Well deserved, Diane! Our community is lucky to have you!

Continued success...

If ignoring the needs of low performing students was part of the evaluation process – then she should get the award.

First of all, I would like to congratulate Diane. I am Summit alum and I was so lucky to have a person like Diane in my life. Diane is one of the most compassionate people I have ever met and a person who truly cares about the well being of all her students.
It truly saddens me to hear comments by people like Stan. People like him speak out of ignorance. I am 100% sure Stan has never paid a visit to Summit and speaks from hearsay instead of actual contact and observation.
As a student that came from a single parent, low income family, I totally disagree with Stan's accusations. I will acknowledge that the Summit model does not work for everyone, but if a student has a desire to strive in an academic environment, Summit is the place to be. If a student only desires to get by and doesn't aspire for better things in life, then Summit may not be the best fit.
Those latter students can just go to traditional public schools like Sequoia or Woodside where they can fall through the cracks.
But if someone wants a school where the success of students is a top priority, Summit is number one!

To be quite honest, the idea of Diane Tavner receiving an award makes me somewhat ill. Her abrasive style and lack of sensitivity to the true needs of low performing students is appalling. Anyone who disagrees with her is labeled an obstructionist or anti-charter. The parents at Summit were afraid of her when she ran the day to day operations of the school. (She is now a high paid administrator of their so called Institute).

My neighbor who is familiar with high school education informed me that Summitt and Everest have expelled eight students already this year for not 'fitting' their exclusive model. I can only imagine who else has been counseled out.

Perhaps they could give her an award for the Highest Expulsion Rate of a Charter Organization?

Hip Hip Hooray! Well deserved, and I hope the first of many! The appropriateness of this award makes up, in a small way, for the total inappropriateness of the award Gemma got as superintendent of the year from his cronies.

This is so well deserved - congratulations Diane!

I had the privilege of being involved with Summit almost from the beginning, and had a real insider's view for over three years through extensive volunteering.

Summit is a school run by folks who have made real the vision of a truly inclusive environment, where high levels of success are possible for any motivated student from any educational or economic background.

Diane is an outstanding and brilliant leader with compassion and guts who has been an absolutely essential part of Summit's and now Everest's success. Hooray!!!

Peter, Peter, Peter. Have you ever met Diane Tavenner? Or are your innuendos based on your neighbor's opinion? What Dianne has accomplished and continues to accomplish with Summit and Everest for all their students, is nothing short of miraculous. Summit's 4-year college acceptance percentage casts a gigantic shadow over the results we are seeing from the other Sequoia district high schools. As the name implies, it is a college prep, much like M-A was when I graduated in 1969. Today, if an 8th grade child's entrance exams do not place them in AP (advanced placement) classes, he or she is not in a college preparatory high school program — and that, unfortunately accounts for about 75% of the students entering M-A, Woodside, Sequoia and Carlmont. My youngest child, based on his testing, would have been one of these 75% not on the fast-track to college, had we not been fortunate enough to learn of Summit in his 8th grade year and lucky enough to have his name drawn in the annual lotterey. Now in his Junior year, our son is excelling in his classes (AP, by the way), scoring high enough on his first SAT to qualify for entrance to a University of California, as well as, playing Varsity basketball and mentoring younger schoolmates — all while holding down a job at Lutticken's Deli.
My point is, he's not alone. Most of the students (or parents) at Summit will tell you the same story, regardless of economic or ethnic background. And if 7 or 8 students were expelled, perhaps there was good reason. Can your neighbor tell you how many students have been expelled at M-A or Woodside this year? Ever notice those numbers never seem to leave Superintendent Gemma's office?
It was Diane's vision that launched this educational jewel in our district, and it is the fine teachers who share and execute this vision to make it a reality. And while I've only met Diane briefly once or twice, I was impressed. More importantly, I'm impressed with what she's accomplished in 7 short years, against every roadblock Superintendent Patrick Gemma has thrown in front of her. She deserves this acclaim.

