Part I outlined the reasons
the Lagunitas School District Board of Trustees may find the charter petition
unsuccessfully achieves items 1, 2 and 5 in California Education Code Section
47605(b). The Ed Code provides 5 items by which a district is allowed to make a
determination about whether to approve or reject a charter petition. Although I
provided some background to the proposed charter budgets it focused on the demonstrating
that the charter is unlikely to successfully implement its educational program.
In this piece I will look more specifically at both of the proposed “Fair Share
Budget” and “Regular Budgets” in the charter petition. As you will see, both
budget are really the same bad deal for the children in the Lagunitas Waldorf
Inspired Program (LWIP), including my
daughter, and the District as a whole. I will first offer a big picture
comparison of both budgets and then provide a list of specific remaining items
in the budgets that warrant close attention. You will also find my responses to
a May 5th email from the charter’s spokesman disputing my May 1st
“Fast facts about the charter petition” fact sheet below.
Differences
Between the Fair Share and Regular Budgets
According to the charter petition “The second [Regular] is a
budget which demonstrates that the Charter School can operate without these
funds, albeit it [sic] with very slim margins and with a reduction in programs
and services for the students.” (p. 87) But because the Regular Budget still
claims nearly the same funding from the District as the Fair Share Budget this
claim doesn’t appear to be accurate. Surprisingly, the Regular Budget asks for
nearly the same amount as the Fair Share Budget but retains a huge reserve fund
even while it makes huge cuts to the Waldorf curriculum.
There are no savings from going charter
Contrary to a claim on pages 167-169 of the charter petition,
there is no savings to the District by approving the charter. As we will see below, that is not accurate.
There is no evidence that the charter would result in any savings to the
District but would increase its cost to the District over time as enrollment
grows thereby draining money from the rest of the programs.
As if as an afterthought, the charter petition includes 3
pages asserts that the charter school would result in $175,000 in savings to
the District and actually result in a “net gain of $1,608 per pupil…” (p.
167-169) But this assertion appears to be contradicted by both proposed Fair
Share and Regular budgets in the charter petition.
For example, in the Fair Share Budget (budget, p. 2) the
total revenue per student is $9776, $8732 and $8470 for the first 3 years. These
three pages provide a total revenue projection of $460,000 ($295,000 block
grant + $165,000 from parcel taxes etc.). But this falls short of their own
total revenue projection of $567,024 for 2012-13 in the Fair Share Budget by
$107,024. The Regular Budget projects total revenue at the even higher amount
of $601,224 for 2012-13. Since the Fair Share Budget projects an ending balance
of $116,099 and the Regular Budget has $234,954 in reserve (p. 2, both budgets)
this could be interpreted to mean that this assisted savings to the District
will end up in the charter school’s reserve bank account?
Another flaw in the 2 charter budgets is that they both
assume the District will continue to fund the charter school at nearly the same
level as LWIP students currently receive which is $9400 for each student in the
District. (4/5/12 email from Amy Prescott discussed in an earlier blog post) The
follow tables contrast the total extra money that the charter is asking from
the district based on its enrollment projections which are presumed to be
partially driven by enrolling more out of district students. LWIP currently
enrolls 44 students during this 2011-12 school year. As you can see if the
charter petition is approved the charter school will drain away an extra
$544,216 to $671,910 from the rest of the District. I agree that the District
should be allowing more out of district students to enroll in LWIP than it does
now. But the charter’s projected enrollment increase is not based on any local
data for birthrates or pre-school enrollment. Such a significant budget
increase would be unreasonable and unsustainable for the District. This would
become a drain on District resources as its enrollment expands with out of
district students.
| Fair Share |
Enrolled |
Cost to dist now |
Demanded |
Extra $ above 44 |
| 2012-13 |
58 |
$9,400 |
$9,776 |
$142,128 |
| 2013-14 |
69 |
$9,400 |
$8,732 |
$188,908 |
| 2014-15 |
74 |
$9,400 |
$8,470 |
$213,180 |
| TOTAL |
|
|
|
$544,216 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular |
Enrolled |
Cost to dist now |
Demanded |
Extra $ above 44 |
| 2012-13 |
63 |
$9,400 |
$9,543 |
$187,609 |
| 2013-14 |
75 |
$9,400 |
$8,526 |
$225,850 |
| 2014-15 |
83 |
$9,400 |
$8,097 |
$258,451 |
| TOTAL |
|
|
|
$671,910 |
The charter spokesman calls my figure of $544,216 to
$671,910 from the rest of the District a “total fabrication” twice but doesn’t
say what the pupil revenue is except that it is “quite a bit higher.” (5/5/12
email)
Clearly, providing this level of increased funding to the
charter would be risky considering the problems outlined in Part I of my
analysis but it would also dramatically impact the rest of the District. Where
will this money come from? Would the District have to reduce the money it spends
on the rest of the children in the District to meet this demand? What services
and programs would it cut? Would it need to raise another parcel tax to fill in
the gap? Would this increase hostility and animosity towards the children in
the charter school who would still be using the same parts of the upper campus
if the District agreed to lease this space at the demanded $500 per month? To
use a twist on the old folk saving, both charter budgets are demanding that
Peter rob himself to pay Paul and his friends coming over the hill.
