There are a few people in Alameda whose opinion I respect immensely, one of those few people is Rob Siltanen. A dedicated teacher at Alameda High School, he is one of those folks who puts his proverbial money where his mouth is. After the painful budget process last year, rather than decrying that AUSD was poorly managed and lamenting the state of our funding from the State, he and another Alameda teacher/parent used their spare time to try and see if there was a legal option for AUSD to get its fair share of funding. So when he talks (or in this case, writes) about Alameda school issues, I listen (or in this case, read). What follows is his email:
As you are probably aware, the group that runs one of Alameda’s charter schools (ACLC, a 6-12 grade school) has proposed a new Alameda K-12 charter school to open in 2008 that would begin with 308 students and then grow to 408. The AUSD Board is scheduled to hear the group’s presentation of its charter application at the Board meeting on December 11 and then to approve or not approve the charter application on January 8.
I am writing to urge you to join me in opposing this charter application. My opposition to the charter is based on my belief that in the particular context of Alameda in 2008, if the new charter school (“Nea Community Learning Center”) does enroll 308 to 408 learners students from AUSD as suggested in the charter application, the financial impact on the remaining 9500 or so AUSD students will be just as devastating as would any other 300-400 student decline in enrollment in AUSD.
If the charter application is granted and the Nea Community Learning Center (officially operated by a new entity called CLCS) opens with 308 Alameda students as it hopes in 2008, the resulting 3% drop in AUSD enrollment would require well more than a millions dollars in immediate budget cuts in AUSD. If Nea then grows to 408 Alameda students as the CLCS application proposes, AUSD will be facing budget cuts in the neighborhood of 1.5 to 2 million dollars in the very near future.
When a decline in student enrollment is spread across more than one school site (as it would be likely to be if the Nea/CLCS charter is granted) AUSD still faces the same fixed costs (and substantially the same variable costs) as before the decline in enrollment and must then make cuts proportional to the decline in enrollment, not necessarily at a 1:1 ratio, but at a high ratio. Based on a very conservative estimate of a .6% cut in expenditures for every 1% reduction in student enrollment, the projected 3-4% decline in enrollment due to Nea’s opening would result in something like 1.8%-2.4% of the AUSD budget, which would mean something roughly in the range of 1.5 to 2 million dollars in cuts. In a year when the state budget is facing a significant deficit so that cuts in spending on education on a statewide basis are also possible, this is a recipe for a budgetary disaster for AUSD students and employees.
Based on the budget cuts AUSD has endured for five of the past seven years, we already know what the impact of those cuts will be: It is highly likely that programs and services for children will have to be cut; class sizes will increase, at least in grades 4-12; health, counseling and other services for students will continue to decline; arts, music and athletic programs will be reduced further; teacher and staff compensation will continue to fall relative to nearby districts so that AUSD’s ability to attract and retain great teachers and staff will continue to weaken; the chances of teacher and staff layoffs will rise; and the probability of more school closures/consolidations will increase.
It will be too late to fight these painful cuts during future “community meetings” on budget cuts that would have to be scheduled in the winter of 2008 or 2009 if the charter is approved. It will also be too late to fight this during “negotiations” between employee groups and AUSD in 2008-2009 when teachers and staff ask “where did the money go?” The answer will be “declining enrollment due to 300-400 Alameda students going to Nea.” The time to fight this is now, before AUSD loses millions of dollars annually, all in order to possibly benefit of a few hundred Nea/CLCS students.
Aside from the terrible financial hit this school would place on AUSD, I am also opposed to the charter based on ACLC’s record of serving disproportionately a socio-economically and ethnically skewed demographic (i.e., their student population is skewed towards the “haves” rather than the “have nots”). I don’t believe the assertions in their new charter application that they’ll do things differently in the future than they have for the past decade. I’m also troubled by the fact that AUSD has been subsidizing the already advantaged students of ACLC for ten years (as AUSD has been required to do under state law) by paying ACLC the difference between the state’s average per-student BRL spending and AUSD’s below state-average per-student BRL spending.
Under California law the AUSD Board has only a few legally permissible bases upon which to deny the CLCS application. Unfortunately, it is possible that California charter law does not to allow “educational harm to the overwhelming majority of students due to budget cuts” to be one of those bases. So, despite the compelling financial, policy, and moral bases upon which to oppose this charter set forth above, it appears that the Board is limited by law to a relatively narrow set of reasons to deny the charter.
Still, after reading the CLCS charter application and thinking quite a bit about this, I do believe there are legally permissible bases upon which the Board could and should deny the charter application. For example, the Board may deny the application if it finds, as I think it could and should, that CLCS is “demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition.” I have read nearly the entire charter application and have come to the conclusion that whatever success ACLC has or has not achieved with their skewed population of 6-12 students, they have insufficient experience with the very different world of K-5 education, particularly with the diverse K-5 population they claim they will be aiming to serve.
CLCS has no experience as an organization in K-5 education. K-5 education is a different world from 6-12 education so the claim that they will “replicate” their ACLC 6-12 program is untenable. CLCS does have some “K-5 people” signed up to be “team leaders” according to the application, but that is not sufficient to show they can actually implement the K-5 program described. Moreover, the charter application exaggerates and misrepresents the qualifications and skills of the proposed “team leaders.” Contrary to the claims in the application, the identified “team leaders” are not qualified to build and run the school described in the charter application. Accordingly, I believe a strong argument can be made (and the Board could and should find) that Nea/CLCS is not likely to successfully implement the K-5 program set forth in the charter petition and the charter application should be denied for that reason, as well as for any other reasons that might apply…
What I found most compelling, and something that had red flags going off when I first read ACLC’s website, was the demographics issue. Under About Us on the ACLC website, this is how the demographics are placed into narrative form:
The ACLC serves roughly 200 6th-12th grade learners from all over the city of Alameda. Our student population is representative of the general population of Alameda, with slight under representation of Asian learners and an over representation of Caucasian students…
Now, the general population of Alameda is entirely different from the school aged population in Alameda. So a better gauge would have been to set it up against the school aged population rather than the general population which I found rather disingenuous. So, I compared it with Encinal and Alameda High Schools’ population as reported on the SARC reports. ACLC according to their SARC report:
Student Enrollment by Ethnic Group 2006-07 Percentage African American 13.6 American Indian 1.4 Asian 8.9 Caucasian 60.3 Filipino 7.5 Hispanic 6.1 Pacific Islander 0.5 Multiple or No Response 1.9
Alameda High School from their SARC report:
Student Enrollment by Ethnic Group 2006-07 Percentage African American 7.0 American Indian 0.3 Asian 43.8 Caucasian 30.2 Filipino 6.5 Hispanic 10.8 Pacific Islander 1.1 Multiple or No Response 0.3
And Encinal High School from their SARC report:
Student Enrollment by Ethnic Group 2006-07 Percentage African American 23.7 American Indian 0.7 Asian 21.8 Caucasian 19.1 Filipino 15.4 Hispanic 15.1 Pacific Islander 2.1 Multiple or No Response 2.1
Being generous and giving ACLC the benefit of the doubt, they have done well when compared with the Alameda High population when it comes to enrollment of African American, Filipino, and Pacific Islander students. The population is pretty much the same porportionally when it comes to the Filipino and Pacific Islander students as compared to Alameda High’s population. When it comes to African American students they have almost double the percentage of African American students as Alameda High School does. But ACLC is not in the central or eastern end of Alameda, they are in the West End housed at Encinal High School so one would think that their population would be more comparable to that of Encinal High School, but, it is shockingly not. Encinal High has a pretty diverse population of students, but whereas ACLC has more than 60% of their population as white, Encinal High’s white population is only 19% percent. Even using the higher number of white kids at Alameda High only brings the percentage of white kids at 30%, almost half the percentage of white kids represented at ACLC. What is even more shocking is the complete underrepresentation of Asian kids, while Alameda High has 43% of their student population as Asian and Encinal High only has its student population at nearly 22%, ACLC only has enrolled, according to their numbers, 9% of their population as Asian. Not to mention their Hispanic/Latino population (6.1%) is woefully under both Encinal (15.1%) and Alameda High’s (10.8%) enrollment numbers.
It’s interesting to note that in ACLC’s charter application that they write (p. 5):
…CLCS seeks to expand into the K-5 grades to “Close the Achievement Gap” in the Alameda community. By sixth grade, there is a significant achievement gap in Alameda public school students between Caucasian students and Hispanic and African American students. CLCS seeks to use its innovative 21st century educational model to close that achievement gap so those underserved learners can be more successful in its 6-12 model (or other 6-12 Alameda schools) and gain acceptance into four year colleges and universities…
But yet, given the opportunity to enroll those identified as by ACLC as needing assistance to bridge the achievement gap, the latest numbers provided by ACLC show a disporportionate number of white students enrolled compared to those at Alameda or Encinal High Schools. Further in ACLC charter application (p. 6), they write:
The Nea Community Learning Center seeks to locate in the west end of Alameda and serve this multiethnic community with a high quality, high performing 21st century educational model that will lead to a high acceptance rate for this diverse population into four year colleges and universities. As a basis for the 6-12 portion of the new school, the NCLC will market to and encourage applications from the current wait list of the ACLC (156 students, 62.4% non-Caucasian)…
Of course, as we all know, ACLC is already located in the west end of Alameda on the Encinal High School campus, but yet they have not yet managed to mirror the ethnic make-up of the Encinal High School population despite the number of years of being in the west end of Alameda. And of course using the 62.4% non-Caucasian rate, which means 37.6% Caucasian, is still more than the white student population at Alameda High. So if they have been relatively unsuccessful at achieveing racial balance, why would opening the school to K-5 in addition to 6-12 and moving to a former elementary school magically do the trick?
So while ACLC does well with the population of students that it has, it does not necessarily mean that they will be successful in meeting the goals they have set out in this current charter application.
WRT to funding: Does the district receive the same state funding for a charter schoola s for at a stnadrd school? Siltanen’s email indicates that funding differs but it’s not clear. If funding is same, I fail to see how it’s a budget problem.
WRT to racial balance: Isn’t attendance at ACLC voluntary? Or is George Wallace standing in its doorway?
Comment by dave — December 11, 2007 @ 7:38 am
From Rob: Aside from the terrible financial hit this school would place on AUSD, I am also opposed to the charter based on ACLC’s record of serving disproportionately a socio-economically and ethnically skewed demographic (i.e., their student population is skewed towards the “haves” rather than the “have nots”).
