It's been interesting, this new role of "Rallying for Public Charter Schools Mom" I have inadvertently become.
Interesting turn of events. Watch this timeline:
*Tuesday, after three reschedules, we meet with Michael Dembrow. When I return, I report the findings to my yahoo parents group and we have a discussion about how to better answer the opposition. It's very fruitful.
*Wednesday, my neighbor emails me (she is a Dembrow supporter AND a charter school supporter) a constituent email she got from Dembrow of some upcoming public meetings Dembrow is holding. One was a coffee house meeting yesterday (Saturday morning) the other is an official town hall meeting coming up later, both of which I didn't attend. Probably a good thing. Mr. Dembrow needs to hear from others besides me. I post these meeting dates to the parent's group seeing if anyone wants to attend.
A team of three did, and here is their report. I sense he is moving a bit on his position. I also sense that others just need to be educated on this topic. Here is Mark's report:
My wife, Julie, and Paula from this forum, and I were at the meeting with Michael Dembrow this morning. He was pretty generous sharing his thoughts with us.
I didn't feel comfortable exploring the details of his views in an open meeting like that. I'm not good at this kind of thing anyway. But I asked him a few general questions, and got some pretty direct answers. He said that he had some problems with the "model" of ORCA, although he was not opposed to public charter schools. He recommended the "North Bend model" as an virtual school alternative - but we didn't pursue this further than to point out that it was not a K-12 model.
We listened while he explained the arguments about "disruption" by "dropouts". Paula addressed this with her story, I think with good effect. Julie said that "a dropout from this program is not the same as an education dropout."
He drew attention to what he characterized as an unfair or unbalanced "profit" enjoyed by the tiny school district of Scio, implying that this was to the detriment of other districts. We made a few scattered comments to the effect that, this is what is available now to fit our choices and it would be disruptive to thousands of families to have it end. I said that this program has drawn homeschoolers into the public schools (many homeschoolers, I can tell you, count it as a defeat). I would think that a common school advocate would count this as a victory .
We were rewarded for our patience by hearing him say "it's my inclination to oppose any legislation that would shut down ORCA 'prematurely' ."
I asked him, "does that mean that you would favor a waiver of the 50% rule if applying that rule to ORCA means that the program would end before something is developed to take its place, something that seems more 'fair' and 'sensible' to you?"
He said, "That would be my inclination" (to support the waiver).
At the end of the meeting he invited us to the April 1 meeting, and mentioned that video of the hearing will be offered "live, on-line". He recommended that we would write short position statements if you aren't able to attend, addressed to the chairman of the committee - or the committee register - I'm sorry I don't know which he said, and I don't know how to do that anyway. Pointers sought.
Anyway, such position statements should address the concept of online charter schools and other larger issues, in preference to the technical details of the bills themselves ( which he implied would probably be gutted and stuffed later ). These communications would be read directly into the record, just as scheduled remarks are entered into the record.
He also invited those who watch the hearing to email him afterward with their thoughts. I would recommend being brief and pointed.
As I say, I'm not good at this sort of thing. I don't like politics and resent the need for political activism. I'm a "mind my own business" kind of guy. But I hope that this is helpful to all of you.
Mark
Here is Paula's response of the same meeting:
Mark,
This is an excellent summary of the day.
I couldn't tell that this forum was uncomfortable to you. You handled yourself quite well and Julie's comments were fantastic, perfect timing, hitting the points out of the ball park! I felt that I was the nervous wreck. I just hoped that I didn't come off too blunt or unintelligent.
It's my observation that the reaction of those around the table had more of an impact on him. I smiled when the woman across from him made the statement that school choice in any venue should be allowed. She was the one that said money shouldn't be an issue if there is a successful program: Kids are what count. It's a small price to pay for our future. When everyone agreed, I guess he lost the argument. I'm thinking that that town hall meeting at Southest is one we should all go to.
I'm glad that we had the opportunity to address the "distraction" and "drop out" issue. I really appreciated the back up from Julie with the clarification of a drop out. I'm so appreciative of the advice and rebuttals we get from everyone in our group. Without the exchange of information, I know that I wouldn't be as effective.
You are all such wonderful ORCA Advocates!
Keeping with the pioneering spirit...... ......
Paula
Mar 29, 2009
Mar 27, 2009
Youtube Nonsense
Just because I have laughed hard at this and also visited the dentist this week.
