Comments on: Two Oakland schools to split from OUSD

By: Kaiser parent

Kaiser parent — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 15:00:47 +0000

#19
My understanding is that Charters, also funded with tax payer dollars at least in part, have first right to use any vacant school site under state law. I’ve heard the term “lease” tossed around in reference to Charters, but that would only be for a private building, not a public school site. Charters may also use public funds (from the same state education funds budgeted for public schools) to pay mortgages on private property, but those properties remain privately held. A Charter can also open in a single, unused classroom in any public school if it gets approval.

By: Kathleen Evans

Kathleen Evans — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 19:44:42 +0000

I am wondering what the financial arrangements are when a school “splits” from the district. It seems to me that taxpayers on all levels (city, state and federal) have invested funds in these public schools. How is OUSD compensated for facility, furnishings, materials, and costs related to closings? With so many school in the district being under-provisioned and no money in the budget for replacement, equipments, furnishing, and materials should go to OUSD schools. Sites (if rented) to charters should certainly be at market value.

By: Katy Murphy

Katy Murphy — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:40:31 +0000

ASCEND and Learning Without Limits submitted their charter conversion petitions last night, but the public hearings have yet to happen.

By: ousd teacher

ousd teacher — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:29:33 +0000

What happened with the charter proposal last night? Did the board approve ASCEND and LWL or do they have time to review before voting?

By: Katy Murphy

Katy Murphy — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:37:57 +0000

People from ASCEND were planning to file a petition to remain in their building; I believe they did so at tonight’s meeting, where I am now.

Also tonight: Someone from Lazear Elementary School said the community (not sure if it’s parents, or parents and teachers) have filed a charter petition. She said they want to remain in the district but will try to go charter if the board votes to close the school.

The board members haven’t started the closure discussion yet, but I imagine your question about Lazear will come up.

By: LK

LK — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:01:34 +0000

Will this change the distrtict’s calculus re closing Lazear? If Ascend goes charter and Lazear closes down, where are those children supposed to go? Surely, OUSD won’t assume that Ascend will still be a neighborhood school? Seems logical for Lazear to stay open (maybe move to the Ascend campus?) at this juncture.

By: Katy Murphy

Katy Murphy — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:08:20 +0000

Yes, that’s what OUSD staff have been saying: the district might lose up to 20 percent of the students displaced by school closings.

By: Factchecker

Factchecker — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:49:28 +0000

Mr. Velasquez, I think Mr. Smith must have misspoken. I think he meant to say that the district might lose as much as 20% of the ~1,000 students displaced by the school closings — not 20% of the district population as a whole. A 200 student loss in students would equal about $1.1M in revenue lost, but that does not include the savings from the expenses associated with those students.

By: Mr. Velasquez

Mr. Velasquez — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:24:39 +0000

I know that we are talking about charters but we need STOP and think before we make decisions that effect the entire school district. The board has already stated that they can’t prevent charters from opening AND also stated that they can’t close them down. The county and state are overturning their decisions. We need to attack that issue on a state level and change the rules and laws around charters. There are some great charters and there some that need to close. Let’s keep all of the best educational options open for our children.

This plan will create a MUCH larger deficit.Here are the numbers. OUSD expects to loose up to 20% of students in OUSD if they implement this plan. Superintendent T. Smith said that himself. Even if we cut that percentage in half. We will still loose 24.7 million a year from state funding. If we take the 2 mil out from the money we saved from closing the 5 schools, we are still left with a 22.7 million deficit that wasn’t there before the school closures. I had the numbers directly from OUSD sent to me. Let’s educate ourselves before we pick sides on this issue. THIS PLAN WILL NOT SAVE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT A PENNY!.

By: Jim Mordecai

Jim Mordecai — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 04:21:55 +0000

Board Member Spearman:

Any school that can get 50% of its faculty to sign off to convert to a charter school may submit its petition to its School Board. The law says the District can give preference to academically low performing schools. However, preference no longer has any legal meaning since the cap on charter schools have been lifted. But, it is interesting that Ascend is in PI status with a score of 781 but Learning Without Limits trails with a score of 728 but isn’t in PI status. Federal law encourages PI schools to become charter schools as redressing their low achievement.

The district under law does not have grounds to deny if the charter petition jumps through all the hoops mentioned in the law and it is easy enough for all petitioners to follow the model language provided by charter school association that leaves the District with no chance to turn down the petition. The California School Boards Association even states in its pamphlet that under law School Boards have had taken from them their discretion to turn down charter school applications with all the right stuff. But, why would the petitioner bother with a court win when it can take its petition to the County?

Look for yourself at the Ed Code:

b) No later than 30 days after receiving a petition, in
accordance with subdivision (a), the governing board of the school district shall hold a public hearing on the provisions of the charter, at which time the governing board of the school district shall consider the level of support for the petition by teachers
employed by the district, other employees of the district, and parents. Following review of the petition and the public hearing, the governing board of the school district shall either grant or deny
the charter within 60 days of receipt of the petition, provided, however, that the date may be extended by an additional 30 days if both parties agree to the extension. In reviewing petitions for the
establishment of charter schools pursuant to this section, the chartering authority shall be guided by the intent of the Legislature that charter schools are and should become an integral part of the California educational system and that establishment of charter
schools should be encouraged. The governing board of the school district shall grant a charter for the operation of a school under this part if it is satisfied that granting the charter is consistent
with sound educational practice. The governing board of the school district shall not deny a petition for the establishment of a charter school unless it makes written factual findings, specific to the particular petition, setting forth specific facts to support one or more of the following findings [listing of elements of the petition missing and defined by State Department of Education].

Ed Code 47605
(2) A petition that proposes to convert an existing public school to a charter school that would not be eligible for a loan pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 41365 may be circulated by one or more
persons seeking to establish the charter school. The petition may be submitted to the governing board of the school district for review after the petition has been signed by not less than 50 percent of the permanent status teachers currently employed at the public school to be converted.

h) In reviewing petitions for the establishment of charter schools within the school district, the governing board of the school district shall give preference to petitions that demonstrate the
capability to provide comprehensive learning experiences to pupils identified by the petitioner or petitioners as academically low achieving pursuant to the standards established by the department under Section 54032 as it read prior to July 19, 2006.

Jim Mordecai