Peter,
awards for expulsions would go to other local schools first

Web Link

the rate of expulsion per college ready graduate in 2007-08
Carlmont 11.3% 31/274
M-A 14.2% 30/211
Redwood 50% 1/2
Sequoia 12.6% 21/166
Woodside 20.0% 34 / 170

but your neighbor probably already told you that.

A well deserved congratulations to Ms. Tavenner. From what I've read and observed, the award is well earned.

Peter and Stan, if you have nothing substantive to contribute, please be quiet. Repeating tired district talking points does nothing to improve the public schools (remember the charter schools are public schools). In rebuttal, here are a few facts:
1)Charter schools (including Everest and Summit) don't select their students, students apply and are selected by lottery.
2)Charter schools are demographically representative of the district community with a similar mix of students.
3)There is no tracking at Everest or Summit, all students are expected to drive toward a college prep track, hence the students actually integrate more effectively than ofetn happens in the larger, tracked comprehensive district schools.
4) Teachers are very involved with their students and offer time both after school and after each semester to assure that every student learns the necessary material.

How this refreshing, and apparently effective, method of educating high school students is seen as "ignoring the needs of low performing students" is beyond me. Quite the opposite, if a low performing student applies and enters these charter schools and is willing to stick with the program, they will get help and perhaps no longer be low performing. On the other hand, if you consider not socially promoting low performing students as ignoring their needs, then you may be on to something, but frankly, I think that's much more common in the comprehensive than charter public schools. If you read posts from a former Summit student as well as some parents who appear to be involved, you can see some information from some who are perhaps closer to the charters than your neighbor.

If it's talking points you're interested in, let me suggest the following:

Charter schools are public schools that are elite, but not elitist!

Congratulations again Diane and keep up the good work!

Well, as Peter,Peter, Peter said, he DOES have a legitimate point which is overcongratulated by all of Diane Tavenner's supporters friends and supporters who seem to share the same attitude on the most exquisitely conservative issues.
IF she is as close to Gary Hart as stated, he certainly has some well known credentials and she could not ask for a more contreversial endorsement.
As long as she is being praised, there should be questions answered for "Peter's" sake. What, for the sake of those who are not in the know, a CHARTER SCHOOL and how does it benefit the average local school goer? THAT, can only be answered by informing oneself by going to the search sites, and not just let her go with all these astonishing kudos, without knowing why.
Personally, as a very well to do man, I am glad that even the rich who are suffering in these times, are getting a break which some might find horribly unfair, but, think about those "gifted" children of the super rich who are not to blame for their families losses just like the majority of the unemployed kids parents? Diane must feel that educating these fortunate kids will be best for the area.
Peter may have something to say to oppose her, but what right has he got not to question her motives? It is something to examine CAREFULLY.

I love these forums. Stan, Peter and Gordo (who despises the rich and educated)

You are grasping at straws. Innuendo and here-say, that is all you have left. Summit works. Get over it.

Diane Tavenner and all her staff has done a fantastic job and created a successful model that benefits all the students willing to do the work. But you want to tear it down. It is easy to attack other, rather than examine what's working and what is not.

The Summit and Everest model does not fit ALL students needs. No model does. But it does benefit students who are willing to do hard work to achieve their goals. These students are the sames as you find in other traditional school -- socially, economically, intellectually and ethnically. Those who don't do their work or break the rules don't last. Like the way our society used to be when people were expected to be responsible for their actions.

You know what is really scary for SUHSD and CTA. The model works. Summit is proving that any motivated student, regardless of their demographics or educational ability has the possibility to graduate while fulfilling UC entrance requirements and go to a 4-year college. Every one. No other public school has achieved this goal. Summit is succeeding with every graduating class. Its hard work, but they doing it and not making excuses.

Stay tuned for "Waiting for Superman" coming later this year. I am glad to see that our secondary school education that has not evolved significantly since pre-WW II is finally being challenged. I am a Sequoia High School grad and my child has had a much better education at Summit than I ever had -- even back in the heyday of pre-prop 13. He works harder than I ever did and his teachers are fully engaged. It was the right choice for my child.