I had a long talk with my dentist this week while waiting for the Novocain to take effect. We both chuckled about this video. I told my dentist, "I want what he had." I didn't get what David had.
Long story short, my new crown got sidetracked for two weeks since my dentist had to cut out a lot of gum tissue that had grown down in between two teeth. Trust me, I would rather have two root canals than have gum tissue removed again. The temporary crown is in and is packed with putty to keep the bleeding gums at bay. I'll keep you posted.
I had a long talk with my dentist this week while waiting for the Novocain to take effect. We both chuckled about this video. I told my dentist, "I want what he had." I didn't get what David had.
Long story short, my new crown got sidetracked for two weeks since my dentist had to cut out a lot of gum tissue that had grown down in between two teeth. Trust me, I would rather have two root canals than have gum tissue removed again. The temporary crown is in and is packed with putty to keep the bleeding gums at bay. I'll keep you posted.
It Can't Be That Easy!
In years past, with our rodent problem, there are more than two rats. I killed my first two this year in the traps and now......nuthin'. Our best year, we killed eight but that was in the later part of summer. Several of those rats were not big either, I think they were teenagers.
So, where did they go? Since it is only March, I am wondering if I got the Mama and the Papa, and Mama was either preggers or there is a nest somewhere that has now been left unattended with young that I am sure have perished by now. It has been almost a week, and we have no rat activity outside, none in the garage and and the trap is still set where it was last weekend.
Am I thinking we're rat free for the season? No. I think our pre-emptive strike was definitely effective.
So, where did they go? Since it is only March, I am wondering if I got the Mama and the Papa, and Mama was either preggers or there is a nest somewhere that has now been left unattended with young that I am sure have perished by now. It has been almost a week, and we have no rat activity outside, none in the garage and and the trap is still set where it was last weekend.
Am I thinking we're rat free for the season? No. I think our pre-emptive strike was definitely effective.
Mar 24, 2009
Mrs. G Goes to the Capital
Our visit with the distinguished Michael Dembrow is over. I sent a letter to the ORCA parents group giving my take on the meeting. I am going to share it with you. Keep in mind, I am sharing this with the parents so we can hone our answers and deepen the meat of the conversations all of us have been having with our legislators.
When I refer to the 50/50 thing, that is referring to the post-ORCA, ruling that came down requiring that online charter schools have 50% of their online students from that school district. That would succinctly prevent small school districts from hosting online schools. If you ask me, it also disenfranchises them and prevents them fiscally from doing better. Also, when I refer to b and m schools, I am referring to regular schools. It is virtual school speak for "bricks and mortar schools". Anyway, here is my summary:
What I learned from Michael Dembrow:
1) We hear the proponents of 767 refer to "for profit" a lot. I get what they are saying now. The Scio school district, a very small school district, receives enrollment dollars for ORCA students. Enrollment dollars they wouldn't normally receive. That is what they are referring to, "the Scio SD is profiting from this online school." Got it. After ORCA started suddenly bunches of other small school districts applied for online charter schools giving the impression that they wanted those enrollment dollars, that they wouldn't have normally received before, and it gives the impression of "profiting" from state tax dollars (OUR tax dollars).
It also pits school districts in competition with each other for enrollment dollars. Okay, I get it. It's stupid, but I get it. (No I didn't say that.) Why? Because the spirit of charter schools is to establish competetion and competancy in schools. Competition creates excellence. If Scio's online charter school is competing with several other online charter schools from other districts, then you betcha all of them will make sure their students are performing to standards of excellence. That is the whole spirit of charter schools. I did say that. I also said, if Scio is taking on these kids as being responsible for their education, then why should my district (as it does now) receive enrollment tax dollars? They aren't doing anything for my kid!
But I have a real practical response to that.....what did they expect to happen when they approved the charter in the first place?? This is a consequence that they should have easily foreseen at ORCA's inception, not five years later to punish ORCA. Not ORCA's problem if you ask me.
And that is why the 50/50 thing came into play.
2) He also said that ORCA has a 30% "dropout" rate annually, meaning students stop and then go back to their b and m schools. I told him I disagree that number is so high based strictly upon our poll, but I could be wrong. He said this was "disruptive". I was flabbergasted at that, but held my breath. That is "disruptive"? I can see what he is saying though, so we need a response to that. Students that do come and go between virtual schools then back into the districts, I can see his point. Let's find a good answer to that.
