I heard that the County Board of Education was not interested in having CAPE get established in a timely fashion, which is suprising considering how "charter friendly" several members profess to be. Perhaps ML Petersen can let us know why CAPE has had to go so such lengths to get established.

Brian,

Let me provide a chronology of the PVSD board actions to date. Anyone else can chime in and point out where I’m wrong. It all begins in June/July of ‘06:

1)Ron Speakman and John Alamillo battle over the issuance of a $150 million school bond for “improvements�. These “improvements� are code for a new comprehensive high school with all the bells and whistles. Alamillo, always with a safe eye on the public purse, opposes and wants it reduced to $75 million. Speakman wants it all or nothing. The vote goes down 3-2 in favor of bond. It fails to get the required super majority of 4-1.

2)Speakman, Berg, and Miller desperately want Alamillo off the board. Also, the pro-unification people need a smooth transition into the November election where Alamillo’s seat is up.

3)Enter the interim Superintendent Ken Moffett in September. Moffett says nothing about school closures until announcing the need of a “Committee on the Disposition of District Property� in the board meeting just prior to the election. I suppose this was meant as full disclosure to the voters. BTW, there is not a word mentioned about school closure in any meeting minutes in the previous YEAR. Alamillo says in other Dennert posts that the board had talked privately about the need to close schools but it was too politically hot to touch. Moffett also ties school closures to teacher salary increases.

4)Alamillo loses to Lerner, Miller, and Speakman in November. The board is now 4-1 pro-unification. Kitchens supports unification, but not the bond issue.

5)Now, with the board safely pro-unification, they can press ahead with a school closure process that normally takes 18 months into as many weeks, just in time to meet the registration deadline for the coming year. If you’d like to know how the process should be done, read John Alamillo’s earlier Dennert posts. John describes how it should begin 18 months prior, with the formation of committees, followed by hearings, road shows to schools and service groups, and finally a vote.

6)In the first meeting after the election, Moffett forms the “7-11 Committee�. This group is tasked to evaluate school sites and programs and make recommendations for the closure of one middle and two elementary schools. The district staff presents several closure scenarios. Nearly all include the closing of the Los Senderos Open School. LSOS is in the cross hairs. The 7-11 Committee return with a list campuses suggested for closure based solely on age, and other defects. No weight is given to programs.

7)After what Suzanne Kitchens called a “mucked-up� process, on March 22 the board chooses to close LSOS, offering priority to LSOS kids at the new Rancho Rosal Open Magnet. Los Altos middle school is also closed, however this was already a foregone conclusion. Los Primeros will move it’s K-8 program to the now vacant LSOS campus. The charter application is filed with PVSD at the same meeting.

8)At the April 19 charter hearing district raises a few superficial questions and ask about a $500k deficit in the proposed charter budget. This deficit was later exaggerated time and again by the district, even though it had been shown to be simply a typo in the original application. At the conclusion of the hearing Speakman calls the CAPE parents BS while they are leaving chambers. This was recorded on YouTube (search Ron Speakman PVSD) and here on the Dennert blog.

9)Moffett resigns, leaving a battered district and unification effort. Barbara Davis takes job as interim superintendent.

10)On May 3rd, the board votes against the charter 4-0. Speakman recuses himself out of a potential conflict of interest with an in-law. For many in the audience, the conflict question (raised by Suzanne Zeigler – the president of the teacher’s union) seemed staged, and at the very least, untimely. It’s my opinion that Speakman’s recusal was a cowardly act in which he used his family to cover for his earlier bias against the CAPE application. His collaboration with the union president, Suzanne Zeigler, is also troubling in that we have a board president scripting public comment on a matter of particular interest TO THE UNION.

11)The CAPE leadership attends the county board meeting to luke warm response. Rumor has it that Strickland/Berg had poisoned the board against CAPE.

12)The CAPE leadership, on advice of attorney, file with OUHSD.

13)And here we are. PVSD has Los Altos closed, two elementary campuses shifted, and a charter on the way. BTW, this school closure trainwreck has some BIG up-front costs. I’m looking forward to a postmortem on the actual implementation costs/returns.

Brian,

Let me provide a chronology of the PVSD board actions to date. Anyone else can chime in and point out where I’m wrong. It all begins in June/July of ‘06:

1)Ron Speakman and John Alamillo battle over the issuance of a $150 million school bond for “improvements�. These “improvements� are code for a new comprehensive high school with all the bells and whistles. Alamillo, always with a safe eye on the public purse, opposes and wants it reduced to $75 million. Speakman wants it all or nothing. The vote goes down 3-2 in favor of bond. It fails to get the required super majority of 4-1.

2)Speakman, Berg, and Miller desperately want Alamillo off the board. Also, the pro-unification people need a smooth transition into the November election where Alamillo’s seat is up.

3)Enter the interim Superintendent Ken Moffett in September. Moffett says nothing about school closures until announcing the need of a “Committee on the Disposition of District Property� in the board meeting just prior to the election. I suppose this was meant as full disclosure to the voters. BTW, there is not a word mentioned about school closure in any meeting minutes in the previous YEAR. Alamillo says in other Dennert posts that the board had talked privately about the need to close schools but it was too politically hot to touch. Moffett also ties school closures to teacher salary increases.

4)Alamillo loses to Lerner, Miller, and Speakman in November. The board is now 4-1 pro-unification. Kitchens supports unification, but not the bond issue.

5)Now, with the board safely pro-unification, they can press ahead with a school closure process that normally takes 18 months into as many weeks, just in time to meet the registration deadline for the coming year. If you’d like to know how the process should be done, read John Alamillo’s earlier Dennert posts. John describes how it should begin 18 months prior, with the formation of committees, followed by hearings, road shows to schools and service groups, and finally a vote.

6)In the first meeting after the election, Moffett forms the “7-11 Committee�. This group is tasked to evaluate school sites and programs and make recommendations for the closure of one middle and two elementary schools. The district staff presents several closure scenarios. Nearly all include the closing of the Los Senderos Open School. LSOS is in the cross hairs. The 7-11 Committee return with a list campuses suggested for closure based solely on age, and other defects. No weight is given to programs.

