|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
It’s all about School Choice!
School Segregation is a choice. All these recently retired politicians helped to make those choices. But if you asked any of these politicians why they did what they did to the Redwood City School District (RCSD), they would claim that “School Choice” is a good thing. Pro-choice is really all about pro-education because it gives parents a chance to pick and choose a path that serves their children best.
“The School of Choice program in RCSD offers families the opportunity to select the program or school that best fits their child’s unique needs, interests, and learning styles. With a variety of specialized programs, RCSD’s School of Choice provides diverse educational environments to inspire student success and engagement. This flexible approach allows parents to explore the district and find the best match for their child’s academic and personal development.” [RCSD]
“Magnet Schools might specialize in certain curricula like STEM, arts, or vocational training. They might be leading to improved educational opportunities. They support diversity, resulting in better academic performance and social dynamics while maintaining lower dropout rates and achieving high college acceptance rates.” [Magnet School commercial]
Alright, fair enough, we got the loud advertising message. But let’s look a little bit behind the curtains and put that theory to the test before we start clapping.
Local Control Equals Anti-Choice
Currently too much Local Control is basically at the core of all education evil in California. The biggest problem education faces in San Mateo County is the high number of school districts run by people who often lack the necessary skills to run educational institutions. While this sounds like a harsh performance assessment, the varying quality of our school districts must be looked at with an eye on the varying quality of leadership. And with varying leadership qualities, any county must end up with “good school districts” and “bad school districts.”
Which responsible parent wouldn’t want to protect their child from lousy school district leadership and join a better managed school district? Unfortunately, school districts themselves are all about restricting educational opportunities purely by existing. You can’t just send your child to the closest public school building in town; you need to send your child to the school building these school districts have determined for you. Basically school districts decide your child’s fate by diminishing your choice, they are clearly anti-choice. So anyone promoting and protecting school districts must, by definition, be anti-choice and, therefore, anti-education, correct?
Are Pro-Choice people really Pro-Choice
The county has one particular commission that is protecting local control. The County Committee on School District Organization (CCSDO) is the committee that decides what districts should look like and if people can choose the district or school best suited for them and their children. This committee is often very anti-choice and, therefore, anti-education as well. So, the solution must be to get more pro-choice people on that commission and promote better educational opportunities in the process. A handful of pro-choicers could really clean up this district mess, correct? Luckily, Redwood City currently has two outspoken pro-choice candidates on that committee. Pro-choicers like Dennis McBride and Hillary Paulson should see many parents and neighborhoods succeeding with their choices.
But let’s look at a few examples before we celebrate.
Example 2013: Loma Road, San Carlos
Before a landslide changed the configuration of the neighborhood, this neighborhood sent their kids to Redwood City School District (RCSD). Since the landslide damaged the street, families in this neighborhood decided attending San Carlos School District (SCSD) makes more sense. The real street address of these houses is already San Carlos, so redistricting to the San Carlos School District would make sense on several levels. It’s only about seven houses and, therefore, no big deal to either of the two school districts. Especially a pro-choicer-district like RCSD must surely agree with this – they would not want to look like “school choice” and anti-education hypocrites, would they?
Example Loma Road: Abort – Strike One!
But apparently it’s not that simple. Speaking against this choice – and seemingly violating their core principles – were RCSD’s pro-choicers Superintendent Christensen, Director of Magnet Schools John Baker, School Board Trustees Dennis McBride, Shelly Masur and Hilary Paulson. I mean, John Baker is a “Director of Magnet Schools.” There is not one made-up title in the world that shouts “Education Choice” louder than that one. And still, he was speaking out against school choice and, therefore, against education. In the end, CCSDO member Hilary Paulson and her colleagues voted against the choice of the Loma Road neighbors to join the far better San Carlos School District (SCSD). Ouch!