A second opinion
My analysis of the cost to the District if its
approves the charter is in synch with that of an analysis conducted by
California Teachers Association Regional staff member Ed Hasson that includes
the estimated cost of renting the campus facilities at fair market rental value.
Hasson wrote that “Upon my review of the San Geronimo Valley Charter School
(SGVCS) petition, it is clear that two proposed ‘Regular’ and ‘Fair Share’
budgets are flawed and misleading. Both budgets would burden the District with
unreasonable expenses for educating students that do not reside in the
District. Each non-resident SGVCS student will cost the district between $2000
and $5,100 next year. There will be less money to educate students who do live
in the District. The budgets do not include, as an expense, the fair market
cost of the classrooms that the District is being asked to provide. Instead
they assume a $6,200-$6,800 annual lease. The District is not obligated to
provide any classroom space if SGVCS enrolls less than 80 students who reside
in the District. It is highly unlikely that SGVCS can rent non-District space
for even one classroom for $500-$600 a month anywhere in the valley. The ‘Fair
Share’ budget assumes that the District will gift SGVCS $165,000 beyond the
$282,000 that the District must provide in the Block Grant. In return, SGVCS
would pay the District $20,000 for ‘services.’ In the ‘Regular’ budget, SGVCS
deletes the $20,000 and provides for no District ‘services.’ In conclusion, the
estimated expenses in both budgets are unrealistic and not sustainable.” (email,
5/3/12)
Comparing the Two
Charter Budgets
While the specifics
of each budget differ the big picture shows that they do very much the same things.
Here’s a few of the highlights:
o The
charter would spend more on a school director, accounting, legal services,
consultants, and a secretary than on all part-time instructional teaching staff
combined. The secretary would not be paid a living wage.
o It
is unclear if both budgets provide sufficient funding for special education or
expect the District to share the costs.
o There
is no money budgeted for free and subsidized lunches, standardized test
resources, tutoring, English language learners, transportation, and teacher
training and in service.
o The
charter would use District money to pay to belong to a charter industry
lobbyist group funded primarily by the Walton Family Foundation (Walmart) and
the Gates Foundation—both of which are hostile to public schools and push
computers in the classroom and standardized testing.
o The
charter has made no commitment to maintain required contributions to state
employee pension funds beyond the first 3 years or to collectively bargain with
the staff over salaries, benefits and working conditions.
Fair Share and
Regular Budgets
For some reason both proposed budgets are nearly identical.
Both assume that it will receive far more than the $5100 per student it claims
it is asking for or the $5500 that the District is legally obligated to give
it. The amounts demanded by both budgets detailed above, between $8097 to $9776,
are relatively close to the current amount of funding per student. The charter
proposes eliminating critical teaching staff in the case of declining revenues
thereby significantly reducing its Waldorf curriculum.
Both budgets inexplicably distinguish between state and
local monies although the “State Programs” line item in both include a footnote
that reads “(a) Includes payments made via District for in-lieu property tax
funding.” (budget, p. 2) A better way of thinking about this is how much money
the charter would have to spend on each student if the District only gave it what
it calls “State Programs” and what it would have to spend if it received both
“State Programs” and “Local Programs ” demanded by both budgets. Let’s take a
look at what each budget demands from the District and then how they would
spend the money. As you can see from the following two tables both budgets are relatively
alike in what they demands for each of the 3 years.
Fair Share Budget
2012-13
state only $5631
local and state $9776
2013-14
state only $5758
local and state $8732
2014-15
state only $5914
local and state $8470
Regular Budget
2012-13
state only $5624
local and state $9543
2013-14
state only $5746
local and state $8526
2014-15
state only $5893
local and state $8097
Reserves
For some reason both charter budgets set aside much larger
amounts of money in a reserve fund that is consistently 20% in the Fair Share
Budget and ranges widely from 39% to 74.5% in the Regular Budget. In real
dollars the Fair Share Budget would have a reserve of $125,043 in 2014-15 and
the Regular Budget would have $501,219 in the same year. (p. 2, both budgets)
By comparison, the school district is only required by the state to retain a
fraction of what both budgets set aside. Paradoxically, one of my criticisms of
the District last year was its staff cuts and issuing of pink slips to two LWIP
teachers (including my daughter’s) even though the District’s reserve far
exceeded the state required minimum although it was projected to fall over the
next 3 years. While the pink slips were thankfully rescinded the staffing cuts
have not all been restored as far as I know. And yet the charter appears to set
aside an even larger reserve than the District with no explanation why.
Also troubling is that the Regular Budget is presented as a
“worst case scenario” budget by making cuts in administrative staff and
instruction aides for example—even while it retains a huge reserve of 39% to 74.5%.
