Choices

Word around the district and among other administrators has the VAPAC administration being offered several choices to try and turn the school around . Let's take a look at what we've heard:

Option #1.

The District and VAPAC re-write the charter and bring the school into the fold as a "dependent" charter.

One can only imagine this choice going over as well as a lead balloon, and word on the street has it that the Director vehemently refused to consider this option. Probably because it means that the cushy, overpaid positions that she created for herself and her son would either vanish or be scrutinized more severely. Additionally, the executive board, packed with close acquaintances and sycophants would be dissolved.

This option also appears to be a tacit acknowledgement on the part of the district that this is a flawed charter as written, one that lacks the necessary oversight and controls to insure a proper learning environment is maintained. It is also a charter that reads like a blatant power grab at taxpayer expense.

But what are we to make of a school that fires a valued employee and former student with no justification while the Director and her Son maintain their bloated salaries with few accomplishments to show for their efforts?

From what we've heard, this is the option that most people desire. Interestingly, however, we don't warrant notification from either the Director or the district of this possibility and are left out of the decision making process that affects our children. Thanks.

Option #2

District can reassign the administrators.

Because both the Director and her Son are district employees, they can be reassigned. Of course, this is clearly a personnel decision; however, we would hate to see the district maintain either individual on the payroll, particularly the Son who would not meet the minimum qualifications with any reputable organization for either a CFO or a Grant Writer. If it ultimately comes down to saving the school vs. saving their jobs, we believe the students and the program are far more important. This option does raise the question as to why, once things started going bad at VAPAC, the district didn't just reassign the Director and her Son until the most serious of the allegations against them could be investigated and adjudicated.

We cannot see the Director and her Son accepting this option.

Option #3

The district can release the Director and her Son from continued employment with the district.

Given the callous nature with which the Director and her Son dealt with parents and students on many occasions coupled with their ruthless, self serving management style, misuse of taxpayer money, and unwillingness to compromise on any issue let alone allow dissent or disagreement, we believe that this is an acceptable option. Neither of these people are the types of employees any organization would want, particularly a school district charged with the stewardship of other peoples' children.

Of course, there is another option that the district cannot offer but the Director and her Son can create:

Making the school a private school.

Looking carefully at the administration's penchant for totalitarianism in decision making, their desire to impose a dress code, the illegally crafted enrollment process, and their general disdain for certain types of students, it seems that this is the direction that the school is headed. Of course, the question would then be economic viability.

For additional discussion, see the previous post:

Charter Schools, Privatization, and Show Me the Money

For Dress Code Drafts:

http://208.57.178.12/info/DraftDressCodePolicy05-06.htm

http://208.57.178.12/info/DressCode04-05.htm

Additional Note to Students and Parents Enrolled or Enrolling at VAPAC

Contrary to what information is being disseminated at the school and in its literature, VAPAC is not its own Localized Educational Authority (LEA). The SCUSD is the LEA of record for the school.

RE: Wanted Poster

Students, Parents, Faculty and staff, apparently some people have been reading this blog because an inflammatory flyer was handed out today at VAPAC, and the administration, in their heavy handed attitude toward student and parents' rights, questioned and threatened students in violation of their first amendment rights. The administration claims defamation of character; we know differently. Let's break this down:

Without consuming a lot of space, teachers and principals and other figures are considered public. Ergo, they are free to be criticized w/o repercussion. Additionally, the wanted posters that appeared are clearly satire and a protected part of free speech. However, since the administration has raised the issue, let's discuss the allegations and their veracity (truth):

#1 In our previous post we outlined the salary discrepancy and Title 1 issues that plague the school. In short, The Son makes far more than his experience would allow; he also makes more that his accomplishments would recommend -- he has secured little or zero funding for the school. In a review of his performance, a raise would be out of the question. However, who reviews performance of administrators on site -- His MOTHER. Or her hand-picked Executive Board. Lets not mention The Director's $40,000 over her stated salary in terms of the district's pay scale.

#2 The Son's salary constitutes a fraud against the taxpayers of this state because he neither has the experience nor the accomplishments to merit the salary he makes. And yet, for securing $o in grants and having NO successful grant writing experience, he receives $129,000 a year. Oh yeah, he also has no experience in educational finances or education.

#3 A clear Civil Right Violation would be The Administration's persecution of students in possession of the "Wanted" flyer. However, let's recall Ari, Vince, and several other students that the administration has crucified while clear violators of sexual harassment policy and drug policy remain on campus. Remember Free Speech is a protected right -- Student discourse, either written or verbal, is also protected since The Director and Her Son constitute public figures. Additionally, school policy has never been instituted w/o input of knowledge of the constituency (public). Since this claim is ambiguous, the law allows for the ambiguity of the statement.

#4 The Director has not attended all of the IEP meetings for Special Education students. Neither has she claimed a designee to stand in for her. She and The Son have also violated confidentiality disclosures regarding Special Education students. There are several complaints filed against her at the district office. Because of disclosure laws, we cannot state the specifics, but if any parents wish to stand up, we would be glad to hear from them.