Example 2021: Woodside Height
A part of the Woodside Heights neighborhood has asked to be redistricted. The neighborhood is close to Alameda de Las Pulgas (ADLP), which means the nearest elementary school is Las Lomitas ES in Menlo Park. It’s only 1 mile away and has bike lanes all the way. Home addresses in this neighborhood will say Woodside or Atherton, but for whatever reason, residents of Woodside Height and Woodside Hill neighborhoods are stuck with Redwood City School District rather than the far better Woodside Elementary, which would fit their addresses. That looks like a huge mistake in district mapping, and basically, all these neighborhoods want to be out of RCSD and join the better-managed Las Lomitas School District (LLSD) instead. It is closer, safer, and more convenient than crossing I-84 or I-82 to get to RCSD schools.
“[RCSD’s] plan introduces tremendous and unprecedented safety hazards to these schoolchildren.” [CCSDO petition]
Surely, members of the most pro-choice school districts in the county will show their pro-education heart for the people in these neighborhoods and let them redistrict.
Example Woodside Height: Abort – Strike Two!
“Superintendent Baker stated the Redwood City School District opposes the territory transfer petition. He, along with Chief Business Officer Aquino-Dichoso, Board President MacAvoy, Board Vice President Díaz-Slocum, Trustee Lawson, and Trustee Márquez shared the reasoning behind the district’s position.” [CCSDO Meeting Minutes]
Pro-choice educators showed up strong for this meeting. RCSD brought in John Baker, Alisa MacAvoy, Maria Diaz-Slocum, Janet Lawson, Cecilia Márquez, Mike Wells, Dennis McBride and Hillary Paulson. But something went wrong. All pro-choicers opposed the choice, and Board President and super-choicer Alisa MacAvoy even thanked them for it.
“Board President MacAvoy thanked Superintendent Baker and CBO Aquino-Dichoso for their comments during the [CCSDO] meeting.” [RCSD Meeting Minutes]
In the end, the redistricting was turned down by committee members Dennis McBride and Hillary Paulson. Why would outspoken pro-choicers keep doing that to other parents?
Example 2021: Sky Londa
Families along Skyline Blvd. should have the choice to send their kids to either the western school districts (La Honda/Pescadero and Cabrillo) or to the East (Woodside, Portola Valley, Redwood City, etc.) based on where their parents work or what is most convenient to them. It makes little sense to drive the kids to one side while the parents have to drive to the other. Either have a K-12 school somewhere along Skyline, including transportation or give those few parents up there the opportunity to choose. Surely pro-choicers would understand this scenario.
Example Sky Londa: Abort – Strike Three!
But here is what happens to people who want to make that simple choice. The family was basically turned down by the board, including the two Redwood City trustees, Dennis McBride and Hilary Paulson – both, of course, took advantage of school choice for their children but didn’t want to grant the same courtesy to others.
“The CCSDO has the latitude to do what they think is right, … [as long as] to ensure they are not doing something that is right locally but wrong for the state.” [CCSDO meeting minutes]
Why are Pro-Choicers turning down choice?
Dennis McBride, Hillary Paulson, Ted Lempert, John Baker, Jan Christensen, Alisa MacAvoy, Maria Diaz-Slocum, Janet Lawson, Cecilia Marquez, and Mike Wells are all in on “School Choice” when it came to their own families’ educational choices. So what changed when others wanted to make better choices for their children? What are the arguments made by these pro-choicers when turning down applications?
Turns out the committee is using nine different questions to evaluate the petition for redistricting:
- The reorganized districts will be adequate in terms of number of pupils enrolled.
- The districts are each organized based on a substantial community identity.
- The proposal will result in an equitable division of property and facilities of the original district or districts.
- The reorganization of the districts will preserve each affected district’s ability to educate students in an integrated environment and will not promote racial or ethnic discrimination or segregation.
- Any increase in costs to the state as a result of the proposed reorganization will be insignificant and otherwise incidental to the reorganization.
- The proposed reorganization will continue to promote sound education performance and will not significantly disrupt the educational programs in the districts affected by the proposed reorganization.
- Any increase in school facilities costs as a result of the proposed reorganization will be insignificant and otherwise incidental to the reorganization.
- The proposed reorganization is primarily designed for purposes other than to significantly increase property values.
- The proposed reorganization will continue to promote sound fiscal management and not cause a substantial negative effect on the fiscal status of the proposed district or any existing district affected by the proposed reorganization.
