News

Guest Opinion: School board rushes to join the crowd with 'safe haven' resolution

'Managed to both fall short of and step beyond expected board governance'

Our school board recently passed a resolution declaring the Pleasanton Unified School District a "safe haven" district.

Insisting the resolution protects students, it necessitated inclusion of its limitations under federal and state laws and required compliance with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy. PUSD suggests the solution to accessing records or students is "prior written approval from the Superintendent," excepting "exigent circumstances" permitting ICE access to campuses.

Although the resolution included political commentary about the presidential election causing "fear, hopelessness, sadness, and concerns for student safety," there was no direction to staff for policy change or for new curative actions.

The resolution then conflates the passage of November 2016 school-related propositions as support for declaring a safe-haven district. Remarkably, these statements were accompanied by a recital declaring the district is "nonpartisan on politics."

The document ostensibly speaks to our comm*unity*, but then lists spoken languages and ethnicities in numbers -- fine for state reporting, but in this context the numbers only draw lines between us.

After all, this isn't about groups of 4,952 or 8,263 or 1,044 or 1,466. We are talking about 14,703 children, and notably not mentioning any child who isn't part of the district attending preschools and private schools.

In justifying this action, staff named Palo Alto as one of many districts passing resolutions like Pleasanton's. However, Palo Alto's resolution was different; it spoke to all children in the U.S. being entitled to a public education, authorized current policies be amended to reflect the resolution, directed staff actions, and avoided creating additional fear and hopelessness.

To further justify adoption of the resolution, staff cited letters from the county superintendent -- remarking 12 of 18 districts in Alameda County had passed similar resolutions -- and read other correspondence from the state superintendent and a variety of organizations.

Absent setting policy, making recommendations for real action or possibly reviewing alternative statements, our board instead chose to bow to peer pressure.

PUSD has staff, board members, attorneys and parents capable of writing something more original and reflective of our community values and could have provided genuine reassurances to students and their families, like crisis response teams. In a rush to join the crowd, however, this resolution managed to both fall short of and step beyond expected board governance.

* Editor's note: Kathleen Ruegsegger has nearly 20 years experience in education as a Pleasanton school board member (1990-93) and as an employee in the Pleasanton and Palo Alto school districts. Ruegsegger also served on a variety of committees while her three children, and a current grandchild, attended Pleasanton schools.

Comments

12 people like this
Posted by mike moreno
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 13, 2017 at 9:57 am

Thank you, Kathleen.


4 people like this
Posted by And?
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Mar 13, 2017 at 9:59 am

Kathleen, You know alot, but can you net out a few things... Is the problem about the process (which is done) or is there a current problem that can be solved. If so, what is the problem and what do you propose be done about it? I saw it as the board presenting facts (not "conflating") about what they heard from community members. Did the board lie about anything or break any laws? If not, I say let's move on. Seriously.


36 people like this
Posted by In Disbelief
a resident of Del Prado
on Mar 13, 2017 at 10:05 am

The PUSD Board has so many other other things to focus on other than sticking their nose into the Federal Immigration issue. The Federal government is targeting criminals and not pulling children out of school. PUSD has no jurisdiction. What they do have control over is finding a Superintendent that will stick around and won't be a distraction to the good work that the principles and teachers are trying to accomplish. Despite the dysfunction of the board, the district still achieves high marks relative to its peers. Imagine what would be possible with a non-poitical, healthy, and functioning board focused on education and not furthering their political careers.


30 people like this
Posted by Alberto
a resident of Old Towne
on Mar 13, 2017 at 10:37 am

P.S.U.D. Your job is to educate, you are not helping the children but harming them. Keep your focus on educating and out of the business of Federal Immigration laws. The laws have been on the books for many years, they are not new, what is new is that they are finally being enforced.


23 people like this
Posted by Parroting Superintendent Val Williams
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 13, 2017 at 11:54 am

The PUSD staff, led by Odie Douglas and interim Supt Ochoa, simply spend their time parroting other Superintendent's exact phrases and writing such as their near copy of text that appears to have come from Val Williams, Albany Unified's superintendent, that Williams posted weeks earlier.

