OC Register columnist David Whiting has penned a column about the past and present presidents of Los Amigos of Orange County, Amin David and Jose F. Moreno. It’s an unremarkable puff piece containing the standard adulatory prose about the avuncular David (an image that he can contradict with outrageously extreme rhetoric) and musing on the passing of the torch to Moreno (whose radical politics pass unexamined).
The column closed with this:
Why take on a nonprofit that that makes no money, pays nothing? âPeople helped us when we needed to be hidden,â Moreno says of his familyâs early years in the U.S. âThey helped us get amnesty when we needed it.â
Morenoâs explanation reminds me when the gathering, without hesitation, decided to build a school halfway around the the planet.
Sometimes, lifeâs reward is about paying it forward.
Taking nothing away from this act of altruism, but a mere five miles across town a brave group of Latino parents has been battling the Anaheim City School District (ACSD) to exercise their rights under state law to convert Palm Lane Elementary into an independent public charter school. In his ruling for the parents and against the district, OC Superior Court Judge Andrew Banks slammed the ACSD’s behavior as “unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.”
To my knowledge, Latino rights group Los Amigos hasn’t lifted a finger to help these Latinos parents exercise their rights. Indeed, Los Amigos President Jose Moreno not only opposes their efforts, but he doesn’t believe there should be charter schools (with the solitary exception of his vote for the GOALS Charter Academy application supported by his political ally, Mayor Tom Tait).
Moreno served three terms on the ACSD Board of Education, declining to seek-a fourth term last year in favor of a failed campaign for Anaheim City Council. His politics are self-consciously Latino and suffused with ethnic consciousness. Yet, when you have a group of poor and working class Latino families in Anaheim squaring off against the entrenched interests of the school district, Moreno sides with the entrenched special interests. So has his endorsed successor, Ryan Ruelas, another member of the Los Amigos circle and now one of the trustees who have voted to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to continue fighting these parents in court. Latino rights are fine and dandy until Latinos start demanding the right to wrest control of their school away from the public education establishment; in cases of where Latinos support a “corporate charter takeover,” their rights take a back suit to the prerogatives of special interests like the public school unions.
Fortunately, these parents have allies like former Sen. Gloria Romero and the Lincoln Club of Orange County and others, whose politics are more authentically humanistic. Absent their aid, the Anaheim City School District would have succeed in stymieing of the Palm Lane parents, who have been received no succor from the self-proclaimed champions of Latino rights.
So, good for Los Amigos for helping build a school halfway around the globe. Perhaps they’ll consider helping a group of poor families a few miles away build a charter school for their children and families to come.
What is the purpose of this tale for two? To note the absence of support from Los Amigos to somehow help Palm Lane parents, parents who need no help? To criticize this absence of support? To marshal new troops for an assault on the Anaheim City School District?
Some parents at Palm Lane, with support from outsiders, began the process to convert this school to a charter school. After submitting their signed petition to the Anaheim City School District, a legal right, the district rejected the petition, its legal right. Palm Lane parents appealed the districtâs decision, which an Orange County judge supported. The district appealed the judgeâs decision, delaying the start to convert Palm Lane to a charter school. Both the parents and the district exercised the right to act and appeal. There is no game changer here. Just another time out and a delay of game.
It does not matter whether or not Latino rights groups lifted a finger, both manos, or a bazooka. Most puzzling, however, is the desired outcome of this school battle, which will not be won in a blitzkrieg. This skirmish, however, is not âa group of poor and working class Latino families in Anaheim squaring off against the entrenched interests of the school district . . . [and] their rights take a back suit [or a back seat] to the prerogatives of special interests like the public school unions.â
The Palm Lane battle has always been about control and power, politicized Latinos with allies âdemanding the right to wrest control of their school away from the public education establishment, . . . [purportedly not having received any] succor from the self-proclaimed champions of Latino rights.â
Unlike GOALS Academy, a local charter school approved by the Anaheim City School District, a Palm Lane charter school lacks any stated purpose or mission, except âto wrest control . . . away from the public education establishment.â With power and control as its singular purpose for being, proponents of this proposed charter school have not addressed the instructional needs of its students or presented a valid justification for its creation. Low scores on school tests will not change by substituting charter for elementary on a school sign or on its stationery.
