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

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

School Board Votes 4-1 To Rebuff Superintendent's Recommendation on Charter School

In yesterday's article, the Vanguard reported:

"Contrary to our bleak assessment yesterday on Valley Oak, it appears according to published reports that late discussions between Superintendent James Hammond and supports for the Valley Oak Charter have produced an agreement that have enabled the Superintendent to recommend approval of the plan."

As it turns out, the original bleak assessment turned out to be much more accurate. That would become clear one hour into new school board member Susan Lovenburg's lengthy question and answer session that seemed at times more like a filibuster or a cross-examination than an effort to absorb information.

Superintendent James Hammond repeatedly urged the school board to take a chance at doing the right thing by allowing the process to go forward.

However, the charter was likely doomed the moment Associate Superintendent Bruce Colby laid out the facts. With 167 students, the bare minimum, the school district would be projected to lose an additional $300,000 on this arrangement. Even with the projected 305 students, the district would lose $200,000.

All night the elephant in the room was the budget and "fiduciary" responsibility. Despite the fact that according to state law, the fiscal impact on the district cannot be criteria for denial of the charter. Board members ranging from Tim Taylor to Susan Lovenburg and Richard Harris said that unfortunately this could not be ignored.

Mr. Taylor somewhat diplomatically suggested that there was a conflict between the state law that governs charter schools and the laws that charge the school board with fiduciary responsibility.

Ms. Lovenburg much less diplomatically suggested that she would write her state legislator and try to get the law changed. However, the law is there for a key reason and that is to give charter schools a fighting chance to get passed. Without such laws, the school board could always have a ready reason to strike down approval.

Throughout the proceedings, the Vanguard and much of the audience was taken aback by the demeaner and approach of newly elected school board member Susan Lovenburg. She began with a long cross-examination of Charter Petition drafter Mike Egan and continued throughout the meeting with a lengthy series of questions. At one point, she asked six questions after she said she had one more question.

She increasingly became combative from the dais, clashing with DTA Representative Steve Kelleher at one point and then seemed to accuse the teachers and drafters of failing to be sufficiently rigorous in their work. This prompted Tim Paulson of the DTA to angrily rise and point out the huge amount of work that went into drafting the original document of the charter.

Ms. Lovenburg claimed to have come to the meeting undecided, but her line of questioning belied that claim. Moreover, her approach and demeaner were at times condescending and insulting to those who had poured sweat and toil into this process.

While one can disagree with Richard Harris in his choice, he was at least honest from the beginning, stating that this was not a close call for him and explaining why he would be voting against this resolution. At one point he took umbrage with a letter from parents presented at a previous meeting that accused the district of lack of sympathy and respect for EL Students. He rightly pointed out that while that may have been true in the past, and over the previous 5 to 10 years he had no doubt there was a lack of respect. However, Superintendent James Hammond had shown nothing but respect to the people of this district, going well above and beyond the call of duty.

Board member Gina Daleiden was genuinely torn on this issue between her responsibility to the students of Valley Oak and those of the rest of the district. As she did last year however, she voted in the end against the charter.

Board member Tim Taylor tried to find another way by suggesting that they wait another year to make sure the charter could succeed rather than rushing to implement it. However, it was clear that the petitioners were not in support of this approach. They feared closing down the school and trying to recreate what was there would prove impossible. Some suggested this was a ploy, but in my view, Taylor's approach was sincere.

The highlight of the evening was student representative Amanda Lopez-Lara's valient and eloquent advocacy for Valley Oak. Staying well into the night, she delivered a passionate statement talking about her family and what Valley Oak meant to them and then a plea for the school district to provide the means for Latinos and disadvantaged students with not only a place to learn but a place to call home. Her statement was clearly the highlight of the evening along with Sheila Allen's almost tearful support of the charter, the sole board member to support it.

In the end, the recommendation and work of James Hammond was valiant but futile. Factors that were not supposed to weigh on the minds of the board members weighed on their minds.