School Choice leads to School Segregation
It is apparent from these nine questions that Ted Lempert and Nancy Magee from the County Board of Education know very well that school choice will often lead to segregation, discrimination, loss of community identity, financial ruin, and problems with facility costs. Even private property values are considered. Sound fiscal management, sound educational outcomes, and prevention of school segregation seem to be the main focus points behind the county’s decision to oppose the choice. County Board of Education Trustee Ted Lempert knows this very well, County Superintendent of Schools Nancy Magee knows it, and committee members Dennis McBride and Hillary Paulson know it. Yet, when it comes to segregated “Choice School” districts like San Mateo-Foster City (SMFCSD) or Redwood City School District (RCSD), we are made to believe they can’t put one and one together. People who teach our children Math cannot make the connection from:
A] School Choice at the county level can lead to school segregation.
B] RCSD has created school segregation and is in constant budget trouble. Therefore, RCSD must be violating our nine rules!
That seems to be a really, really easy conclusion to draw from all the evidence by the year 1999 or basically the last century. But by 2025 there is absolutely no doubt that other motives were always at play there.
Three Strikes – you are out!
Three times in these examples, parents wanted to make a pro-education choice for their children. Three times, they tried to get out of a flawed school district that had been chosen for them. Three times, pro-choicers Dennis McBride and Hilary Paulson could have taken a pro-educational stance. Three times, they said, “Abort!”
Almost all trustees, including County Board of Education trustee Ted Lempert, took advantage of Redwood City’s “School of Choice” program. In the case of their own choices – no scrutiny was applied. Nobody cared that children of friends and family were attending a school with 95% affluent children in a district that only features 40% of them. That, my friends, is called School Segregation – neither Ted Lempert, Dennis McBride, nor Hillary Paulson apparently cared too much about that problem.
Now, if your reaction to this farce is to think about George Orville’s quote from Animal Farm, nobody would blame you:
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
[Animal Farm, George Orwell]
More Information
- CCSDO: Meeting Minutes
- CCSDO: Example 1 – Loma Road
- CCSDO: Example 2 – Woodside Height
- CCSDO: Example 3 – Sky Londa
Editor’s Note: The views and opinions expressed in all blog posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Redwood City Pulse or its staff.
“Three times, they tried to get out of a flawed school district that had been chosen for them.” You are wrong. The parents made the CHOICE when they CHOSE where to live. School district information is available when purchasing or renting a home. If the parents wanted their children to attend “better” schools with more resources, then they should have CHOSEN to live in a more expensive neighborhood. If they could not afford it, they should have CHOSEN a more lucrative career path. If it needed additional education, they could have CHOSEN to be more ambitious during their own education journey, studied harder, gotten into a better university, and maybe committed more time by getting a graduate degree or two. So, you are wrong, Gerd, we all have CHOICES in life. What you cannot do is force your way to the front of the line if you did not CHOOSE to do the work required to earn a spot.
Thank you for this great comment. I would like to follow-up with three more points:
Point 1: “they should have CHOSEN to live in a more expensive neighborhood.”
If my address reads Menlo Park, Atherton, San Carlos, or Woodside I might not be aware that I’m not part of MPSD, LLSD, SCSD or WSD. In that case I’m double screwed, because I’m living in a very expensive neighborhood but might still have been assigned to a segregated school in a segregated school district like Redwood City. When I chose or inherited my home, I might not have thought about children at all. The school district maps are very complicated to read and understand and the school attendance zones are even weirder and can change very quickly.
Point 2: “If the parents wanted their children to attend “better” schools with more resources.”
RCSD is the district with more resources than San Carlos or Redwood Shores, but everyone I know would gladly transfer to those districts, because they spend more of their resources on the kids, whereas Redwood City spends most of its money on buildings, parking lots, fences, security cameras, their expensive downtown office, an outsized administration, and soon “Workforce Housing”. RCSD spends a record low 28% of its budget on what is commonly referred to as “Education”. Nobody is forcing them, that is the choice RCSD trustees have been making.
Point 3: I can’t tell if you are pro-choice or anti-choice? Are you saying people are assigned a school and parents should just suck it up, get involved and make the best of it? I can totally see and support that view. This is how it works in many cities and countries with very good schools.