Hugh, why are you so hugely opposed to charter schools? It’s not as if the status quo of many years has served us well.
He’s not. In fact, he’s said so explicitly.
He’s opposed to the idea of presenting Charters as a panacea to parents when data shows that the actual operator of the school has little to do with measurable improvement.
He’s argued, repeatedly, for an informed discussion of what a Charter actually proposes to do to improve performance BEFORE a decision is made to convert to a Charter.
That’s not opposition to Charter schools. That’s opposition to lunacy.
Why are you so hugely opposed to presenting an actual plan on how to improve a school before parents convert it to a Charter? That data shows that blind conversions have not served us well.
No has presented charters as a panacea. That’s a straw man argument. These parents are making an informed decision. And as I have pointed out to Hugh in the past, under the Parent Trigger Law process, parents secure conversion to a charter, and then select the charter operator from among competing proposals. In other words, what you are calling for to happen does happen in this process. Now that we’ve dispensed with that false objection, we can get to the real issue – which is the opposition to relinquishing control to parents that is at the heart of opposition to charters from the public education establishment.
Wow. Even for you, wow.
First, there are actually LOTS of people who present Charters as THE solution to failing public schools. It’s also not a straw man.
Second, the Parent Trigger Law is backwards. I believe Dr. Glenn is suggesting that a stronger plan would be identification of a path forward for improvement before making the leap to Charter status. Jumping to a Charter first PRESUMES (see point #1) that a Charter will be better. <– Simple logic.
Third, no one is arguing that handing control to parents is a bad thing. You're presenting a straw man. And knocking it over quite forcefully.
“Wow”? Sir, I wonder if you possess any principles other than reflexively taking the opposite side of an issue from me.
Fortunately, reflexively taking the opposite side of an issue from you puts me on the right side of most things.
There are lots of people who present them as A solution.
“Second, the Parent Trigger Law is backwards.”
In your opinion, R, many of which fly from your mind, fast and loose. Your solution is to make it harder for parents to convert their schools to charter status.
“Jumping to a Charter first PRESUMES (see point #1) that a Charter will be better. <â Simple logic."
Do you think a public school governed by the voluminous state education code will function better than one governed by a charter of devised by parents in conjunction with their teachers and the charter operator? Under which regime do you think the limited English proficiency children on whom you and Hugh place the blame, will do better?
Take it up with Dr. Glenn.
I’d just love to see you stop misrepresenting his well articulated thoughts.
“Third, no one is arguing that handing control to parents is a bad thing.”
Son, you need to start paying attention to what has been happening in the battle against the Palm Lane parents. Yes, that would require exercising independent judgment and possibly breaking with the Jose Moreno-Tom Tait Popular Front, but give it a try.
I’m not your son.
Show me where Moreno, Tait, or ANYONE has said that giving parents control is a bad thing.
I’ll wait patiently.
And once again, RC retreats into the intellectually dishonest harbor of narrow, picayune literalism. “Show me where so-and-so has said exactly this!” Sometimes I don’t know whether you are willfully blind, or just lack the grace and humility to agree with people you don’t like.
Jose Moreno opposes charters. Period. He has said so himself, Publicly. He thinks they are evil corporate entities and wishes California had never allowed them in the first place. Tom has been supportive of his friend’s GOALS Academy becoming a charter. He has also publicly whitewashed the ACSD’s deplorable undermining of the efforts of Palm Lane parents. He only voted for the city council resolution supporting the Palm Lane parents by stating the fiction that it wasn’t really supporting the Palm Lane parents.
Personally, I suspect you already know all this, but are unable to put personal prejudices aside in order to cknowledge reality.
“Charters” MUST be Ryan Cantor! Style, insults, debate tactics are all identical to Ryan’s. Plus, “Charters” didn’t start commenting until after the work day started.