I do think that the District did lie both in terms of this resolution, their claim that the PUSD children and families have been subjected to some sort of hate crimes/hate speak as well as the press release/communication to the press and teachers that went out about banning the viewing of the inauguration from the Educational Services Team.

Albany had incidents of swastikas and White Power being placed around their city according to the East Bay Times Web Link . I think PUSD parroted Albany's actions and fabricated that hate crimes were happening in Pleasanton to Pleasanton students and residents. If those hate crimes were really happening, how come no newspaper reported them and how come I can't find any hate crimes in the Police Blotter on the Pleasanton Police web page online?

Also Google Web Link to see the text on the inauguration...

"It is vitally important that we maintain a safe and supportive school environment for all our students, as we know that elevated levels of student stress inhibit optimum learning" then see a complete copy of the Albany Unified's school superintendent's Val Williams' message

Web Link

You will see exact copies of portions of Williams's messages placed word for word in PUSD press release. You can Google "It is vitally important that we maintain a safe and supportive school environment for all our students, as we know that elevated levels of student stress inhibit optimum learning" and see both come up.

If a student plagiarized someone's work without citing them, they'd be disciplined or suspended? Why aren't Douglas or Ochoa disciplined by cutting and pasting the words of Val Williams without citing Albany's superintendent?

Also by claiming Pleasanton students have been subjected to some sort of hate crimes and speech, where exactly is the proof? Without some article in the newspaper or police incidents, I believe it is a complete fabrication...political grandstanding as its worst.


6 people like this
Posted by Let's be honest here
a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Mar 13, 2017 at 12:00 pm

Many people do not feel safe, including myself, so the district did not lie about people feeling unsafe with the likes of Trump and Bannon at the helm. And the district did not ban the inauguration - teachers could show it if it was tied to their curriculum. So you lied... why should anyone believe anything else you wrote?


15 people like this
Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Mar 13, 2017 at 12:11 pm

PUSD - focus on your real problems, if they are all solved im open to expanding scope, but until then im not satisfied with your progress on much more applicable and real issues directly related to educating students.

If you have evidence to show this is an issue share it.


27 people like this
Posted by Parroting Superintendent Val Williams
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 13, 2017 at 12:24 pm

Tomorrow at the joint city and school board meeting, the PUSD needs to bring proof otherwise no one will believe the District and again believe they are sensationalizing and polarizing the community as it has in the past. I would expect a series of complaints and police incidents an press reports to back up their nebulous claims of abuse of families and students in Pleasanton.

PUSD needs tomorrow to provide to the public a list of Police Incidents from November 8th 2016 to February 20, 2017 that backs up their claims that Students and Families have been subjected to this behavior in Pleasanton to support their: "WHEREAS, students and families across the District have experienced increased levels of hate speech based on their ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation since the election."

Or is PUSD claiming events happened that did not occur in Pleasanton?

If this did happen, I'd expect to see the Pleasanton Weekly or other local papers reporting on fights, graffiti, and other hate crimes starting around November 8th based on their ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

Instead there has been nothing in the East Bay Times, television, the Pleasanton Patch, the Pleasanton Weekly, radio about events happening in Pleasanton. Nor have any of these media outlets reported on so-called "listening campaign" meetings that were held by PUSD supposedly which generated all of the so-called hate speech discussions of incidents. I can find no public notices or listings of these so-called "listening campaign" meetings on neither the PUSD or city of Pleasanton websites.

Did PUSD make up these so-called meetings too?

All of the evidence points to PUSD copying Albany Unified, sensationalizing and needlessly causing fear in students because of something that happened in Albany or other places.

But PUSD claimed Pleasanton. Where is the proof?


20 people like this
Posted by fabrication
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 13, 2017 at 12:47 pm

The district does not have any evidence of hate speech or other things happening in our district that is quoted in their resolution. I asked the school district for evidence of such claims and they could not provide any. It is obvious they just plagiarized the text of the resolution; something they forbid the students to do. They are being poor role models for our students. I guess all the students should expect a "get out of jail free" card for plagiarizing.

