” Let’s see how this plays out. I am willing to give Jim the benefit of the doubt, but…
Both my son and I found the initial congratulatory ceremony, with everyone on the School Board and their friends giving each other pats on the back for the passage of Measure Q; certificates of appreciation; formal proclamations – absolutely self-serving and nauseating. It was downright embarrassing under the circumstances.
These same people who voiced concerns about the fiscal crisis Valley Oak Charter School might create for the school district, are planning to build a brand new school in South Davis – where Richard Harris is from, if I am not mistaken. See anything wrong with this picture?
What both my son and I took away from the meeting was a feeling that Valley Oak Charter School will survive IN SPITE OF the School Board; the School Board will have no choice but to go along or look even worse than they already do; and the Charter School folks truly did their homework!!! I agree with DPD – this is one of the most exciting things to hit Davis in a long time – the development of a new independent Charter School.
Independent in the sense of surviving a ruling by the School Board to close it; a willingness of Valley Oak’s proposed administration to do whatever it takes to meet student needs and the needs of the school district. It doesn’t get much better than that – and is a breath of much needed fresh air for Davis schools!
And by the way, if Valley Oak is denied their share of Measure Q funding – shame on the School Board for evidencing a bad attitude. The parents collectively might weigh in on that issue, just as they did when Valley Oak was slated for closure. The School Board needs to think more carefully before they speak and act – if they want to improve their image in the community. Congratulatory pats on the back to themselves ain’t gonna cut it (pardon my poor grammer)! The public is not impressed, trust me!
My son attended the School Board meeting in person, and I watched it on television. My son’s comment was that the audience was angry with the School Board’s obvious hostility – and some members of the audience voiced their ire outside the chambers as they left. There is clearly a tension in the air between both sets of people – because the School Board is definitely worried about “competition” and the loss of revenue. Let’s face it, the Board is eating crow right now for making a very bad decision which has been overridden by the will of the people.
What I noticed, as I sat and watched the whole thing from home, was the inability of Gina Daleiden to come up with a coherent question; the obvious hostility of Tim Taylor; and the Charter School’s efforts to placate the very people who will decide their fate, but who also slated their school for closure initially. It is a tough spot for proponents of the Charter School to be in, but I think they stepped up to the plate and gave a bravura performance. Just outstanding.
If I were a parent, I would sign my child up for Valley Oak Charter School ASAP – because I know these folks have my children’s best interests at heart. Not so the School Board – which has some serious deficiencies in their attitude, fiscal management style, and particular Board Members who are not very adept or sensible. The absence of Richard Harris is telling; and Lovenberg trying to surround herself with “protection” is pathetic.
I would also note Jim Provenza’s first statement was both worrisome and telling. He said the Board would not voice any opinions that night until they received a Staff Report. Is this double speak for “We are going to wait for Staff to create a CYA report – to lend support for any decisions we make that the community might not like.” Let’s see how this plays out. I am willing to give Jim the benefit of the doubt, but…
Both my son and I found the initial congratulatory ceremony, with everyone on the School Board and their friends giving each other pats on the back for the passage of Measure Q; certificates of appreciation; formal proclamations – absolutely self-serving and nauseating. It was downright embarrassing under the circumstances.
These same people who voiced concerns about the fiscal crisis Valley Oak Charter School might create for the school district, are planning to build a brand new school in South Davis – where Richard Harris is from, if I am not mistaken. See anything wrong with this picture?
What both my son and I took away from the meeting was a feeling that Valley Oak Charter School will survive IN SPITE OF the School Board; the School Board will have no choice but to go along or look even worse than they already do; and the Charter School folks truly did their homework!!! I agree with DPD – this is one of the most exciting things to hit Davis in a long time – the development of a new independent Charter School.
Independent in the sense of surviving a ruling by the School Board to close it; a willingness of Valley Oak’s proposed administration to do whatever it takes to meet student needs and the needs of the school district. It doesn’t get much better than that – and is a breath of much needed fresh air for Davis schools!
And by the way, if Valley Oak is denied their share of Measure Q funding – shame on the School Board for evidencing a bad attitude. The parents collectively might weigh in on that issue, just as they did when Valley Oak was slated for closure. The School Board needs to think more carefully before they speak and act – if they want to improve their image in the community. Congratulatory pats on the back to themselves ain’t gonna cut it (pardon my poor grammer)! The public is not impressed, trust me!
My son attended the School Board meeting in person, and I watched it on television. My son’s comment was that the audience was angry with the School Board’s obvious hostility – and some members of the audience voiced their ire outside the chambers as they left. There is clearly a tension in the air between both sets of people – because the School Board is definitely worried about “competition” and the loss of revenue. Let’s face it, the Board is eating crow right now for making a very bad decision which has been overridden by the will of the people.
What I noticed, as I sat and watched the whole thing from home, was the inability of Gina Daleiden to come up with a coherent question; the obvious hostility of Tim Taylor; and the Charter School’s efforts to placate the very people who will decide their fate, but who also slated their school for closure initially. It is a tough spot for proponents of the Charter School to be in, but I think they stepped up to the plate and gave a bravura performance. Just outstanding.
If I were a parent, I would sign my child up for Valley Oak Charter School ASAP – because I know these folks have my children’s best interests at heart. Not so the School Board – which has some serious deficiencies in their attitude, fiscal management style, and particular Board Members who are not very adept or sensible. The absence of Richard Harris is telling; and Lovenberg trying to surround herself with “protection” is pathetic.
I would also note Jim Provenza’s first statement was both worrisome and telling. He said the Board would not voice any opinions that night until they received a Staff Report. Is this double speak for “We are going to wait for Staff to create a CYA report – to lend support for any decisions we make that the community might not like.” Let’s see how this plays out. I am willing to give Jim the benefit of the doubt, but…
Both my son and I found the initial congratulatory ceremony, with everyone on the School Board and their friends giving each other pats on the back for the passage of Measure Q; certificates of appreciation; formal proclamations – absolutely self-serving and nauseating. It was downright embarrassing under the circumstances.
These same people who voiced concerns about the fiscal crisis Valley Oak Charter School might create for the school district, are planning to build a brand new school in South Davis – where Richard Harris is from, if I am not mistaken. See anything wrong with this picture?
What both my son and I took away from the meeting was a feeling that Valley Oak Charter School will survive IN SPITE OF the School Board; the School Board will have no choice but to go along or look even worse than they already do; and the Charter School folks truly did their homework!!! I agree with DPD – this is one of the most exciting things to hit Davis in a long time – the development of a new independent Charter School.
Independent in the sense of surviving a ruling by the School Board to close it; a willingness of Valley Oak’s proposed administration to do whatever it takes to meet student needs and the needs of the school district. It doesn’t get much better than that – and is a breath of much needed fresh air for Davis schools!
And by the way, if Valley Oak is denied their share of Measure Q funding – shame on the School Board for evidencing a bad attitude. The parents collectively might weigh in on that issue, just as they did when Valley Oak was slated for closure. The School Board needs to think more carefully before they speak and act – if they want to improve their image in the community. Congratulatory pats on the back to themselves ain’t gonna cut it (pardon my poor grammer)! The public is not impressed, trust me!
My son attended the School Board meeting in person, and I watched it on television. My son’s comment was that the audience was angry with the School Board’s obvious hostility – and some members of the audience voiced their ire outside the chambers as they left. There is clearly a tension in the air between both sets of people – because the School Board is definitely worried about “competition” and the loss of revenue. Let’s face it, the Board is eating crow right now for making a very bad decision which has been overridden by the will of the people.
What I noticed, as I sat and watched the whole thing from home, was the inability of Gina Daleiden to come up with a coherent question; the obvious hostility of Tim Taylor; and the Charter School’s efforts to placate the very people who will decide their fate, but who also slated their school for closure initially. It is a tough spot for proponents of the Charter School to be in, but I think they stepped up to the plate and gave a bravura performance. Just outstanding.
If I were a parent, I would sign my child up for Valley Oak Charter School ASAP – because I know these folks have my children’s best interests at heart. Not so the School Board – which has some serious deficiencies in their attitude, fiscal management style, and particular Board Members who are not very adept or sensible. The absence of Richard Harris is telling; and Lovenberg trying to surround herself with “protection” is pathetic.
I would also note Jim Provenza’s first statement was both worrisome and telling. He said the Board would not voice any opinions that night until they received a Staff Report. Is this double speak for “We are going to wait for Staff to create a CYA report – to lend support for any decisions we make that the community might not like.” Let’s see how this plays out. I am willing to give Jim the benefit of the doubt, but…
Both my son and I found the initial congratulatory ceremony, with everyone on the School Board and their friends giving each other pats on the back for the passage of Measure Q; certificates of appreciation; formal proclamations – absolutely self-serving and nauseating. It was downright embarrassing under the circumstances.