I assumed he’d been banned. That was one less mindless Tait sycophant commenter to endure.
“Charters” MUST be Ryan Cantor! Style, insults, debate tactics are all identical to Ryan’s. Plus, “Charters” didn’t start commenting until after the work day started.
I assumed he’d been banned. That was one less mindless Tait sycophant commenter to endure.
Ryan must have gotten spanked for commenting on blogs all day while he is supposed to be working. “Charters” is an awesome non de plume. Thought I’d replace the first R with an extra T đ
“Ryan” wasn’t spanked for anything Dan-o.
“Ryan” was banned from the blog by Matt Cunningham.
Yeah, you’re a regular Sherlock Holmes.
Just can’t help yourself? Anonymity for everyone but those who don’t agree with you? Gonna attach initials to Anaheim Insider’s post from now on? Good gravy.
Asking for you to support your claim that Moreno and others oppose parental charge of schools isn’t intellectual dishonesty.
Contorting your claim into opposing charters = opposing parents is intellectual dishonesty.
I’ll ask again:
“we can get to the real issue â which is the opposition to relinquishing control to parents that is at the heart of opposition to charters from the public education establishment.”
Prove that the heart of opposition to charters is opposition to relinquishing control of schools to parents.
Or flap about some more about my humility. It’s a simple, straight forward, perfectly intellectually honest question.
For the record, I don’t think Dr. Moreno opposes Charters, all Charters, as a rule. That’s my impression.
Your writing style gives you away Captain Marvel. See you at 221b Baker Street.
I’m pretty sure my IP and my initials were pretty darn obvious clues, Columbo.
I’m not making an effort to hide, but cheers.
Um, Dan can’t see your IP address here, Ryan.
You can.
Which is why you’re posting my initials and name everywhere.
Why?
No has presented charters as a panacea. That’s a straw man argument. These parents are making an informed decision. And as I have pointed out to Hugh in the past, under the Parent Trigger Law process, parents secure conversion to a charter, and then select the charter operator from among competing proposals. In other words, what you are calling for to happen does happen in this process. Now that we’ve dispensed with that false objection, we can get to the real issue – which is the opposition to relinquishing control to parents that is at the heart of opposition to charters from the public education establishment.
No has presented charters as a panacea. That’s a straw man argument. These parents are making an informed decision. And as I have pointed out to Hugh in the past, under the Parent Trigger Law process, parents secure conversion to a charter, and then select the charter operator from among competing proposals. In other words, what you are calling for to happen does happen in this process. Now that we’ve dispensed with that false objection, we can get to the real issue – which is the opposition to relinquishing control to parents that is at the heart of opposition to charters from the public education establishment.
“Low scores on school tests will not change by substituting charter for elementary on a school sign or on its stationery.”
I did not know you possessed the ability to see the future or to predict with certainty how conversion to charter status will impact Palm Lane test scores. Perhaps you should inform those parents that they are doomed no matter what.
I think he wants to inform the parents that they should look, and plan, before they leap.
It has less to do with predicting with certainty as it does with planning for success.
Not exactly complicated.
“I think he wants to inform the parents that they should look, and plan, before they leap.”
That’s good generic advice for anything in life, such as consideration given to endless requests from teachers unions for higher taxes, more spending and less accountability.
But that isn’t what he said. Hugh said conversion to charter status will not make any difference.
Hugh said, or at least what I pulled from his well written posts, is conversion to charter status, as a variable on its own, does little to impact academic performance– most likely because the operator of the school isn’t the root cause for poor performance against evolving academic standards.
The root cause, suggested by his and other’s research, is English proficiency.
Absent a plan to improve English proficiency, the likelihood for performance improvement isn’t bright.
No, my argument has never been that charter schools do not make a difference. I continue to point out, however, that the preponderance of research findings reveals that, at best, student performance in charter schools is usually about the same as student performance in traditional public schools. School performance in a charter school only infrequently exceeds school performance in a traditional public school.
Hugh, your argument has been crystal clear: the advocates for charter schools can’t point to any data that demonstrates superior performance given the same underlying circumstances.
