The word equity comes from the Latin root aequus, meaning fair. Equity and fairness should be the foremost constructs when it comes to students and public schools. Lately, I have been pondering whether there is a real or perceived Machiavellian plot to create a rulebook for Charter schools that is inequitable toward public schools and their districts. What is good for Charters should also be good for district schools and vice versa. I am getting increasingly suspicious and concerned.
Yesterday I learned that the two newest members appointed to the State Board of Education by Governor Schwarzenegger will be in for strong opposition in their confirmation hearings before the state Senate. In addition, there is growing opposition to the appointments of Jorge Lopez and Rae Belisle from a coalition of public interest groups and the Association of California School Administrators, California Federation of Teachers, and the California School Boards Association. This opposition is all due to their pro-charter positions. (There are more factors to the Belisle opposition, most notable her past support of Proposition 227, later nullified by the courts.)
In May, I wrote an OpEd article with Anna Song, a member of the Santa Clara County Board of Education, for the Mercury News calling for a summit on the burgeoning charter school movement in Santa Clara County. The article was prompted by a Merc editorial titled “A surge of Charter schools is coming to Silicon Valley.”
The thesis of the Merc editorial was that competition works. We agree that competition among schools is good for all. It is our goal to foster a dialogue to increase understanding of the complex issues that surround the competition between independent Charters and regular district public schools. Yet we also posit that competition gets ugly when one group is playing by a different set of rules.
The Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE) Board, on which I serve, has a reputation for being an advocate for quality independent charter schools. On some occasions, we vote to overturn the decision of a local public school district board on some occasions after the facts are reviewed and we’ve determined all state criteria are met. Unfortunately, this creates some animus between our board and local school district boards.
In a recent survey conducted by SCCOE Superintendent Weis and his office, one district staffer commented: “If you’re charter-friendly it could be the end of the district. We can only take a hit so many times before we begin to fail.”
Governing schools is difficult enough in this challenging economic environment without adding the strain by approving charter school appeals. Therefore, a dialogue of vested stakeholders could be very useful for our county and the state as a whole. We have started the dialogue here already. The proposed Charter Summit is tentatively scheduled for January 2010.
We have now had two planning meetings for our proposed summit. We are looking at a summit with a clear purpose: Moving ahead together in a charter school environment to improve student achievement for all Silicon Valley children. It is the planning committee’s desire to make Santa Clara County a model for California. We want to develop processes to share best practices that work among district and charter schools…no proprietary secrets here. Innovation works. We are the center of innovation in the world. Let’s make it work for all our children. It is the only fair thing to do.
“In a recent survey conducted by SCCOE Superintendent Weis and his office, one district staffer commented: “If you’re charter-friendly it could be the end of the district. We can only take a hit so many times before we begin to fail.”
Wake up, sir, you’ve been failing for years. That’s why so many folks want charter schools—and they succeed more often than not, and much more often than district schools.
If our schools weren’t packed with so many of Presidente Calderon’s citizens who are here illegally, you might have a chance at a decent education for those who were born here or are here legally.
This paragraph presented a most telling quote:
—In a recent survey conducted by SCCOE Superintendent Weis and his office, one district staffer commented: “If you’re charter-friendly it could be the end of the district. We can only take a hit so many times before we begin to fail.”
Replace the word “fail” in the quote with “change” and it makes it easy to understand why, in a valley where success is defined by competition and adaptation, our public education system produces such an inferior product.
JMO,
How insensitive! Don’t you know that the polished, preferred and politically correct term is “undocumented immigrant?” “Illegal” sounds… well… so illegal. Oh, that’s right, they are breaking the law. It’s just that our public servants choose not to enforce it – my goodness, aren’t they special!
Greg said,
“How insensitive! Don’t you know that the polished, preferred and politically correct term is “undocumented immigrant?” “Illegal” sounds… well… so illegal.” Greg, you just crack me up. Thanks for the laugh.
I am still waiting for someone to tell me who is in charge of making up these new terms for everything from illegal to undocumented, or conversate and dialog, or problems that went from issues to concerns, etc. It is like being a “little pregnant!” Who invented the no carb diet, and all these other ridiculous fads people buy into? What and whom is at the end of the PC Yellow Brick Road?
Kathleen,
It is ridiculous to compare the naming of a group of humans to that of a trendy diet or any “fad”. The failure to understand the significance of refering to human beings as “illegal” is utter ignorance. Words and discourse are very powerful in both social and political context. Using undocumented citizens (because they are in fact citizens that pay taxes and contribute to our country) as scapegoats is an ill-informed argument constantly used by right extremist.
I find it difficult to respond to your completely illegitimate comments in a PC way. The four cut out the quality of this discussion with your irrelevant points. This discussion was about charter schools remember?
But it’s OK for Bellarmine to block pedestrian access to a public street and Caltrain station.
Mr. DiSalvo, it appears that the article was misinformed perhaps by a recent article in the SIA publication that has put out misinformation.
Proposition 227 was not thrown out by the courts, it is the law in California right now. The “support” that I gave the initiative was defending it on behalf of the State once the intitative was passed by over 60% of the voters. As a state lawyer, I don’t see that I had any other option but to defend it. Does the Santa Clara County Office of Education allow the lawyers and staff to do what they want or does the staff take direction from the board members who are elected?
I dunno.
Seems to me the headline to this column ought to read “Students Should Feel Lucky For Any Support Taxpayers Are Generous Enough To Give Them”.
Change this ridiculous entitlement mindset and we might discover that young people find it fulfilling to take their destiny into their own hands instead of relying on the generosity of others.
If anyone is interested:
Santa Clara County’s
Network for a Hate Free Community Quarterly Meeting
August 27, 2009
4:00-6:00PM
Charcot Building Cafeteria
2310 North 1st St., San Jose, Ca 95131
Please RSVP at [email protected]
“Schools for All” Campaign
Keynote presentation: Diana Tate Vermeire, Racial Justice Project Director, ACLU
Ms. Vermeire’s talk will focus on the ACLU of Northern California’s multidisciplinary “Schools for All” Campaign which works to ensure that all children attend schools that are inclusive, respectful, and welcoming.
The campaign is a reaction to the fact that in California and throughout the nation, students are being subjected to bias, harassment, and discrimination. The failure to address these experiences is leading to a dangerous trend: Youths stop engaging, misbehave, are disproportionally disciplined, and, ultimately, become so alienated that they choose to leave school or are forced out. The campaign has a particular focus on vulnerable populations, including LGBTQ students, students of color, English-learners, students with disabilities, students in foster care, and students who are pregnant or parenting.
Biography of Speaker:
Diana Tate Vermeire joined the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California in 2007 as the Racial Justice Project Director. The Racial Justice Project is committed to combating racism in all its forms with a particular emphasis on working to eliminate racial bias in the criminal justice system and to achieve educational equity. Diana’s current work focuses on issues relevant to felony disenfranchisement, disproportionate minority confinement, school bias and pushout, and discriminatory discipline within schools. She also heads up the ACLU-NC’s Schools for All Campaign: Preventing Bias and Pushout.
Prior to working for the ACLU-NC, Diana worked at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights as the Staff Attorney for the African American Agenda Project and supervisor of the Legal Services Clinic and Education Equity Project. Diana’s practice included litigating cases on the Lawyers’ Committee’s race docket, which involved a wide range of legal issues, including school desegregation, retail discrimination, and employment discrimination, and providing legal counsel to community groups and organizations advocating for racial equality and social justice.
I agree with one of the postings above. The quote, “If you’re charter-friendly it could be the end of the district. We can only take a hit so many times before we begin to fail.”
Maybe this change will be good, what we have know claerly isnt working. I would look at it as an opportunity for change and lets see what happens. We cant be any worse off then we are right now, can we?
We want to develop processes to share best practices that work among district and charter schools…no proprietary secrets here. Innovation works. We are the center of innovation in the world. Let’s make it work for all our children. It is the only fair thing to do.
I couldn’t agree more with this statement. Some people may say that people get what they get where they go, but it should be the same across the board because it is not about who gains a better education over another. The only bad part about this thinking and belief is that it will be a hard thing to accomplish and a hard thing to make a push for because of the way society has built their ideas. It is something that the community has become accustomed to and it is unfortunate but true.
I would love to see a more equal playing field when it comes to the level of education in charter schools and district schooling. Hopefully there is a starting point and eventually an end point as well.
Change is never easy for large established entities that perceive their position of prominence is being eroded. As the number of charter schools grows, so too does the “us vs. them” rhetoric. The best way to allay suspicions, fears and resentments is through communication. Holding summits is a good start. Concerns can be tabled in a structured and monitored way. But the overriding issue will be tough to remedy. The public school system fears the growing role of charter schools has the potential to lead to their demise. Unfortunately there should be concern as charter schools are created by the demands of parents wanting a better education than what they perceive the public system will give their children. In my opinion, the public school system’s efforts should be focused on how they can better serve the needs of these parents moving their kids to the charter schools rather than trying to stop the charter’s development. Make the public schools the place to be. If this is achieved, the desire for charter schools will diminish.