Another contentious charter school move
A parent from James Denman Middle School alerts me that Leadership Charter High School is preparing to move in and to share space at Denman. The parent says this will displace teachers and classrooms, and disrupt facilities (such as the library) that will have to fit in high-school-level resources.
Leadership just moved to the campus of Phillip and Sala Burton High School at the beginning of this (07-08) school year. Nobody has yet explained why it wants to leave that campus. (Leadership was previously in an SFUSD-owned property next to Denman Middle School that as I understand it is not legal for long-term occupancy by a school under the Field Act, which requires school buildings to meet earthquake safety standards.)
I posted about this on the sfschools listserve and an unidentified poster responded with the message (paraphrasing): Let's not gossip about where Leadership might go; let's talk about SFUSD's failure to communicate properly.
Speaking of failure to communicate properly, though — the issue to the Denman community IS where Leadership might go.
The Denman parent also tells me that Leadership teachers don't want to move to Denman. Previously, a Leadership insider told me they didn't want to move to Burton. At that time I asked her what they did want, and she didn't know. So what do they want this time?
Another question about Leadership is: What's going on with its plummeting enrollment? Small schools by design are one thing, but is this by design?
Incoming 9th grade classes year by year (total students):
03-04 96
04-05 93
05-06 79
06-07 69
07-08 37
Maybe some of the charter school insiders who read this blog can enlighten us. Why is Leadership requesting a new site, why don't they want to move to Denman, what site DO they want, and what's with the plunging enrollment?
Leadership just moved to the campus of Phillip and Sala Burton High School at the beginning of this (07-08) school year. Nobody has yet explained why it wants to leave that campus. (Leadership was previously in an SFUSD-owned property next to Denman Middle School that as I understand it is not legal for long-term occupancy by a school under the Field Act, which requires school buildings to meet earthquake safety standards.)
I posted about this on the sfschools listserve and an unidentified poster responded with the message (paraphrasing): Let's not gossip about where Leadership might go; let's talk about SFUSD's failure to communicate properly.
Speaking of failure to communicate properly, though — the issue to the Denman community IS where Leadership might go.
The Denman parent also tells me that Leadership teachers don't want to move to Denman. Previously, a Leadership insider told me they didn't want to move to Burton. At that time I asked her what they did want, and she didn't know. So what do they want this time?
Another question about Leadership is: What's going on with its plummeting enrollment? Small schools by design are one thing, but is this by design?
Incoming 9th grade classes year by year (total students):
03-04 96
04-05 93
05-06 79
06-07 69
07-08 37
Maybe some of the charter school insiders who read this blog can enlighten us. Why is Leadership requesting a new site, why don't they want to move to Denman, what site DO they want, and what's with the plunging enrollment?
Labels: Charters
12 Comments:
I am not an "insider" to this particular charter school; however I do have a few insights.
Your first , rather inflammatory/rhetorical question;
"what do they want?" could possibly be as simple
as: their own space.
Your second question wondering why the enrollment is decreasing ( or plummeting) can simply be due to the fact that Leadership School has NO home!
When new families are looking for their schools; the
fact that the school is sharing space with another school, or has rumors of moving and not quite settled can be disconcerting for families.
Although not an insider, I am a defender of charter schools. I have been the victim of charter schools moving and not having permanent space; and it was very hard on enrollment. Kids that hadn't experienced the school were reluctant to go somewhere that wasn't sure where it would be from year to year.
"What do they want?" is not a rhetorical question -- it's a totally straightforward one.
As I said, when I asked a Leadership insider who contacted me asking for help protesting their move to Burton (though others have said Leadership requested the Burton site), she had no idea what their preferred option was.
I would assume Leadership's leadership is businesslike enough to have some identified goal rather than just requesting a hypothetical space of their own. Obviously, the possibilities are limited by reality.
But again, why do they have to/want to move from Burton, especially if moving harms the school? Are they being forced to move or is that Leadership's choice?
It's common for two schools to share space, and that doesn't inherently frighten families away. One of SFUSD's most popular K-5 schools, Clarendon, is actually two schools in the same facility. SOTA shares its facility with the Academy of Arts & Sciences. Etc. So that doesn't inherently explain the enrollment plunge.
When you have a system where anyone can start a school, with or without the approval of the district where it's located, it does seem inevitable that that would lead to a space crunch. If the majority of a school board approves a new school without having space for it, that's their poor judgment -- except that with charter schools, the state can and is very likely to force the school into the unwilling district in any case. So school boards may be less likely to say no, since their "no" is purely symbolic.
Now I'm told that Leadership really wants its old site (Seneca and San Jose Ave., next to James Denman) back, but as I understand it, that's impossible without megabucks' worth of improvements to make the site legal to use for a school. So they're requesting Denman instead.
