OPEN LETTER TO THE DAVIS JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Congratulations for your important and impressive victory in Measure W. The people of Davis, as they did last spring with their donations to the Davis Schools Foundation, have affirmed their support for education. It is a resounding victory that carries with it a good deal of responsibility.

The people have entrusted to you the education of their children. You do not need me to tell you how big a responsibility that entails.

During the course of the campaign, I had the chance to speak with many, many people in the community about the schools. I would like to share some of my thoughts with you in a moment.

But first I would like to say I worked so hard to get the facts out for this measure because I believe in education. As I have said so many times on the blog, I sat up in the audience all too many nights last spring until all too late into the evening. I talked with parents and students and shared their anxieties and concerns. I supported Measure W first and foremost for them, never again did I want students to worry about the possibility of their schools closing and their teachers fired.

I have heard concerns about fiscal mismanagement, transparency, and accountability from many quarters in the community—including from people that it might surprise you to learn shared this concern. However, I believe that I have thoroughly reviewed and observed district practices. I believe that the district has gone to great lengths to be both transparent and accountable. I look forward to working in the future toward both of those goals.

Now however I offer some critiques and hopefully constructive criticism.

First, this has to be the last parcel tax until Measures Q and W expire in three years. The community was willing to back this one, but they were getting a bit leery. I support education strongly, the state budget is going to be a huge challenge, I can only hope that given a year at least where the district is assured that they will have the necessary funding, that the district finds ways to keep afloat in tough economic times. The taxpayers of Davis face all sorts of potentially new taxes, fees for service, and water rate increases in the coming years. I worry about their ability to make ends meet in these tough economic times. As such, I will state plainly right now, I will not support another parcel tax before these two parcel taxes expire. Furthermore, I urge the district to find a way to renew only Measure Q when the time comes, that means find a way to account for the $120 per year that Measure W provides even if the state does not.

Second, there needs to be community outreach on Valley Oak. There is still a lot of bitterness out there. I understand that Measure Q and Measure W passed despite the closure of Valley Oak and at times it passed with the support of many of those same parents, but there are two groups that you need to focus on. First, those parents and community members who fought so hard for to keep Valley Oak open. And second those in the community that really believed it was a special and unique school and who believe that there were racial elements that came into play.

I spoke with so many this year and many of them told me this fall that they were torn. They had always supported education, always voted for whatever measures were on the ballot to support education, but they were angry about Valley Oak. Those people in the end voted for W as they voted for Q, but do not let this fact mask a very serious animosity that has developed out there. A number of very prominent people did not endorse Measure W because of Valley Oak and they only in the last week and through great effort of many decided to hold their nose and vote for it.

I will never forget right before the election going on a police ride along of all things, and as we drove past Korematsu, the police officer told me that he had mixed feeling about that school. He described to me how he had worked at Valley Oak in his capacity as a police officer as he had several other schools over his lengthy career. But he said Valley Oak was different. They made him feel like he was part of the school itself. He did not feel like a visitor there. At one point, there was a troubled student without male role models in his life and they asked just to talk to him about ten minutes at recess.

To me this story reinforces to me that yes you can duplicate programs but a school is more than a sum of its programs. That is not to take away from the great things that this district does at every school. But I, like so many others believe that Valley Oak was special and unique that the district did this community and that neighborhood a great disservice by closing the school. The district and the board have not made amends for that or acknowledged that to the citizens of the community. And yet, the devoted parents and community leaders there remained loyal to this district and supported Measure W even as their hearts were breaking over the loss of their school. Talk to them, and you will see, the hurt feelings and raw emotions still. You will also see the love for schools and the commitment to education.

Third, again along the same lines, during the course of the budget struggle, there was another struggle that lost attention. In 2007, there was a serious push for stronger work toward closing the achievement gap. There were period but persistent concerns about race relations on the high school campus and elsewhere in the district. There was the controversy about the STAR testing. There were concerns raised by longtime and prominent members of the community that issues that were addressed in a 1990 report laid on the shelf for years, un-acted upon. These issues came back up in 2007. They have disappeared during the struggle for the budget. These are serious issues and they need to have renewed focus. The problem is no less real in 2008 going into 2009. The fact that the district will have fewer resources to deal with this problem means that we must be that much more aggressive at addressing it.

Fourth, there are serious issues of mistrust regarding Emerson Junior High. These are not merely manifested on the blog, but also in emails on several email lists developed to mobilize people to fight to keep Emerson open. Interestingly, not one email went out on that list urging people to vote Yes on W prior to the vote. There are people in this part of Davis that really believe that Emerson’s closure is fait accompli. I do not believe that is the case at all. From every conversation I have had with the district or board members, while they cannot promise that Measure W’s passage means Emerson stays open, I believe it would be logistically infeasible to close it.

However, I would suggest that there needs to be more communication between the school board, the district, and West Davis about the exact concerns about Emerson and the real prospects for it closing. Level with the public in advance if there is reason for concern and reassure them if there is not. Communication and trust are the keys. I understand that in the rush of the spring budget crisis, these discussions could not happen, but they can happen now and they need to.

Finally, Bruce Colby a couple of weeks ago suggested a Vanguard sponsored Q & A session. I hope to work with Mr. Colby and Dr. Hammond to facilitate something along those lines. We can think about how to structure it.

I am pleased with the transparency and accountability of this district, but I do believe that the district can do even better. Opening lines of communication are important. The new district website is better, but it could be better still.

In this day and age of instant communications, there is no excuse to have a communications gap with the community. I would look as a district toward finding ways to enact better communication tools. The Davis Enterprise is only read by less than one-third of the households in the city. The Vanguard is one alternative means to communicate more directly to the public, but not the only way.

The district has come a long way in the last four years in terms of public trust and accountability, but there is much that still needs to be done.

---David M. Greenwald

Measure W Gains Most Powerful Endorsement to Date: Dweezel the Dragon (Update)

I hope my friend Julie Cuetara forgives me for relaying this story. There are just moments in your life you do not forget. And one of the most vivid moments I remember in my over two years of coverage of Davis events was the night that they closed Valley Oak. Hundreds of students under the direction of Dweezel the Dragon marched from Valley Oak to the Community Chambers. Late into the night the meeting went and it became very clear that the verdict on Valley Oak was in and it would be closing. There in the back of the room was the image of Dweezel in tears. I will never forget that.

Dweezel is not one to give up easily however and she continued to fight for Valley Oak, through the charter process, through school board elections, until the very day they had to stop fighting when it became clear that it just was not going to happen.

I pass this on because there is no one more committed to Valley Oak than Julie Cuetara. She not only was Dweezel the Dragon, she was a member of Davis OPEN, a group organized to keep Valley Oak open.

This morning in the a letter to the Davis Enterprise, Dweezel (and Julie Cuetara) have endorsed Measure W.

She begins:

"Measure W is not about Valley Oak Elementary and Davis Joint Unified School District - It's about California's budget, California's state of affairs, and securing, through hard times, our children's future."

She continues:

"Some people are saying $120 is a lot of money on top of what we currently spend in our classrooms. I'm saying $120 per year is not much to secure what we have - a good district, good programs, (more) stable home value, a wonderful place to raise children and to grow old.

Think about our schools losing nearly $3 million for even one year and how it would trickle down through our community. We could never get back what we would lose! And I can guarantee you, with the loss of teachers, programs and the trickle-down effects that would occur, this measure would come up again next year and we would pass it."

And then finally, the message she closes with:

"I have been proud to be Dweezel, proud of supporting children and the Davis community for over 15 years. Through my endeavors, I've learned a lot about our district, its finances, policies, programs, schools and the people behind them. I have lost a lot due to decisions made and through all my sadness and upset with our district, I am proud to say, we do have a good district that deserves our support."

Frankly, I cannot think of a more powerful spokesperson or a more powerful statement than that. Anyone who is still on the fence because of Valley Oak just remember, no one lived and breathed Valley Oak more than this individual. She sees the big picture here and knows what needs to be done.