7)After what Suzanne Kitchens called a “mucked-up� process, on March 22 the board chooses to close LSOS, offering priority to LSOS kids at the new Rancho Rosal Open Magnet. Los Altos middle school is also closed, however this was already a foregone conclusion. Los Primeros will move it’s K-8 program to the now vacant LSOS campus. The charter application is filed with PVSD at the same meeting.

8)At the April 19 charter hearing district raises a few superficial questions and ask about a $500k deficit in the proposed charter budget. This deficit was later exaggerated time and again by the district, even though it had been shown to be simply a typo in the original application. At the conclusion of the hearing Speakman calls the CAPE parents BS while they are leaving chambers. This was recorded on YouTube (search Ron Speakman PVSD) and here on the Dennert blog.

9)Moffett resigns, leaving a battered district and unification effort. Barbara Davis takes job as interim superintendent.

10)On May 3rd, the board votes against the charter 4-0. Speakman recuses himself out of a potential conflict of interest with an in-law. For many in the audience, the conflict question (raised by Suzanne Zeigler – the president of the teacher’s union) seemed staged, and at the very least, untimely. It’s my opinion that Speakman’s recusal was a cowardly act in which he used his family to cover for his earlier bias against the CAPE application. His collaboration with the union president, Suzanne Zeigler, is also troubling in that we have a board president scripting public comment on a matter of particular interest TO THE UNION.

11)The CAPE leadership attends the county board meeting to luke warm response. Rumor has it that Strickland/Berg had poisoned the board against CAPE.

12)The CAPE leadership, on advice of attorney, file with OUHSD.

13)And here we are. PVSD has Los Altos closed, two elementary campuses shifted, and a charter on the way. BTW, this school closure trainwreck has some BIG up-front costs. I’m looking forward to a postmortem on the actual implementation costs/returns.

You forgot the part about Sandra Berg trying to blame the CAPE people for all the troubles in the district.

Crusader,

Yes. Please fill in the blanks. I could write pages on Speakman and Berg.

Bottom line - the kids were jammed into the unification timeline.

John Alamillo - WE NEED YOU BACK!!!

But wasn't the whole unification issue recently pulled from the July Sacramento Agenda by PVSD? I thought they wanted it to happen.

Let us not forget about Mr. Speakman's demonstration of tact and grace under fire when he refered to the parents as "methane gas emitting from the B.S. For more info check it out on Youtube. Yes, agreed, JOHN ALAMILLO...WE DO NEED YOU BACK!!!

From above post . . .

"Alamillo says in other Dennert posts that the board had talked privately about the need to close schools but it was too politically hot to touch."

Attention legal beagles: If true, is this a violation of the Brown Act? RSVP ASAP

If they are holding informaiton that pertains to quality of life of the citizens they are sworn to serve it should be addressed quickly. If we had a decent District Attorney these government people would not be so brazen with their crimes.
I do not like recalls. In general I believe they are used to often. That being said; this situation is slowly becoming an exception.

Rev-
I brought it up at a budget workshp. The meeting was posted and complied to a citeria for a regular meeting. You can check the minutes for May 2005.

CAPEDad:

I like the timeline approach too. It really puts the whole thing into perspective. I'll copy here a statement I made to the board at the March 1 meeting. It adds a bit to, and corrects a teeny bit of, your timeline:

I am here once again to speak to the issue of transparency and representative governance. I want to thank Dr. Moffett for asking tough questions, and I want to thank the community for participating. We need to stay involved, because transparency is an issue in Pleasant Valley. I want to outline the events that led up to today as an example.

On June 29, 2006, 8 months ago, four of our current board members, Ms. Berg, Mr. Speakman, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Lerner supported placing a $150M blank check bond on the ballot in November to fund upgrades to the very facilities they are now considering closing as well as to construct new facilities. Ms. Berg, Mr. Speakman, and Ms. Miller have all been Board members for multiple terms and hired the superintendent at the time. How could they not know what it took Dr. Moffett less than month to figure out, or did they have other intentions for that bond?

Only one month in PVSD, Dr. Moffett announced at the Oct. 19 Board meeting that enrollment was declining, and that district enrollment projections have been overstated for years, possibly causing a $469K budget shortfall.

So what did the Board do? They cancelled the next scheduled Board meeting. After all, Election Day loomed only 5 days away, and 3 Board seats were open.

Once Election Day, November 7, was safely behind them, at the very next meeting, on November 16, the Board decided to form a 7-11 Committee to consider closing schools.

The very next meeting after that, December 7, they discussed moving every other Board meeting to a new site without televising capabilities. The minutes noted the move to the new site, but not that televising was an issue. At the very next meeting, January 18, they approved the motion to televise every other meeting only.

[Note here that I presented a petition to the board at the January 18 meeting, signed by over 200 PVSD citizens collected within 24 hours - the time from when I saw the item on the agenda and the the board meeting itself, asking that they continue televising all board meetings.]

I want to thank Dr. Moffett for asking tough questions. I want to thank the community for taking a stand, and encouraging them to stay involved because transparency is an issue in PV, and there are many more issues to come:

1) Deciding what to do with the sites that are closed, if any.
2) Making sure that the money saved does end up in our teachers' and students' hands.
3) Hiring a superintendent in the next 4 months who can keep us out of messes like the one we’re in right now.

CAPEd Crusader -

Yes, Lerner, Speakman, and Miller ran on a very strong UNIFY NOW! platform.

Now that they have finally gotten a scheduled hearing for July at the state level, they have requested a postponement because "there have been some recent administrative changes in Pleasant Valley School District that require the attention of the Board in the next 2 months and limit the time its members can devote to assisting me in preparation for a July hearing date. Also, I am developing some information pertinent to the unification appeal in response to issues raised by OUHSD. I may not be able to get that to you in sufficient time to allow you and your staff to take it into consideration in the preparation of your report" --Marguerite Leoni, PVSD Attorney, dated April 25, 2007.