The process however will go forward. The petitioners plan to appeal the process to the county. If the county accepts the appeal, they become the authorizing body. Not mentioned at this meeting was the cost to the district should that occur which according to some estimates may run upwards of $1 million rather than $300,000 as current estimates suggest. If the county were to deny the charter, the state board could authorize it and then assign a body to govern it. This would also be potentially costly.

A further point that was raised is that the appeal would be the original charter that the board deemed to be inadequate rather than the newly negotiated charter, that was referred to as the Hammond Charter throughout the evening. The stakes here could be very high for the district and while it seems unlikely the county would reverse the decision, the state has a long history of doing exactly that.

After the meeting, the Vanguard caught up with Bill Storm, science teacher at Valley Oak:

"The elephant in the room might have been the $300,000 [a charter would cost the district], but the brontosaurus was race and class."

Mike Egan very graciously emailed the Vanguard a statement at 1:55 AM early this morning.

"The Founding Group of the Valley Oak Charter School is deeply disappointed at the DJUSD Board's action to reject a compromise charter petition. This compromise was the product of much good faith work between the Founding Group and the Superintendent and his staff. We believe the Board has missed an important opportunity to address the needs of an all too often neglected segment of the Davis community. We appreciate the support from members of the community who spoke in favor of the charter proposal. We particularly appreciate the insights offered by the student representative to the Board in speaking in favor of the charter. We will be meeting to consider our future course of action, including an appeal to the Yolo County Office of Education. "

As Steve Kelleher pointed out to a group outside following the verdict, this has been an uphill battle from the start but it is not over.

For my part, I did not expect to be writing this after the news came forth that the Superintendent was recommending passage. I am disappointed with the board for their decision and their lack of faith in the work of the Superintendent. I am disappointed that once again, the burden falls on those students who are most disadvantaged and least able. And finally I am disappointed that this fight that appeared over will have to continue for the parents, teachers, and students for a number of additional months.

The agreement that was reached was tough. It had concrete deadlines. These deadlines were built in to assure success. In some ways the school district ignored completely charter school law. The degree to which financial considerations weighed on the minds of school board members was discussed openly and will be admissible as a reason for appeal. This could actually put the school district at even greater risk. The degree to which the attendance issue weighed on the minds of the school board also has implications. The charter school law provides that they only need to get the signatures of half of the students. They actually got signatures for two-thirds of the students and yet that was never enough.

Yes the district is facing a severe budget crunch. Tim Taylor spoke of the need possibly to cut another school. However, the school district does not have the option to ignore state law on charter schools. By denying this charter there is the potential there that the district will face a loss of money three times what they currently project. If that occurs, how many programs are they going to have to cut?

This is a disappointing outcome for sure. But the fight is not over. Last night after the verdict there was no defeat, only resolve.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Superintendent to Recommend Support for Valley Oak Charter

Contrary to our bleak assessment yesterday on Valley Oak, it appears according to published reports that late discussions between Superintendent James Hammond and supports for the Valley Oak Charter have produced an agreement that have enabled the Superintendent to recommend approval of the plan.

This agreement includes specific benchmarks with specific deadlines that the new charter school would need to meet in the next year.

A resolution has been drafted that would "conditionally" grant the charter for the Valley Oak Charter School.

"RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE DAVIS JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO CONDITIONALLY GRANT A CHARTER FOR THE VALLEY OAK CHARTER SCHOOL"

Contrary to the resolution in November, this current resolution finds the petition in compliance with Ed Code requirements for the approval of a charter proposal on key grounds.

• "the Board of Trustees hereby finds the signatures of teachers submitted in support of the petition substantially comply with the requirements of Education Code section 47605(a)(1)(B)"
  
  
• "that the Board of Trustees hereby finds that the revised proposed Charter, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, satisfactorily responds to and substantially complies with all requirements of law as prescribed... by the Charter Schools Act"

However, the resolution adds a number of conditions.

The first three are routine and include the beginning operations for the 2008-2009 year and the location at 1400 East 8th, the present location of Valley Oak.

Then it lists off 15 conditional requirements.

