Signature on this petition means you are against the establishment of a new charter school in Novato. The concerns discussed below are for consideration, but signing this petition does not mean that you agree with all points or perspectives shared here. Your signature solely means you're against the Healy School Charter Petition.

A new Charter school has petitioned the Novato School Board for approval for the 2022-2023 school year in Southeast or Southwest Novato (facility has not been determined/disclosed). It claims to offer a different experience for students based on a "self-reliance and resiliency" program.

Charter schools were intended to drive better performance across all schools and to create more equitable outcomes for all students; however, the proposed school is not likely to achieve the demographics forecasted in its petition. If it does, it is unlikely to support all populations in the diverse ways needed to achieve academic success. There is also significant potential for harm for the most vulnerable children in our school systems who are not as easy to identify as one might think.

The following concerns with the Healy School Charter addressed below include but are not limited to the following:

• Budget & Site Sourcing
• Academic “Rigor”
• Curriculum
• Vulnerable Populations
• Created For
• Credibility/Trust Concerns
• Anti-Racism & Ms. Healy
• Anti-Racism & Southern Novato

"Science is always subject to change without notice, and researchers on both sides of an issue can cite studies to "prove" just about anything. Because of this it can be tough to tell the difference between good and bad science." Britt Frank" LCSW

Budgets & Site Sourcing:

In the past year, Novato has fought to keep all of its existing elementary schools open, and there are ongoing budget concerns, including an expiring parcel tax. Opening another school adds more complexity to the district and moves ADA dollars out of existing schools. If the Healy School petition is approved and cannot secure a location before the '23-24 school year, the school district must provide one by law.

The Healy School has federal grant money (SB470) listed in their budget, which requires they locate or enroll a high percentage of students who qualify for free or reduced lunch. However, current district data assumes they will not meet projected enrollment metrics (only 11% of the current charter population is socio-economically disadvantaged).

Ms. Healy has stated in the petition, on social media, at the school board hearing, and on the record with the Marin Independent Journal that she feels supported by and will attract those leaving the Novato School District for private education, other charters, or those opting for homeschool. She emphasizes school choice but says (not convincingly) that her curriculum will serve all.

It feels opportunistic to use government grant money intended to create equity while catering curriculum to those with the most resources, financial, time, or otherwise.

"Academic Rigor"

It's important to mention that metrics used to measure "academic competencies" in schools are not truly objective due to the number of uncontrolled variables outside of a school's control that make academic achievement difficult for individuals, including access to resources for:

• Fundamental physiological/safety/food needs, which are foundational for learning and one of the key factors in childhood academic achievement
• Caregiver time capacity (work hours/schedules/interest), education, economic stress, and overall emotional / social resources
• Toxic stress: a response that occurs when a child experiences strong, frequent, and/or prolonged adversity—such as physical or emotional abuse, chronic neglect, caregiver substance abuse or mental illness, exposure to violence, and/or the accumulated burdens of family economic hardship—without adequate adult support

Many people see the metrics of socio-economically disadvantaged schools and use academic rigor and excellence as reasoning to not attend, however the impact and value of our schools are hard to measure in the face of inequitable "success" metrics.

Schools who serve high-resourced student populations test better for many reasons beyond the school's academic program.

Curriculum: 

Novato schools already address Resiliency factors more comprehensively than Ms. Healy's petitioned program/school:

Currently, Novato Schools are implementing a Social Emotional Learning program. The NUSD SEL program is more comprehensive in its scope to address the complex factors that foster holistic student resiliency.

If we removed the word "resilience" from the Healy School petition and replaced it with specific teachings, it wouldn't have anything unique to say. Our schools already teach many of Ms. Healy's "key skills that build resilience" in an integrated way.

The proposed Healy School claims to address other factors, but not with the depth or with the comprehensive tools needed to make a significant change in these areas. In addition to SEL, our elementary schools provide more tools to build sustaining resiliency which go beyond psychology into the fundamental needs that make learning possible:

• 1:1 mentorship programs
• social sports and extracurriculars
• free organic groceries weekly at some elementary schools
• free school supplies, backpacks, etc

Ms. Healy keeps emphasizing that her resiliency curriculum is not SEL, but that doesn't mean it provides an added or distinct benefit. It is not SEL, but it is not "scientific" resiliency, either. There is nothing groundbreaking in this petition. The Healy School would be better suited to call the curriculum what it is—behavior modification (make smarter, better choices) based on Positive Psychology, Emotional Agility (without the depth), and a side of spiritual bypassing.

Vulnerable populations/students:

NUSD has also included Restorative Justice and Trauma Informed focus in their 2023 action plan. It's clear that Ms. Healy's curriculum and books are not created from a trauma informed lens and she has been criticized for her lack of anti-racism training and awareness.

