The epicenter of public education is right here in Silicon Valley from this week to Aug. 10. The local and national spotlight will shine on this moment with unprecedented lumens, casting a potentially dark shadow or bright glow on the decision the County Board of Education and the Santa Clara County Office of Education will wrestle with for the next eight weeks.
I fervently believe our goal must be a win-win for all children. I am not at all certain how to get there from here. However, I do know I don’t want to make a decision that makes me complicit with leaving children in schools that are consistently low-performing.
This Wednesday at around 6pm in the County Office of Education Board Room, a hearing will commence to begin to determine whether or not Rocketship Education will be given approval at the August 10 board meeting to open up to 20 new charter schools here. This “ask” is significant and potentially involves up to 15, 000 students by 2019.
Rocketship has an incredible track record of success in bringing low-income, English Language Learners, and other below-grade level students to grade level in one or two academic years. Their Hybrid Model Learning Lab, professional development program for teachers, school culture of high expectations, home visits, and parent involvement are key components of Rocketship’s enormous successes.
Their first school approved on Charter Appeal from San Jose Unified, Rocketship Mateo Sheedy, scores a 925 Academic Performance Index (API), equal to the Palo Alto Unified District’s score—truly amazing results that cannot be taken lightly. Rocketship appears to have an efficacious model of teaching and learning that is scaleable to the level of schools they have requested.
As of this writing the county board of education is receiving emails, phone calls and letters from a variety of stakeholders. A sampling of the comments are instructive:
“Currently, 40,000 students in San Jose are Below Basic and Far Below Basic on the state test, and our children deserve better…Many of my constituents have immigrated to America seeking greater opportunities, but many schools have failed them. Rocketship’s current waitlists are long, so bringing its model to scale will ensure that low-income families across the county have access to an excellent education.” —Vice Mayor Madison Nguyen of San Jose.
“The District takes seriously its responsibility to our community to serve all District students and firmly believes that a local district can offer students and parents access, responsiveness, and quality that a large corporate network of charter schools cannot…
Rocketship Education does not provide a sound educational alternative for the District’s students and would undermine efforts of the District to meet goals the community has established for its students.” —Benjamin H. Picard Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools, Sunnyvale School District.
“Regardless of which side one takes—pro or anti-charter school expansion—the issue that must be addressed is the continuing achievement gap throughout the county and state. If we step back from our positions for a moment, we cannot help but to acknowledge the fact that a number of our children are not achieving and succeeding…Complicating our efforts to survive financially and to meet the needs of all our students are the current state policies enacted over the last 20 years regarding charter schools, open enrollment, and facility funding (or lack thereof); policies that put local districts and charters in an adversarial relationship.” —Dr. John R. Porter Jr., Superintendent of Schools, Franklin-McKinley School District.
“While as adults it would be more comfortable to wait for everyone to get aligned, the reality is that thousands of students per year are losing their future. We cannot wait. To realize the goals of SJ/SV2020 and eliminate the achievement gap by 2020, the best mechanism continues to be an addition to Rocketship’s countywide charter.” —John Danner, Lead Petitioner.
At the same time of this Rocketship “ask” four districts and the County Office are working with alacrity forging five strategic collaborative-compacts to work cooperatively with districts and charter schools to benefit all students. This is potentially a win-win for all students; they are all our students. The Gates Foundation has given indication that they will fund this essential collaboration up to $500,000 in its first 18 months with perhaps millions thereafter. The superintendents, school boards and teacher unions in these four districts deserve a huge ovation for their heavy lifting at this critical time:
Alum Rock School District
East Side High School District
Franklin-McKinley School District
San Jose Unified School District
I look forward to the thoughtful discussion and research that will ensue by Superintendent Weis and his staff during the next several weeks to determine his recommendation to the Board. Or is it possible that a third alternative will be provided for discussion? All of this posturing by districts, the city, and Rocketship is good for education in this county. These are certainly extraordinary times and the stakes of our future have never been higher.
Yet another way to throw money at unmotivated kids with apathetic parents.
What’s the tab for this one, Joe?