Broken promises? Botched planning? Flip-flopping? Political shenanigans? Take your pick - they all spell incompetence.

Oh, in my timeline above, I left out the additional $100K they approved to spend on unification this year...for Ms. Leoni to write excuses and play political timing games for them, I guess. That happened this winter as well.

Just as Berg publicly blamed the charter for all of the district's coming ills, she vindictively publicly blamed 12 of her constituents for this expenditure because they exercised their right to appeal the County (not PV) decision on unification (read their names out loud on camera twice!). Apparently PV has to foot the bill for defending County decision making. The County isn't budgeting anything for it.

Kim and Capedad...thanks to you both for reminding everyone of the issues at hand. I appreciate you. Kim, as well as John Alamillo, we need you both on the board...speaking of which...does anyone have any updated info regarding the recall. My internet searches yield nothing.

New Superintendent:
Who is the superintendent of the school district running the high schools. I bet he or she would find it a cake walk to run the grade schools. They know the area. You wouldn't have to worry about unification anymore... could that work or am I causing trouble again?

One more transparency issue -

The board waited until the school closures issue was relatively "settled" (as much as you can say that it is at this point) at the May 17 meeting, before approving the minutes from MARCH 8 through MAY 10 (7 meetings!), effectively adding to the confusion in the community. Those were 2 months in the heat of the school closures affair. They flip-flopped so many times in this process it was very difficult (even for them, as apparent in some of their disussions) to figure out which way was up. Preventing the community from being able to track the process via minutes was painful.

Approving and posting the approved minutes would have been a much cheaper solution than Speakman's proposal to hire someone to type up the "Board's intentions" for the community (he was convinced that most of the confusion was based on misunderstandings of board intent). I'd like to be a fly on the wall at that job interview!

Once again skirting democratic process.

Coffee67
The recall is in full swing from what I hear and the website should be up and running any day now. Be looking for the ax to fall soon.
John & Kim please run! Maybe everyone will now listen to what you have been saying all along.

Since I know it will be vetted sooner than later, I have agreed to place my name on the slate for recall.
I would like to stress that I have not been involved in the planning or have I encouraged the movement.

Thank you John! You may put your sign in my yard any day. Come on Kim lets throw your hat in. Of course you guys know you have quite a mess to clean up , but I think it will be worth it .

4Choices,

I can confirm that the PV Recall website is nearing completion and that the next step(s) are being considered. One is the development of the slate of candidates. The recall committee is thrilled that John A. has thrown his hat into the ring. Several other people are also interested in running. I hope Kim will consider running as well. John offers continuity of service and a clear understanding of the issues and their history. Kim is an all around sharp cookie who is very interested in doing what is right for the community.

I don't think there is anyone who enjoys a recall scenario but the current board's actions have been so egregious, for so long that significant change must occur. Some board and district resignations would be a good start but unlikely. A recall is the next best alternative.

If you would like to be notified about the website, please send an e-mail to PVRecall@gmail.com.

Marra and John need to fight on!

Wow--asking one of the most incompetent and unresponsive districts in the history of man--OUHSD-- to approve the CAPE charter really shows how uniformed and ignorant the CAPE folks are. Those of us who've actually had kids subjected to the horrible facilities and lack of good academic programs at Cam Hi--toilets that backed up and overflowed into the halls, an eating area that was dirt on a good day a mud on a bad one, a run down facility, a weak curriculum with few electives or AP classes--know how clueless OUHSD really is. This is a district that actually had to have legislation written in 2003 to take care of a huge mistake they made--no paper or auditable backup to their electronic attendance system. Guess what? Their system didn't work--and it only took them almost a year to figure out that it didn't! Here's the link to the analysis of their bail out legislation, AB 1575: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_1551-1600/ab_1575_cfa_20030513_164543_asm_comm.html

I could go on and on about how poorly OUHSD has treated Camarillo kids. Suffice it to say that it's rather alarming to realize the CAPE parents who want to create and oversee their own school are so uninformed about the systemic corruption in OUHSD. Do your kids a favor and conduct a little research. You won't like what you find.

The same crowd that is behind this mess in PV (Speakman, etc) is also behind the loose canon in Conejo, Mike Dunn.

If anyone is interested in attending, there has been a special meeting called this coming Tuesday, June 5th, 2:00pm, at the Conejo School District HQ on Janss Road (across the street from the TO Library). The only subject on the agenda? Mike Dunn and his never ending disruption of the board, and behavior that leaves the district open to lawsuits and sanctions.

Wow--I guess I'm part of this "crowd" you speak of and I've never met Mike Dunn! Most of us who support unification either don't have any affiliation with Mike Dunn, or we know what he stands for and we reject it. There are some very liberal Democrats who support unification and while our coalition may disagree on other social and political issues, we agree that Camarillo citizens should be in control of our communities' educational system.

It's inaccurate and pretty irresponsible to make unsubstantiated claims. If the "connection" you are referring to is the use of the same mailhouse that some other Republians used, shoot me an email at roygbiv50@yahoo.com and I'll enlighten you.

What is the biggest plus to unification? I can't think of one.
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a single focus on grade school and middle school? Wouldn't the greatest benefit be that the students are properly prepared for high school?

Roygbiv, I just sent you an e-mail because I would like to be enlighted as well. If you weren't aware of the connections between the two school systems and the candidates, then you probably need to look at the flyers again and look and the funding behind the canddiates.

I have never met Dunn but plan on being at the meeting.

OK - so just on this blog we now have at least two school districts that aren't taking care of the Camarillo kids with a third school district having a wayward child they need to take care of on their board. Don't Ventura County citizens deserve better?

I'm not sure what roybiv is talking about. My friends that have kids at ACHS are very happy with the school and education product they are getting.

Make that three school districts, I just read the Rio School District ad in the paper today. They are also very unhappy with the district and board management.