I am SO disappointed in our school board for the obviously partisan act.


17 people like this
Posted by Steve
a resident of Mission Park
on Mar 13, 2017 at 1:01 pm

First the good: Our experience within the Pleasanton Public Schools has been overwhelmingly positive. Our kids are not perfect, but the resources applied and professionalism of teachers and staff have helped them reach their potential. Clearly, the teachers and staff care about their students.

Not so good: The school board has had a difficult time recruiting and hiring good senior staff. How many superintendents and principals have left or been allowed to resign for reasons publicized over the past few years?

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep the focus on hiring good people and don't waist time on make believe problems.


2 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 13, 2017 at 3:10 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

And? First, I was concerned enough about the resolution to write the board and Ms. Ochoa and sent them an edited version which mostly removed hyperbole. Only one board member responded. Secondly, I spoke at the meeting asking them to reconsider what was written based on their acknowledged limitations. Based on those comments, I was invited to write a guest opinion.

As to action, someone posted last week about actual things the district could do to help students and their families, such as setting up crisis teams should ICE show up or working with the city and our police.

I spoke to the board about excellence beginning in the board room; IMHO this resolution could have said less and done more for students.


7 people like this
Posted by Ptown Native
a resident of Walnut Grove Elementary School
on Mar 13, 2017 at 3:34 pm

Kathleen - I sincerely wish you had won a seat on the school board. Thank you for educating us and advocating for our kids!


25 people like this
Posted by Alvin Lui
a resident of Dublin
on Mar 13, 2017 at 3:55 pm

First of all ICE isn't in the business of going into schools and pulling children of illegal immigrants, so this was a measure to solve a non-existent issue.

More importantly, this "measure" is nothing more than warming Pleasanton citizens up for when they come knocking to make Pleasanton a sanctuary city. Get the county, get the schools, then the city falls. That is the ultimate goal. They tried this nonsense in Dublin and failed.

The people pushing this don't have any investment in Pleasanton, they either do not own homes, businesses, and/or have children in the school system, so they don't care. The people pushing this are simply doing an assignment as a political stepping stone for their careers.

I would HIGHLY advise the residents of Pleasanton to keep their eyes very carefully on what is coming to their city council as they will be proposing sanctuary measures sometime early this year.


18 people like this
Posted by Parroting Superintendent Val Williams
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 13, 2017 at 4:13 pm

Alvin, I completely agree that PUSD will try the same thing that Dublin Unified did with the City of Dublin...that is, have the city of Pleasanton declare itself a "Sanctuary City."

I also think that Democratic Party operatives tried to get at one point for the Pleasanton City Council to "condemn" ICE when El Balazo was raided a few years and back when the two owners were charged with tax evasion, and sentenced. Also the same thing happened when ICE raided Tri-Valley University.

Also tomorrow around I'll bet it will be around 3:30 PM to 4:00 PM when the Pleasanton Unified School District will ask the city manager and two city council members to put Sanctuary City status for the City of Pleasanton on a forthcoming city council agenda. Here is the agenda posted and if you click on item 9, you will see the exact slot when they plan to bring it up - - -

Web Link

I don't see the city manager and mayor sending out identical press releases to Berkeley and Oakland area superintendents and administrators and the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee; therefore, I doubt they will fall for this.

Given how the Dublin City Council lambasted the city manager for even putting the item on the agenda, and after the upset standing room only crowd criticized the Dublin City Council for even thinking about the idea, I doubt the Mayor and Pleasanton City Council will even agree to put it on the agenda.


Like this comment
Posted by Common Sense
a resident of Ponderosa
on Mar 13, 2017 at 4:53 pm

Perhaps Pleasanton should declare itself a sanctuary city while we are at it.


30 people like this
Posted by Sactuary From Taxes
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Mar 13, 2017 at 4:57 pm

I declare myself a safe haven from property taxes that support this incompetent school board.


