KPAO by Dave Cortright

Bullis Charter School board: 2012-13 facilities, transitional kindergarten, and model of accountability

From: Dave Cortright <davecortright@yahoo.com>
To: Ken Moore <ken.moore@moore.org>; Peter Evans <peterevans.bcs@evanscentral.com>; Andrea Eyring <andrea@eyringsys.com>; Anne Marie Gallagher <amgallagher@stanfordalumni.org>; Janet Medlin <janetmedlin@comcast.net>; John Phelps <phelpsjohnr@gmail.com>; Francis LaPoll <francis@lapoll.com>; Wanny Hersey <whersey@bullischarterschool.com>
Cc: Joseph Di Salvo <josephsds1@aol.com>; Michael Chang <michael_chang@sccoe.org>; Anna Song <anna_song@sccoe.org>; Grace Mah <grace_mah@sccoe.org>; Julia Hover-Smoot <julia_hover-smoot@sccoe.org>; Leon Beauchman <leon_beauchman@sccoe.org>; Craig Mann <craig_mann@sccoe.org>; Charles Weis <Charles_Weis@sccoe.org>; Cary Dritz <Cary_Dritz@sccoe.org>; Lucretia Peebles <Lucretia_Peebles@sccoe.org>; lasdvoices@gmail.com; trustees@lasdschools.org
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 8:12 AM
Subject: RE: 2012-13 facilities, transitional kindergarten, and model of accountability

Members of the Bullis Charter School Board,

Greetings! I wanted to send you this letter as a part of the most recent outreach effort to show both SCCOE and BCS how critically important this issue is to our community, and what we expect both SCCOE and BCS to do to improve the situation. Know that I stand behind the points in the message template even though I am choosing not to repeat them here. Instead, I have several other points I would like to raise.

First and foremost: facilities. As predicted in my letter to you last December, the offer from LASD is indeed portables split across 2 sites. Since the preliminary offer in late January, I've heard a lot from the BCS community about how BCS' integrated K-8 curriculum is critical to its success. I do wish that LASD could help you out here, but sadly they do not operate any K-8 facilities in the district. And as you are intimately familiar with charter law, you know "The district is not obligated to pay for the modification of an existing school site to accommodate the charter school's grade level configuration." (§11969.3(a)(1)).

So if you need to house your entire school body integrated on one site, I am afraid that leaves you with only one option for next year: self-site. Charter law even suggests "funding in lieu of facilities in an amount commensurate with local rental or lease costs for facilities reasonably equivalent to facilities of the district." (§11969.1(b)). Grace Mah from your chartering authority told me "The SCCOE is in no position to ‘offer up’ property to this situation." Thus, it seems that self-siting is the only viable way you will be able to get the integrated facilities that your program requires for 2012-13. I hope you do so for the sake of the integrity of your program, and to honor the commitment you made to each and every BCS parent and student when you promised them an integrated curriculum.

But if you decide that a split school is sufficient and you accept the facilities offer from LASD, I want to help you work with the district to ensure those facilities meet the needs of your kids. One BCS parent said that the four square court is too close to the street, so that the ball is often knocked over the fence into traffic. I think we should ask LASD to install safety netting above the fence there. I have also heard parents worried that the close proximity of the lunch tables to the street put their kids at increased risk from an errant vehicle. I have looked at this section of the road myself, and there are some good-sized trees between the street and the fence that I think do well to protect. However, the safety of our kids is paramount. And if it takes the investment of a few thousand dollars to install bollards here for peace of mind, I think that is money well spent.

I'm sure you have other places where a small investment in facilities would yield large returns (I've heard mention of a summer bridge program, and of course there's the ongoing issue of ensuring share middle school facilities are executed as written). I encourage you to open that list to the public and have the entire community help get things like this implemented.

Next: what are BCS' plans for your transitional kindergarten next year? I am concerned that I see no mention of this on the BCS website, and the time before it has to happen is rapidly dwindling.

"Citing California Education Code, officials at the California Department of Education are reiterating charter schools’ obligation to offer transitional kindergarten."
http://www.siacabinetreport.com/articles/viewarticle.aspx?article=2288

"Mary Autry, CDE education program consultant, has affirmed that charter schools are obligated to offer transitional kindergarten. 'The direction of the department is that transitional kindergarten is a requirement for charter schools that offer kindergarten,' she said. 'For charter schools that don’t offer kindergarten already, we recommend they contact their legal counsel or charter authorizer. If their authorizer is the state board of education, CDE is in the process of developing guidance for them.'"
http://www.scoe.org/pub/htdocs/transitional-kindergarten.html

Finally, I ask you to voluntarily adopt the Oakland Unified model for Charter School Accountability. Jennifer Carlstrom—a Gardner parent with a graduate degree in education policy from Stanford—has been urging SCCOE to adopt this model for all of their charters. I think it would show great initiative if BCS took the lead here and set the standard for the rest of the charter schools in Santa Clara County to follow.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
·Dave Cortright

Conversation with Grace Mah on Bullis Charter School oversight

From: Dave Cortright <davecortright@yahoo.com>
To: Grace Mah <gmahbox-sccoe@yahoo.com>; many members of the LASD community
Cc: "trustees@lasdschools.org" <trustees@lasdschools.org>; "lasdvoices@gmail.com" <lasdvoices@gmail.com>; "LeonBeauchman@att.net" <LeonBeauchman@att.net>; Michael Chang <michaelchang22@gmail.com>; "josephsds1@aol.com" <josephsds1@aol.com>; Julia HOVER-SMOOT <juliaghs@aol.com>; Craig Mann <cmann4896@aol.com>; Anna Song <asongdist5@aol.com>; "charles_weis@sccoe.org" <charles_weis@sccoe.org>; 'Carmen Aminzadeh' <Carmen_Aminzadeh@sccoe.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:50 AM
Subject: Re: Response to Community Emails on SCCOE and BCS

Dear Board Member Mah,

I very much appreciate you taking the time to respond to the community on this very important issue. And I appreciate the opportunity to turn this into a dialog. As such, I have thoughts on a few of the points your raised in your email below.

