Part of the Bay Area News Group

CVHS charter committee seeks families intending to enroll in fall

By Theresa Harrington
Monday, October 17th, 2011 at 10:24 am in Education, Mt. Diablo school district.

The Clayton Valley High School charter committee is seeking families interested in enrolling in the school, if its conversion is approved to open in the fall.

Proposition 39 requires school districts to provide local charter schools with facilities that are sufficient to meet their needs. To help determine projected enrollment, charter schools are asked to provide estimates on how many students are interested in attending the school.

The Mt. Diablo school district has asked the Clayton Valley High School charter committee to provide such estimates, committee members say. The committee is requesting that all families of students in grades 8-11 interested in attending the proposed Clayton Valley Charter High School next year to fill out and return signed forms no later than October 28.

Students do not need to live in the Clayton Valley attendance area to submit an “intent to enroll” form, which is available at http://sites.google.com/site/claytonvalleycharterhighschool/intent-to-enroll.

Questions can be sent to cvchs@hotmail.com.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • Concerned Parent

    Theresa, on another blog one of the charter steering committee members wrote that what the steering committee is turning in to the District is just a draft and the charter Governing Board will not be held to it. I remember them saying the same thing when it was brought up that the charter documents made the two parent rep positions on the governing board appointed positions rather than elected positions. (They’ve since been changed to elected positions.) Can you check with the District to see if that is true? It doesn’t make sense to me that the MDUSD board could approve the charter conversion based on nonbinding “draft” documents. In that case, wouldn’t they be approving a blank slate? I thought the charter documents were essentially a contract that governed the operation of the charter school and the steering committtee was legally authorized to write the charter. Thanks.

  • Anon

    But Concerned Parent, it will be a charter, independent of the district, so as far as I know the district is looking to approve or deny based on their “plan” not to approve everything they do, right? The district will not have a say in how they operate and further, there are many decisions that can’t be made until there are employees, a director/principal and an employed administration along with a governing board. They cant’ do any of that until they get a full approval. Much is a plan and an outline, much has to be decided with the people who will be running it, which to this point the district has delayed the charter from implementing. So I do think you’re wrong in your assumption that there is anything bad about a draft. The district is not signing off on the charter’s methods, only if they look feasible.

  • g

    “just a draft”: There are first drafts, second drafts, discussion drafts, consensus drafts and when all parties are in agreement, or finished debating there are binding signatures put on final drafts. Then there is a vote to pass or not pass the draft to make it final. It is the democratic process. Assembly Bill drafts, Senate Bill drafts, drafts of minutes not yet approved……. See?

  • Concerned Parent

    Yes, G, I agree, multiple drafts should be prepared and agreed to by the charter steering committee, with input by the advisory committee and governing board members that have been elected/appointed. Then the final documents, as approved by the steering committee, should be presented to the MDUSD board for approval/denial. But to present a draft to the MDUSD board and say they must make their final decision based on this, but it’s content is meaningless to us and our governing board will not abide by it, is ridiculous. That tells me that the charter petitioners are not operating in good faith.

    If that’s the way it works, then why bother to present anything at all? The District is sigining off on the fact that the charter petition meets the required elements. If the steering committee says that what they’re turning in is just a draft – all BS just to get the board to sign off – and they’re not bound by it, how can the district say the charter petitioners have met the requirements? What would be the point of having the charter petitioners present anything at all except for the teacher signatures and the required affirmations? Surely the legislature wanted the authorizing body to verify that the required elements are in place, or they would haven’t written that requirement into law.

    Which, I guess, has been the argument of the charter proponents all along: We don’t have to present a plan. All we have to do is present the required number of signatures and the required affirmations and we can do anything we want and you don’t have any say in it. As a taxpayer, community member, and parent, I find that attitude appalling.

    But it was my understanding that the charter document is the legal contract that governs how the school will be run. That it’s not just a meaningless draft to be submitted just to get the school board off their back.

  • g

    Concerned Parent: A finalized Charter IS a Legal Contract; much like the Constitution of the U.S., –with its 27 Amendments– changes that were made and agreed to by those it serves, based on need as times, beliefs and circumstances changed.

    Which of those Amendments would you have voted against? The First? The Fourteenth? The Nineteenth?

    With a working-living, long term contract, the Fat Lady never sings…it is always a work in progress.

  • Curious

    G, #5: Are you comparing the document the charter petitioners have submitted to the U.S. Constitution?

  • g

    Curious: You tell me.

    The Federal Convention convened in the State House (Independence Hall) in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787, to revise the Articles of Confederation. Because the delegations from only two states were at first present, the members adjourned from day to day until a quorum of seven states was obtained on May 25. Through discussion and debate it became clear by mid-June that, rather than amend the existing Articles, the Convention would draft an entirely new frame of government. All through the summer, in closed sessions, the delegates debated, and redrafted the articles of the new Constitution. Among the chief points at issue were how much power to allow the central government, how many representatives in Congress to allow each state, and how these representatives should be elected–directly by the people or by the state legislators. The work of many minds, the Constitution stands as a model of cooperative statesmanship and the art of compromise.

    ———

    char·ter   [chahr-ter]
    noun
    1.
    a document, issued by a sovereign or state, outlining the conditions under which a corporation, colony, city, or other corporate body is organized, and defining its rights and privileges.
    2.
    (often initial capital letter) a document defining the formal organization of a corporate body; constitution: the Charter of the United Nations.
    3.
    authorization from a central or parent organization to establish a new branch, chapter, etc.
    4.
    a grant by a sovereign power creating a corporation, as the royal charters granted to British colonies in America.

    ——–

    con·sti·tu·tionFunction: nounEtymology: Latin constitutio system, fundamental principles (of an institution), from constituere to set up, establish 1 : the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it 2 : a written instrument containing the fundamental rules of a political or social organization; especially cap : the U.S. Constitution

  • Wait a minute

    Well Curious,

    I think G strictly compared it to a (political) contract with the U.S. Constitution being an example thereof.

    Also not a coincidence that both documents have to do with setting up a new government of freedom and independance from tyranny!

  • Curious

    So, yes, you are comparing the charter petition to the U.S. Constitution. So the district’s listing dozens of conditions for discussion and debate and requesting a review of each updated draft seem to be a legitimate part of the process. In that way, the charter agreement will become “The work of many minds [standing] as a model of cooperative statesmanship and the art of compromise.” We can only hope.

  • g

    No, Curious. My mouth only says what I want it to, not what you want it to.

    I said: “A finalized Charter IS a Legal Contract; much like the Constitution of the U.S.”

    In retort you say: “So the district’s listing dozens of conditions for discussion and debate and requesting a review of each updated draft seem to be a legitimate part of the process”

    So now I say: With this “specific” Charter attempt, the organizers are trying to be cooperative with an emphasis on “Statesmanship, and the art of compromise” as that is the desired way to avoid an all out revolution.

    With this “specific” Charter request, we will have to wait and see if the District has any proclivity toward Statesmanship or the art of compromise.