Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 6, 2007 at 3:11 pm
In the kabuki theater that was the last board meeting, Susan Charles said no to a 2007 start. She said at the Jan. board meeting that if the MI program wasn't approved then it couldn't happen this Fall.
I assume an incoming board could overturn it--particularly if it's not cost-neutral--which with the addition of an assistant principal, how could it be?
Re: the charter, I'm still not sure how a program that must have 30 percent native speakers and preferably 50 percent falls within the state's charter guidelines.
Yeesh, if the Gang of Nine had any sense, they'd just go start a charter in Mountain View--everybody gets what they want.
Posted by Another Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 6, 2007 at 6:15 pm
It is not what the majority wants necessarily, it is what the schools can comfortably offer. The majority can want all it likes, but if there is no room in the schools and no money in the coffers, then wanting is not going to be enough.
Posted by Yet another resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 6, 2007 at 7:27 pm
In fact, Resident, we DID have a way of determining what the city wanted in the future. It was called the strategic plan, and was based on a great deal of community input, polls, etc. The community showed loud and clear in the pre-plan stage that it wanted the basics improved before new language programs were implemented. Language, as people on many posts have said for many months, was at the bottom of the priority list. This is why many MI opponents opposed MI -- because it was trying to "jump the line" of priorities in direct conflict with the community-set priority list. Since we do know what the majority want, many people are asking why it is the minority getting what THEY want ahead of the majority having their democratically set priorities addressed. The Board -- Mandy and Dana and Gail in the majority -- DID decide . . . *against an MI program on PACE's timeframe.* If you are saying it's time to put MI behind us for now and move on with the previously agreed priority list, here here!
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 6, 2007 at 9:07 pm
What I am saying is that the past is past at this point.
The vote is clearly going to be for a Choice MI program.
I am not happy, but I believe that when a democratic decision is made ( which will be what our Board is about to do) regardless of what the history has been, regardless of what others did or did not do, regardless if I am happy or not with the decision, regardless if I believe it was the right decision or not...I have to accept it and move on. It goes deeper than what I think of this decision, it goes into accepting the "rule of law", so to speak. Into the heart of what makes a democracy a democracy.
Something along the lines of that old prayer about accepting what you can't change, changing what you can, and having the wisdom to know the difference.
Not presuming to lecture anyone!! Just saying how I am approaching it.
Changing what happens NEXT is different from trying to change what has already happened. I am going to focus on the "next" part.
Posted by Citizen, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 6, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Here's something interesting from the charter school sample application Web Link:
"VIII. IMPACT ON THE CHARTER AUTHORIZER
Provide information regarding the potential effects of the charter school on the charter authorizer and/or the school district in which it will be located, including, but not limited to, the facilities to be utilized by the school, the manner in which administrative services of the school are to be provided, and potential civil liability effects. [Ref. California Education Code §47605(g)]
Substantial evidence is provided that the applicant has made a thorough and conscientious attempt to examine the issues listed here through dialogue with the charter authorizer and/or school district officials."
PACE would have to acknowledge that their plan would be financially detrimental to an overenrolled, basic aid district. I frankly would love to see how they answer this one.
Posted by Faith Brigel, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 7, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Please come and express all of your opinions related to Mandarin immersion chioce program at the board meeting Tues. May 8 at 7:00 p.m. at 25 Churchill. During open forum when you have 3 minutes to speak.