14 people like this
Posted by KMC
a resident of Dublin
on Mar 13, 2017 at 9:13 pm

This would have passed in Dublin if a few residents hadn't (by chance) noticed it on the agenda ( 2 young authors of the resolution are new reps of the Tri Valley Democratic Club/Progressive -District 16). Indeed 3/5 council members allowed the item to return as an informational item. This cost staff much time and thousands of dollars in attorney pay as stated at the meeting.

Fortunately, the community was able to organize and convinced those same 3/5 on council to say NO to further study of a resolution. It was unanimously decided to not ever bring this ridiculous idea back to our city and waste staff time when we have so many other true issues concerning our city; Grassroots works well when there is passion and good reason.

@Parroting- it was not the city manager who asked this to be brought forward. It was a new council member, Melissa Hernandez, who then had the support of 2 other council members, which was majority to go forward with the study.

Partisan politics needs to stay out of our cities.

As a reminder...this is also how retail and commercial land gets rezoned to housing (it only takes 3 votes).


Web Link


Web Link

Web Link


4 people like this
Posted by Jose Hemenez
a resident of Ruby Hill
on Mar 13, 2017 at 10:52 pm

We need to protect our illegal immigrants
I can round up a Protection Service from the Home Depot parking lot to make sure ICE doesn't arrest any illegal on the school ground
Evil ICEfor enforcing the law what kind of a country is this where people had to obey the law
in the words of Bob Dylan:
And now I know you're dissatisfied with your position and your place don't you understand it's not my problem...


5 people like this
Posted by spudly
a resident of Laguna Oaks
on Mar 14, 2017 at 7:55 am

Summary:

* PUSD should provide a safe environment for all kids.
* ICE should arrest criminal undocumented aliens.
* Don't cause problems (illegals) and you will not get problems.
* PUSD needs more money - fix the absurd retirement liability now.


13 people like this
Posted by worldgonemad
a resident of Parkside
on Mar 14, 2017 at 10:38 am

I still maintain that the PUSD has set an incredibly short-sighted, unauthorized, horrifying example for our students: If you don't like the law - refuse to obey it - think the speed limit is too slow? Think your dog should run free in all parks? Think cars shouldn't have to yield to pedestrians? Think hate-speech is your First Amendment right? The day will come when students will decide the PUSD rules and regs can and should be ignored.

Re Jose Hemenez remarks: Illegal immigrants have no rights. Are you aware of how Mexico handles immigration? No one can just cross the border and take up all the rights of legal immigrants - do you know, you should know what happens at Mexico's southern border when people try to enter the country illegally? Every country has borders and laws. My son applied to Australia for residency. $10,000 and 18 months, background checks, physical, and proof that his residency would benefit Australia. Everyone needs to obey our laws.

And is that a threat?? Who is "Protection Service from the Home Depot parking lot"? Do you all see where our benevolent tolerance is taking us?


4 people like this
Posted by Victor
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Mar 14, 2017 at 11:14 am

You know, sometimes you gotta take a stand, even if it's symbolic, when the Nazis and other haters are doing bad things. Read what ICE and INS etc are doing, even to people with visas, people who have been in the country as taxpayers for decades, decent people. You have to teach children to stand up against unjust actions by the government even if they are "legal." That's the nature of civil disobedience. You want to just roll over while the constitution gets trampled, liars continue to lie and line their pockets, dismantle protections on the air and water, and work to separate us by making "the other" the villain? That's not the country I want -- do you?


2 people like this
Posted by Victor
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Mar 14, 2017 at 11:28 am

Hate is rising. Let's be compassionate, eh?

Web Link
What is VOICE? Trump highlights crimes by undocumented immigrants JUST WATCHED Story highlights
04:37 AM, Mar 01, 2017
President Donald Trump used Tuesday's joint address to Congress to call attention to crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, inviting guests affected by such crimes and describing a new office he has ordered created to report them.