Maybe I misunderstand here, but don’t the charter students skew themselves? I thought enrollment was based on self-motivation, not race/socio-economic background.
Comment by Jack B. — December 11, 2007 @ 7:40 am
Even though charter schools are public schools that receive California tax monies, for accounting purposes the charter school revenues are not part of the District revenues. So in essence it is as if a student is enrolled in a private school and the District loses the associated revenue.
For additional background on charter school oversight, the Nea Charter application documents, and other related matters:
http://mikemcmahon.info/charteroversight.htm
Comment by Mike McMahon — December 11, 2007 @ 8:40 am
Dave,
I think this was discussed recently on another thread. I hope Rob or somebody else gets on here soon to give a better answer, but here is one attempt.
In simple terms the district has all the same overhead, plant, maintenance etc. but the impact of this proposal has a huge diversion of funds. It’s simply efficiencies of scale.
Think about it. Last year the board seriously considered consolidating a pair of middle schools to make the budget paper out. This creates a new school.
Charters are supposed to get the state average which is about $60 more per student that Alameda’s ADA. AUSD has been getting the lesser amount from the state for the total number of students including AUSD and ACLC and then taking money from it’s traditional system to pay ACLC the extra $60. It’s called a subsidy.
Attendance to entire system is voluntary, it’s the state which sets the charter rules. Because the initial populace is selected by lottery, in theory everybody has a reasonably even chance at admission. But if mostly white families which are more upwardly mobile to begin with are the ones applying, and/or not washing out, then aren’t the lower socio-economic set of kids in the traditional system taking a hit to their services to support a more privileged group of kids? That’s how I see it.
I’m not opposed to more choices or a charter in principle, but I think the timing of CLCS on this couldn’t be worse. They should be pulling for the entire district, not their own special interest at the expense of the rest of us.
Comment by Mark I — December 11, 2007 @ 8:40 am
“But if mostly white families which are more upwardly mobile to begin with are the ones applying, and/or not washing out, then aren’t the lower socio-economic set of kids in the traditional system taking a hit to their services to support a more privileged group of kids?”
Seriously? I don’t understand this comment… what does this have to do w/ upward social mobility? If you want to attend the school, you apply.
“They should be pulling for the entire district, not their own special interest at the expense of the rest of us.”
Are you saying kids seeking a decent education should be more concerned about how everyone else is doing? Why? Why should a self-motivated academic give a rat’s ass about the other kids who dress like gangstas and primarily just want to play video games?
Comment by Jack B. — December 11, 2007 @ 8:52 am
What about the kids whose counselors might be cut and who need these counselors to guide them through the college admissions process because there is insufficent money? What about the kids whose music funding is cut because there is not enough money? What about the kids whose JROTC is cut because there is not enough money? What about the kids who would like to attend a neighborhood Middle School (Wood) but it is back on the consolidation block because there is not enough money? What about the kids whose sports programs will be affected because of lack of money to continue funding a coach? Why should kids seeking a decent education in the already available public school options be penalized because this charter school wants to experiment in providing K-5 services? All kids will be affected by the loss of funds, not just those that dress like gangstas and primarily want to play video games. If we don’t impress on our young people to care about the impacts of their personal decisions on the rest of the world (eg the rest of the school going population) how can we expect them as our future leaders to do what is right, not just for them individually, but for everyone else as well? End soapbox rant
Comment by Lauren Do — December 11, 2007 @ 9:54 am
Lauren, I think the teachers/board members have the right concerns and should be concerned… but I also think the kids/families who seek the alternative should be fighting for their cause too, rather then laying down because of funding problems that aren’t their fault in the first place.
Last time I checked, this wasn’t a socialist country. The pursuit of excellence marches on.
Other than that, I certainly do not have an answer to this problem. But let me tell you what I see… truant kids from AHS hanging out and smoking across the street during school… as opposed to the very impressive kids from the charter I met this summer. I’d like to see more of them.
Comment by Jack B. — December 11, 2007 @ 10:02 am
I have a question about the finances that perhaps Mike McMahon can answer. My understanding is that a charter must pay certain fees to the school district. Is that correct? And if it is, what’s the bottom line? Would the fixed costs currently paid out of ADA to the AUSD be covered by fees paid by NCLC?
I ask because I have a vague (and possibly incorrect) recollection that back during the budget debates, there were some rumblings about closing ACLC, but that one of the factors weighing against that was a positive impact to the bottom line based on the higher ADA paid for students who attend ACLC.
Comment by prb — December 11, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Jack:
There are good seeds and bad seeds in every organization, but like the very impressive kids at ACLC, there are an equal if not greater number of impressive kids at Encinal and Alameda High Schools. From the Alameda Magazine summer article on recent Alameda graduates, it reported in the profiles for the Encinal and Alameda High kids that they would be attending the following schools: Yale, Berkeley or UC San Diego, University of Southern CA, and Brown. There’s also a profile of a young lady self described as “addicted” to World of Warcraft, but yet also managed to maintain stellar grades and be involved in clubs and after school activities.
Comment by Lauren Do — December 11, 2007 @ 10:35 am
Lauren, I do not dispute that. And I think that Rob and Mike McMahon’s efforts are totally in the right place given their roles here.
My kids might very well end up at AHS, and I know some good kids from there as well. My point is only that the charter kids know they have something good going on and should pursue it. The school funding problems are there with or without the charter schools.
But alas… Mark I’s comment about the timing is indeed on the mark.
Comment by Jack B. — December 11, 2007 @ 10:56 am
Q&A
***”What about the kids whose counselors might be cut and who need these counselors to guide them through the college admissions process because there is insufficent money?”
What? These college bound kids are graduating from high school and can’t even guide themselves through college admissions process? Maybe those who cannot guide themselves through ought re-admit themselves into high school and try it again.
***”What about the kids whose music funding is cut because there is not enough money?”
What about them? Love and learning of music does not exist exclusively in public schools.
***”What about the kids whose JROTC is cut because there is not enough money?”
I’ll bet those kids wanting the military as a career wouldn’t have any problems guiding themselves through the military service admission process.
***”What about the kids who would like to attend a neighborhood Middle School (Wood) but it is back on the consolidation block because there is not enough money?”
Come on, attending public schools does not nor should not imply attending a school of choice.
***”What about the kids whose sports programs will be affected because of lack of money to continue funding a coach?”
Shift the funding from the counseling program or eliminate extracurricular sports.
***”Why should kids seeking a decent education in the already available public school options be penalized because this charter school wants to experiment in providing K-5 services?”
They aren’t being penalized. Funding, more or less, does not make a “decent” education. Learning takes motivation and desire. Traits that, apparently, charter school students do have while regular public school students may have.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 11, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Charter Schools And Race
http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/deseg/CharterSchools.php
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — December 11, 2007 @ 11:09 am
Re. # 4
“Charters are supposed to get the state average which is about $60 more per student that Alameda’s ADA. AUSD has been getting the lesser amount from the state for the total number of students including AUSD and ACLC and then taking money from it’s traditional system to pay ACLC the extra $60. It’s called a subsidy.”
Mark I, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that Charters get a larger amount per student in Alameda than regular public schools. Then the state commingles the funding and sends the entire amount to AUSD. ASUD then passes the charter school amount (which happens to be more dollars per student) on to the Charter schools. Is that correct? I wouldn’t call that a ’subsidy’.
If this is true, why not switch all our schooling to Charter schools?
Comment by Jack Richard — December 11, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
While I too have tremendous respect for Rob Siltanen, I think his analysis of the racial component of ACLC and the likelihood that NCLC will have a similar racial makeup is flawed. Specifically, Mr. Siltanen fails to take one very important ACLC admission criteria into account that will not be present at NCLC.
It’s my understanding that ACLC gives admission preference to siblings of students currently attending ACLC. Because the population of Caucasian students at ACLC is predominently Caucasian, the sibling preferece policy likely perpetuates the predominently Caucasian racial makeup of ACLC.
In contrast, according to the statistcs cited above, non-Caucasian students constitute 62.4% of the wait list at ACLC. Therefore, it appears that there may be unsatisfied demand for the ACLC model among non-Caucasian students who are shut out of opportunities to attend ACLC because preference is given to the siblings of the current predominently Caucasian student population at ACLC.
Although the demographics of ACLC may be one indicator of the possible demographics of NCLC, it may be just as likely that the population of the new school would be closer to the demographics of the waitlist at ACLC — meaning that roughly 2/3 of the NCLC population would be non-Caucasian. Moreover, it is my understanding that unlike ACLC, NCLC’s charter does not provide for sibling preference. So the same demographic perpetuation issues would not be present at NCLC.
Comment by prb — December 11, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
School funding is never easy to explain, let alone the relationship between school districts and charter schools.
Prior to last year, AUSD was paying a “subsidy” to ACLC. The reason was that charter school for the 6-12 configuration received a higher per student funding than Alameda’s per student funding and AUSD made up the difference. The Legislature fixed that after school districts like AUSD complained about the inequity. Now, charter school are funded on a formula that is sent from the state to District which passes it on to the charter school.
See page 3 on this document for projected levels for next year.
http://mikemcmahon.info/NeaFiscal.pdf
Comment by Mike McMahon — December 11, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
PRB - Yes AUSD is able to charge administrative fees for handling charter schools finances. The legislation set outs the amounts and usually amounts to 1% to 3%.
So for every $5777 for per student funding for an AUSD student that moves to CLCS, we get between $50 to $150 depending on the MOU. So unless we can reduce expenses the District loses apprximately $5600 per student that leaves. Certtainly, if enough students leave we can reduce teachers provided they are concentrated in the right grade level and school site.
Comment by Mike McMahon — December 11, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
From Jack R. “What? These college bound kids are graduating from high school and can’t even guide themselves through college admissions process? Maybe those who cannot guide themselves through ought re-admit themselves into high school and try it again.”
I can’t help but wonder how long it has been since Jack applied for college, but the admission process isn’t easy, particularly if you are a first generation applicant or recent immigrant. Those are exactly the type of kids that most benefit from counselors, and would be the most impacted by cuts.
Comment by notadave — December 11, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
After reading Lauren’s initial post again, I realized that some of the thoughts I attributed to Rob Siltanen in #14 were actually Lauren’s comments. My apoligies to both. (And Lauren, I have the utmost respect for you too.)