I gather the Denman parents think this is all the school district's doing, but that's backward. Under Prop. 39, charter schools are allowed to demand space in school facilities even if it displaces existing programs. Leadership is making a Prop. 39 demand for the space. Leadership has all the power in this transaction.
It's one of the ways that the entire charter school setup is confrontational and creates hostility and divisiveness within school districts -- and material harm to vulnerable communities like Denman.
And truly for no benefit. Charter schools have now been around for 15 years and overall show no better performance, no miracles for low-income kids, no innovations for traditional public schools to emulate.
Hey Caroline,
We get it. You love SOTA. We get it. YOu dislike charters.
Now for some info/data:
Prop 39 does not put the power in the hands of the charters. Yes, authorizing districts are required to offer "reasonably equivalent school facilities" for charter schools. But, given that the students ARE STILL IN THE DISTRICT, that makes sense, right?
But beyond that, the district (whose kids these are, mind you) has to only to make an offer. There is no obligation to offer a space in certain neighborhood, with specific facilities, that was recently renovated, etc.
Perhaps some of the reasons that the district is considering moving Leadership to the Denman site has something to do with:
1) A district-wide decline in student population of approx 400 students per year since 2001 (60,000 to 56,000).
2) James Denman's population has dropped 747 to 573 from 2001-2007.
3) Due to the Governor's proposed budget, SFUSD will be possibly firing 1000 teachers this year due to a $40 million cut in funding.
Maybe Denman will have the space and it makes financial sense to fill the building. God forbid the district tries something that might be smart.
Just a thought. But then again, what do I know, I don't run an informative edu-blog.
Every district faces a potentially costly legal battle over what are "reasonably equivalent school facilities" every time a charter makes a Prop. 39 demand for space. So that's what I mean about charters holding the power.
This edu-blog, of course, is run by unpaid volunteers. But think of the firepower you have on the side of charters! The Bush administration and its Dept. of Education, and the entire mightily funded "conservative infrastructure of think tanks and policy journals" -- plus dedicated and equally well-funded and -connected lobbying organizations such as the Center for Education Reform and the California Charter Schools Assocation -- plus the huge private funders such as Gates, Broad, Walton, Fisher, Irvine etc. -- if only some of those resources went to advocate for public education rather than privatization...
Caroline,
Respectfully, there's the key point of contention, as you've discussed before.
You wrote, "But think of the firepower you have on the side of charters! The Bush administration and its Dept. of Education, and the entire mightily funded "conservative infrastructure of think tanks and policy journals" -- plus dedicated and equally well-funded and -connected lobbying organizations such as the Center for Education Reform and the California Charter Schools Assocation -- plus the huge private funders such as Gates, Broad, Walton, Fisher, Irvine etc. -- if only some of those resources went to advocate for public education rather than privatization..."
First, I'm not sure who the "you" is. Just because someone is willing to consider charter schools as a viable option does not mean that "they" are part of the vast conservative privatization regime. Maybe a charter school is a good choice for some group of students.
Second, it is funny how we define "power" differently in this case. I'd say a small single charter school with an annual budget of, for example's sake, 1/400th of an entire district is probably not going to sue the district over the definition of "reasonably equivalent school facilities." They ask for Prop 39, are given 1 option and that's either it or nothing. Rarely are charter schools winning, let alone suing over this.
Thirdly, you finish by saying, "if only some of those resources went to advocate for public education rather than privatization..."
There it is: somehow for you charter schools have been flipped to somehow mean, "not public." Last time I checked, charter schools are public too.
Lastly, it's not a conspiracy as you suggest as to why perhaps these foundations don't give money to the federal government (or similar entities). It's the government. They can't manage the money they have now, why give them more?
Alas. Someday, it'll be about whether the kids are learning and that's it. Charter Schools who teach kids well should be praised. As should traditional public schools. Charter schools who don't teach their students well should not be praised or rewarded; same as traditional public schools.
That would be nice. No spinning of any message. Just praise for what works and a commitment to work to improve what doesn't.
I am the parent of an 11 year old 6th grade student currently attending James Denman Middle School. As the parent of an 11 year old, I am horrified by the thought of my 11 year old co-existing with high school age youth ranging in age from 15 - 19. High school age youth face many social issues that children the age of my son do not. The staff, students and parents of James Denman don't have an issue with Leadership wishing to relocate. Our issue is with combining high school age teenagers with middle school age children. And for the record, Denman currently has 680 students, not the 500 something number quoted by another blogger. If school space is under utilized, then by all means combine 2 schools to fill the space. But the schools being combined should be kept within the peer groups. A high school with a high school and a middle school with a middle school. Is it appropriate for a high school to share a building with an elementary school? I would think not. What makes this any different? The 6th grade students at Denman are fresh out of elementary school and should not be prematurely subjected to the social issues of teenagers. My son has only been 11 for 4 months, he has no place sharing a cafeteria with a student that is 18. If Leadership wants their own space, I don't have a problem with that. Let them find their own space. What they're are seeking from Denman is not thier own space. They want to move in to the building and share the space. If they were awarded Denman as their own space, and Denman students had to move... It would be rediculous to move 680 students from a building that has the capacity for 900, just to accomodate a school that has 300.
