What is untrue?

I, for one, would love to hear more about the "truth of Kevin Johnson's record."

If you don't like the articles you're reading, start writing them instead! Don't just react to the media--BECOME the media!

Fluff? Where is the author's mention of the NONEXISTENT Sacramento High School that replaces the one given illegally to Johnson for his charter/springboard to political office, pretending to care about education and the community? PRETENDING THAT THIS IS HIS JOB?

Oh. We don't talk about that.

"The Mayor's ability to effect positive change is largely debated. Mayor Johnson's non-profit, St. Hope, established St. Hope Public Schools in 2003. It operates two charter schools, PS7 and Sacramento Charter High School, which have been credited with raising test scores and graduation rates. Those numbers are criticized by skeptics who claim that struggling students are removed from the school, absorbed by the district and paint a false picture of achievement. Currently, St. Hope Public Schools is $700 thousand in debt to Sacramento Unified School District and suffers from declining enrollment."

Fluff. AND THE CENTRAL CITY STILL DOES NOT HAVE IT'S HIGH SCHOOL. Fluff? How about FARCE?

"accountability" = "writing a check when I screw up is the same as never having done anything wrong"

Brilliant, William.

....not to mention his abysmal record at St. Hope...

You're absolutely right. Anyone who wants to read up on the Bloomberg project can find a brief synopsis here: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/05/20/32nyc_ep.h28.html

I'll leave it to the reader to identify frightening parallels.

DFER has not one actual teacher on its governing board, and no teachers organizations among its ranks. Couched in the pretty words of its mantle, it seeks to gut public schools via charterization, all under the gauze of 'reform', which isn't reform at all, but merely an effort to disempower front line teachers from any say in retooling America's schools. As with so many other organizations touched by KJ, DFER is a well placed well financed corporatist shill attempting to sweep the public will of unknowing progressives into policies that work the will of right wing virulently antiunion interests while cloaking itself in thinly veiled sheepskin... They are NOT nice people. And Johnson as an advocate of education 'reform' has about as much credibility as Sarah Palin on women's rights....

um, you are aware that the subject matter of this article was the mayor declaring his intent to do exactly what you said could never happen, right? And that other mayors in "strong mayor" cities have done exactly that, including one with the direct participation of the Mayor's girlfriend, right?

Remember Jim, wearing the tinfoil shiny side in stops them from reading your thoughts, but wearing the tinfoil shiny side out stops them from beaming thoughts into your brain. Fnord!

Like I said, he cannot do it without approval of the voters...and in this town that is not going to happen because of the unions.

Jerry Brown did this in Oakland and improved the schools.

I personally could care less who controls the schools... all I care about is results.

Jerry Brown did what in Oakland? Jerry Brown did not take control of the schools. That's simply, verifiabley false.

Not that he had anything to do with it one way or the other, but the Oakland Public Schools went into state trustee-ship for financial problems while he was mayor.

"All of you people need to put down the crack pipes and adjust your tin foil hats."
\What's with the abuse, JimKnapp? Unable to make your points without it?


"I personally could care less who controls the schools... all I care about is results."

That doesn't even make SENSE.

It does not make sense because of your altered sense of reality Marion, what I stated is rather easy to understand.

I care more that my children receive a quality education than I do about unions...

If a public charter school, which are non-union, can do a better job than a unionized public school, then it is a no brainier to support charter schools and choice in education.

I can just about guarantee you that all of the people bitching about charter schools either don't have children in school, or they send their children to private or charter schools. I know many public school teachers, the majority I know don't send their kids to public schools.

What I find rather telling is that unionized teachers make a lot more money than charter school teachers, yet the kids they teach on average do worse on standardized tests...so except for putting more money in the pockets of unions, what good does it do our children to have unionized public schools?"

Except that they don't.

Charter schools do not out perform public schools. That is simply not true.

Wow. He totally avoided your question. Guess that's how he can "have it both ways."

Charter schools, which are public schools, without the unions, do a much better job at educating our children. Both of my kids go to a charter school, the other option would be to put them in public schools that rank at or near the bottom in California...for me it's a no brainer. I care more about my children's education than I do about hurting the feelings of unionized teachers.

Well that's just not true.

"California charter schools outperform traditional public schools in reading but significantly lag in math, according to a national study released Monday by researchers at Stanford University.