John-

You don't know what I'm talking about? Give me a break. When you have your head in the sand the main thing people see is your rear end--and yours is showing. Either You have blinders on, or maybe that was a tounge in cheek remark.
From the PTA to the athletic support groups, there has been tremendoous dissatisfaction at ACHS for years. From what I witnessed, you seemed to blindly support the OUHSD and had NO knowledge of what was going on at Cam Hi. Many of us attended OUHSD board meetings, sat on committees, tried hard to make a difference. I never saw you at any of those meetings, so I'd be interested to hear what you actually did to help the situation for the kids at Cam Hi. Talk is easy--action takes a bit more work.

John-

You don't know what I'm talking about? Give me a break. When you have your head in the sand the main thing people see is your rear end--and yours is showing. Either You have blinders on, or maybe that was a tounge in cheek remark.
From the PTA to the athletic support groups, there has been tremendoous dissatisfaction at ACHS for years. From what I witnessed, you seemed to blindly support the OUHSD and had NO knowledge of what was going on a Cam Hi. Many of us attended OUHSD board meetings, sat on committees, tried hard to make a difference. I never saw you at any of those meetings, so I'd be interested to hear what you actually did to help the situation for the kids at Cam Hi. Talk is easy--action takes a bit more work.

roybiv-
Your right, I don't spend much time at my alma matter. I do speak to my friends that are avid supporters and participants in PTA and boosters that love the school, the teachers and the administration.
My gut tells me you have swallowed the big 'U' bait and the mantra of bash OUHSD in order to support the cause. That doesn't work.
If we knew who you were we could verify your participation in working to make a differance. Until then it's lip service.

Bigger picture comment - we have at least 4 school board districts that are having issues - when does the County Board of Education get involved? Or members of the Board of Supervisors? Right now it seems like just a few personal political agendas have half the county not being served. THere is an accountability issue going on right now and the natives are very, very restless.

I think Dunn should resign along with Speakman and Berg. I think the Board of Supervisors should take a good hard look at the value of the County Board of Education. Let OUHSD start building a new high school next to the Camarillo Library. And the Rio District should be put on State supervision - if such a thing is possible. Problems solved. Why is none of the obvious happening?

R.O.Y.G.B.I.V., I like your screen name. Hey, can you post the information here so that all can see? One of the many factors for a functioning democracy is open information.

Also, Laura can you send me youtube.com videos of the upcoming meeting?

As a parent of two children who have graduated from OHS and one on deck, I can say that OHUSD has its strengths and faults, probably like any school district. The biggest challenge has been overcrowding, which affects quality of education for both teachers and students. My kids have had fabulous, self-sacrificing teachers, and they have also had jaded, mediocre teachers just doing their time. So, it's a mixed bag at OUHSD in my opinion.

On this issue of CAPE, I am pleased to see that OHUSD is willing to step up and help the parents of the charter school achieve their dream for their children's education. I would caution the group to remain vigilant and transparent with regard to the charter. Unfortunately, there are some charter school companies (vultures) circling that are taking advantage and making bundles of money by taking the mandated state funds and providing mediocre education. The money has to go to the kids and teachers - not inflated "operating expenses."

Leslie, do you know anything about the Green Dot Charter company that is so embroiled with the LA Unified schools right now?

roygbiv:

Thank you for pointing out that there are many liberal Democrats who are in favor
of placing the unification issue on the ballot.

Like many who are against unification, Mr. Alamillo did not want to see it go to the ballot.

On numerous occasions, Mr. Alamillo argued that the issues are too complex and the process will become too manipulative to allow reasonable decisions to be made at the polls.

Just as the recall advocates have a right to have their wishes be placed on a ballot for citizen vote, doesn't it seem reasonable that unification should be decided by citizen vote? (For this one liberal Dem, for the entire affected area)

Mr. Alamillo: Again, under what conditions would you allow unification to be presented to the voters?

I hope that the Recall group will offer voters insight into the budget and will help voters make their decision in that context. What do the numbers suggest the solution should have been? Why?

As coffee67 suggested, I looked closely at the 7 - 11 committee report.

Disclosure: Because I wanted to understand the situation from the official documents posted, as coffee67 recommended, I did not discuss the information with any 7-11 committee, Board member, staff, or any other individual. I draw my understanding from the posted documents.

1. Under "Board Action 3/15, 3/22, 4/19, 4/30 on School Closure/Consolidation," Dr. Moffett is credited for creating the 7-11 Committee and pulling together "teachers, staff, and the Board to tackle this extremely difficult issue and do what is best for all
students in the district."

2. From
"APPROVED
PLEASANT VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FACILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
February 27, 2007":

"Los Altos, Camarillo Heights and Los Primeros were the three schools that were ranked the highest for closure from a facilities standpoint." The minutes show the actual votes.

3. The 7 - 11 Committee based their decision on facilities, enrollment numbers, and money saved, not educational programs. As one committee is noted as stating in the February 27, 2007 minutes: ". . . members are not qualified to make a decision from a program standpoint. Committee has been going over the numbers for two weeks, and the numbers point to school closures. The District is looking at ways to gain funds so that the students can have the best teachers."

4. It seems that Dr.Moffett took the 7 - 11 Committee facilities recomendations to teachers and staff, who looked at other factors that the committee did not, and made their recommendation of the minimum of the 3 facilities that was needed to close for fiscal solvency.

5. For other reasons that the 7 - 11 Committee did not consider, Dr. Moffett and his staff recommended the closures of Los Altos, Los Primeros (two of the three recommended by the 7 - 11 Committee) but switched out Los Senderos for Camarillo Heights.

6. I cannot speculate why Los Senderos was chosen instead of Cam Heights.

AGAIN, I am wondering if a citizen group has been more comprehensive than the staff and teachers of PVSD? If so, what information do they have that the staff and the Board did not consider?