These same people who voiced concerns about the fiscal crisis Valley Oak Charter School might create for the school district, are planning to build a brand new school in South Davis – where Richard Harris is from, if I am not mistaken. See anything wrong with this picture?
What both my son and I took away from the meeting was a feeling that Valley Oak Charter School will survive IN SPITE OF the School Board; the School Board will have no choice but to go along or look even worse than they already do; and the Charter School folks truly did their homework!!! I agree with DPD – this is one of the most exciting things to hit Davis in a long time – the development of a new independent Charter School.
Independent in the sense of surviving a ruling by the School Board to close it; a willingness of Valley Oak’s proposed administration to do whatever it takes to meet student needs and the needs of the school district. It doesn’t get much better than that – and is a breath of much needed fresh air for Davis schools!
And by the way, if Valley Oak is denied their share of Measure Q funding – shame on the School Board for evidencing a bad attitude. The parents collectively might weigh in on that issue, just as they did when Valley Oak was slated for closure. The School Board needs to think more carefully before they speak and act – if they want to improve their image in the community. Congratulatory pats on the back to themselves ain’t gonna cut it (pardon my poor grammer)! The public is not impressed, trust me!
These same people who voiced concerns about the fiscal crisis Valley Oak Charter School might create for the school district, are planning to build a brand new school in South Davis
They are? I don’t think this is accurate. They built Montgomery already, and there are no plans to build any other new schools to my knowledge.
These same people who voiced concerns about the fiscal crisis Valley Oak Charter School might create for the school district, are planning to build a brand new school in South Davis
They are? I don’t think this is accurate. They built Montgomery already, and there are no plans to build any other new schools to my knowledge.
These same people who voiced concerns about the fiscal crisis Valley Oak Charter School might create for the school district, are planning to build a brand new school in South Davis
They are? I don’t think this is accurate. They built Montgomery already, and there are no plans to build any other new schools to my knowledge.
These same people who voiced concerns about the fiscal crisis Valley Oak Charter School might create for the school district, are planning to build a brand new school in South Davis
They are? I don’t think this is accurate. They built Montgomery already, and there are no plans to build any other new schools to my knowledge.
All DJUSD schools should become charter schools. Then we can dispense with the board and all of the administration costs. Let the parents of Davis decide which school(s) would best serve their children.
All DJUSD schools should become charter schools. Then we can dispense with the board and all of the administration costs. Let the parents of Davis decide which school(s) would best serve their children.
All DJUSD schools should become charter schools. Then we can dispense with the board and all of the administration costs. Let the parents of Davis decide which school(s) would best serve their children.
All DJUSD schools should become charter schools. Then we can dispense with the board and all of the administration costs. Let the parents of Davis decide which school(s) would best serve their children.
Great idea! Who needs oversight anyway?
Great idea! Who needs oversight anyway?
Great idea! Who needs oversight anyway?
Great idea! Who needs oversight anyway?
I checked on the VO charter web site. All the answers to speculation are there. Questions left there are answered promptly. I’ve found it a very useful source of information. You can even find the entire Cal. charter law there on a link.
It appears district staff have been given large protions of this charter as they were finished. Staff has had some time to prepare a report for the board. One wonders what the hold up has been.
The district hasn’t got another appropriate site for a charter school except Valley Oak. This charter has already requested the VO site. Charter law says they must give it to the proposed charter.
The district is vulnerable to any other outside charters, sponsored by another district in the state, if they don’t place an educational facility at Valley Oak.
An outside charter, at Valley Oak, would then pay the outside sponsoring school district the supervisory fee. DJUSD would have to provide the facility and get nothing in return.
There are small, cash-strapped school districts around the state who are more than happy to sign for a charter, take the 3% required supervisory fee of the charter’s ADA, and bear none of the costs for providing facilities.
Out of district students do not have to apply for an inter-district transfer or get a release from their district to attend a charter school. This increases the potential enrollment pool.
Jones and Taylor voiced concerns about the enrollments of the remaining eight elementaries in the district. Once again, they can’t think alternatively.
Both of them supported the closing of VOE without considering any other option. Is it a surprise that both of them predict dire consequences for an alternative, creative solution?
Couldn’t they just as easily have said, “This could be a great solution for the district should enrollment decline to the point of closing another school. We could use VO Charter as a template and set up a magnet program within the district rather than close another school.”
This charter can be positive, or negative for the district. The ball is in the district’s court.
I checked on the VO charter web site. All the answers to speculation are there. Questions left there are answered promptly. I’ve found it a very useful source of information. You can even find the entire Cal. charter law there on a link.
It appears district staff have been given large protions of this charter as they were finished. Staff has had some time to prepare a report for the board. One wonders what the hold up has been.
The district hasn’t got another appropriate site for a charter school except Valley Oak. This charter has already requested the VO site. Charter law says they must give it to the proposed charter.
The district is vulnerable to any other outside charters, sponsored by another district in the state, if they don’t place an educational facility at Valley Oak.
An outside charter, at Valley Oak, would then pay the outside sponsoring school district the supervisory fee. DJUSD would have to provide the facility and get nothing in return.
There are small, cash-strapped school districts around the state who are more than happy to sign for a charter, take the 3% required supervisory fee of the charter’s ADA, and bear none of the costs for providing facilities.
Out of district students do not have to apply for an inter-district transfer or get a release from their district to attend a charter school. This increases the potential enrollment pool.
Jones and Taylor voiced concerns about the enrollments of the remaining eight elementaries in the district. Once again, they can’t think alternatively.
Both of them supported the closing of VOE without considering any other option. Is it a surprise that both of them predict dire consequences for an alternative, creative solution?
Couldn’t they just as easily have said, “This could be a great solution for the district should enrollment decline to the point of closing another school. We could use VO Charter as a template and set up a magnet program within the district rather than close another school.”
This charter can be positive, or negative for the district. The ball is in the district’s court.
I checked on the VO charter web site. All the answers to speculation are there. Questions left there are answered promptly. I’ve found it a very useful source of information. You can even find the entire Cal. charter law there on a link.
It appears district staff have been given large protions of this charter as they were finished. Staff has had some time to prepare a report for the board. One wonders what the hold up has been.
The district hasn’t got another appropriate site for a charter school except Valley Oak. This charter has already requested the VO site. Charter law says they must give it to the proposed charter.
The district is vulnerable to any other outside charters, sponsored by another district in the state, if they don’t place an educational facility at Valley Oak.
An outside charter, at Valley Oak, would then pay the outside sponsoring school district the supervisory fee. DJUSD would have to provide the facility and get nothing in return.
There are small, cash-strapped school districts around the state who are more than happy to sign for a charter, take the 3% required supervisory fee of the charter’s ADA, and bear none of the costs for providing facilities.
Out of district students do not have to apply for an inter-district transfer or get a release from their district to attend a charter school. This increases the potential enrollment pool.
Jones and Taylor voiced concerns about the enrollments of the remaining eight elementaries in the district. Once again, they can’t think alternatively.
Both of them supported the closing of VOE without considering any other option. Is it a surprise that both of them predict dire consequences for an alternative, creative solution?
Couldn’t they just as easily have said, “This could be a great solution for the district should enrollment decline to the point of closing another school. We could use VO Charter as a template and set up a magnet program within the district rather than close another school.”
This charter can be positive, or negative for the district. The ball is in the district’s court.
I checked on the VO charter web site. All the answers to speculation are there. Questions left there are answered promptly. I’ve found it a very useful source of information. You can even find the entire Cal. charter law there on a link.
It appears district staff have been given large protions of this charter as they were finished. Staff has had some time to prepare a report for the board. One wonders what the hold up has been.
The district hasn’t got another appropriate site for a charter school except Valley Oak. This charter has already requested the VO site. Charter law says they must give it to the proposed charter.
The district is vulnerable to any other outside charters, sponsored by another district in the state, if they don’t place an educational facility at Valley Oak.
An outside charter, at Valley Oak, would then pay the outside sponsoring school district the supervisory fee. DJUSD would have to provide the facility and get nothing in return.
There are small, cash-strapped school districts around the state who are more than happy to sign for a charter, take the 3% required supervisory fee of the charter’s ADA, and bear none of the costs for providing facilities.
Out of district students do not have to apply for an inter-district transfer or get a release from their district to attend a charter school. This increases the potential enrollment pool.
Jones and Taylor voiced concerns about the enrollments of the remaining eight elementaries in the district. Once again, they can’t think alternatively.
Both of them supported the closing of VOE without considering any other option. Is it a surprise that both of them predict dire consequences for an alternative, creative solution?
Couldn’t they just as easily have said, “This could be a great solution for the district should enrollment decline to the point of closing another school. We could use VO Charter as a template and set up a magnet program within the district rather than close another school.”
This charter can be positive, or negative for the district. The ball is in the district’s court.