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link


5 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 14, 2017 at 12:16 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Victor, certainly there are times to take a stand. If the intention of this resolution was to make families, parents and their children, believe the district was taking that stand, it does nothing, suggested nothing, to make anything of substance actually happen.

If we defend the rights of all of the millions of undocumented immigrants, what are the next steps? Do we let the next millions come and stay? In 1986, legislation allowed about 3 million undocumented immigrants, here prior to 1982, the right to stay. Web Link And now we have something like 11 million more. Web Link While I certainly wouldn't agree to mass deportation or to splitting families or that the majority of these people are taking jobs other Americans want or even that a wall is the answer, we do need a reasonable solution.


13 people like this
Posted by old dog
a resident of California Somerset
on Mar 14, 2017 at 1:10 pm

Victor - you do realize once you label people you disagree with "nazi" the discussion ends right there?

I remember many years ago going to a concert (a major musical act) where the singer referred to george h.w. bush as a "nazi" a few times

I think we can all agree in retrospect that singer is a (removed)


10 people like this
Posted by old dog
a resident of California Somerset
on Mar 14, 2017 at 1:13 pm

"the resistance effort" lol

would be funny if these people (cali libs) didn't scare me so much. I mean, try having a fruit cup and calm yourselves people.

democrats doing what democrats do these days. sad.


15 people like this
Posted by Against Sanctuary City Status for Pleasanton
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Mar 14, 2017 at 1:31 pm

Where were all the protestors and "Sanctuary City" proponents when Clinton and Obama deported millions upon millions of illegal immigrants? Let's not forget Clinton's State of the Union Speech in 1995. Not one person has stated that they approve of any child to be physically removed from our schools (ridiculous!). PUSD is directly responsible for provoking a fear, IF there is any fear in our Community (show us the proof!). Pleasanton has always been and will continue to be a "safe haven" to all children! We did not need the PUSD to enforce a law that is basically stating that our Community does not care, not true! PUSD needs to be held accountable for their action and for also illegally using our limited District's funds to push this unnecessary agenda, an agenda which is only intended to provoke and create disruptions in Communities! Yes, City Council, just as our Community strongly opposed of this "Safe Haven" law on our Schools, we will strongly oppose of any attempt to make Pleasanton a "Sanctuary City." Congratulations Alvin and the City of Dublin!!


13 people like this
Posted by old dog
a resident of California Somerset
on Mar 14, 2017 at 1:44 pm

i appreciate the vigor of the previous post, but maybe i can be of service with this response:

-the avg citizen doesn't pay attention
-politicians lie
-the media also lies and is loyal to one side
-the media was also getting all rip van winkle and all that the previous 8 years
-bureaucrats, unelected civil servants, protect their turf and are basically aligned with the democrats

i feel like i missed something? oh yeah, mrs. pelosi is a terrible human being. that should wrap it up with a nice bow.

good day.


15 people like this
Posted by Veteran
a resident of Del Prado
on Mar 14, 2017 at 2:14 pm

Any veteran or spouses or children of veterans who sacrificed to defend this great country of ours that I have talked to are appalled that an elected body in Pleasanton, the city that Kate Steinle lived in , would ever shield people who have broken laws. I doubt the mayor of Pleasanton with his long time support of veterans would ever consider aligning himself with the side who wants to cause anarchy and defy the nations ' laws.


11 people like this
Posted by old dog
a resident of California Somerset
on Mar 14, 2017 at 2:59 pm

first of all, and most importantly, @Veteran, let me say thank you for your service to this country.

unfortunately if the stat on the drudgereport is correct, we're up to 500 sanctuary cities and counting in the US.

a country divided indeed.


16 people like this
Posted by old dog
a resident of California Somerset
on Mar 14, 2017 at 3:09 pm

an overwhelming number of americans oppose sanctuary cities. the polls i've read say it's as high as 75-80%. there are few issues that garner this much agreement.

however, democrats still feel the need to give the finger to mr. and mrs. america on this one.


10 people like this
Posted by Alvin Lui
a resident of Dublin
on Mar 14, 2017 at 3:42 pm

Alvin Lui is a registered user.