The drum-beating is done by ideologues, or as is more likely the case here, by people who have a vested interest in profiting from a charter school.
This writer offers a valuable perspective on the argument Hugh is making:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2015/01/11/charter-success/
Nice post.
Thanks for actually contributing to the discussion versus attacking individuals.
Well done.
Says the guy who attacks individuals.
What?
This experimental study, Do Charter Schools Improve Student Achievement?, investigated student achievement in reading and mathematics in 36 charter middle schools in 15 states. Unlike the non-experimental CREDO studies of charter schools, which have not used random sampling or a conventional approach to data analysis, this experimental study by Mathematica Policy Research followed widely adopted research methods.
The study compared test scores of 2,330 âstudents who applied and were admitted to charter middle schools through randomized admissions lotteries with [test scores of] students who applied and were not admittedâ (p. 1). The principal finding: âCharter middle schools . . . were neither more nor less successful than traditional public schools in improving student achievementâ (p. 1).
âConsistent with many previous studies that have focused on broad sets of charter schools, we found no evidence that, on average, attending charter schools had a positive impact on student achievementâ (p. 7).
Hugh, the point of this post is a gratuitous attack on Jose Moreno.
I think the point was that Jose Moreno is a hypocrite and Los Amigos cares about helping politically correct Latinos.
Moreno’s a hypocrite?
How’s that now?
In 17 years of teaching in East Anaheim, I have never met anyone more concerned with empowering parents than Jose Moreno. Well before Gloria came to town to promote her agenda and earn all the money she is being paid, Dr. Moreno was meeting with parent groups and teaching how to demand a quality education at the public schools of Anaheim. He himself has been advocating for his children and working with our schools to provide the best educational opportunities possible. Mathew, your simplistic conclusion that anyone who doesn’t support handing over Palm Lane to this outside and unproven outfit is against parents and children is wrong. Your weird obsession with Jose Moreno and Mayor Tait is puzzling to me and I will probably never understand it. I just hope that others who have not been so jilted as you will listen to logic and consider facts and deeds….On one side we have Mathew Cunningham who types words of insult on this blog. On the other side we have mayor Tait and Dr. Moreno who are out in the community volunteering, listening and inspiring mostly Latino families…and have been for years.
“On one side we have Mathew Cunningham who types words of insult on this blog.”
Mr. Gorrell, you might want to look at your past comments on this blog before doling out judgment. As with this one, you start by affecting a tone of sage moderation, and then you descend into trying to make me out to be some kind of weirdo. You’re accelerating the process and tonight made the journey in a single comment. For simplistic judgments, one need look no further than your comment.
The reason I write about Moreno is he is the leading spokesman in Anaheim for radical, race-based politics. He is most emphatically a man of the Left, someone who looks to government for answers to society’s problems, and whose political philosophy is contrary to the founding principles of our Republic. If my criticism of his politics bothers you, so be it.
You ever have a conversation him, Matt?
I have. I think you’re a flat out liar.
I have, a few years ago. He and Eric Altman from OCCORD expressed their belief that corporations succeed by padding profit margins by cutting corners on product quality. Because we all know that’s how Apple, Google, GE, etc. became what they are: by selling shoddy products.
And I’ve read what he’s written, listened to to opinions he has communicated in public, and seen the non-stop parade of leftist sentiments and ideas he promotes on his Facebook page.
I can’t help it if you can’t see it, Ryan, just as I can’t help that you are a jerk.
Oh, and to answer your earlier skepticism that Moreno opposes charter schools, this is from an e-mail he sent last summer to OC Democratic Party members to dispel rumors that he WASN’T anti-charter school:
“I have always, and continue to be skeptical of corporate-based and networked charters that come into our communities under the auspices of educational equity. It is indeed unfortunate that over the past 20 years our legislature and State Board of Education has established and expanded Charter school laws.”
In an email endorsing a charter school you arrogant ass.
Let me emphasize that. YOU’RE AN ARROGANT ASS. Only an arrogant ass would take an email ENDORSING A CHARTER SCHOOL and use it as evidence to claim than an individual is anti-charter schools.