Regarding the ” …inability of Gina Daleiden to come up with a coherent question; the obvious hostility of Tim Taylor; and the Charter School’s efforts to placate the very people who will decide their fate,…”
It appears this charter group has done such a great job that the charter is undeniable and, perhaps, it is this charter group who may decide the board’s fate.
Regarding the ” …inability of Gina Daleiden to come up with a coherent question; the obvious hostility of Tim Taylor; and the Charter School’s efforts to placate the very people who will decide their fate,…”
It appears this charter group has done such a great job that the charter is undeniable and, perhaps, it is this charter group who may decide the board’s fate.
Regarding the ” …inability of Gina Daleiden to come up with a coherent question; the obvious hostility of Tim Taylor; and the Charter School’s efforts to placate the very people who will decide their fate,…”
It appears this charter group has done such a great job that the charter is undeniable and, perhaps, it is this charter group who may decide the board’s fate.
Regarding the ” …inability of Gina Daleiden to come up with a coherent question; the obvious hostility of Tim Taylor; and the Charter School’s efforts to placate the very people who will decide their fate,…”
It appears this charter group has done such a great job that the charter is undeniable and, perhaps, it is this charter group who may decide the board’s fate.
“All DJUSD schools should become charter schools. Then we can dispense with the board and all of the administration costs. Let the parents of Davis decide which school(s) would best serve their children. “
You do realize that the charter school itself has its own board of directors and so if you did what you suggest, you would replace a single governing board with a governing board at each school.
“All DJUSD schools should become charter schools. Then we can dispense with the board and all of the administration costs. Let the parents of Davis decide which school(s) would best serve their children. “
You do realize that the charter school itself has its own board of directors and so if you did what you suggest, you would replace a single governing board with a governing board at each school.
“All DJUSD schools should become charter schools. Then we can dispense with the board and all of the administration costs. Let the parents of Davis decide which school(s) would best serve their children. “
You do realize that the charter school itself has its own board of directors and so if you did what you suggest, you would replace a single governing board with a governing board at each school.
“All DJUSD schools should become charter schools. Then we can dispense with the board and all of the administration costs. Let the parents of Davis decide which school(s) would best serve their children. “
You do realize that the charter school itself has its own board of directors and so if you did what you suggest, you would replace a single governing board with a governing board at each school.
This whole thing makes me sick. What we don’t need in Davis is one more elitist magnet program. The community and the District needs to keep their focus on the neighborhood programs and the regular, non-high achievers at the junior/high school level, on closing the achievement gap, updating the disciplinary policies, resolving budget problems, etc.
The Charter school is fine, if that is what the parents & teachers want, but I don’t want the School Board spending an inordinate amount of time on this. If the School Board doesn’t welcome the charter school with hoorays and open arms, so what? It doesn’t matter. They should have staff work out the agreements and bring them forward for approval and move on to addressing other needs of the District.
This whole thing makes me sick. What we don’t need in Davis is one more elitist magnet program. The community and the District needs to keep their focus on the neighborhood programs and the regular, non-high achievers at the junior/high school level, on closing the achievement gap, updating the disciplinary policies, resolving budget problems, etc.
The Charter school is fine, if that is what the parents & teachers want, but I don’t want the School Board spending an inordinate amount of time on this. If the School Board doesn’t welcome the charter school with hoorays and open arms, so what? It doesn’t matter. They should have staff work out the agreements and bring them forward for approval and move on to addressing other needs of the District.
This whole thing makes me sick. What we don’t need in Davis is one more elitist magnet program. The community and the District needs to keep their focus on the neighborhood programs and the regular, non-high achievers at the junior/high school level, on closing the achievement gap, updating the disciplinary policies, resolving budget problems, etc.
The Charter school is fine, if that is what the parents & teachers want, but I don’t want the School Board spending an inordinate amount of time on this. If the School Board doesn’t welcome the charter school with hoorays and open arms, so what? It doesn’t matter. They should have staff work out the agreements and bring them forward for approval and move on to addressing other needs of the District.
This whole thing makes me sick. What we don’t need in Davis is one more elitist magnet program. The community and the District needs to keep their focus on the neighborhood programs and the regular, non-high achievers at the junior/high school level, on closing the achievement gap, updating the disciplinary policies, resolving budget problems, etc.
The Charter school is fine, if that is what the parents & teachers want, but I don’t want the School Board spending an inordinate amount of time on this. If the School Board doesn’t welcome the charter school with hoorays and open arms, so what? It doesn’t matter. They should have staff work out the agreements and bring them forward for approval and move on to addressing other needs of the District.
How is a school made up of minorities and working class kids, an elitist magnet school?
How is a school made up of minorities and working class kids, an elitist magnet school?
How is a school made up of minorities and working class kids, an elitist magnet school?
How is a school made up of minorities and working class kids, an elitist magnet school?
“Lovenberg trying to surround herself with “protection” is pathetic.”
Are we now judging people by who they sit next to– or who sits next to them– at meetings? I thought I left that behind in high school. Isn’t this supposed to be about the merits of the Charter not seat selection.
I hope that I can agree or disagree with my friends and neighbors on issues without it having to impact those with whom I can associate. If not, remind me to get an approved list of seat mates next time I attend a meeting.
“Lovenberg trying to surround herself with “protection” is pathetic.”
Are we now judging people by who they sit next to– or who sits next to them– at meetings? I thought I left that behind in high school. Isn’t this supposed to be about the merits of the Charter not seat selection.
I hope that I can agree or disagree with my friends and neighbors on issues without it having to impact those with whom I can associate. If not, remind me to get an approved list of seat mates next time I attend a meeting.
“Lovenberg trying to surround herself with “protection” is pathetic.”
Are we now judging people by who they sit next to– or who sits next to them– at meetings? I thought I left that behind in high school. Isn’t this supposed to be about the merits of the Charter not seat selection.
I hope that I can agree or disagree with my friends and neighbors on issues without it having to impact those with whom I can associate. If not, remind me to get an approved list of seat mates next time I attend a meeting.
“Lovenberg trying to surround herself with “protection” is pathetic.”
Are we now judging people by who they sit next to– or who sits next to them– at meetings? I thought I left that behind in high school. Isn’t this supposed to be about the merits of the Charter not seat selection.
I hope that I can agree or disagree with my friends and neighbors on issues without it having to impact those with whom I can associate. If not, remind me to get an approved list of seat mates next time I attend a meeting.
“You do realize that the charter school itself has its own board of directors and so if you did what you suggest, you would replace a single governing board with a governing board at each school.”
Exactly my point. If a governing board at one school is failing, the parents could move their children to another school. If enough leave the school, it closes and the governing board is “fired”. Under our current system outrage at one school could not produce enough recall votes to “fire” the DJUSD board.
“You do realize that the charter school itself has its own board of directors and so if you did what you suggest, you would replace a single governing board with a governing board at each school.”
Exactly my point. If a governing board at one school is failing, the parents could move their children to another school. If enough leave the school, it closes and the governing board is “fired”. Under our current system outrage at one school could not produce enough recall votes to “fire” the DJUSD board.
“You do realize that the charter school itself has its own board of directors and so if you did what you suggest, you would replace a single governing board with a governing board at each school.”
Exactly my point. If a governing board at one school is failing, the parents could move their children to another school. If enough leave the school, it closes and the governing board is “fired”. Under our current system outrage at one school could not produce enough recall votes to “fire” the DJUSD board.
“You do realize that the charter school itself has its own board of directors and so if you did what you suggest, you would replace a single governing board with a governing board at each school.”
Exactly my point. If a governing board at one school is failing, the parents could move their children to another school. If enough leave the school, it closes and the governing board is “fired”. Under our current system outrage at one school could not produce enough recall votes to “fire” the DJUSD board.
The other way to look at it would be–there is no way that many kids would be able to move and you would create a hugely inefficient system with different governing boards at each school. I don’t see it as viable.
The other way to look at it would be–there is no way that many kids would be able to move and you would create a hugely inefficient system with different governing boards at each school. I don’t see it as viable.
The other way to look at it would be–there is no way that many kids would be able to move and you would create a hugely inefficient system with different governing boards at each school. I don’t see it as viable.
The other way to look at it would be–there is no way that many kids would be able to move and you would create a hugely inefficient system with different governing boards at each school. I don’t see it as viable.
“How is a school made up of minorities and working class kids, an elitist magnet school?”
What a racist comment. Minorities cannot be elitists?
“How is a school made up of minorities and working class kids, an elitist magnet school?”
What a racist comment. Minorities cannot be elitists?
“How is a school made up of minorities and working class kids, an elitist magnet school?”
What a racist comment. Minorities cannot be elitists?
“How is a school made up of minorities and working class kids, an elitist magnet school?”
What a racist comment. Minorities cannot be elitists?
vincent said:
How is a school made up of minorities and working class kids, an elitist magnet school?