I also pointed out that b and m schools also have a drop out rate of 12% and that results in students not being prepared to face a workplace or a job market. I think that is disruptive.
3) He also said he understood that is costs ORCA $7,000 to educate a kid annually and I disagreed with that. He said he knew that nationwide in other ORCA schools, that number has been considerably less, which is why there is a bill to cut funding for ORCA per student allotment. Well, I told him I heard $4,000. Both my husband and I pointed out vehemently, it's still cheaper either way than a b and m school and doing a better job. That is worthy of notice.
He also kept saying "Oregon's tax dollars". At one point, my great hubbie interrupted him and said "MY tax dollars. I pay those as well, and have a say in how they are used."
4) On a practical level, he does not like online schooling as a school model. Which is why it will take him changing his heart, not his mind on this issue. I asked him so even if he disagrees with this as a model, he does need to remember that Oregon recognizes online accredited teaching degrees, and hires those teachers. He agreed that I had a point.
I also pointed out that ORCA or any other online school has said online education is not for everyone and everyone agrees to that. It isn't for everyone. It is for a small demographic, just like charter schools are. They are targeted to a certain demographic, and offer great choices to parents. That is the point of charter schools!
5) He does think there is a need for a statewide online program. He asked, "Would you be for that?" I said "Yes, but the problem is this. I know the wheels of bureaucracy. That will take 8-10 years to fully implement. (I pointed to my son) I need a good education for him right now." I also said in my perfect world, a statewide system would be implemented, ORCA could continue to exist until it is ready to go, then the two combine. Is that such a bad idea? He laughed at me so apparently it is. I thought it was a good idea.
6) He also had some serious scrutinies of online success. I pointed out to him, if we are going to put virtual schooling, specifically ORCA, through such scrutiny (both fiscally and academically), he needs to be prepared to put the same kind of scrutiny on regular b and m schools, and "I think we both agree, b and m schools wouldn't pass muster." He agreed! OH MY WORD! He shook his head yes to that. He also agreed that b and m schools do pay too much to educate kids and that it is administration pay heavy.
7) He did argue that there is "no union for school administrators" and leaned back and chuckled at that. I asked then, if that is so funny, who is that listed right on the top of the bill. "Oh that is just a lobbyist group". Okay, let's split that hair a bit further, which is worse a lobbyist group that truly is in it for the money, and getting paid to lobby or a union that at least pretends to have it's employees interests at heart. I dunno, but he caught our drift on that.
So there are my finer points of our meeting yesterday. Those are what the opposition is thinking and feeling. I hope I was able to convey it meaningfully. I also hope it helps us to get into the mind of the opposition a bit and have even better discussions for our side.
When I refer to the 50/50 thing, that is referring to the post-ORCA, ruling that came down requiring that online charter schools have 50% of their online students from that school district. That would succinctly prevent small school districts from hosting online schools. If you ask me, it also disenfranchises them and prevents them fiscally from doing better. Also, when I refer to b and m schools, I am referring to regular schools. It is virtual school speak for "bricks and mortar schools". Anyway, here is my summary:
What I learned from Michael Dembrow:
1) We hear the proponents of 767 refer to "for profit" a lot. I get what they are saying now. The Scio school district, a very small school district, receives enrollment dollars for ORCA students. Enrollment dollars they wouldn't normally receive. That is what they are referring to, "the Scio SD is profiting from this online school." Got it. After ORCA started suddenly bunches of other small school districts applied for online charter schools giving the impression that they wanted those enrollment dollars, that they wouldn't have normally received before, and it gives the impression of "profiting" from state tax dollars (OUR tax dollars).
It also pits school districts in competition with each other for enrollment dollars. Okay, I get it. It's stupid, but I get it. (No I didn't say that.) Why? Because the spirit of charter schools is to establish competetion and competancy in schools. Competition creates excellence. If Scio's online charter school is competing with several other online charter schools from other districts, then you betcha all of them will make sure their students are performing to standards of excellence. That is the whole spirit of charter schools. I did say that. I also said, if Scio is taking on these kids as being responsible for their education, then why should my district (as it does now) receive enrollment tax dollars? They aren't doing anything for my kid!
But I have a real practical response to that.....what did they expect to happen when they approved the charter in the first place?? This is a consequence that they should have easily foreseen at ORCA's inception, not five years later to punish ORCA. Not ORCA's problem if you ask me.