UPDATE:

Julie Cuetara has sent the Vanguard the full version of the letter, the Davis Enterprise could not print the whole thing today. I think it is important that everyone here reads the entire letter because it addresses a key concern about Measure W and Valley Oak.

Click to enlarge.



---David M. Greenwald reporting

Rumors About Emerson Continue, Irrational as They May Be

No, it is not just on this blog. I hear and get asked about whether Emerson is going to close wherever I go. There is a persistent rumor that the closure of Emerson is fait accompli regardless of the outcome of Measure W.

As I have argued this is completely illogical. I will break down that illogic shortly. I would submit to the readers of this, that if you want Emerson to close, then you should vote against Measure W, because voting against Measure W will almost surely lead to the closure of the school. If you want to strongly increase the likelihood of Emerson remaining open, and these are the words of Superintendent James Hammond whom I will quote fully below, then you should vote for the Parcel Tax.

I will get to those words of the Superintendent in a moment. First we need to logic through this argument.

Why Emerson Closes if Measure W Fails

The school district last spring estimated that the closure of Measure W would save the district roughly $600,000 in site specific operating expenses. That is largely without the lay off of teachers.

That is the biggest single chunk of money that can be saved with terminating or eliminating teacher positions. In fact, that represents around a quarter of the money that they would need to cut if Measure W fails.

If given the choice between teachers and a facility, they are going to pick the facility every time. (I will get to why they eliminated Emerson for this list last spring below).

The problem that you face when you have a number like $2.4 million is that you really cannot nickel and dime your way to budget cuts. They have already trimmed two major positions from the district's administration including an Assistant Superintendent whose contract was not renewed and whose position was not replaced.

The good news for the district is that 82% of the district's discretionary general fund budget goes directly to the classroom, but the bad news is the same. It means to get meaningful cuts, you have to cut from the classroom. Of the remaining 18% of the budget that does not directly go to the classroom, 9% of the budget goes to ground operations such as custodians and only 7% of the budget goes to administration.

That means you are either cutting teachers or you cutting facilities. Again, that means if you have to cut $2.4 million and can get a quarter of that without laying off a single teacher, guess what they do?

So by all means, if you want to have Emerson close, vote no on W. The illogic of people who say because they won't guarantee Emerson stays open if W passes, they will therefore vote against W and ensure that Emerson closes, is mindboggling.

Why Emerson Stays Open if Measure W Passes

There are issues of the facility that will prevent the guarantee of Emerson staying open. But, most available rationale indicates that it most likely has to stay open if the general fund is not in deficit.

People try to link Emerson and Valley Oak. But Emerson has advantages (many of them) that Valley Oak never had.

As Superintendent James Hammond said on the Vanguard Radio show in mid-October:

"It's not like the closure of an elementary school where you have eight or nine sites, you have three junior high sites spread across town, so you have logistical concerns to evaluate."

This is not a defense of closing Valley Oak, but when they had to close Valley Oak, you have at least three schools within close proximity to Valley Oak. North Davis Elementary and Birch Lane are both within nine-tenths of a mile and Korematsu is just one and a half miles. That means that you are generally redirecting students within a relative close proximity. Now as we know from the Valley Oak issue that arose last year, you are still putting a burden on parents and making it more difficult for young children to walk and bike to school. Nevertheless, it is not a logistical nightmare for the district.

On the other hand, the Junior High scenario is much more tricky. You have Holmes Junior High a full 3.3 miles from Emerson. That is a logistical nightmare in a school district that does not have district busing transportation. That reason alone is why the district held off on closing Emerson as a possibility last spring and why it will likely not close it in the future if there are funds.

And remember they cannot simply move all of the Emerson students to Holmes, they would have to move a good portion of Holmes students to Harper, another two miles away.

So unlike having a simple situation where a few relatively close elementary schools can absorb additional students, you have a tough scenario where you are moving a large amount of students a good distance away.

These logistical problems relegate Emerson to a worst-case scenario closure rather than a likely closure if the general fund is in relatively good condition.

I pressed Superintendent Hammond on this issue during the October 15 radio show. Here's what he told me.

"The status on Emerson, to be quite honest, right now there is no decision. I mean we are status quo. There has been no formal discussion about Emerson between the staff and the board since last spring... Emerson has challenges but it doesn't mean there's an imminent closure waiting for it. There's facility concerns. It's not like the closure of an elementary school where you have eight or nine sites, you have three junior high sites spread across town, so you have logistical concerns to evaluate, facility concerns to evaluate. But by no means is there any type of hidden agenda to close the school. I think that that is one of the things even after passing the budget that we still deal with today."

Thus he completely denies that there is any kind of hidden agenda. On the other hand he cannot make promises.

"I can't make any promises as a superintendent particularly when it comes to the instability of the state budget and the inadequacy of how schools are funded."

He lays it out pretty clearly here, he believes that if we get the funding, the "likelihood" of Emerson staying open increases. And if we do not get the funding, the "likelihood" of closure increases.

"I would like to think, and what I say with my own words without representing anyone else, that with additional revenue in this case from Measure W, probably increases, and I use this word intentionally, the likelihood, the likelihood of things staying status quo, the lack of funds that we get if we're not successful with the parcel tax or we have to re-run a parcel in '09 at a lesser amount and we get a very bad January revise like we're expecting, the likelihood of being back where we were last spring increases. And as you know David, everything is back on the table and being evaluated and discussed. And that is my fear, that being in a place early in our school year where our fiscal indicates that we have to make some cuts and that's where I don't want to be."

Again, Measure W's passage will not guarantee that Emerson stays open. It will not. What Measure W does is take all of the position that Measure W funds, all of the teaching positions and it guarantees them for the next three years. Those positions by law cannot be eliminated. That frees up other money to go to keep Emerson open.

If the district does not have that money from Measure W then they have a choice, they can either terminate the positions that W would have funded or they can try to save money by closing schools. My guess is that they are going to close at least one school if they do not get Measure W or if they have to pass a smaller parcel tax in the spring.

Again, if you want to insure that Emerson closes, vote against the parcel tax. Because if the parcel tax fails and they have to come with a smaller amount in the spring, Emerson is likely gone. If you want Emerson to have a possibility to remain open, you have to vote for Measure W.

With $2.4 million, you are not going to nickel and dime your way to a balanced budget. If it were $0.24 million you might have a chance to. But with it at $2.4 million you have to cut from that 82% of the budget, and that is classroom money.

Again, the illogic of the position, they won't guarantee Emerson so I'll vote against Measure W is breathtaking. The reverse is most likely true.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Vanguard Radio Interview with James Hammond

We had a tough time slot this past Wednesday, up against the third Presidential debate. But for Davis voters, Measure W may be the most important issue on the ballot next to the Presidential Election.

On Wednesday, the Vanguard sat down with Davis Joint Unified Superintendent James Hammond and pressed him on the key issues of the day.

• Click here to listen to that interview: Hammond Interview

Addendum to Parcel Tax Post from Saturday

A number of interesting side issues came out of the article on Saturday regarding the parcel tax and particularly the district's spending.

The gist of that report is that the state budget picture with the approval of a new budget is very uncertain for schools. However, commenters have continued to question the district's spending practices and their ability to absorb two million or so in loss of revenue from the state and a lack of COLA to even keep up with inflation.

In particular, there is the suggestion that the district was able to cut $1.1 million from the budget and that therefore those things cut amounted to an admission that there was waste in the system.

Those budget cuts were obtained in a variety of ways including the closing of Valley Oak (something that I remain strongly opposed to), the non-replacement of retired teachers, the non-filling of vacant administration positions, and letting an assistant superintendent leave.

Some of these cuts have led to further questions and I will attempt to briefly address these questions. I strongly urge people who have further questions to talk to the district rather than jump to conclusions. While I would consider myself more knowledgeable than many on the issue of the district's budget simply because I have been covering this issue for frequently, I am hardly any sort of expert or authority on the matter.