Wearily, once again:
***Just because someone is willing to consider charter schools as a viable option does not mean that "they" are part of the vast conservative privatization regime.***
Being part of a charter school community DOES make that someone a part of the vast conservative privatization regime. I understand why you don't want to hear it, but it does.
*** Maybe a charter school is a good choice for some group of students.***
This could indeed be, but charter schools overall are harmful to other schools, to school districts and their students, which is why I take the trouble to make these points.
*** I'd say a small single charter school with an annual budget of, for example's sake, 1/400th of an entire district is probably not going to sue the district over the definition of "reasonably equivalent school facilities." ***
The charters are backed up by all the firepower I listed, and that gives enormous power to their threat to sue the district.
***Rarely are charter schools winning, let alone suing over this.
***
They don't have to sue; they just have to threaten. I don't know of any actual figures on this -- do you?
*** Thirdly, you finish by saying, "if only some of those resources went to advocate for public education rather than privatization..."
There it is: somehow for you charter schools have been flipped to somehow mean, "not public." Last time I checked, charter schools are public too. ***
I disagree. The reason the Bush admin and the Hoover/Cato/Heritage/rest-of-the-right wing so favors charters is because they are part of the big push for privatization and eliminating public education. I understand you don't want to hear that. But.
*** Lastly, it's not a conspiracy as you suggest as to why perhaps these foundations don't give money to the federal government (or similar entities). It's the government. They can't manage the money they have now, why give them more?***
You just bore out my points by parroting right-wing anti-public-sector, pro-privatization slogans.
And my apologies to Denman parents for going off onto the greater issue of charter schools vs. public education. I really hope there's a way to work this out.
I think it would make much more sense to combine charter schools of the same age brackets together in a single facility rather than combine a charter school and a traditional/comprehensive public school with a charter school with different age brackets.
It has recently been published that Excelsior Middle School will move to the ISA (formerly Potrero Middle School) campus in the fall. It would make much more sense to move Leadership Charter High School into the former Luther Burbank campus with June Jordan Charter High School. That would be two high schools with students of the same age range. The administration would have the opportunity to join forces to address the needs of a common age grouping and possibly even hold assemblies or events that would bring the two communities together.
This makes much more sense than combining a charter high school and a traditional/comprehensive middle school -- with different age ranges and vastly different needs and areas of risk.
Ideally, it would be great if the old San Pablo Elementary School campus (the original site for Leadership Charter High School) could be retrofitted to meet earthquake safety standards. Another possibility would be to demolish the unsafe structures and replace them with portables. Since Leadership's enrollment is not huge that might be a viable option as well.
With all the money being spent on ADA compliance construction all over the city I don't see why the funding for the ADA couldn't be combined with earthquake retrofitting to remodel the San Miguel campus and give Leadership back their original home.
I imagine the massive cuts to the state educational funding would preclude such an option in the immediate future, but there are always alternative sources of funding from private corporations and foundations. Perhaps there might be enough sources to combine together to accomplish such a goal.
Not being politically savvy about such things I would appreciate anyone with a background knowledge of such matters to post the pros and cons of that possibility
As a student at James Denman I have worries for this issue itself. If only everyone stood in the the students point of view then we'd all understand how much this school means to us. Yes this school has it's up's and down's but students here really enjoy this school. Simply taking over half our school is very devastating. But before they do move in I think they should think of what the harms would be. For example in the past year students have tried to sell drugs to one another, what would happen if Leadership moved in? The problem is that Denman already suffers from the many dangers students put theirselves in, and placing Leadership here would really hurt us more. Students can get raped, start having sexual intercourse, start using drugs, etc. Like I've mentioned that students have tried to sell drugs, all these problems have pretty much subsided. And I'm pretty sure that if Leadership moves in after the year is over this school will surely shut down. There is a really big age difference betweent the two schools, having the middles school students go through halls seeing high school students who can be up to 18 years old is dangerous.
I understand that Leadership wants to relocate due to transportation, but if they've originally relocated at Burton High School then choices school stay that way. Having prior to Prop. 39 doesn't make a difference. Asking Denman to give up 13 classes will be hard, we barely have that much classrooms left. Our school is currently underconstruction and there will be more improvements too, but there are students graduating year after year and look forward to remembering how middle school was. If I have to look back to middle school later on in my life it wouldn't be so pleasent if we have to share schools with Leadership.
I understand that Leadership has no home right now, but if we all plan to fundraise and work hard to earn money I'm believe we can earn enough money to start construction on Leadership High School.
Im very upset with the desicision of moving Leadership high to a James Denman Middle school I believe that its not right and unfair to the 6th,7th, and 8th.
Post a Comment
<< Home