Part of the Bay Area News Group

Walnut Creek Councilman suggests Clayton Valley charter consider accepting less funding

By Theresa Harrington
Friday, November 4th, 2011 at 7:22 pm in Clayton, Concord, Education, Mt. Diablo school district.

Kish Rajan, a Walnut Creek City Councilman and Mt. Diablo school district parent, says the Clayton Valley High School charter committee should consider accepting less money from the district to create goodwill, if the trustees approve the charter Tuesday.

Here’s a letter he submitted to the Times about this idea:

“November 1, 2011

Dear Editor –

On Nov. 8, the Mt. Diablo School board intends to make its decision on whether to grant final approval to the Clayton Valley charter application. The decision they make, and how they make it, has enormous implications to our district that is at a critical crossroads.

It has been well chronicled, perhaps at times overly so, that our district suffers from a myriad of challenges. Persistent state budget cuts have been particularly damaging to large unified school districts like ours that are mandated to serve a large and diverse range of educational needs. Though our district leadership has done their best under increasingly difficult circumstances, to be sure, over the years they have made some errors of commission and omission. Together, these factors have caused frustration among the widely disparate communities tied together by district boundaries drawn decades ago.

Despite this frustration, I believe that the large majority of parents in our District are driven by a yearning to see things improve for our District in general, and certainly for their children in particular. The recent effort by some Northgate parents to explore a transfer of that feeder pattern into a different district was one expression of that. And now, of course, the Clayton Valley charter petition. In each instance, the primary motivation is sincere and understandable. Undeniably, for the MDUSD, some things must change. Indeed I believe the district leadership wants positive change.

The question therefore should turn from whether our districtshould be reformed, to how. Where can we make fundamental improvements in the education program, curriculum, structure, district operations, and district culture? How can we leverage the talented and committed people who abound in our community to participate in that effort, both to create near term reforms and to engage the broader community in supporting our schools for the long term?

But in order to get to that important discussion, we first need a thoughtful, constructive resolution to the Clayton Valley charter application that gets us beyond the vitriolic tone that has defined it to date. To this point, the process has unfolded as a battle between one community and our District (literally described at one point as ‘war’). The matter is also provoking a conflict pitting individual feeder patterns against one another. Should it conclude as such, this will result as a battle in which all sides lose.

The charter proponents (driven by parents, teachers, and community leaders) are raising serious concerns about the state of their campus, e.g. safety, campus conditions and the overall quality of education. They believe strongly that under a new operating structure, with localized leadership, accountability, and flexibility to innovate, they can make substantial improvements. Their community has spoken out with passion and conviction about their commitment to supporting the school, and in so doing is demonstrating the kind of community engagement and commitment we need district wide. The Clayton Valley charter should be used as an opportunity to experiment and evaluate how we canimprove all of our high schools (and all schools for that matter).

The problem with the approval is the potential negative budget impact on the balance of our District. Under the state law that defines this process, it appears that the new charter school would be funded at a higher rate than the other high schools in our district, and that difference must come from our District budget. However, also per the state law, this broader financial impact is not one of the approval criteria the school board may use in making their decision on the application. Nevertheless, it would be unconscionable to take resources away from the balance of our kids to support one school, particularly amidst these brutal economic times.

The solution and the opportunity are clear. There should be an agreement to approve the charter application with an understanding that the new charter school would be funded at the same rate as all other high schools in our district. This would grant the Clayton Valley community what they seek: a new way forward for their school with the local control, flexibility and accountability that they covet. Yet this would be accomplished in a way that is financially responsible, fair and reasonable toward the balance of our district.

Should all the parties involved join in this solution, they would transcend conflict, embrace positive change, and set an example of collaboration. This could also commence a new chapter for our district: one of reform, innovation, and planning that welcomes change while reaffirming our commitment to serving our entire community and all of our kids.

Let’s use this moment to do what is smart, fair and right. And let’s remember our kids are watching.

Kish Rajan
MDUSD Parent and Walnut Creek City Council Member”

I spoke to Clayton Mayor David Shuey about this today. He said the committee would not change its funding proposal before the board vote, since trustees cannot consider financial impact in their decision.

“Once the charter is approved, if the issue of funding comes up, we will meet in good faith on this,” he said. “We are all parents and teachers who recognize that we’re not an island.”

Shuey also said he agrees with a suggestion made by Rajan — along with state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, and Asssemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord — asking the district for an independent analysis of the financial impact of the charter on the district. The district still has not revealed exactly how much it spends to operate the school, he said.