Of most importance I must respond to your assertion that "SCCOE has no jurisdiction on the BCS facilities issues and Prop 39 responsibility... Whether their educational model requires one physical site or whether they may run their school on two parcels is something educators would be better answering than courts, in my opinion." I want to make one thing absolute clear here: SCCOE was an active participant in causing the current conflict over facilities. As such, it is your duty to proactively assist in the resolution of this conflict. Last fall, your board approved BCS' charter petition with an integrated K-8 curriculum in a school district that does not operate in this grade level configuration, and thus has no facilities to support a K-8 configuration. To now throw your hands up and say "This is not our problem" is not even close to acceptable. Even if you are not technically or legally required to do so, it is your moral duty to do so.

If you believed in an integrated K-8 program enough last fall to approve it, and if BCS is saying that they require an integrated site, why then are you not helping them get one? Why aren't you offering up county facilities to house their school on a single site? Why did you approve a charter who's curriculum requires a special facilities configuration for successful implementation, yet now will not assist them in obtaining such facilities? By doing so, it appears that you're really not that interested in seeing BCS successfully implement the curriculum that SCCOE approved last fall.

Regarding the geographic preference, you say "Only the charter school may submit material revisions to the charter." Perhaps this is true, but on this point BCS is standing in defiance of the wishes of SCCOE (their chartering authority), the community in which they operate, the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment of the US Constitution, and Article I §7(a) of the CA Constitution which requires "maximizing the educational opportunities... of all public school pupils". Can you really do nothing to affect the outcome here? What sort of relationship do you have with your thrice-approved charter school that you cannot influence them to do the right thing here? It is situations like this that makes SCCOE look powerless and ineffective in charter school oversight.

Finally you talk about what factors might lead you to deny a charter. One that you list is "(5) The petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of all of the [required charter elements]." In my reading of the charter law, section §47601 is a required element. Can you show me where in the Bullis charter petition there is a comprehensive description of how they intend to place special emphasis on academically low-achieving pupils as required by §47601(b)? I have searched through that document several times (and their web site. and yours.) and I can see no such description.

Again, thanks for engaging with me on this extremely important issue. I am really looking forward to the public forum where we can do this live and in real time.

Respectfully,
·Dave Cortright

---

From: gmahbox-sccoe@yahoo.com
To: many members of the LASD community
Cc: trustees@lasdschools.org; lasdvoices@gmail.com; LeonBeauchman@att.net; Michael Chang <michaelchang22@gmail.com>; josephsds1@aol.com; Julia HOVER-SMOOT <juliaghs@aol.com>; Craig Mann <cmann4896@aol.com>; Anna Song <asongdist5@aol.com>; charles_weis@sccoe.org; 'Carmen Aminzadeh' <Carmen_Aminzadeh@sccoe.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:27 AM
Subject: Response to Community Emails on SCCOE and BCS

Dear Los Altos and Los Altos Hills Concerned Parents and Community Members,

I wanted to take this chance to respond to the outpouring of emails concerning Bullis Charter School (BCS) and the role of the Santa Clara County Board of Education (SCCBoE) in working with the community stakeholders involved.

This is my personal response to the number of questions and issues which have been brought up and does not represent the sentiment of other members of the board. I hope to clarify a number of misunderstandings about the BoE’s responsibilities over charter schools and BCS. I recognize that a large number of parents and community members are upset, mad, frustrated, and otherwise unhappy. I do not believe that this is manufactured or a wholly Los Altos matter to be resolved only by the local warring parties.

As the authorizing agency for BCS, based on upholding an appeal to the LASD denial of the charter, the SCCBoE has tangible responsibilities which include the issues that have been brought up in the general template letter:

1. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE) and BCS. This document will be sunshined for 30 days before the SCCBoE votes on it, as the BoE promised to the LASD community.

2. The appointment of a neutral party to the BCS Board. The SCCBoE discussed this appointment at great length on April 18. Different SCCBoE members have varying opinions on the necessity of this appointment, the role and responsibilities of an appointment, and the efficacy of an appointment.

   I feel that an appointment is necessary given the local community’s demand for a SCCBoE neutral selection who will represent the SCCBoE on the BCS board. Although this person will be a single vote on the BCS board, by facilitating communication of the SCCBoE’s goals and objectives (for me, a well-functioning charter within a non-combative community), and having input on BCS policies and processes, the SCCBoE representative would bring some balance of Los Altos’ whole community interests to the BCS board.

   A number of my colleagues are not supportive of appointing a representative to BCS board, and I will work hard to convince them that this person is necessary and will be a contributing member to working with BCS, SCCBoE, and the LASD community.

3. Geographic preference for the Bullis Purissima area for BCS enrollment priority has always been an issue for me personally, and I have been consistent in my opposition to it. In the past, I have requested the preference to be changed to include a part of town north of El Camino, both to the SCCBoE and BCS board members. However, in both cases, my proposal was not supported. This item has been discussed within the Bullis MOU discussions, and I do not know if there will be a resolution.