Is this a mistake? If not, why does it need all this excess money in a bank
account when the children are stuffed into overcrowded classrooms without eurythmy,
language and music, there is no free or reduced lunches, and the secretary
isn’t even paid a living wage? This doesn’t seem very heartfelt or compassionate
which is a principle the charter purports to follow and teach. Whether a
mistake or not, this disproportionately large reserve is yet another illustration
of the lack of experience the charter petitioners have in public education and
bodes poorly for how public taxpayer money will be used with effectively little
public oversight.
Administrative costs
Both budgets set aside 19% of the total budget to pay for
the combined administrative related salaries and consultant costs (school
administrator, secretary, legal, accounting, etc.). The charter spokesman gives
a figure of 9.7% but that leaves out all the other administrative costs besides
the school director and secretary. (5/5/12 email)
The School Administrator would be paid a modest salary
beginning at $57,000 (full-time) or $34,200 (at .6 time) but receive a 7%
annual raise. (p. 5, both budgets) The secretary would be paid $10.82/hr with a
7% annual raise which is hardly an attractive wage for an experienced public
employee who will must have extensive experience and knowledge of how to
administer a public school (p. 5, both budgets). The School Administrator is
not required to have any experience managing a Waldorf school and is not
subject to a conflict of interest requirement. The petition also does not
include a prohibition on hiring a current parent or consultant for director (p.
49, 53) Both budgets project about $3,000 for legal services which could open
up the potential that the District is funding legal work that could result in a
lawsuit against the District such as under Prop 39 if the charter eventually
exceeds 80 in district students and is not satisfied with the available facilities.
The budget also sets aside $5 per student to pay its membership fee to the California
Charter School Association lobbying group which advocates for privatizing
public schools.
Classroom materials costs
Neither budget provides funds for materials or tutoring to
prepare students for the tests or improve scores. The Fair Share Budget
projects spending only about 1.2% on instructional supplies in the classroom:
$105, $107 and $110 per student. (p. 7) In contrast the Regular Budget projects
spending even less only about 1.5%, 1.46%, and 1.57% or $96.42, $99 and $102
per student. (p. 7)
Enrollment
As discussed in Part I, the charter’s raison d'être is growth. To survive it projects having to
significantly and rapidly grow its enrollment above the current 44 students. But
the charter petition’s projections of enrollment growth are plagued by several
inconsistencies or lack of data and documentation.
First, the charter petition has two inconsistent enrollment
projections. The first inconsistency is for 2014-15. The Fair Share Budget
projects 58, 69, 74 enrolled (p. 2). The Regular Budget projects 63, 75, and 83
enrolled (p. 2). However the totals for 2014-15 in both budgets are
contradicted on page 15 which says the enrollment will be 75. It seems highly
questionable that the charter based these projections on any local demographic
data or District projections.
The second inconsistency is on pages 167-168. On page 167 the charter claims it will have 58 students
enrolled in 2012-13. Yet on the very next page it says the charter will have 46
students in 2012-13 which when they are removed (presumably along with 5 out of
district transfer students but it’s not clear and conflicts with page 167 which
says it will have 14 transfer students) the charter will result in speculative
savings to the District. While this issue of whether savings will occur is
discussed above, the issue to note here is that the enrollment figures are
inconsistent and/or unclear from one page to the next.
The confusion is made worse
by the charter spokesman’s response to my point about enrollment growth. He
writes “the current projection for enrollment
in our program is 51 children for next year. In the petition we have a
projected enrollment of 58 children in the first year.” (5/5/12 email) But which
is it? And upon what data do they base these self-contradictory projections?
The reason for these flaws
may be that the enrollment projections are not based on any referenced
demographic data of growing birthrates in the Valley or District projections.
The primary source of confusion is their 3 page document (p. 167-169) outlining
their flawed claim to save the District money gives enrollment projections that
are only reflected in the Fair Share Budget. The projections for the claimed
savings are not based on the Regular Budget which projects a much higher
enrollment.
Fair Share Budget
2012-13
58 enrolled
44 resident
10 IDT (Inter-District
Transfers) ADA district
4 IDT Basic Aid districts
2013-14
69 enrolled
52 resident
12 IDT (Inter-District
Transfers) ADA district
5 IDT Basic Aid districts
2014/15:
74 enrolled
56 resident
13 IDT (Inter-District
Transfers) ADA district
5 IDT Basic Aid districts
At 10 new K students per
year, in year 5 (2016/17) there would be 75 in district students. By year 6 (2017/18)
there theoretically could be 85 in district students in the charter.
The projected enrollment in the Fair Share Budget for
K is 20 and 24 in the Regular Budget for all 3 years (Waldorf has a 2 year K; p. 16, both budgets). Because no demographic data
for the Valley or Marin is included in the petition we have no idea how they
came to this projected number or the growth in resident students from 44 to 56 between
2012-13 to 2014-15. How will it achieve an increase of 12 resident students in
only 3 years? Either the charter expects to siphon off a number of Montessori
and Open Classroom students or they know something about a baby boom in the
Valley that the US Census hasn’t detected yet. Shouldn’t the charter know how
many pre-K children currently live in the Valley or at least what the birthrate
is?