Other than the kids residing in the near vicinity, the school enrollment opens up to the broad community (in and out of Davis). I don’t see how the program can limit itself to minorities or working class kids, any more than Fairfield Elementary is full of rural kids.
vincent said:
How is a school made up of minorities and working class kids, an elitist magnet school?
Other than the kids residing in the near vicinity, the school enrollment opens up to the broad community (in and out of Davis). I don’t see how the program can limit itself to minorities or working class kids, any more than Fairfield Elementary is full of rural kids.
vincent said:
How is a school made up of minorities and working class kids, an elitist magnet school?
Other than the kids residing in the near vicinity, the school enrollment opens up to the broad community (in and out of Davis). I don’t see how the program can limit itself to minorities or working class kids, any more than Fairfield Elementary is full of rural kids.
vincent said:
How is a school made up of minorities and working class kids, an elitist magnet school?
Other than the kids residing in the near vicinity, the school enrollment opens up to the broad community (in and out of Davis). I don’t see how the program can limit itself to minorities or working class kids, any more than Fairfield Elementary is full of rural kids.
The students in the neighborhood get first priority.
Interesting that it’s okay to presume that a magnet school is elitist (based on no particularly good reason) but not okay to suggest that this one won’t based on the attributes of the neighborhood. Very interesting.
The students in the neighborhood get first priority.
Interesting that it’s okay to presume that a magnet school is elitist (based on no particularly good reason) but not okay to suggest that this one won’t based on the attributes of the neighborhood. Very interesting.
The students in the neighborhood get first priority.
Interesting that it’s okay to presume that a magnet school is elitist (based on no particularly good reason) but not okay to suggest that this one won’t based on the attributes of the neighborhood. Very interesting.
The students in the neighborhood get first priority.
Interesting that it’s okay to presume that a magnet school is elitist (based on no particularly good reason) but not okay to suggest that this one won’t based on the attributes of the neighborhood. Very interesting.
According to the email the District sent yesterday, they can’t actually give priority to neighborhood kids, although that was part of their plan.
According to the email the District sent yesterday, they can’t actually give priority to neighborhood kids, although that was part of their plan.
According to the email the District sent yesterday, they can’t actually give priority to neighborhood kids, although that was part of their plan.
According to the email the District sent yesterday, they can’t actually give priority to neighborhood kids, although that was part of their plan.
Vincente said…
“The students in the neighborhood get first priority.”
Only after it reaches capacity.
Vincente said…
“The students in the neighborhood get first priority.”
Only after it reaches capacity.
Vincente said…
“The students in the neighborhood get first priority.”
Only after it reaches capacity.
Vincente said…
“The students in the neighborhood get first priority.”
Only after it reaches capacity.
Don. aren’t you confusing the issue here.. It doesn’t matter who has “priority” if the bottom line is that no neighborhood child who wants to go to VO Charter will be denied a place by a someone outside of the neighborhood. When two students vying for one spot are both neighborhood kids.. then it probably comes down to drawing lots or what the SI program did.. neighborhood parents would line up the night before registration and then it’s first come, first served.
Don. aren’t you confusing the issue here.. It doesn’t matter who has “priority” if the bottom line is that no neighborhood child who wants to go to VO Charter will be denied a place by a someone outside of the neighborhood. When two students vying for one spot are both neighborhood kids.. then it probably comes down to drawing lots or what the SI program did.. neighborhood parents would line up the night before registration and then it’s first come, first served.
Don. aren’t you confusing the issue here.. It doesn’t matter who has “priority” if the bottom line is that no neighborhood child who wants to go to VO Charter will be denied a place by a someone outside of the neighborhood. When two students vying for one spot are both neighborhood kids.. then it probably comes down to drawing lots or what the SI program did.. neighborhood parents would line up the night before registration and then it’s first come, first served.
Don. aren’t you confusing the issue here.. It doesn’t matter who has “priority” if the bottom line is that no neighborhood child who wants to go to VO Charter will be denied a place by a someone outside of the neighborhood. When two students vying for one spot are both neighborhood kids.. then it probably comes down to drawing lots or what the SI program did.. neighborhood parents would line up the night before registration and then it’s first come, first served.
But who says that the students in the neighborhood will be the majority of kids in the school? Once the attendance boundaries are drawn, who says a family will choose Valley Oak over North Davis, Birch Lane, Montgomery or Korematsu? Anytime you have more interest than space, politics and manuvering begin, troubled students are more apt to be pushed out of the school, parental boasting starts to be heard, etc. and elitism sets in.
But who says that the students in the neighborhood will be the majority of kids in the school? Once the attendance boundaries are drawn, who says a family will choose Valley Oak over North Davis, Birch Lane, Montgomery or Korematsu? Anytime you have more interest than space, politics and manuvering begin, troubled students are more apt to be pushed out of the school, parental boasting starts to be heard, etc. and elitism sets in.
But who says that the students in the neighborhood will be the majority of kids in the school? Once the attendance boundaries are drawn, who says a family will choose Valley Oak over North Davis, Birch Lane, Montgomery or Korematsu? Anytime you have more interest than space, politics and manuvering begin, troubled students are more apt to be pushed out of the school, parental boasting starts to be heard, etc. and elitism sets in.
But who says that the students in the neighborhood will be the majority of kids in the school? Once the attendance boundaries are drawn, who says a family will choose Valley Oak over North Davis, Birch Lane, Montgomery or Korematsu? Anytime you have more interest than space, politics and manuvering begin, troubled students are more apt to be pushed out of the school, parental boasting starts to be heard, etc. and elitism sets in.
I’m very proud of VO parents and their supporters. This is going to be a successful project is the school board does not attempt to put up barriers.
I do not see this as an elitist program at all. As a matter of fact, it is quite the opposite. Open your eyes and see the population that they are serving.
I too noticed Jim Provenza trying to play CYA. He’s done some good work so far, but I hope this is not a reflection of what we should expect if he is elected to the board of supervisors.
I’m very proud of VO parents and their supporters. This is going to be a successful project is the school board does not attempt to put up barriers.
I do not see this as an elitist program at all. As a matter of fact, it is quite the opposite. Open your eyes and see the population that they are serving.
I too noticed Jim Provenza trying to play CYA. He’s done some good work so far, but I hope this is not a reflection of what we should expect if he is elected to the board of supervisors.
I’m very proud of VO parents and their supporters. This is going to be a successful project is the school board does not attempt to put up barriers.
I do not see this as an elitist program at all. As a matter of fact, it is quite the opposite. Open your eyes and see the population that they are serving.
I too noticed Jim Provenza trying to play CYA. He’s done some good work so far, but I hope this is not a reflection of what we should expect if he is elected to the board of supervisors.
I’m very proud of VO parents and their supporters. This is going to be a successful project is the school board does not attempt to put up barriers.
I do not see this as an elitist program at all. As a matter of fact, it is quite the opposite. Open your eyes and see the population that they are serving.
I too noticed Jim Provenza trying to play CYA. He’s done some good work so far, but I hope this is not a reflection of what we should expect if he is elected to the board of supervisors.
But again, what about the configuration of the school will make elitist?
But again, what about the configuration of the school will make elitist?
But again, what about the configuration of the school will make elitist?
But again, what about the configuration of the school will make elitist?
Oh, don’t get me wrong. It will be a successful project. However, I do not want to see the current School Board spending a lot of time on this. I want their attention on other problems in the District.
Jim Provenza was an ardent supporter of keeping Valley Oak open. He is still a supporter of Valley Oak. Regardless, the poorly veiled threat is there for all to see in the last posting: do as we say or …
I personally want the School Board to ask questions and focus on ensuring that they take appropriate actions that will benefit all kids in the District. The VO charter is asking for decisions to be made on their timeline, before the end of December in fact. The Board is being asked to drop everything to satisfy this need. I suggest that they be a little more polite about it and less threatening.
Oh, don’t get me wrong. It will be a successful project. However, I do not want to see the current School Board spending a lot of time on this. I want their attention on other problems in the District.
Jim Provenza was an ardent supporter of keeping Valley Oak open. He is still a supporter of Valley Oak. Regardless, the poorly veiled threat is there for all to see in the last posting: do as we say or …
I personally want the School Board to ask questions and focus on ensuring that they take appropriate actions that will benefit all kids in the District. The VO charter is asking for decisions to be made on their timeline, before the end of December in fact. The Board is being asked to drop everything to satisfy this need. I suggest that they be a little more polite about it and less threatening.
Oh, don’t get me wrong. It will be a successful project. However, I do not want to see the current School Board spending a lot of time on this. I want their attention on other problems in the District.
Jim Provenza was an ardent supporter of keeping Valley Oak open. He is still a supporter of Valley Oak. Regardless, the poorly veiled threat is there for all to see in the last posting: do as we say or …
I personally want the School Board to ask questions and focus on ensuring that they take appropriate actions that will benefit all kids in the District. The VO charter is asking for decisions to be made on their timeline, before the end of December in fact. The Board is being asked to drop everything to satisfy this need. I suggest that they be a little more polite about it and less threatening.