One question that emerged this weekend was how Valley Oak's closure was able to save money if there are now programs that are located on the campus.

As people are aware, the closing of Valley Oak did not cause teachers to be laid off. However, there is still a large amount of operational expenses that are saved when a school closes. These include the principal and office staff, library support, teaching specialist support, custodial support, and some utility savings.

The programs that have been moved to the Valley Oak campus were relocated from Korematsu. There is no additional staff for these programs nor are any of these programs new.

The programs are only taking up about half of the campus. There are able to lease space out to other programs such as a Yolo County Office of Education program, Los Rios College, and STEAC.

An additional question came up about the crunch lunch and food improvements. These are intended to increase sales that will enhance the Student Nutrition Program.

As I mentioned in the comments yesterday, food services is a totally separate fund from the General Fund with the exceptions of the Measure Q enhancement. In other words, none of this money is coming from the general fund. The Measure Q funding as people know is required based on laws the bound parcel taxes. So none of this money is discretionary.

The district believes that in order to keep sales up that they need to serve quality food and if they don't, they will not break even and that money will come from the general fund.

Schools are required by law to offer food service as part of the National School Lunch Program. Most of the district's meals go to "free and reduced" qualified students. The district need cash paying students to help cover the cost of the program. If all cash paying students brought lunch, the district would lose money on this program and the General Fund would have to cover the loss.

The crunch lunch does not require additional staff. They were making pre-packaged salads and they were going unsold.

In addition Davis Farm to School is a non-profit partner in this program. No district funds flow through them.

Finally on the energy savings program--it began over a year ago. It was approved by the school board in the summer of 2006. Savings from this program were used in adopting the budget--it is part that $1.1 million they saved. Much of the savings however are mitigations from rate increases.

It is important to continue to ask questions about the district's budget process. It is a very complicated process and I keep learning more and more about it myself. However, there are a lot of assumptions and accusations being thrown out that that are simply untrue. We should try to education ourselves first before jumping to conclusions.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Why I Strongly Support Measure W--The Parcel Tax

I have been thinking about writing this commentary for several days now, ever since I put the work into the two articles last week on the parcel tax. As I was putting together those articles, I questioned myself. Why was I going through all this effort in support of this measure? This is not generally what the Vanguard does. The Vanguard covers the dark underbelly of Davis, exposes malfeasance in government, protects people from the excesses of governmental power, shines light on subjects not often covered enough. Why this issue?

As I was pondering this question, the answer of course was right in front of my face. The answer actually came to me last week during my interview with Jann Murray-Garcia.

Some people have used the closing of Valley Oak as an excuse to vote against the parcel tax. However, I think they have it backwards. You see, no one supported keeping Valley Oak open more than I did. I will match my 70 articles on or about Valley Oak, the late night meetings, the special coverage, against anyone's passion. Unless you sat on Davis OPEN itself, you will not win. And even then, I'll take it to a tie unless you are a certain dragon and the lovely lady who stands inside there come rain, heat, or fog.

No folks, if you believe in Valley Oak and the Valley Oaks of the world, you need to support the parcel tax. If you are worried about the achievement gap, then you need to support the parcel tax. If you do not want future parents to anguish over what school their kids will go to, then you need to support the parcel tax.

You see, unfortunately, and I am not casting aspersions at anyone, it's just the way things are right now, but when the economy goes south, when funding gets tight, the first things that go are funding to special programs and unfortunately by special programs I mean minority schools in Davis.

When I first saw the budget cuts list last winter, one of the things that drew my attention was cutting the climate coordinator position. I have been critical of the climate coordinator. But I also know how hard and how long people struggled to get that position created in the first place. The Human Relations Commission had a townhall meeting with former Superintendent David Murphy on the issue of bullying and racism, hundreds of parents came, students came forward with horror stories, it took a lot of work. Superintendent Murphy was at times intransigent. But in the end, the HRC and the community won out.

And now it was going to be gone in one fell swoop. It is not because the position is not important, it is not because the school board was against having the position, it is simply that when you have a choice because cutting elementary school science and the climate coordinator, it is not really much of a debate. And yet I know full well why that position was created in the first place and it will hurt a lot of kids if it is canceled.

I remember the meeting in 2007 when they were discussing the report from the Achievement Gap Task force and their recommendations, and how Tansey Thomas stood up and pointed out a very similar report from 1990 that was put on the shelf as soon as passions cooled and times got tough. I remember that in 2007, every single candidate running for the board brought up that as one of their goals--to help close the achievement gap. I do not know if I have heard the word uttered in 2008 and you know why? Because they are fighting to keep from firing 100 teachers.

At the end of the day, I believe in my heart of hearts that when budget times get tough, the first people to suffer are those who can least afford to suffer. Those who are the most vulnerable. It happens in all walks of life. The people who suffer the most are the most recent ones hired, those at the bottom end of the totem pole, those who are least able to create a safety net.

In Davis, I believe that the children of affluent middle class backgrounds will thrive regardless of whether or not the parcel tax passes. Are they better off with better schools with more challenging programs? Of course. However, they will prosper regardless. It is the children of those who are less fortunate who will not prosper under more difficult times with programs cut. These are the most vulnerable kids. These will be the ones to suffer the most. The children who go to the Valley Oaks of the world who had a school where they were thriving only to see it closed due to budget considerations. And yes, I am convinced that there are other schools that are very good in this district, but I do not believe you can replace that sense of empowerment and sense of community that was at work at Valley Oak Elementary School.

And though Valley Oak is now closed until further notice, there is still much to fight to protect, which is why I cannot in good conscience punish other children for mistakes made by the school board.

People have talked about fiscal mismanagement as a reason to vote against the parcel tax. I know something about fiscal mismanagement in this district as I spent a good four or five months researching what had happened in the district under Superintendent David Murphy and Budget Officer Tahir Ahad.

A few things about that I want to share. The first thing is that I did this investigation with full and complete cooperation from the school district and several of the board members. This investigation would not have been possible without their assistance. Moreover, the district went above and beyond the call of duty in assisting me. They absolutely wanted the public to know exactly what had happened under the previous administration. Two of the board members went on the record to discuss it with me.

The second thing is that the new school board, elected in 2005, cleaned up most of the problems that had occurred under the previous administration. Tahir Ahad left the district and eventually was replaced by Bruce Colby as the new chief budget officer. David Murphy left the district and eventually was replaced by James Hammond as the new superintendent. Frankly, James Hammond alone is reason to vote for this parcel tax, I cannot think of a better person to do this job than Dr. Hammond. I talked to him the day after the board decided not to support him on the charter school and all he could talk about was how sorry he was that he did not have another week to convince them to take the chance on it. He was genuine about that loss. No blame, no political posturing, just sincere compassion for those students.

The fiscal problems in this district are not the result of the actions of the current board. Not one single member of this board was around when the decision was made to put the facilities bond on the ballot. Not one single member of this board was there when the decision was made to hire Tahir Ahad or David Murphy for that matter. And not one single member of this board was there when the deadline was missed for matching funds to Montgomery.

But the majority of this board was in place when every single one of the FCMAT recommendations were carried out, when a new CBO and Superintendent were hired, when the Montgomery funding was rescued by a concerted and joint effort of the board and the interim Superintendent, when the fiscal ship of this district was righted. This board deserves the trust of the voters in handling the taxpayers money and giving the board the resources to continue to make this district one of the best in the state.

Finally folks, people are complaining about raising taxes again, one year after the previous parcel tax was passed. People are complaining that the number is $120 rather than $80 which would have been more likely to pass. I can appreciate both of those concerns.

However as far as the $120 goes, the district is asking for the amount of money that they believe they need in order to continue to fund the programs that have been listed here.