If we assume this projection
is accurate, taking into account the increase from 10 to 13 Inter-District
Transfers from ADA districts and from 4 to 5 from Basic Aid districts, after
year 3 it would only take 3 more years for the number of in district students
to exceed 80 students thus triggering Prop 39 obligations of the District to
provide equivalent facilities to the charter or face potential lawsuits to
compel it to do so.
Facilities
The charter Fair Share Budget, for example, only offers to pay
$6,236 ($520 per month), $7590 ($633 per month) and $8,364 ($697) during the
first 3 years to lease all 4 existing classrooms, the gym, shared space and
additional office space it doesn’t currently have. (p. 8) The amounts in the
Regular Budget are similarly far below current market rentals. (p. 8) The
petition assumes facilities costs amounting to 2% for all 3 years without
presenting any supporting data on current market rental costs either in the
Valley or Marin. (p. 15) The charter petition does not identify alternative
facilities or how it will achieve its educational goals if it cannot lease
library and other campus facilities from the District or cannot afford the cost.
The charter spokesman
simply dismisses these figures I cited from the charter petition as “false” and
then writes that it will be determined by a Memorandum of Understanding to be
negotiated later. (5/5/12 email) But which is it? Why do these extremely low
figures appear in the two budgets if they plan to negotiate the rental costs
later?
Teachers and Instructional Aides
As discussed in Part I, there is no requirement that newly
hired certified teachers will be Waldorf trained and no time limit for them to
get the training. The charter must only “consider” these factors in the
interviews. The most important qualifications are the teacher applicants “familiarity
with or willingness to be trained” in Waldorf. Those hired without background
or training will have to participate in training but there is no money budgeted
for Waldorf training, no time limit to obtain a Waldorf Teaching Certificate,
and no money for teacher to attend the referenced 1 week summer training. (p.
50)
As discussed in Part I, the Regular Budget would cut out non-certificated
instructional aides that teach eurythmy, language specialist, and music,
half of the Waldorf curriculum taught by instructional aides. The charter spokesman’s email confirms that
these cuts would happen but that it is expected they would be paid out of
donations. (5/5/12 email)
The charter would appear to provide less secure employment
conditions than the teaching staff now enjoy as District employees. Other than
the teachers, only the Waldorf Instructional Aide will receive health benefits (p.
11) Without a collective bargaining contract it is unclear how long the charter
is committed to making these benefit contributions beyond the first 3 years. In
fact, the Regular Budget provides a lower total benefit costs although it plans
to have the same number of teachers (p. 6) No Kindergarten Aide is budgeted
although it is referenced in the petition. The significant increase in class size,
the projected reduction in Instructional Aides in the Regular Budget and the
lack of health benefits may result in a high rate of turnover among the
teaching staff. Paradoxically, this could be expected to undermine the stated
reasons for trying to establish the charter school, to reduce turnover among the
teaching staff.
Without a commitment to collectively bargaining with staff
or setting up a grievance procedure, it can be expected that working conditions
for the teaching staff could easily head South. The charter board would be
composed of parents, all of whom have no experience as teachers or managing a
public school, who would make all of the salary, hiring and firing decisions
with little to no public oversight. The teachers would lose the right to
participate in critical governance duties they now have in the District
involving evaluations and tenure recommendations about their colleagues. It is
endemic among charter schools to unilaterally cut staff salaries whenever a
financial crisis emerges. This reportedly just happened with the new Waldorf
charter high school that opened in Sonoma. We should expect this no less in
this case. And when it does, we can also expect teachers to quit or be fired
with little warning, public input or due process.
Special Education
The Fair Share Budget projects spending $46,400, 56,511 and
62,160 during the first 3 years and the Regular Budget projects spending
$50,400, $61,425, and $69,720. (p. 8, both budgets) But it is unclear if the amounts
are sufficient to cover expected expenses or based on any existing District
expenses or projections. In fact, there is a strong reason to suspect that the
charter expects the District to pick up all or some of the costs.
The Board of Trustees should take heed that the charter
expects to conclude an agreement with the District identifying who is
responsible for providing special education services “and the manner in which
special education funding will flow to the students of the Charter School.” (p.
32) It is unclear how long such an agreement would be in effect, who would pay,
and whether the District would be re-imbursed for any of its costs. One of the
principal ways in which a privatized public institution attempts to justify
itself as “cost efficient” is by quietly shifting its operational expenses back
to the public. Special education is no exception. Although the charter plans to
contract with the District for Special Education services and hire its own
staff there is no budget amount for special education staff or contracting. (p.
32-33)
The see how the charter petitioners crafted the language on
special education one only look closely at how their reported hired legal
counsel suggests charters negotiate with a district over special education.