Here are some of the key ones:

• Participation in training from the Charter School Development Center by January 29, 2008
  
  
• Amended collective bargaining agreement with DTA by January 31, 2008
  
  
• By February 15, 2008 demonstrate 167 students intend to enroll for the first year of operation
  
  
• By February 29, 2008 provide evidence of application for start-up funding
  
  
• "No later than July 18, 2008, Valley Oak Charter School shall provide verification of receipt of startup funding in the form of a Charter School Startup Grant, Charter School Revolving Loan, or other identified source of revenue sufficient to ensure the fiscal viability of the Charter School during the first three years of operation."
  
  
• "Valley Oak Charter School shall operate under the fiscal control, personnel management, and administrative oversight of Davis Joint Unified School District. Valley Oak Charter School shall be indirectly funded and Davis Joint Unified School District shall act as the fiscal agent of the Charter School for all purposes, as determined by the Superintendent or his designee."
  
  
• "The District shall retain the special education funds received through the SELPA for Districtwide enrollment (including Charter School enrollment). The District shall provide special education instruction and related services to the students of the Valley Oak Charter School in the same manner as would be provided to the students of any other school of the District."

What seems to be the key sticking point is that within three weeks, the Charter School needs to have basically enrolled at least 167 students for next year. Now that seems a likely possibility but it will require another round of concerted effort. They received over 200 signatures. The law requires that they obtain signatures for half of the projected students in order to legally be in compliance. However, the district was nervous that 200 signatures would not translate in 300 students. The petitioners suggested that usually the attendance is higher than the level of signatures, but it is clear this must have been one of the key sticking points.

At the end of the day, the Superintendent must be applauded for his willingness to broker a deal here. And behind the scenes it seemed clear that members of the school board were also hoping for this kind of resolution. The district will face a tough fiscal climate in the next year, but at least this charter proposal will produce a level of clarity and certainty in terms of the number of facilities that will operate within the district.

Most of all, if the board does approve the Valley Oak Charter, this will be a tremendous victory for the parents and teachers who worked long and hard to make this happen and to those who never gave up hope even after the school board voted by a 3-2 vote to close down Valley Oak Elementary School.

Tonight remains a crucial meeting not only for Valley Oak parents but for all parents in the district and Valley Oak Charter School can be a district-wide asset if allowed to succeed and prosper.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Valley Oak Charter Decision To Come on Thursday Night

Thursday evening in Davis figures to be one of the more important nights for two key issues. As we have been discussing, at 7 PM, the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee will hold a workshop and take community input on the ranking of 37 identified potential sites for future development. At the same time, the school board will meet to likely decide whether or not to approve the Valley Oak Charter School.

The petitioners and the school district agreed last month by mutual consent to continue negotiations and talks aimed toward reconciling concerns that the district has with the drafted charter proposal. Both sides have worked hard and in good faith to move closer toward agreement. However, at this point there are a number of serious obstacles that have developed.

At last week's school board meeting, a presentation by Chief Business Officer, Bruce Colby, determined that the district is facing a $3.5 to $4.5 million shortfall in their budget for the upcoming year. The problem has to do with a statewide budget crisis and attempts by the governor to bring the budget closer to balance than he had previously. The result is that education which is one of the big line-items is facing a severe cutback in state funding.

The result of this budget crisis, coupled with the fact that the district has been deficit spending for the last three years or so, means that the Davis Joint Unified School District will face tough and painful decisions.

Let us be clear, the district's budget problems cannot be a reason to deny the charter. And in fact, the estimated cost of keeping Valley Oak open as a charter would only be $300,000 or so in a sea of $4.5 million. Nevertheless, you can be certain that this budget crunch will weigh heavily on the minds of the board members as they examine the viability of the charter overall.

The Education Code specifies five grounds to deny a charter:

(1) the charter school presents an unsound educational program for the students to be enrolled in the charter school; (2) the petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition; (3) the petition does not contain the number of signatures required; (4) the petition does not contain an affirmation of each of the conditions prescribed by law; and/or (5) the petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of the sixteen charter elements in prescribed by law.