I have been critical of the city's overindulgence of certain public employee salaries and t he risk of raising more taxes to pay for their fiscal irresponsibility. Moreover, the amount of money people will pay in water rate hikes will dwarf the meager $120 annual tax increase. We are talking about up to $200 per month for water rate hikes compared with $120 per year for the parcel tax. This is on top of other fees, taxes, and possible rate hikes. There is really no comparison. Moreover, if I am going to pay out more money, I would choose to give money to help children be educated and help teachers earn a better living. Those are my priorities.

My biggest fear in all of this is that people may use the wrong reasons to not support education in Davis. It is not the children's fault that the previous administration made a series of very serious errors. It is not their fault that you may feel overburdened in your taxes, overwhelmed by a poor economy, a bad housing market, high fuel prices, etc. I understand all of that. But at the end of the day once again, we only get one shot at educating the youth in this community, they get only one shot at childhood, and for some kids, they need all the help they can get.

I hope for their sake and theirs alone you will consider supporting this tax as a modest investment into the future of these children, this community and this country.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis School Board Votes to Keep Three Junior Highs

After long discussion over the last several weeks, the Davis School Board voted by a 3-2 vote to keep three juniors and keep the secondary schools in the same current configuration with Davis High School remaining a 10-12 program and DaVinci High School remaining on the Davis High School campus.

Gina Daleiden in her dissenting vote made it clear that the vote was not necessarily on the substance of the issue, but due to the fact that the vote was not tied to corresponding budget cuts. The same is true from Tim Taylor's vote as well.

In addition, the school board voted to keep hire three Principals to fill the vacancy at three elementary schools.

Earlier in the evening Superintendent James Hammond made a radical suggestion of offering to save the district over $100,000 by performing a duel role of Principal at an Elementary School while at the same time continuing to serve as the district's superintendent.

Gina Daleiden would say that "this is one time we need to save James, from James." Arguing that the situation was not feasible from a workload standpoint. She also suggested there would be a potential conflict to have the Superintendent of the District tied to one elementary school site.

The board would vote by a 4-1 margin to take this option off the table with Tim Taylor dissenting.

Commentary

I am pleased that Emerson Junior High is remaining open. It is a vital school in West Davis and while there are upgrades needed to the campus, it is only the fifth oldest campus in the school district. The building itself has a number of desirable features that lead me to want to preserve it as a vital Junior High.

That said there are a number of aspects of this particular vote that I am uncomfortable with, even as I am pleased with the outcome.

First, the fact that it was not tied to additional cuts, means that there remains more work to be done. The district has to meet a threshold in order to meet its budgetary requirements or it risks the county taking over its operations.

Second, I think Gina Daleiden's concern is quickly dismissed with regards to the cut of teachers and programs. Something has to be sacrificed in order to keep Emerson open and that might be more teachers or more programs. I hope we can find creative ways to do this, but if we do not, we need to recognize what this means for teachers and programs in the district.

Third, and this is probably my biggest concern--Richard Harris and Susan Lovenburg were two of the strongest proponents of closing Valley Oak and denying the charter. The stated reason was fiscal cost. Now, they have been the ringleaders to keep Emerson open which presents its own problems with fiscal cost. That does not sit well with me. To use the phrase of some on the board, this has become a sacred cow to these board members.

At least Sheila Allen was consistent on this issue--she voted to keep them all open. I would agree with her on both issues. Gina Daleiden and Tim Taylor were consistent as well, opting for fiscal prudence on both issues. While I disagree with them, I can respect their decisions.

However, I really need to understand the decision that Susan Lovenburg and Richard Harris made--the differentiation that they took. Does that differentiation amount to a rationalization or is there an actual tangible and clear reason that distinguishes the closing of Valley Oak from the maintenance of Emerson.

All of that said, keeping Emerson open is the right thing to do. The other choices were not good educational choices for the students involved. They required creating an overly crowded Davis High Campus, they required moving DaVinci students away from their logical location, and there was not a compelling demographic or attendance issue to necessitate this move. In short, the move was only made for the purposes of saving money. At this time that might be reason enough, but I still think you need to bear in mind educational considerations. I am not opposed to a 9-12 high school--I attended one myself. There are strong reasons to do it which is why the majority of the state has 9-12 high schools. However, there are also reasons not to do it, it keeps 9th graders in a better situation socially.

However, removing this option from the table now forces the district to look at other areas for cuts.

Everyone applauds the efforts of the Davis Schools Foundation. I am big supporter as well. They have raised $250,000 for the district which is wonderful, but it is less than one-tenth of the way to their goal and I just do not see them at this point getting anywhere near that goal.

I do not say this to bring people down, but we also must face reality. Parcel tax relief will not come until 2009. The Davis Schools Foundation is only going to help offset some of the worst cuts. The state may provide some relief but that will also come after the budget for next year is set in stone. The long and the short of it, is that we have dodged another school closure, but we are going to have to brace for a major hit, there is no way around it.

Finally, the demographic forecast shows that we will stabilize after this year. That means that declining enrollment will not have an ongoing impact of forcing additional steep budget cuts. Those who believe the solution to this is more growth need to look at a lot more closely at faster growth and larger cities--these cities have no escaped the problems of the budget nor are their schools doing better than ours. We need solid land use and growth policies in this city, but those should not be based on school enrollment priorities. The voters in this city have made a choice to support their schools vastly with parcel tax money while choosing to grow their city closely. People who think we can have better with faster growth policies might want to also consider what would happen if those new residents vote to cut off the parcel tax. In short, be careful what you wish for and plan wisely.

In the end, we are all in this together--the amount of civic spirit I have seen from students, teachers, and parents is amazing. We need to learn from this however--the lesson is the cost of complacency. Just four months ago there was so little interest in the school elections and now schools are all that are on people's minds. We need to focus our attention on these issues when we are not facing severe cutbacks. We must remain attentive and aware so that these types of things do not sneak up on us in the future.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

BREAKING NEWS: Valley Oak Charter School Withdraws Appeal of DJUSD Denial

VOCS PLEDGES TO REFILE A PETITION WITH DJUSD FOR 2009-10

The Vanguard received a copy of a letter from Mike Egan of the Valley Oak Charter School (VOCS) Founding Group to County Superintendent of Schools Jorge Ayala.

In it the VOCS announces they are withdrawing their appeal of the DJUSD's denial of our charter petition. They also announce that they "will refine the petition, consolidate our efforts and resubmit a new petition to DJUSD in order to be able to implement the school we have contemplated in the 2009-10 school year."

Late last week, the County Office of Education in a Summary Report recommended the County Board of Education reject the charter petition, however, they also offered to have additional dialogue in order to bridge the gap between the proposal and concerns of County Staff. Given the late date however, it would have been difficult for VOCS to accommodate that request.

"We have reviewed the Yolo Countv Office of Education Summary Report Regarding Charter School Petition(s) Appeal Provided by your office. While we appreciate Associate Superintendent Legnitto's offer for additional dialogue, given the preliminary conclusions contained in the Report, the time left before the Board meeting on the 2oth and the type of charter school we desire to establish in the community of Davis, we do not believe an appeal would be the appropriate course to take at this time."

Given the concerns raised by both the county and DJUSD, the petitioners suggest that they will go a different route.

"While we disagree with many of the conclusions contained in the report, and believe our petitions are viable, it is clear that neither the DJUSD Board nor the YCOE Charter School Review Team is prepared to agree. Under the circumstances, even if we were to be authorized by the Yolo County Board of Education or by the State Board of Education, within the current environment of opposition it would be difficult to meet the expectations of our community, our parents, or our staff. Instead, we will continue to work with charter development groups in considering the ostensible reasons for denial contained in the DJUSD resolution and in the YCOE Report. We will refine the petition, consolidate our efforts and resubmit a new petition to DJUSD in order to be able to implement the school we have contemplated in the 2009-1 0 school year."

The petitioners also reiterated their goal of providing "a unique school for a unique neighborhood."