The study of charter schools in 15 states and the District of Columbia found that, nationally, only 17% of charter schools do better academically than their traditional counterparts, and more than a third 'deliver learning results that are significantly worse than their student[s] would have realized had they remained in traditional public schools.'"

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/16/local/me-charter16

And JimKnapp loves those "No brainers."

And ah, look, there it is, the false equation with a unique, Knappy twist: "Charter schools, which are public schools, without the unions...."

Charter schools are not public schools, as so many of the phony promotors insist. Here we see the difference broken down to UNION BUSTING, part of the not-so-hidden-agenda. Thank you JP!!

What he responded to off target was "I attended the first summit with the expectation that I would hear innovative and thought provoking discussions about education. What I heard was that the only way to accomplish education reform was to support the strong mayor initiative and by closing failing schools and creating more charter schools. ALL of the speakers supported the idea of a "strong mayor". Nothing else was discussed except charter schools."

It's not (entirely) about charter schools. It's about inappropriate and illegal power grabs and the LACK OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION about the future of education, before the public schools and public property are privatized by con artists.

Once again Marion you are are living in a false reality. Under California law, charter schools, are public schools.

And as for union busting, I am a former union member, I support private unions and their right to compete in the marketplace. In fact, when it comes to large private construction jobs, I strongly support unions because they are competitive. Unions have done great things for the American worker. But public employee unions are a different animal altogether, they do not compete with anyone, and a lack of competition harms our society.

The State of California took receivership of Sacramento High because it was a complete failure.

The State of California did not violate the law, when it found a better management company to run the school. Regardless of Johnson's involvement, Sac High is a much better school than it was prior to the takeover.

Jim, it is not a much better school than it was before. It's just a different school than it was before. I get frustrated with people that look at test scores and say, this school is so great without looking at the reason why. It's not that the school itself is better. This is the problem with schools like St. HOPE. It keeps comparing itself to the school it illegally replaced. That school had 2000 kids. Of those, there were huge populations of special ed, English Language Learners, and deaf and hard of hearing students. All of these difficult to educate populations lower the school's overall test scores considerably. The school must educate these students by law. A charter school, most noteably Sac Charter,does not have significant populations of these students which means, there are so few that their test scores aren't even included in the total API score at all.

This is so significant. You are comparing two completely different schools. The old Sac High tested 1000 MORE kids that the charter school and had hundreds upon hundreds of students who historically don't score well on tests (special ed ELL, deaf HOH) It is really like comparing apples to oranges. It's a completely unfair and inaccurate comparison but St. HOPE milks it for all it's worth. They are dishonest. If you were to research, you would find that out for yourself.

The whole debate is charters should be available to the population. Charters should have more accountability to tax payers. Sac Charter is over 1 Million in dept to SCUSD, they owe the feds, they owe the Ca Dept of Ed all because no one was watching them. It can be very dangerous when people get taxpayer money but don't have to show what they do with it. Why do you think so many people are rushing to operate charters? There are ways to get around the "nonprofit" part of it.

Jim, in regards to your comment above, the state DID NOT take receivership of the school nor had it ever taken receivership of any school at that time despite 24 schools who were faced with that possibility. Of those 24, Sac High was far from the worst. There were numerous steps to take before the takeover even became a possibility. None of those steps were taken. It was an illegal process.
I don't think St. HOPE was considered a better management company as they were untested and had never taken over a school before. The deal was done between KJ and Sweeney, the public be damned.

Jim, none of that is true.

Your uninformed "If I say it, it's so," certitude is consistent with your inability to make a comment without insults.

The school would have been closed unless it was taken over by a Charter... The State forced the change...(As I recall Jack O'Connell himself said that the school was taken over by the State...)You morons would rather see a school close than become a charter school....thats because you don't have any children in the District.

Marion, Up your meds honey. You keep blathering that charter schools are not public...despite the FACT otherwise as is stated in the California Education Code.


How many of you complaining about charter schools have children... this is like the third time I've asked this... If you don't have children in school then shut up about this... none of this is really any of your business... other than just promoting unionism.

JK, even after savvysydsam corrected your misinformation on how Sacramento High School was given away illegally, without the proper legal steps, which is why there was a lawsuit, that the district lost, while SCUSD has still failed to provide the replacement comprehensive high school, you repeat -- repeat!! -- your lies.

