Here it is...
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/485590.html
We knew it was coming... The interesting thing is to find, embedded in the text, on the last page, this tell-tale fact:
"The school has met academic criteria the state requires for a charter to be renewed."
There are, of course, financial criteria as well, but we believe from our experience with VAPAC, that it really takes an act of God (or gross malfeasance) to get a charter revoked or discontinued. We need to remember, however, that renewal of the charter doesn't necessarily mean renewal of the facilities lease. If the campus is underutilized, if middle school and possibly elementary school students are needed to justify continued usage, then perhaps our district should consider reclaiming the school for its own needs -- to rectify overcrowding at Hiram Johnson and Rosemont (the two schools that picked up the brunt or the former Sacramento High School's attendance areas).
Or perhaps the district should cherry-pick its brightest students and make it an "honors" academy -- heretofore referred to as the "St. Hope model." While St. Hope's numbers might look impressive to some, it is a wonder that they cannot keep their enrollment up. Many teachers throughout the district are shouting that if they were allowed to teach at a school where the repercussions for misbehavior were expulsion, they would show similar if not better gains in their classrooms. Furthermore, school and community pride would increase because of the nature and character of the students attending. But the reality of the situation is, our district expels about 5 students a year, and while the district blathers on about higher academic expectations, they do nothing about having higher behaviour expectations.
When we look at St. Hope, we see no innovative teaching design or advanced curricular models. We see the status quo -- high teacher burnout and turnover, disenchanted students (as evidenced by declining enrollment), and administrative mismanagement and confusion. In short, what almost every district high school has to offer.
But we also see students hungry to learn in an environment that fosters a positive educational atmosphere and pride in academics (not unlike the MESL program when it was at Sacramento High School). What the district and community need to examine is how much longer will we put up with schools that harbor felons and illegal and illicit activities? How much longer will we allow the district to merely suspend a child for 5 days for engaging in a bloody brawl on campus instead of removing the child or attempting to help the child? Or to do what the district likes to do: disenroll the child from one school and send him or her to another district school, never addressing the problem of the student's behaviour. Case in point: Last year two teacher were punched by students while attempting to break up an altercation. Both students, after much complaining by teachers and parents, were disenrolled from the high school. One ended up at Capitol City, the other Health Professions.
Simply put, when is the district going to create the campus environments that facilitate higher academic goals and expectations?
If the St. Hope model allows them to remove behaviour problems for infractions or even offer stiff consequences for minor misbehaviour difficulties (i.e. Friday Night Blues), when is this district going to have the courage to support its administrators, teachers, and most importantly, its students by allowing them to offer similar consequences for those who interfere with or impede the academic process and disrupt or are detrimental to the school environment?
However naive or impractical, these are some of the questions that the St. Hope situation raises in our minds.
We knew it was coming... The interesting thing is to find, embedded in the text, on the last page, this tell-tale fact:
"The school has met academic criteria the state requires for a charter to be renewed."
There are, of course, financial criteria as well, but we believe from our experience with VAPAC, that it really takes an act of God (or gross malfeasance) to get a charter revoked or discontinued. We need to remember, however, that renewal of the charter doesn't necessarily mean renewal of the facilities lease. If the campus is underutilized, if middle school and possibly elementary school students are needed to justify continued usage, then perhaps our district should consider reclaiming the school for its own needs -- to rectify overcrowding at Hiram Johnson and Rosemont (the two schools that picked up the brunt or the former Sacramento High School's attendance areas).
Or perhaps the district should cherry-pick its brightest students and make it an "honors" academy -- heretofore referred to as the "St. Hope model." While St. Hope's numbers might look impressive to some, it is a wonder that they cannot keep their enrollment up. Many teachers throughout the district are shouting that if they were allowed to teach at a school where the repercussions for misbehavior were expulsion, they would show similar if not better gains in their classrooms. Furthermore, school and community pride would increase because of the nature and character of the students attending. But the reality of the situation is, our district expels about 5 students a year, and while the district blathers on about higher academic expectations, they do nothing about having higher behaviour expectations.
When we look at St. Hope, we see no innovative teaching design or advanced curricular models. We see the status quo -- high teacher burnout and turnover, disenchanted students (as evidenced by declining enrollment), and administrative mismanagement and confusion. In short, what almost every district high school has to offer.
But we also see students hungry to learn in an environment that fosters a positive educational atmosphere and pride in academics (not unlike the MESL program when it was at Sacramento High School). What the district and community need to examine is how much longer will we put up with schools that harbor felons and illegal and illicit activities? How much longer will we allow the district to merely suspend a child for 5 days for engaging in a bloody brawl on campus instead of removing the child or attempting to help the child? Or to do what the district likes to do: disenroll the child from one school and send him or her to another district school, never addressing the problem of the student's behaviour. Case in point: Last year two teacher were punched by students while attempting to break up an altercation. Both students, after much complaining by teachers and parents, were disenrolled from the high school. One ended up at Capitol City, the other Health Professions.
Simply put, when is the district going to create the campus environments that facilitate higher academic goals and expectations?
If the St. Hope model allows them to remove behaviour problems for infractions or even offer stiff consequences for minor misbehaviour difficulties (i.e. Friday Night Blues), when is this district going to have the courage to support its administrators, teachers, and most importantly, its students by allowing them to offer similar consequences for those who interfere with or impede the academic process and disrupt or are detrimental to the school environment?
However naive or impractical, these are some of the questions that the St. Hope situation raises in our minds.
posted by All of Us at
2:27 PM
379 Comments