   Unfortunately, our SCCOE Board Policy 0420.41(a) is incorrect. Our superintendent may not submit material revisions to the charter. I received clarification from the Superintendent on that and will recommend that our Policy Development Committee strike the phrase “or the County Superintendent” from the policy. Only the charter school may submit material revisions to the charter.

4. Accountability for BCS’ application and donation processes have been exercised, and will continue. BCS has been informed that their current application process has unnecessary and excessive restrictions. I trust they will modify as appropriate. Likewise, their donation solicitations have changed based on SCCOE feedback to BCS and their foundation.

5. As has been acknowledged, the SCCOE has no jurisdiction on the BCS facilities issues and Prop 39 responsibility. The LASD board is the only entity which must offer BCS facilities. I appreciate that LASD’s latest proposal is wholly owned by its board and BCS must respond by May 1. I hope that BCS will find a compromise, but it may end up as another legal battle. Whether their educational modelrequires one physical site or whether they may run their school on two parcels is something educators would be better answering than courts, in my opinion.

For reference, the SCCOE has a number of FAQs which describe the role and responsibilities of the SCCBoE with respect to approving charters on appeal, such as BCS.

http://www.sccoe.org/depts/charter/

One detail about charter approval that is not well-understood is described by question 14, copied below from the following website: (emphasis my own)

http://www.sccoe.org/depts/charter/docs/faqs/Charter%20Schools%20FAQ%20REVISED%2004-10-12_GENERAL%20SECTION.pdf

14. Q: How does the Santa Clara County Board of Education determine whether to approve a petition?

A: EC 47605 (b) states that “a school district governing board shall grant a charter for the operation of a school under this part if it is satisfied that granting the charter is consistent with sound educational practice. The governing board of the school district shall not deny a petition for the establishment of a charter school unless it makes written factual findings, specific to the particular petition, setting forth specific facts to support one, or more, of the following findings:

1. The charter school presents an unsound educational program for the pupils 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 by subdivision (a)
4. The petition does not contain an affirmation of each of the conditions described in subdivision (d).
5. The petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of all of the [required charter elements].”

In the case of all charters, the law states that the authorizing agency shall grant a charter (not “may” grant) … if it is satisfied, and shall not deny (not “may not” deny), unless some specific failings are found.

The charter law also encourages the creation of charters as choices for all parents, not just disadvantaged ones.

I hope this helps to clarify some of the SCCBoE’s actions with respect to the BCS and LASD conflicts. We are certainly involved and this certainly needs to be resolved.

Grace Mah
Santa Clara County School Board Member
Trustee Area 1, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Palo Alto

Further discussions on Bullis Charter School oversight with Julia Hover-Smoot

From: Dave Cortright <davecortright@yahoo.com>
To: Julia <juliaghs@aol.com>
Cc: Joseph Di Salvo <josephsds1@aol.com>; Michael Chang <michael_chang@sccoe.org>; Anna Song <anna_song@sccoe.org>; Grace Mah <grace_mah@sccoe.org>; Julia Hover-Smoot <julia_hover-smoot@sccoe.org>; Leon Beauchman <leon_beauchman@sccoe.org>; Craig Mann <craig_mann@sccoe.org>; SCCOE Staff Charles Weis <Charles_Weis@sccoe.org>; Cary Dritz <Cary_Dritz@sccoe.org>; Lucretia Peebles <Lucretia_Peebles@sccoe.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: The problem is simple: communications are deficient among BCS, SCCOE, and the LASD community

Julia,

Thank you very much for writing me back. I know you must be overwhelmed with community feedback on this issue by now, and I appreciate you taking the time out to have this conversation with me.

The thing that most disappoints me about your responses thus far is quite simply I do not feel heard. I am ok if you consider the points I make, then disagree by refuting them with points of your own. But when I write to you with an assertion and a clear reason why I believe it to be true—and you make no effort to even acknowledge what I said—I feel unheard, marginalized and dismissed. I would appreciate it if you could brush up on your active listening skills. That would make the communications between us work a lot better.

I hear you that you are struggling with the appropriate role the appointed board member would have. Perhaps I am being facile, but I just don't share your consternation. That person would have the duty—as do ALL board members of any school—to make decisions that are in the best interests of the school and especially the students. That includes ensuring that the school is properly following all aspects of the law, ensuring the school is maintaining the best possible relations with its school district, and ensuring its vision and actions are know by and aligned with its chartering authority. Yes, they will need to comply with the Brown act and all other requirements that any public school board member would. That is a good thing, and I don't see why you even raise it as a concern.

Your claim that any information this new board member communicates back "will be the things we can already get from the Bullis board meetings". I agree. But I assert that while SCCOE CAN get this information, I do not believe you ARE currently getting this information. When was the last time you or any of SCCOE staff attended a BCS board meeting? Or read the minutes of one of their meetings? How often does that happen? In a recent letter I passed along this quote: "In discussing these action plans, two of the BCS board members expressed a preference that BCS 'stick it its knitting' rather than making 'external' efforts; one of the BCS board members summed up these concerns as 'what's in it for us?'" Are you saying that SCCOE had already heard that? If so, then I missed it because I've seen no response to it. And it is the sort of statement that requires a response.

I do appreciate that you want this to be a template for all of your charters and thus need to take the time to think it through, as long as you do indeed follow through on implementing it. I hope you can understand after the discussion and straw vote at last week's meeting how I fear that you will choose the expedient path here and do nothing. Even if you choose not to appoint a board member, I assert that you must do something.