The district has posted several memos to the public regarding the financial impact of the charter. Each one has stated a different amount:

May 20: $1.65 million
May 26: $1.59 million
Aug. 26: $1.52 million
Oct. 7: $2.4 million

But Tuesday’s agenda report states that the financial impact would be “at least $1.8 million.” It also states: “This amount may be revised based on the FCMAT report.”

However, the staff report does not provide any basis for this latest estimate. It also fails to state what staff’s recommendation will be.

It says: “Accept or deny Clayton Valley charter high school proposal.” There is no report detailing the conditions of approval.

It states: “Prior to Nov. 8, 2011, district staff will have completed its final review and be prepared to present their summative recommendations to the board for approval or denial of the charter petition.” No summative recommendations are attached.

Rajan recommends funding the charter “at the same rate as all other high schools in our district.” However, the district’s school spending reports show that each high school receives a different amount of funding.

The most recent school spending information on the district’s website appears in School Accountability Report Cards. Unfortunately, however, the 2009-10 reports have data that is one year old, from 2008-09.

Here’s a breakdown of what was spent at each high school, according to that data. I am listing the total per student first, followed by a breakdown of unrestricted and restricted funds (including Title 1). Note that the district average unrestricted funding per student was $4,835.41.

CLAYTON VALLEY: Total: $7,849.12
Unrestricted: $4,937.05
Restricted: $2,912.06

COLLEGE PARK: Total: $7,549.24
Unrestricted: $4,523.84
Restricted: $3,025.40

CONCORD: Total: $8,400.82
Unrestricted: $4,341.17
Restricted: $4,059.65

MT. DIABLO: Total: $10,252.39
Unrestricted: $4,862.85
Restricted: $5,389.53

NORTHGATE: Total: $8,043.11
Unrestricted: $4,903.59
Restricted: $3,139.51

YGNACIO VALLEY: Total: $8,661.39
Unrestricted: $5,004.92
Restricted: $3,656.47

According to data provided to the California Department of Education, the district spent $8,199 per student in 2009-10:

In response to a Public Records request, the district sent me the following information related to its 2010-11 per student expenditures:

CLAYTON VALLEY: Total: $7,839.78
Unrestricted: $4,648.57
Restricted: $3,191.21

COLLEGE PARK: Total: $7,503.54
Unrestricted: $4,677.64
Restricted: $2,825.90

CONCORD: Total: $8,011.70
Unrestricted: $4,709.92
Restricted: $3,301.77

MT. DIABLO: Total: $9,551.46
Unrestricted: $5,256.86
Restricted: $4,294.60

NORTHGATE: Total: $8,228.21
Unrestricted: $5,282.71
Restricted: $3,005.50

YGNACIO VALLEY: Total: $8,918.44
Unrestricted: $5,660.51
Restricted: $3,257.92

Here are all the schools that received more unrestricted funding than Clayton Valley in 2010-11, according to data provided to me, followed by the amount per student more they received:

Cambridge Elementary: $4,735.25 (+$86.68)
Fair Oaks Elementary: $4,782.13 (+$133.56)
Gregory Gardens Elementary: $4,675.77 (+$27.20)
Holbrook Elementary: 4,903.61 (+$255.04)
Ygnacio Valley Elementary: $5,049.84 (+$401.27)

Diablo Valley MS: $4,739.57 (+$91.00)
Foothill MS: $4,751.55 (+$102.98)
Glenbrook MS: $4,733.44 (+$84.87)
Riverview MS: $4,765.53 (+$116.96)

Mt. Diablo HS: $4,862.85 (+$214.28)
Northgate HS: $4,903.59 (+$255.02)
Ygnacio Valley HS: $5,004.92 (+$356.35)

Gateway small HS: $7,499.43 (+$2,850.86)
Prospect small HS: $8,940.89 (+$4,292.32)
Summit small HS: $9,366.59 (+$4,718.02)
Crossroads small HS: $17,442.61 (+$12,794.04)
Nueva Vista small HS: $5,362.39 (+$713.82)
Olympic HS: $8,215.00 (+$3,566.43)

The difference between the district’s 2011-12 projected base Revenue Limit of $5,207.18 per student and the charter’s projected base Revenue Limit of $6,148.00 is $940.82 per student. As you can see above, the district spent over $940.82 more per student than it spent at Clayton Valley at nearly every small necessary high school.