We bemoan the ratings that public education in California has declined so significantly in the past 30 years. Summit is doing more with less resources. Perhaps there is something there and perhaps this award to Ms Tavenner is very well deserved.

Too bad that she hasn't woken up like Diane Ravitch:

Web Link

Tavenner is an amazing woman who has almost singlehandedly brought school choice to the SUHSD students.

To read some of the critics' comments, you'd think that Summit/Everest skimmed off the best and the brightest. My observation is that this is not true. The high achieving math and science students typically don't go to the charters because those kids are already way ahead of grade level by 9th grade. The star athletes don't go to charters for obvious reasons. The charters tend to attract kids who have not been that excited about school -- kids, who if they stayed at the comprehensives, might drop out or leave for middle college.

I would love for my straight A Hillview student to apply to the charters, but he is certain he wants to go to M-A, where I know he will receive a fine education. Yet I am glad for his sake and for the sake of all his peers that the charters exist.

Tavenner & co have given students and their families a viable alternative to the comprehensives and a way to become newly engaged in learning. The fact that this has been achieved in the face of ridiculous obstacles is truly amazing.

If you don't want your kid to go to one of the existing charter schools, you don't have to apply. And if you don't like any of the existing charters, you are free to start your own (like Ms. Tavenner did!). For those of us who want to support public schools but recognize the failures of the big, comprehensive high schools, it's nice to have a choice.

I can't wait for the day when there are nothing but lots of small schools and charter schools that can truly cater to student's needs. Our big factory-like comprehensive schools - that originated in the 1950's and have changed little since - are dinosaurs.

For those of you interested in watching the video made by the California Charter Schools Association to honor Diane, it can be found on YouTube: Web Link

I have been following this thread and I am amazed at how unconscious some people are.
Some of the comments are based on hearsay or are biased opinions that are untrue. Peter, Stan and Gordo don’t know what they are talking about. Get real and give us all a break!! Something positive has happened here, and you can only react by trying to discredit Diane Tavenner with your mud slinging tactics. Have you done anything even close to what she has done?? This is the 21st century and the world is changing at a rapid pace. There is a need that is being filled by the charter schools. Not all students fit into the old model and frankly it didn’t work. That is why there were students who flunked or dropped out. Look around you and wake up. Get out of your house and check it out before you join the ranks of those who refuse to accept the concept of charter schools.

With all the resistance that Diane Tavenner received while establishing the two schools, it is truly amazing that she did not give up. Butting heads with the Sequoia Union High School District Board is not for the faint of heart. Diane is strong and has a heartfelt desire to make a difference. Her contributions have affected the lives of so many students and will be remembered long after we forget Pat Gemma.

Congratulations, Diane!! Your award is well deserved. Your tireless effort in fighting for what you believe in is proof that where there is a will, there is a way. Thank you for all that you have done in our community!

By the way folks, we did not fill any financial status paperwork when we applied and we went through the lottery, as did everyone else. So, there is no way that the charter schools were being selective is choosing the mix of students. The school population is indicative of the diversity that is in Redwood City.

R. Gordon,

I'll confess I found your post hard to follow but let me respond.
OK, many posters here have congratulated Ms. Tavenner, I don't see the problem. It is even possible to disagree with someone on the issues and still congratulate them.

Can you clarify what you mean by exquisitely conservative issues? I would separate out support of charters which I see as a mechanism of supporting innovation within education and supporting parental choice. This is very different than support for vouchers which has typically been a conservative wish. Actually, support for charters is something very much in line with the Obama adminstration's educational vision (listen to the Secretary of Education) so I would think that would make it more liberal/progressive.

I'll agree that Gary Hart has a colorful history and yet he is acknowledged as having a broad national vision and has served on multiple high level panels despite being forced out of a presidential race under scandalous conditions many years ago.

