Victory in the Courts

This past week, the Santa County Superior Courts handed down a ruling on the most recent lawsuit brought against LASD by the Bullis Charter School. The courts agreed with LASD on virtually every part of the suit. Specifically:

• Upheld the District decision not to provide space for 7th grade for 2009-2010, given that BCS had publicly said they wouldn’t offer the 7th grade in this year
  
• Upheld the District’s space calculations for classroom and non-classroom space
  
• Supported the district’s position that “space” is only one aspect of the “reasonably equivalent” test, and that the test allows for some flexibility in how it is implemented
  

On the question of the Gardner Bullis campus, the court made the following observation:

"It appears to the Court from the record presented and the history of disputes between the parties that some of the Charter School's supporters are motivated by a strongly held yet entirely unjustified sense of superior entitlement to the Gardner Bullis Elementary School site, likely stemming from deep resentment over the closure of the former Bullis-Purissima Elementary School. This position undermines the Charter School's credibility, as despite occasional remarks to the contrary it repeatedly (and unconvincingly) suggests that the only possible outcome which would fully satisfy the goals of the Charter Schools Act would be for it to be given the Gardner Bullis Elementary School site." (page 26)

I’ve attached the Court’s ruling for those who would like to read through it. There is also an excellent article posted on the Town Crier’s website.
Pretty much the entire ruling was in favor of the district, save for a small point about share space. I’m not exactly surprised, though, at the court’s admonishment to the district to work better with the Charter School. The judge observed that we have a responsibility to work well with BCS, and “not adopt a reflexively adversarial position”.

I’m thrilled with the outcome of this suit. From the beginning, I’ve been frustrated with the use of litigation to deal with this issue, and the courts were very clear about their thoughts on this topic as well. “To the extent that [BCS] cannot reconcile themselves to the policy decisions made by elected bodies such as a school district board their energies might be better directed at the ballot box than the courthouse.”

Wow! Elected...

Last night I was elected to the Board of Trustees for the Los Altos School District. I must say, this isn't really the path I expected when I started doing all of this, but I'm grateful for the support of so many people. The district has a lot of challenges in front of it, but I'm confident that we'll continue to excel, both academically, and in our goal to inspire lifelong learning in our students.

I would be a complete clod if I didn't thank some people for this. First, thanks to the voters for the trust and faith they're placing in me. I'll do my very best. To the many friends who have hosted parties, distributed lawn signs, emailed, spoken to their friends, and generally propelled this effort forward: I can't thank you enough. To my family, who has already given up a lot of time, and who will be giving up even more over the next four years. My daughters have had a front row seat to both a fabulous lesson in civics, and also to the power of community support and involvement.

I intend to continue to blog here about district events. Please know that this blog reflects my personal opinions, and is not the official policy of the LASD Board of Trustees. I invite comments from the community on the topics that are most important to you, and I look forward to serving on the Board of Trustees.

PTA Discussion about Suspensions

Tonight at the Almond PTA forum, I was asked a question about a statement I made to the Board last year regarding the district's suspension policy.

In the spirit of being open, at the PTA meeting I volunteered to make public my correspondence with the Board on this matter. I discussed this topic with my wife, and upon reflection, I'd prefer not to post the full text becuase it involves both my daughter's school record as well as that of another student. In the age of the internet, once something is "out there", it's out there forever.

However, I also want to respect what I said in the meeting. I don't have anything to hide on this topic. Therefore, if anyone is interested to read the correspondence, please contact me (mailto:doug@smith4lasd.com) and I'll be pleased to meet with you to allow you to read a printed copy of the entire document, minus the name of the other student, of course.

The crux of my concern was best summarized by this paragraph, taken from my first contact with the district on this topic:

The state guidelines specifically say that suspension should not be used for a first offense unless the student presents a severe threat to other students. No reasonable person could interpret what occurred as a serious intent to physically harm another student. In fact, the state guidelines say that suspension is appropriate for a first offense only in the case of firearms, knives, selling of controlled substances, sexual assault, or possession of explosives. I believe we are all in agreement that none of those circumstances is present in this case.

I think that Mark Goines' comments on the topic this evening reflected a desire for more flexibility in the policy, which is consistent with my own views. We need to make sure our educators and adminstration have a range of options and exercise good judgement within that range. Again, I'm happy to meet with people and explain this in further detail should you be so inclined.

Way to go, Joe

SB19 passed this weekend, for which we should all be grateful.

SB19 unwound a previous bad law that was hurting every public education student in California. Some time ago, we wrote into law a "firewall" that prohibited using test scores to evaluate teacher performance. I won't debate why the law passed, but I will say plainly that I'm pleased it was repealed.

There are two big wins here. One is financial. The Obama administration has earmarked $4.5B for improving schools. One of the specific requirements to be eligible for that funding was -- you guessed it -- that the recipients had to permit the use of test scores in teacher evaluation. Even if it were only for mercenary reasons, it was a good idea to pass this law. The State of California simply can't afford not to be eligible for this funding.

The second reason this is good news is just plain common sense. Evaluating employees can be very difficult. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean you shouldn't try, though. In private industry, good companies devote tremendous effort to understanding who is contributing, who isn't making the grade, and what we can do to help those who are struggling to learn from those who are stars. Teaching is on of the most important professions. Wouldn't it stand to reason that we want to use every tool available to figure out who is doing well and who needs more coaching?

To be clear, I don't think test scores should be the be-all, end-all for evaluations. It should only be a piece of the puzzle. Still, this opens the door for a meaningful dialogue to evaluate employees on the basis of quantifiable data along side the more subjective observations. Thank goodness for common sense.

Relief... for Now

At tonight's Board meeting, Randy Kenyon presented the updated financials for the District. The good news is that we actually have a bit more than we thought. Through a series of favorable events, we've ended up the year with a reserve balance of $3.1M, or 7.4%. This is great, considering we were staring down a <3% reserve at the last meeting.

Here's the bad news. The big swings were due to a lot of one-time monies, so the deficit gets bad, quickly. Within 2 years, we'll be down to ~1.5% reserves if something doesn't change.

Hopefully folks are smart enough to focus on the long term picture, which remains bleak. "Hope" is not a substitute for "planning".