I commend you for your dedication to the other families and students that desperately need your attention. But I hope you can see from the recent and rising responses you are receiving from our community that we desperately need your attention too. I am heartened that you are responding to it. Thanks for all that you do.

Best regards,
·Dave Cortright

---

From: Julia <juliaghs@aol.com>
To: Dave Cortright <davecortright@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: The problem is simple: communications are deficient among BCS, SCCOE, and the LASD community

Dear David,

Thanks for fixing my name mis-spelling. I appreciate your quick response.

So, let's get back to the issues. I stand by my comments in my email yesterday. I do not believe that we have clarified exactly what the appointed board member will actually do. You would like to impose your opinion on the matter but I don't think it is as simple as you have stated. However, I do think it is worth discussing so here are my thoughts.

Under our by-laws the appointed board member will have "all the rights and responsibilities" of a board member. I believe that will mean that the appointed board member will be bound by the Brown Act and also all the laws regarding confidentiality and closed session confidentiality.

They will also hold a sort of weird fiduciary responsibility to the whole thing -- they are public board representatives on one hand but are "responsible" (bylaw word) as any other board member is responsible.

Maybe it's my lawyer brain churning here but I think you can see how i worry that this person will have split loyalties and even split responsibilities if WE ( my board) are not clear about what they are supposed to do.

The things they CAN report back to us will be the things we can already get from the Bullis board meetings because those are already public and governed by the Brown Act. The information they glean from closed session will be confidential and will not be reportable to us.

They will be able to, as you say, represent our interests, but we have already communicated our interests and that communication is ongoing as you know. And, how will we work with this individual as we go forward and interests change? Will we have regular meetings with them and with Bullis? Will these be public and agendized or will they be able to take a less formal structure? The Brown Act might dictate this but I haven't thought it through completely and we have not discussed it at OUR board yet.

Because we are interested in doing this for all our charters, we need to develop a thoughtful plan that can be implemented at all sites.

Secondly, please do me the favor of not "reading into" my emails and assuming facts not in evidence. I used quotes on the word "hear" in my last response because you used it over and over in your email to me. But you are using the word "hear" to mean "agree" and I don't agree with all of your assertions. You think that if I "hear" you I will agree with your point of view. I do hear (and read) and I have a different point of view than you do -- which point of view I have endeavored to communicate clearly to all who have written or spoken to me.

And finally, to respond to your comments about my "obligations", I still assert that there are other students and families that desperately need our attention and we have been giving them short-shrift as the Los Altos matter has expanded to fill almost every minute.

I suppose the real problem here is that age old conundrum-- not enough time-- but I suppose I will not solve that problem! However, my obligations to other students and families remain and I will continue to serve them, as well as you, to the best of my abilities, however limited those may be.

Well, thanks for the conversation.

Sincerely,

Julia

Sent from my iPhone

Conversation with Julia Hover-Smoot on appointing a member to BCS' board

From: Dave Cortright <davecortright@yahoo.com>
To: Julia Hover-Smoot <juliaghs@aol.com>
Cc: Joseph Di Salvo <josephsds1@aol.com>; Michael Chang <michael_chang@sccoe.org>; Anna Song <anna_song@sccoe.org>; Grace Mah <grace_mah@sccoe.org>; LeonBeauchman <leon_beauchman@sccoe.org>; Craig Mann <craig_mann@sccoe.org>; Charles Weis <Charles_Weis@sccoe.org>; Cary Dritz <Cary_Dritz@sccoe.org>; Lucretia Peebles <Lucretia_Peebles@sccoe.org>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: The problem is simple: communications are deficient among BCS, SCCOE, and the LASD community

Julia,

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond. Please do accept my sincerest apologies for misspelling your name for so long. My email list has been immediately corrected. And while I don't have the time just now, I do promise to go through all of my old blog posts and fix it there too. My name is often misspelled by those adding or substituting an A, W, or U, so I empathize.

I find it sadly appropriate that you put the word "hear" in quotes. While I'm sure unintentional, it implies that you are only going through the motions of "hearing" us, but you aren't really make the effort to understand us and empathize with our point of view. Your responses are illustrative.

In my original mail, I said: "Having a neutral party on the BCS board who's responsibility is to represent SCCOE and LASD interests and report back is such an essential part of the solution [of increasing communications among BCS SCCOE and the LASD community]." And you responded with "we still cannot clearly state what purpose the person appointed to the Bullis board would serve and what exactly we will accomplish with such an appointment." I told you the purpose of the neutral board member and what they will accomplish—representing LASD and SCCOE interests at the BCS board meetings and being an additional communications conduit among all three parties—yet you made no attempt to acknowledge or respond to my point in your response.

Also I said: "I know that BCS asked for the cancellation because they felt that the public forum might negatively impact the ongoing mediation. I assert that if something as benign as holding a public forum could derail mediation, then the mediation was all too fragile to begin with." And your response simply mirrored the BCS talking point, again making no acknowledgement of my point.

I hope you can see that—while you say you are listening to us—your responses and actions indicate to me that you are really not.

And to your final point: "I have 40,000 OTHER students in this county who are two or more grade levels behind in their studies. I want to get back to solving that problem." I agree that there are much bigger problems in the country that deserve your attention. Which is why I've always been puzzled as to why SCCOE approved BCS. They are not helping to solve any of those bigger problems. And investing time and effort into BCS is a massive opportunity cost.