From what I am told the charter advocates have received legal counsel from Lisa Corr of the Sacramento
based Law Offices of Spector, Middleton, Young and Minney. According to Lisa
Snell’s report for the libertarian thinktank the Reason Foundation, Lisa Corr explains
“Charter schools need to have firm agreement on how special education programs
and services are provided and how funds are divided. Charter schools should
never agree to take on unfunded special education costs without limit—this
could bring a quick demise to the school if it enrolls a low incidence, high
cost student. Generally, it’s a good model to have the charter school allow the
district to keep the funds attributable to the school’s students, but to be
responsible for providing special education programs and services. At some
times, this works to the financial advantage of the school district; at other
times to the financial advantage of the charter school. It’s important to
balance risks. In some cases, shouldering a portion of unfunded costs may be
acceptable, but it should not be a “price” for chartering. Charter petitioners
should not agree to anything they can’t deliver.
Similarly,
districts should not encourage charter schools to take on a greater burden than
they can realistically manage. Charter schools definitely need to watch out for
situations in which the district keeps all the funds, bills the charter for a
share of encroachment, and bills the charter school for excess costs of
students who have extraordinary needs; that’s the worst of all worlds for the
charter school.” (Lisa Snell, “Special
Education Accountability: Structural Reform to Help Charter Schools Make the
Grade,” Reason
Public Policy Institute, Policy Study 319, July 2004, p. 13 and p. 29, footnote 65)
This legal advice and how it is reflected in the petition’s
vagueness about who will should this cost should raise a red flag that the
charter may either not be willing or capable of handling these potentially
immense costs.
Teacher-student ratio (p. 167)
LWIP currently has 44 enrolled students and a current 1/16.9
teacher-student ratio. However, both budgets expect a significant increase in
class size with its projected enrollment growth. The charter projects that K-3
will have a 1/20 ratio which would be an 18% increase in class size over the
current average. It is difficult to understand the basis for the claim in the
petition that Kindergarten will have an “adult: student ratio” of 12:1 because
the budgets both give a 1/20 ratio. (p. 52) Grades 4-6 would fare even worse
with a 1/25 ratio which would be a 48% increase in class size over the current
average. (p. 11, both budgets) It is unclear why these ratios are not projected
to grow if the charter cuts the 3 projected instructional aides according to
the Regular Budget.
The charter spokesman’s response to my analysis of this data
from the charter petition is that it is “false”. The spokesman disputes that
the petition says “Grades 4-6” on page 11 in both budgets and gives a lower
teacher/student ratio based on a new enrollment of 51 for 2012-13 which doesn’t
appear in the petition. The Fair Share Budget projects 58 students and the
Regular Budget 63. (5/5/12 email)
Keep in mind that the District is only obligated to give the
District much less than either budget projects. We do not yet know how that
would effect teacher-student class size ratios but if the Waldorf charters in
nearby Novato and Sonoma are any indication class sizes could easily exceed
1/30 which would make it almost impossible to realize the objectives of a
Waldorf pedagogy.
Out of District Transfers
The key to the charter’s survival is attracting Inter-District
Transfer (IDT) student who would come with money. As a result it projects
attracting money student who would come from Revenue Limited Districts (or ADA
districts) that come with 70% of per student funding in home district. During
the 3 years it expects to enroll 10, 12, and 13. Students who transfer from Basic
Aid districts like our own would come with $0. During the 3 years it expects to
enroll 4, 5, and 5. There are two problems with these projections. First, the
charter cannot use geography in its admissions policies so it has little to no
way to achieve these goals. Second, the District is not obligated to pass along
the 70% from ADA districts although it is obligated to educate those students.
Keep in mind that this is not a point merely about numbers.
The students themselves become less human beings with educational needs but
profit centers that charters seek out to rationalize their reason for
existence. We should be weary of any model of education that relies on such a
perception of children as sources of revenue.
Standardized Tests
As discussed in Part I, both budgets lack any funds for specific
preparation, resources, tutoring, or materials for prepping for and taking
standardized tests. The charter has no plan in case it fails to make its stated
yearly progress in test scores.
Ethnic and Socio-Economic Diversity
Although both budgets assume 25-26% of students will be
eligible for free meal it budgets nothing to meet this need. (p. 14, 16) The
Regular Budget assumes that 25% of students will be “Free Meal Eligible.” But
there is no explanation for the difference with the Fair Share Budget which
assumes 26% in 2012-13, 25% in 2013-14, and 2014-15. (p. 14, 16) The charter spokesman acknowledges that “if” the
charter buys into the lunch program it will have to offer free or reduced
lunches but there is no estimated cost. (5/5/12 email)
The charter petition also assumes that it will have 0%
immigrant students and that only 2% (declining to 1%) will be English language
learners and budgets no money for these needs.
This raises questions of just how heart centered and
compassionate this supposed Waldorf inspired charter school will be if it does
not think these student needs should receive any resources. The immediate
outcome of not meeting these needs will serve as a discriminatory filtering
mechanism to weed out children from poor and low income families.