I am genuinely interested:

Because many, if not most, districts will be facing declining enrollment, many school board organizations and the legislatlure are working to solve the fiscal consequences of this (as the Ventura County Office of Education is the local agency legally responsible to report on the solvency of VC district budgets, I am especially interested in following PVSD budget development).

If Camarillo citizens can add to creating a solution to the fiscal realities and their attendent problems, it would help Camarillo children AND other school districts who are and will be struggling with the same problems.

Please post possible solutions: Respectfully and with hat in hand, from this one pol's perspective, the nuts and bolts of local politics need to be not only articulating the problems but also working to solve them.

Camarillo residents have a REAL opportunity to be the lead community in helping fellow Ventura County residents understand and help create solutions durng this period of declining enrollment, high expectations, and inadequate funding.

I'd like to know how were the 7/11 members selected. I hope it was independent of the board and district.

Also why is there a declining school enrollment? Camarillo is growing. Are there less students or less students enrolled in public schools?

Katie - I don't know of Green Dot charter company specifically. What have you learned about Green Dot?

I just know that the parents and teachers need to watch closely and demand full disclosure by any charter school business. It's often nearly impossible to find out who the ultimate beneficiaries of the profits from charter schools are by name.

What if the beneficiary of the charter were a person that donated large amounts to campaigns to elect board members that would vote in favor of charters? This concept is not news, and has been discussed on this blog in the past.

Transparency, transparency, transparency - ESPECIALLY where our kids' education and our tax dollars are involved.

Very interesting arguments and parallels being drawn on this blog:

Roygbiv criticizes OUHSD for having legislation written in their own interests, yet doesn’t mention that PVSD had legislation written (AB780) to take unification from the state and put it into the county’s hands in their own interests. Others have already commented on the County/PV connection. That legislation accomplished nothing, yet cost our county (us) lots of money and time and limited the bases for appeals to only 2 criteria of their choice. See my post above for the latest UNIFY NOW! strategy – to delay the process even further. Makes me wonder if unifying is really what this crew wants to happen or if it’s just another political game, dividing the community, distracting us from taking care of real issues in our public schools.

I am a PV/OUHSD graduate. I disagree with Roygbiv’s opinion of OUHSD. I received a challenging education at Rio Mesa with lots of extra-curricular opportunities (sports, songleading, foreign exchange, community service, AP classes, student government, leadership, conflict resolution…), and I had great friends who lived in El Rio and Camarillo. I went directly from there to an Honors program at UCLA, graduating cum laude, and directly from there to a Stanford PhD program. I am now a community activist; I am bilingual; I work with at-risk and EL kids everyday; and I know that being a part of OUHSD helped shape my world views, which span much broader than my own backyard. That said, is unification wrong on that basis alone, and is OUHSD perfect? No, but when the unification effort turns so ugly in it’s attacks on OUHSD, I can’t help but be offended. I appreciate the education I got, and my husband and I built a home in the Rio Mesa boundaries so that I could send my own daughters there.

Before I get lumped into the anti-unification crowd again – maybe because I epitomize everything the unification people say OUHSD can’t produce, maybe because people from BOTH sides endorsed me based on real criteria, maybe because I just can’t jump on the bandwagon as blindly as they’d like me to and promise that I will spend every moment on the dais pursuing it – no, I’m not against unification. I’m against tactics like those above, and, frankly, I think there is much more important work to do than pursue unification. See my post on the “youtube and Ron Speakman� Dennert blog, May 2007, for my unification statement.

I heard ML say that she thinks that the unification election should include the entire affected region. In other words, she must support the OUHSD appeal, because that’s what their appeal is based on.

I also heard ML draw the connection between the right to put a recall on the ballot and the right to vote on unification. Connect unification and the CAPE effort, and you’ll see why unification isn’t on the ballot yet. It’s called legal criteria. I find it fascinating how unification supporters can ignore and actively lobby against the legal criteria for putting unification on the ballot (biggies like finances and educational programs), but nit-pick over the legal criteria for approving a school charter. Double standard in my opinion.

Thank you ML for using your real name. Roy, are you going to reveal yourself, or keep hiding behind that pseudonym of yours?

It appears that the “Oxnard is actually serving Camarillo/CAPE kids� and PV Recall efforts have the unification politicos nervous, sending out their attack dogs. Let’s not forget that both efforts stemmed from PVSD mismanagement, and both are steps toward getting education back into the district’s focus.

Sorry, I haven’t found my short-winded blogger self yet.

ML-
what I say in my time on the board was information skewed towards affirming the feasibility of unification. Dr. Dase was a hand puppet for the board majority and in my humble opinion provided information and instructions to the consultant for an absolute positive outcome. This is why I am not in favor of placing the issue on the ballot. As we have seen the proponents have done a great job of promoting emotion and commotion instead of logic and reason.

It's interesting that while PVSD's report was glowing, the county committee's consultant found 5, that’s 5, out of nine criteria a concern.

The community has a right to be presented accurate information when making a decision that will impact our children, even if it is only until the CBE has to have an intervention.

You have seen this info before but I will post it to refresh your memory:

I will give you what info I have. I would love to hear something besides we get $6M.
We know now that that information is incorrect in the studies. The amount will be less than $6M for leveling up. We know that a 1% salary increase for the entire district is $350,000. This is info presented from district staff. If the staff get a 15% raise that would be $5.25M. There are other numbers that are missing from those studies. ACHS special ed under estimated by $1.2M. ACHS cafeteria operates at a $200,000 negative each year. There is no transportation cost included. PVSD special ed was under estimated. Couple this with leaving 4 grades at RMHS at $1.2 per level. After taking out 85% for salary and benefits the fist year you lose $720,000, year 2 $540,000, year 3 $360,000 and year 4 $180,000. Based on these numbers the first year of unification you will have expenses of $7,170,200. Even if we use the $6M number we are still $1,170,200 short. At year 5 you are still $450,000 negative. Maybe we can close schools to make up the difference. While the teachers may get a raise it will come at the expense of the children and the district.