Oh, don’t get me wrong. It will be a successful project. However, I do not want to see the current School Board spending a lot of time on this. I want their attention on other problems in the District.
Jim Provenza was an ardent supporter of keeping Valley Oak open. He is still a supporter of Valley Oak. Regardless, the poorly veiled threat is there for all to see in the last posting: do as we say or …
I personally want the School Board to ask questions and focus on ensuring that they take appropriate actions that will benefit all kids in the District. The VO charter is asking for decisions to be made on their timeline, before the end of December in fact. The Board is being asked to drop everything to satisfy this need. I suggest that they be a little more polite about it and less threatening.
The charter timeline is up on the Valley Oak Charter web site. The district is under the gun now to vote on it.
After viewing last night’s board meeting it apears a great deal of the information sent out by the district yesterday is inaccurate. Check it with the Vo web site, or just watch the fun in the meeting rerun.
Yes,the charter can give preference to the families in the charter school neighborhood. There is a lottery for the remaining open spaces.
Check out G. Davis’ back pedaling during the meeting. She claims her information comes from the attorney with the charter school expertise the district hired for this occasion. One wonders how much they are paying him.
Yesterday, the district put up all the parents who signed for the charter personal information on the district web site, including their signatures. I wouldn’t want my information, including where my children may be going to grade school AND my signature up on the net.
Also put up on the district’s web site were the teachers who signed on at the charter and their signatures. There’s grounds for a lawsuit! My neighbor, a Valley Oak parent reports her child’s teacher has already contacted an attorney.
I wonder for what purpose the district published that information.
All that information was removed in hsort order. One wonders if that high-paid attorney recommended they publish that info.
The district does not have to offer the valley Oak site if there is another appropriate site also available. There isn’t. The answer is yes, and no. According to charter law, the site has to meet certain criteria and be contiguous. Has any other campus in Davis thirteen plus empty classrooms? Then the answer is Valley Oak.
The charter timeline is up on the Valley Oak Charter web site. The district is under the gun now to vote on it.
After viewing last night’s board meeting it apears a great deal of the information sent out by the district yesterday is inaccurate. Check it with the Vo web site, or just watch the fun in the meeting rerun.
Yes,the charter can give preference to the families in the charter school neighborhood. There is a lottery for the remaining open spaces.
Check out G. Davis’ back pedaling during the meeting. She claims her information comes from the attorney with the charter school expertise the district hired for this occasion. One wonders how much they are paying him.
Yesterday, the district put up all the parents who signed for the charter personal information on the district web site, including their signatures. I wouldn’t want my information, including where my children may be going to grade school AND my signature up on the net.
Also put up on the district’s web site were the teachers who signed on at the charter and their signatures. There’s grounds for a lawsuit! My neighbor, a Valley Oak parent reports her child’s teacher has already contacted an attorney.
I wonder for what purpose the district published that information.
All that information was removed in hsort order. One wonders if that high-paid attorney recommended they publish that info.
The district does not have to offer the valley Oak site if there is another appropriate site also available. There isn’t. The answer is yes, and no. According to charter law, the site has to meet certain criteria and be contiguous. Has any other campus in Davis thirteen plus empty classrooms? Then the answer is Valley Oak.
The charter timeline is up on the Valley Oak Charter web site. The district is under the gun now to vote on it.
After viewing last night’s board meeting it apears a great deal of the information sent out by the district yesterday is inaccurate. Check it with the Vo web site, or just watch the fun in the meeting rerun.
Yes,the charter can give preference to the families in the charter school neighborhood. There is a lottery for the remaining open spaces.
Check out G. Davis’ back pedaling during the meeting. She claims her information comes from the attorney with the charter school expertise the district hired for this occasion. One wonders how much they are paying him.
Yesterday, the district put up all the parents who signed for the charter personal information on the district web site, including their signatures. I wouldn’t want my information, including where my children may be going to grade school AND my signature up on the net.
Also put up on the district’s web site were the teachers who signed on at the charter and their signatures. There’s grounds for a lawsuit! My neighbor, a Valley Oak parent reports her child’s teacher has already contacted an attorney.
I wonder for what purpose the district published that information.
All that information was removed in hsort order. One wonders if that high-paid attorney recommended they publish that info.
The district does not have to offer the valley Oak site if there is another appropriate site also available. There isn’t. The answer is yes, and no. According to charter law, the site has to meet certain criteria and be contiguous. Has any other campus in Davis thirteen plus empty classrooms? Then the answer is Valley Oak.
The charter timeline is up on the Valley Oak Charter web site. The district is under the gun now to vote on it.
After viewing last night’s board meeting it apears a great deal of the information sent out by the district yesterday is inaccurate. Check it with the Vo web site, or just watch the fun in the meeting rerun.
Yes,the charter can give preference to the families in the charter school neighborhood. There is a lottery for the remaining open spaces.
Check out G. Davis’ back pedaling during the meeting. She claims her information comes from the attorney with the charter school expertise the district hired for this occasion. One wonders how much they are paying him.
Yesterday, the district put up all the parents who signed for the charter personal information on the district web site, including their signatures. I wouldn’t want my information, including where my children may be going to grade school AND my signature up on the net.
Also put up on the district’s web site were the teachers who signed on at the charter and their signatures. There’s grounds for a lawsuit! My neighbor, a Valley Oak parent reports her child’s teacher has already contacted an attorney.
I wonder for what purpose the district published that information.
All that information was removed in hsort order. One wonders if that high-paid attorney recommended they publish that info.
The district does not have to offer the valley Oak site if there is another appropriate site also available. There isn’t. The answer is yes, and no. According to charter law, the site has to meet certain criteria and be contiguous. Has any other campus in Davis thirteen plus empty classrooms? Then the answer is Valley Oak.
I believe that each of the documents – the petition and the charter – are public documents and can be posted on the District’s website.
The District is only “under the gun” (what an appropriate phrase) because VO charter supporters set their own timeline and want a decision before the end of December.
I believe that each of the documents – the petition and the charter – are public documents and can be posted on the District’s website.
The District is only “under the gun” (what an appropriate phrase) because VO charter supporters set their own timeline and want a decision before the end of December.
I believe that each of the documents – the petition and the charter – are public documents and can be posted on the District’s website.
The District is only “under the gun” (what an appropriate phrase) because VO charter supporters set their own timeline and want a decision before the end of December.
I believe that each of the documents – the petition and the charter – are public documents and can be posted on the District’s website.
The District is only “under the gun” (what an appropriate phrase) because VO charter supporters set their own timeline and want a decision before the end of December.
From the California Department of Education:
“What is the timeline for developing and approving a charter petition?
Charter developers may begin developing their charter petition at any time.
The law specifies that a local governing board must hold a public hearing to consider the proposed charter within 30 days from receipt of the completed petition, and, within 60 days from receipt of the petition, must either grant or deny the charter.
This time line may be extended by 30 days if both parties agree to the extension.”
From the California Department of Education:
“What is the timeline for developing and approving a charter petition?
Charter developers may begin developing their charter petition at any time.
The law specifies that a local governing board must hold a public hearing to consider the proposed charter within 30 days from receipt of the completed petition, and, within 60 days from receipt of the petition, must either grant or deny the charter.
This time line may be extended by 30 days if both parties agree to the extension.”
From the California Department of Education:
“What is the timeline for developing and approving a charter petition?
Charter developers may begin developing their charter petition at any time.
The law specifies that a local governing board must hold a public hearing to consider the proposed charter within 30 days from receipt of the completed petition, and, within 60 days from receipt of the petition, must either grant or deny the charter.
This time line may be extended by 30 days if both parties agree to the extension.”
From the California Department of Education:
“What is the timeline for developing and approving a charter petition?
Charter developers may begin developing their charter petition at any time.
The law specifies that a local governing board must hold a public hearing to consider the proposed charter within 30 days from receipt of the completed petition, and, within 60 days from receipt of the petition, must either grant or deny the charter.
This time line may be extended by 30 days if both parties agree to the extension.”
The Charter petition was received on Nov. 5th. The Board has held the hearing in the appropriate time. Per Don’s information, they have until Jan 6th to make their decision.
Valley Oak Charter supporters want a decision in early December – Dec 6th per the article in the Enterprise – but definitely before the Winter break.
The Charter petition was received on Nov. 5th. The Board has held the hearing in the appropriate time. Per Don’s information, they have until Jan 6th to make their decision.
Valley Oak Charter supporters want a decision in early December – Dec 6th per the article in the Enterprise – but definitely before the Winter break.
The Charter petition was received on Nov. 5th. The Board has held the hearing in the appropriate time. Per Don’s information, they have until Jan 6th to make their decision.
Valley Oak Charter supporters want a decision in early December – Dec 6th per the article in the Enterprise – but definitely before the Winter break.