While those are the formal reasons for denial, as we saw in December, those are subject to rather subjective interpretations particularly parts (1) and (2) can be rather broadly construed. As we saw with the resolution put forth by district staff, these can be nitpicked and interpreted rather broadly.

On the side of the petitioners has been the fact that the district has worked very closely with the petitioners to shore up some if not most of these concerns. At this point, the district has not released any support materials for this item. We will check for any updates through out the day.

In December, a strongly worded resolution was drafted against the charter petition. While the staff report gave the board the option of supporting the resolution, opposing the resolution, or taking no action, the implications for such as strongly worded resolution were clear.

The board apparently was uncomfortable with the strident language in the resolution and the newly hired Superintendent James Hammond emerged with a means to a good faith effort to reconcile the differences of the board with the language of the charter proposal.

As a result, a potential showdown was averted at this time and according to our sources there have been strong and good faith efforts to reconcile the concerns of the district.

Further complicating the process is the fact that there are now two new board members. Gone is board member Jim Provenza who was one of the strongest supporters of keeping Valley Oak open. Gone too is board member Keltie Jones, one of the strongest supporters of closing Valley Oak. In their place are new members Susan Lovenburg and Richard Harris. Mr. Harris was outspoken during his campaign in opposition to the charter itself. While Board Member Lovenberg strongly favored closing Valley Oak and following the recommendations of the Best Uses of Schools Task Force, it is less certain how she might view the charter proposal. The new board members do not necessarily doom the charter proposal, especially given the laws surrounding charter proposals, but they do add uncertainty.

If the board votes to reject this proposal, it would be appealed first to the County Board of Education and then the State. The feeling is that the county especially given the budget situation would probably uphold the rejection but the state has been known to overturn such rulings by local boards. Nevertheless, the rejection would drag this process out for a considerable amount of time and place the children who would attend Valley Oak into a quandary that would leave their lives and schooling at the very least disruptive.

At this point, I have serious concerns about whether this charter will get approved by the school district. Much will depend on the work that has occurred within the last month to shore up the proposal. A good deal of hard work, sweat, and anguish has gone into this charter proposal and it would be a shame to see it rejected at the last moment for reasons outside of the control of the petitioners.

The hearing is slated for 8:05 PM at the Community Chambers on Russell Blvd. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in the position of having two key events occurring concurrently. For those involved the Valley Oak Charter is a hugely important decision that deserves the full attention and support from this community. I am hopeful that the district will be able to do the right thing for this community and the children of Valley Oak.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

2007 Year in Review--10 Biggest Vanguard Stories of 2007

As the first full year of the People's Vanguard of Davis comes to completion, we will countdown the top 10 stories from year. This is the second year we have done this.

Last year we counted down the 10 Biggest Stories in Davis.

This year we countdown the 10 biggest stories that we followed on the People's Vanguard of Davis.

We continue with the 2nd biggest story: The Closure of Valley Oak.

The issue of closing a school is always very controversial. However, the issue of Valley Oak was more than just a simple decision on whether or not to close a school. There was a whole range of socioeconomic and even racial issues here. Valley Oak is a school that is the only majority-minority school in the district. When the District made the decision to open Korematsu in the more affluent Mace Ranch, the fate of Valley Oak was likely sealed. Nevertheless, the school district commissioned the Best Uses of Schools Task Force to make the tough decision of whether and which school to close.

The key issue was projections that predicted declining enrollment.

In early January, the projections looked bleak:

"Thursday's school board meeting brought a heated discussed as the District unveiled new projections. The projections show around a 400 student drop from 2006 to 2016 with around 200 of those being in elementary school enrollment."

However, these projections are subject to interpretation, and many challenged their veracity.

"Fred Buderi, a Valley Oak neighbor, raised a very important point about the potential residential development of the PG&E site that could bring many additional students to Valley Oak. But this development is not factored into the future enrollment projections prepared by the Davis Demographics & Planning. His remarks were dismissed by the board saying that they should not take into account plans that are not yet approved. On the other hand, Baki Tezcan points out it is "ironic that after counting for Covell Village in building Korematsu, now they say they cannot count for something that does not exist even though it will not require a city-wide vote and will probably happen in due course and produce new students in need of a school to go."