High School- Using the same %'s as Pacifica the OUHSD's matching funds and Oxnards contribution would total $85M leaving a effective balance of $15M to Camarillo for the proposed $100M high school. By PVSD staffs own calculations Camarillo qualifies for $15M in matching funds leaving the community with $85M in long term debt. My preference would be letting OUHSD build the school and saving the debt for modernizing our ageing sites.

John:
If it went to a vote, you would be able to present yours and others who would be opposed to unification to the voters. Isn't that fair? I think the public would benefit from having
all the facts debated. There are many organizations who would sponsor discussions, forums, and debates. The League of Women Voters is one that comes to mind.

I would like your figures and the proponents' figures debated. I wonder if Camarillo residents would vote to tax themselves to keep their schools open and provide their teachers with raises so their district can be competitive. I wonder if they would tax themselves for that and to make unification doable. Are there any Camarillo residents willing to place that on the table?

Kim:
On CAPE: I would have liked CAPE to have had the opportunity to have started their process earlier, but that didn't happen. I also would have liked to have seen their
petition, but that didn't happen either. I still think it can be worked out, but I think
it is going to take longer than CAPE parents have and want at this time. I am sorry that
rumors and the perception of a lukewarm reception stopped CAPE's petition to our Board, especially in light of the obvious continued rift between PVSD and CAPE, so much so that they were unwilling to continue the process of petitioning us and thereby giving us the opportunity to learn further why they did not have confidence to try to work out some kind of interim compromise with PVSD or have us try to help bridge the differences.

On Unification Appeal: Your right to draw the conclusion that I agree with the appeal to have the voting area be all the affected areas. While that makes placing the vote on a ballot longer, it is due process.

On the issue of AB 780: At the time of AB 780, it is my understanding that unification proponents were concerned with the continued delay at the state level. They also became concerned when OUHSD, which is their right, hired a lobbyist. They thought
they had a better chance to get it to a vote if the decision was redirected to a local jurisdiction. That seems fair. With the appeal of the Committee on Reorganization, it is taking longer. There are times when plans do not work out as intended. This seems
to be the case with AB 780. I don't see anything wrong with that. It happens.

I endorsed Kim because I thought she would bring a needed balanced and reasonable voice to the board. She has had first hand experience with the system, has children in
the school system, and was open to hearing all sides of all issues.

I hope her voice and others like her continue to contribute to this and other very important education issues.

John, can you explain why we are even talking about building a new high school if we have declining enrollment and have to close schools even though we just built some new schools?

If money is the issue, wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to back burner the unification issue, tell OUHSD to forget a new high school and instead spend some money on ACHS & Rio Mesa, and work on making the PVSD schools more palatable to Camarillo parents that currently have their kids in private schools or are homeschooling them? Offer them some choices?

Katie:

Declining enrollment is happening at the lower levels, less at the high school level at this time because young families are having a harder time being able to afford homes in Ventura County. Additionally, I am wondering how you are defining "palatable"? What, in your view, is not "palatable" about what PVSD has offered programwise? I am wondering if you think under current funding more can be done? Most private schools that are not subsidized by the Catholic Church are well over $10,000 per year, many close to $20,000, and some over that. And they do not have to take the high-need students, either. California public schools will average around $8,000 per student this next school year. That averages in the funds for specifically targeted programs and grants that not every school qualifies for.

I am wondering if there are bloggers who have their children in private schools. Would you share how much it costs to attend? What are are all the expenditures?

ML: The private schools can be very costly. A close friend removed her children from PVSD two years ago (FYI...the way Dr. Dase was running the district had some play in their decision)...fortunately, they can afford the costs. I personally have checked into Oaks Christian which starts in the 6th grade...the costs are appx. 20K per student (I have two) with no breaks for siblings. If we tighten the purse strings, it is doable, however, I actually prefer that my children attend public schools because my personal belief is that the reflect the realities of life.

John: Glad to hear your on the slate....gives some hope to redeem this district.

Kim: What about you....is your name up there yet?

Hey, this is someone you know. I am wondering what options exist for Catholic education in Simi Valley k-12. I want my child to have a intimate knowledge of the bible and the life of Jesus but I am not comfortable with the belief systems of the right wing churches locally.

I wish our public schools had a Bible studies class as an elective.

Katie:

On plans for a high school: One of the plans that has been floated was converting the Los Altos Middle School site as a Magnet school to handle the larger high school enrollment.

Someone you know: OUHSD has a Bible studies elective.

There has been discussion among liberal Democrats about the benefits of having Bible studies taught as foundational literature. The thinking is that much of current national and international issues (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are rooted in the Bible) rely on its interpretation. To understand the influence of Biblically-based ideas and values, students would benefit from studying the Bible in a non-religious setting.

My kids went to St. Paul's Parish Day School (Epsc) in Ventura, Grace Lutheran (Lutheran) in Ventura, and Saint Augstine Academy (Catholic) in Ventura. All of them costs less than the current cost per student for public education. Some of the private schools are very expensive - sometimes up to $26K per year for boarding students. SAA offers up an excellent academic program for about $5500 per year for high school. All of the schools were small, had limited sports/computer stuff. I frankly don't believe big sports & technology programs should be the job of the school - which puts me in the minority. So it was an excellent fit.

I would still like to know what the percentage breakdown is for the number of students in private school/homeschool versus public school - in Camarillo and in Ventura County.

ML,

At this time it's good to know that you were willing to support our approval timeline. I've got a cuddly, warm feeling all over.

Did you lose your voice when the board told the CAPE leadership that it flat-out wouldn't move quickly to support us? Or maybe you'd had a chat with Sandy and Audra.

Come on. Get real.

Katie:

I will ask if VCOE has any estimations. There are some difficulties in calculating because
private schools don't necessarily enroll only Ventura county residents. Additionally, it is my understanding that homeschooled children don't have to enroll in a Ventura County sponsored homeschool program. Parents can do it independently as long as they follow some state regulations. Parents can also use correspondence programs to help them.