It is encouraging to see so many people in the Tri-Valley that still respects laws and common sense; and who are no longer afraid to hold elected officials accountable for sacrificing residents' financial and physical security for political gain.

The tricky thing is that these measures get quietly introduced by people whose sole job is to do THIS, while those of us who get affected the most are too busy raising families, working jobs, building businesses to notice.

We simply don't have enough hours in the day to pay attention to everything that comes before our city council, but this particular measure has some very devastating and long reaching negative impacts on our crime rates, home values, how crowded our schools will be for our children, overall quality of life; all the elements that people sacrifice so much in order to live in the Tri-Valley and be able to continue to stay here. And for all the reasons why people didn't just raise their families in Hayward, Oakland or San Francisco.

So if there is a time to MAKE time and pay attention, this would be it. If your home and quality of life in your city is important then please pay attention and inform your neighbors and friends as well.

This will be coming to all cities near us including San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Danville, etc. sooner rather than later.

Don't wait for someone else to start the conversation and awareness. Take the lead and stand up for your home.


Like this comment
Posted by DKHSK
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Mar 14, 2017 at 3:54 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

I don't know why I was under the impression that Kathleen thought the idea of sanctuary districts was silly, but after reading her response to the district I guess I was wrong.

These two paragraphs seems to be the tell:

"Although the resolution included political commentary about the presidential election causing "fear, hopelessness, sadness, and concerns for student safety," there was no direction to staff for policy change or for new curative actions."

and

"Absent setting policy, making recommendations for real action or possibly reviewing alternative statements, our board instead chose to bow to peer pressure."

Real action for what, Kathleen?

Are you in favor of sanctuary cities and districts?

Dan



Like this comment
Posted by DKHSK
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Mar 14, 2017 at 3:56 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

Edit for clarity above:

I asked: "Real action for what, Kathleen?" But I guess what I really want to know is what sort of "action" do you want to see happen?

Dan


2 people like this
Posted by JustHere
a resident of San Ramon
on Mar 14, 2017 at 6:36 pm

JustHere is a registered user.

I think most (if not 100%) of parents don't want ICE entering a school....ever... to remove a child or children. Perhaps Trump would order ICE to do it, but I hope ICE mgmt would refuse.

Imagine what parents would do when they found out ICE entered and forcibly removed a minor child? yeah, I don't see ICE being quite that dumb.

A lot of hub bub about nothing. AND in this district? So many other problems to deal with at the moment.


5 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 14, 2017 at 7:50 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Dan, I am not for sanctuary cities or sanctuary districts. But the board wanted to pass this measure, and I thought they could tone down the rhetoric and do more than give a hollow promise of safety to children. They did neither. I also am in favor of protecting all our children, not just PUSD's. But they didn't suggest that either. I already answered about working with local police and creating crisis teams. As noted, finding out your parents have been taken away would be a serious trauma for these innocents. We say we are a safe haven, including our equipment, which I am still trying to figure out. Will we house these children at the schools?

What are you looking for here, Dan? What is it you would have them do?


4 people like this
Posted by DKHSK
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Mar 14, 2017 at 9:44 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

Kathleen,

"What is it you would have them do?"

How about we have PUSD follow the law?


4 people like this
Posted by DKHSK
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Mar 14, 2017 at 9:53 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

Kathleen,

"I am not for sanctuary cities or sanctuary districts. But the board wanted to pass this measure, and I thought they could tone down the rhetoric and do more than give a hollow promise of safety to children. They did neither. I also am in favor of protecting all our children, not just PUSD's."

I'm not sure if its my comprehension or your wording, but when you say that you think PUSD should "do more than give a hollow promise of safety to children", don't you think this is explicitly stating that you are in favor of sanctuary status?

Put in another way, although you hit PUSD on their rhetoric, in the very next sentence you state that they didn't go far enough. Those two position are incompatible, and that's why I am utterly confused about your real stance in this issue.