Comment by prb — December 11, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
And I do know how to spell “apologies.” ACK!
Comment by prb — December 11, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
Please allow me to make the following observations. On the one hand, one or more AUSD elementary schools (Edison, for sure and perhaps others) are so popular that students were being turned away, resulting in a soon-to-be implemented lottery system. It was a topic on this very blog about 1 mouth ago. On the other hand, it seems that once students leave said elementary schools, AUSD schools suddenly become less popular.
What could be causing these seemingly divergent trends? As someone else has already pointed out, ACLC’s student population is “self-selecting”, and…drumroll please… predominantly white (60%). Not surprisingly, the student population at Edison is also predominantly white (70%). However, public school profiles such as Edison’s and ACLC’s are becoming increasingly rare in Alameda, and indeed, throughout the Bay Area.
Mike McMahon’s excellent website contains demographic (racial) data on AUSD’s student population from 2002-07, which you may view here: http://www.mikemcmahon.info/apibasedata.htm#s. The data shows that while the overall student population (API tested) has dropped by 0.3% in 5 years, the number of white students has dropped by 8.9%. Luckily for AUSD funding purposes, the drop in white students has been counterbalanced by a nearly one-for-one increase in Asian students.
Last time, I was attacked for making these observations, and stating an obvious fact: that white students are leaving the Alameda public school system at a rate of 1-2% per year, and will continue to do so until the “bottom” is reached. In San Francisco, this bottom is slightly under 10% of the student population while in Oakland, it’s around 3-4%. Options for white students include charter schools, such as ACLC, and private schools. And let’s not forget just moving away.
Until more white parents are comfortable with sending their children to schools where white students are no longer in the majority, we will continue to see “white flight” to
private or charter schools–where statistics show white students continue to be numerically superior (go ahead and look-up Head Royce, College Prep, University High, Redwood Day, etc.). Thus, it seems clear that AUSD will continue to experience funding issues unless it can convince white parents to keep their children in the system.
Thank you ACLC, for demonstrating my “white flight” point from last month. You may now resume attacking me.
Comment by James Chen — December 11, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
For those who are interested here is a link to Powerpoint to be delivered by team for the charter school applicants at tonight’s Board meeting:
http://mikemcmahon.info/BOE1211CLCS.ppt (5MB file so be patient as it loads from the site)
Comment by Mike McMahon — December 11, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Competition is a good thing, ACLC should be encouraged. Perhaps it might even serve to make the bloated AUSD more efficient.
Comment by Roberto — December 11, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
#15 Thanks Mike for clarifying. I am relieved that problem has been ameliorated.
#13 Jack, your last line about chartering the whole district, that has occurred to me too and the answer is obviously not a simple one or it probably would have been tried.
In your #11 Q&A you think you have an answer for every question, but in many cases it’s easier to say stuff than really implement. Or maybe prove me wrong and run for school board.
#20 James Chen. I’d like to take time to make a methodical and calm response to some of your points, but for now I would just say that the attacks on you were not for stating facts about increases and decreases in enrollment of various groups, it was for the conclusions you drew from those statistics and also your whole liberal bashing shtick, which is a can of worms I don’t want to re-open on this thread, at least this evening.
Comment by Mark I — December 11, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
What is the ethnic mix of the teachers at the proposed school? Does that mix reflect the current student population in Alameda?
I wonder if white parents would enroll their children in a school where there were no white teachers?
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — December 11, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
I just returned from the meeting which is still going on.
Of those speaking in support of NCLC, there were NO students or parents who appeared to be anything but white. The main presenter, an ACLC staff, was African American. I saw some Asian people in the room who did not speak, but if there were other persons of color I missed them.
The NCLC power point included the fact that ACLC has only “dis-enrolled” 4 students in eight years. That’s kind of like disinterred. It means they dig them out against their will. Board member Schaff then asked about the number of students who left voluntarily. That rate is about twenty percent a year.
I think it’s fine to present statistics to support ones position, but I feel the 4 in 8 years thing to be misleading the unwitting public.
Then board member Schaff pointed out that the vast majority of the wash outs are students of color (I missed the percentage). ACLC staff were parsing their defense of that item as I left, but I managed to hear the point being made that they need the K-5 so they can get those kids before they are “tainted”, so they won’t wash out as high school students. The teacher sitting next to me had to stifle herself from making a loud protest to the effect that the ACLC staff member had just insulted the entire staff of AUSD.
After waiting for two hours I spoke (without opportunity to shower or eat after work I might add). About two minutes in to my rap, near my conclusion, board member McMahon was seen with his face smashed deeply into the palm of his hand, as if he was about to collapse of ennui. I know Mike has heard it all before from me here on this blog, but when a person shows the courage of their conviction to speak publicly against the sentiments of the majority in the room, or any time we drag ass to the podium, a little more respect might be in order. I almost stopped and cracked wise about putting him to sleep, but I was a tad nervous and anxious not to lose my train of thought. I did get some polite applause from a potentially hostile audience, so I’m cool with it.
Comment by Mark I — December 11, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
Roberto,
You want to tell us what you actually know about how bloated AUSD actually is, or are you just spouting empty rhetoric based on a notion you have?
Comment by Mark I — December 11, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
Goooooo James Chen!!! #20 pretty much spells it out. I graduated from EHS in 1983 and have no intention of allowing my children to attend the same schools I attended. IE.. Woodstock, Longfellow, Chipman and Encinal. I’m very much a blue-collar union man. I grew up in Alameda in the “Deep West-End” and with the exception of my time in the Army, have lived here my entire life. That said…. From my humble and uneducated perspective, it’s really quite simple/obvious…. Schools, where parents CARE about there childrens education WILL PROSPER! The above mentioned schools are kinda living proof, eh?
Whats so difficult about that?
For you folks who will now attack me…. I WORK FOR A LIVING, my family is BI-RACIAL and YES, I DO HOMEWORK WITH MY KIDS EVERY NIGHT! Get a clue. Attend PTSA meetings, do homework with your kids and teach them right from wrong and maybe this blog will no longer be necessary.
Comment by Espresso911 — December 12, 2007 @ 12:09 am
I attended and later watched last night’s AUSD Board meeting to participate in and learn more about the ACLC/CLCS new charter school application. For what’s it is worth, what follows is some of what struck me as some of the most important/interesting points that came up in the ACLC/CLCS presentation and in the subsequent questions and comments from the public and the Board.
The ACLC community believes it has a great model/program.
Several Washington School teachers and at least one parent support the ACLC/CLCS charter application, largely because of frustration with AUSD.
Patricia Saunders, AEA President, seemed in her comments to suggest that teachers support ACLC/CLCS. I found her comments misleading because I know many teachers do not.
Trish Spencer, PTA Council President, explained that she supports ACLC/CLCS because she believes in parent choice.
ACLC/CLCS does not have a coherent explanation for why students of color are so under-represented among students at the school and over-represented among students who leave the school. They did suggest that if they could train the students in their model beginning in kindergarten with a K-12 charter, perhaps the students wouldn’t be “tainted” by other schools before they reached them and so then wouldn’t leave.
ACLC/CLCS either blames AUSD for forcing them to apply as an “independent charter” (as opposed to a “dependent charter”) or is content to apply as an independent charter so that they would be able to appeal any AUSD denial of their charter more easily and so they can scale up their school model and expand statewide and nationally. One person made the first claim. Another made the second.
The current timeline for approval or denial of the charter means that on January 8 AUSD staff will present their recommendation for approval or denial to the Board and the Board will decide to approve or deny the charter that same night. An alternative (to extend the 60 day timeline for review by two weeks) would be to have the AUSD staff report to the Board on January 8 and then have two more weeks for the public to weigh in before the Board would decide on January 22. Apparently, this timing (i.e., not extending the process to January 22) is not ACLC/CLCS’s fault, as it was something AUSD favors.
ACLC/CLCS has no effective plan for recruiting, outreach or targeting students/learners from groups who are historically academically low achieving, even though they claim in their application that they will do so and will close the achievement gap. The best they had to offer on this issue appeared to be the response that “if someone comes across their doorstep,” ACLC/CLCS will help them.
The ACLC/CLCS charter application makes claims unsupported by evidence. For example, according to the charter application, one of their main goals will be to close the “achievement gap” but that claim is unsupported by sufficient data for them to have made it, as they seemed to concede during questioning. Rather than explain that they lack sufficient data to determine the extent to which they are or are not closing the achievement gap, they just continued to repeat the mantra that they were closing the achievement gap despite the fact that they did not have sufficient evidence to support that claim.
ACLC/CLCS claims the K-5 portion of their new charter will succeed because their K-5 team is experienced in K-5 education. One team member has visited two schools in Japan and one in Massachusetts where K-5 students are part of a democratic community as they would be at the new charter school. Their lead K-5 person did concede that the K-5 portion of the charter would be “a bit of a trust walk.”
When asked about the likely 1.5 to 2 million dollar negative impact on AUSD if the charter were to be approved, the ACLC/CLCS responses included (1) a non-specific, unsupported, and unconvincing assertion that “a lot” of people on their waiting list for ACLC/CLCS are now in private school or are home schooled (is “ a lot” 5%, 15%, 50%?) so that the fiscal impact on AUSD of granting the new charter may not be as severe as feared and (2) acknowledging that there will be changes and adjustments (i.e., cuts) so that AUSD should just start innovating and not spend so much time worrying about money (the challenge of how to innovate effectively with millions fewer dollars remains), and (3) a student concern about the impact of this on AUSD is “a good question” that AUSD should figure out. I think it is fair to say that any and all of these fiscal concerns of how millions of dollars in budget cuts might affect the 9500 students now enrolled in AUSD were dismissed with the attitude of “that’s not our problem.”
I expect I’ll be working and speaking out more on this issue in the coming days and weeks, but I thought it would be helpful to share an update now for anyone who might be interested.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — December 12, 2007 @ 5:53 am
Understanding the “New” Racism through an Urban Charter School
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3971/is_200501/ai_n15936235/print
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — December 12, 2007 @ 6:14 am
The problem I have with liberals is that they continue to spout the party line in defiance of the facts. Case in point: The talk about “bridging the racial achievement gap” through an “innovative 21st century educational model…so those underserved learners can be more successful in its 6-12 model”.