Ms. Healy's approach fosters thinking through and sharing past adversity to build self-esteem and confidence. However, asking a child in an abusive home or who has experienced significant trauma or abuse to remember or share their challenges can create considerable mental harm. Not only can it re-traumatize and interfere with the brain's natural protective factors, but this method reinforces shame and isolation (feeling "I'm alone in this struggle" and "something's wrong with me").

We also know from fundamental resiliency research on learned helplessness that children are naturally resilient—50 to 70% of children from high Toxic Stress homes naturally adapt (without outside intervention) and go on to live successful, "contributing" lives.

The best and most influential mental and emotional health practitioners know that what is healing for one person in terms of mindset could harm another. Therefore, training kids "how emotions/the brain works" without any nuance to their lived experience is problematic at best.

Shame, stigma, and reinforced self-reliance (which the Healy school aims to teach) are the biggest barriers to seeking mental health and therapeutic support in the future which is what children from abusive homes truly need (beside genuine connection and care) to heal from the inside out.

Created For: 

All charter petitions must include how they will meet the state's requirements to serve students of all backgrounds and able-ness. The Healy School's petition does not offer any genuine reflection of the needs of all students and how they vary in terms of the "novel" curriculum proposed.

The HS Charter cites data about performance discrepancies (test scores, school completion, and college attendance) across demographic populations without addressing the complexity of socio-economic impact and racism on resiliency (a core focus of cross-disciplinary resiliency research).

Socio-economic status and systemic racism are two of the most significant variables in resiliency research regarding children's development.

The school would not serve all students well because it is not being created for all students.

Expertise Concerns:

The petitioner, Ms. Healy, most certainly will reap the most rewards from its creation through her career of life-coaching kids/parents, public speaking, and selling books.

Ms. Healy states science is the backbone of her method, but is not a researcher, scholar, or psychologist. She is not a licensed therapist although she positions herself to be seen as one. Maureen D. Healy does not hold any teaching credentials or certifications in the states she's claimed to have taught at. Speaking to a class and teaching a class are two different things.

The dates and length she's been doing this work is unclear as she states she has 20+ years experience in her petition, but couldn't have started a PhD program before 2004 (18 years ago).

It's unclear which PhD program Ms. Healy did not complete at Fielding University because she references two distinct and different PhD programs: Child Development and Clinical Psychology. At present, this University does not have a child development option in their clinical psychology department.

In her latest book regarding emotionally healthy children, she cites that the "key challenges in childhood are: Lack of experience, Lack of knowledge, Lack of choice, Incorrect perceptions, and Lack of logic."

Unfortunately, for someone who cites science as the backbone of her proposed school, has written a spiritual book, and is trained in positive psychology, this list is neither scientific, spiritual, or optimistic. (Spiritual Book: The Energetic Keys to Indigo Kids by Maureen Healy 2013)

Antiracism & Ms. Healy:

Parents openly criticized Ms. Healy at the school board meeting for what appeared to be her white exceptionalism, white savior complex, micro-aggressions, and overall lack of perspective-taking.

She reinforced that she hasn't had anti-racism training by stating that she had never heard of “white savior complex” in her statements about the board meeting to MIJ. Instead of reflecting on the statements parents mentioned and addressing the concerns of parents, she actively dismisses them as not relevant.

It seems out-of-touch to create a completely new curriculum for children of diverse backgrounds without questioning personal bias and privilege. At minimum new schools should understand basic anti-racism principles in 2022.

Impact is more important than Intention.

Antiracism & Southern Novato:

Not everything is about race, but there is something happening around race in Southern Novato. The data shows white parents are selecting not to send their children to Hamilton Elementary. That isn’t speculative, it’s in the demographic data and numbers.

The general population of this zip code is 62% white ethnicity and 18% Hispanic ethnicity (2020 census data) with a combined 38% of students from a low socioeconomic status.

The current Novato Charter School matches the demographic count somewhat with a 68% white population, a 14% Hispanic population, and 12% of students experiencing socio-economic disadvantage.

However, the population of Hamilton Elementary (a block away from the current charter) is 68% Hispanic, 16% White, and 72% socioeconomically disadvantaged.  (School Accountability Report Cards 20-21).

*I'm pulling out only two ethnicities because they have the greatest change.*

Which makes me continue to ask—who is this school for?

I continue to wonder what the overall backgrounds are of the parents who can't find a place for themselves/their children in Novato and how a resilience curriculum would be better suited to help them thrive in the current schools.

What personal setbacks have they faced, and how have parents' unexamined / unhealed roots of unconscious internalized racism shaped how they have experienced the schools they were in? Or have they been unwilling even to see if their child would thrive in Novato schools?

If Ms. Healy is a genuine expert on resilience ("ability to bounce back" as she describes it), wouldn't the better focus be on helping kids recover from their experience so they can "bounce-back" and re-enter the school in an empowered way?

Wouldn't she be advocating for them to become contributing members of their communities at this exact moment instead of creating a separate place for them to thrive (appealing to learned helplessness)?