Other Budgetary Issues
Attendance
Attendance is revenue for a
revenue limited district. If a student isn’t in class the school doesn’t get
money. The charter’s projected budgets require a significantly improved attendance
rate. However, there is no plan to address the current low attendance rates and
how they will achieve 95%. How will it make up the $45 lost for each absence
per day—about $6,000 per month at our current approximate 15% absentee
rate—that we do not currently lose as part of the District?
Oddly, the charter proposes
setting up a so-called “Short Term Independent Study” that will be used “for
absences due to travel or extended illnesses.” This could be read as a fig leaf
to rationalize the current high rate of absences as “independent study” in
order to keep the money flowing even when a child is absent for an extended
period of time not due to illness. I am not sure how elementary Waldorf
students will be engaged in any other “independent study” other than their own
self-guided learning they already do as children. (p. 26)
Audits
The charter petition does
not contain a conflict of interest rule for who will conduct the financial
audit. This seems to leave the door open for one of my current fellow parents
and/or one of the current unnamed consultants to scoop up this sweet pork on
the public’s dime. (p 63)
Closure
In case the charter is
forced to close or shuts itself down, it inexplicably has up to 6 months to pay
for and conduct final audit and retains all assets which it can donate to a non-profit
or foundation upon closure. (p. 85-6 and bylaws) This huge time lapse would
just allow any schenanigans to go undetected for far too long a period of time
and make it even more difficult to recover of any misused or lost funds. Of
course, this charter would never intend such behavior to occur but misuse of
funds is rampant among charter schools including one in Oakland forced to shut
down in March for paying its director about $1 million. There have been a spate
of other cases of fraudulent use funds by charter schools such as the San Diego
Children's Conservation Academy which
was shut down in 2007. According to a 12/4/07 report by Voice of San Diego, the
CCA had been formerly represented by the same law firm reportedly used by this
proposed charter. Some of these closures leave the sponsoring districts with
huge unpaid debts.
In fact, the charter’s Bylaws
Art. XVII does not seem to allow an amendment of the bylaws to abolish or shut
down the charter which in effect means that the charter board or the parents
could not shut it down even if they wanted to. (p. 144)
Collective Bargaining and
Seniority
There is nothing about
whether the charter will recognize the rights of staff and teachers to
unionize, whether it is willing to bargain collectively, and if it commits to
making full contributions to all pension funds beyond the first 3 years. (p.
54, 80)
The faculty and staff will
receive no credit for seniority and experience with the District and
effectively will have to start over without any seniority rights, tenure, or credit
for previous experience in the District. (p. 82)
Disputes and Lawsuits
The charter does not waive
its right to sue the District but “may pursue any other remedy available under
the law.” (p. 83) This wording seems to leave open a gaping hole allowing the
charter to resort to “other remedies” such expensive pre-emptive lawsuits. The
charter’s reported legal counsel sues school districts and has celebrated some
recent victories on its Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/MYMCHARTERLAW?v=app_6261817190
Their website has a downloadable
powerpoint detailing how charter schools can use Prop 39 to compel districts to
provide equivalent facilities once in district enrollment exceeds 80 students.
The District might consider
insisting that the charter sign a waiver of all rights to sue or arbitrate since
both approaches could be used as leverage to force the District to give the
charter what it demands. The charter industry has deep pockets and our little
District would be no match for them. It would be a good question to inquire if
such legal expenses are reimbursable from the state and how long it might take
to get the money back.
The Ombuds Committee appears
to be the only process for staff and parent grievances (other than for
expulsion). (p. 45 of 90) Without collective bargaining the teachers and staff
will lose their due process rights to dispute any policy or decision of the
charter school. In effect, what the charter board and school director says
goes. Where is the heart and compassion in such a policy?
Expulsion
The petition is unclear about
whether a student may be expelled for excessive absences. (p. 65)
Oddly enough in several
places the petition allows for a student to be expelled for threats of violent
crime that is mislabeled as “terroristic threat.” (p. 66, 69) I teach a course
on terrorism and there isn’t one US government agency that would define any
violent crime by a 5 to 11 year old as “terrorism” despite the expansive anti-terrorism
policy our government now pursues. This is a classic case of absurd Orwellian
overkill.
Facilities
The charter petition appears
to claim its current LWIP’s 4 classrooms and all other existing shared space,
including the gym and office space LWIP doesn’t currently have, all for only
$6,236 in the 1st year and $8,364 in the 3rd year. (p.
88) Do the math, the charter would never rent all of this space for $500 per
month anywhere in the Valley let alone the North Bay. There is no contingency
in either budget for what the charter will do if the District charges it fair
market rent or it has to rent off campus. Again the charter spokesman’s reply
is that this amount will be negotiated. (5/5/12 email)
Financial responsibility
for debts
The charter petition claims
that the District is not responsible for debts, will be indemnified against
risk, and charter will take out three types of insurance and bonds to cover
such risks. Most troubling is that the specific amounts will be determined
later. (p. 41, 89) Shouldn’t the charter have accurate information about their
potential risk?