John you have to understand the politics behind Joseph, if he actually told his constituents the truth, they wouldn’t vote for him (because they can’t handle the truth)
Much easier to get votes if you point the fingers at anyone but your voters.
Rocketship’s previous results clearly show that you are just another ignorant bigot.
When give proper resources, expectations, staffing, and motivation, these “unmotivated kids with apathetic parents” score on par with schools in affluent areas.
Alumrock,
Why is it when a white person calls out the shortcomings of another race (save the speech on stereotype) it’s called bigotry, or racism?
Why is it when any non-white race calls a white person a bigot, it’s considered critical thinking?
I went to school at James Lick and Sheppard. Please respond so I can be further entertained by your double standard.
Show me the test scores an I will show you the money. Calling someone a bigot because they don’t agree with you is a very very poor delivery. Sorry the support I had for your cause just ended!
I see no mention of race or gender or sexual orientation or immigration status in my post.
When you grow a pair and sign your real name, I MIGHT have a little respect for your opinion. Clowns like you who throw around words like bigot and racist, instead of some cogent argument to prove your point, just aren’t worth listening to.
They have been throwing extra $$$ at poorly performing schools all over the country for decades, to little or no avail.More money without motivation of the kids and their parents is just a waste of money.
I went to a grammar school starting third grade in Inglewood, CA. We were mostly lower middle class, all blue collar. My SMALLEST class third grade through eighth was 45 kids, of all mental abilities and several races, though probably 50% white. We were motivated, because our parents were motivated, to get a good education.
Our graduating eighth grade class went to several different high schools, some private, but we had a zero drop out rate.
Infants and toddlers naturally want to learn. They are sponges for knowledge and information. But, if you haven’t kept your kids interested in learning, by the time they are five years old you’ve lost most of them. I’d bet that with at least 80% accuracy one could predict which five year olds would complete high school, and which would drop out. You can tell which ones are motivated by the brightness in their eyes, and their continued eagerness in class.
Joe, I am a little confused and would appreciate some clarification.
You state “At the same time of this Rocketship “ask” four districts and the County Office are working with alacrity forging five strategic collaborative-compacts to work cooperatively with districts and charter schools to benefit all students. This is potentially a win-win for all students.”
What does this mean? Specifically, what does it mean to have a “compact” to work “cooperatively with districts and charter schools”? I mean, as I understand it, the school districts have had a near monopoly on government funding to educate students. Parents could opt out, in the form of private schools and home schooling, but they could not “use” any of their tax dollars to assist – those dollars continued to flow to school districts. Charter schools attempt to provide an alternative education to the school districts, along with “some” of the funding that the districts traditionally received. This seems obvious, at least to me, why the letters above from the school district members (superintendents) are opposed to Rocketship’s “ask”. Also, it explains why teachers unions are traditionally opposed to charter school applications.
So how would a “cooperative compact” between the districts and the charter schools work? Can you help explain? Thanks.
Mike H.,
From a SJI column posted two weeks ago I wrote,
On Thursday of last week the Santa Clara Ccounty Office of Education convened a groundbreaking meeting that involved superintendents, board presidents, and teacher union presidents from the San Jose Unified, Alum Rock, East Side Union and Franklin-McKinley School Districts. Other key participants included People Acting In Community Together (PACT), several charter school organizations and other potential corporate funders.
We all met with Adam Porsch and Ebony Lee from the Gates Foundation to discuss entering into a collaborative compact agreement to further the dialogue on working strategically together so all staff and students benefit from written agreed to goals and objectives. All participants affirmed that desire to meet again to attempt to write a collaborative compact that could be funded by Gates Foundation for up to $500,000.
We have had two very productive meetings since then with all the parties listed above. All plan to have a draft compact to take with them to Dallas in a few weeks to learn more about the compacts funded in 9 other regions of the country, including Los Angeles, the only CA compact funded by Gates Foundation thus far.
> meeting that involved:
– superintendents,
– board presidents, and
– teacher union presidents from the San Jose Unified, Alum Rock, East Side Union and Franklin-McKinley School Districts
-People Acting In Community Together (PACT),
– several charter school organizations and
– other potential corporate funders.