It also spent between $27.20 and $401.27 more per student at 12 elementary, middle and high schools.

Do you think the charter should consider operating with less funding than it is entitled to request?

NOV. 6 UPDATE: Below are links to the spreadsheets provided to me by the district to backup the $2.4 million estimated financial impact.

Here is how Superintendent Steven Lawrence explained them to me in an e-mail:

“Attached at the three spreadsheets that Bryan Richards’, CBO, prepared to determine the financial impact of the CVCHS on district finances. The first one is an overview of the calculations we made to determine if there would be a gain or loss in revenue when CVCHS opens next year. The second is our School Accountability Data that shows the cost of each site, and the third is our special education encroachment data. We basically take special ed encroachment data divide it by the number of students in the district. Then multiple that number times the number of students at each school to determine their share of the special education encroachment costs. Basically, columns B and C in the first spreadsheet provide the information you are requesting and the second and third spreadsheets provide the back-up date around some of the calculations in the first spreadsheet. The numbers that were put in the News Update take into account the money saved as well as revenue reductions.”

It’s unclear why the district has now revised the estimated financial impact down to $1.8 million. As you can see, the district did not provide any specifics related to salaries or many other costs related to operating the school. It’s unclear what is included in the unrestricted, restricted and central services costs.

Overview of calculations:

School accountability data:

Special education data:

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

113 Responses to “Walnut Creek Councilman suggests Clayton Valley charter consider accepting less funding”

  1. CVHSMom Says:

    Do you think that the 1.8 is a round figure based on the 941 they say they will be shorted on ADA x an approx 1900 kids? That equals just about a 1.8. Coincidence? Which obviously does not tell the whole picture AT ALL and I can’t believe these people yelling about the money don’t see this. I have a spreadsheet somewhere that has totally different numbers in a format I can’t understand showing an approx 2.2 difference. Why does it have to be so complicated to figure out?

  2. Just J. Says:

    CVHSmom you are right. I came to the same conclusion last night. I also have a spread sheet provided by the district that is so difficult to read. If Lawrence wanted to he could be truthful but he has chose the path of deceit.

    People need to wake up! The District will be in a positive after the Charter not a negative. It will benefit all students. It won’t benefit Stevo and his pocket so he does not like it. It won’t benefit the double dipper retirees so they don’t like it. (by the way the double dippers screwed things up to begin with) and we hire them back so they can collect their pension and a regular pay check.

  3. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I believe that the spreadsheets provided to me were also provided to others seeking this information.
    The spreadsheets show that more than one-third of the money spent on CVHS goes toward district administration/central services.
    Most surprising is the district’s allocation of nearly $3.4 million in restricted funds toward central services, when $2.2 million in restricted costs are allocated toward the school. It’s unclear why $1.2 million more would be necessary for centralized services.

  4. Doctor J Says:

    @TH#53 One third of the money to support District Salaries — absolutely outrageous. It ought to be a crime. And the schools can’t get their white boards hung for six to eight months, and have light bulbs burnt out in the schools and on the grounds — a learning and safety issue. Lets pray to God that no teachers or administrators are hurt because there is poor lighting. Lets give the children a better learning environment. Instead what we see is retirement spiking. Unforgiveable.

  5. Financial Analyst Says:

    Could someone post this spreadsheet? I am willing to do an in-depth financial analysis on it.

    If someone can post a similar spreadsheet from a comparable district we can see how much more percentage wise the MDUSD administration scrapes off the top.

  6. Doctor J Says:

    Kish, under your logic you must support sales tax revenue sharing between all East Bay cities. Now that’s a novel idea. Start with your city council and get their support. Your political career will get a real boost — or was that boot.

  7. Anon Says:

    I have never seen a more worthless bunch of babble than what’s here on this thread. No fact, just endless conspiracy and false conjecture. I think I understand why those who have the facts don’t go onto the blogs, especially this one, and debate. Debating with people who are honest and truly have as their only motivation the advancement of all students can enter into a honest debate/discussion. Absolutely nothing can be achieved by debating with people who are dishonest and have as their only motivation, the destruction of the district.

  8. g Says:

    “false conjecture”? hahaha. Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

  9. Tagg Says:

    The largest and most cultivated ally of the MDUSD, the school board and Lawrence is an uninformed, unquestioning public. Thanks to the couragous and persistent efforts of the CVCHS movement and its loyal, unwaivering supporters, they have snapped some of us out of complacency. It is time for a change!