The Charter petition was received on Nov. 5th. The Board has held the hearing in the appropriate time. Per Don’s information, they have until Jan 6th to make their decision.
Valley Oak Charter supporters want a decision in early December – Dec 6th per the article in the Enterprise – but definitely before the Winter break.
“….Has any other campus in Davis thirteen plus empty classrooms?”
Wouldn’t additional space(rooms?) for materials storage, on-site administration, meetings have to be added to the number of actual classrooms?
“….Has any other campus in Davis thirteen plus empty classrooms?”
Wouldn’t additional space(rooms?) for materials storage, on-site administration, meetings have to be added to the number of actual classrooms?
“….Has any other campus in Davis thirteen plus empty classrooms?”
Wouldn’t additional space(rooms?) for materials storage, on-site administration, meetings have to be added to the number of actual classrooms?
“….Has any other campus in Davis thirteen plus empty classrooms?”
Wouldn’t additional space(rooms?) for materials storage, on-site administration, meetings have to be added to the number of actual classrooms?
That’s be the “plus” part of thirteen plus. Library, science rooms, meeting and resource rooms etc…
That’s be the “plus” part of thirteen plus. Library, science rooms, meeting and resource rooms etc…
That’s be the “plus” part of thirteen plus. Library, science rooms, meeting and resource rooms etc…
That’s be the “plus” part of thirteen plus. Library, science rooms, meeting and resource rooms etc…
So…. If the Board insists on maintaining the specter of uncertainty about the Valley Oak facility being the one where the charter school would be located,it would be a transparent attempt to erode the VO neighborhood parent’s interest in the charter school.
So…. If the Board insists on maintaining the specter of uncertainty about the Valley Oak facility being the one where the charter school would be located,it would be a transparent attempt to erode the VO neighborhood parent’s interest in the charter school.
So…. If the Board insists on maintaining the specter of uncertainty about the Valley Oak facility being the one where the charter school would be located,it would be a transparent attempt to erode the VO neighborhood parent’s interest in the charter school.
So…. If the Board insists on maintaining the specter of uncertainty about the Valley Oak facility being the one where the charter school would be located,it would be a transparent attempt to erode the VO neighborhood parent’s interest in the charter school.
” Anonymous said…
I think it’s healthy for Keltie to say out loud what most informed people are already thinking. There are only so many kids to go around.”
Informed people can reasonably conclude that the board will have to revisit the enrollment figures, since their first solution to that problem (close VO) has been taken off the table by the parents and teachers. But closing another school is not the only option, nor is it necessarily the best one. Readjusting the populations of the remaining elementary schools, Rich Rifkin’s suggestion about shared administrators, moving magnet programs around, expanding Korematsu more slowly, and various other proposals have been floated. Until they know how popular the charter school will be, the district really doesn’t have accurate enrollment figures to work with for the other schools.
Since there is no reasonable basis for denying the charter or the site, the board would do well to approve it as quickly as possible and get VO up and running so they know what impact it is going to have on enrollment.
” Anonymous said…
I think it’s healthy for Keltie to say out loud what most informed people are already thinking. There are only so many kids to go around.”
Informed people can reasonably conclude that the board will have to revisit the enrollment figures, since their first solution to that problem (close VO) has been taken off the table by the parents and teachers. But closing another school is not the only option, nor is it necessarily the best one. Readjusting the populations of the remaining elementary schools, Rich Rifkin’s suggestion about shared administrators, moving magnet programs around, expanding Korematsu more slowly, and various other proposals have been floated. Until they know how popular the charter school will be, the district really doesn’t have accurate enrollment figures to work with for the other schools.
Since there is no reasonable basis for denying the charter or the site, the board would do well to approve it as quickly as possible and get VO up and running so they know what impact it is going to have on enrollment.
” Anonymous said…
I think it’s healthy for Keltie to say out loud what most informed people are already thinking. There are only so many kids to go around.”
Informed people can reasonably conclude that the board will have to revisit the enrollment figures, since their first solution to that problem (close VO) has been taken off the table by the parents and teachers. But closing another school is not the only option, nor is it necessarily the best one. Readjusting the populations of the remaining elementary schools, Rich Rifkin’s suggestion about shared administrators, moving magnet programs around, expanding Korematsu more slowly, and various other proposals have been floated. Until they know how popular the charter school will be, the district really doesn’t have accurate enrollment figures to work with for the other schools.
Since there is no reasonable basis for denying the charter or the site, the board would do well to approve it as quickly as possible and get VO up and running so they know what impact it is going to have on enrollment.
” Anonymous said…
I think it’s healthy for Keltie to say out loud what most informed people are already thinking. There are only so many kids to go around.”
Informed people can reasonably conclude that the board will have to revisit the enrollment figures, since their first solution to that problem (close VO) has been taken off the table by the parents and teachers. But closing another school is not the only option, nor is it necessarily the best one. Readjusting the populations of the remaining elementary schools, Rich Rifkin’s suggestion about shared administrators, moving magnet programs around, expanding Korematsu more slowly, and various other proposals have been floated. Until they know how popular the charter school will be, the district really doesn’t have accurate enrollment figures to work with for the other schools.
Since there is no reasonable basis for denying the charter or the site, the board would do well to approve it as quickly as possible and get VO up and running so they know what impact it is going to have on enrollment.
Having watched many a school board meeting, I can say with much certainty that Davis lacks professionalism, efficiency and wisdom in its leadership. It is telling that the most professional and passionate about being open-minded is a young guy by the name of Lamar Heysteck.
The last person showing such open-mindedness that I can remember is Joan Sallee- who I didn’t always agree with but whose kindness towards others showed true leadership qualities. Since when did “acting like you know the answers” become admirable qualities?
Clearly the school board has become another arena to play politics and the current board struggles under this pressure.
Hopefully they will rise above and make a speedy, quick decision by approving the charter…and then move on as others have suggested.
Now is a chance to reward the passion, integrity and solid work ethic of the VOC leaders with more of the same. Approving the charter does in no way negate the work of the Task Force. Lets hope the board leaves all the personalities involved on both sides at the door and makes the right decision.
Having watched many a school board meeting, I can say with much certainty that Davis lacks professionalism, efficiency and wisdom in its leadership. It is telling that the most professional and passionate about being open-minded is a young guy by the name of Lamar Heysteck.
The last person showing such open-mindedness that I can remember is Joan Sallee- who I didn’t always agree with but whose kindness towards others showed true leadership qualities. Since when did “acting like you know the answers” become admirable qualities?
Clearly the school board has become another arena to play politics and the current board struggles under this pressure.
Hopefully they will rise above and make a speedy, quick decision by approving the charter…and then move on as others have suggested.
Now is a chance to reward the passion, integrity and solid work ethic of the VOC leaders with more of the same. Approving the charter does in no way negate the work of the Task Force. Lets hope the board leaves all the personalities involved on both sides at the door and makes the right decision.
Having watched many a school board meeting, I can say with much certainty that Davis lacks professionalism, efficiency and wisdom in its leadership. It is telling that the most professional and passionate about being open-minded is a young guy by the name of Lamar Heysteck.
The last person showing such open-mindedness that I can remember is Joan Sallee- who I didn’t always agree with but whose kindness towards others showed true leadership qualities. Since when did “acting like you know the answers” become admirable qualities?
Clearly the school board has become another arena to play politics and the current board struggles under this pressure.
Hopefully they will rise above and make a speedy, quick decision by approving the charter…and then move on as others have suggested.
Now is a chance to reward the passion, integrity and solid work ethic of the VOC leaders with more of the same. Approving the charter does in no way negate the work of the Task Force. Lets hope the board leaves all the personalities involved on both sides at the door and makes the right decision.
Having watched many a school board meeting, I can say with much certainty that Davis lacks professionalism, efficiency and wisdom in its leadership. It is telling that the most professional and passionate about being open-minded is a young guy by the name of Lamar Heysteck.
The last person showing such open-mindedness that I can remember is Joan Sallee- who I didn’t always agree with but whose kindness towards others showed true leadership qualities. Since when did “acting like you know the answers” become admirable qualities?
Clearly the school board has become another arena to play politics and the current board struggles under this pressure.
Hopefully they will rise above and make a speedy, quick decision by approving the charter…and then move on as others have suggested.
Now is a chance to reward the passion, integrity and solid work ethic of the VOC leaders with more of the same. Approving the charter does in no way negate the work of the Task Force. Lets hope the board leaves all the personalities involved on both sides at the door and makes the right decision.
Since when did “acting like you know the answers” become admirable qualities?
Well put. It also doesn’t get one far in this world. Time for some substance from Daleiden and Taylor in my opinion.
It appears that the board never educated themselves on charter law.
It also appears that members of the district staff are trying to sabotage this charter process.
