I helped the parents give up on suing the district in the interest of their children and move them into AICS because of the high expectations for all students. In hindsight (which seems to always be 20/20) the parents should have moved forward with their suit and moved the students. That way Oakland would not be so late in coming to the table to help disabled students under their new district reorganization. The district is just this month attending to the needs of disabled students. As it turns out, AIPS gives a lot more credibility to the reports of professionals than the schools of the three families I was working with in finding a “good fit” school.

The investigation as reported showed that AIPCS serves far fewer children with IEPs than OUSD does. This is the case with charter schools overall, nationwide, the numbers show.

Whether the decision to allow the AIPCS II to exist is wise depends on one’s hierarchy of values.

It was not wise if one believes charter schools privatize the public institution of public schools.

It was not wise if one believes democratic elected school board is better than a corporate unelected governing board.

And, for a school board member there are several reasons that it was not a wise decision.

One reason the three school board members voted against renewal was that the current governing board admitted no wrong and provided no specific commitments to care out governing in a more transparent manner.

Some Board Members felt that it was wise to support staff’s recommendation to reject renewal of AIPC School’s charter. Staff had recommended not approving with conditions because of the difficulty and expense of closing a charter school involving fraud. Staff referenced the difficulty and Los Angeles School District has had in a case involving fraud and indicated it was unwise to approve renewal and also unwise to approve renewal with conditions.

More than one Board member mentioned that voting no on renewal met the AIPC School leaders could appeal the Oakland denial to the County Board and the final report of FICMAT review and concerns would be public before the appeal would be heard by the County Board of Education.

The renewal application was essentially the same governance structure that had not been able to keep its promises regarding accounting procedures and reporting compliance that had lead to criticism and concerns that feed the reason for the Charter School office staff to recommend rejection of renewal.

And when AIPC school governance leaders were asked to comment on the concerns over governance and governance’s compliance with regulations, their comments further enforced a feeling on the part of some board members that the criticism of governance won’t be seriously dealt with by the governance responsible for implementing the renewal petition.

Jim Mordecai

In the case of the two Oakland elementary schools that are being converted at the end of the year to charter schools the OUSD School Board has granted the charters with conditions; and, in addition, has signed contracts with the conversion charter schools for services the District will provide. The service contracts came clearly as a “quid pro quo” condition of the School Board approving replacement of the conversion charter petitions. The District labeled these conditional contracts “partnership”.

The law does not allow a school board to ignore a petition for a charter school. I believe if a board does not act on a petition within a time certain, then the petition is granted. Not acting is not a school board option.

Could conditionally granting a charter be in effect not acting on the petition? What the school board is approving is a modified petition it wants and not the petition it is required by law to vote up or down.

And, how does a school board get the power to demand conditions for a petition to be approved? Does this power to place conditions on a charter petition derive from the existing charter law, regulations of implementation from the State Department of Education, or from charter school case law?

Is there an analogy between asserting of a school board’s power to demand conditions for a charter petition’s approval and the “signing statement” of the President of the United States? Both demand a power to made their approval conditional. So far it is only the President’s signing statement that is controversial.

Jim Mordecai

The central point I was making was that even if Chavis is convicted of fraud or other crimes, it still was the wise decision to allow the school to continue to exist and remediate any specific issues associated with the board/governance.

Additionally, now the school will have the benefit of the full FCMAT report on which to develop new procedures and controls.

This, ultimately, is the choice that the board made. IMHO, a wise choice