But simply because you have other pressing issues (and believe me, we all do) does not rescind your responsibility to adequately manage each an every one of your approved charter schools, BCS included. I am sorry if the previous years gave you the impression that their management would be easy. Clearly that is no longer the case. The unrest in our community over BCS has been growing for nearly a decade, and now you are finally seeing the results. No longer will we allow SCCOE to simply approve BCS' charter and then move onto other things, letting them self-manage to the detriment of our community. We are here to hold BCS accountable for their actions. And the only way we can do that is by holding SCCOE—their chartering authority—accountable.

So if BCS is taking up an inordinate amount of your time and resources now, I am sorry about that. But SCCOE approved BCS' charter and thus made a commitment to invest the time and resources necessary to properly oversee them. If you are now having second thoughts about your ability to honor that commitment, then perhaps you should consider doing what should have been done years ago: reject the BCS charter at the county level and send it up to the state level for their consideration; or send the charter back down to LASD (who have said publicly that they would approve). That would take SCCOE out of the equation freeing you up to focus on the more pressing problems in the county.

As the letters from the LASD Voices letter writing campaign come pouring in over this week, I do hope you all realize that there is a problem, and we are counting on you to help us solve it. Simply saying there is no problem that needs to be solved in the face of such overwhelming evidence is no longer a rational response.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
·Dave Cortright

---

From: Julia <juliaghs@aol.com>
To: Dave Cortright <davecortright@yahoo.com>
Cc: Joseph Di Salvo <josephsds1@aol.com>; Michael Chang <michael_chang@sccoe.org>; Anna Song <anna_song@sccoe.org>; Grace Mah <grace_mah@sccoe.org>; Julia Hoover-Smoot <julia_hover-smoot@sccoe.org>; LeonBeauchman <leon_beauchman@sccoe.org>; Craig Mann <craig_mann@sccoe.org>; Charles Weis <Charles_Weis@sccoe.org>; Cary Dritz <Cary_Dritz@sccoe.org>; Lucretia Peebles <Lucretia_Peebles@sccoe.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: The problem is simple: communications are deficient among BCS, SCCOE, and the LASD community

Dear David,

In my opinion, even with the discussion we had last night we still cannot clearly state what purpose the person appointed to the Bullis board would serve and what exactly we will accomplish with such an appointment. It is exceedingly clear to me that we have a LOT more thinking and discussing to do before we get that fully figured out.

The forum was not cancelled—it was rescheduled for a very good reason—to allow mediation to have every chance of success.

I do "hear" your community. I have listened to every single person, read every single email and spent hours and hours on this matter. I am so sorry it cannot find resolution because I have 40,000 OTHER students in this county who are two or more grade levels behind in their studies. I want to get back to solving that problem.

And finally, my last name is Hover-Smoot with one "o" in Hover -- not Hoover-Smoot. Maybe you could fix your email address.

Sincerely,
Julia Hover-Smoot

Why am I doing this? What do I care? What's in it for me?

I want to correct a misconception about me perpetuated by the BCS supporters. They claim I do not have any children, and thus do not have the same stake in this issue as those with kids. That's not how I see it. I actually have nearly 5000 kids. I consider every single kid attending public school in LASD to be mine. I live in this community. I paid a premium for my house in a premium school district. I pay an additional parcel tax to keep those schools premium. And for the past 7+ months I have given as much of my skills and talents to them as I possibly could.

Because it does take a village. Parents already have their hands full giving it their all raising their kids right. That is itself a huge sink of time and money, leaving little for other things. So if I can be the one to step up and give them a voice that they can't muster themselves, I am happy to do so. I am proud to do so. I feel an obligation to do so. This is my community too.

I don't feel the need to have kids in order to have a happy and fulfilling life or to make a positive impression on the planet. And that frees me up to do so many things that parents can't. I am a firm believer that in this day and age, memes matter much more than genes. And I think I've got some really good memes that I want to pass along to future generations.

I know: pure, unadulterated altruism can be a foreign concept to grasp. I admit it's a bit new to me too. But you know what? It feels good. I am an introvert. I knew few in my community before I threw myself into this wholeheartedly. And at it's depths, I felt utterly alone speaking out in public all by myself when the people I was speaking to and about gave me naught but negativity. But then—just when I needed them to—others joined in. And here we are today.

Even if nothing else comes of this, I feel like I am doing the right thing and making a positive difference. And from the feedback I've gotten along the way, I feel loved and appreciated. And that is all the compensation I need.

SCCOE, what is your view of the legislative intent of the CA Charter Act?

From: Joe Seither
To: Joseph Di Salvo; Michael Chang; Anna Song; Grace Mah; Julia Hover-Smoot; Leon Beauchman; Craig Mann
Cc: Charles Weis; Cary Dritz; Lucretia Peebles; Greta Hansen 
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 1:04 PM
Subject: Your view of the legislative intent of the CA Charter Act?

Mr. DiSalvo and Board,

I'm a ten-year Los Altos resident and active parent volunteer in support of high quality public education.

I've remained mostly on the sidelines in the matter of the Bullis Charter School, though I have previously written a couple emails to this Board. Back in November 2008 when BCS was seeking a modification to its charter to serve grades 7 & 8, I wrote a letter to this Board saying I felt the charter expansion was unnecessary since our community was already extremely well served by two outstanding LASD middle schools. Blach and Egan are consistently among the top-rated middle schools in CA, as I'm sure you're aware. The charter was modified, so BCS now serves K-8 students. I didn't attend the meetings of the Board when this was deliberated and decided, but I've always been curious what needs-based rationale may have been presented.

My experience with charter schools is limited to BCS, and I'm not really plugged into the ongoing legal battle over facilities, but I am pretty familiar with the history of BCS. I have friends on both sides of the LASD-BCS divide, which makes engaging the topic uncomfortable at times. But I don't want you to think this email is about LASD/BCS per se - I'm actually writing about an issue that touches all charter schools under your jurisdiction - and therefore, potentially impacts all Santa Clara County pubic schools and districts.