Health and safety
One of the most important
responsibilities of a school is keeping our children safe from the most common
accidents to the most extraordinary dangers. And yet, the charter doesn’t say
who will handle all of these procedures and has no staff or funding to carry
out these responsibilities. (p. 56) If the charter wants more autonomy why does
the budget seem to miss such important responsibilities it will be taking on
for its own students? That is unless it plans to do what all privatized public
institutions do—pass those costs back to the public to pad its bottom line and
shave off costs in the mythological pursuit of “cost efficiency.”
Influence of Gates
Foundation
It is enlightening to read Appendix
A because this comparative study of the test scores of California Waldorf
charter schools explicitly praises the Gates Foundation’s sponsorship and
funding of a charter Waldorf high school in Sacramento. As I will write about
in a later blog, Gates and Walmart/Walton Foundation are primary funders of the
California Charter School Association lobbyist group to which the charter will
use taxpayer money for membership dues.
From my perspective as a
social scientist, the study included as Appendix A is unscientific and
amateurish. For example, it doesn’t say how many Waldorf charters there are (except
to list them at the end) and how they compare to one another. This paper is
restricted to an extremely limited sample of four apparently cherrypicked
schools to make sweeping generalizations about their performance primarily on
test scores. As a Waldorf parent whose daughter has been in Waldorf for 6 years
this paper does not make a very convincing case for the expansive accomplishments
of a Waldorf education.
K-5 or K-6 or K-8?
As noted above, both budgets
show the charter will offer K through 6th grade although there is no
budget for grade 6. However, pages 13 and 14 the charter contradicts itself by saying
that instruction will be K through 5th grade which was also
confirmed by the charter’s spokesman in a 5/5/12 email. Most troubling is that
there is no policy clearly identifying the maximum grade the charter school
will offer. Will the charter begin adding other grade levels which would only
add to the financial burden on the District? This question is never addressed.
Non-profit corporation
It
is unclear who the charter school applicant is because no IRS letter certifying
501c3 status is included with the petition. In his April 26th reply
to my April 18th California Record Acts Request Superintendent Larry
Enos wrote that the District doesn’t consider the LWIP Administrative Council
to be the applicant. However, because the non-profit does not appear to have
its IRS letter it is unclear who would receive District funds to run the
school. The charter seems to be putting the cart before the horse by submitting
its charter petition before it even exists as a legal non-profit. It is unclear
if the charter has even submitted its paperwork to the IRS to obtain its 501c3
status. Assuming that the charter will eventually receive its IRS letter is a
leap of faith that the charter will complete this process when it isn’t even
clear it knows that it must receive IRS status.
Even
after I documented the LWIP AC’s pursuit of the charter without taking a
pre-announced public vote by the Parent Council to proceed with the petition
the AC this time elected most of its members to also serve as members of the
charter’s Board of Directors without again holding a public vote or issuing an
agenda. (Art VII, Sect 3 Board of Directors, p. 133) This clearly violated the
charter’s own bylaws which states that “the
duties of the PC include…electing the Board of Directors” (p. 45, 133) The bylaws
appear to be incomplete since the secretary of the board has not signed or
certified the bylaws which is mandated by the bylaws. (p. 15 of 15 or 145)
The bylaws also distribute
seats on its board in an unfair manner. Parents are only guaranteed a majority
of seats up to a maximum of 8, 1 appointed by the District, and 3 seats are
reserved for the vague and undefined category of “community members” from an unspecified
geographic area. (p. 41-42) Could these “community” seats allow for the
appointment of charter school lobbyists and true believers from outside the
Valley as is common among charter school boards?
The
charter’s lack of capacity or unwillingness to follow principles of open and
transparent governance (and maybe even the law pending the Marin DA’s response
to my complaint about possible Brown Act violations) is evidence of its failure
to abide by the standards by which the charter petition is evaluated by the
District Board of Trustees. One of the 5 items the District Board of Trustees
may consider in deciding to approve or reject the charter petition is “4. The
petition does not contain an affirmation of each of the conditions described in
Ed Code Section 47605(d).” The charter must be assessed not just by its words
but by its actions to implement the principles of transparent governance it
commits itself to doing. (p. 42-43 of 90) So far, its dismal track record
operating in an inclusive and transparent manner, the ability to follows its
own bylaws, and complete its legal non-profit status bodes ill for how it run
manage its school with about $1.8 million in taxpayer money during its first 3
years if it is approved.
