Charter petition is going, going, gone...really?

Charter school advocates sent a letter to the board of Trustees announcing that they are withdrawing the charter petition. This letter is misleadingly signed by the "Parents Council" as well as the "Administrative Council" although no announcements that a vote would or had taken place have been made and by my reports few parents attended last Monday's meeting. Curiously, although parents were ready to vote on the question of whether to withdraw the charter petition at the PC meeting on the previous Friday, May 25th the chair of the meeting prevented a vote from taking place. Instead she scheduled another meeting for Monday at 10 am—the morning of Memorial Day at the end of a long 3 day weekend when it was assured that few parents would and did attend.

The letter makes several points about equity but the reputation of those that pushed this charter petition in an undemocratic fashion have blown their credibility. They appear to be futilely holding onto the charter and pointing it at the head of the District like a loaded gun. Matt Andrews hinted as such at the May 25th meeting I attended and in an excerpt from the letter quoted in today's Marin IJ article. Andrews is quoted as saying "Although we are withdrawing the charter petition, as a document it is very alive for us, and beautifully illustrates what our program could be when stable and with the full support of those involved." Would it be accurate to assume that since Andrews is credited for the quote in the IJ that he signed the letter he wrote himself as if it was approved by a vote of both the AC and PC?
Instead of issuing a letter of demands the Administrative Council should be submitting their letter of resignation. Mr. Andrews' name should appear on the signature line of that letter too.

And now for something really fun...

A couple of dads made this hilarious Dylan inspired music video addressed to my fellow LWIP parents urging them to remove their names from the now defunct charter petition. What a talented bunch of parents we have in the District.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ssspVf6v_k&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Enjoy!

Parents 1, Charter 0. It's over (for now): The charter petition has been withdrawn

According to parents who attended the Board of Trustees meeting this evening the charter petition has been withdrawn. However, its proponents did so with a threat that it could be revised and resubmitted at a later date.

It seems the charter proposal is dead. For now.

Good work to all who have worked so hard to stop it dead in its tracks.

Now it's time for those LWIP parents who have pushed this ill-conceived charter petition to apologize and resign from the LWIP Administrative Council for undemocratically pushing this on all of their fellow parents in the program and across the campus. It has been a monumental waste of everyone's time and has drained the District of valuable money and other resources that should have otherwise gone to educating our children.

The lesson we can all learn from this battle is that a well informed and engaged community is the best defense against the corporate privatization of our public schools under the guise of charter schools. As the powerful abolitionist campaigner and former slave Frederick Douglass once wrote, "Forewarned, forearmed, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." (The Nation's Problem, 1889)

Keep tuned to this blog for coverage of other District issues and policies. If you have any to suggest please write me at rfovetz [at ]  riseup.net.

Response to comment concerning Public Records Act request

A reader made the following comment below: "Do you plan to make the entire group of documents public? If not, why not?"

Thank you for your feedback. Unfortunately, I do not yet see a reason to post all 3400+ emails and pages of notes I am told I will receive on this blog. Hundreds of other pages of related documents are already available on the District website for download. Part of the issue is that I was given electronic versions of only a fraction of the documents so far. The rest of the documents would cost me 25 cents per copy to obtain a copy which would quite costly. Also many of the documents are redundant copies of the same emails CC'ed to each recipient. I understand that the District may be willing to provide more documents electronically but I am not yet convinced that a data dump of everything I receive a la Wikileaks would be useful. However I will be reporting on what I think is newsworthy and relevant. If anyone would like to take a look at what I receive please contact me. I could use the help going through it all. I am happy to share.

KPFA's The Morning Mix covers charter school issue

KPFA's The Morning Mix ran my commentary opposing the charter school proposal this morning during its 8 am prime time drive slot on 94.1 FM. You can listen at 34 min and 30 sec.

Trustee Sloan's curious reading of the CA Public Records Act

On April 18, 2012 I filed a California Public Records Act request with the Lagunitas School District requesting access to all documents and communications concerning the LWIP charter petition. This past Friday, May 25th, the District began making some of the documents available to me. One of the documents I have received so far is the following curious email from Trustee Richard Sloan. After reading Mr. Sloan's email I wonder if and when he will be turning over all the emails from his official school district and personal email accounts concerning the charter petition. After reading his email you may also be wondering the same thing. He can be reached at: r.sloan@comcast.net.