So, I’ll ask again, Joe:
With respect to society’s assumed obligation to support and direct the education of my children, how is it that “teacher union presidents”, leftist political activiists like PACT, and mysterious and unknown “corporate funders” get a seat at the table to shape and influence my children’s education?
No one asked me if I want them at the table.
In fact, I don’t want them at the table.
Who let them in?
Would you tell them to leave?
> The local and national spotlight will shine on this moment with unprecedented lumens, casting a potentially dark shadow or bright glow on the decision the County Board of Education and the Santa Clara County Office of Education will wrestle with for the next eight weeks.
Say, Joe, aren’t you the President of the County Board of Education?
I’m putting my bets on a “bright glow”.
Maybe you could borrow the papier-mâché Greek columns from Obama’s acceptance speech when you hand down the County Office of Education’s decisions in eight weeks.
> My Guess here Joe is to convert all the Santa Clara low performing schools into a Rocket Ship charters ?
It could be a ‘win -win ’ situation . Most Low Performing schools struggle year after year trying to maintain API , and AYP .
Charter’s have more flexibility on curriculum , and hiring of teachers .
So what would be the legal issues on charter conversion ?
Joe,
thanks for your response to my request above.
I see that many entities were involved: “superintendents, board presidents, and teacher union presidents,…, People Acting In Community Together (PACT), several charter school organizations and other potential corporate funders,…, Adam Porsch and Ebony Lee from the Gates Foundation”,
and I see that you did something that involved several buzzwords:
“discussed entering into a collaborative compact agreement to further the dialogue on working strategically together so all staff and students benefit from written agreed to goals and objectives”,
and I see that you are looking for funding:
“All participants affirmed that desire to meet again to attempt to write a collaborative compact that could be funded by Gates Foundation for up to $500,000”,
and I see that you are planning to do more of same:
“All plan to have a draft compact to take with them to Dallas in a few weeks to learn more about the compacts funded in 9 other regions of the country, including Los Angeles, the only CA compact funded by Gates Foundation thus far.”
But I still am not sure what these “collaborative and cooperative compacts” would do, other than attract funding from the Gates Foundation, and others.
For example, what are the agreed-to goals and objectives? And, if there are more charter schools, and fewer students in the traditional districts, would these compacts help the charter schools find and utilize facilities? And, would these compacts result in more approvals from school districts for charter schools to located therein?
Many years ago you were my professor in Educational Psychology, as I was completing my teacher credentialing. I know you to be an educator of tremendous commitment. I am no longer teaching, but I am grateful you are in the role of SCCOE President. However, I am still confused about the purpose and value of these compacts. Is it to develop a “hybrid model” for education? Is it to derail the competition from charters? Is it to “charterize” all the traditional districts? Is this information public, or only available to insiders?
Can you help me understand?
Mike,
The compacts will detail the issues both sectors wish to collaborate on to benefit each other e.g. Same percentage of special education students served and same types, facility issues (paying market rates for district space) etc.
> The compacts will detail the issues both sectors wish to collaborate on to benefit each other e.g. Same percentage of special education students served and same types, facility issues (paying market rates for district space) etc.
Um. OK. Whatever.
But can you tell me why teachers union presidents, leftist activist organizations, and corporate funders get a seat at the table to influence and shape the education of my children?
Have you decided that school children should prefer union teachers over non-union teachers, socialists over libertarians, Coke over Pepsi, or Apple over IBM?
>>Apple over IBM?
If it wasn’t for apple, computers in the k-12 would simply not exist(disclaimer: I AM NOT AN APPLE FANBOY NOR DO I USE APPLE PRODUCTS)
I remember watching apple roll out Apple II’s en masse to schools in the 80’s. Not just send boxes, but work with the school to make sure the technology was implemented correctly, and that there was student appropriate software.
I spent countless hours learning how to draw things in Logo, learned enough BASIC to draw graphics and write my own “Choose your own adventure” game. I even made programs to drill me at math.