By late February, the Task Force recommended closing Valley Oak.

"The Best Use of Schools Advisory Task Force has voted by a 6-1 margin to recommend the closure of Valley Oak Elementary. A full report will be drafted and presented to the Davis School Board at the March 1, 2007 meeting."

On March 2, 2007, Chair of the BUSATF, Krik Trost presented to the school board his case for closing Valley Oak.

"Chair Kirk Trost presented the Task Force’s methodology and findings for nearly an hour and a half Thursday night. He expressed deep sorrow to have to report their recommendation for closing Valley Oak Elementary School.

The Davis Joint Unified School District contracted with Davis Demographics and Planning, Inc. (DDP) to update and analyze demographic data and make projections as to future population. The assumptions and methodology were sources of great controversy within the community—especially those in relation to scope and magnitude of future development. However, their findings suggested that over the course of the next 10-15 years, the district enrollment would fall by 400 students and that nearly 250 of those would be in elementary schools.

That would leave the optimal number of elementary schools at around 7 to 7.5. They quickly settled on the eight schools as the optimal strategy.

One of the key issues that they addressed was transportation and how far students would have to walk to school. Their statistics and projections suggested that closing down Valley Oak Elementary school would have virtually no impact on the number of Valley Oak students who would be within one mile walking distance and the number of students within one and a half mile walking distance from their school. That means that for current Valley Oak Students, on average, the walking distance using those two metrics would be virtually unchanged.

Board President Jim Provenza asked about looking at half a mile distance, and Trost suggested that they had not looked at that and suggested that this was a distance standard used by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, the Center for Disease Control, and various walk-to-school organizations. He also pointed out that if they used a tougher standard it would not be uniform throughout the district.

The Task Force also strongly suggested the need for schools in the 420 range in order to have full facilities and program options that they considered optimal.

Finally, they made the argument that if Valley Oak remained open a very large percentage of students attending Valley Oak would be Title I students—between 60 and 70 percent. Whereas the Valley Oak Closed Option would result in the greatest amount of socioeconomic diversity and balance across the District with only around 30 percent of any school being Title I."

On March 5, 2007 the Vanguard ran a full criticism of the BUSTF report.

One of the big criticisms is that the report read like a lawyer's brief, arguing one side rather than presenting an array of options to the school board.

"While the group spent an admirable amount of time and energy working on its report over the last two years, the group has nevertheless produced a product that in the end falls well short of what both the school board and the district needed. The chief complaint is that this report reads like a lawyer's brief arguing for one viewpoint rather than presenting the school board with an array of options and evidence on which they could make an informed decision.

One of the first things that struck me about the presentation last week and the report as a whole was its format. The report and the presentation made an argument. Those things that fit into that argument were presented. Those things that did not fit into that argument were not presented. That may be helpful for a lawyer's brief, however, the purpose of this task force should have been to provide the school board itself with options, not to advocate one position or another. As such, the best format may have been to present fully all reasonable alternatives and then perhaps make a recommendation based on those alternatives. However, that is not what this report did.

That is not what the school board wanted. The school board is now stuck in a very difficult position of either accepting findings that they may or may not agree with, or going against the work of a volunteer group that has spent two years working on this. If they choose the latter, they fall prey to the question--why did they create the task force in the first place if they were merely to do what they wanted to do anyway."

On March 15, 2007, the school board heard a lengthy response from the Davis OPEN group, who were the activists dedicated to keeping all nine schools in the district open.

One of the big issues here was demonstrating that walking distances would increase if Valley Oak closed. The BUSTF report showed that if you use a one-mile distance, the students would be largely unaffected by the school closure. But most young children do not walk a full mile. By looking at a smaller radius, the data would have shown us that in fact, closing the school has a negative impact on walking distances.

"First of all, this data conclusively demonstrates that closing the school would have a negative impact on the specific students that attend Valley Oak regardless of the standards for the rest of the district. Second, many students at Valley Oak have transportation issues since they are Title 1 students and this close would be a larger burden on them than on students in other attendance areas going to other schools."