I'm seeking clarity on your views on the intent of Charter Law, and I hope you will each take a moment to send a personal reply.

A simple reading of the Charter Act of 1992 makes clear that the intent of the CA Legislature was to allow communities suffering from failing schools to introduce market competition—choice, innovation, local control—to better serve the educational needs of affected students - and hopefully even stimulate improved student learning in nearby 'competing' schools. To me, the letter and the spirit of the statute are unambiguous: the fundamental purpose of the Charter Act is to serve the unmet educational needs of students, fulfilling a 14th amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law (a la Serrano v. Priest).

Choice and competition between schools, introduced by the Charter Act, are how we remedy the inequity of discrimination in the availability of high quality education. More simply, if low quality schools are the problem (and I agree this exists and creates social injustice worthy of strong remedy) then charter schools are a solution provided by the CA Ed Code. The intent of the Charter Act is rescuing student learning where an existing system has failed, and school choice is a means to this end.

I recently had a long email exchange with Superintendent Weis in which I sought clarification on a couple key student issues vis-a-vis charter schools: needs and outcomes.

I believe common sense (and responsible public policy administration) dictate:

• Where the "problem" of significant unmet educational need exists, a charter school "solution" is justified. Where there is no proof of such a "problem," no "solution" should be prescribed—or allowed.
• Where the costs of a "remedy" outweigh its benefits, such as when unmet need and potential benefit are de minimis, no "solution" is warranted—particularly where the "solution" incites civic discord or induces new problems.
• Some charters really do yield significantly better student outcomes than the failing schools they were intended to replace, which is terrific, and should be celebrated. But recognizing that, over time, student outcomes from either/both district and charter school can either improve and/or degrade, at any point where the educational "results" of a charter school are not appreciably better than those of competing district schools, a charter is no longer justifiable. This is particularly true when operating parallel public education systems consumes more public resources than a re-unified system would. In other words, when charter outcomes are no better than district outcomes, maintaining a charter makes no sense, and reintegrating the charter into the district does.

I've read the various vision/mission/goal/objective statements on the SCCOE website, and while they get a little wordy, it's clear there is no higher goal for SCCOE than improving student learning. Dr. Weis confirmed this by email as well.

In my recent email exchange with Dr. Weis, I asked questions like:

• In the context of evaluating/approving a charter school application, what is the COE's and Board's duty & practice around verifying unmet student need? (Surely the educational needs of students is the primary consideration in any charter application.)
• What evaluation/comparison is made between the status quo educational program available to affected students in their district school versus the proposed charter program? (Surely a proposed charter program must offer some significant "upside" versus the district program.)
• If an existing district program delivers educational outcomes that rank consistently at the top of the state's performance rubric (API decile 10), shouldn't the COE place an extraordinary burden on a charter applicant to prove the "soundness" or appropriateness of the their proposed program for the affected students? (What evidence could qualify an alternative charter program as "sound" or "appropriate" for students already achieving top marks in district schools?)
• How do you assess the odds of a charter actually delivering promised outcomes given the educational program they propose? (Surely a promise of improvement over an already high achieving district program must be viewed somewhat skeptically.)

I found Dr. Weis' reply more than a little surprising, so I'll quote him directly (verbatim, in part):

• "Please keep in mind that the provision of charter schools to accommodate school choice was a political solution by the legislature not a pedagogical solution."
• "Your metaphor of “problem” and “remedy” does not fit this circumstance. The Charter School is not a remedy for a problem. It is an option for public school choice."
• "I just want to remind you that the proliferation of charter schools is not a solution to an educational problem, it is a political solution to the increase in parents who want school choice."
• "The soundness of the proposed educational program is not a comparative rating to the existing programs or outcomes."

Dr. Weis claims that the intent of Charter Law is politics rather than education, and he does not fundamentally view charter schools as a means to address the unmet needs of students. He seems to say that school choice is the ultimate goal of the Charter Act, not a means to an end, as I have said. Dr. Weis' interpretation does not conform to the letter or spirit of the Charter Act, which is rife with reference to learning improvement, success criteria and serving under-served, low-performing students.

And no comparison is made between the program affected students have in district schools and what they would have under a new charter.

So I ask each of you: Do you agree with Dr. Weis? In your capacity as a SCCOE Board Member, do you support this interpretation/administration of the Charter Act? Do you agree that "school choice" alone (in the absence of an assessment of student needs and outcomes, no judgement of costs/benefits to the host community) is sufficient justification for a charter, and is a legitimate, defensible interpretation and administration of the statute?

Mr DiSalvo, for you specifically:

In response to the question, "What should be the role of the County Board of Education with regard to charter schools?" you've been quoted as saying, "Charter schools if denied by a local school district and appealed for chartering to the SCCOE Board as a member of the Board I would study the charter application and vote on a case by case basis with care. I prefer dependent charters commissioned by districts rather than the SCCOE. However, if a Charter can be a beacon of light for public school programs to learn from then and only then, if the County staff feel it is a viable application, I would vote in the affirmative. I predict these affirmative votes would be rare on my record."