I mean seriously, how do you sleep at night? Have you no shame?
I think that’s a question better asked of yourself and your over-the-top, hysterical behavior here.
That’s your response?
You defame a resident of Anaheim by claiming that he’s opposed to Charter schools, you quote him out of context in an e-mail in which HE ENDORSES A CHARTER SCHOOL, and you think that my behavior ought to be the focus of the conversation?
You’re delusional.
Again, strange behavior from a guy who earlier today was clucking his tongue at others for “attacking individuals.”
You are not being truthful by describing it as an “e-mail endorsing a charter school” – unless you think is it pro-charter school to say it is too bad California ever allowed them to come into existence. It was an e-mail to other Democrats to meant to allay fears aroused by his vote for the GOALS Academy charter application. Moreno makes it very clear he could barely bring himself to vote for it, and that it was an big exception to his otherwise pronounced hostility to charter schools.
Here’s Moreno’s entire e-mail to DPOC members, Ryan. If, after reading it, you cling to your fiction that it is an e-mail “endorsing a charter school,” you are either delusional or dishonest.
“As a result of my focus on the needs of our children, you may have heard that I did choose to support the establishment of a local charter school. I am NOT a supporter of the overall Charter School movement which is clearly a veiled effort to undermine education as a public entity. I have always, and continue to be skeptical of corporate-based and networked charters that come into our communities under the auspices of educational equity. It is indeed unfortunate that over the past 20 years our legislature and State Board of Education has established and expanded Charter school laws.
The petitioner for the local charter that our School Board approved is NOT a corporate or network-based charter group. They are a local, grass-root and non-profit community based organization that has been serving our lowest income students in the most high density part of our city for over 20 yearsâGOALSâwhich stands for Growth Opportunities through Athletics, Leadership & Service. The petitioner fully supports collective bargaining rights for teachers that will work in the charter; the petitioner has had an over 20 year partnership with our school district; and it is a charter school that will serve no more than 200 students who will benefit as our two local public schools are indeed overcrowded. Lastly, the board placed over 8 conditions for opening the school to assure its success and effective partnership with our school district. I must admit that this was a very difficult decision for me but ultimately I voted with my conscience on what is a very localized effort to improve capacity to serve our childrenâwith a local organization that respects and values collective bargaining and local public education.”
“you may have heard that I did choose to support the establishment of a local charter school”
Clearly not opposed to Charter schools.
Matt Cunningham: “Jose Moreno opposes charters. Period.”
You’re a liar.
“Youâre a liar.”
I’m not, Ryan. I’m not sure what you are, but truthfulness isn’t an attribute you are exhibiting.
If you’re going to twist this single exception, made grudgingly as a political favor, into somehow being evidence that Jose Moreno doesn’t oppose charter schools – despite his own plainly stated opposition to them – then you are being dishonest.
“If, after reading it, you cling to your fiction that it is an e-mail ‘endorsing a charter school,’ you are either delusional or dishonest.”
I’ll do you one better, Matt.
If you read that an conclude that Dr. Moreno opposes Charter Schools (period), you’re f–ing stupid.
Enough. Allowing you back as a commenter was obviously a mistake. You are unable to comport yourself with integrity, decency and self-control, and are no longer allowed to comment here.
I have a question for you, as a teachers union activist: do support or oppose the Vergara decision? Do you think teacher tenure laws help or harm students by keeping incompetent or lazy teachers on the job?
Hugh Glenn says he isn’t anti-charter. So why is it the only time he ever posts is after Matt writes something supporting a Palm Lane charter school? And then it is a post or comment claiming charter schools make no difference. If that were the case, why do parents clamor for them?
In fact, I first addressed charter schools in a piece I wrote in November 2014:
https://anaheimobserver.com/2014/11/17/school-differences-dont-make-difference-one-matters/. I discussed research findings by John Hattie, identifying factors that do not make a difference in school achievement. Attending a charter school it Is one of many variables that Hattie identified as minimally affecting school performance.