 

If you do contact Trustee Sloan please ask him if he is implying in his email that a concerned citizen using the state Public Records Act law to peer into the inner working of local government and our elected representatives is "delusional, time wasting" and "chickens***." Trustee Sloan advised my fellow LWIP parents in several LWIP AC and PC meetings I attended in 2010 and 2011 to go charter. This move is now costing the District a tidy sum in legal expenses that may or may not be reimbursed by our broke state government. Perhaps Mr. Sloan assumes the District spending even more money defending itself (on his behalf) against a subpoena would not further add to the growing legal bill.

Full disclosure: I ran against Richard Sloan last November for the Board of Trustees.

Charter schools in the news: The scourge of privatization

Charter schools have been in the news a lot in the last several weeks. The New York Times recently reported that charter schools in New York City are driving the re-segregating of the city's schools. Democracy Now! also reported on Philadelphia's school district announcement last month without any advance warning or hearings that it would completely privatize its schools in the next few years by handing them over to for-profit and non-profit corporations to run them in networks (eg, chains). This weekend Free Speech Radio News is running a 30 minute Memorial Day investigative special report about charter schools and privatization. For an overview of the impact of charter school privatization you can now watch the documentary The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman on line. It is a case study of the movement against charter schools in NYC produced by city teachers. Yours truly will also appear on KPFA's The Morning Mix program soon to speak about our own fight against the threat of charter school backdoor privatization of our school district.

Charter school petition sheds a signer

This week a parent who signed the charter petition without thoroughly reading it signed a letter that has been delivered to Superintendent Larry Enos asking that his name be removed from the charter petition. After studying it closely and reading about the charter issue he decided that he no longer supports the charter school proposal. He is truly a brave soul full of integrity.

Because the Board of Trustees may consider support for the charter petition in deciding whether to accept or reject at its June 12th meeting, this defection will certainly have a significant impact on the fortunes of the charter proposal.

It also shows that parents who take the time to read what they signed and become informed about its impact on the District as a whole and the destructive impact of charters on public education may end up joining him.

In fact, in a March 14, 2012 email to Principal Laura Shain and Superintendent Enos one of the LWIP teachers wrote that if the charter petition turns out to have an impact of anything but "neutral at worst" "the LWIP faculty might consider pulling our support from the Charter initiave [in original] for the good of the whole District." I obtained this email today as a result of my April 18, 2012 California Public Records Act Request. Since the evidence that the charter school will have a much worse than "neutral at worst" impact on the District I hope that our teachers will live up to this offer to consider withdrawing their names as soon as possible.

Santa Cruz's alternative to going charter: Do what we do

The headline is correct. Last month, the Santa Cruz City Schools District decided to not approve a controversial and divisive petition to create a Montessori charter school. They had many of the same problems with the charter petition: drained resources, wasteful administrative duplications, eliminate unionized teachers, etc. Instead, it offered to make Montessori an elementary school option within the existing District. Sound familiar? It should. We already do that. And we have three options.

Whether Santa Cruz intended to or not, they are emulating what we already do. We shouldn't be dismantling what we do. We should be spreading it across the country. The small school model works. It might be messy, it might be unfair sometimes. But this small school choice model is an innovative approach to revamping our public education system. It keeps it under public control and open to extensive community input, direction, and innovation. This keeps our school out of the hands of multinational corporations and their legal minions that seek to profit at the public trough.

IJ editorial: We have a public Waldorf school, we don't want a charter school

My response, "No to Lagunitas charter school," to a recent op ed authored by the spokesman for the charter school petitioners ran today in the Marin IJ. For those of you who read this blog it might not seem to make any new points. However, it sums up my many tens of thousands of words in these past 2 months into a nice, tight and tiny package of about 700. Think of it as something you can hand out at the post office and the ball game, forward to the in laws and neighbors, and give to anyone still on the fence on this critical issue.