Doubt was also cast on the methodology for projecting future declining enrollment.

"Baki Tezcan presented evidence that cast some doubt on the methodology used to come up with the projections. His presentation was impressive enough to prompt Task Force Chair Kirk Trost to come back up to clarify their findings with numbers that did not seem to match the numbers used by Tezcan.

Baki Tezcan pointed out as we did the change in the projections from December 2006 to January 2007. The key difference was the use of Mobility #3 in December to using Mobility #2 in December and that shifted the finding from a stable +/- 186 K-12 students to an approximate decline of 400.

Tezcan said that method #2 compared all students in each attendance area from year to year while method #3 had a sampling of students. He suggested that sampling was the more preferred method for projecting and that it was the Task Force rather than DDP that made that call to switch to Method #2.

Tezcan then presented three sets of projections, the third one being "October projections" based on 2005 student data. These data show an actual small increase in enrollment. Tezcan demonstrated that the projections using this methodology more closely were demonstrated by actual numbers than the preferred methodology of the Task Force. When he averaged those three studies, he found a slight increase rather than decrease in enrollment over the next few years."

In the end, the school board by a 3-2 vote accepted the findings of the BUSTF.

"One exchange in particular kind of summed up how this evening would go--Board Member Tim Taylor would mention that there were differing interpretations of the enrollment projections and he asked Mr. Whitmore which he should believe. Mr. Whitmore pointedly said that none of the staff were demographers, but that the Task Force had worked long and hard with the demographic data and he would tend to take their findings strongly into account."

It was a long evening that began with a young protest march (click above to see pictures).

"The day began with a show of force--the force of dozens of small school children laughing and screaming in the hopes of saving their school as they slowly marched from Valley Oak Elementary School to Council Chambers. It was a distance of nearly a mile and remarkably it seemed to take 45 to 50 minutes for their small legs to cross the distance."

The school board then would vote to close the school with stipulations.

"In the end though, it seemed that the board, or at least Tim Taylor, while believing nine schools was unfair to the other eight, fiscally irresponsible, and unsupported by the demographic data, could not deliver the final death knell. He offered a massive motion which would do the following:

1. Open Korematsu as a K-2 school for 07-08.
2. Keep Valley Oak open in 07-08
3. Open Korematsu as a K-6 school in fall of '08
4. Close Valley Oak in fall of '08
5. Place on the ballot a second parcel tax to fund Valley Oak in November of 2007 provided that the first parcel tax passed.

This was too much for Keltie Jones who pushed hard and was very fearful a second tax bill would doom their first. She got Taylor to water down even the compromise language so that a poll would be taken and the second parcel tax would be put on the ballot only if it wasn't going to doom the first. Now perhaps what Jones was forgetting is that by putting them both on there and tying the fate of Valley Oak to the first parcel tax, they are in essence recruiting 50 to 100 dedicated parents who have a vested interest in doing the grass roots work to get them both passed. If only the first parcel tax were on the ballot--none of those folks would work to get it placed on the ballot. So in actuality it might be more likely to pass because it is tied to Valley Oak than if it were not."

It was clear from the start that the second parcel tax would not be viable. Indeed later polling showed that there just was not community support to pass th additional tax and keep Valley Oak open. The strategy shifted to charter school.

In late September, the structure and basics of the Charter School were laid out in front of 60 people at the Valley Oak Elementary School multipurpose room.

The Valley Oak Mission statement:

"Valley Oak Charter School is a learning community of students, staff, families and the larger community that challenges each member to reach full potential. We draw upon a rich history as a neighborhood school that recognizes the strengths of a diverse population, welcoming all into a culturally-rich environment with high expectations for all students. We believe community-based cooperative governance makes for optimally responsive and innovative education."

They presented four key focal points:

* "Coordinated school-wide schedule of flexible small-group instruction to address individual needs.

* Participation of the greater school community in pursuing the educational mission of the school.

* Integration of arts, technology and community service tools into all aspects of learning

* Bridge the digital divide through utilization of educational technology by the larger VOCS community, both on campus and at home."