  10. Doctor J Says:

    Have any of you read the new proposed District policy on “Equity”, item 14.8 on the Board Agenda ? The Board’s policy completely excludes “parents” by ommission as part of the solution ! Note that the new Board policy for “Equity” is designed to “eliminating persistent disparities in achievement, performance and socio-emotional adjustment among subgroups based on race, ethnicity, language, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, socio-economic status or disability.” So how does it proposed to do this ? The new Board policy says: “The district will advance these goals by . . .” and lists a lot of double talk, but FAILS to include the PARENTS ! The new Board policy then states that “It is expected that the District will work with the broader community (the private sector, faith-based groups, community-based agencies and organizations, and higher education institutions, etc.) to work in concert to support all of our youth in achieving academic and social proficiency. ” BUT again it never includes working with or including the PARENTS ! This seems to be the prevelant attitude of our District Leaders — avoid working with the parents whenever possible, but when necessary give them a few strokes to satisfy them. I hope that everyone after the CVCHS vote sticks around and lets the Board know how PARENTS feel about being excluded by ommission from such important value based policy and teaching as “Equity”. No wonder they put it last on the Agenda.

  11. John Q Says:

    Another omission is NO strategic plan on the agenda

  12. Wait a Minute Says:

    Yes Dr J,

    The current district management and their minions are rank with hypocrisy.

    At the same time Another Sue Brothers and other minions repeatedly post on how those uppity teachers of the charter movement are supposedly going to be unaccountable to the parents, the ones who are deliberately freezing out the parents is the district’s current management.

    They have done it repeatedly as in the deliberate omission of Stevie Lawrence’s letter to the parents to participate in writing the plans mandated by Program Improvement and the CDE.

    They are now doing it with their proposed “Equity” item #14.8 on this Tuesday’s board agenda.

    What a bunch of exposed hypocrites.

    Nobody here is trying to “destroy the district”, indeed we are trying to save it from these so-called leaders who take at least 30% of all the dollars right of the top for their overpaid compensation and piss-poor performance. Basically highway robbery.

  13. anon Says:

    Linda Mayo had an idea not too long ago about “equity” and that was a way to prevent schools from individually fundraising so they could close the gap. Maybe this is the first step in that process. There is a disparity between schools, no doubt about it. There are Haves and Have Nots in this district. I assume, in every district. How will people feel if some resolution is passed that parent groups can no longer fun programs, positions, supplies or anything? And that all funds raised must go to the district and be shared “equally?”

  14. Doctor J Says:

    The District INTENTIONALLY excluded PARENTS and FAMILIES in development of this “Equity” policy. At the April 19 Board Study session, the draft policy presented specifically included parents and families: “It is expected that district and the entire school community will engage students and families, the private sector, faith-based groups, community-based agencies and organizations, and higher education institutions to work in concert to support all of our youth in achieving academic proficiency.” Note the key words in the April 19 draft: EXPECTED … DISTRICT … ENTIRE SCHOOL COMMUNITY …WILL ENGAGE STUDENTS AND FAMILIES…TO WORK IN CONCERT.
    It is so tragic that PARENTS and FAMILES are being excluded by design by MDUSD by diluting and making inept the policy. I hope everyone sticks around to the end of the meeting to challege the Board on this horribly written policy they want to adopt. BTW, why wasn’t this included in the Strategic Plan ?

  15. A reader Says:

    LOL, you’re really reaching with that one, Doctor J!

  16. Doctor J Says:

    Here is the April 19 Draft presented at the Board Study session. Compare with the proposed “plan”.
    I am curious how the definition of “persistent disparities” expanded without any studies to determine what the disparities in MDUSD are. But that is another topic.

  17. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I have heard that LGBT harrassment is a real problem in this district.
    Do you think students and teachers in this district are tolerant and open-minded regarding this?

  18. Doctor J Says:

    The “equity” policy is about equal access to educational opportunity and I am unaware of any discrimination by district or school personnel — nor of any studies that show it is happening. In June 2010 MDUSD and 84 other districts — less than 10% of the total districts in California — got cited for disproportionality in Special Ed and Disciplinary actions. Now if you are just talking about general harrassment by other students who have opinions about any of the sub-groups, I am not surprised, since it is rather commonplace within the community due to strong opinions of the behavior of others — sometimes caused by religious belief or ignorance. You don’t have to look very hard — the divisiveness caused by the Prop 8 debate continue with fervor.