#5 Parents and students, do you have a general purpose computer lab? Do you have a library? Do you have adequate resources in the classroom? Do you feel that the Director and her Son have secured your future in a manner appropriate to a school that receives public money? This claim is also ambiguous and falls outside the scope of the law -- jeopardizing Children's futures make a non-specific claim.

Basically, opinion is free from the burden of defamation. And most of these allegations, while provable within the letter of the law, constitute opinion.

People, you should not allow the administration's tactics to prevent you from telling the truth. In fact, you should complain to the school board, the press, the county office of education and any other entity that will listen.

YOU ARE BEING BULLIED AND RIPPED OFF. THEIR TREATMENT OF YOU CONSTITUTES HARRASSMENT.

So sorry that their fragile feelings got hurt...

Parents, if your student got caught in this witch hunt, please PLEASE read the following:
http://www.nlg-la.org/student_rights.pdf#search=

Here's the Budget

The several posts below are the pages of the VAPAC budget. It raises some questions, most notably administrative salaries and the Title 1 claims. Since the school has never offered free and reduced lunches to its students nor have they conducted the necessary surveys to identify the qualifying students, it seems strange to us that they would (a) claim a specific number of qualifying students and (b) budget for a specific amount based on those dubious numbers. Besides, many parents and faculty have reported that the administration said they would forgo Title 1 money.

Anyhow, have a look and feel free to comment. Because of the amount of space the files require, we can only keep these pages up for a few days.

We have moved the budget pages to save space:

http://www.geocities.com/scusdwatch

Let's Talk About School Finances

School budgets are in the news... school budgets are always in the news. Either we're spending too much or not enough; we're throwing good money after bad; we're financing the wrong programs, or we need to create new programs to help failing students. We are not sure which side of the debate that you're on, but we figure everyone can agree on some things -- or at least one thing -- a lot of money is spent inefficiently.

Veterans of the Sacramento High School debacle note that when things started going south, consultants, advisors, and additional administrative layers were added to the problem, dragging more and more financial resources along for the ride. At the same time, programs were cut, most notably a reading program that successfully moved remedial readers several grade levels in a year. But in keeping with this district's model, money was continuously pumped into a failing school without any consideration being given to the administrative incompetence that created the mess. Apparently, the SCUSD does not like to hold its administrators accountable for their failures. Case in point, Sacramento High School and VAPAC.

Let's begin, briefly, with the tenure of the former principal of Sacramento High School. She began at the school as a protegee of the previous principal, Richard Owens. She became principal of the school after ranking last on the list of possible candidates given to the faculty committee for review. She was removed from her post as principal around the time the St. HOPE takeover and the state reviews started, hidden somewhere deep in the bowels of the Serna Center, out of harm's way only to resurface as the principal of the Community Day School. Word on the street is that she has tanked that assignment and will force the district to punt her once again. Could a SCOE takeover of that program be far? And, more than likely, she will retain her position in the district.

Now, let's examine the curious, continuing saga of VAPAC. The Director created a position for herself and her son, written into the charter and presumably, to them, irrevocable. Neither has had previous experience running a school. The CFO, her son, has no background in education, administration, or finances. Apparently, however, this lack of experience qualifies them for salary and benefits approaching $250,000. Or, roughly, 10% of the school's operating budget. Neither, of course, should approach these levels of compensation unless they are maxed out on the salary scale, and even then, the salary levels are far above what the pay scale mandates -- the director position tops out at $97,000; the CFO position $92,000. According to the budget, however, both individuals make $138,000 and $129,000 respectively. Now, granted these figures could be misleading considering benefits and other compensation, but we have yet to see a salary package that offers $40,000 in benefits. Nevertheless, if this is part of their salary package, the district is once again throwing good money away ... at your child's expense.

Of course, the larger questions to be answered are: Who approved this salary package? And if The Son, with little or no experience in education and educational finances, can be maxed out on the salary scale after two years of questionable performance, who approved that move? Additionally, who reviews the performance of either of these individuals? Of course, for a school with no principal, no library, no general use computer lab, no real lunch program to speak of, and a host of other notable deficiencies, spending this much money on a CFO -- the only school to have a CFO -- seems ludicrous.

What this actually looks like is nepotism, created to benefit one person, financed with your tax dollars, and approved by the district. Explain to us how this is good for students?

"You ever have the feeling that you've been ripped off..."

Quick Note

Agenda item on tonight's school board docket:

Resolution to allow St. HOPE to change the name of Sacramento Charter High School to Sacramento High School

To many concerned this is an incendiary issue -- the school district effectively killed Sacramento High School, and its 150 years of history by giving away the campus to St. HOPE. This move by St. HOPE is an obvious attempt to co-opt that history and tradition for their own profit. Additionally, part of the resolution in the Rogers et. al. vs SCUSD was a commitment from the district to place another high school in the former Sacramento High School attendance area, should there be enough interest in the community, by 2008. Many feel that if this plan comes to fruition, this new campus would be a better candidate to assume the mantle, the history, and the tradition of the former Sacramento High School.