Marin Voice: No to Lagunitas charter school

By Robert Ovetz
Guest op-ed column

marinij.com

Posted:   05/18/2012 05:14:00 AM PDT

DURING the Trojan War, King Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter to appease the goddess Artemis and get wind for his ships. He literally sacrificed everything for his victory. His wife killed him when he returned home with his lover.

Turning our beloved Waldorf program into a charter school would also sacrifice everything for victory. It would drain money from the district, duplicate administrative costs, reduce funding for our own Waldorf students, and undermine the Waldorf curriculum.

The charter school's spokesman wants us to believe that going charter would be a "win/win" for everyone in the district ("A charter school in Lagunitas?," Marin IJ, April 27). But that claim is disputed by the facts in their own petition — and the school district's own May 8 initial analysis.

If going charter is such a good idea why weren't we Waldorf parents given an opportunity to read, discuss and debate the merits of the 225-page charter petition before we were pushed to sign it a mere four days before it was delivered to the district? A few of us refused the strong arm tactics, fearmongering, and the complete lack of democracy and transparency.

We should be concerned that not only does the charter drop the word "Waldorf" from the school name but it almost entirely drops the Waldorf method as well.

Class sizes will increase as much as 48 percent. New teachers will not have to be certified in Waldorf and will receive no support to get training. Teachers and staff would also be stripped of all seniority and collective bargaining rights.

Beginning in the second grade, students will be required to spend months prepping for and taking standardized tests that are incompatible with Waldorf methods. If test scores are too low the school would be shut down.

The charter does not plan to provide subsidized lunches for low income students, will not offer tutoring, has no plan to promote racial and ethnic diversity, and has a flawed plan to provide special education.

Surprisingly, although the charter would spend more on a duplicated and wasteful administrator, secretary, lawyers and consultants — 19 percent of the budget — than on all the instructional aides combined the district warns that it may not even be enough.

To top it off, the charter would demand an annual $1,300 tuition for each student under the guise of a "donation." Because such "donations" would comprise 15 percent of the budget we parents will face more pressure to pay or leave.

The charter would drain money, facilities and resources from the rest of the district, forcing more layoffs. This would pay for a 40 percent increase in charter enrollment driven by out-of-district transfer students who would come with at least $2,000 less money than currently spent on resident students.

The larger the enrollment, the more money squeezed out of the rest of the district. In total, the charter is demanding the district give it at least $464,000 more money in its first three years than it now spends on the Waldorf program.

Contrary to the charter petitioners' claims, there is no savings. There are only huge costs.
According to its budget, if it doesn't get the money it demands, the charter would slash half of the Waldorf instructional aides. Cutting half the curriculum would undermine its claim to provide a quality Waldorf education to our children.

To add insult to injury, the charter would use taxpayer money to pay its membership fee for the Walmart-funded charter school lobbyist group that works to privatize our public schools. It would also continue paying a law firm that works with these lobbyists to sue districts that stand up to charter school demands.

We already have a public Waldorf school. We don't need a charter school.

Robert Ovetz is a Lagunitas Waldorf Inspired Program parent, member of Concerned Citizens for Public Education and a social sciences instructor at College of Marin. He blogs at Lagunitas School District Watch.

Another Oakland charter school bites the dust

The Oakland based Civicorps Elementary school's board announced last week that it was closing down without any warning. Despite an offer of some teachers to take a pay cut the school was facing a $100,000 budget deficit and declining enrollment. It had about 150 students enrolled.

How long would we need to wait for the proposed charter petition, written by a group with no experience in education, and plagued by poor accounting projections and flawed education and administrative plans, to turn into a defunct charter school with far fewer students?

Let's save ourselves the years of trouble, wasted resources, animosity, and broken hearts and learn from the lessons of those who almost monthly are admitting that charters are a fraud whose time should never have come.

