Mary s Frances Callan's parting shot Schools & Kids, posted by Another Disappointed Community Member, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 5, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Mary Frances Callan's recommendation to implement a Mandarin Immersion program despite the overwhelming community outcry, and all the numerous legitimate concerns that have not been addressed in the new study, was her parting gift to this community which dealt her a stinging 'vote of no confidence' blow this fall.
(I notice they mentioned the 200+ responses to the ad against MI, but failed to mentioned the over 500 petition signature (and growing daily) against.
And what about Marilyn Cook? Is the jury still out to lunch on her performance, or is the community's collective memory already forgotten.
I hope the Board considers the recommendations with the same amount of respect with which they were delivered.
I also hope the board is thinking long and hard about the consequences of angering so much of the community on which they rely for special parcel tax, school site improvement Board, and onging PIE support.
Posted by anonymous, a member of the Palo Alto High School community, on Jan 6, 2007 at 9:22 am
Some of us will be reconsidering donations to PiE. Apparently the solution is to donate specifically to whatever area is of interest or benefits one's own children. That seems to be what happened with MI. I thought that's what we tried to minimize with PiE.
Posted by natasha, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2007 at 10:02 am
Maybe we could also consider repealing Measure A -- in my own family we pay those taxes for an education our children didn't receive because the district, including Ms. Callan, did nothing to address our well-documented concerns -- now our kids are in private school so we pay twice. If the adminstration's attitude about MI stands, why should we support them? Let them find their own sources of funding other than the parents they don't listen to anyway.
Posted by Nico, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2007 at 10:41 am
Currently many parents in PAUSD contribute to PiE AND their school’s PTA. They also buy giftwrap, auction items, spend money at harvest fairs and volunteer hours of time to their schools. I would hazard to guess that the people have the resources and inclination to donate to PiE, are usually the people that also donate to their local campuses in many ways.
I think that you are inferring (and it has been stated on other threads) that MI supporters are greedy and will only support MI and not PAUSD. I think that you are wrong. I think the parents supporting MI have already proven themselves as hardworking volunteers who can raise funds when needed. I think that these parents will be an asset to the school district and to the campus selected for MI (Ohlone?). I think we are the type of people that will donate to PiE AND PTA. What is your proof that we are greedy? I think if you are threatening to reconsider your donation to PiE, the greedy one in the conversation is not the MI supporters. Not donating to PiE hurts all of Palo Alto’s schools.
This is a red herring argument that has been hashed out to death. Since MI is cost neutral it takes zero money, not one cent from any other program or potential future program or potentially re-instated program.
See the following thread (duped on Measure A) for more than you ever wanted to read:
I could just as easily say that the Mandarin Immersion program would be a wonderful legacy to future generations of Palo Altans. I think we will look back at the controversy with confusion and wonder why the decision to move forward with this was in any way controversial. Good one MFC! But that is a difference of opinion.
Posted by Eagerly awaiting.., a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2007 at 11:13 am
Good one, Nico. You said
"Since MI is cost neutral it takes zero money, not one cent from any other program or potential future program or potentially re-instated program."
"I think we will look back at the controversy with confusion and wonder why the decision to move forward with this was in any way controversial."
"I think that these parents will be an asset to the school district"
I will look for the post, coming soon I am sure, that announces that PACE will throw itself into the good of all of PAUSD by helping all children have the chance at MI. This should be easy, just institute a one strand MI program at every school, now that we know it is cost-neutral, noncontroversial, and feasible to have an immersion program of just one class per grade.
It certainly would prevent almost all of those silly opposition types from bringing up any of their non-controversies, since at least most kids who want it could learn a language..at their neighborhood school..with no extra cost...and while still making progress in our higher priorities. Solves that whole pesky "costly FLES" problem, too, by making it obsolete.
Be sure to let us all know when you decide to do this.
Posted by Nico, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2007 at 11:40 am
I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or not in your post? It is really a strange coincidence that you say in your post “PACE will throw itself into the good of all of PAUSD by helping all children have the chance at MI. This should be easy, just institute a one strand MI program at every school, now that we know it is cost-neutral, etc….” I am not speaking in any way for PACE here, but personally I am really hoping to be able to volunteer for the FLES task force. I would love to investigate putting an immersion strand (of some language) at every school. I am not sure if under investigation it would end up being a good idea or not, but I think it would be really interesting to study! And the vision of multiple languages offered at all schools seems like an amazing future to me. If your post is sarcastic, maybe you wouldn’t agree though.
Posted by Another PO'd tax payer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I finally get it. After Nico's last post I finally understand that as amazing as it might seem Nico and other's on her side of the argument don't get the concept that time=money.
The time MC, BCV, NM, IR, the Ohlone principal, the secretaries, the board of education, the superintendent, HR, Finance, Bill Garrison, and everyone else in district employment will spend on MI, that they wouldn't otherwise have had to do - is incremental taxpayer cost.
To say otherwise is to say these folks were sitting around idle, with nothing to do before MI came along. If THAT's the case, then I think they lied on Measure A - they said district staff was maxed out, understaffed, and we were facing big money crunch in lots and lots of areas. Doubtful.
So Nico, by denying that for example, Marilyn Cooks time spent globetrotting for MI was a cost, not reimbursed by MI, or that more overhead time that will be used in start up and ongoing, is a cost, you deny that you understand the concept that time = money.
For you not to understand this - I chalk this up to 'consider the source'. For the BOARD not to understand this? I will consider that gross negligence. That's a board job.