  19. Just J Says:

    Dr j. We as parents know that the only involvement the school wants from us is money. This is a fact. If you bring up to admins a problem with a teacher they get mad at you. They have never wanted parent involvement

  20. Doctor J Says:

    Equity Team: Round up the usual suspects: Whitmarsh, Mayo, Lawrence, Browne, Lock, Braun-Martin, Petersen. The complete list is attached to the Agenda.

  21. anon Says:

    THeresa, it seems some of the kids I know that fit into that group at CV are treated fairly, are very popular and active. One was even voted as a Homecoming prince, and though he didn’t win king probably should have! 🙂 He’s a cheerleader and a great kid. There are notices up right now all over CV about a LGBT group meeting and club . I may not know there are problems, but it doesn’t seem like it. But maybe talk to them about it if they’ll talk to you.

  22. Wait a Minute Says:

    I have heard several times of the student thugs who run MDHS having bullied LGBT kids there.

    Of course, these same thugs were talked about on another site of having also been getting away with intimidating teachers and other staff.

  23. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I have included links to the spreadsheets the district provided to me in response to my Public Records request in a Nov. 6 update above.
    Based on these documents, do you understand how the district came up with its estimate that the charter would require the board to make $2.4 million in cuts districtwide?

  24. Doctor J Says:

    Answer: Smoke and mirrors. They are not actual numbers.

  25. Just J Says:

    They are not actual numbers and why does the special encroachment have eagle peak?
    Is this supposed to bet there?

    Why do they make school finances so difficult? Is it by design ?

  26. Wait a Minute Says:

    The reason these numbers are smoke and mirrors is because with this group of characters everything is being twisted around to support their asinine positions and salaries. They LIE.

    I think the figure of 30% right off the top of schools to support Dent is artificially low. I would be willing to bet its several percentage points greater then 30%.

    Remember, “Where Children Come First”–not Dent!

  27. Anon Says:

    I hope you are right about this being smoke and mirrors. I can tell you that I will not be happy if they approve this charter school and then come and cut money out of my kid’s school. I don’t care how great the charter school is. If it takes from our school, it should not be approved.

  28. 4Students Says:

    What they should cut is Dent Center. Dent will have one less school to manage which means Dent can cut staff or salaries.

  29. Theresa Harrington Says:

    The School Accountability numbers include salaries and other direct costs at the campus. It is unclear how much of the “Central Services” costs directly benefit the school, since the district has not given any detail about what they include.
    The district also has not broken out teachers’ salaries, school administrators’ salaries and classified salaries.
    If the district would provide a breakdown of this information, it would be easier to determine what the impact of the conversion would be.

  30. Anthony C. Says:

    @Anon #77

    If your child is currently in high school in the MDUSD system, the district is already short changing your kid’s school. Compare the amount that the state provides the district for high school children with the amount that trickles down from the district to the high schools. Where is the anger from the parents and high school principals over the district already short changing their high schools?

  31. Theresa Harrington Says:

    FYI, the monthly special education Community Advisory Committee meeting is from 7-9 p.m. tonight in the district office:
    However, the district has not posted an agenda for the meeting.

  32. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Also FYI, tomorrow night’s board meeting begins at 7 p.m. and will be held at Monte Gardens Elementary:

  33. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Staff is seeking authorization to submit School Improvement Grant applications for $6 million each for Oak Grove MS and Meadow Homes elementary on the consent calendar, without actually presenting the applications to the board for approval:
    Also on the consent calendar, staff seeks board approval of a $32,664 contract with RCD for evaluation of SIG implementation:
    According to the contract, RCD was supposed to have created an annual report in July-Aug. 2011, including Powerpoints by October 2011. If these were created, they were never presented to the board.
    According to another consent calendar item for unleaded gas, the district maintains a fleet of more than 225 vehicles, including buses:
    The district also contracts with Michael’s Transportation for field trip buses, according to another consent calendar item:

  34. Doctor J Says:

    @TH #83 Consent calendar means without discussion. Did RCD do these reports to the Board without public disclosure ? Isn’t that a Brown Act violation. Oh, what else is new ? We have the most weak knee District Attorney in California.

  35. Anon Says:

    Que Dr. J’s myopic comments of conspiracy and mismanagement is 3…2…1…

  36. Theresa Harrington Says:

    The attachment mentions a “data retreat with SA&SS team and principals.”
    Perhaps the report was presented at the retreat, but never to the board or the public.