The District Staff Analysis: Reasons to Reject the Charter Petition

Last Thursday, May 10^th, District attorney Edward Sklar presented a summary of the Initial Analysis of the Charter School Petition prepared by the joint County and District staff and legal team to a packed house. The District also made available Part 1 and Part 2 of a Memo responding to questions submitted by the community about the charter petition. As I noted in a recent post, it looks very bad for the charter school advocates and their corporate funded lawyer. In this posting I will summarize the key observations the District made in the Initial Analysis and Memo as to the many flaws, faulty assumptions, and outright mistakes found in the charter petition. As you will see the charter petition fails on three of the 5 key items (1, 2 and 5) in the state Education Code by which the Board of Trustees may vote to deny the petition and the Board of Trustees’s own policies. (p. 2-6) The District is refusing to allow the charter petitioners to make any amendments which would otherwise nullify the petition forcing them to start over and have instead asked them for clarifications. The petitioners have been given until May 24^th to provide their written response to the Initial Analysis. The staff will issue its final recommendation to the Board in advance of the June 12^th Board meeting at which time it will vote on the charter petition.

The Initial Analysis makes it crystal clear that “a significant concern requiring clarification is the likelihood that Petitioners can successfully implement their educational program as set forth in the Petition.” (p. 1) The key issue raising doubt that they may achieve their goals is the assumption that the District will turn over a supposedly $165,000 in “discretionary” funds. Since the Initial Analysis states that “staff does not recommend that the District transfer these discretionary funds to Petitioner” and the petition itself admits that it would have to chop out eurythmy, language and music from the Waldorf curriculum it seems that the charter advocates have shot themselves in the foot. The charter, according to the staff report and the charter petitioners’ own admission, cannot achieve its own educational goals and student outcomes. (p. 1 and 12)

That’s the global picture. When you zoom into the details it only gets worse for the charter. There are many important plans, details, and assessments missing and many mistakes in their claims.

Missing in Action

Let’s take a look at what is missing from the charter petition. If you read my two part analysis of the charter petition you will recognize some of issues I previously raised as well as a number of new issues.

Here’s what is missing or flawed:

o   A plan to provide adequate professional development, instructional materials and time to ensure that students meet the newly adopted Common Core Standards (p. 8)

o   1^st and 2^nd grade assessment tools (p. 11)

o   A plan to hire an interventionist specialist for low and high achieving students, English learners, and special needs students (p. 11)

o   A plan for transitional kindergarden (p.11)

o   Demonstrable proof of skills development in reading, math, science, and history/social science (especially dear to my heart as a social science professor) (p. 8, 10)

o   A thoroughly adequate special education plan (p. 12-13)

o   A plan to achieve racial and ethnic balance matching the District’s current 8.5% Latino/Hispanic student population (p. 13-14)

o   A detailed description of their entrance interview and application process and forms (p. 14)

o   A clearly delineated expulsion and suspension policy with a practical administrative panel review process (p. 14)

o   A commitment to participate in a specific retirement system for its staff (p. 15)

o   As discussed below, a clear budget that can successfully deliver their educational program (p. 15)

o   A salary pay scale and benefits package for staff (p. 16)

o   Pay for substitutes (p. 16)

o   A funding plan to acquire all the equipment and supplies needed to operate a Waldorf school since the District says everything we currently use is owned by the District (p. 17)

o   A clear plan for what administrative services the charter will pay the District to carry out (p. 18)

o   A resolution to the inevitable conflict of interest if the District both conducts many of the administrative functions of the charter and then evaluates them (p. 21)

o   A plan for carrying out housekeeping and maintenance (p. 18)

o   A disclosure of their list of consultants. (p. 4) We now know that that have hired the corporate charter school law firm of Middleton, Young & Minney. What we don’t yet know if they are working on a contingency (which would pay out only if they can successfully sue and pillage our District) or if they are still being paid by the hour.

o   A complete academic calendar (p. 5)

o   A plan for building maintenance, replacement and expansion (p. 5)

o   An address for each applicant (which may be a problem for the petitioners if one of the main petitioners still doesn’t actually live in the District and has not obtained an out of district transfer for her 2^nd grader as was the case in early 2011) (p. 20)

o   An attorney’s opinion about the potential financial liability to the District (p. 20)