As far as asking questions about charter schools, that's fine, if you don't know something, ask questions. What is unfortunate on this thread is that there are many people who will make certain claims about charter schools in general, and Summit and Everest in particular, that are just factually incorrect. All public schools deserve to be questioned and held accountable for the job that they do, but asking questions is not the same as making false assertions.
I encourage anyone who wants to look at the record of Summit, to look at the publicaly available scores and high school ratings as one (but not the only) measure of the job that Ms. Tavenner has done. As far as the value to the rest of the community, there is at least one study I am aware of which shows that just having charter schools to provide an alternative choice for parents resulted in improvement in the local comprehensive schools. While I can't prove it, I strongly suspect that part of the innovations within SUHSD (smaller academies within larger comprehensives, junior college, etc.) have come into being to address concerns that students at Summit had smaller classes and were being prepared for college. More innovation with general adoption of the most successful pilot programs serves all the students in the district. I'd agree that the poor relationship between SUHSD and Summit/Everest has decreased the potential more general benefit that might have flowed from the charters, but I'm hopeful that with a new superintendant, the situation will improve. I'll repeat again, there is no rule that says that because someone is receiving an honor that they need to be investigated nor assumed to be dishonest, but I would encourage anyone concerned about people saying nice things about Ms. Tavenner to talk to parents who have students at these schools, visit the schools, absolutely decide for yourself whether the schools are innovative or no different than the usual. From my visits to these schools and interactions with students and teachers from these charter schools, there is a focus on learning and empowerment and a culture of diversity and respect for that culture. These are not all lily white kids from Portola Valley despite what some will say.

R.Gordon, as a well to do man, you should know that the common thread for the students at these schools is a focus on education and college preparation, not coming from a well-to-do family. Given that admission is by lottery, I don't see how you can say Diane is educating only the children of the fortunate, unless you are defining fortunate as those whose children were admitted by lottery. Does the posting of Summitgrad above, a self-described child of a single parent household without a lot of motivation, sound like one of those "fortunate" children. Can you explain how admission by lottery is giving anyone a "break which some might find horribly unfair"?
Seriously, there are many things about education that can be debated, but it's really not clear where you are coming from.

And as far as questioning Ms. Tavenner's motives, I presume you are implying that Peter has an obligation rather than having no right not to question her motives. While I'm not sure I agree with you on that, I'd certainly hate to live in a world where we don't have a right not to question someone else's motives. I'm all in favor of accountability, and it's fine to be skeptical of anyone involved in the use of public funds, but the next step is to do some investigation rather than spread lies and innuendo and I think that is the issue I would take with both you and Peter, Peter, Peter...





Peter may have something to say to oppose her, but what right has he got not to question her motives? It is something to examine CAREFULLY.

Concerned Parent -

You refute each and every point spectacularly, but this opposition has nothing to do with facts and logic. Some people are against things just "because."

Like you, I marvel at the beautifully crafted responses from the students! That is Ms. Tavenner's true reward and for that I congratulate her and these students.

I'd just like to say that the charter school parents who hint that a child can't get a good education at one of our "traditional" public schools, such as Woodside High, are dead wrong. My daughter went to Woodside, took a full load of AP classes, had incredible teachers, participated in an amazing sports program, and had advantages that just aren't available at a small school. She applied to a number of prestigious private and public schools after graduation, and was admitted to NYU, Tufts, Lewis and Clark, Berkeley, UCLA (where she received a $10,000/yr. scholarship)UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis and UC Santa Cruz. Yes, she had some large classes and Woodside and interacted with a very diverse student body - and she was very well-prepared for the real world. She chose to go to UC Berkeley where a half dozen of her classmates are also attending. Nine WHS students were admitted to UCL, more than from Menlo or Sacred Heart combined.
It is very sad that charter schools take money away from the existing public schools and make it harder for them to improve education for all students, not just a "lucky" few.

Proud Parent -

No one said that you can't get a good education at the larger schools and it's truly dishonest to suggest that's the position of those who criticize them. What we have said - REPEATEDLY (are you listening?) - is that they do an excellent job with the highly gifted (your daughter, perhaps) and the highly challenged. It's in that middle 80% where these larger schools consistently fail and their test score results and incredibly high drop out rates are undeniable.