Parent “donations” and
“volunteer” work
One of the most stinging
critiques of charter schools is that they are motivated by an objective of
breaking teachers unions and getting rid of the rights of public employees to
bargain collectively with their employers. Its no wonder Walmart is a big financier
of the charter school lobby since the company is infamous for its anti-union
hostility. Much like private prisons that “save” money on labor expenses by
using the prisoners as virtually unwaged workers, the charter will expect
parents to not only do what we are driven to do for the love of our children
and school but also take up the slack by doing work now done by paid unionized public
employees. Parents are “expected” and “request[ed]” to give a minimum 40 hours
per school year including activities such as “site maintenance” and “assisting
in the school office….” (p. 47-8)
Let’s do some simple math to
see how valuable such parent donated labor will be to the charter school. By
year 3 with 74 enrolled students the charter will receive about 2,960 “expected”
hours from parents (assuming 2 parents per child which is not the case). At the
low poverty level current $8 minimum wage the charter would gain $23,680 in
unwaged labor per year. This work would otherwise have been done by unionized
public employees being paid a living wage and receiving contributions towards
their pensions and healthcare.
As I discussed in Part I,
the charter expects to receive an average $1300 per student parent “donation”
which is budgeted as operating revenue in both proposed budgets. In the Fair
Share Budget parent “donations” are a substantial percentage of total revenue.
Donations are budgeted to rise from $43,000 in 2011-12, $75,400 (13% of total
revenues) in 2012-13, $89,700 in 2013-14 (14.9% of total revenues), and to $96,200
in 2014-15 (15% of total revenues). Since the “signed parent expectation form”
was not included in the petition it is unknown whether the “donation” will be listed
as an obligation of the parent applicants, will be a question during the
application interview or included on the application.
However, if the school is
unable to raise an average $1300 per student either from the parents or
fundraising how will it compensate for the reduced revenue? Because the charter
includes these donations as expected revenue should this be considered tuition
and not voluntary donations as it claims? Keep in mind that it is illegal under
California law and the state constitution to charge tuition to attend a public
school.
With such a significant
chunk of the budget expected to come from parents will the financial assets and
resources of applicants and parents become an unspoken filtering mechanism to
keep out students who might otherwise require other charter school resources
such as tutors, free or reduced lunches, transportation, or special education?
What will happen if other fundraising does not meet expected goals? A public
school must educate children with the money it receives from taxes and not
depend on any fundraising or parent donations. The later flows unequally
depending on the socio-economic conditions of the community. When it comes it
is icing on the cake but it cannot be the main course.
Textbooks
The charter budgets set
aside only $3096.00 and $3405.00 for textbooks during its first 3 years. How is
it possible to run a school and implement standardized testing with so little
money for basic classroom materials such as textbooks? (p. 7, both budgets) As
a community college professor I can attest to the explosive annual increases in
the price of textbooks. The standardized testing industry works hand in glove
with the textbook industry. The charter seems uninformed of and unprepared to
meet these financial expenses.
The District should verify the validity of the petition signatures
According to the California
Education Code Section 47605(b) one of the 5 items by which the
governing board of the school district may deny a charter school petition is “3. The petition does not
contain the number of signatures required.” From my review of the 63 signatures
submitted with the charter petition by cross referencing them with the current
parent directory and from my own personal knowledge of many of the families
currently in LWIP I calculated that the
charter may have a significant number of signatures that need to investigated
to determine their validity to sign. For example, from my review I found:
o 1 signatory may a non-custodial parent (essentially has
no legal relationship to children)
o 3 parents signed twice
o 2 parents (one of whom also appears as one of the founding
charter members, p. 8-12 of 90) may still not actually reside within the
District and are sending their child to school in our District without an out
of district transfer. Last I was told that these parents did not actually live
in the District and had not received an out of district transfer for their
older child to begin attending in 2011. However, my information may no longer
be up to date and they may have relocated or received the transfer.
Nevertheless, I hope that the District will verify all the signatures on this
petition to ensure they are all qualified to sign.
o 11 signatures cannot be found in the latest directory
and may not be current parents. Some signed with addresses that show that they
do not live in district. In this case, it is incumbent upon the charter
petitioners to demonstrate that these parents actually have a committed
intention to attend the charter if it were to be approved. Without verifying
their commitment it would be reasonable to assume that anyone can sign this
petition thereby raising questions about the depth of its support for its
existence.
Set Up to Fail?
This analysis of the budgets
presented in the charter petition raise a number of troubling questions about
not only its impact on the rest of the District were it to be approved but
about the charter’s own financial sustainability. I admire the honesty of the
charter petitioners to admit their own concern for the survival of the charter
when they wrote that the reason for including the second Regular Budget was
their expectation of receiving less money than they prefer. “The second
[Regular] is a budget which demonstrates that the Charter School can operate
without these funds, albeit it [sic] with very slim margins and with a
reduction in programs and services for the students.” (p. 87) This statement is
indicative of the willingness of the charter advocates to jettison a
significant portion of its supposed Waldorf educational program if the
financial going gets tough. What neither budget appears to offer is a
projection of how it will operate with only $5500 per student, or only 55% to
67% of the amounts demanded in both budgets, the minimum the District is
obligated to provide it under law. That glaring omission is the most compelling
testament to the likelihood of this charter failing not only to realize its
educational plan but to keep its doors open. That alone is reason for the
District Board of Trustees to vote against granting the charter on June 12th.