Case Study #1: Drain the District, Feed the Charter

Despite the thinly veiled threats by the charter petitioner’s corporate lawyer, the charter has explicitly identified the devastating fiscal impact on the District if it were to approve the charter. The Initial Analysis states straightforwardly that “the Charter School would have a negative fiscal impact upon the District in each of its first three years of operation” from both the “Fair Share” and “Regular” budgets which “would cause the District to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars causing the District to reduce services elsewhere to compensate.” (p. 18-19)

Although the Initial Analysis doesn’t provide the full estimate of the cost to the District for the 2^nd and 3^rd years if the charter’s “Fair Share” budget were approved, it does note that the District would lose a whopping $274,000 in the first year alone. The Regular budget (which cuts out instructional aides for 3 Waldorf programs) would cost the District $109,000, $162,000 and $193,000 in the first three years totaling $303,000 in lost revenue (minus $191,000 currently spent on the LWIP).

As I also noted in an earlier analysis on this blog that comes close to the estimates in the Initial Analysis, this is a far cry from the charter petitioners’ wildly exaggerated claim that it would save the District $365,000. This estimate, the report explains, is “grossly inaccurate” and “not correct.” (p. 19)

One of the key factors the charter petition overlooks is that the charter cannot hope to get all of the administrative work done by the District for a mere $20,000 while the District is losing this much money. This estimate “is not realistic,” according to the staff report. (p. 19) The District warns that it will charge a much higher rate to recoup any loses caused by the charter, if it even has the capacity to provide these services for hire. (p. 19, and Memo, p. 2) Doing so would put to a lie the myth that charter schools are more “efficient” than normal public schools. The charter’s whose raison d'être is a shell game in which it would effectively be taking from Paul with one hand and trying to underpay Paul with the other for everything Paul already gave it for free to begin with.

Case Study #2: Flawed Special Education Plan

The charter petition’s flawed coverage of special education comes under particularly harsh scrutiny. According to the Initial Analysis, “a number of elements of a ‘reasonably comprehensive’ special education plan are missing from the Petition” which leads the analysts to conclude that “there is no indication in the Petition that they understand their responsibility to ensure that all eligible pupils are to be provided with a free appropriate public education.” (p. 12) This observation should give everyone pause: “Petitioners appear to be unclear as to how the provision of special education services to eligible Charter School students will actually occur.” (p. 13)

One need not look very far to see that this is not an oversight but rather a strategy used by the charter industry to socialize the costs even as it privatizes public assets. As I noted in a recent posting, their legal counsel advocates charter applications avoid making any financial commitments to provide special education. The charter petition is missing an adequate special education plan for the same reasons it is also missing a plan to achieve ethnic and racial diversity—they have no intention of providing them. Charters are not financially sustainable unless they can dump the most “costly” children to the public while filtering out the whiter and wealthier students who offer more “donations” and less need for ESL, free and reduced lunches, transportation, and remedial and special education. HMOs do the same thing in our market based health care delivery system by covering only the healthy and passing along the higher cost sick, children, elderly, and even pregnant patients to the public programs such as MediCare, MediCaid, the VA, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP or Healthy Families in CA) public insurance programs.

Case Study #3: Lack of Racial and Ethnic Diversity

Take a look at the blistering criticism leveled at the charter petition for its incompetence in planning for racial and ethnic diversity. (p. 13-14) The petitioners not only failed to even identify the current racial and ethnic diversity of the District (which I pointed out in my analysis) but their focus on only recruiting from among the existing LWIP student population “appears misplaced and inappropriately narrow” to put it extremely diplomatically. Some could perceive this as racist and xenophobic. The claim that the charter will enroll no immigrant students even though at least 6 of our families—including mine—have at least one immigrant parent, demonstrates that the petitioners don’t even know our own families. Perhaps three of the key charter advocates are just too busy working for the Valley based Kelleher International, a multinational corporate dating service for millionaires and billionaires owned by family of the charter spokesman—the real 1%—to notice the rest of us here in the real world.

A Note of Outrage

If all of this hasn’t split your gizzard yet you should read this last item sitting down. According to the Memo it is perfectly legal for the charter school, if it is approved, to use taxpayer money paid to support public education to pay for legal costs even if the legal services are used to the sue the District which funds it. (“Operations of the Charter School,” #6 and 7, p. 6) Furthermore, it is also legal to use the same taxpayer money intended for running a public school to pay membership fees for the Walmart and Gates Foundation funded California Charter Schools Association which seeks to break up and pillage our public schools and transform them into publicly funded private schools.

A 3 year Long Trainwreck?

All of these missing elements illustrate not only the charter petitioners’ lack of experience working in and administering a school, and obtaining adequate professional assistance, but more importantly that they are unlikely to successfully implement their educational goals.

In particular, note the question posed in the Initial Analysis asking “How will the Charter School’s teaching staff address the differences in skills and content between Petitioners’ Waldorf curriculum and the California Common Core Standards, especially given that students will be expected to perform proficiently on state tests that are based upon the Common Core?” (p. 9)

The obvious answer is that, mindful that I am also talking about my own daughter, they cannot. The charter will fail and should be denied. Yet, even if it is granted by the District, County or the State Department of Education (which I suspect is their strategy considering their corporate lawyer’s links to the charter office) and then fails it will be closed down. When and if that comes to pass it would wipe out an extraordinary experiment in providing a public Waldorf education in a small school setting. But by then the key charter advocates may already have their children enrolled in one of the pricey private Waldorf Schools around the Bay Area, if of course they are willing to make that daily commute from the Valley.

In either case, the board has solid ground to vote to deny the charter petition.

The Valley has spoken: No charter school

Tonight the Lagunitas School Board of Trustees hearing on the charter petition heard from one of its attorneys Edward Sklar, a statement against the charter school signed by 295 Valley residents, parents and voters, and speakers who commented 2 to 1 against the charter school.

Mr Sklar of the law firm Lozano-Smith summarized the initial staff report released this week emphasizing the "burden on this district and board to move forward with this petition." This burden, he noted, would be caused by several factors including the lack of facilities for the charter school, the dearth of money it has budgeted for expensive administrative services, and its demand for $165,000 in discretionary money. "I'm concerned," he said "there would be a hit on the district from all of these." According to the initial staff report the preliminary impact of the charter's Regular Budget would drain $464,000 in the first 3 years. It gets worse under the Fair Share Budget. In the first year alone the District would lose $274,000. (p. 19) We anxiously look forward to estimates for the 2nd and 3rd year as well. The charter's claims of savings to the District the report concludes are "grossly inaccurate" and incorrect.

This evening a long-time parent delivered a statement circulated by Concerned Citizens for Public Education and signed by 295 Valley residents, parents, and voters opposing the charter school and asking the board to vote to deny the charter petition. The Board should stand up and take notice that these signers amount to about 10% of the total local registered voters. To put this into context, 1683 votes were cast in the 2011 election for myself, two incumbent Trustees and write-in candidates. Of course, because voters could vote for two candidates the number of actual voters is probably much less but 295 signatures is a sizable block in any Valley-wide election for Trustee, a bond measure (which is expected on the November 2012 ballot), or a parcel tax.

Lastly, 64% of those who took a position tonight were explicitly opposed to the charter, a bit less than twice the number of those who spoke in support, 36%, while 5 took no clear position. This sizable turnout against the charter combined with the significant number of those who signed the statement opposing the charter demonstrates that the charter lacks the community support it requires to successfully implement its educational plan. Keep in mind, this is the second item in the list of 5 criteria items that board must consider in voting to accept or reject the charter petition.

Many of my fellow LWIP parents, while framing their comments in terms of compassion and heart, paradoxically came armed with their expensive charter industry corporate attorney Michelle A. Ruskofsky of the law firm Middleton, Young & Minney, LLP. Ms. Ruskofsky finally publicly acknowledged that the firm has been advising the charter advocates on their petition as I was informed in March and have reported here. This is only one of the consultants the staff report requested that the charter petitioners disclose. Ms. Ruskofsky explicitly warned the board of its lack of grounds to reject the charter petition based on any of the 5 criteria. Her comments should be read as an underhanded threat of potential costly appeals to the county and the state if its rejects the petition and perhaps legal action.We should also read it as a warning for years of costly legal battles were the board to approve the charter petition and then find the charter school making further demands.

As you read Ms. Ruskofsky's bio pay careful attention to her experience transiting through the swinging door between the charter-industrial-complex and the Charter Schools Division of the California Department of Education. Through the revolving door corporations and their hired guns move from industry into government where they write, rewrite, water down, slant, distort, or gut the regulations only to then miraculously swing back out back into their old industry to exploit the rules to the advantage of their own bottom line. The entire charter law is rigged against parents and public education. The only things that can stop it is a well organized community as ours is becoming and hopefully a sympathetic board of trustees.

If you have any doubt that a well organized community can stop a charter school from pillaging their District just look north to Santa Rosa where two weeks ago parents and volunteer public interest and civil rights attorneys have put a temporary stop to the conversion of Doyle Park Elementary School into a French charter school.

District staff report on the charter petition is now on-line

The District staff's initial analysis of the charter petition is now out. From my initial review it looks very bad for my fellow LWIP parents to get the charter school. But it's no time to relax. I encourage you to read it yourself, sign the statement asking the board to vote against the charter petition, and speak out at the May 10th board hearing and the June 12th board meeting.

I will be providing my analysis of the staff report here in the coming days. In meantime, note that the report documents that the charter petition incorrectly claims it will save the District money. In fact, it will cost the District big money. The report also confirms my concerns that the charter school would cut out a large portion of the very Waldorf education it plans to offer if it comes up short on resources. The petition's plan to provide special education is also found to be woefully inadequate. It could be read that the District is warning the charter school that it doesn't have to lease it any facilities especially at the cut rate price the charter budgeted to pay. The report also makes a strong defense of the interests of the charter teachers and staff particularly when it comes to pay and benefits. Pay special attention to the bruising critique of the charter's failure to adequately address racial and ethnic diversity. Overall, the District confirms a significant portion of my analysis on this blog and even goes above and beyond several areas in ways I hadn't even thought of.

At this time the compassionate and respectful course of action for the charter petitioners would be to pull their petition and file it in the trash. It will save the District (and County Office of Education) much time, effort and scarce money over the coming weeks and months that could otherwise be spent as it is intended to be on our children in the classrooms and on the playgrounds.

Pulling the petition now would also defuse the growing animosity building against our beloved LWIP program. In fact, it would demonstrate that my fellow LWIP parents who follow the path of cooperation and compassion both walk the walk and talk the talk. If the petition is pulled now there is a great opportunity to begin rebuilding bombed out bridges with the other parents in the District. This would allow us to make a renewed case for why LWIP desperately needs more resources to achieve its educational goals next year. Perhaps a solution is to try the innovative approach of participatory budgeting with all 3 programs and the middle school like that used in Brazil, Venezuela and several places in the US to end the warfare over how our scarce resources are spent by the District.

The charter petition has hit the Valley like a fractious divorce in which the departing partner says you have to pay me alimony and child support in greater and greater amounts forever for all of the kids I will have after I leave you—even to the point of your bankruptcy—or I will sue. No family law judge would ever sign off on a settlement like that and the District shouldn't either.

Let's not get divorced. Let's stay together—as a single public school. Those that want a private school are free to find one. It's just that LWIP is not for sale.

We need you to turn out and join the approximately several hundred Valley residents who have already signed the petition opposing the charter proposal this Thursday May 10th at 5:30 in the campus multi-purpose room near the gym. If you haven't yet signed the petition there will be an opportunity to do so before the meeting begins. Get there early and save yourself a seat. It is going to be a hot time in the Valley that evening and I am not talking about the soaring temperature.

Correction: The Board will not vote at Thursday, May 10th meeting

I wish to correct a note I made in my last posting that the board will vote on the charter petition this Thursday. The Board will not be voting at this meeting. The vote will only take place at the June 12th meeting. Sorry about any confusion that may have caused.

Part II. Why the District Should Vote to Deny the Charter Petition: A Comparative Analysis of its Two Budgets and Related Financial Policies

 

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 5^th email from the charter’s spokesman disputing my May 1^st “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 1^st year and $8,364 in the 3^rd 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 6^th 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 5^th 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 26^th reply to my April 18^th 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.