Fun at the BOE meeting

I'm writing the addendum to Kim's report on tonight's (1/16) BOE meeting before Kim files it, because I was only taking notes on certain parts.

I went to the meeting to make an anti-charter speech (pasted below, except that I had to edit it to one minute for the actual speech). The public comment period was during the presentation by Oakland's Willow Education, which operates a segregated, low-performing charter school in Oakland and has $450,000 in state startup funds to bestow a segregated, low-performing school upon SFUSD too, whether we like it or not — wow, thanks so much for thinking of us!

So the folks from Willow Education jeered and heckled me throughout my one-minute speech, which I think probably hurt them more than it hurt me.

I learned after I posted this that the hecklers were from the Sputnik charter -- another proposal that presented later -- not Willow.

Dennis Kelly also spoke against the charter (without getting jeered and heckled — either it was because the Willow Education dudes had admonished their followers, or it's my gender or I was having a bad-hair day or something. (Mark Sanchez admonished them too).

Really, I've been jeered by Edison Schools hecklers, and the Edison Schools folks are sleazier hustlers than the Willow Education folks, though the Willow people are trying to catch up.

The board seemed a bit perplexed by all this. The SFUSD charter staffer had just given the most cheerleading sales job you've ever heard for the charter. (I think she's missing her skepticism gene.) Jill Wynns pointed out that this was the first charter pitch the SFUSD BOE has ever heard that didn't have a single member of the San Francisco community speaking for it.

Prior to that — I'm not taking a stand opposing small schools or anything (my own child attends a small high school), but I have to say that the Small Schools Task Force gave a pretty weird presentation. They're in kind of an awkward position because it's undeniable that the highest-scoring and most in-demand schools in SFUSD are the biggest schools. They pretty much tiptoed around that.

They did a presentation citing the success of a school project in Boston. Afterward, Jill Wynns pointed out that the school project in Boston does not involve small schools (I think she said it involves site-based budgeting). One member of the Small Schools Task Force, Greg Peters (who I think is principal of Leadership HS, though he didn't mention that when he introduced himself), did say small schools save lives. Hard to document that with statistics, though. Other members of the task force pointedly took the opposite tack and said there's no one miracle reform and that small schools work for some kids.

Jill Wynns peppered them with questions until Mark Sanchez told her (in essence) to sit down and shut up, which kind of evoked the good old Bill Rojas days — Jill always did ask too many questions, and Rojas was always stifling her.

I hadn't been to a BOE meeting in a while, due to the demands of kid schedules and homework supervision needs. I'd forgotten how much fun they can be.

Here's the unedited two-minute version of my charter speech:

I’m Caroline Grannan, a parent at Aptos Middle School and School of the Arts, and a charter skeptic.

I’m speaking as an unpaid parent volunteer to remind you that charter schools are a damaging, divisive factor helping force our district to close schools. Three charter proposals are now before you, and another is about to be forced upon us by the state. Each of them threatens the well-being and even the survival of our existing schools, without providing any benefits that justify harming our district and our students.

Charters cause conflict and disruption as school communities are forced to accept unwanted charters to share their sites, here and in other districts.

Charter schools’ record in our district is mediocre. Nationally, charters perform no better than traditional public schools, and tend to be far more segregated.

Charter schools are anti-democracy and pro-privatization. They’re a pet project of the political right and a weapon in the arsenal aimed at weakening and ultimately destroying public education. Busting teachers’ unions is one of their main goals.

None of the organizations proposing these charters has a track record of success managing schools. Two have no experience running schools, and another runs a low-performing, segregated school in Oakland, not something we need to replicate here. The organization pushing the state charter has already run a low-performing, struggling school in SFUSD.

The would-be charter organizers are well-funded with private foundation money and state money in their divisive campaign to force unneeded schools into our district. That money could have been used to benefit our students.

A yes vote on a charter proposal is a nail in the coffin of an existing school. For the sake of our students, commissioners, please vote no on all proposed charter schools. If the charter organizers care about children and education, they will withdraw their proposals and find ways to help our kids and our existing schools.

— Caroline