Given these sentiments:

• When you say "beacon of light for public schools to learn from" you seem to be acknowledging that student need is your priority, but do you, in your capacity as Board president, lead your Board and direct the COE to judge "viability" based on evidence of student needs and outcomes, or perform a cost/benefit analysis with a detailed understanding of the situation on the ground in the affected community and the charter's likelihood for success?
• Your preference for district-commissioned charters is probably wise - but how does your success calculus change when a charter is not district commissioned? How do you handicap the likelihood of actual improvement if/when a host community and a charter are not mutually supportive? How do you ensure that a charter provides significant incremental value over existing schools?
• In predicting that your affirmative votes would be rare, on what basis did you then imagine rejecting a charter application?

My entire exchange with Dr Weis started simply enough, but grew far beyond its original intent: I went looking for whatever evidence of unmet student need was submitted by BCS in the course of their original charter application.

I was told that no evidence of actual student need is ever required by SCCBOE.

Again, let's forget all about LASD/BCS for a minute—this is a county-level issue that could affect all schools and districts: Choice for the sake of choice alone is no legitimate basis for establishing a charter school because Charter Law was intended to address unmet student need. If you fail to assess student need, you can't possibly know what remedies are justified, and any charter approved by your Board in the absence of proof of need must be illegitimate.

Are you all willing to disrupt the smooth operation of some of the finest public schools in the state on grounds that have nothing at all to do with delivering high quality education and remediating social injustice?

Now, in the specific case of BCS, there was a whole lot of parent anger about redistricting and closing a neighborhood school underpinning the original charter application, but to borrow a rather apt and timely phrase from Craig Mann, "This is a solution without a problem. I repeat, this is a solution where there is no problem to solve. There is a lot of manufactured rage but there is no problem." My point exactly. No educational problem to be solved.

Thank you all for your service to the needs of students county-wide, but especially for defending the rights of the 4,500 students whose families made a choice to attend state-leading LASD neighborhood schools from among the many (non-charter) options available in our area.

Joe Seither
Los Altos, CA

The problem is simple: communications are deficient among BCS, SCCOE, and the LASD community

From: Dave Cortright
To: Joseph Di Salvo; Michael Chang; Anna Song; Grace Mah; Julia Hoover-Smoot; Leon Beauchman; Craig Mann; Charles Weis; Cary Dritz; Lucretia Peebles
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 9:49 AM
Subject: The problem is simple: communications are deficient among BCS, SCCOE, and the LASD community

SCCOE Board and Staff,

I've been reading the summaries of your meeting last night with dismay. Regarding the appointment of a neutral member to BCS' board, some of you say you don't see a problem that needs solving. Perhaps you can't see the problem now, but can't you at least see that the concerns of the community that you've been hearing over the past 7+ months is indicative that there is at least a chance there underlying problems? Doesn't that at least warrant investigation? I'm not asking you to see the problems right now. But can you at least see that there is significant evidence that problems do exist?

Given that, the problem we are trying to solve in the near term is we collectively do not have enough information. And to do that we need to significantly ramp up communications among everyone involved. We need to gather all the information available and hear from all the different people and groups who have a stake in this issue making sure that everyone has an equitable seat at the table. From there we can define the root problems and start working on implementing solutions.

The solution to the problem is straightforward: we need to increase communications among BCS, SCCOE, and the LASD community. And having a neutral party on the BCS board who's responsibility is to represent SCCOE and LASD interests and report back is such an essential part of the solution. Look at the representation of the BCS board today, taken from Cary Dritz' April 4 memo to you:

Members of the Bullis Charter Board are chosen from recommendations made by an Ad Hoc nominating committee that is comprised of:

a. 2 Bullis Parent Association Representatives
b. 3 Bullis Board members
c. 1 person from Bullis ( Superintendent/Principal)
d. 1 person from the Bullis Foundation

Of the 7 members of the BCS board, not one represents the views and interests of the broader LASD community. And not one represents the views and interests of you, their chartering authority. This person will not only represent LASD and SCCOE to BCS, but they will also report back to SCCOE and the LASD community. They would be officially filling the role that members of the community are doing ad hoc with letters such as these to you.

And while we're on the subject of increasing communications, I am very disappointed that you cancelled the Los Altos Community Forum on public education and charter schools, which was supposed to take place next week. I was so incredibly happy when your Office initially scheduled the meeting. It showed that you were actually interested in reaching out to us and providing a place where an honest give and take can occur—and holding it in our own community too! Yet by canceling, you sent the opposite message: that on second thought, you're not really that interesting in hearing what we have to say.

I hear that you plan to reschedule. But why are we trapped into the narrow frame of thinking where "there can be only one" public forum? Why not AND instead of OR? Let's have the forum next week as scheduled, AND let's have another in May. AND let's continue to have them while we find them valuable to helping move us forward. Public forums are not a scarce resource; we must not treat it as such.

I know that BCS asked for the cancellation because they felt that the public forum might negatively impact the ongoing mediation. I assert that if something as benign as holding a public forum could derail mediation, then the mediation was all too fragile to begin with. Any number of other minor issues would have caused it to fail.

We are privileged to live in the greatest democracy ever, and public forums like this are the cornerstone of our democracy. I believe that BCS is afraid of opposing views and wants to suppress the voices of the community, trying to push out the forum as far as possible, or even cancel outright. And by caving to their request, you are as guilty as they are of impeding the democratic process. You are delaying our community's feedback to you. Feedback delayed is feedback denied.

Please, show us that you really are interested in hearing what everyone in the LASD community has to say. Reinstate the April 25th public forum. AND schedule any number of additional forums as needed. Do not be shy with your resolve here. We in the LASD community are begging you to listen to us. Perhaps you won't agree with us; but at least do us the honor of listening to us.

Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
·Dave Cortright

 

I cannot disagree more that the rage in our community is manufactured

From: Dave Cortright
To: Craig Mann 
Cc: Joseph Di Salvo; Michael Chang; Anna Song; Grace Mah; Julia Hoover-Smoot; Leon Beauchman; Charles Weis; Cary Dritz; Lucretia Peebles
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 12:08 AM
Subject: I cannot disagree more that the rage in our community is manufactured

Mr. Mann,

I heard that at tonight's board meeting you said the rage in our community is manufactured. You claim that we in the LASD community are not being genuine with our passion and concern around the numerous issues surrounding BCS and your Office's performance (or lack thereof) in its oversight. That is quite a serious assertion, and I wonder: what proof you have to support it?

I can assure that—first—it is not rage I feel. At first it was disappointment to the level of disbelief. But now it is a steely determination to ensure that injustices are minimally brought to light and maximally, actually fixed.

And second, my feelings on this issue are not manufactured. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I was raised the son of two public school teachers: my father a high school math teacher and my mother a lifelong special education teacher. Even when she retired from the public schools after 30+ years of service, my mother immediately went to work at Wayne State University training the next generation of speech therapists. I grew up in a household where public education was sacred; where it was equally available to all regardless of geographic location, socioeconomic class, race or ability.

If after my 6+ months of rational and methodical evisceration of the failings at both BCS and SCCOE; after spending nights and weekends educating myself on this issue; after offering up my skills and abilities to my community for which I emphatically assure you that I am receiving no remuneration nor am I in any way associated with any professional organization; if after all of this you still think my passion is "manufactured", then you are being a close-minded narcissist. You are choosing to forgo connection with—and worse show absolutely no empathy for—a segment of your constituents: the people in you county whom you represent.

My challenge to you Mr. Mann—and indeed to all those who represent SCCOE—is to open your mind. It is all too easy lock yourself into a state of mind and then contemptuously dismiss anyone or anything that challenges your beliefs. This is known as the backfire effect. But if you work past that initial knee-jerk reaction and really try to understand where we are coming from; if you treated us as a trusted advisor collaborating with you towards a shared goal rather than an opponent to be vanquished; then I know we could get to a resolution much more quickly and easily.

One last thing to consider: do you think the way you are handling this situation is a good model for the kids we are educating? When confronted with an opposing viewpoint, do you think the lesson to be learned is to throw up walls, be intransigent, and belittle those who dare oppose you? I don't. And I think if you take a moment of completely open, honest, and yes even vulnerable self-reflection, you might just agree with me. That is my hope.

Best regards,
·Dave Cortright

SCCOE: COPAA report on charter schools and students with disabilities

From: Dave Cortright
To: Joseph Di Salvo; Michael Chang; Anna Song; Grace Mah; Julia Hoover-Smoot; Leon Beauchman; Craig Mann; Charles Weis ; Cary Dritz; Lucretia Peebles
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 7:08 AM
Subject: COPAA report on charter schools and students with disabilities

Members of the Santa Clara County Board of Education and Office of Education,

This is a very important report that really must be required reading for everyone in SCCOE.

Charter Schools and Students with Disabilities: Preliminary Analysis of the Legal Issues and Concerns
by The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA)

It is not legally or morally acceptable that these so-called 'schools of choice' that are concentrated in urban communities and supported with public funds, should be permitted to operate as segregated learning environments where students are more isolated by race, socioeconomic class, disability, and language than the public school district from which they were drawn.

This quote is so incredibly apt and important, I encourage you all to print it and hang it up in your workspace as a reminder of the importance of your duties overseeing so many charter schools and ensuring that they provide equal opportunities for all. So I took the liberty of creating this PDF for you. Just print and post.

Here are even more quotes from the report's summary:

...Disturbingly, data shows that students with disabilities (especially low incidence, more significant disabilities) are denied meaningful access to and a free appropriate public education within charter schools.

Having the ability to choose assumes parents of all children have available school options, yet research suggests that families’ access to the educational marketplace is unequally constrained. It is essential to the degree that such schools of choice continue to exist that they are held accountable for ensuring access to all students, for providing meaningful teaching and instruction designed to improve educational outcomes that are not limited to test scores but the kind of knowledge and skills all students need to be college and career ready...

Attention is paid to the under-representation in charter schools of students who have more significant disabilities with more resource intensive educational needs and the exclusion of these students through selectivity, controlled outreach, counseling out, and other push out practices. In this context, the paper examines the legal rights of students with disabilities to be free from discrimination, to receive a free appropriate public education, to be educated with students without disabilities in the regular education classroom to the maximum extent appropriate, and to be provided an equal opportunity to access publicly funded charter schools...

As compared to their traditional public school counterparts, there is evidence that charter schools... tend to enroll disproportionately greater numbers of students with high incidence disabilities—such as specific learning disabilities—and lower numbers of students with low incidence, more significant disabilities (e.g., intellectual disabilities and autism) with more educationally intensive and costly needs...

With respect to students requiring extensive special education services, the imbalance is dismal. For example, during the 2005-2006 school year, there were only three children with intellectual disabilities in all San Diego non-conversion charter schools combined; traditional schools across the district, meanwhile, educated almost one thousand students with intellectual disabilities. New Orleans, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC—three districts that rely heavily on charter schools—currently face claims of systemic discrimination based on administrative and judicial actions brought under the IDEA and Section 504.

But please do not just skim this email and call your work here done. Please read the full report. Understand it's implications. And then—of utmost importance—take action to correct these failings. I feel like you owe that much to all of the special needs students in the county that you represent.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
·Dave Cortright

 

Everything is a Remix

I highly recommend watching these.