  37. Anon Says:

    Theresa #81,

    As they always do, the CAC does have a posted agenda for the meeting tonight. As always, if anyone would like to attend and provide community input or just get to know some of the parent volunteers who serve on the CAC, attendance of new people is always encouraged and appreciated.

  38. Doctor J Says:

    Meadow Homes is 5 plus year in PI, AND 5 years in a row in failing to meet AYP — by law under NCLS it must replace its principal AND 50% OF THE STAFF next year ! No wonder they don’t want to present the proposal !

  39. Doctor J Says:

    Where is the RCD report we already paid for ? Why are they just getting approval for it now AFTER the fact ?

  40. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Here is the agenda for tonight’s special education Community Advisory Committee meeting:
    There will be a presentation on the Seneca Glenbrook Mental Health Collaborative.
    No transportation update is scheduled.

  41. g Says:

    You want to know why there isn’t enough money being spent IN the classrooms actually EDucating the kids? There are roughly 200 employees of MDUSD raking down well over $100,000.00 every year, and yet virtually every one of them is incapable of writing a proposal, writing a grant app, compiling a statistical analysis, committing their own name to a recommendation, wiping an a– without hiring the job out to someone else.

    Education of kids is, at best, a VERY-very far second to “feeding the beast” at the employment factory; the tax funded trough which is what the education system has become.

    Billions of dollars going to this consultant, that consultant, and look them up! They have, in most cases, less than half the qualifications of those who are already sitting in the schools and on the school admin payroll, who should be doing the damn job to start with!

    Remember the old adage; “Those that can, do, and those that can’t, teach”? Well that has become; “Those that can’t do either very well, hire themselves out as consultants and fake it”

  42. Theresa Harrington Says:

    David Shuey just told me that the district has hired FCMAT to do an analysis of the charter numbers. However, the charter committee was not allowed to participate in the discussion or ask questions.
    He does not know how the district arrived at its latest estimated figure of a $1.8 million financial impact.

  43. Wait a minute Says:

    And short of forced depositions and compelled testimony of these over-compensated liars he never will get the truth.

  44. Doctor J Says:

    Who approved the secret SIG Applications agenda item , Cohort 2, and their annual total compensation ? See the agenda.

    Stephanie Roberts, Director of Development $149,389
    Lisa Boje, SASS est. $100,000 plus
    Susan Petersen, Director of Elementary Support $128,939
    Brian Richards, Chief Financial Officer $177,836
    Rose Lock, Assistant Superintendent SASS $170,479
    Steven Lawrence, Superintendent $294,281.00
    I count that at over a MILLION DOLLARS !!!

  45. g Says:

    #92 proves the theory of #91! How sad is that?

  46. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Board President Gary Eberhart told me the $1.8 million is based on the $941 per ADA per student cost estimates.
    He confirmed that the district has hired FCMAT to analyze the costs, but said he wasn’t sure if that information would be available by tomorrow.

  47. Just J. Says:

    G, All those idiots that can’t figure out how to educate our kids sure can do nice power points….lol

  48. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I have received more information from the district, which shows that 35 percent of CVHS expenditures last year were for district centralized services:

  49. Just J Says:

    So if 35% of cv money goes to the district does each site give 35% ? If not why and if so doesn’t this seem like a lot? Does the 35% include costs for text books or is that cost taken out of what is left?

  50. Just a Parent Says:

    Interesting that suddenly there’s a bit of due diligence being done around these numbers.

    But at least there was the admission that it “is about money”, though I find it humorous that one person makes the comparison to pooling high school funding and how that would irk Northgate parents.

    The problem with this nugget is that Northgate parents actually contributed that money. In the Clayton Valley Charter situation it’s all public money. So you want to compare the contributions above and beyond the current funding level by parents to a community who simply wants more public money without pulling out their own wallets?

    It would be funny if not for the sad fact that this “motivated” community couldn’t even raise enough to get the Charter going, and instead relied on a loan from Clayton itself. Maybe Mayor Shuey just wants to make sure they get their money back eh?

    I’ve also decided that since any real commentary here is automatically deemed to be this person or that person from the district that I’m going to respond in kind and state without any type of substance that Just J, Wait A Minute and Doctor J are all the same person.

    Sorry, you can’t claim otherwise, it’s simply true because my tin foil hat says so.

    Have fun doing absolutely nothing to help our kids or school system. Me, I’m trying to fix it where it matters, right on the front lines and way up at the state level where it’s really broken.

Leave a Reply