"We believe that VOCS is designed to serve an ethnically, linguistically and economically diverse community unique in Davis, that the staff that support the school have created a strong collaborative culture that should be maintained and that VOCS is a proven educational model designed from a shared vision of success for all students. We remain committed to our mission, to those objectives, and to that goal. To have a school that does anything less would be a disservice to the community, students and staff who have supported the VOCS effort."

The Vanguard remains a strong supporter of both Valley Oak and the Valley Oak Charter School. We are greatly saddened by this news as we have been following this issue for well over a year now and have come to know and appreciate many of the families, children, and teachers that make Valley Oak such a great school for all involved. During these trying times of budget crises, the Vanguard wishes to remind the school board of DJUSD that the future of these wonderful children are in your hands. Many of these students are among the most vulnerable in this entire district and Valley Oak afforded many of them a place not only to learn, but a place where they could excel. We should never let these children and these families down. Sadly this closes a chapter now in the history of this great school district, it is my hope that that chapter can be reborn in the coming years and that we can fulfill our commitment to educate all of our children--including those most vulnerable.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

County Board of Education Hears Valley Oak Charter Appeal

Yesterday the County Board of Education met up in its Woodland offices to hear the appeal of the Valley Oak Charter School.

Yesterday was arranged to allow community members, parents, and teachers to participate and comment on the school. The board graciously met at 4:45 PM in order to accommodate working people.

The first thirty minutes of the meeting was a presentation by two of the petitioners--Mike Egan who works for CTA and has helped to guide this process and Bill Storm, science teacher at Valley Oak Elementary.

It was a presentation familiar to many who have followed the Valley Oak saga, but for Superintendent Jorge Ayala and the County Board of Education, it was the first time they had a chance to hear in detail about the advantages of Valley Oak and why it needs to stay open.

One of the points that was raised that was somewhat new was a discussion of other teacher directed schools from across the county including the Minnesota New Country Day and Milwaukee Public Schools.

They spoke about how teaching technology can help to bridge the digital divide and how Valley Oak will introduce technology to students and indeed through the students, to their families as a whole. They emphasized that this was not a program about hardware. It was not a program about giving a computer to every student, but rather a program geared around integrating technology into instruction.

They spoke of the organizations that support the development of the charter school including two very key organizations--the Davis Teachers Association (DTA) and the California Teachers Association (CTA). In many ways this is a unique scenario because teacher's associations have often battled with charters in other locations.

One of the big questions is under what collective bargaining agreement teachers would fall under. This is important since the county's payscale is significantly different and lower from that of DJUSD. The petitioners pointed out case law where a county had taken over as the authorizing jurisdiction for the school district and the teachers remained under the auspices of the CBA that was negotiated with their home district rather than the county.

Finally, a point was raised about the criteria for approval and denial. There are very specific criteria that we have discussed in the past at length. Those do not include economic impact on the school district. There is a very important and indeed specific reason for that provision in the ed code and that is because--there is always a fiscal impact on a school district to have a charter school and if they allowed that criteria as a basis for denial, every charter would be denied. It was pointed out that in fact, one of the stated reasons at the meeting on January 24, 2008 was the fiscal impact on the school district. More on that a bit later.

Parents, teachers, and community members attended the meeting and spoke on behalf of the charter school citing the unique place that Valley Oak is a high achieving school for Spanish speakers and other disadvantaged children. They spoke in terms that we have heard many times, of EL students not only succeeding but excelling. Rick Gonzales, Jr. of the Yolo County Concilio talked about the fact that there were EL students who graduated from the EL program and went into the GATE program. Others talked about it having the highest EL scores and performance in the district and the fact that this is the most culturally, ethnically, and economically diverse population in the city of Davis. But unfortunately, also the most vulnerable and that vulnerability remains the reason that they need to have a school to call their own.

County Clerk and Recorder Freddie Oakley talked about a Lt. Gov. John Garamendi Speech from earlier:

"At a time when our state faces more challenges than ever in an increasingly world, an increasingly complex global economy, and an environment threatened by global climate change, California cannot afford to cutback on these investments which have made our state strong and which propel our economy into the future."

She went on to discuss the impact of Valley Oak and the need to take something out of this crisis:

"He was talking about K through 12 education. What a wonderful opportunity has arisen out of this crisis in the Davis schools that was propelling the closure of this extraordinarily valuable community resources. But a tremendous opportunity to do something that will be of real benefit to Yolo County as we go forward into the future. We need learners who are capable and familiar with technology issues. We know that is what children learn and take home to their parents."

Amanda Lopez-Lara, the student representative on the Davis school board came down on her own time to speak to this issue. She said that her family has gone through Valley Oak, although she did not go to school there herself.

"Being on the board, I understand the budget cuts that are going through... I sat through all of the budget meetings and I understand what the achievement gap is. And there is so much talk of closing an achievement gap. Finally I see a where we can focus on the Latino Students, on minority students, and to me it was sad that it was rejected by my own school board. Because here is a chance where I think the achievement gap can truly be closed. Where they can focus on the EL students and those who did not learn English as a first language...

I also understand that for my board it was a sense of monetary worth, because of the budget. I think that sometimes you have to overlook the monetary worth and look at the student value."

County Supervisor Mariko Yamada also spoke in favor of Valley Oak Charter School. She spoke as the parent of two children who went to Valley Oak elementary school.

"We chose to transfer to Valley Oak because of the enriched atmosphere and environment that is truly unique to Valley Oak. It is the oldest, most culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse campus in Davis. I spoke against the closure of the Valley Oak School. I spoke in favor of the charter.

"The Davis school board and others certainly diligently participated in the Best Use of Schools Task Force [argued] that you can take a school and its programs and transfer them elsewhere and they can replicated. That's kind of an intellectual exercise of reviewing school programs.

"I'm here to say that Valley Oak is much more than the sum of its parts. You cannot take the programs and just transfer them to other campuses and achieve the same synergy, the same dynamic, the same sense of commitment that the entire school community has to the school. I think it would be a tragedy to deny the charter."

Throughout the meeting--the presentations, the public comments, the County Board of Education was engaged, respectful and appreciative of the commitment and work of the petitioners and the supports of the Valley Oak Charter Program.

Trustee Davis Campbell who represents a portion of the city of Davis on the Board thanked those in attendance.

"As one board member and particularly from Davis, I want to express my appreciation for all the energy that's gone into this. I know it is a very emotional and important issue for everyone in the room. I can assure you that we're taking that very very seriously."

Board Trustee Stu Greenfield concurred.

Board Trustee Joseph Thomson, who also represents Davis, read some concerns into the record. He wanted direction from legal council about the process followed by DJUSD with regards to the good faith negotiation that went into created the charter amendment which was subsequently denied.

"At the January 24th board meeting the DJUSD board rejected an amended petition. However that decision was apparently based in part on considerations explicitly excluded in the education code. At their February 8th meeting, the DJUSD board chose not to vote on the amended petition, but only voted down the original November petition.

It might be argued that by entering into negotiations, the DJUSD board necessarily obligated itself to treat the amended petition as the operative document, if so, that seems to raise two questions that YCBE counsel needs to answer before we proceed.

One, has DJUSD met its statutory obligations to vote the petition up or down based on acceptable criteria and two if DJUSD has not met its obligation does the YCBE have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the decision that was never completed."

The implications of that statement could range far and wide. It may force the DJUSD board to take additional action. It may also place the DJUSD board out of compliance, which could itself be grounds for appeal and overturn. That question was directed to be YCBE counsel but also DJUSD counsel, Scott Yarnell who was at the meeting.

How this process proceeds is unclear at this point. The outcome is not clear. However, it seems everyone left that meeting believing that the charter would get a fair and professional hearing. In these times of budget crises and budget cuts, it seems that the Valley Oak Charter school is more and not less important than ever. The students who will be harmed most by declining enrollment and state budget crises are likely to be these kids--kids who are at-risk and disadvantaged to begin with. Valley Oak has been an example of a school that defies the odds and provides children with a strong and solid foundation for their education.