What nonsense. The primary reason for the “achievement gap” is the increasing number of children born to unwed mothers in black and Hispanic households. Around 70% of all black children are born to single moms, and the number for Hispanic kids is about to hit 50%. The ONLY way this “achievement gap” can be narrowed significantly is by decreasing the number of children born to unwed mothers. No charter school or head start-like program will ever make a significant dent in minority poverty or drop-out rates. Yet liberals will not focus on the real problem: the breakdown of the family structure in black and Hispanic households. The only thing they have to offer are more government programs to distribute condoms, welfare money and token slots in academia and the workforce.
That said, I do think that charter schools are a good thing, for they represent a form of competition for the public schools. Parents will have a choice for their children, and that’s good. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that ACLC/CLCS will significantly raise minority test scores or increase “diversity”.
Similarly, many liberal posters on this blog continue to deny the facts about the future of AUSD enrollment. For whatever reason, white students are leaving AUSD in greater numbers than any other group—just like we’ve seen in nearby San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Fremont, Cupertino, etc.—which will result in de facto segregation of the Alameda public schools. The questions are thus: Is this trend irreversible? If so, how can we convince white parents to keep their kids in the system? If not, how do we maintain high standards for those students remaining in the system as budgets get cut (assuming less than 100% replacement)?
Comment by James Chen — December 12, 2007 @ 10:15 am
James Chen, what can ANYBODY do about how other people decide to breed?
Comment by Jack B. — December 12, 2007 @ 10:25 am
Jack - “What can ANYBODY do about how other people decide to breed?”
Answer - Provide low-income children (re: black & Hispanic kids) with tuition vouchers to attend parochial schools. The birth rate among teens attending these schools is much lower than public schools.
Of course, we know what liberals think of school vouchers, especially if they are used for Christian-based education!
Comment by James Chen — December 12, 2007 @ 11:43 am
so are you saying send them to parochials and then, with them gone, the white folks will return to the public schools?
Comment by Jack B. — December 12, 2007 @ 11:47 am
Jack - “so are you saying send them to parochials and then, with them gone, the white folks will return to the public schools”
Answer - No. There are already too many Asians in the public schools for most white liberals to feel comfortable. But it will help the black and Hispanic kids.
Comment by James Chen — December 12, 2007 @ 11:54 am
James, I don’t fashion myself a “liberal” but your premise is kinda weird. Please explain why you think white liberals are uncomfortable w/ asian kids.
Comment by Jack B. — December 12, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
Jack - “Your premise is kinda weird. Please explain why you think white liberals are uncomfortable w/ asian kids.”
Answer - Since I’m not white, I don’t know the real reasons why… But ask yourself these questions: Does “white flight” exist? How should we interpret and respond to school enrollment trends for Alameda (again, check out Mike McMahon’s website for 2002-2007 data here: http://www.mikemcmahon.info/apibasedata.htm#s). Finally, why should we care that Bay Area public school demographics rarely, if ever, mirror the overall population?
I just find it amusing that white parents in the most liberal area in the country talk about how wonderful/important diversity is, and then proceed to segregate the schools and live in mostly-segregated neighborhoods. But then again, why should it weird that “birds of a feather flock together”?
Comment by James Chen — December 12, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
#35
I think that the point is not that whites are uncomfortable with asian kids, but that some whites are uncomfortable in an environment where they are the minority and not in control. Rather than sharing power, those who traditionally had power withdraw and relocate to places where they can be in charge and the majority.
I don’t think that this is a “white thing,” but in the United States whites have both been in charge and in the majority. In other places and times it has been other groups (ethnic, religious, cultural, racial) who have been in similar positions.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — December 12, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Thank you, Alameda NayTiff.
Comment by James Chen — December 12, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
I think I’ll bring this up w/ my dads dinner group tonite… I’m the token whitey AND the token public school dad. They are mostly from Asia, South Asia, and other places but they have fled to Head Royce. Hmmmmm…. I wonder why?
Comment by Jack B. — December 12, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
James Chen, I find your responses to be very racist.
I am an African American who has lived in this community some 30 years. With great parents and the the help of some pretty great mentors I have made remarkable accomplishments and continue to be an asset to my family and my community. My parents were both educators and my grandmother born a descendant of a slave received a Masters Degree. My family is comprised of a variety of all types — teachers, engineers, lawyers, nurses and social workers, etc — not very different from the typical American family. So your comments are ignorant and racist:
“The only thing they have to offer are more government programs to distribute condoms, welfare money and token slots in academia and the workforce”
Seems to me James Chen you have a limited perspective!
I don’t have the answers to the problems we are having in the Alameda school system, but the answer is not to sling racists remarks and make ignorant generalizations. Both of my parents and my grandparents taught in the public school system and were very committed to public school education. They made a huge difference in the lives of many children in the public schools who later went on to college.
I believe we should continue to fight for quality education in the public school systems while respecting the rights of those who chose private schools to educate their children but I do not believe charter schools are the answer if it will cause the demise of public school education.
Comment by Karen Bey — December 12, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Personally, I think that the future belongs to those who can best navigate intercultural environments. Those students attending schools with a greater variety of cultures will be better prepared for the 21st century than those raised in a more homogeneous environment. White enclaves may soon find themselves to be irrelevant.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — December 12, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
Help me out here… where are these “white enclaves” ? can I see a partial list?
Comment by Jack B. — December 12, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
#42
You have never heard of all or mostly white neighborhoods or cities?
Piedmont, Pacific Heights, Fernside, Albany, Pleasanton, Los Altos, Petaluma…
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0657792.html
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — December 12, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
I thought we were talking about Alameda here.
Comment by Jack B. — December 12, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
#’s 41,42,43.44 Yeah, they are talking about Alameda Jack, but they live in the past. Everything that happens here has a racial component because it’s the easiest identifying attribute. We like to tout racial diversity and pretend it means something important but race don’t mean diddly anymore.
Block I live on has no diversity. Did at one time, back in the seventies. Some Meth salesmen rented and moved in two houses down. Rest of us on the block didn’t like that diverse component. Tried to get the salesmen removed. Electric company turned off their power. They jumped the meter. Unhooked the power at the pole, Meth guys gas powered their electric input. EBMUD cut their water, they ran a hose from a scared neighbor. Persistent bastards. Alameda SWAT finally pole rammed their front door down and packed them off. They were back in a week. Property owner sold the house to get rid of the diversity. Meth guys left.
Then the block went back to normal, no diversity. Block’s all the same middle class working stiffs again. Eight families, left to right, mexican, chinese, chinese, black, white, vietnamese, white/viet, chinese, but there’s no diversity just working stiffs.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 12, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
Karen - “So your comments are ignorant and racist.”
Please describe to me the racist statements, and what makes them racist. I’ve stated facts and statistics that can easily be verified. By the way, “They” refers to liberals, primary white liberals.
Jack B. - “Help me out here… where are these “white enclaves”?
Answer - Primarily in the Fernside district for Alameda. Also clusters in Gold Coast area. Bay Farm Island was once, but large numbers of Asians have moved in. For visual details, map “Edison Elementary School” and “Franklin ELementary School” on Google Maps.
Comment by James Chen — December 13, 2007 @ 9:45 am
Jack: 45 is a fine post, one of the best I’ve seen here in a while. I nominate it for a Bayport Oscar* and look forward to you acceptance speech.
—-
*Award for outstanding posts in various categories. It’s a pewter statue of a Hollywood Oscar driving a developer’s bulldozer.
Comment by dave — December 13, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
Personally, I think that posting #37 is brilliant and worthy of the Alameda Medal of Honor.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — December 13, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
Tiff, way to pat yourself on the back. One point I do agree with you on is… the kids who get enclaved are ultimately at a disadvantage for today’s world.
Jack R, great post as usual. Pretty much sums up my dinner that evening.
James Chen, I don’t know what to say to you. You fashion yourself a conservative but you come off as something completely different. Not sure what. Karen may just have it right.
Comment by Jack B. — December 14, 2007 @ 9:41 am
My swipe at Mike McMahon about his demeanor from the dais obviously reflects as badly on me as anybody. But the choice to post was made and the die cast. Our volunteer boards (especially council, planning and school boards) can be very demanding and meetings are often tedious. I know from the lesser board on which I have sat that seemingly short agendas can become interminable. I also immediately noticed upon sitting at the dais looking out, that even with mundane issues the physical proximity of the dais to the podium lends an intimidation factor to those addressing a board, which is deliberate by way of it’s configuration. I still chaff thinking of a particular glowering face which often greeted dissenting speakers at a previous council body. I guess I want to say that it’s still a two way street and we should be careful to respect that from both sides.
Legitimate or not, it was perhaps needlessly petty to make challenging remarks about Mr. McMahon who I think has served us exceptionally well on the board and with his web site. It is also bad timing as it detracts from the greater issues at hand. Mike, my criticism stands, but qualified with apologies for my being self indulgent in making them public.
Comment by Mark I — December 15, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
Part II: the real issue
I came home from Tuesday’s meeting feeling very combative, as I usually do when faced with such a frustrating situation like the charter school.
One speaker stated that the cost of private school is very high and she felt it just to use the charter system to try to receive for her child the education she feels she expects for her tax dollar. I thought there to be legitimacy in this argument, but conversely Barbara Mooney expressed the other side of that coin in stating that she felt an elite group was being unfairly benefited on her education dime.
I support ACLC since it already exists and would support this charter if it was guaranteed to reflect the community at large, if I didn’t strongly believe that, intentional or not, the place serves an elite sector and according it’s scores are skewed, but most of all I am dismayed by it’s potentially devastating impact on the AUSD budget.
When people like Jack B. whine about this not being socialism, I think they have missed the point. It’s all about democracy Jack (which, by the way, the charter touts in a big way as part of it’s mentoring process). In a democratic system there is something wrong when a small elite group is allowed to benefit at the expense a much larger majority.
ACLC received a bronze award for achievement recently. Well guess what, Alameda high received a silver. There were many programs in the regular AUSD system which were as innovative as ACLC, like BRAVO at Chipman, the academies at Wood and the mixed age developmental program at Paden. Both the budget cuts and need to teach to the tests, have impaired these programs or caused them to be eliminated. Certifying this charter will worsen that situation at AUSD. I believe even if the charter were completely valid and certifiable (which it isn’t), that it is selfish of the charter proponents to pursue the charter at this time, because of the budget impacts. And when they espouse their dedication to quality of education they are being hypocritical, or at least their self interest functions to blind them to the greater good.