Why is G. Davis’ office wasting district resources phoning all parent signees of the charter when that doesn’t even matter? Did their attorney recommend this intimidation tactic and if so, how much is this fool costing us?
The charter needed parent signatures OR teacher signatures, not both.
Here’s what the law states:
Charter development and approval process
47605(a)(1) Except as set forth in paragraph (2), a
petition for the establishment of a charter school
within
any school district may be circulated by any one or
more persons seeking to establish the charter school.
A
petition for the establishment of a charter school
shall identify a single charter school that will
operate
within the geographic boundaries of that school
district. A charter school may propose to operate at
multiple
sites within the school district, as long as each
location is identified in the charter school petition.
The
petition may be submitted to the governing board of
the school district for review after either of the
following conditions are met:
(A) The petition has been signed by a number of
parents or guardians of pupils that is equivalent to
at least
one-half of the number of pupils that the charter
school estimates will enroll in the school for its
first year of
operation.
(B) The petition has been signed by a number of
teachers that is equivalent to at least one-half of
the number
of teachers that the charter school estimates will be
employed at the school during its first year of
operation.
Regarding the timeline:
The law is clear that once the charter has been submitted, the district has 60 days to vote on it:
…Following review of the petition and the public hearing,
the governing board of the school district shall either grant or deny the charter within 60 days of receipt of
the petition, provided, however, that the date may be extended by an additional 30 days if both parties agree
to the extension…
I always figure that if I can find the correct information, and it’s Ginni Davis’ JOB to find the correct information. One of us isn’t trying hard enough.
I don’t see the Valley Oak Charter Group as being the ones using pressure tactics.
Now publishing my name, address, where my children will be attending school in the fall AND my signature on a schoolo district web site, now THAT I would view as pressure tactics.
When is her contract up for renewal?
Since when did “acting like you know the answers” become admirable qualities?
Well put. It also doesn’t get one far in this world. Time for some substance from Daleiden and Taylor in my opinion.
It appears that the board never educated themselves on charter law.
It also appears that members of the district staff are trying to sabotage this charter process.
Why is G. Davis’ office wasting district resources phoning all parent signees of the charter when that doesn’t even matter? Did their attorney recommend this intimidation tactic and if so, how much is this fool costing us?
The charter needed parent signatures OR teacher signatures, not both.
Here’s what the law states:
Charter development and approval process
47605(a)(1) Except as set forth in paragraph (2), a
petition for the establishment of a charter school
within
any school district may be circulated by any one or
more persons seeking to establish the charter school.
A
petition for the establishment of a charter school
shall identify a single charter school that will
operate
within the geographic boundaries of that school
district. A charter school may propose to operate at
multiple
sites within the school district, as long as each
location is identified in the charter school petition.
The
petition may be submitted to the governing board of
the school district for review after either of the
following conditions are met:
(A) The petition has been signed by a number of
parents or guardians of pupils that is equivalent to
at least
one-half of the number of pupils that the charter
school estimates will enroll in the school for its
first year of
operation.
(B) The petition has been signed by a number of
teachers that is equivalent to at least one-half of
the number
of teachers that the charter school estimates will be
employed at the school during its first year of
operation.
Regarding the timeline:
The law is clear that once the charter has been submitted, the district has 60 days to vote on it:
…Following review of the petition and the public hearing,
the governing board of the school district shall either grant or deny the charter within 60 days of receipt of
the petition, provided, however, that the date may be extended by an additional 30 days if both parties agree
to the extension…
I always figure that if I can find the correct information, and it’s Ginni Davis’ JOB to find the correct information. One of us isn’t trying hard enough.
I don’t see the Valley Oak Charter Group as being the ones using pressure tactics.
Now publishing my name, address, where my children will be attending school in the fall AND my signature on a schoolo district web site, now THAT I would view as pressure tactics.
When is her contract up for renewal?
Since when did “acting like you know the answers” become admirable qualities?
Well put. It also doesn’t get one far in this world. Time for some substance from Daleiden and Taylor in my opinion.
It appears that the board never educated themselves on charter law.
It also appears that members of the district staff are trying to sabotage this charter process.
Why is G. Davis’ office wasting district resources phoning all parent signees of the charter when that doesn’t even matter? Did their attorney recommend this intimidation tactic and if so, how much is this fool costing us?
The charter needed parent signatures OR teacher signatures, not both.
Here’s what the law states:
Charter development and approval process
47605(a)(1) Except as set forth in paragraph (2), a
petition for the establishment of a charter school
within
any school district may be circulated by any one or
more persons seeking to establish the charter school.
A
petition for the establishment of a charter school
shall identify a single charter school that will
operate
within the geographic boundaries of that school
district. A charter school may propose to operate at
multiple
sites within the school district, as long as each
location is identified in the charter school petition.
The
petition may be submitted to the governing board of
the school district for review after either of the
following conditions are met:
(A) The petition has been signed by a number of
parents or guardians of pupils that is equivalent to
at least
one-half of the number of pupils that the charter
school estimates will enroll in the school for its
first year of
operation.
(B) The petition has been signed by a number of
teachers that is equivalent to at least one-half of
the number
of teachers that the charter school estimates will be
employed at the school during its first year of
operation.
Regarding the timeline:
The law is clear that once the charter has been submitted, the district has 60 days to vote on it:
…Following review of the petition and the public hearing,
the governing board of the school district shall either grant or deny the charter within 60 days of receipt of
the petition, provided, however, that the date may be extended by an additional 30 days if both parties agree
to the extension…
I always figure that if I can find the correct information, and it’s Ginni Davis’ JOB to find the correct information. One of us isn’t trying hard enough.
I don’t see the Valley Oak Charter Group as being the ones using pressure tactics.
Now publishing my name, address, where my children will be attending school in the fall AND my signature on a schoolo district web site, now THAT I would view as pressure tactics.
When is her contract up for renewal?
Since when did “acting like you know the answers” become admirable qualities?
Well put. It also doesn’t get one far in this world. Time for some substance from Daleiden and Taylor in my opinion.
It appears that the board never educated themselves on charter law.
It also appears that members of the district staff are trying to sabotage this charter process.
Why is G. Davis’ office wasting district resources phoning all parent signees of the charter when that doesn’t even matter? Did their attorney recommend this intimidation tactic and if so, how much is this fool costing us?
The charter needed parent signatures OR teacher signatures, not both.
Here’s what the law states:
Charter development and approval process
47605(a)(1) Except as set forth in paragraph (2), a
petition for the establishment of a charter school
within
any school district may be circulated by any one or
more persons seeking to establish the charter school.
A
petition for the establishment of a charter school
shall identify a single charter school that will
operate
within the geographic boundaries of that school
district. A charter school may propose to operate at
multiple
sites within the school district, as long as each
location is identified in the charter school petition.
The
petition may be submitted to the governing board of
the school district for review after either of the
following conditions are met:
(A) The petition has been signed by a number of
parents or guardians of pupils that is equivalent to
at least
one-half of the number of pupils that the charter
school estimates will enroll in the school for its
first year of
operation.
(B) The petition has been signed by a number of
teachers that is equivalent to at least one-half of
the number
of teachers that the charter school estimates will be
employed at the school during its first year of
operation.
Regarding the timeline:
The law is clear that once the charter has been submitted, the district has 60 days to vote on it:
…Following review of the petition and the public hearing,
the governing board of the school district shall either grant or deny the charter within 60 days of receipt of
the petition, provided, however, that the date may be extended by an additional 30 days if both parties agree
to the extension…
I always figure that if I can find the correct information, and it’s Ginni Davis’ JOB to find the correct information. One of us isn’t trying hard enough.
I don’t see the Valley Oak Charter Group as being the ones using pressure tactics.
Now publishing my name, address, where my children will be attending school in the fall AND my signature on a schoolo district web site, now THAT I would view as pressure tactics.
When is her contract up for renewal?
Why end every comment with a threat – veiled and otherwise?
I’m tired of the nastiness. It makes me care less and less about happens to VO.
Why end every comment with a threat – veiled and otherwise?
I’m tired of the nastiness. It makes me care less and less about happens to VO.
Why end every comment with a threat – veiled and otherwise?
I’m tired of the nastiness. It makes me care less and less about happens to VO.
Why end every comment with a threat – veiled and otherwise?
I’m tired of the nastiness. It makes me care less and less about happens to VO.
“t makes me care less and less about happens to VO.”
So because some anonymous person says something that you do not like on a blog, you want to take it out on a bunch of innocent kids–did I get that right?
“t makes me care less and less about happens to VO.”
So because some anonymous person says something that you do not like on a blog, you want to take it out on a bunch of innocent kids–did I get that right?
“t makes me care less and less about happens to VO.”
So because some anonymous person says something that you do not like on a blog, you want to take it out on a bunch of innocent kids–did I get that right?
“t makes me care less and less about happens to VO.”
So because some anonymous person says something that you do not like on a blog, you want to take it out on a bunch of innocent kids–did I get that right?