Later in life I had a very nice career in IT. I became a fanboy of the “silicon valley garage tinkerer” culture.
Here’s my tinker…
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/249701_10150202427105216_532775215_7586507_5253137_n.jpg
Worlds first fully automated karaoke jukebox with legal downloadable content. 7 years of programming and tinkering. I’m installing at a new client this Sunday.
I rolled it out to a PACT event at the Mayfair community center last Tuesday for a test run. Walked outside, and came back in to find this.
http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/254094_10150202427485216_532775215_7586514_4682977_n.jpg
History of Pong says Nolan Bushnell’s moment of “I know I’m going to succeed” was when the bar he put pong in called saying the machine was broken, and it turned out to be overfilled with quarters.
That was my moment in the above picture. I couldn’t even get close to my creation because it was so packed.
One of the greatest things about growing up in the Bay area was the vast amount of corporate involvement in schools. My father got to tour the IBM D2 campus in high school, and knew he wanted to get into the science. Another uncle who had been tinkering with cars his entire life, got to tour the ford plant, and made a lifetime career out of working on cars.
How come we don’t have ESSJ kids touring Genetech? Wouldn’t that be awesome if we could get them to donate gene sequencing equipment to high schools, so kids could learn about genetics? How cool would that be if HP donated a gas chromatograph to a school, so kids could actually learn how to figure out the chemical composition of a sample? How come we don’t have Tesla sponsor an electric go kart event and let the local schools compete?
You just can’t negate the positive impact corporate involvement gives kids. It lets them see where all the hard work can take them to. Gives them a goal to work towards, a direction in life.
Mr. Di Salvo,
I am perplexed by certain word choices that have infiltrated our communities’ vocabulary lately. When someone makes a mistake they now state it is “my bad”. Is “bad” a noun now? In your recent article you mention Rocketship’s “ask”. Is the word ask now a noun? Can you explain this to me? What am I missing? Or is this my bad for making an ask? (and no wise cracks about making an ask out of myself!)
Your truly,
David Cohen
Mr. Cohen,
I am guilty of nounifying. As you know the English language continues to evolves in unique ways. In my quick research I learned that the first time “ask” was used as a noun was in 1999. I did find a reference to “ask” as a noun, meaning “a requirement or request that something happen” e.g. The “ask” in fundraising endeavors.
“Their first school approved on Charter Appeal from San Jose Unified, Rocketship Mateo Sheedy, scores a 925 Academic Performance Index (API), equal to the Palo Alto Unified District’s score—truly amazing results that cannot be taken lightly.”
That’s one kind of API measurement, but DiSalvo avoids mentioning that there are two parts to API. One is the scores mentioned above, but the other part of API is a separate scoring that measures success by comparing the students at an individual school site to other schools with demographically identical student make-up. For DiSalvo to imply that there is only one meaning to API, makes one curious as to his willingness to embrace transparency.
And DiSalvo’s ignoring AYP scores, which measure progress overall and within so-called “sub-groups,” means that he is refraining from providing a complete picture to readers about the wonderfulness of Rocketships’ program.
So Joe, what is the other API score and the AYP score?
Another reader here questioned Mr. DiSalvo’s transparency regarding Rocketship’s API and AYP data. I researched the data personally to discover if the reader critique was or was not well-placed. The public numbers support Mr. DiSalvo’s conclusion that Rocketship’s data are “amazing” and “cannot be taken lightly.”
Link here for Rocketship Mateo Sheedy’s API report: http://api.cde.ca.gov/Acnt2011/2010BaseSch.aspx?allcds=43104390113704
Link here for Rocketship Mateo Sheedy’s AYP report: http://ayp.cde.ca.gov/reports/AcntRpt2010/2010APRSchAYPReport.aspx?allcds=43104390113704&df=2
The API similar schools comparison report places Rocketship Mateo Sheedy as the top performing school in California of its similar school cohort. Its Statewide Rank is “10.” Its Similar School Rank is “10,” apparently as the number one school in California for its cohort. Overall API of 925. Latino student API of 920 in 2009 and 921 in 2010.