There are many options for parents. It seems we are in a period of great flux in how we define "public" education. It seems "interest" based public education is vigorously competing with "community" base (as defined by place: neighborhoods in close proximity to public school site). As such, how do we or should we define "school districts" and the allocation of school funding?

CAPEed:
I am not sure what you mean about "losing" my voice? Since CAPE had not submitted
the petition, I really could not speak to it specifically because it had not been officially submitted to our offices. CAPE at our last meeting asked for a specific timeline. I am not in control of that.

When SAGE came before us, we had more time. The process began in March. Additionally, they had a $500,000.00 start up grant. Because we did not receive the petition, I don't know what kind or amount of funding reserves CAPE would start with. I also don't know if CAPE would have had time to apply for Prop 39 guarantees.

I have never spoken to Audra about this issue. The only time I have spoken to Audra was when I was in Sacramento a couple of weeks ago for the joint CCBE and CSBA Legislative Conference. I met with her with a delegation group from our region, which included Suzanne Kitchens. There, I was lobbying for Julia Brownley's AB 1379, a bill which would allow for multiple measures to assess proficiency of students who have not passed all portions of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).

I e-mailed Sandra Berg over a month ago in which I asked if PVSD could/might negotiate a Memo of Understanding (MOU) between CAPE (as a program at the Rosales campus) and PVSD so that parents would be assured that they would be allowed to continue with the unique CAPE programs and philosophy. I do not know what happened as a result of that inquiry. It may not have been legally feasible.
CAPE may not have wanted to do anything like that. Don't know.

I hope CAPE gets closer to what they want for their children.

ML,

Are you telling me that a board member (don't know who - wasn't there) didn't tell the CAPE presenters that county wouldn't work to accelerate the approval timeline and to stop asking - case closed? Did you hear this or were you out? County most definitely did not welcome CAPE with open arms - did you?

You know, as many do, that thanks to some fanatastic CAPE supporters we've hired one of the finest charter law firm and accountant in the state to make our application "bullet proof". Did you feel we couldn't address all of the required elements of a charter application with this firepower? You didn't have the staff available to review it quickly enough? Please expand on why you couldn't support us or at least give us a shot. I'm pretty sure we could've done it. Don't you?

As for Prop 39, we already know we missed the deadline for September '07, but will be knocking on PVSD's door for housing in September '08 and on.

CAPEDad:

The night CAPE advocates came to our board meeting, they spoke during Public Comments. Our Board had no materials that evening. I need your help in understanding this: Did you request to have CAPE placed on our agenda to our Board President or to the Superintendent for that evening? If so, I was not made aware of it.

I have received documents from CAPE advocates through e-mail, but they were documents sent to PVSD, not ones that have been analyzed by our staff. Our Board has not received any offical documentation with staff or legal counsel annotation.

How could we have expedited the process if CAPE did not officially submit a petition and request it be on the agenda. Without it being agendized, remember it was only brought up by CAPE during Public Comments, we could not go into any kind of detailed discussion on the issue that night. It would have been a violation of the Brown Act.

I know from conversations with local charter advocates that you had hired a very good attorney. I applaud that.

Again, without being presented with the petition or having the issue agendized, there was no way our Board could have taken any action or make any decision or make any recommendation to the staff in handling the petition. Whether to expedite it or not.

As I remember what one of my Board members said, he expressed concerns. That was it. We expressed our hope that something might be worked out with your Board because of the time line, but please know that from my standpoint CAPE is WELCOMED to appeal to and petition our Board.

Given that the earliest we would hear it would have been June 8 and that CAPE wanted to know something before the end of the month because of teacher contracts, I think my Board member's expressed concern was legitimate and reasonable.

Again, I am sorry that CAPE was placed in this position of such a late date and short time line with the petition, but I think what I perceive as hostility behind your questions is misplaced.

It is a genuinely frustrating situation for CAPE. Please know that I understand and wish the situation were different at this time for CAPE. Perhaps as the situation progresses, I will be in a better position to help a bit more than just participating in this dialogue.

Katie-
I agree with ML that our community will be comprised of older kids.

The HS would have been completed for the ‘09-’10 school year. The process would have been starting with 9th & 10th grades and adding freshman classes for the following two years. This would have had the campus fully operational in 2012. The plan was to have a comprehensive HS of 1800 with different offering than the ACHS site. There was talk of a theatre or pool .

The need was not only a plan for Camarillo but as Riverpark fills there is a need for seats at RMHS. The 750+ kids there and an anticipated growth in HS age kids were some of the reasons the Camarillo Educational Design Committee wanted a school that size.

ML-
I have always felt that converting a middle school to a high school would short change those that attended it. In Camarillo there are not many options for school placement with available land either in SOAR or the airport flyway. Oxnard did the right thing in securing the property when it did no matter what happens in the future.

I have posted the figures I come up with numerous time and had no response from the proponents. The time for debate is now. We need to be intellectually honest about the proposal on the table. Why can’t the proponents back up and create a plan that is representative of what the community could expect. It would truly suck to send this to a vote, have it pass and 6 months in find out it doesn’t work. All we ever get is “this will be the highest funded district in the area� or “there will be an additional $6 million in the district�. These seem like great thinks on the surface but if you make $100k and it costs you $200K in expenses, your in trouble. Presuming my figures are correct the $6M, and then some, is spent before the first bell rings. You have seen good leaders pull a proposal off the table when there has been a finding that it is not a good plan. This is not a good plan, bring it back get to the details and if it is doable then present it. Look at what the charter school has to present. Unification has way less actual planning then you expect from one school.

ML,

Thank you. You just might be a good egg. It's a rare thing to see an elected official taking questions the way you do on a blog.

As you know, negotiations with our board have broken down. Check out Speakman on YouTube and you'll see the reference point we started with - not at all promising.

I also like the way you seem to appreciate the fact that PVSD jammed our kids at the 11th hour. That's also a rare thing.

What district do you represent?

CAPEDad:

Thanks. Can't get through politics without a few cracks.