Like savvysydsam pointed out, you can't compare apples to oranges. No, charters are not the same as public schools -- you know it, everyone pushing that lie knows it.

You confirm yet again that you can't participate here without antagonizing and insulting others, yet you are making demands of Ben and SacPress leadership regarding what you consider other abusive voices.

Whether or not others have children is none of your business. If you tell people to "shut up" because you say so, you may find someone expressing dismay that there is another generation of belligerent knapps being trained by you.

The whole community -- not that this may concern someone as shortsighted and selfish as you present yourself to be -- is invested in education. Education defines community. That is one reason that many here, who understand -- don't expect you to -- the community-building aspect of the real Sacramento High School -- know that yes, we were robbed. The whole community -- its history and its future -- was robbed.

Jim, if you would have scrolled down, I mentioned that I do indeed have kids who go to a SCUSD school and whose neighborhood high school was closed. You are so quick to condemn others but I doubt you were directly affected by the closure of the school. Those of us who were directly affected and who know the history have every right to be angry about it. The law was changed as a result of the way the school exchanged hands. It can never happen that way again. They closed the school for one reason only and it was to give it to Kevin Johnson.

It was never going to be taken over by the state. It is a myth that St. HOPE perpetuates so that people like you will continue to sing their tune.

Like savvysydsam, I have a child going to a SCUSD school.

This is an issue that cuts deep for many who live in the former Sacramento High School area - in a neighborhood with no traditional, comprehensive high school that aims to meet the needs of all our children.

Savvysydsam is absolutely correct. At no time was Sacramento High going to be "taken over by the state." But as Mark Twain once said, "a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its shoes on."

Wow ... fair enough, I won't cite it on my resume.

You do realize this is citizen journalism, right? Feel free to do a better job -- anyone can publish here.

Neither I, nor this outlet, have anything actually resembling a pro-KJ stance. As an example, if you google me, 4 of the top 8 hits are me being quoted in articles or appearing on the news, speaking against the Boss Mayor Initiative.

http://www.google.com/search?q=devin+lavelle+sacramento&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Devin, you are not responsible for the myth of "Sac High" and Kevin Johnson's "success" there; or for the lack of honest reporting on Johnson's story in the major daily paper and other media.

However, you can contribute to a more balanced perspective on SacPress, if you want. Please be aware, if you weren't before, of how much of the KJ story has (intentionally) not been told.

Consider that, if you title your piece, "Mayor Johnson and Sacramento Schools," you are going to hear from the people who think that that untold story matters. That story includes the fact the the historic central neighborhoods still don't have their high school. How is that even possible? How is it possible for Johnson to pretend to be about the education of Sacramento students?

Consider that, your last paragraph begins, "The Mayor's ability to effect positive change is largely debated," refers to Sacramento Charter High School (thank you for using the correct term!), mentions that school statistics "are criticized by skeptics..."

Consider that, if your first sentence begins, "Opponents have argued that one of Mayor Johnson's ultimate goals is to move Sacramento's public schools under the control of the city's mayor..." there may be some missing background on which opposition is founded. Referring to "skeptics" may skim over and minimize important information.

Simply countering with "however, the Mayor has consistently insisted that this is not the case" and proceeding to "In Inside City Hall, Ryan Lillis gives us some insight into Mayor Johnson's intentions," means what? We take the Mayor's word for his intentions, from "Inside City Hall," with no reference to his actual record?

Again, you are not responsible for how misrepresented that actual record is in local media. You can, however, be part of the solution. SacPress management has made it clear that that opportunity exists, for citizen journalists and SacPress staff.

Please don't miss the point made above:

"I haven't the time to dedicate to the effort to perfect a story that would consider in depth the very profound conflict between this profoundly unfit mayoral incumbent and his gang's strategic attempt to take over this city's schools and enhance his power and authority over this city's governance."

That is the story.

Thank you for posting this story on an important topic.

bbbbmer: See this? (rubbing fingers together) It's the world's smallest violin, and I'm playing it in sympathy for your lack of free time. I work full-time, am a graduate student, am on the board of two nonprofits and my neighborhood association, organize a music festival and an annual street fair, and attend a lot of City Council meetings too. But I still have time for writing--both here and for other publications.

It is obvious that you can bang out a few hundred words in response to stories in the Bee, SN&R or here, so pretty much all you would have to do is type something not much longer than your typical response, include some of the information you would like to see in the media, and post it as a story. It isn't really any harder than posting a comment.