And, Rocketship Mateo Sheedy’s API scores of 925 in 2009 and 2010 included consistency among Latino student performance as the 920 sublevel of 2009 moved up an additional point to 921 in 2010.
Regarding Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) data, in 2010, Rocketship Mateo Sheedy had 214 of 233 students at proficient or above for Mathematics, earning a mark of 91.8% proficiency. In English Language Arts, Rocketship Mateo Sheedy’s students posted proficiency for 181 out of 233 students, earning a mark of 77.7% proficiency.
Even critics will acknowledge that Rocketship Mateo Sheedy students demonstrate very strong testing performance. And Of 249 enrolled students, 247 participated in 2010 testing.
But for a full picture of Rocketship’s performance, one should look at the other Rocketship local charter: Si Se Puede. Rocketship Si Se Puede also demonstrates strong performance, though with less extraordinary figures than Mateo Sheedy.
Link here for Rocketship Si Se Puede’s API report: http://api.cde.ca.gov/Acnt2011/2010BaseSch.aspx?allcds=43104390119024
Link here for Rocketship Si Se Puede’s AYP report: http://ayp.cde.ca.gov/reports/AcntRpt2010/2010APRSchAYPReport.aspx?allcds=43104390119024&df=2
Rocketship Si Se Puede posts an overall API of 886, with Mathematics AYP proficiency of 83.9% (151/180) and English Language Arts AYP proficiency of 63.3% (114/180). These numbers are well above state targets, and, among similar schools, Rocketship Si Se Puede appears to be the number one school in the state. Overall, Rocketship Si Se Puede is in Group 9 compared to all schools and Si Se Puede leads Group 10, compared to similar schools. (Due to size differences, Si Se Puede is not a “similar school” to Mateo Sheedy.)
The 40 percent of Latino students at Si Se Puede who are not achieving at or above “Proficient” in Language Arts should give decision-makers pause regarding scalability, but when one notes this performance of 60% proficiency is top-of-state compared to similar schools, the Rocketship model seems to work – and withstands data analysis.
Best regards,
Chris Stampolis
Trustee, West Valley/Mission Community College District
Trustee Stampolis,
As 1 out of 7 decision-makers for giving Rocketship the green light for their expansion to a 15,000 student district is successful scalability. I can only predict this based on current data as you suggest. The data with a limited but significant sample is excellent. What is more troubling and difficult to predict are the ramifications of the decision.
I appreciate your thoughtful perspective. I will agonize over my decision for the next several weeks and any more elucidating points would be appreciated.
Joseph Di Salvo
Joe Di Slavo enthuses:
> On Thursday of last week the Santa Clara Ccounty Office of Education convened a groundbreaking meeting that involved superintendents, board presidents, and teacher union presidents from the San Jose Unified, Alum Rock, East Side Union and Franklin-McKinley School Districts. Other key participants included People Acting In Community Together (PACT), several charter school organizations and other potential corporate funders.
So far, the questions I have proposed about this “groundbreaking” Santa Clara County Office of Education initiative remain unanswered.
And not just unanswered, but unacknowledged, unrecognized, unheard, and in the awareness of public education institutional leadership, un-asked.
But, it is not just Teachable Moment that is raising these questions. Actual, authentic progressives have also raised some of the same questions.
In the early years of the current century, progressives fretted over the Edison Schools project and its pernicious insinuation of corporate influence in the schools.
Author Alissa Quart documented their concerns in her book: “Branded: The Buying And Selling Of Teenagers”.
Some of the comments by book reviewers are telling:
> “Corporate pedophilia” and your children
> Alissa Quart’s “Branded” explores how America’s youth are increasingly subjected to sophisticated but ultimately predatory forms of corporate marketing and branding.
> The Seduction of America’s Youth
> Quart shows the corrupting effect that the conscienceless pursuit of profit by corporate marketers has on everything from young girls’ body images or young boys’understandings of what it means to be masculine, to the complaisant administrations of public schools.
So, what’s different, Joe?
