The Santa Barbara School Board meeting ended with shouts of joy this week. Less than six months removed from being only one boardmember vote away from closure, Santa Barbara’s only dual-language immersion school — formerly known as César Chávez Charter School — got a unanimous vote of support on Tuesday night from the very same board that nearly pulled the plug on it last November. Though details still need to be worked out and certain stipulations met, the newly named Adelante Charter School had its petition for an entirely new charter approved via a 5-0 vote this week — a crucial hurdle to clear as it aims to reinvent itself in the eyes of the state and the district after years of chronically poor performing test scores.
Faced with an expired charter, darker than dim prospects for renewal, and the dubious distinction as one of California’s 188 worst performing schools, the K-6 bilingual school had only one chance if it wanted to continue: It would have to become an entirely new school, and fast. Since that fateful night just before Thanksgiving when the board narrowly voted to buy the hugely popular school some time, parents, teachers, and school supporters have been hustling virtually nonstop to put together a distinctly new charter proposal in hopes of gaining approval from the board this spring and thus being able to continue offering its unique — albeit improved — blend of bilingual and bicultural education when school starts up again next fall.
To that end, with the new name of Adelante firmly in place, supporters presented the board of education with its charter proposal early this month. Seventy-eight pages long, the charter detailed a new program of study that, among other things, would forgo the 50/50 style of Spanish/English instruction currently at César Chávez and replace it with a 90/10 model. (That is to say, incoming kindergarten students, regardless of the language spoken at home, would spend 90 percent of their class time learning in Spanish before slowly phasing to a 50/50 blend by fourth grade.) The charter also called for a rigorous standards protocol that clearly outlines the performance expectations for students and teachers alike, school-sanctioned assessments to be conducted three times a year, and an added two weeks of class time to the school’s calendar. It was a step in the right direction said the board at that time, but they wanted to hear what district staff had to say about the proposal before actually taking action.
Presented Tuesday night by Superintendent Brian Sarvis, the district’s take on the new charter, with input from attorneys, identified some 52 ways in which the proposal needed to be tweaked or clarified to get its endorsement for final approval. Though he allowed that “a number of these changes are very minor,” Sarvis explained to the board, “There are very critical elements that still need to be included in the petition.” Specifically, according to Sarvis, the proposal needed a better description of curriculum and instruction plans, a more detailed explanation of accountability, better budget analysis, and a different governance structure than what was being proposed.
Racing to make the grade in the eyes of the school board in order to qualify for a May 5 state deadline for funding grant applications, Adelante supporters actually turned in a revised version of their charter before the meeting was over Tuesday night — one that, in Sarvis’s words, addressed “probably 75 percent of staff’s concerns.”
In the end, the board voted to approve the charter proposal with the condition that the 52 areas of concern are handled either by way of actual charter language changes or a subsequent Memorandum of Understanding document sometime between now and June 30. “I don’t have any qualms about approving the charter with conditions,” explained Boardmember Annette Cordero shortly before the vote was cast, “because they have proven again and again, over the course of the past six months, that [the Adelante community has] good faith and are willing to work with us.”



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace




Previous Month



Comments
(That is to say, incoming kindergarten students, regardless of the language spoken at home, would spend 90 percent of their class time learning in Spanish before slowly phasing to a 50/50 blend by fourth grade.)
Isn't this what we were doing before when we officially had "bilingual education"? I remember reading in one of the major local papers a few years back that there were eighth grade student at Franklin School who despite having been in that school since first grade, were still not English proficient.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2010 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Same failure, different name.
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2010 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's looking a bit like it did last year, and apparently that didn't work. I'm from the 30's-era grammer school learning style and we had 1 teacher for each grade, with twenty-five to thirty kids per class. When a new foreign student appeared in our room they sat quietly, especially the ones that spoke no english, and gradually assimilated into american habits AND language. Our teacher introduced them to the class, and told us to help the new arrivals in any way we could ... and we did! By years end they spoke enough english to have friends, who of course helped them learn our language by association, and by participation in classwork. By the next year they were fluent enough to learn with little help from the teacher or schoolmates. Assimilation is the keyword here.
All newcomers were mainly northern european, and they came with languages less easily associated with english than spanish. I don't speak spanish, but it's easier for me to understand than german, french, or scandinavian.
Could it possibly be that our powers-that-be don't want spanish-speaking kids to get ahead too quickly? And what happens to the students that aren't quite up to par after six grades? Do we build spanish-english middle schools, and spanish-english colleges?
Through assimilation, the mexican kids will feel included just as my new foreign-language-speaking pals Dolph, Esperanza, Francesco, and Michael did in the thirties and forties.
Kids will be kids.
norwegianirishprince.
norwegianirishprince (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2010 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The thing is we already tried this way and it didn't work, so why change the name and do the same thing over again?
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2010 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I came from a Spanish speaking household, after all, we'd just gotten here from Cuba.
My mom, by the time I was going into kindergarten, already had command of the English language & she transferred that down to me.
The HUGE difference is this: My mom believed (as do I) that this country gave us the opportunity to be & to do something & the very LEAST we could do was learn English. Enough on that.
What I see here is yet another model of appeasement that doesn't work. Relabeling & repackaging it are not solutions because after all, it's still the same product.
The mechanisms for failure are still in place & are heavily entrenched. Get rid of those & you fix the problem(s).
But it is difficult to eliminate cultural aspects that actually hinder many non-English speakers because of politically correctness & professional victim mindset that comes w/ it.
Too much time & effort (as well as $$$, the REAL issue behind all this) wasted on nothing but the same.
If this program actually worked, the tone would be different. But it didn't & now they want to try again w/ no changes other than a name.
Sure, they're smiling now. But when it comes time for the axe to fall again the smiles will be gone & a new set of excuses will come forth.
By the way, "adelante" means "forward motion or movement" & this is clearly NOT what's happening. If anything, it is "trabado" (not to be confused w/ "trabajo" which means "work") which means "stuck in place." :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2010 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hank, you've covered all the points. Excellent post.
I only want to add that as soon as I saw that they'd changed the name of the school my suspicions grew. What was wrong with Cesar Chavez?...are they disassociating themselves from him or did they merely exploit his name all along to get sympathy?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2010 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Bill, always good to see your posts, as w/ many of the local community here, even if I agree or not.
I think people give "memorialized" names to institutions to give them credibility & a sense of importance.
In a sense, it is exploitation & @ the same time serves to give a sense of immunity.
After all, in pc CA is anybody really going to go after a institution named after a cultural/political icon? I doubt it.
The way I see it is the same as ACORN is doing. Some of their employees got busted doing something illegal/unethical & now they've remade the organization, even w/ a new look & name.
Of course, the comparisons between the 2 situations are galaxies apart, but the way of repackaging the failing product is identical :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2010 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)