Comment by Mark I — December 15, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
#51 - Whining? Who’s whining?
Let’s talk about the greater good for a moment. Seems your idea of the greater good is for everybody to be learning the same thing at the same level. My idea of the greater good is that the best and brightest kids get the chance to emerge… THEY are the ones that are going to come up w/ a cure for cancer (to the greater good) or whatever… rather than the averaged-out masses. Of course some of brightest will opt for something self-serving,,, but I hope you get my point! Not everybody is cut out for greatness. Some kids are better cut out for technical school, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Comment by Jack B. — December 15, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
# 50
Whew, thank goodness Mark I. It all came to me after reading your 50 and 51 and re-reading your 25. You needn’t have apologized to Mike McMahon. You completely misunderstood his ‘ennui’ during your rap and your interpretation of hostility from the audience was equally mistaken. I, like you, wondered why the faithful were holding their collective noses while you were at the podium speaking with heartfelt conviction. The polite applause you heard must have been me because I respect the fact that you dragged your ass up and spoke with the conviction.
My puzzlement was at least equal to yours because every time I woke up during your rap session, the words you spoke sure made darned good sense to me. Upon leaving, I went over the transcripts but still couldn’t understand the disconnect between your gracious words and the strange audience reaction (and the reaction of some, on the dais). Then, one last time I went over your understandable and completely justifiable insult to Mike.
Yuranus, it came to me! During your speech, I was seated over in the corner by the exhaust fan or it may have come to me sooner, “( without opportunity to shower…)” you wrote it in # 25 Mark I. So, there it is in a nutshell. A total misunderstanding! The message didn’t stink. Phew not Whew.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 15, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
Mark I have sent you a personal Email for my unprofessional behavior during public comment. In now way I did mean to disrespect your input.
Comment by Mike McMahon — December 16, 2007 @ 7:46 am
# 52
Come on Jack B, apologize to Mark I for his thinking you were whining. And, while you’re at it, you may as well apologize to a whole bunch of others for your strange comment in # 52. The one about some crumb crunchers not being cut out for ‘greatness’. Talk like that isn’t allowed here in Levelville.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 16, 2007 @ 10:42 am
Oh, the things I learned from my social work days….
Comment by Jack B. — December 16, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Mike #54 received, Thank you.
Comment by Mark I — December 18, 2007 @ 11:03 am
#53 cripes Jack, you have me reeling. I can’t quite tell what is and isn’t tongue-in-cheek.
Let me say I think I looked filthy, but I didn’t stink!
SERIOUSLY. The mild applause of some seemed sort of a disconnect to me also. I wondered if I was so vague as to confuse the audience of charter school supporters. I did start with remarks supporting innovation, etc. Barbara Mooney’s remarks were unambiguously critical of the charter and she received stark and loud applause from one lone soul ( I was too preoccupied with preparing to speak to react. Sorry Barbara).
J.R. were you actually in the room, or just saying that as a vehicle for your sarcastic remarks?
Comment by Mark I — December 18, 2007 @ 11:20 am
#52
O.K. “whining” was my spin. You certainly seemed to be complaining about socialist agendas being pushed where you thought they didn’t belong. (Wah!)
Jack B. said in post #5 “Why should a self-motivated academic give a rat’s ass about the other kids who dress like gangstas and primarily just want to play video games?”
Jack, that is not a very generous statement. Why should anybody in the world care about anybody but themselves, ever? (Gee Tiny Tim, I don’t know?) I implore you to go to the podium and express those precise words at a B.O.E. meeting and see how widely you are embraced by the residents of “Levelville”. I think it is not just a bunch of “liberals” on this blog that would level you.
Judging by your statements, it seems you have no problem boosting opportunity for the obviously bright kids by saving education dollars on the less deserving gangstas by sending them to tech school, yet you’re indignant at suggestion of the converse. I don’t mean to demean the idea of tech school. I dropped out of high school myself, but did go to trade school at Laney.
To back track, the problem with vouchers etc. is that while they provide the means for some to scramble and find a niche by shifting to parochial schools etc., they could also bleed the public system to the point it can never succeed.
Vouchers and charters are piecemeal when we need a systemic solutions. If you embrace the voucher concept you might as well advocate for the dissolution of a public education system. While we are at it we might as well stop clinging to delusional notions of our having a Democracy and embrace the oligarchy as the true way.
Comment by Mark I — December 19, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
Mark, I estimate you are a kind and thoughtful person. I’m being sincere. But I think you tend to make things very black and white. Not to mention, you seem to me unapologetically socialist, which I interpret to be undemocratic.
I didn’t say they shouldn’t care about anybody…. I brought in the gangsta kids because on many days, a growing group of them hang out across the street and skip school and are generally up to no good. I admit my statement was unfair to the other AHS kids. That’s an example of me being too black and white.
But my point was… the charter kids/families/teachers are doing what they can to expand what they think is a really good program and they shouldn’t lay down their plans because of the funding implications for the other school. Most likely shit creek either way! Hopefully the school board will sort this out but don’t blame those motivated, “bright” kids for ruining the futures of others because there’ll be one less college counselor on campus.
So just to be sure I understand you, real simple… do you think the charter school should abandon their expansion plans because of the financial implications for the district? I’m not saying they should get their way (the board sorts this out?) but if they believe in what they are doing, they should damn well try.
As for vouchers… I don’t really know. I’m talking about this, not because I’m trying to change your mind, but I’m trying to learn for the sake of my kids. (please don’t flame me for caring about my kids’ education, but I’m responsible for them) I might be prying around for some yet-to-exist hybrid public/private education experience because I believe in public schools and I think my kids’ education is worth kicking in for, and no, I’m not rich.
For example, Loren mentioned at some point the loss of music classes. Well, take it from Jack B… NOTHING is as important as music. But I don’t expect that teaching from public school. I hope they concentrate on academics there. I’ll work extra long and extra hard to pay for piano lessons for my kids. (anyone know a good teacher?)
Not to mention there is growing slew of education enhancements from the private sector… it’s all very interesting.
Comment by Jack B. — December 19, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
Mark, let me clarify something else here, because I think you mis-understand: technical school (and subsequent skills) should and will be more highly valued. I wouldn’t want a gangsta electrician coming to my house! The gangstas will wind up in criminal school anyway. Some people like to work in the office, others in the field. Nothing to do with being bright, more a matter of preference. Technical school could be more glorified — everybody doesn’t have to be herded through university, where you mostly learn how to binge drink. I would think that somebody who learns technical skills even like plumbing and electrician… take the college money and use it for starting a business… this somebody can compete for shangri-al with the white collar peers and be happier doing it.
Sorry about the long posts tonite, people.
Comment by Jack B. — December 19, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
# 59
You might be surprised Mark I. There may be more Levelvillains than you think who would echo the # 5 sentiments you don’t agree with. And, if you’re suggesting the “video playing wannabe gangstas” are “Tiny Tim” equivalent, that’s a leap. Huck Finn maybe, but not Tiny Tim.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 20, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
Well I haven’t read in a while but I found my name so I must state a few facts…
ACLC likes to take credit for things like great AP test scores. All of those classes are taught at EHS by EHS teachers. So people look at ACLC scores and EHS scores and say wow ACLC but in fact the student learned all that at EHS by an EHS teacher with credit to ACLC. That screws up what the real stats are.
My son attends EHS and has go take jounalism in what is basically a closet. ACLC demanded a science room but not just any science room. They had to have a big one even though they have far fewer students in class. EHS was more than willing to work with the teachers and share rooms but they are unwilling at every turn to co-operate. By the way they rarely use the room
They get to play on EHS sports teams, play in our band and plays but where is their fair share of the money. Oh, that’s right EHS doesn’t get it.
They have a very select group of students that doesn’t at all reflect the deomgraphics of the AUSD student body. Most of the students that get in that have any trouble meeting their profile is encouraged to leave. Look at the stats Bill Schaff asked about. A select group of students with a select group of rules where they are forced to keep no one is a private school and public school funds should not be used for a private school.
One lady at they meeting pointed out that this offered a private school for those who couldn’t afford one. Well life doesn’t work that way and if you can’t afford private school then you should go to public school. If all of these parents put all they are putting into this school in their public school they might see the changes they are seeking.
Comment by Barbara M — December 20, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
#62 I was suggesting that most audiences who show at public meetings would draw breath at such a blunt statement, even if they support the charter concept. Many of the charter supporters audibly winced at Maafi’s refenence to getting kids into the magic charter system before they were “tainted” by the AUSD. The Tiny Tim reference was obviously to invoke Dicken’s, specifically Scrooge in this season of Christian charity. I relish what Twain might have had to say on the matter.
Comment by Mark I — December 20, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
[...] Deep in the Heart of Texas Filed under: AUSD, Alameda Community — Tags: ACLC, AHS, AUSD, Charter Schools — John Knox White @ 3:00 am Lauren Do has a great discussion on Charter Schools in Alameda. [...]
Pingback by Deep in the Heart of Texas « Stop, Drop and Roll — December 21, 2007 @ 3:26 am
3:26 AM?
Is this a cry for help, John?
Comment by dave — December 21, 2007 @ 7:13 am
Since enrollment in ACLC is by lottery, and all you have to do to get in the lotter is put your name on the list, why is ACLC so white? Here’s my guess.
When it was founded it was called Arthur Andersen Community Learning Center. How many people in 1995 (or whenever it was founded) living in Alameda knew what a Certified Public Accountancy company was? How many of them knew the Arthur Andersen brand? How many of them had a positive image of that brand?
I’d bet that of the portion of Alamedans who had a positive image of the Arthur Andersen brand in 1995, 60% were white. So, they were they ones would got into the lottery. Subsequent sibling preference has kept it whiter than average.
The waiting list is more in line with the average demographics. Approve NCLC and you’ll see a more (but not identical) representation.
You might ask, ‘Why are there more boys than girls who get in the lottery?’ You might ask, ‘Why are there more first-borns than others in the lottery?’
Comment by another bob — December 21, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Jack #60 said “do you think the charter school should abandon their expansion plans because of the financial implications for the district?” Yes at this time I do.
#61 You wrote: “I would think that somebody who learns technical skills even like plumbing and electrician… take the college money and use it for starting a business…”
That somebody might be me. I went to Laney Trade school but didn’t do the two year program. I mostly learned on the job.
“Contracting” is about a profit, but a small guy like me who bills hourly can in theory make over $100,000 in fifty weeks doing 40 hours a week billable. At three p.m. I’m obviously not billing while I write this.
The overhead when you start to run a company with employees can eat you alive. How much liability insurance does an accountant need? In the trades the insurance is endless and workman’s comp is hell.
also #61, What college money? One reason I learned on the job is that I had to eat. I also didn’t want to start life by compiling student loans unless I was headed somewhere like law school and likely to pay it off quickly.
Jack, I wouldn’t call myself a socialist because I see no point in picking labels, but I am more so than I am libertarian. How is socialism anti-democratic? Isn’t socialism an economic system while democracy is a political system.
You could have a communist economic system in a democracy if a majority of people wanted it.
I think of myself as a pragmatist. You may not feel a responsibility to your fellow human on certain levels, but on a practical level if we don’t take care of one another to a reasonable extent, those on the low end will mess things up to the point the rest of us have to pay to lock them all up in “criminal school”. No free lunch.
Maybe some of us need to start a reading/discussion group. I have never succeeded in reading Alexis de Tocqueville but would love to take another crack at it.
Comment by Mark I — December 21, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Mark, thanks for answering my q.
What college money? The stuff you either save or borrow to pay tuition, or potentially use for something else. Hats off to you for starting your own thing and not taking on the student debt, and I hope you do not regret your decisions. Part of the reason I hate to see EVERYone herded into college is because of the subsequent indebtedness to the credential mill. I’m a little dis-enchanted w/ our higher learning system right now. When I was a hiring manager, I tended to scoff at credentials and took interest in those who took the time to learn stuff on their own. That’s what impresses me, that’s how I built some great teams, and that’s probably why I feel an affinity for the charter school (I’m really just learning about it).
I see socialism as undemocratic because it tends to stomp on individual rights, despite the good intentions.
I know you think that I’m some sort of heartless bastard but I spent several years working with abused children as a social worker. Ultimately I burned out after many rewarding and frustrating experiences. I learned that I cannot change the system. And since then, I’ve learned that even if you can change the system, you cannot change human nature. And one of the rules about human nature, to borrow from another mammal, is: you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. No matter what well-meaning social-engineering democratic socialists can concoct, human nature will assert itself and probably make things even worse.
The funny thing is… I totally take your side when discussing w/ my more conservative/libertarian family and friends. We are all in this together, agreed. But when it comes down to it, I believe things work better when individuals can pursue their dreams instead of sign on for the dreams of the state.
Comment by Jack B. — December 21, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Re #63
Yes, Rodriguez and Meyers are great teachers. BTW, for each class taken by an ACLC student at EHS, ACLC pays EHS $650. Or at least that was the figure a couple of years ago. It goes up every year. So, I expect it’s higher now.
In addition to classes at EHS, kids at ACLC take classes from Laney College and College of Alameda (free of charge to AUSD), Keystone National High School (an online thing), RosettaStone (another online thing), Cal State East Bay, UCBerkeley and UCBerkeley extension. Not to mention the music lessons lots of ACLC parents pay for. At one time there were parents chipping in for a french tutor.
The great thing about living in Alameda in 2007 is that just about anything you want to learn about is available at a local AUSD school or a community college, UC, Cal State, thru the internet. You just have to get out there and get it.
Comment by another bob — December 21, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
When I was a kid you either went to the neighborhood public school or parochial school. There were no other choices. My parents were concerned about my education, but their concern was that I studied hard, not that the schools were failing us. They also knew that learning did not end at the schoolhouse door.
Now it seems like everyone is trying to opt-out of the public schools and searching for some silver bullet that will allow their child to reach his or her full potential. Instead of success being based upon individual effort, it is based upon escaping the masses…If only my child can get into Edison…If only my child could go to a charter school. This is all an illusion that benefits the parent’s ego more than it benefits the child.
In the meantime, some are trying a different approach. The public schools alone are not going to make your child a success…and “success” can be defined many different ways.
“Being strong in this classroom — and dozens of others around the Bay Area — has nothing to do with physical strength. In this classroom, strength means exercising self-control and treating others with respect.”
http://tinyurl.com/32o48k
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — December 21, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
Sorry, ANT, I’m not buying into the Sandbox Ethics shtick.
In my sandbox self-reliance reins supreme. Self-reliance combines strength with self-control. Using kibbutzim methods, Little Albert L. Schultz, fidgeting with boredom, was verbally smacked back into group think by Herr Teach (who disrespecting him by calling him Alan instead of Albert). Little Albert didn’t learn self control or respect in that little vignette, he learned teacher control and group reliance.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 22, 2007 @ 11:15 am
Um . . . Albert L. Schultz is the name of the Jewish Community Center (JCC), not the child; the article refers to him only as “Alan.” So much for the supposedly intentional “disrespect” displayed by “Herr Teach.”
So, if gently reminding a student to exercise self-control is actually a lesson in “teacher control and group reliance”–an approach that apparently smacks of fascism to Mr. Richard–then how exactly are children supposed to be taught “self-reliance”? Shall we just lock them all in a room with some books and let the truly strong and self-reliant among them figure out how to educate themselves, free from interference from those dictatorial authority figures known as “teachers”?
Comment by Michael Krueger — December 22, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
JR is the only man in all of recorded history to have successfully given birth to himself.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — December 22, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
Re. # 73 Um…about mistaking Albert’s sandbox for Alan, that’s what they get for making the url’s tiny, hard to read.
I like your “lock them in a room idea”. Tell them that in order to exit each has to learn how to tie his sneakers.
Re # 74 Who said the birth was successful?
No, there’s a wide area between locking kids in a room and expecting them to book-learn self-reliance and having them looking around at their peers (instead of blocks) and mimic shutting-up in order to teach self-control. These little Al’s are only four years old for crying out loud. They’re supposed to be rambunctious Those who want their kids to follow this path through life’s journey, fine, but don’t expect pesky critics to shut-up like Al’s kids.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 22, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
#75
“No, there’s a wide area between locking kids in a room and expecting them to book-learn self-reliance and having them looking around at their peers (instead of blocks) and mimic shutting-up in order to teach self-control. These little Al’s are only four years old for crying out loud. They’re supposed to be rambunctious Those who want their kids to follow this path through life’s journey, fine, but don’t expect pesky critics to shut-up like Al’s kids.”
It doesn’t look like little JR is going to do well in a charter school that stresses self-control and peer respect. I can see the teacher reports about this troubled and disturbed child.
It really all depends upon who is in charge of the charter school and what the dominant philosophy is. Is JR a troubled and disrespectful child, who is he just a rambunctious boy? Who is rewarded and who gets placed on meds? Who gets a charter school and who gets to be successful?
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — December 22, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
76 should read:
Is JR a troubled and disrespectful child, or is he just a rambunctious boy?
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — December 22, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Little JR didn’t go to a chartered school, but he did go to a parochial school and they taught self control, peer respect, as well those other things that have whiffed by. You know, the three r’s. Little JR didn’t like any of it. The nuns had him in the ‘praying for guidance room’ most of the time.
I hold no brief for charter schools. Schools are nothing more than a tool. They can teach you the mechanics of learning but they can’t teach you how to think for yourself.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 22, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
wow, I’m glad to see such a big discussion going on about this. I went to the hearing on the 11th, and I didn’t get a chance to speak, but I have quite a few thoughts I’d love to express. Moved here 4 years ago, we bought in near the real estate peak so we pay plenty in property taxes and are in our second year of sending our child to an AUSD elementary school.
1. ACLC ethnic composition is not directly representative of the general or student popluations of Alameda. I’m more interested in Why? Is it because of deliberate descrimination on behalf of the school? Or is it the result of many factors; marketing, sibling policies, and other social causes? I haven’t heard anyone prove in any way that there is a race based selection component to the ACLC or proposed NCLC admission process. So as long as the admission process is truly blind, and reasonable efforts (not unreasonable) are made to market the school across the entire population of Alameda, and the sibling policy is removed, then I can’t see how there is a moral argument that weighs against the new charter school. Also, when did closing the achievement gap become the marching order for all public schools? in order to maximize output it would make sense to focus efforts on educating the students (all students) as effectively as possible regardless of their race.
2. ACLC has achieved very good test scores and seems to have a group of students that thrive in that learning environment. Does everyone love it? Of course not, but for the kids who go there it seems to be working quite well. Based on the waiting list there also seems to be a pretty large pool of parents who feel that ACLC would be a better option for their kids. I can only presume that those parents a) pay taxes and b) care about their childrens education. Both of those two traits give me some feelings that the new school is something that many tax paying, education loving, parents want to see happen.
3. It would seem that some people disagree that the programs available for exceptional students should MIRROR the scope and funding for programs designed for students with weaker than average abilites. At either end of the spectrum there are students with “special needs”, both deserve to be supported equally.
To that end: I resent Barbara Mooney’s comment that it’s a special program on “her” dime. Many of the parents who are on the waiting list for ACLC pay a LOT of dimes into the public education system and their right to have the school of their choice shouldn’t be driven by one person who feels that it isn’t the best option for their children’s special needs.
4. The financial impact. I completely understand the effect that falling enrollment could have on the AUSD budgets, and I understand the fixed and variable costs involved in running any business. (I’m a venture capital investor by trade) That said, perhaps what we should be looking for is the highest possible return on capital with respect to educational output. It makes zero financial sense to continue to fund a failing business when there are new forms of the same fundamental business that have far higher returns. Will AUSD budgets feel an impact from a reduction in students? yes. Does that mean that we can’t ever change course because we have to keep feeding the beast of a business called AUSD? I hope not. There is a common reason that “big” businesses eventually fail, it’s almost always because they fail to innovate. I don’t think many people could see the innovations at ACLC as ineffective. I even heard one of the board members talk about how it wasn’t “fair” to compare ACLC to AUSD scores because the ACLC has more flexibiity in how they spend their grants. This isn’t about being “fair”, life and business aren’t “fair”, it’s about finding what new innovations work and then taking risks (often BIG risks) to invest in those productive new opportunities as agressively as we possibly can.
If AUSD decides to block the expansion of an innovative new school because it’s admissions process is not “perfect” or because investing the Alameda tax payer dollars into this new innovation would put additional stress on the current AUSD cost infrastructure then they are, at best, only delaying the inveitable. I can’t think of a single company that, over the long run, thrived from ignoring innovation in order to continue funding the status quo operation. Without a doubt there is one big “truth” that we have to realize, there is and always will be limited budgets for operating schools. Taking that into consideration any program that is funded inevitably means that some other program can’t be funded. What matters is the overall rights of the tax paying citizens are considered (rights of both strong students as well as weaker ones), and the school board’s job is to see that the rights of ALL of those tax paying citizens are served with the best possible education available. To operate with any other agenda is corporate malfeasance. The long term viability of the AUSD depends upon the board seeking and embracing innovation. Otherwise the good students, passionate parents, innovative teachers, will all find somewhere else to get what they need. (if they haven’t left already.) It’s a consumer market and consumers that aren’t happy will leave and the business will fail.
5. One of the speakers at the hearing mentioned that a school board member has their children attending private (non AUSD) schools. Does anyone know who that is, and has that board member explained why they made that choice for their children?
6. James Chen, Do you think that the “white liberals” are more interested in getting their kids into the “best” school they can afford or more interested in the racial composition of the student body? I’d guess its the prior, the diversity of the ACLC waiting list seems to support that claim. Also, I don’t think people care as much as you think about the ethnicity of the classes as they do the test scores. Yes, all the schools you mentioned that are in high demand are fairly “white”, but they also all have really good test scores, which is more likly what generates the demand than the ethnic make up of the student body. (Note: I attended US News & World Report #1 rated liberal arts college, as the student population has shifted to over 33% asian in the last decade there has been no drop off in applications at all.)
7. The argument against the NCLC’s ability to effectively implement a K-5 program seems weak at best. The teachers involved in the program have proven track records and have the test scores from the ACLC program to back them up. Seems like a very weak argument at best given the success that ACLC has achieved, to presume that the program would suddenly fail when applied to younger minds.
8. One of the key forces that seems to be ignored here is the motivation behind the group leading ACLC and NCLC. It is a not for profit company, meaning there isn’t anyone doing this for monetary reasons, rather they are building these new programs to inject new thinking and innovation into the CA school system. Overall that’s an extremely admirable goal and I would compare that to the motivation of those that are trying to balance a budget for a business in decline. I would propose that those worried about short term AUSD budgets should be more concerned for ling term shareholder value, NOT the short term interests of the employees or customers. Short term thinking almost never produces great long term results.
My net take on all this:
The NCLC will likely be a fantastic school.
It will be filled with parents and students who are truly passionate about learning.
It will most likely be a shining beacon of hope for the salvation of the CA public school system.
It will most likely have a ethnic composition very close to that of the other Alameda schools.
It will certainly cause some additional budget strains on AUSD, but it will also bring in some people from private schools and it will also lighten the load on the AUSD infrastructure which could be enought to reduce fixed costs to a point where the AUSD budgets could be stabalized over the long term.
In fact, it would almost be better if the NCLC was bigger that 408 students so that it would allow for a swift and efficient consolidation of the AUSD operations to a healthy level.
Obviously I’m a huge fan of innovation (probably the VC in me), and this seems like a really great idea, being presented by a passionate and proven team, and it’s something that the public both wants (waiting lists) and needs.
I’d vote “yes” on the charter if I were on the board. Even knowing that it will cause budget changes to AUSD, it’s not the “Easy” choice, but the right ones rarely are.
The arguments against NCLC are weak, short sighted, and are not constructive or innovative solutions. It’s time to champion innovation, it’s time to move into the next century of education. I hope that the school board takes a leadership position and acts responsibly in the interest of all Alameda citizens, both new and old.
That was longer than I had thought it would be. Thanks for reading to this point if you’re still with me.
Comment by Alex Bernstein — December 23, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
Alex, congratulations on the fact you would vote yes is on the board despite it not being the easy choice. That’s truly courageous of you.
Comment by Mark I — December 23, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Now if we could just find a way to Charter a passionate and innovative CA state government to run alongside the mess we have in Sac. I’d vote for it.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 23, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
Re # 79
Concerning points # 3 and 4 (they’re really one point, “The Financial Impact) in Mr. Bernstein’s post. I don’t understand his first sentence in Point 3. What does the argument that programs for students with weaker than average abilities should MIRROR the scope and funding of exceptional students’ programs mean? Since there is no way the school can predict the number of “special needs” students at either end of the learning spectrum who enroll each year, aren’t these costs uncontrollable and unpredictable? How would a business address these unpredictable cost fluctuations?
It seems to me that the proper business model for public education is to find a happy, unexceptional, though not dumb kid and design and fund to meet that kid’s maximum level. Other kids, at the trailing or leading edge of the curve, may be left in the funding lurch and will not have their special needs addressed but at least, should gain the learning tools society deems important. Wouldn’t that give us the highest return on capital in the long run?
The argument about Charter vs Regular school learning boils down to the “special needs” students and how they are either neglected or preened. This should not be where the emphasis is. The real argument should be which of the two business models can produce the highest learning skills in the medium level students and society’s scarce tax dollars should support accordingly.
Special needs students are a separate issue.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 24, 2007 @ 9:22 am
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
Comment by Mark I — December 24, 2007 @ 9:46 am
I do not doubt that the children of the founders will benefit from the new charter school. The parents seem bright and well intentioned. They are articulate and present their arguments well. However, the schools are supported by all Alamedans and the concern should be for all children, not just those of articulate parents. There are many children whose parents are not native English speakers or college educated. The primary concern should be for those children who are most vulnerable. What happens to those children when the children of the best and brightest leave for charter schools? The charter school founders will establish schools that reflect their values. What happens to those children whose parents are not from a college-educated middle class enviroment? I see increased societal fragmentation resulting.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 24, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Re 84
If the schools are supported by all Alamedans, why is the education of children whose parents don’t speak English more important than any other child? The primary concern of public schools should be to facilitate the highest learning skills to the most students. Neither over-privileged students nor under-privileged are in school for the learning benefit of the other…or to de-fragment society.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 24, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
Alameda NayTiff ,
I wholeheartedly agree with the commentary you had above in #71. My Grandfather and Mother were and are teachers; my mom for over 35 years. Just like you, we had two choices: got to public school or private school. Only the rich kids went to private school, so we really only had one choice.
I agree- people these days seem hell-bent on sending their kids to the absolute bestest, brightest, most perfect schools. I don’t have kids, so perhaps I don’t have such a strong opinion.
My mom has said this over and over and over again. School is not a daycare center and while your kid might go to the best acclaimed, most lauded school in the area, none of that means a hill of beans unless the parents are involved and apply values, discipline, and work ethic in their children. The school is only part of a child’s education. It is the parent that completes that experience.
Trust me- my mom used to make my life HELL when it came to research papers. The red pen came out, the papers got marked up, and it took hours and hours to write a 2 page report. But in the end, I thank my mom- not the school I went to- for instilling the work ethic and sense of responsibility that I now possess.
I’m sure that every single person here is doing the absolute right thing for their kids. Parents make model citizens. But in the end, parents in many ways ‘go to school’ with their kids.
Comment by edvard — December 26, 2007 @ 7:58 am
#86
“But in the end, parents in many ways ‘go to school’ with their kids.
That is a great insight!
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 26, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
This posting is lengthy, but it is important. Please review it carefully. Although I was accused of being “disingenuous” by one of our critics in posting these facts on other webpages, I assure you that everything you see in the posting below is factual and sincere (despite his claim, that same critic could not refute a single fact listed below). I will reiterate, since we have nothing to hide, you can contact me, ACLC staff, or AUSD if you have any questions about anything posted below. (BTW, I’m afraid the formatting may have been altered. I’ll be happy to send you an MS Word file if you want one.)
This factsheet is designed to inform Alameda families about the proposed new charter school, Nea Community Learning Center. The vision for NCLC came from Alameda public school teachers and parents who wanted to make the successful Alameda Community Learning Center available to more Alameda families. As demand for ACLC exceeded capacity and its waitlist grew, ACLC requested to expand its current 6th through 12th grade program within the Alameda Unified School District. The request was denied. Finally, in response to the increasing demand and with the encouragement of many Alamedans, ACLC decided to open NCLC with one major innovation—the new school would also have an elementary component. This elementary program will incorporate many of the same innovative educational practices of ACLC, but is designed to address the needs of younger learners. More information about the elementary program is forthcoming.
ACLC and NCLC Open Admissions Policy
· ACLC has historically accepted applications from any Alameda family.
· NCLC will accept applications from any Alameda family.
· As public schools, ACLC does not and NCLC shall not charge tuition.
· ACLC and NCLC are open to any interested family, regardless of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, primary language, or geographic location.
· Unlike Alameda and Encinal High Schools or any other public elementary or middle school in Alameda, NCLC will be open to any Alameda family regardless of their assigned school boundary.
· Admission to ACLC is based on random lottery supervised by AUSD for the past 12 years.
· To increase access to all Alameda families, NCLC has eliminated the sibling policy regarding automatic admission. If demand exceeds capacity, siblings will also be subject to the lottery system.
· While open to all Alameda families, NCLC is recruiting most heavily in Alameda’s West End, historically the most ethnically diverse and socioeconomically challenged part of Alameda.
· NCLC has requested that AUSD provide complete citywide K-12 mailing lists so it can market to all Alameda families in multiple languages. AUSD denied the request.
Educational Plan for K-12 Program
· NCLC plans to replicate in its 6th through 12th grades the best educational practices from the successful ACLC model.
o ACLC was awarded the 2007 California Distinguished School Award (the first charter school in Alameda county to receive the prestigious award).
o ACLC was awarded a Bronze medal in December, 2007 by US News and World Report as one of the top 8.5% of high schools in the nation.
o ACLC has scored an API score of 10 for five years in a row.
o State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O’Connell, recently recognized ACLC as a school “with a good track record [that] should be replicated.”
o ACLC graduates must meet the University of California a-g graduation requirements. These graduation requirements are higher than those of Alameda and Encinal High Schools.
· NCLC plans to implement an innovative Kindergarten through 5th grade program (the Elementary Vision is explained in a separate document).
o Three Alameda educational leaders with over 75 years of educational experience lead the elementary implementation team.
§ Linda McClusky
· AUSD Teacher of the Year – 1997
· AUSD Team Diversity Member
· Media Center Teacher, Science Teacher (K-8) Paden School – 4 years
· Special Day Class Teacher – (3-5) Miller School – 4 years
· Teacher/Director (Pre K-3) Sara Project Day School – 12 years
· Credentials: Elementary Education, Special Education, Mathematics, Administrative Leadership (K-12)
§ James Venable
· Title 1 Coordinator / Literacy Coach – Washington School
· 30 years experience teaching in grades K-5
· Reading and Writing Expert – Started NCTE Reading Initiative at Washington School
· Educational consultant to schools on Louisville Writing Project
· Credentials: Master of Arts in Teaching, Clear Multi-subject, Cross Cultural Language and Academic Development Certification
· BTSA Support Provider
§ Betsy Weiss
· 20 years of Elementary Teaching Experience – (K-5) including 10 years of K-1 Multiage Grouping
· AUSD Mentor Teacher – 4 years: Math, Science, Best Practices, and Development Education
· Title 1 Reading Teacher/Literacy Coach – 5 years
· Owner/Director/Teacher – Secret Garden Preschool – 5 years
· Credentials: MS Environmental Education, Elementary Credential
Teachers, parents, and students will govern NCLC democratically
· Alameda public school teachers and Alameda parents initiated the NCLC charter movement.
· NCLC’s governance is based on the ACLC governance model.
· NCLC will have no administrators—the teachers will run the school.
· Students will oversee appropriate disciplinary issues through the Judicial Committee process as established by ACLC.
· Students will have a significant voice in establishing the rules and policies of the school.
· The Governing Board will consist of teachers, parents, and students, all of whom will have voting power.
Comment by Carlton — December 27, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
I just realized this information was not included in my last posting (#88). I am a 20-year Alameda resident with one daughter in pre-k and another daughter in Washington Elementary, and I am a math facilitator at ACLC.
Comment by Carlton — December 27, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
I am the critic who labeled Carleton’s “factsheet” disingenuous when it was posted on another website last week. If we are allowed to quote Ronald Reagan here on laurendo.com, I might say “there you go again.” Tellingly, Carleton’s posting here misrepresents my earlier criticism by omitting the most disingenuous part of his earlier posting. Specifically, last week but not this week Carleton introduced his factsheet with the explanation that “[i]n an attempt to be as objective as possible, I have listed only the facts regarding ACLC and the proposed NCLC.”
I responded last week by thanking him for contributing to the discussion about the proposed expansion of his charter school and acknowledging that “there’s nothing wrong with advocating for your school.” However, I also noted that the there was “really no need to try to spin the “Factsheet” as an attempt to be as objective as possible” and requested that he not “hide [his] political P.R. campaign behind a disingenuous assertion that “these are just the facts” when the “facts” in the sheet are incomplete and misleading.”
At least he is no longer claiming he’s only trying to be as objective as possible. I’ll leave it to others to decide whether his posting last week, his omission of his earlier “I’m just trying to be as objective as possible” remark this week or anything I’ve said is disingenuous.
I have been speaking out as a “critic” of the proposed new Alameda charter school because I believe the proposal is a truly “big issue” that is likely to affect us all for some time to come. I understand and respect that there are diverse opinions about charter schools in general and this proposed charter in particular and that the issues involved are genuinely complex.
For your additional consideration, here are some other facts not on Carleton’s factsheet:
– If AUSD approves this particular charter, the undeniable, unpleasant fact is that the result will be a 1-2 million dollar hole blown in the AUSD budget. While there may never be a good year for such a hit, due to the huge state budget deficit, 2008 is shaping up to be the worst year in recent memory for school funding.
– AUSD has already endured budget cuts for five of the past seven years, so far mostly but not entirely affecting middle and high schools. Among other things, the effects of those cuts have included increased class sizes, as has happened this year at Alameda High where I teach; fewer health, counseling and other services for students, as has also been the case this year at Alameda High and Encinal High; more pressure on arts, music and athletic programs, as has occurred throughout the district; lower compensation for AUSD teachers and staff relative to nearby districts so that AUSD has a decreased ability to attract and retain great teachers and staff; layoffs and reduced hours of office staff (represented by CSEA) at all school sites as happened this year; and possible school closures/ consolidations, as we saw in the discussion last winter of closing Wood Middle School. This has all happened already.
– Based on this history of what has been “on the chopping block” in the many recent bad budget years, if this charter application is approved, it is highly likely that more severe cuts of these types would happen next year and/or the following year.
– The unpleasant but undeniable reality is that in 2008 the state budget is facing a massive deficit so that cuts in spending on education on a statewide basis are highly likely (the latest estimates are that California will face a 14 billion dollar budget deficit next year so that we will face cuts in state education spending in 2008). 2008 is beginning to look like the worst year for education funding in California in more than 15 years.
– If the AUSD Board approves the CLCS/NCLC charter, the resulting “benefits” would be concentrated on a relatively small, elite group whereas the significant costs would necessarily be borne (in the ways set forth above) by the thousands of AUSD students and families who will not be participating in the charter school.
– It is of course possible NCLC’s new “recruiting efforts” in the West End referenced in the “factsheet” may work. But ACLC’s history and their presentation to the AUSD Board on December 11 does not support that view. In fact, at the AUSD Board meeting on December 11, ACLC/CLCS/NCLC had no effective plan for recruiting, outreach or targeting students/learners from groups who are historically academically low achieving, **even though they claim in their application that they will do so and will close the achievement gap**. The best they had to offer on this issue at the Board meeting appeared to be the less than inspirational response that “if someone comes across their doorstep” they will help them. Maybe there is a new plan now?
– Whether one considers it relevant that ACLC serves a skewed, elite population is a matter of opinion, but the fact is that ACLC does have a record of serving disproportionately certain groups (not only ethnically, but also socio-economically/educationally (e.g., in the percentage of students with college-educated parents)) so that ACLC’s student population is skewed towards the “haves” rather than the “have nots.”
– Not having a sibling preference policy would change somewhat the composition of the new school compared to ACLC. However, in the absence of a radically different recruiting plan, it would not change the fundamental truth that their population is significantly skewed relative to the rest of AUSD and would continue to be skewed.
– The comparison in their charter application of their waiting list demographics to the “Alameda population” rather than a relevant population such as “Alameda school age population” or “West End school age population” is **misleading**.
– A random lottery of a skewed population will still yield a skewed population.
– ACLC/CLCS has no experience as an organization in K-5 education.
– When on December 11 AUSD Board members pressed CLCS for assurances about the proposed K-5 program, the lead K-5 person conceded that the K-5 portion of the charter would be “a bit of a trust walk.”
Wherever you stand on this or any other issue, I wish you a happy new year. I’ll likely be off-line until 2008. Cheers!
- Rob Siltanen, AUSD Parent and Teacher
Comment by Rob Siltanen — December 28, 2007 @ 6:43 am
Alameda Sun covers the application for a second charter school for Alameda:
http://www.alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2571&Itemid=10
Comment by Mike McMahon — December 28, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
If the District goes bankrupt, what happens to the charter schools? Can charter schools exist if the district that created them no longer exists?
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — December 28, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
When a school district like Oakland or Vallejo experiences a fiscal failure, the State loans them money and appoints a State Administrator. In Oakland’s case, they owe the State close to $100 million and theoritically have to pay the loan back at some point. In the meantime, the school district continues to operate and any charter schools in the districts are not affected.
http://mikemcmahon.info/finvallejo.htm
Comment by Mike McMahon — December 29, 2007 @ 9:46 am
Re. # 93 Link
All the principles pled ignorance but it sounds like Vallejo’s Remkiewicz, Phillips-Evans and perhaps the school board figured out a way to get $60 mill from the state on the no-pay-back plan. Showing there’s more than one way to equalize the no-school-district-left-behind state funding restrictions.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 29, 2007 @ 10:05 am
“In a few cities, charters have sent the school district into what some observers call a “death spiral.” Facing decreased enrollment on the one hand and such
fixed costs as debt service on the other, districts are forced to cut back on the educational program, which only prompts more parents to abandon the system. District
leaders should plan prudently, where the state hasn’t made this impossible.”
http://www.nsba.org/site/docs/35400/35392.pdf
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — December 29, 2007 @ 10:49 am
Alameda High is 30 percent white
Encinal is 19 percent white
ACLC is 60 percent white.
Why is NCLC anything more than an attempt to set up a white majority elementary school for families that live elsewhere than the Fernside and Gold Coast?
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — December 30, 2007 @ 9:36 am
Re. 96
Because any color can get in, even green maybe.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 30, 2007 @ 10:23 am
Some people have the doors held open for them and are escorted in.
“Advocates claim that charter schools provided greater educational choices to those families who have had the fewest choices in education. Our data suggest that charter school reform does provide some families with more choices, although they are often not the families who had the
fewest options to begin with. Furthermore, this claim ignores
another very important finding: namely, that most charter
schools were able to choose which parents and students will
attend. Through recruitment and requirement mechanisms, including parent and student contracts, charter schools had more
power than most public schools to shape their educational communities. These mechanisms made it more difficult for parents to choose charter schools than to enroll their children
in a nearby public school.”
UCLA Charter School Study
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/docs/charter.PDF
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — December 30, 2007 @ 10:57 am
Do charter schools skim students or drain resources?
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/tdee1/Research/EER2004.pdf
“More specifically, these evaluations suggest that Arizona’s
early experiences with charter schools led to a robust and statistically significant reduction in the percent of white non-Hispanic students in conventional public schools (i.e. roughly 1 percentage point or 2 percent of the mean) and an increase in pupil–teacher ratios (i.e. roughly 1.1 pupil per teacher or 6 percent of the mean).”
—
UCLA Charter School Study
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/docs/charter.pdf
“In every district, we found that securing private and in-kind
resources was critical to the financial stability of nearly all charter schools. Furthermore, we found that the use of various connections, including political, social, and financial ones, were often the central means by which charter schools were able to receive the information, political support, and materials that they need. Of course, some schools – particularly those in wealthy communities – had more access to the types of connections that yield
these resources than others (Scott and Jellison, 1998).”
So, what we have are well-connected white families pulling out of the public schools, establishing semi-private charter schools using public funds and supplementing those funds with priv