A new charter school will harm the existing public schools by diverting public funding, student enrollment, and involved parents away from the existing neighborhood schools. That won’t help create high-quality public education for all students, no matter how passionate you are.

I think it’s interesting that’s your only question or comment re: all I said in my previous post. Could it be I’m more persuasive than I believe I am? I do appreciate your passion for high-quality public education for all students. I share that passion.

I disagree that my question is my answer. I’m not sure how you reach that conclusion. The people establishing the Ivy School are not going to convert all or part of Montessori of Alameda to a public school, or merge any part of one school with any part of the other.

Do you know that MOA is consistently full, with a waiting list? Do you know the annual tuition at MOA? For 5-day/week pre-school (and when it used to offer elementary grades, which it stopped doing in 2006) it’s $8,000/year (for a 10-month academic year). Do you know how much Ivy will receive per-pupil as a charter school? $4,760. A $3,240 PER STUDENT difference. How would that “fund MOA from a different source?” How would cutting the budget nearly in half make any sense at all, for anyone (especially those who own MOA)? MOA is an Limited Liability Corporation, which means that the owners run it themselves, make profit and keep it. Ivy will be a non-profit, which means that it will be governed by a volunteer board and the only people who receive any money from it will be paid staff, and no salary at Ivy would equal the profit that can be made from a private school. Who would benefit from any sort of merger or conversion? It doesn’t make any sense and, at any rate, it is not going to happen.

The reason I’m blogging here at all is that converting part or all of a tuition-based school to a charter is illegal. So, I’m seriously concerned about any allegations that Ivy is planning to do that. They are not. The two entities are separate legally and functionally. The law does not prohibit individual people involved with tuition-based schools to start or operate charter schools. That’s all that is happening here. Educators, parents and community members volunteering hundreds of hours over the course of nearly two years to design and establish a public Montessori school from which they (or theirs) may never personally benefit, for the good of the public. This is not illegal, unethical or otherwise hinky. Quite the opposite, in my view. I take issue with people who have their own political bias against charter schools making unfounded allegations and speculations.

Maybe you should read Ivy’s public charter school proposal. That would address many of your questions and concerns. It’s a public document, so PPS should be willing to share it with you if you ask.

Thanks for joining in the discussion and offering us an inside view. Apparently you are new to the blogosphere, and maybe even American politics. I say that because of this comment:

“The speculation framed as facts and willingness to assume the worst about people you do not know is fairly disturbing.”

As far as I can see, no one has “framed speculation as facts.” Yes, we have speculated. We have formed opinions. We have raised questions. As we get new information, we raise more questions. As far as “assuming the worst about people you do not know,” I think you exaggerate a bit, but even if you don’t, may I point out that reporters, cops, lawyers and politicians do it for a living, and it has been part of the political landscape of this country going back to the Founding Fathers. (Yes, folks, schools are part of the political landscape; for instance, the only reason we have charter schools in Oregon is that some politicians approved the idea.) Those of us that have been blogging here a while have often been on the receiving end of what you complain of; we are still here because we have toughened our hides and decided that it is worth the effort to keep sticking up for what we believe. The alternative would be to pack up our marbles and go home.

All that being said, now to respond to YOUR inquiries:

“Never once has anyone mentioned the possibility of adding Kindergarten down the road to the Ivy School.
Now, there was much discussion up-front about whether to offer Kindergarten at the Ivy School. . . .”

So, did anyone pass a motion that the subject would never be discussed again? Even if they did, I wouldn’t consider that a guarantee.

“Never once has anyone involved with Montessori of Alameda or the Ivy School mentioned removing pre-school from the private school. Why would the owners of Montessori of Alameda want to close their school? . . . To earn pennies at the charter school? . . . What rationale could there possibly be for this?”

This action wouldn’t involve “closing” the M of A school, it would just mean funding it from a different source, which would be the State General Fund. And that would be the “rationale.” Admissions at private schools do fluctuate with economic downturns; public funding would remove that problem.

“Why is it so hard to accept that a team of good-willed citizens who believe in the value of Montessori education and in the public school system are passionate about creating a public Montessori school that will be accessible to students who would like that option? The students that Ivy is targeting would not otherwise be able to afford a Montessori education. Why is that so hard to believe?”

It is because we DO believe it that we are concerned about the conversion issue. That is the underlying premise of this discussion: the conversion of a tuition-based program to a free, public program. You seem unaware that your question is actually your answer!