If we lose this tool, it will put these kids education and thus their very quality of life in peril. Right now their hope rests on a body that has not had a vested interest in closing the school for months. It gets a fresh hearing by fresh eyes. And maybe, just maybe, that is what this charter school and this community needs.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

NEWS AND COMMENTARY: Valley Oak Charter School Appeal on the Agenda For Tonight And Continuing Budget Crisis At DJUSD

Valley Oak Charter School Hearing

Tonight the Yolo County Office of Education has scheduled a public hearing to receive comment regarding the Valley Oak Charter School petition appeals. The public hearing will be held at the Yolo County Office of Education Conference Center, 1280 Santa Anita Court, Suite 120, Woodland, CA. The hearing will begin at 4:45 p.m.

The purpose of the meeting will be to receive comment from parents, teachers, members of the community, and bargaining unit leaders regarding two Valley Oak Charter School petition appeals.

Our sources suggest that it is unlikely that the Yolo County Board of Education will vote to approve the charter, but this is a necessary step that must be taken. If the County Board of Education rejects the charter it could be appealed to the State Department of Education where it will receive its possible chance for approval.

School Budget Cuts

One of the things we talked about on the radio last night is that the school district just built two new elementary schools and a junior high. So now enrollment declines and the budget is in disarray, what does the school district do? They have already closed down Valley Oak Elementary School and now are talking about closing down Emerson Junior High just a few years after opening Harper Junior High.

Meantime, it appears that each school board member has a particular program that they do not want to cut and for each one it is different. As a non-school board member there are a whole host of things I don't want to cut.

Richard Harris ran on being the budget cutting guru, but somehow, I'm guessing he never thought he would be in the position to have to cut the number of librarians. For Gina Daleiden it is foreign language. For Sheila Allen it is elementary school music. For Susan Lovenburg, she is still willing to keep everything on the table. I cannot really disagree with anyone here. Cutting is a horrible thing to have to do, but then again, you have to cut something you do not want when you have such a huge deficit.

The part that has to give everyone chills comes right out of Jeff Hudson's Davis Enterprise article:

"But despite the lengthy discussion, the board got only a little bit closer to identifying the $4 million in budget reductions needed to keep the Davis school district's financial reserves from diminishing to the point that the Yolo County Office of Education would be forced to step in and take control of the Davis district's financial affairs. That grim fact could become reality as soon as mid-March.

Two top administrators from the county office - Yolo County Superintendent Jorge Ayala and Associate Superintendent Linda Legnitto - stayed up with the Davis trustees until 11:30 p.m., their physical presence reminding trustees of the gravity of the district's perilous financial situation. "

Actually I have to say it is refreshing that Mr. Hudson would print this because it is in fact an unsaid truth that hangs over everyone. The word I have had for quite some time is that the County Office of Education is watching DJUSD very closely.

While I think the previous board did a decent job cleaning up a financial mess left behind by the previous regime, one aspect still looms, nearly half of the cuts are due to the fact that one-time monies were used for a period of time to fund on-going projects. When those monies began to shrink and vanish, the school district depleted the financial reserves that are not mandatory.

In other words, there are 3 percent reserves that cannot be touched without serious consequence, and then there is a district imposed level, those got eaten away. Had they still been intact, the district could kind of soft land this thing for a year or two until things stabilized. Not so now. And while I still think the district should have kept Valley Oak open for a variety of reasons, you can see why the County probably will not.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Fight For Valley Oak Goes to the County... And Beyond

As if Valley Oak did not have enough obstacles already, looking at the budget situation for the Davis Joint Unified School District gives one the clear impression that the school district could not afford to lose another couple of hundred students to a Valley Oak Charter School under the auspices of the county. How they choose to deal with that reality at this time remains somewhat unclear.

However, on March 6, 2008, a Thursday in the evening there will be a public hearing at the County Board of Education in Woodland where Valley Oak's Charter petition appeal will be heard.

There are more hurdles. If the County chooses to accept the charter petition, the teacher salary schedule is considerably lower than at DJUSD. Their health benefits program is more limited. How this impacts the charter and its ability to attract teachers is unclear at this time.

According to the County Board of Education's website, the board decision must be made no later than April 4, 2008.

The public has a number of different means by which to comment. One of course would be to show up at the meeting on March 6, 2008.

However, the public may also leave a voicemail message of up to five minutes in length at: (530) 668-3751.

They may also email the county at: vocscomments@ycoe.org

Valley Oak supporters are urging the public to send an email or a voice message to one of those two sources.

Valley Oak Teacher and one of the key organizers Bill Storm told the Vanguard:

"We need people to check our website and offer their support as is suggested there. I’m sure the district will have plenty to say against us, as will those people in Davis who want us dead and the neighborhood left unserved. Community voices will be important here."

Sarah Fonte, a teacher at Cesar Chavez, in a letter to the Davis Enterprise stressed that the Charter School is a free public school that is nevertheless unique.

"As a strong proponent of equitable public education for all students, I am glad to know that the proposed charter school is, in fact, a free public school. Like all schools in Davis, state academic standards will be taught and student academic performance will be measured through the same testing structures currently used in California's other public schools.

What makes this school unique, however, is that a board of teachers, community members and parents will work together to determine how these standards should be presented to best suit the needs of all of the school's students."

She adds that while the Charter School primarily intends to serve the neighborhood students and families, she believes "students who live in other areas in and around Davis will be able to take advantage of the school's programs as well."

"This charter school effort is not a privatization scheme, and in no way is it an effort to undermine other great programs present in the Davis school district. Instead, the goal of this school is to support the low-income and culturally diverse students, among others, who are effectively being denied equal educational opportunity because of the Board of Education's decision to close their highly successful neighborhood school."

Finally a letter from Henry Anker, a student at Holmes Junior High wrote an eloquent letter to the editor that was published on Valentine's Day.

"I am a student at Holmes Junior High, and Valley Oak Elementary School is part of my community. The issue of whether Valley Oak should become a charter school is not financial. It is social. The charter was turned down, but it is not clear why. It would be funded by the state of California and not Yolo County or Davis.

I went to a meeting at Valley Oak on Feb. 2. One person at the meeting who is a Valley Oak teacher and who lives in the neighborhood said, 'Valley Oak is more than a school.' What she meant by that was Valley Oak is a unique school that cannot be replicated anywhere else. It is unique because of where it is located, who it serves and how it educates.

When I was at the meeting, I could see why Valley Oak is unique. There were children, adults and old people; Spanish and English speakers. One teacher said there were 23 languages spoken at Valley Oak. There were always at least two people on stage explaining things - one in Spanish and the other in English.

They explained that if the school becomes a charter, it would be a cooperative. A cooperative empowers people to learn by participating. I learned a lot at that meeting - it was an example of the cooperative spirit that makes Valley Oak unique.

One person in the audience, Mariko Yamada, said her children went to Valley Oak once. She told everyone what a great school Valley Oak is, and she said, 'Most of the battles you will fight in your life you will lose, but if you don't fight - then we lose them all.'"

The message is clear. Members of the Valley Oak community want the public to know that this fight is not over. That the community is not giving up. That they will continue to fight and take this to the county. That if they should not prevail at the county-level they are going to the state.

There has been too much energy spent on keeping the hope of Valley Oak alive to give up now. Valley Oak represents a strong education for the children of a community that is often under-served. It means a strongly knit and closely bonded community. And the bottom line is that Valley Oak has succeeded despite all of the obstacles in the past. In this time of budget cuts and cutting of programs it is more important than ever to insure that our most vulnerable students have the best possible education.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Confusion and Misunderstanding at Root of Thursday's School Board Meeting Complaints

Many proponents of the Valley Oak Charter school were stunned last Thursday, when a group of Spanish-speaking families spoke before public comment at the Davis school board meeting and leveled criticism at the proponents of the proposed charter school perceiving that they had misrepresented and twisted their intentions.

