Charter schools get significant support Schools & Kids, posted by Editor, The Almanac Online, on Mar 23, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Charter school advocates turned out in force to respond to a recent online survey asking the Sequoia Union High School District community for criteria in hiring a replacement for Superintendent Patrick Gemma, who has announced plans to retire in June.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 1:10 PM
Posted by WhoRUpeople, a resident of another community, on Mar 23, 2010 at 2:24 pm
I find the Almanac's decision to repackage this story under the banner - Charter Schools Get Significant Support - very troubling. The real story here, and the only thing the Almanac hasn't addressed other than allowing comments to be posted in this forum, is the issue of how the BoT went about wiring the job for an insider. There are no new facts in this article; they all appeared in previous ones, including the intelligence insulting quotes from Martinez. Why hasn't the Almanac pursued the issues of possible Brown Act violations and the impending law suit as news? Why hasn't the Almanac interviewed Dr. Gemma about all of this? Why hasn't the Almanac interviewed Ms. Martinez about this? The issue at hand isn't charter schools or performing arts centers or preference surveys. The issues are: Is the BoT properly taking care of the public's business? and Has the BoT unnecessarily limited the scope of the search to find the best possible choice for Superintendent?
Posted by Simple Simon, a member of the Oak Knoll School community, on Mar 23, 2010 at 4:31 pm
I agree with WhoRUPeople -- This is not a Charter School issue, this is a governance issue. I am one of the 95 respondents and did not find this to be a meaningful survey meant to garner public opinion, it read like a request to affirm the District's current direction.
And if 29% of the respondents stated they are District Employees, how many more respondents are District EEs filling out the survey again??
Also, who was the one dissenting BoT vote on holding the closed session? That was the one member who acted like a public trustee.
Posted by David Boyce, Almanac staff writer, on Mar 24, 2010 at 9:30 am David Boyce is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
In the matter of finding a new superintendent to head the Sequoia district in July, the board member who voted against the Feb. 24 closed-session decision to limit the candidate search to district employees was Chris Thomsen.
In an interview, Mr. Thomsen said he voted as he did because the post of superintendent is important enough to warrant a nationwide search.
As to the idea that it was improper and a violation of the Brown Act, California's open-meeting law, for the board to make this search-limit decision in closed session, Atherton resident and open-government advocate Peter Carpenter has threatened to sue the high school district if it does not rescind the decision.
Posted by WhoRUpeople, a resident of another community, on Mar 24, 2010 at 11:01 am
..The multiple choice items "reaffirm that there is a consensus in the community as to the importance of what these things are" "lacking anything better, the Board uses the results as it may"
So Ms Martinez defends her decision, and that of the other three Trustees who also voted to wire the job to a survey that, if you do the math, represented input from .00006% of the student households in the district. Whereas Mr Thomsen based his vote on the basis of his belief that the post of superintendent is important enough to warrant a nationwide search. The other four members of the Board now, not a year from now at election time. Disgraceful!
Posted by Bob Jones, a resident of the Menlo Park: The Willows neighborhood, on Apr 22, 2010 at 3:18 am
I was directed to this survey by other parents of charter school students. For my part I wanted to cast my "vote" toward charters. But I found the survey less than meaningless, and I didn't fill it out. How can publicly elected education officials try to pass this off as research? Whatever it cost them to field, it was a waste of our school dollars.
I say worse than meaningless, because of the risk that anyone in power might take any results as "findings" and use them to justify a course of action. The survey asked how important were several duties of the superintendent. When you collate the results and see which ones were the five or ten most important, what do you do with that?
I lost a lot of faith in our board with this pitiful excuse for a "survey." Hire a professional to do it right.