Here's an example:

http://sacramentopress.com/headline/2200/Strong_Mayor_Weak_Ethics

400 words, done in a couple of hours. Nobody's asking you to write the be-all and end-all article to end all articles on KJ, just do exactly what you're doing--tell us what YOU think, and what YOU know. Just do us the courtesy of posting it as a story, so it can take its place on the front page with the "puff pieces" about KJ's travel itinerary. If you're lucky, Steve Maviglio will comment on it and make himself look even sillier than usual.

Yes, let's get back to the crux of the issue.

Ben, thanks to SacPress for the opportunity to publish and discuss these matters here.

Many of bbbbmer's comments go directly to the crux, as other long pieces may not:

"I haven't the time to dedicate to the effort to perfect a story that would consider in depth the very profound conflict between this profoundly unfit mayoral incumbent and his gang's strategic attempt to take over this city's schools and enhance his power and authority over this city's governance."

There are many small stories that contribute to the big picture. That in-depth story has not been told.

bbbbmer: I have edited my reference to your name and won't use it in the future. I found it in another context and was unaware you were uncomfortable with its public use. No aggression was intended. I use my real name in online communication because I want to ensure that things I post on the Internet are things I wouldn't mind saying to someone's face; it makes me directly accountable for the things I say online.

And personally, I would like to meet with you and have coffee sometime to talk about this stuff--if you ever have the free time.

I'd consider myself a skeptic more than a cynic--a cynic expects the worst even when presented with evidence to the contrary, a skeptic weighs the evidence to reach a conclusion and is sometimes pleasantly surprised when things don't turn out to be as bad as their initial assumptions.

Which issue Ben? That people make anonymous attacks while using a pseudonym? Last time I talked with you this was against Sac Press's Terms Of Use agreement? I obliged you and stopped using one, I would hope that Sac Press enforces this rule equally to all posters. Otherwise change the TOU and allow anyone to post under any fake name.

Jim, your attacks under your real name are no more welcome or constructive than attacks under a false name. And you've done both here as JimKnapp/Gadfly/Jim Knapp.

Something for you three to think about.

Thank you for posting some background information on what the issues are, directly affecting one half of the residents and families within the city limits.

The whole community ought be concerned about the deceptive tactics used to fool the public and misrepresent the record, operations and motivations of Kevin Johnson -- and his cronies and enablers.

You've been robbed? of what? a failing school? That was no loss. They had a choice to make at the time, close the school or allow it to become a charter school.

So your saying having the schools closed is better than allowing it to become a charter school?

Let me guess, you don't have children.

Jim, you obviously don't know the history of the school and the reason why it was closed. I suggest you read the articles posted above. The school was not the worst of the bunch, it was right in the middle of the pack as far as the high schools go. It was not failing as bad as Hiram Johnson or Luther Burbank. Those schools were performing much worse. The fact of the matter is, there was terrible management at Sac High. They applied for a special grant that said if the school didn't improve, it would face sanctions. Well, the school didn't improve but the district skipped all the steps involved and just converted the school to a charter to avoid looking bad in the state's eyes. Kevin Johnson had $3 million bucks to start the school. He wanted it, the district didn't want the headache. They gave Johnson a gift of 1800 students who didn't have any where else to go. It was an illegal process and that's why the SCUSD was sued and have a court order to replace the school. Now there is a state law passed so this can never happen again.

I don't mind charter schools as long as they are overseen by the district, have some accountability to parents and tax payers and that they augment public schools and not replace them entirely.

I have 3 kids who attend a title 1 public school (Over half are free and reduced lunch) that has kids from Oak Park, downtown, midtown, and East Sac. It is an example of what a regular public school can be. Extra funding (title 1) + huge parental involvement = success. Their API is 834. That's incredible, really. It's not a magnet school, it's just a regular public school.

I don't begrudge you choosing a charter school. It's a highly personalized decision. You have every right to do what you think is best for your children. I don't choose a charter because I have a great public school for my kids to attend. I am lucky. I also support their school and volunteer and fundraise. I want to fix public schools. I don't want to flee or give up. I will fight to make it better. Too many people have bailed and that's unfortunate. I choose not to. That is my personal choice and I'd appreciate it if you would respect my personal choice and the research I have done on this issue. My name is Susie Shields and I have researched this inside and out.