I represent Area 1, Ventura, Coasts, and portions of Oxnard.

I will stay informed.

Who, as an individual speaking; do you think would be a good to replace the elected official I have included in my link.

I think there is a big difference in the need for the legislation OUHSD wrote--AB 1575 in 2003--and the legislation from Camarillo Unified--AB 780.

OUHSD wrote AB 1575 to take care of a major mistake they made when moving to a new attendance system. There were known problems with the system that they choose to use, and they were advised by others, including the State Board of Education, to run a bacjup system. They ignored the advice, didn't backup their new system--which failed big time. They were being audited and in danger of big time financial trouble--which is why they needed Fran Pavely to write the legislation.

Cam Unfied wrote AB 780 to try and expedite the unification process and bring it to a local vote. As far as only being able to appeal on only two criteria--that is true of groups other than the school district and private individuals, but it is not true of the district. They can, and have, appealed on a number of criteria.

One piece of legislation is to rectify fiscal mismanagement and incompetence, the other is to elimante red tape and have a local decision making process that consituents can participate in.

I think the bigger question has always been this: why is OUHSD and those who oppose so afraid to let this come to a vote? OUHSD claimed in the early days--when they felt that their attorney Tom Griffin's relationsip with CDE employee Larry Shirey would sink an unification action at the state level-- that their only concern was that the election be district wide. Of course, they never thought it would GET to the voters. Once they saw that it might, their position changed dramatically and they began to actively oppose unification. OUHSD hid under the cover of that argument for along time, but in truth their opposition runs much deeper. Area of election stopped being an issue long ago.

There have been MANY offers to meet and discuss the area of election and offers to hold a district wide election. To her credit, I hear the Jody Dunlap has tried to get her board to come to the table, but they have refused over and over again. OUHSD isn't interested, because they still feel they will loose if it goes to a district wide vote.

That's a lot of hearsay from someone unwilling to post under her own name. I can put thoughts and words into people's mouths too, though I prefer to speak for myself. At least if my name were on it, I could be held accountable. If not, it would mean very little.

Simply irresponsible rhetoric, but characteristic of the us-them, vilify-rather-than-deal-with-real-issues strategies I've come to expect from you and those you support. If you're who I believe you are, I believe we had a memorable discussion on this very issue right after the October PVSB Candidate Forum. It started with, "You did a great job. I'd vote for you if you were for unification," and I said, "Who said I wasn't? Not me."

If you're not that person, let me know - I apologize for mis-identifying you, but still stand by my larger points.

I'm not sure what you find to be "irresponsible rhetoric" in my post--unless of course anything that challenges your mind set falls into that category. If I'm not mistaken, this is a forum for sharing of opinions and perspectives. OUHSD's position on unification moving from neutral to against is a matter of public record--it's been well documented through their unification updates and their board members statements during meetings.

If you do a little research on OUHSD's bill, AB 1575, you'll be able to see for yourself why the district needed to write it. You can also read minutes from their meetings when it was discussed. Same with the facts on AB 780 and the appeal process. I think that my synopsis of each bill is correct, but if you find otherwise please share your perspective.

We don't know each other, but I find it interesting that you appear to be at peace with posters bashing current trustees while bothered by those who share information from another perspective than yours. Seems like a biased evaluation system to me. Some folks have a vested interest in posting on this blog --like maybe they ran for office and want to run again, support a recall, etc. I'm fine with that, just as I'm fine with hearing from guys like CAPEdad who choose not to.

Sooooooo, any word on what took place at the OUHSD meeting last night?

roygbiv,

The OUHSD meeting was quite benign and pleasant, which is a huge change from the meetings that we're used to. The big event of the evening was when Barbara Davis, with her immense knowledge of charter law, pointed out for her friends at OUHSD the gaping holes in our petition. I guess she knows more than the largest charter law firm in the state. Also she most certainly isn't biased. They'd do well to follow her sage advice!

Thanks Barbara. BTW, your credibility tank is just about on empty. You'd better stay home from now on - starting to look Speakmanish.

PVrecall webpage up and running!! http://www.pvrecall.net/content.html#

Roygbiv:

Reread your 5th paragraph: “OUHSD...so afraid....they felt....they never thought....OUHSD hid under the cover....their opposition runs much deeper (without spelling it out).� You’ve embellished the public record a bit and left us hanging with unsupported, pregnant statements. I’m pretty certain OUHSD would not hire you as their representative, interpreter, or psychologist. I call that type of rhetoric irresponsible.

That, in fact, is EXACTLY my vested interest in posting on this blog and for running for office last fall (which I’m not sure I’ll do again, as addressed in earlier posts): to try to stop the spin cycle that has become so common in politics and try to return to the system to responsible, fact-based dialogue and decision-making. I am a strong believer in the democratic process, but find myself completely frustrated with the lack of credibility in our leaders these days. It is destroying the process.

Look at my posts: They’re all about transparency, correction of fact, and holding people accountable to their lines of argument, whether it’s CAPEdad, the PV board, ML, or you.

Look at your posts: They’re all about bashing OUHSD, CAPE parents, John, and now me with irresponsible rhetoric. Even Brian had to remind you at one point to, “post the information here so that all can see....One of the many factors for a functioning democracy is open information.� You never did post the info to which he was referring.

I’ve already posted on AB 780, and don’t find AB 1575 particularly relevant beyond what you said in your post, except for pointing out the double standard.

If the area of election stopped being an issue long ago, then why the need for Audra Strickland to write the failed legislation, AB 2728: “This bill would, notwithstanding existing law pertaining to the reorganization of school districts, provide that only the electors of the City of Camarillo are eligible to vote on a proposition relating to the unification of schools in the City of Camarillo in 2005�?

Hey Audra, or any of your flock, how about writing legislation that would benefit the greater population? One issue that comes to mind is changing the age mimimum for kindergarten. As it is now a teacher can have a room full of 4 year olds until December.
I know this would be a lot of work but with your extensive teaching career and your political smoothness you could get 'er done.