Dan


2 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 14, 2017 at 10:52 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Dan, the district acknowledged they had to follow the law. And we agree on the rhetoric. I think the disconnect we are having is about the children. Why is it okay to offer save haven to PUSD children, but not the preschool or private school children in our community? I don't think those schools can declare themselves safe havens. I would have liked to see something that indicated PUSD, our police, and other local agencies would find a way to address the immediate needs of children who find their parents have been taken into custody. They would need support, housing, counseling, and assistance at least on a temporary basis. We could come together to figure that part out.

The board overstepped when they attempted to say they would resist to the fullest extent allowable under the law. And they fell short on actually providing any actual method of support for children if it became necessary. Unless by safe haven equipment they meant they would chain the children to it.


11 people like this
Posted by Jason
a resident of Las Positas
on Mar 14, 2017 at 11:37 pm

Jason is a registered user.

So I received an online survey from Patrick Gannon on behalf of Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates (HYA), to identify characteristics that I believe are important in our new Superintendent. The email indicated that my input is critical to the process, so I obliged and completed the survey. In doing so, I was thoughtful and chose my words carefully and precisely. At the end, I added my professional credentials as an experienced educator and asked to be a more meaningful participant in the search process. While I will remain skeptical that my input will be considered and incorporated into the search process, I focused my remarks around these key traits that I would like to see in the next superintendent as such: The candidate must be--
1. Entrepreneurial minded and value competition and options (i.e., charter schools and magnet schools and such)
2. Innovative and seek new ways to engage children with real educational opportunities that are relevant and exciting
3. A visionary for what 21st century problems graduates will need to solve in the future
4. Willing to push the limits of education code and not cower to the County, Sacramento, and the CDE. I believe that real educators are trouble makers--and I want a maverick setting a vision for the future here.

The flip-side of my effort is that all of my efforts and thoughtful remarks were for not, and the survey was provided under the cloak of "community participation" and "parent collaboration." I would hate for the extent of my participation to be a number shared at a board meeting saying that "X number of surveys were returned" but never read. Sill, I shall remain positive and optimistic. This hiring is critical for our community, and I am hopeful that my input will provide an important context for the search committee to consider.

#fingerscrossed


10 people like this
Posted by DKHSK
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Mar 15, 2017 at 7:26 am

DKHSK is a registered user.

Kathleen,

"Why is it okay to offer save haven to PUSD children, but not the preschool or private school children in our community?"

Again, you say you are against Sanctuary Cities and Districts, but the above sentence indicates you are against it because it doesn't go far enough.

Which is it?

And the answer to your question is PUSD has no authority over those kids. Isn't that obvious?

You can't have it both ways.

Dan



2 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 15, 2017 at 9:53 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Good morning Dan, It is pretty simple. No sanctuary anything. As to non-PUSD children, the board made a gesture with that resolution; that gesture could have spoken about all children just as easily.

Protecting a child in our community, showing compassion--food, shelter, counseling, a connection to a caring family the child may already know--absolutely. (Same for other communities.) You don't have to be a sanctuary or safe haven to put together a team that will safeguard a child until something is determined regarding their parents. Sadly, maybe that's just handling the youngster over to Child Protective Services, but I'd like to believe we are better than that.

So, yes, I can have it both ways.


1 person likes this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 15, 2017 at 10:00 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Jason, my understanding is that information will be made available to the board. They will have a portal to all the information the team gathers. I'm sure HYA will summarize the input for them.

FOR THE COMMUNITY: Web Link The survey is online.

"To take the Superintendent Search survey, visit: Web Link. The survey is available in English, Spanish and Chinese and will be open through March 31, 2017."

I'll second your hashtag!


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Johnny Be Gone – Long Live Rock-n-Roll
By Tom Cushing | 1 comment | 1,308 views

Zone 7 directors took the right action to help homeowners
By Tim Hunt | 4 comments | 670 views

 

2017 guide to summer camps

Looking for something for the kids to do this summer, learn something new and have fun? The 2017 Summer Camp Guide features local camps for all ages and interests.

Find Camps Here