In early November, the Charter passed the signature requirement threshold.

The Valley Oak Charter School has now passed the signature threshold for both teachers and parents. According to the charter school law, a charter needs to demonstrate sufficient interest by obtaining signatures from half of the number of teachers that are projected and half of the number of students that are projected to enroll in the school.

The Valley Oak Charter has been keeping a running tally on their website. As of last night, they had crossed both thresholds.

The Charter projects 13 teachers, so they are required to obtain the signature of 7 teachers. To date, 19 teachers have signed to teach at Valley Oak.

They also project 305 students, which means they need the signature of 153 parents who have an interest in their child attending the Valley Oak Charter school. They just passed that threshold last night with 169 signatures.

The Valley Oak charter has now demonstrated more than sufficient interest required by law to go forward and be submitted.

On Monday the Valley Oak charter will be submitted to the District Office.

By law there are only a few reasons by which the charter can be denied by the school district, budgetary concerns are not among those.

* Charter school presents an unsound educational program
* Petitioners are unlikely to successfully implement the program described
* Petition does not have the required number of signatures
* Petition does not include required affirmations
* Petition does not include comprehensive description of 16 required elements

However, this did not stop the district from attempting to torpedo the proposed charter.

On November 15, 2007, the school board got to hear the presenters presentation and subjected them to a series of tough questions on a variety of concerns.

"There were many tough questions that were asked by the school board during this process--rightly so as this will have a dramatic impact on their budget and their planning. This was not their formal response to the charter, only a questions at a public hearing.

What is important to understand despite their tough questions was that according to the education code, there are only a few reasons by which the board could deny the charter."

...

"Concerns from the board appeared primarily centered on admission policies, enrollment numbers and overall concerns that if Valley Oak either failed to attract enough students or failed to attract students from outside of the district, that the district would have other problems with which they needed to deal with."

Board President Jim Provenza directed board members to wait until the staff report came before making comments.

This came in early December.

In harsh terms, the district staff drafted a resolution--not just a staff report but an actual resolution--that would deny the Valley Oak charter based on three of the criteria for denial fleshed out into nineteen separate points. Most of these points could have been resolved by a simple negotiation and a quick edit. Nevertheless the report was placed into resolution form.

The petition drafters responded to these criticisms in a firm manner than attempted to hold back obvious frustration at the tone of the response.

Bill Storm, science teacher and proponent of Valley Oak Charter School said:

"The draft resolution severely distorts both our proposal and the requirements of the Charter Schools Act and makes serious errors of fact in denying the petition... We continue to be willing to work with the district in resolving any legitimate issues. Such work would require that all parties act swiftly and in good faith... f the Davis school board acts to deny the charter, we are confident that the charter will be authorized through the appeal process outlined in the Charter Schools Act... We have made presentations, provided drafts of the educational plan, governance design and budget presentations (to the district), and have repeatedly requested meaningful dialogue and feedback. Instead, last Friday (the district) posted a draft resolution to deny the petition for the Valley Oak Charter School."

On December 6, 2007, a big battle was brewing and it appeared that confrontation that would be lengthy and heated was inevitable.

Several board members were alarmed at the tone of the report. However, once the meeting came forward, cooler heads prevailed and newly hired Superintendent James Hammond struck the necessary tone of moderation.

"New Superintendent James Hammond was first to speak. All week long we had read in the papers the staff report, the lawyer's report, and we were prepared for the worst. But James Hammond took control of this meeting. Instead of having staff present their report, instead of allowing them to set the tone for the meeting, something very different happened.

James Hammond spoke in very general terms and then suggested that they had options, that they did not have to make a decision this evening. And that gave Board President Jim Provenza, in his last meeting, the opening that he needed. And he suggested that if it were possible that the district could meet with the petitioners and that they could hash out their differences.

So instead of conflict from the start, the tone was set that compromise and reconciliation was a possibility and the rest of the board to their credit followed this lead."

Concerns by board members were laid out however the agreement was to come to a resolution and compromise rather than seek confrontation. So as 2008 arrives, the process still looms however with hope.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting