Koch Brothers and Milt Friedman Tout School "Choice" - Just Like RVC

Click here to read how the Koch Brothers and their Super PAC, Americans for Prosperity, love charters and school "choice," which is the same rhetoric we hear from RVC - "Kids in Ross Valley deserve educational choice." Charters do not top the Koch's list, but seem to fall after fighting labor unions, the minimum wage and denying climate change.

Click here to read more about the roots of the "school choice" movement, including the Southern states' attempts to fight off integration which built upon the idea of school vouchers by celebrated Neo-Con economist, Milt Friedman (mentor to Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney, and advisor to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher). 

Do we really want the Koch Brothers' and their ilk having such a huge impact on our local school children? Last time we checked, Marin County was a progressive haven.

School Choice Creates Duplication of Services - which results in money being spent twice for the same thing (Part 2 of 2)

Let's be real: If RVC is successful, they will take their children from our school district, reducing the overall budget. While there will be fewer children to educate, our tax dollars will be paying for RVC to duplicate services already done in house in our District (by contracting with for-profit entities such as EdTec). Think about the people at the District office who manage payroll, and the janitors and librarians who work the school sites. If the budget is reduced by 5-10%, will we ask those folks to reduce their work hours and pay by 5-10%? 

In nearby Sebastopol, where there are a ton of charters competing with the public schools, according to the Press Democrat, "Since 2000, district enrollment has fallen from 1,262 to 508 students this school year — a 60 percent decline. In 2013, there were 650 students. Educational options have grown in Sebastopol and elsewhere in Sonoma County in recent years, leaving school districts facing competition for students and the state funding that comes with them." That district has had to make many tough choices, including closing school sites.

Kids leaving their neighborhood public school and enrolling in charters has a huge impact on District finances.

The parents in one charter in Sebastopol tout their incredible rate of parental giving (read: parents who can afford to give $), resulting in a $3 million foundation and the purchase of an 18 acre piece of land for their new campus (link here). Let us all pause and grasp that those parents are supporting their children's school of choice, and not the public schools, which are tasked with teaching each and every child which come in the door. This could result in a "charter bubble" according to this article by noted academic, Bruce D. Baker.

It is delusional to believe, and a falsehood to state, that taking their children out of RVSD will have no negative impact on our District's finances. 

It's simple math, people. 

The obligation to provide an education to all young Americans is written in most state's constitutions, including California's. 

As Jeff Bryant says in this article, "In the run up to School Choice Week, Jeb Bush declared choice to be 'one of our most cherished principles.'

Unfortunately for Bush, the nation’s foundational documents don’t say a whole lot about “choice.” What they do say a lot about is equality and justice."

Can't we do better than to fall under the spell of these conservative privatizers?

Let's unite and work for the good of all children in our community!

School Choice sounds good! What's wrong with it? (Part 1 of 2)

School choice has become the rallying cry of RVC, and it sounds harmless, kinda good, right? In fact, the school choice movement takes advantage of parents' natural desires for the best for their children, while dividing communities. If you want to dig into the complexities of this issue, and understand who is behind the school choice movement, this piece from Educational Opportunity Network is the best. 

The idea of school choice originated with Milt Friedman (read more about the global influence of his "Chicago Boys," here. Two of his famous acolytes include Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney). Originally, it referred only to school vouchers, but is increasingly used as a justification for charter schools, like this Koch Brothers' website. Their zeal for "pure capitalism" and their mastery of rhetorical tricks led to its embrace by conservatives and even some liberals, as we are now seeing in our community.

Originally described as a panacea for urban poverty, Diane Ravitch reviewed the stats from all-choice districts, and found them to have had no impact on reducing poverty. Meantime, middle class and upper middle class parents have jumped on the bandwagon (see MAP and RVC).

According to Jeff Bryant of Educational Opportunity Network,  "the choice that most parents will be stuck with is whether they stay in their neighborhood school – as it is rapidly being defunded to the private sector and gradually being depopulated of the children of the most well-to-do parents – or choose a private or charter..."

We wholeheartedly agree with and our state's Constitution and Rethinking Schools. Our public schools are the bedrock of our democracy, and should be fully funded and supported.

Each child deserves a quality, free, public education.When it comes to public policy and public schools, there is a responsibility to go beyond individual concerns and promote what is best for all children...It's impossible to think about public education without understanding its relationship to our country's quest for democracy. Schools are the place in this society where children from a variety of backgrounds come together and, at least in theory, try to learn to talk, play, and work together. Schools are by no means equal and play a significant role in maintaining our highly stratified society. At the same time, there is no comparable arena in this country where there is a vision of equality, no matter how much this vision may be tarnished in practice.

MAP already has a long, substantiated history of discrimination, which the ACLU expressed "grave concerns" about (Link here). We also know that RVC, like all charters, will be governed by self-appointed leaders, not democratically elected school board members, which the Washington Supreme Court just ruled unconstitutional. We just had an election, remember? The people spoke and soundly defeated the only pro-charter candidate.

According to Valerie Strauss in this Washington Post article, 

We know from school choice experiments in other states that students with disabilities or other special needs are most likely to be denied admission at voucher schools...

Local school boards are committed to providing each child—regardless of race or religion, family income, or special needs—with an outstanding education that will prepare them for higher education, the workplace, and a fulfilling life.

Rather than being sidetracked by school choice ploys, we must focus on our community public schools. We must ensure that our school leaders have the means to make every public school a great school, for the sake of all of our students and our country.

Stand up for our democracy, for our great public schools, and don't believe the hype about "Choice!" 

After 19 years of unilaterally pushing their agenda, Manor and all of RVSD are more divided than ever

As the Department of Education is one step away from approving the Ross Valley Charter petition, and as they plan their $60 per person fundraiser/celebration, let us all pause and reflect upon the cost thus far to our community.

At the hearing on December 2, many MAP parents stood up and spoke about the superiority of MAP to K5, and indeed, TO EVERY OTHER TEACHER AND SCHOOL IN THE DISTRICT. 

This comes as no surprise, as one MAP teacher has notoriously stood up at Board meetings for years and asserted how much she and her MAP colleagues "deserve," because they "work harder than any other teacher in the district." This is in a public meeting, people.

After 19 years of documented discrimination (against many FSACC families), they are now touting their "flourishing partnership," while several FSACC parents spoke negatively about the Manor K5 teachers and program at the State Hearing.

In retrospect, this appears to have been part of a long-term strategy which MAP/RVC leaders have been executing for years: 

Andrea Sumits (Yahoo! in 2011)—"In my humble opinion, [a charter school] would be a far smarter longterm investment of our Measure A money to invest in an RVSD-owned asset."

Jason Morrison in 2014—"My perspective is that as much of our collective bandwidth as possible should be spend trying to understand the viability of MAP becoming a charter school."

Conn Hickey (petition's appendix in 2015)—"He was a district Trustee for almost seven years between 2003 and 2011, during which time he became the board expert on school finance, renewed a parcel tax, and helped shape and pass the Measure A bond measure in 2010. He is currently a member the District’s Measure A Citizen Oversight Committee."*

Your disregard for others in this community has not gone unnoticed, and it will not be easily forgotten, RVC. Your drive to"win" has come with considerable losses to all of us and all of our children. 

We will be watching you, RVC. 

*Sounds like we have a fox guarding the henhouse!

Unintentional Discrimination is still...Discrimination

It can be difficult to confront discrimination, even unintentional forms. But, it is incumbent upon us as well meaning human beings, to straighten up injustice in our own backyards.

Apparently, some in our community believe that the MAP program was found "innocent" of discrimination. Some folks don't believe us, the District, Chris Reynolds, the investigator who wrote the report on MAP's discrimination (click here to read about his qualifications) or the ACLU (click here to read about their work on educational equity). Will they believe former Attorney General Eric Holder and First Lady Michelle Obama (click here to read her statements - be sure to watch the video) sharing their thoughts on "subtle racism"? Holder said, on the 60th anniversary of Brown V. Board,

"This presupposes that racial discrimination is at a sufficiently low ebb that it doesn't need to be actively confronted," Holder said. "In its most obvious forms, it might be. But discrimination does not always come in the form of a hateful epithet or a Jim Crow like statute. And so we must continue to take account of racial inequality, especially in its less obvious forms, and actively discuss ways to combat it. As Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote recently in an insightful dissent in the Michigan college admissions case — we must not 'wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. ... The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race.' "(click here to read the full NPR article).

The Supreme Court ruled in August that unintentional discrimination is still discrimination and therefore, illegal and unconstitutional. According to the Washington Post, "The Supreme Court’s housing decision is a warning against subtle discrimination everywhere." From the article (click here to read in full),

"The idea of disparate impact," says Betsy Julian, the president of the Inclusive Communities Project that brought the case before the Supreme Court, "is if what you do has the same impact as what somebody would do if they intended to discriminate, then disparate impact means you’re still responsible for that harmful impact..."

What can we do as well intentioned folks? Let's unite Manor School as ONE SCHOOL, equally serving ALL children! Let's stop dividing ourselves into clubs and groups which benefit certain children more than others! Let's work together for justice for all in our own backyard! 

Did the RVSD trustees admit to errors in the Reynolds (discrimination report?) NO!

MAP has repeatedly stated that there are errors in the Reynolds report and the RVSD Board did not adopt the report.  The board's adoption of the corrective actions to resolve the discrimination, including prohibiting MAP teachers from any outreach towards potential MAP families prove that not only did the board adopt the findings in the report, but they also voted to approve the corrective actions to resolve practices which caused discrimination.  If the trustees believed there were errors in the report, why would they vote to approve corrective actions?  Click here to read the agenda from the Board meeting including the votes on the corrective actions.

The source of contention in part surrounds the MAP interview for admission for incoming kindergartners which acted as a barrier to entry.   The interview is well documented in the report and includes statements made by Kindergarten teachers about "MAP worthiness" of potential families.  Click here for the full report and details about the interview and the MAP admission policies (page 9 and 10).  MAP leaders have stated that the investigator's interpretation of the process was incorrect and that this is an error in the report.  MAP also claims that the district acknowledged that there might have been errors in this report such as this one and the RSVD board declined to adopt the report as their own.

MAP is basing the statement on a MAP leader's recollection of the events of the board meeting on November 18, 2014.   The MAP leader's recollection of events is not factually accurate and should be corrected.  There were a few of us in attendance at that board meeting. The primary public comments from the MAP people present (including two of the MAP teachers) were about the investigator's recommendation to eliminate top enrollment priority for children of the MAP teachers .  What the board did not adopt were all of the 12 recommendations below from the 3rd party investigator (detailed below).   By voting to approve the recommendation "Provide written directives to all MAP staff that other than as directed by the Superintendent or his/designee, there are to be no pre-meetings with prospective MAP students or families and all inquiries regarding the program and/or enrollment are to be directed to the Director of Student Services" the board adopted the finding in the report that whatever outreach done by the MAP teachers (i.e. interviews) was creating the effects of discrimination.  There was even a discussion about not speaking to potential families at places like Safeway.    

There is no evidence of any statement by the board mentioning errors in the report.  In fact, their unanimous adoption of several corrective actions contradicts MAP's claims. If you don't believe us, contact the district for confirmation. 

$81 Million in California Charter Fraud is "The Tip of the Iceberg"

Lots of brilliant policy wonks and academics are very concerned about charter school abuses, including the Center for Popular Democracy. Click here to read their report.

ACLU Voices "Grave Reservations" About RVCS & MAP Discrimination

Click here to read the letter from the ACLU in which they express "grave reservations" about the proposed Ross Valley Charter School. The ACLU based its opinion on "publicly available documents," not on promises, rumors and assurances. Why was the ACLU concerned?

The MAP program has a "troubling history of ... discrimination." Click here to read about the history of this group, here to read their own statements about their plan not to help negotiate a peace at Manor, but to organize and become a charter to avoid district regulation, and here to read the discrimination report. 

As the ACLU says, "Rather than staying with Manor Elementary to make the MAP program more welcoming and responsive to the needs of English Language Learner students and students with disabilities, through the admission and enrollment procedures instituted by the District Superintendent, it appears that the leaders of MAP wish to export the exact program (and its students and teachers) that an independent investigator found was operating in a discriminatory manner into a Charter School which will necessarily have greater autonomy from District oversight (their emphasis)."

Note how MAP/RVC leaders are now discounting the ACLU with statements such as, "I normally like the ACLU, but they're wrong on this one." In other words, it's great for the ACLU to step in and help end discrimination and work for our constitutional rights in other places, but NOT IN MY BACKYARD! We're fine here - these aren't the droids you're looking for. 

Discrimination is real, it is happening here, and we need to work on fixing it and healing our own community.

It makes no sense to continue to rely on promises and assurances from the MAP/RVC community, for as the ACLU says, "many of the leaders of the MAP program are now apparently proponents of the charter school."

Can't we just have ONE GREAT FAIRFAX SCHOOL FOR FAIRFAX KIDS?

Unify Manor! Put an end to this nonsense!

Let's end this nonsense once and for all!! This charter has been denied unanimously three times by two different government agencies. Enough is enough! Bring Manor together equitably for the sake of ALL of our kids. Click here to read the IJ article in which one County Trustee voices his desire that folks at Manor "reconcile." He goes on, "“Number One is the kids,” Hellman said. “That’s what this is all about is the kids. Parents have to step back and look at what is in the best interest of the children.” Parents, start a dialogue with your friends at Manor. Ask your MAP friends to stop this charter push. Let's do this!

How could the Charter School end up at Manor?

Location Still an Issue - How could the Charter School end up at Manor?

 Despite numerous assurances and claims that MAP/RVC leaders have no intent to locate at Manor, the Charter Petitioners decided not to include any of this language in the actual Charter document itself.  The entire 358 page petition does not once mention that the Charter,

·                 Will not be located at Manor, or

·                 Will not open immediately if Manor is the only facility available, or

·                 That it will not exercise its Prop 39 rights to request RVSD facilities (which would result in the school being located at Manor as that is the only available equivalent space).

 In fact, what the Petition does say is – “The Charter School plans to rent facilities within the District’s boundaries … and will explore … public school facilities to accommodate its educational program.” (pg 198 RVC Petition)

 Simply stating that the petition included a budget item for rent or that it doesn’t intend to make a Prop 39 facility request right now does not mean that it can’t or won’t in the future. If approved, California ED Code Section 47614 (Proposition 39) clearly states that school districts are required to provide equivalent facilities to charter schools.

 Even the MAP teachers, who really want to move out of Manor, will not be in control of that decision, the RVC Board will be in charge. There is nothing to preclude their intent from changing if they can’t find an alternate facility, decide in a year or two that Red Hill is inadequate, or if the RVC board (now or in the future) simply decides to change its mind. Once RVC is chartered, there’s no going back and it will have full Prop 39 rights now and forever. If this had truly been a core element of the proposal, as was portrayed in all of RVC’s marketing materials, it should have been included somewhere in the Charter petition. It wasn’t!

 Fairfax and Manor simply cannot take the chance, now or in the future, of splitting Manor’s campus any further. After-the-fact excuses are hollow and don’t change the reality that the RVC petitioners did not bother to secure Manor’s future as a single neighborhood school as part of its petition document.

Didn’t the Petitioners send a letter to RVSD saying they would agree, in writing, not to be at Manor?

 The letter (Click here) was a bit of “smoke and mirrors” intended to persuade the District “that this concern can be put aside.” It did not state that RVC would not open until other facilities, funded by RVC, could be secured. Nor did it waive RVC’s Prop 39 rights or state that RVC would not at some future date exercise those rights.

 Furthermore, the letter curiously chose not to focus on the core issue and instead referenced just one small part of the law (Section 47614(b)(1)) that relates to a District not having to pay for facilities “to create … space it does not currently have.” This section of Prop 39 is completely irrelevant to our situation as the District would have available space – the MAP space at Manor.

Simply agreeing not to use the available space at Manor does not mean that the space doesn’t exist. Therefore, Prop 39 would remain in effect and RVC would have the right, now or at any time in the future, to make a facility request.

 In fact, having a "Not at Manor" agreement with Prop 39 still in effect, could potentially force the District into one of two very difficult “non-Manor” options: 1) Reconfigure the boundaries to move the available space at Manor to another campus for RVC to occupy, or 2) Voluntarily fund a Red Hill upgrade (since it would be choosing not to use its available space at Manor it would be exempt from the above mentioned Section 47614(b)(1)) .

 RVC’s marketing campaign does not match its actions. It has now had three chances (2 petitions and a follow-up letter) to codify in writing its “intent” not to be at Manor. All three times it has failed to put those “intentions” into action – i.e. into legally binding contracts.

 Either this was indeed a mistake made 3 times in a row, and the MAP/RVC leaders are ill equipped to manage the administrative work of running a school, or they disingenuously mislead the community to gain support but intentionally kept their Prop 39 rights to Manor open as a last resort, “fall back” option.