“It makes me care less and less about happens to VO.”
to anonymous 4:15
The level of CARING was pretty well demonstrated by the previous Board majority and supposedly by the response of the voters to the “rigged” polling questionaire..try cutting the victims here a little slack when they respond with some anger.
“It makes me care less and less about happens to VO.”
to anonymous 4:15
The level of CARING was pretty well demonstrated by the previous Board majority and supposedly by the response of the voters to the “rigged” polling questionaire..try cutting the victims here a little slack when they respond with some anger.
“It makes me care less and less about happens to VO.”
to anonymous 4:15
The level of CARING was pretty well demonstrated by the previous Board majority and supposedly by the response of the voters to the “rigged” polling questionaire..try cutting the victims here a little slack when they respond with some anger.
“It makes me care less and less about happens to VO.”
to anonymous 4:15
The level of CARING was pretty well demonstrated by the previous Board majority and supposedly by the response of the voters to the “rigged” polling questionaire..try cutting the victims here a little slack when they respond with some anger.
Sorry if it appeared my threat was veiled. My mistake. I have no power to make any hiring or firing at the district level. I merely state my opinion.
Ginni Davis has engineered some dirty tricks and compromised the safety of several children by publishing on the district web site their parents’ names addresses and where they intend to send their children to school next year.
Additionally, when she printed the parents’ and teachers’ actual signatures on the web site, she compromised their security, leaving them open to fraud and identity theft.
She has left this district wide open for lawsuits.
She should be fired immediately. Period.
Sorry if it appeared my threat was veiled. My mistake. I have no power to make any hiring or firing at the district level. I merely state my opinion.
Ginni Davis has engineered some dirty tricks and compromised the safety of several children by publishing on the district web site their parents’ names addresses and where they intend to send their children to school next year.
Additionally, when she printed the parents’ and teachers’ actual signatures on the web site, she compromised their security, leaving them open to fraud and identity theft.
She has left this district wide open for lawsuits.
She should be fired immediately. Period.
Sorry if it appeared my threat was veiled. My mistake. I have no power to make any hiring or firing at the district level. I merely state my opinion.
Ginni Davis has engineered some dirty tricks and compromised the safety of several children by publishing on the district web site their parents’ names addresses and where they intend to send their children to school next year.
Additionally, when she printed the parents’ and teachers’ actual signatures on the web site, she compromised their security, leaving them open to fraud and identity theft.
She has left this district wide open for lawsuits.
She should be fired immediately. Period.
Sorry if it appeared my threat was veiled. My mistake. I have no power to make any hiring or firing at the district level. I merely state my opinion.
Ginni Davis has engineered some dirty tricks and compromised the safety of several children by publishing on the district web site their parents’ names addresses and where they intend to send their children to school next year.
Additionally, when she printed the parents’ and teachers’ actual signatures on the web site, she compromised their security, leaving them open to fraud and identity theft.
She has left this district wide open for lawsuits.
She should be fired immediately. Period.
Annonymous 8:25 pm
That is a better argument and leaves me with a greater understanding.
The posting from Vincent was very poor. It wasn’t just one person posting threats. Also, the argument fails as the kids will be fine regardless. Remember, the other schools in Davis are good schools too.
I understand that there is uncertainty for the kids and parents at Valley Oak and do support the Valley Oak Charter. But threats against Jim Provenza (VO’s strongest supporter on the Board presently) and others don’t go over well. Susan Lovenberg and Richard Harris won hands down even in the VO neighborhood, so I wonder about what will happen if this decision is not made before Jim leaves the Board.
Jim stated at the beginning of the meeting that the meeting was a public hearing and that the Board was not to voice their opinions until after the staff report specifically to avoid comments like Keltie’s uninformed speculation about having to close another school, etc. which only causes unnecessary anxiety and upset. He did not want this to happen, but Keltie did manage to slip a comment or two in anyway.
Stay the course and try to be positive – that’s all I can say.
Annonymous 8:25 pm
That is a better argument and leaves me with a greater understanding.
The posting from Vincent was very poor. It wasn’t just one person posting threats. Also, the argument fails as the kids will be fine regardless. Remember, the other schools in Davis are good schools too.
I understand that there is uncertainty for the kids and parents at Valley Oak and do support the Valley Oak Charter. But threats against Jim Provenza (VO’s strongest supporter on the Board presently) and others don’t go over well. Susan Lovenberg and Richard Harris won hands down even in the VO neighborhood, so I wonder about what will happen if this decision is not made before Jim leaves the Board.
Jim stated at the beginning of the meeting that the meeting was a public hearing and that the Board was not to voice their opinions until after the staff report specifically to avoid comments like Keltie’s uninformed speculation about having to close another school, etc. which only causes unnecessary anxiety and upset. He did not want this to happen, but Keltie did manage to slip a comment or two in anyway.
Stay the course and try to be positive – that’s all I can say.
Annonymous 8:25 pm
That is a better argument and leaves me with a greater understanding.
The posting from Vincent was very poor. It wasn’t just one person posting threats. Also, the argument fails as the kids will be fine regardless. Remember, the other schools in Davis are good schools too.
I understand that there is uncertainty for the kids and parents at Valley Oak and do support the Valley Oak Charter. But threats against Jim Provenza (VO’s strongest supporter on the Board presently) and others don’t go over well. Susan Lovenberg and Richard Harris won hands down even in the VO neighborhood, so I wonder about what will happen if this decision is not made before Jim leaves the Board.
Jim stated at the beginning of the meeting that the meeting was a public hearing and that the Board was not to voice their opinions until after the staff report specifically to avoid comments like Keltie’s uninformed speculation about having to close another school, etc. which only causes unnecessary anxiety and upset. He did not want this to happen, but Keltie did manage to slip a comment or two in anyway.
Stay the course and try to be positive – that’s all I can say.
Annonymous 8:25 pm
That is a better argument and leaves me with a greater understanding.
The posting from Vincent was very poor. It wasn’t just one person posting threats. Also, the argument fails as the kids will be fine regardless. Remember, the other schools in Davis are good schools too.
I understand that there is uncertainty for the kids and parents at Valley Oak and do support the Valley Oak Charter. But threats against Jim Provenza (VO’s strongest supporter on the Board presently) and others don’t go over well. Susan Lovenberg and Richard Harris won hands down even in the VO neighborhood, so I wonder about what will happen if this decision is not made before Jim leaves the Board.
Jim stated at the beginning of the meeting that the meeting was a public hearing and that the Board was not to voice their opinions until after the staff report specifically to avoid comments like Keltie’s uninformed speculation about having to close another school, etc. which only causes unnecessary anxiety and upset. He did not want this to happen, but Keltie did manage to slip a comment or two in anyway.
Stay the course and try to be positive – that’s all I can say.
Anonymous 9:29AM said:
“Susan Lovenberg and Richard Harris won hands down even in the VO neighborhood,….”
A look at the webpage,www.
yoloelections.org/returns/davis.board
reveals that Richard Harris came in third behind Schelen whose whole campaign was focused on the closing or Valley Oak Elementary being a “mistake”. Susan Lovenburg ran a campaign that left her position on the future of VOE ambiguous. She was, of course, the only Davis parent mom school-volunteer running, an unchallengeable winning resume as long as she offered only campaingning rhetoric.
Anonymous 9:29AM said:
“Susan Lovenberg and Richard Harris won hands down even in the VO neighborhood,….”
A look at the webpage,www.
yoloelections.org/returns/davis.board
reveals that Richard Harris came in third behind Schelen whose whole campaign was focused on the closing or Valley Oak Elementary being a “mistake”. Susan Lovenburg ran a campaign that left her position on the future of VOE ambiguous. She was, of course, the only Davis parent mom school-volunteer running, an unchallengeable winning resume as long as she offered only campaingning rhetoric.
Anonymous 9:29AM said:
“Susan Lovenberg and Richard Harris won hands down even in the VO neighborhood,….”
A look at the webpage,www.
yoloelections.org/returns/davis.board
reveals that Richard Harris came in third behind Schelen whose whole campaign was focused on the closing or Valley Oak Elementary being a “mistake”. Susan Lovenburg ran a campaign that left her position on the future of VOE ambiguous. She was, of course, the only Davis parent mom school-volunteer running, an unchallengeable winning resume as long as she offered only campaingning rhetoric.
Anonymous 9:29AM said:
“Susan Lovenberg and Richard Harris won hands down even in the VO neighborhood,….”
A look at the webpage,www.
yoloelections.org/returns/davis.board
reveals that Richard Harris came in third behind Schelen whose whole campaign was focused on the closing or Valley Oak Elementary being a “mistake”. Susan Lovenburg ran a campaign that left her position on the future of VOE ambiguous. She was, of course, the only Davis parent mom school-volunteer running, an unchallengeable winning resume as long as she offered only campaingning rhetoric.