And that is why the 50/50 thing came into play.
2) He also said that ORCA has a 30% "dropout" rate annually, meaning students stop and then go back to their b and m schools. I told him I disagree that number is so high based strictly upon our poll, but I could be wrong. He said this was "disruptive". I was flabbergasted at that, but held my breath. That is "disruptive"? I can see what he is saying though, so we need a response to that. Students that do come and go between virtual schools then back into the districts, I can see his point. Let's find a good answer to that.
I also pointed out that b and m schools also have a drop out rate of 12% and that results in students not being prepared to face a workplace or a job market. I think that is disruptive.
3) He also said he understood that is costs ORCA $7,000 to educate a kid annually and I disagreed with that. He said he knew that nationwide in other ORCA schools, that number has been considerably less, which is why there is a bill to cut funding for ORCA per student allotment. Well, I told him I heard $4,000. Both my husband and I pointed out vehemently, it's still cheaper either way than a b and m school and doing a better job. That is worthy of notice.
He also kept saying "Oregon's tax dollars". At one point, my great hubbie interrupted him and said "MY tax dollars. I pay those as well, and have a say in how they are used."
4) On a practical level, he does not like online schooling as a school model. Which is why it will take him changing his heart, not his mind on this issue. I asked him so even if he disagrees with this as a model, he does need to remember that Oregon recognizes online accredited teaching degrees, and hires those teachers. He agreed that I had a point.
I also pointed out that ORCA or any other online school has said online education is not for everyone and everyone agrees to that. It isn't for everyone. It is for a small demographic, just like charter schools are. They are targeted to a certain demographic, and offer great choices to parents. That is the point of charter schools!
5) He does think there is a need for a statewide online program. He asked, "Would you be for that?" I said "Yes, but the problem is this. I know the wheels of bureaucracy. That will take 8-10 years to fully implement. (I pointed to my son) I need a good education for him right now." I also said in my perfect world, a statewide system would be implemented, ORCA could continue to exist until it is ready to go, then the two combine. Is that such a bad idea? He laughed at me so apparently it is. I thought it was a good idea.
6) He also had some serious scrutinies of online success. I pointed out to him, if we are going to put virtual schooling, specifically ORCA, through such scrutiny (both fiscally and academically), he needs to be prepared to put the same kind of scrutiny on regular b and m schools, and "I think we both agree, b and m schools wouldn't pass muster." He agreed! OH MY WORD! He shook his head yes to that. He also agreed that b and m schools do pay too much to educate kids and that it is administration pay heavy.
7) He did argue that there is "no union for school administrators" and leaned back and chuckled at that. I asked then, if that is so funny, who is that listed right on the top of the bill. "Oh that is just a lobbyist group". Okay, let's split that hair a bit further, which is worse a lobbyist group that truly is in it for the money, and getting paid to lobby or a union that at least pretends to have it's employees interests at heart. I dunno, but he caught our drift on that.
So there are my finer points of our meeting yesterday. Those are what the opposition is thinking and feeling. I hope I was able to convey it meaningfully. I also hope it helps us to get into the mind of the opposition a bit and have even better discussions for our side.
Tuesday
8:00 am Dental visit. Finish some of the dental work that didn't get done last summer.
2:45 pm Arrive at Rep. Michael Dembrow's office to see what his explanation is for supporting State Bill 767 is.
I have a headache already and I am not sure which of my prospects for tomorrow is causing it. Which is worse? Dental drilling or listening to a politician give me canned political crap.
I'll get back to you on that.
Honestly, I would greatly appreciate your prayers for my talk with Michael Dembrow. I only have 15 minutes with him, and I would really love to say something to him to get him to realize he is just a puppet for union fat cats at the expense of quality education for Oregon's youth.
2:45 pm Arrive at Rep. Michael Dembrow's office to see what his explanation is for supporting State Bill 767 is.
I have a headache already and I am not sure which of my prospects for tomorrow is causing it. Which is worse? Dental drilling or listening to a politician give me canned political crap.
I'll get back to you on that.
Honestly, I would greatly appreciate your prayers for my talk with Michael Dembrow. I only have 15 minutes with him, and I would really love to say something to him to get him to realize he is just a puppet for union fat cats at the expense of quality education for Oregon's youth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)