Why is Alissa Quart horrified at corporate influence in public schools while you and your colleagues at SCCOE are horse trading public school children with “potential corporate funders”?
I commend Board President DiSalvo for hosting this blog, sharing his thoughts. I will be as prepared to vote yes on Rocketship’s petition on August 10, 2011 as I was on June 15, 2011 given the opportunity.
Anyone that would suggest that students trapped in low-performing schools should ‘wait’ another school year, another generation for the system to improve itself on it’s own terms and it’s own pace should read the ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’ by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1963). This classic letter is replete with everlasting wisdom. Here is one quote,’ We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the force…s of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, and forever realize that the time is always ripe to do right.’
I doubt any reasonable person could read the entirety of Dr. King’s letter, reflect upon it (see url below) and still come away with the perspective that our students and their families should ‘wait’ yet another school year for good schools to sprout in their neighborhoods.
Craig Mann
Member Santa Clara County Board of Education
http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?action=read&artid=40
> The distinction may seem technical, but the answer is absolutely key to the County Board’s efforts to comply with the language and the intent of the State Education Code.
Chris:
I think you have missed the point.
One of the major objectives of Charter Schools (and of Education Choice in general) is to NOT have to “comply with the language and the intent of the State Education Code”.
The State Education Code is a BIG part of the problem.
The State Education Code empowers bureaucrats and politicians; it is umpteen thousand pages of “CAN’T DO’s” and “MUST DO’s”. And the bureaucrats’ job is to check up on all those under the authority of the Ed Code and make sure they are complying with the “CAN’T DO’s” and “MUST DO’s”.
There is probably a direct mathematical relationship between the number of pages in the Ed Code and the number of education bureaucrats. Every page added to the Education Code by the legislature undoubtedly creates jobs for bureucrats.
We don’t need to waste our creative energies on “efforts to comply with the language and the intent of the State Education Code.”
We need to invest our energies in liberating people from the Ed Code.
Codes and issues cited below come from Education Code Sections 47605 to 47608 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=47001-48000&file=47605-47608)
Is the Rocketship application structured as a single application for a single school charter, with up to 20 future sites or is this a proposal for 20 separate charter schools? The distinction may seem technical, but the answer is absolutely key to the County Board’s efforts to comply with the language and the intent of the State Education Code.
If the application is for one charter school with up to 20 separate sites, …
Based on 47605.6(a)(3) below, under what interpretation does the County Board of Education rely to consider granting the right to open up to 20 sites at one time with as yet unidentified addresses? The law (below) as written specifically gives the public the right to participate in a public hearing for each additional site and requires the County Board of Education to vote separately on each new address as a material revision of the single charter school’s charter.
“47605.6.(a)(3) After receiving approval of its petition, a charter school that proposes to establish operations at additional sites within the geographic boundaries of the county board of education shall notify the school districts where those sites will be located. The charter school shall also request a material revision of its charter by the county board of education that approved its charter and the county board shall consider whether to approve those additional locations at an open, public meeting, held no sooner than 30 days following notification of the school districts where the sites will be located. If approved, the location of the approved sites shall be a material revision of the school’s approved charter.”
Alternatively, if County Board of Education has received 20 separate applications for Countywide charter schools, each application should be voted on separately, and each separate proposed school would have to present documents to meet the standards of 47605.6(a)(1)(A): “The petition has been signed by a number of parents or guardians of pupils residing within the county 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 and each of the school districts where the charter school petitioner proposes to operate a facility has received at least 30 days notice of the petitioner’s intent to operate a school pursuant to this section.”
The presumption that an application for 20 separate countywide charter schools must be considered in one vote is a fundamentally flawed assumption. The Education Code says just the opposite: an application for 20 separate countywide charter schools may not be voted on in one vote; rather, each school application would have to be voted on separately. And if this is an application for a single charter school with 20 sites, which school districts have received the required 30-day notice?
So, is this an application for one charter school that intends to operate multiple sites or does the Board face 20 separate charter school applications?
A couple additional notes: 1) if this is a single school application proposing to be operated at up to 20 future sites, the County Office and the County Board will lose all future oversight of API and AYP data by site because the State Department of Education does not break out API/AYP data by site – only by school. So if 20 sites open, the public and the COE only will have aggregate data to review, not single site data to review. What will appear to the public on a day-to-day drive by basis to be 20 separate schools actually will be 20 sites of a single school. Only one API/AYP report will exist for the entire charter cluster – producing the same data as if a school district did not have to release results by school site and only released aggregate data for a district’s 20 elementary schools. 2) State Education Code 47605.6 b(5)was written with the intent that applicants to County Boards of Education had to provide “reasonably comprehensive descriptions” of many items that include the following: “(D) The location of each charter school facility that the petitioner proposes to operate”; and
“(E) The governance structure of the school, including, but not limited to, the process to be followed by the school to ensure parental involvement.” If the application is for one school with multiple (20) sites, what process will be used for parent representation on the school’s governance board? There would only be one school – thus there would be only one official school board. How can each site have a distinct parent board if there is only one official school?
Also, when parents/students apply for admission, if there is only one official charter school, will this mean that all prospective students in the county will apply to the one charter school and there will be just one lottery for admission – after which assignments to school sites will be made? And, if Rocketship proposes there are to be separate lotteries by site, and separate site “boards,” how will a single charter school ensure adequate parent and community participation in the governance structure of a 20-site unified budget as well as full public transparency and accountability since site data would be more difficult to obtain than what is found school-by-school in local public school districts? Also, would Rocketship implement an open enrollment process to allow transfers between sites within a single charter school? And, what legally would prevent Rocketship from assigning a student who had been at one site to another site many miles away?
Best regards,
Chris Stampolis
Trustee, West Valley/Mission Community College District
The following section in the ed code link you provided is a bit troubling.
“A county board of education may only approve a
countywide charter if it finds, in addition to the other requirements of this section, that the educational services to be provided by the charter school will offer services to a pupil population that will benefit from those services and that cannot be served as well by a charter school that operates in only one school district in the county.”
How can the County reach this finding without looking at applications on a district by district basis? Also, since the proposed charter for Rocketship goes many years in the future, can the County also predict that this finding will still hold true 7 or 8 years from now? (not to mention predicting what the API scores will be in the affected school districts).
A more prudent approach would be to have RocketShip first apply to the local district as it gets ready to launch a new school. As an added bonus, it would help maintain a healthy competition with other charter operators (existing or yet-to-be born).
Hi Teachable. While we both support change, it appears you advocate that elected board members actively should ignore or work in opposition to state law. I’m not at a point to argue for formal anarchy or unfettered civil disobedience, one practical reason being that the court system will order reversals of board decisions if the Education Code directly is contravened.
Since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the US has been a nation built on the concept of judicial review. So, to improve our public education system, we must work somewhere within the realm of legislation. Seek to change laws? Sure. Seek to implement what seem to be “good parts”? Sure. Just ignore our laws in protest? Well, I’m still at “change” and “implement.”
Best regards,
Chris S.
> While we both support change, it appears you advocate that elected board members actively should ignore or work in opposition to state law. I’m not at a point to argue for formal anarchy or unfettered civil disobedience, one practical reason being that the court system will order reversals of board decisions if the Education Code directly is contravened.
Chris:
I will be presumptuous and assume that you willingly SOUGHT the job of Trustee with the full knowledge that you would be a servant of the State Education Code.
It stikes me as a somewhat hollow statement to suggest that you would offer yourself as a competent steward of an institution governed by the State Education Code yet somehow be an agent for significant change in that institution.
While I don’t profess to know what is the best way to dramatically reform the institutions of public education, signing on to the officer corps and professing allegiance to the Crown and the Admiralty don’t strike me as audacious and bold actions.
But then, have you ever read “Mutiny on the Bounty”, or seen Marlon Brando as Fletcher Christian?
“Renegade School Trustee Takes Control of Community College District”
“Puts Other Trustees Adrift in Small Boat”
“Sails to Tahiti With Student Lists and Budget Funds”
“Pledges Never To Be Taken Alive”