I'm happy that your daughter fell into one of those favorable categories that receives appropriate attention and thrives. But for the majority of other students that's clearly not the case. Ask the parents of these kids and you'll often hear words like "distracted" and "getting lost" to describe their child's educational experience. Visit one of those schools and it's far too easy to observe. I was a guest lecturer at WHS for three years and I saw it first hand whenever I was there.

Charters, because they use a lottery for student select, do not (in fact cannot) "cherry pick" students as many suggest. And they don't "take money away from the existing schools" as you stated. Proud Parent, if 100 students transferred from Woodside to Carlmont, wouldn't you expect those funds to go with them to Carlmont so they could receive their benefits? Why would you view it so differently if they transferred to Everest? It's a public school, too. A student's funding isn't "owned" by their school, it belongs to the child.

So with near identical demographics and per student funding as the comprehensives, how do you possibly explain the enormous difference in success (measured by attendance, test scores, drop out rates or college entrance) that is so clearly enjoyed by charters?

Our aging comprehensives can learn a lot from the success of these charter schools. Perhaps that is why President Obama's administration has been such a strong proponent of charters.

I always debate with myself to get involved in these debates. I doubt any minds are changed by these forums.

I have taught at both Sequoia High and at Summit.
I am a parent of an M-A student and a Summit student.

M-A is not for everyone, Sequoia is not for everyone, Summit is not for everyone. Charters offer choice.

But I am continually appalled by posts based on ignorance. I would like to inform, but I am not planning on changing minds. If you really want to see for yourself, please visit Summit. That is the only way to see what the place is really like.

Summit does not cost the district money - we get roughly $6000 per student from the state; SUHSD gets over $10,000. SUHSD pockets the difference.

Summit does not pick and choose well-prepared, affluent kids. Based on 7th and 8th STAR data from the past three years, Summit students are LOWER prepared (slightly) than the district students. With this year's class we have surpassed the 40% mark for students on Free and Reduced lunch.

Summit's expulsion rate is far LOWER than the districts, though admittedly this year has been tough. We do NOT expel people for not "fitting" our model. All expulsions have been for violent behavior or drug use. We also take kids who have been expelled from other schools.

Summit works. However, you can also get a great education at the large, comprehensive schools. Both my kids are doing well in school. But, I'm glad I've had the choice to send them to the two very different schools they've attended. They are very different children.

SUHSD and the entire community should embrace Summit, Everest, and their successes. We waste valuable, limited resources in this protracted battle to the detriment of our children. This political turf war should end. There is a need to educate all. We need all of these schools and every last penny we have to provide the best education possible.

Proud Parent,

It sounds like you come by that name honestly and that's great. It also sounds like your Woodside grad will go on to be a productive independent member of society which is I think what we all want for our and others children. It sounds like Woodside was a fine environment for your child as I suspect it is for many, but not all students. I was the type of high school student who likely would have excelled at Woodside as well, having gone to a public high school with approximately 4000 students and many resources.
My children are all rather unique (yeah I know all parents say that), but with regard to educational environment, some would do well at a Woodside type setting and some would likely fall through the cracks (based on observations in junior high school, discussions with parents of students at the various high schools, and observations at the various schools (both comprehensive and charter). I suspect at least one of my children would do particularly poorly in an environment like Woodside (that's more about the child than the school) and believe that he will do better with the smaller school environment provided at the Summit/Everest schools. While I think we should be proud of the programs offered at the comprehensives, having the charters around as an alternative is a good thing and that would likely not be the case without the efforts of Ms. Tavenner and others. Praise for Ms. Tavenner should not be taken as lack of pride ofr students like your child and hopefully soon you'll be able to post as Proud Cal Parent!

Concerned Parent...
With your very well written and slightly tongue in cheek reponse, I am happy to know how all of these proud parents just stay focused on the fairness (no doubt)of Ms.Tavenner's motivations for ALL students of every income level.
As a person of privilege and having gone to private schools both back East and abroad, that was my own idea being that I wanted the very best education, and the advantage of seeing how students from other areas and cultures interacted. To my thinking, I was fortunate and believe it led to my not being insulated and have more of an open mind to people all over the world.
That, could happen here if schools permitted mixed cultures, incomes and if the focus was more on the quality of education and those with substantial bank accounts,built schools with those donations which included programs that have been abandoned because of the recession. It would be more democratic and a better idea in this fast growing world where equality is something rarely mentioned.

R Gordon, thank you for your clarification. I can attest, with pride, as a Everest Parent that Everest is doing a fantastic job at serving the needs of a very diverse student population and opening a world of possibilities for all.

Our Ninth Grader just returned from an overnight study trip where he toured two college campuses. They are being introduced to the possibility, as freshmen, that they can aspire and achieve anything they put their minds to. Their minds are definitely invited to be "open."

I'm not sure if Everest will ever find patrons like those you refer to in the Eastern part of the country, but we as parents are each giving to the school as there are many needs. The great part of this is that we are building a community -- like what schools used to have a couple of generations ago.

This is Ms. Tavenner's vision and one we support 100%. We have talked with other SUHSD parents who have heard, third hand from other sources, that she is demanding and not willing to compromise. The Diane Tavenner we know is a tireless advocate for our students -- but of course, we are the beneficiaries of her passion and persistence. However, when you think about the profiles of great leaders -- compromise and politic are not chief attributes. Persistence, adherence to one's principals and endurance are the qualities that make a leader of change. If she has ruffled feathers at the District level, I believe it would be because her and her staff's vision for these Charter schools would be significantly compromised. She has had to fight every step of the way. Our world is changing, and Ms Tavenner is offering a an alternative and challenge to the "business as usual" notion education. Not to say that others are not doing extraordinary work in the traditional schools as well (particularly Mr. Leeper at MA).

I so wish all of you who speak as PROUD, CONCERNED,GRATEFUL,CONCERNED AND SIMPLE, would just step down from their lofty and humble platforms and recognize that this effort is not really what one would call THE AMERICAN WAY where the BEST of education be shared by all in systems further spread than those charter schools which are downright elitist in principle.....Your admiration does not focus on anyone but special and not necessarily gifted children and who do you think you are fooling?
Even those from this "special area" (I barely know what that means when I read these posts) and when I converse with the so called "privileged" who are as ill taught as any kid I know.
Don't try to shove your kids into places they may be buying their ways into. Have equal testing or send them to schools already established as "Prep Schools" in every state that has them.
It would make more sense to begin testing mid school students and NOT thinking about WHERE they are going because of a zip code, being bussed ("oh that would be so expensive")It is all B.S. and everyone with a child knows that this Diane person is just playing the whole thing as if she drank her tea from Limoges with her pinky out.
Be honest and serve every student with equality if it means building larger schools with diverse ethnicities,incomes, and eagerness to learn. Fraudulent facades are just so hard to take in these posts.

DIANE RAVITCH diane ravitch
In case no one went to the WEB LINK suggested by an M-A parent and the amount of teachers laid off today March 15, simply have to Google either the NY TIMES with Google Diane Ravitch's name, to find out how you have been played.She is a REALLY brilliant spokeperson for the school system...the BEST...
I appears that the "parent" kept it low key and as insignificant as possible, just to be able to say, she posted it.
It totally confirms what a hideous mindset is being nurtured and how today,when I was able to speak to a S.C Justice from the Bay Area, who has been aware of the public school system from which he graduated in San Francisco,is investigating the San Mateo School System, which I personally feel is as determined to set itself apart
from the entire company.It has been looking into the hundreds of complaints of the San Mateo County Bldg. commission as well and for a longer time. Money and business cannot beat the government especially where taxes are concerned today and where a lot of families are affected in lower middle class income situations.

R. Gordon.

You are simply incoherent. I'm not sure what lofty cloud you live on. But I find your train of thought derailed.

Have you visited Summit or Everest? If not, then you should keep your preconceived notions within your mansion of means. You are the elitist shoving others into boxes you have conceived to match up with your world view.