Maria Cabrera, who works at Valley Oak, spoke on behalf of many of the Spanish-speaking families and accused charter proponents of twisting their words for political reasons.

The Vanguard has looked into the allegations by Maria Cabrera and now has an understanding where these complaints come from. However, there is little evidence that the Valley Oak charter proponents made any attempt whatsoever to intentionally deceive Spanish-speaking families. It is our belief that there was miscommunication along the way that fed into this problem, but also at the core an overreaction.

At the core of the complaint was a letter that was sent to the district a few weeks ago. It was a letter that complained that they felt left out of the Valley Oak closure process from the beginning starting with the "Best Use of Schools Task Force." This letter was picked up by newly elected school board member Richard Harris, who criticized it, suggesting at the time that no one had respected the community more than new Superintendent James Hammond. But Harris missed the point of the letter.

However, so did apparently Charter Proponents, who it seems felt that the letter was a pro-charter letter. However, it seems it was more basic than that. Asking for the chance to speak directly for themselves, they want choice of placement for their families and they want to be respected.

They became angry when the letter was tied to the charter issue since it was not. Maria Cabrera suggested that they were being used as political pawns by the Charter Proponents and that just because they spoke Spanish, did not mean they were stupid.

To me, I can understand some frustration here on the part of the families, but the level of response seems more than a bit disproportionate to the offense.

Adding to this incident was the leaflet sent out by the charter proponents to invite members of the community to a meeting a week ago Saturday in support of the charter but also to give out information in English and Spanish about the Charter.

Apparently Maria Cabrera and some of the families felt the leaflet was misleading. The translation from English to Spanish was admittedly not perfect. There is no perfect translation of "Charter" that conveys the actual meaning in English into "Spanish." So if the English version said "support the charter" and the Spanish translation said "Support the community school" there might have been some confusion.

However, reading the full leaflet in Spanish, it mentions "Charter" repeatedly even if it does not in the "headline." From our perspective anyone who read the Spanish version would see the word "charter" in italics used over and over again. If there was confusion it would seem reasonable to approach the proponents and explain the problem instead of criticizing and blasting them in front of the school board. It is clear from reading the two versions, which readers can see by clicking the link below that there is no clear intent to deceive.

To see the leaflet, click here (my apologies I was only given a blue version)

In my conversations with both charter proponents and district staff alike including board member Sheila Allen and Pam Mari, that is really at the core of my concern--why simple misunderstandings were blown into some sort of large and angry conflict such as the one that arose on Thursday. This remains a point of concern for me.

The suggestion was that there was some kind of history here between the two sides, I do not know what that is exactly.

Finally I am concerned by reports from some of the organizers for the charter school that families were under the impression that a charter school was not a public school and would require tuition. And this was not an isolated belief. Someone had to be spreading that rumor around, I do not know who did though.

The bottom line here is that emotions and tensions were very high on Thursday and I'm not exactly sure even now why that was the case. I see no evidence that the charter proponents were intentionally attempting to mislead Spanish-speaking families, in fact all I have seen is evidence of respect for these families with Spanish-translations and a bilingual presentation on Saturday night. All of this appears to be a misunderstanding blown out of proportions.

In speaking with several of the families on Thursday in Spanish, my wife Cecilia and I, were told that they want to send their children to Valley Oak and to the Charter School. In fact, many of the families who spoke out on Thursday were actually wearing Valley Oak Charter buttons. For their perspective they want to be heard, they want to be respected, and they want to choose where they send their children to school. Who can argue with that.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Valley Oak Supporters March For Charter School

A group of roughly 40 students, community members, and Valley Oak students marched from Valley Oak elementary school to City Hall yesterday evening to push support for a charter school.

Last month, the Davis Joint Unified School Board voted by a 4-1 margin to reject the resolution to amend the charter and last night they were expected to take up the original charter and reject that as well.

Following the march, an interesting situation developed as a group of Valley Oak Hispanic families came to the board meeting and spoke. Their spokesperson claimed that they were misled by the charter petition's Spanish translation. They claimed that it suggested that the petition was to keep Valley Oak itself a community school rather than a charter school. The petitioners were accused of using the Hispanic Community as political pawns.

However, in speaking to a number of the parents after their comments during the public comment session in Spanish, it seems that many want to send their children to the Valley Oak Charter school.

The Vanguard intends to follow up on this development today.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Valley Oak March Tonight

Contact County Board of Education in Support of the Valley Oak Charter School

February 21, 2008 marks the first potential date that an appeal to the County Board of Education would occur. The Valley Oak Charter School proponents are asking the public write in to the board in order request that they approve a Valley Oak Charter School.

Click here for sample letter

Send the letter to County Superintendent of Schools Jorge Ayala and all five of the board members. Residents of Yolo County only vote for one of the board members. They vote by district. The district numbers correspond with the County Supervisor districts. Thus Davis residents would either be represented by Davis Campbell (District 2) or Joseph Thomson (District 4). However, since all members will vote, it is recommended that all five members of the board be emailed the letter.

Valley Oak March Thursday at 5:30 PM

Join us as we walk from

Valley Oak Elementary School to the District Offices at B Street

5:30pm~ Line up at Valley Oak

6:00pm~ Walk to the Board Meeting

7:00pm~ School Board Meeting Begins

Bring flash lights and jackets.

Also it might be a good idea to leave a car (van) near the District Offices and one at Valley Oak.

Please help and carpool on the way back.

Make signs and wear Valley Oak shirts.

No matter how you feel about this issue, come and support the children of Davis!!

Children and Adults:

Remember to respect others and their views!

Valley Oak Charter is still very much alive!!!

Why Join the Walk

· Valley Oak Charter was denied by the Davis School Board Jan. 24th, 2008 with a 4-1vote, stressing budget. This went against the recommendation of their newly hired Superintendent.

· The law states five reasons for denying a charter and the district’s budget is not one of them. One Board member stressed that the law should be changed, revealing a lack of understanding for why the law was written.

· While planning our appeal and talking to the County School Board, we were informed that our Charter has not yet been denied and the attorney for the district also plays a roll with the County School Board and he will need to be replaced during the charter appeal, due to conflict of interest.

· The Charter is on the Davis School Board Agenda for Thursday, February 7th, 2008, to be denied due to its educational plan. News to us! It turns out that only the resolution of the charter application that the Superintendent and the Charter worked on was denied.

· We plan to submit our appeal to the County School Board Friday, February 8th, 2008.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Valley Oak Charter Petition To Be Appealed To the County

Last night at the Valley Oak multipurpose room, around 60 parents, teachers, and community members gathered braving the cold driving rains on a Saturday Night to show their support for the ongoing Valley Oak Charter effort and to find out the next steps.

The community was walked through the process at this point including the next steps of the Charter School appeal, efforts to lobby members of the County Board of Education, and how to handle intent to return forms.

The importance of getting out information to the parents was underscored by reports that there were efforts underway at disinformation on the part of some district staff to confuse parents and to make them believe that this process was over.

Parents and community members also expressed support for Valley Oak Elementary school and the efforts to keep Valley Oak open as a Charter School.

Supervisor Mariko Yamada whose two daughters attended Valley Oak, recounted efforts to paint and decorate the school in the early to mid 1990s as many were allowing the school to deteriorate.

Catching up with the Supervisor after the meeting, she expressed her continued support for the Charter as she has at school board meetings.

"I'm in full support of the Valley Oak Charter, as you know I was opposed to Valley Oak closing. But we've moved on from that. I think that the group is working very hard to present its appeal before the Yolo County Board of Education. And I will certainly be in full support of that whatever our office can do to support that we will continue to work on that."

The Vanguard also spoke with Ellen Cohen whose two children attended Valley Oak in the GATE program.

"I have two children, both of whom went here to Valley Oak. They were both in the GATE program. What we found here was just a very rich educational experience. My kids had been at their previous elementary schools, but never until they came here experienced the sense of community that I think is unique to Valley Oak. I think Valley Oak offers a kind of diversity that does not exist anywhere in any other Davis school. My great upset is that this was the most vulnerable school among all schools and the most critical to keep open. So I think that it's great that we have a new opportunity to move forward."

Bill Storm, science teacher at Valley Oak and one of the organizers put it most eloquently, arguing that the district has maintained that the programs can be replicated elsewhere and that students will receive the same level of education elsewhere in the district.

"The board of education continued to put forward the idea that the charter school at this sight with this program is not unique. That this school doesn't do anything different from any other site. That the children will be served equally by being distributed as they would at Valley Oak. That's patently untrue. That's never been the case. It's never been true. And there's no reason to think that it would be true because the district staff has tried to replicate this program for English speakers for poor kids and it's never been done. The numbers speak for themselves, the STAR testing data. It makes it patently obvious what's going on. The anecdotal, the numerical, all the data has been ignored to the end of closing this school. It has not been closed for programmatic reasons."

Teacher Steve Kelleher told the Vanguard that the process is going forward.

"It's moving forward, it's a good document, there's no reason to believe it won't fly through the county as well."

The timeline is very tight at this point if they hope to get the school open for 2008-09.

"We need to get [the appeal] in next week in order to get it on the agenda for the [county] board meeting, which I believe is on the 21st. There's a window of time that you need to submit documents."

In advance of the meeting, Mr. Kelleher will be meeting with the CBO from the County.

"I'm going to have a conversation with the Yolo County Office of Education. Specifically I need to set up some time with the CBO, Chief Budget Officer, and apprise her of what's happening and the changes that we've made to the document. There seems to be some confusion as to whether the charter's going to be rejected or not. The district did miss the deadline that they agreed to and in my mind that means that they've rejected the charter. So we'll move forward and present the appeal to the county next week."

Meanwhile the school board will meet this week to formally reject the Charter Proposal.

"From what I understand they are just going to rubber stamp their decision to reject it... They rejected the updated version on Thursday the 24th, and on Thursday the 7th they expect to reject the original document."

Valley Oak parents and supporters plan to march once again from Valley Oak to the school board.

Julie Cuetera better known as Dweezil, the Valley Oak Dragon told the Vanguard:

"From Valley Oak to the School Board. We will probably leave at 5:30, I'll confirm the time. And Dweezil will lead the march and dance during the march. And everyone can carry signs like they did to save the school, this time they can say, 'we want the charter.'"

The first time, 100 people showed up. This time, she is hoping for 200 people.

"Well I did it in three days last time, this time I have six days so let's try for 200."

All community members are encouraged to show up and support Valley Oak.

Stay tuned to the Vanguard this week for other key information and announcements.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

The Fight For Valley Oak Marches On

A week ago at this time it seemed that the fight for the Valley Oak Charter School was finally over. Superintendent James Hammond had announced an agreement with the Charter School Petitioners that would allow him to recommend to the board a resolution that would support the charter school with strict time lines.

However last Thursday, the board rejected this resolution by a 4-1 vote placing the future of Valley Oak in severe doubt.

That leaves the petitioners with a choice as to whether to continue the fight. The next step if they choose to continue would be to appeal it to the County Board of Education. If the county were to accept the charter, they would become the authorizing agency and the charter would form under their auspices. If the county rejects the charter, it goes to the state. The state does not have the infrastructure to become an authorizing agency and they would assign the charter to a local district, possibly DJUSD to administer.

But first things first. In order to both appeal and get a school open for the 2008-2009, the only opening that makes any sort of sense, the charter petitioners have a very tight time line.

According to a release, they need to engage the community members and especially the parents to decide if there is sufficient interest to keep Valley Oak open.

Everyone who supports Valley Oak--parents, neighbors, community members should come to the meeting this Saturday.

Saturday, February 2, 2008

6:30 PM

Valley Oak Elementary School
Multipurpose Room
1400 East Eighth St.

Food will be served.

Spanish translation will be provided, and people in need of translation in another language, or in need of transportation to the meeting, may call Sarah at (530) 758-3728.

Response to the LETTER TO EDITOR from Janice Bridge

For those of you who get the Enterprise or read it online, Janice Bridge wrote a letter to the editor on Tuesday. It praises the school board for their 4-1 vote to deny the resolution that would have established the Valley Oak Charter School.

According to the Former School Board member,

"This was the right decision, for the right reasons, in a very difficult school climate."

The Davis Enterprise fails to disclose the fact that Janice Bridge was Vice Chair of the Best Uses of Schools Task Force that made the decision to close the school in the first place, so it is not entirely surprising that Ms. Bridge would support the board's decision.

There are a number of inaccuracies in the letter that ought to be addressed.

"Although no one questioned the good will and hard work of those who had brought forth the petition for the Valley Oak charter"

Actually, Board Member Susan Lovenburg, who Janice Bridge campaigned for, did exactly that when she asked the petitioners if they had put in the blood and sweat to draft the petition as Superintendent James Hammond had.

"The deficiencies of the charter became increasingly noticeable as the meeting progressed."

The main problem that the board cited with the charter was the $300,000 it would cost the district to implement at the minimum student attendance level. Without this problem, it is not clear that the board would have denied the charter school. The fact that the district now faces a $4 million deficit was a huge part of the reason to deny.

"Trustee Susan Lovenburg's questions of Scot Yarnell, lawyer for DJUSD, brought to light the legal basis on which the charter could be denied."

This was actually a pretty murky area of the meeting. Susan Lovenburg insisted the fiscal concerns had to be a reason to deny the petition and that she would write her legislator to change the law. Tim Taylor also suggested that it would be irresponsible not to look at the fiscal impact of the school district. The lawyer was vague on this point, but charter law seems clear that fiscal impact CANNOT be a reason to deny the petition. So it is not clear where Ms. Bridge is getting this argument from.

"Many in the chambers urged the board to approve the resolution even though they assumed 'the chartering group may fail to meet any one of the rigid elements of the timeline.' To take that route would have been cowardice, not leadership."

I did not see this coming from members of the public. I think everyone acknowledged that the timeline was a challenging proposition to complete. There is no denying that. But the Superintendent believed that they should get a chance to meet that challenge as did most of the members of the public. I disagree that that allowing them to go forward would not be leadership. The Superintendent believed in the value and the mission of the charter and thought that they deserved the chance to make it work. I do not see anything cowardly about that position. What I do see is a member of the committee that chose to close the school fighting to preserve that decision and not be proven wrong.

"During the next 10 weeks, the Davis school board will need to cut approximately $4 million worth of programs from an already tight budget. The courageous actions of the board last week give me confidence in the leadership of the school board."

And many have an opposite reaction to the decision by the board. From my perspective everyone in the district will be harmed by the impact of cutting $4 million from the budget. I am hopeful that it will not come to that, but clearly we must plan for it.

The question is who should bear the brunt of the impact. An argument can be made that it probably should not be disadvantaged kids who already face overwhelming obstacles in their path of success. The district had the option to spread the impact across the entire student population, which they will have to do anyway and to which this expense really amounts to a drop in the bucket or to make the most vulnerable students feel a sharp impact. It's obvious where people such as Janice Bridge come down on this question.

"The community of Davis needs to support those we have elected to lead. "

In a litany of ridiculous arguments and claims, this is the most absurd. Just because we as a collective have elected these individuals does not bind us to support them when they do things we believe are wrong. We are not going to blindly follow them into the abyss and when they are wrong, we have the obligation to tell them so.

I am disappointed but not surprised by the tenure and misleading nature of the letter from Janice Bridge, I can only hope the community sees through this kind of rhetoric and looks at the tough road that these children have to walk down in order to rescue their school.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting