Lesson in paperwork
Robert Moreno
Chula Vista Star-News
Aug 09 2014
Two school districts are heading to court over the legal status of a new charter school in National City.
Attorney Gretchen Shipley filed a writ of mandate July 25 on behalf of the National School District alleging that the Julian Union School District illegally placed a charter school at 2400 Euclid Ave.
Shipley cites in court records that the Julian school district is in violation of section 47605 of the California Education Code for its yet-to-open charter school, Beacon Classical Academy Elementary.
Chris Carson, assistant superintendent of business for the National School District, said that the school district was supposed to be given notice of Beacon’s intent to locate within the National School District’s boundaries.
He also said Beacon was supposed to attempt to locate a facility within Julian’s boundaries, which he said they never did and therefore are in violation of an education code.
He said since the National School District was not notified about the charter, the Julian Union School District is also in violation of California Education code.
Code 47605 (a) states: “A petition for the establishment of a charter school shall identify a single charter that will operate within the geographic boundaries of that charter.”
Shipley wrote in court documents that the Julian Union School District did not identify a single charter school that will operate within the geographic boundaries of the Julian Union School District.
Instead Julian Union School District authorized the charter to operate outside its boundaries and within the National School District’s boundaries.
Shipley turned down an interview request because the case is in litigation.
Dr. Alma Van Nice, founder and executive director of the classical academy, said the education code does not apply to Beacon because it is not a school site.
“Beacon Classical Academy is an independent study charter school that was authorized by Julian Union School District,” Van Nice said.
“An independent study charter program is also referred to as a non-classroom-based program because the instruction can take place in the child’s home, the community and at the resource center.”
Van Nice said independent funding for the charter school is not based on attendance but rather on performance.
Carson said the National School District is not against charter schools, but against charter schools that don’t follow the proper rules.
“We want them to adhere to the same rules as any district,” Carson said. “We ask that the Julian school district revoke their charter on the grounds that they are violating the education code in the charter petition.”
In court documents, Shipley said that the Julian school district continues to ignore the laws of the California Education Code despite a cease and desist notice.
“Julian Union School District and Beacon have and are continuing to willfully ignore and violate the Charter Schools Act, when Beacon decided to open its school in the jurisdictional boundaries of petitioner without any notice or effort to comply with the geographic restrictions of the CSA and this action is necessary to compel their compliance with it,” she states.
“Both entities have failed and refused to comply with the law, despite notice of violations and a request for remedy by any or all of them.”
The charter school is set to open Aug. 8.
- See more at: http://www.thestarnews.com/chula-vista/lesson-in-paperwork/#sthash.oKtxQAYP.dpuf
Showing posts with label regulating charter schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regulating charter schools. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Friday, July 11, 2014
Voice of San Diego has a great story about Thrive Charter School, a pet project of VOSD's Buzz Woolley
Caught in San Diego Unified’s Crosshairs, a Charter School Lives Up to Its Name
Mario Koran
Voice of San Diego
July 10, 2014
That charter school the San Diego Unified school board tried to kill has roared back to life.
Thrive Public School was approved by the State Board of Education Wednesday night in a unanimous decision. The school will open in September.
Earlier this year, after spending months working with San Diego Unified staff, Thrive’s founder Nicole Tempel Assisi presented the school board her petition to open a charter school.
The petition had been vetted by various district departments, and was recommended for a five-year charter – its highest vote of confidence. The petition was so convincing Superintendent Cindy Marten gave it the thumbs-up.
It wasn’t enough to convince trustee John Lee Evans, however, who first moved to deny the charter. He noted how Thrive had once simultaneously tried to open a charter in San Diego Unified and another district, and said it represented bad faith in the local community.
Assisi had been a founding principal at Los Angeles charter schools, worked at High Tech High in its early years and had been awarded a grant from the Gates and Broad foundations for the innovative model that Thrive promised.
But ultimately Thrive was shot down in a 3-2 vote. Why the board decided to move the goalposts on this particular charter school was hazy.
The vote, and a separate move by the board in which it raised the bar on which charter schools would be eligible for a slice of Prop. Z money, kick-started a new round of debate about the school board’s relationship with charter schools.
Thrive wasn’t finished. It appealed the decision to the County Board of Education. That came with a bizarre twist: The same San Diego Unified staff that once supported the petition argued the County Board should reject it.
Sarah Sutherland, an outside legal consultant who spoke to the county board on the district’s behalf, said Thrive sounds “good in theory,” but had gone through fundamental changes that undermined its chance of success.
It worked. Thrive was denied. Again.
Thrive appealed again, this time to the state. Thrive’s petition faced another review board, another round of vetting, another hearing before the State Board of Education, where it had 10 minutes to make its case. San Diego Unified had the same. And once again, Thrive faced opposition from a onetime supporter: Marten.
Even though Marten, months earlier, had vouched for her staff’s decision to green-light Thrive, she wrote a letter to the State Board asking it to deny the school, citing concerns over its support for English learners. (Read the letter here.)
But this time, Thrive won out.
Thrive is scheduled to open in the fall. Assisi said there are spots for 160 students, half of which are currently filled. Assisi has been interviewing teachers, and has a list of nine finalists – six of whom will get the nod for the fall.
Assisi will soon sign a lease for the school, she said. Even though the school will exist within San Diego Unified boundaries, it will be overseen by the state, which will monitor its test scores and finances.
The state will also visit the school twice a year, over the course of Thrive’s five-year charter.
Of course, because Thrive won’t be part of San Diego Unified, it also won’t see any of the bond money that other charter schools in the district will receive.
For Assisi, that’s a rub, but she said it’s not what matters most.
“We didn’t come to San Diego to have access to bond money,” she said. “We didn’t come to pick a fight. We came to San Diego because there’s need and kids across the city on waiting lists for charter schools – because there are students across the city living in poverty, not meeting their potential.”
Still, it was a fight – one that cost Thrive and San Diego Unified time and money.
Assisi said the process also cost them a grant that they’d won, but ultimately lost because the school’s charter hadn’t been approved on time.
Thrive has a lot of work to do before it’s ready to open in fall, but Assisi said it’s the kind of work she got into the profession to do.
“We have such an expedited timeline now, and that wasn’t necessary. It’s unfortunate that so much time and money was wasted – on both sides. It’s unfortunate that this wasn’t spent on children,” she said.
Maura Larkin
Yes, Mario, we all see what Kathy S "did there": she listed the five organizations that had given grants to Thrive. Then she asked a question that brought our attention to the fact that one of those five organizations--the Girard Foundation--is led by Buzz Woolley, founder and donor of Voice of San Diego. She was being very gentle with her subtle message. I would have been more direct. I would have said that this is the sort of information that should be included in a "full disclosure" message attached to your story.
Also, how about you ask Ms. Assisi to tell us in one or two sentences what is the main idea of her educational philosophy? What is it that makes her plan innovative?
Mario Koran
Maura Larkins
I think you have a great story here, Mario. The about-face by Cindy Marten and the district is disgusting. This charter had no problems until the issue moved into the political arena.
So why not trust your readers to see this?
The fact that Buzz Woolley is a bigshot at both the Girard Foundation and Voice of San Diego doesn't prevent the story from being accurately reported and newsworthy.
You could have avoided the distraction of this issue by doing a full disclosure up front. A full disclosure is NOT a red herring. It's an expected practice that allows readers to judge for themselves whether or not the story is biased. Emily Alpert used to include disclosures when she wrote about Buzz Woolley.
For the record, I do not think your story is biased. I think you did a public service by writing it.
Derek Hofmann Derek Hofmann
"It's much easier to improve the scores of average and advanced students than it is to bring up the scores of kids who are behind."
When you're using value-added, because it's impossible to improve a student who's at the 100th percentile as there is no 101st percentile, it can only be easier to improve the scores of students who are behind.
Maura Larkins
A student who is at the 99+%ile (there is no 100%ile) can most definitely improve. Let's say you have a third-grader who scores at a ninth-grade reading level. The next year, this child is almost certain to advance to tenth-grade or higher reading level. Of course, his (or her) percentile wouldn't change. If every single child were to improve one grade level each year, then each child would have exactly the same percentile score each year, but would nevertheless be scoring at a higher performance level. Unfortunately, a student who is two years below grade level is much less certain to advance a year or more during a school year. These students are usually not given proper instruction. They are likely to sit in class while everything goes over their heads because teachers "don't have time for the kids who are behind."
Derek Hofmann Maura Larkins When you talk changing percentiles, you're talking about kids going up or down RELATIVE to other kids. You're NOT talking about how much actual improvement a student makes.
In your scheme of things, a kid who gets the top score in the whole country year after year, and rapidly raises his (or her) level of performance each year, has NOT improved.
You are also saying that a child who is in a low percentile to start with, who improves a little bit--but is still far below grade level--has improved MORE than the first kid!
This makes no sense.
Percentiles only allow you to know which kids are higher and which kids are lower.
Percentiles don't give you information about what kids actually know. If everyone makes less progress year after year, the percentiles remain the same. If everyone makes more progress year after year, the percentiles remain the same.
We want to know whether the student population as a whole is getting better, staying the same, or losing ground. This is CRUCIALLY important.
So we're not really much interested in looking at percentiles. Your mom is interested in your percentile, and college admissions departments are interested, but society as a whole is more interested in whether students are raising their grade levels..
The fact is that we ARE able to measure the improvement of the high performers by looking at changes in their grade level, and we know that teachers don't have to put very much effort into getting the high-performer to improve their academic performance.
We are also able to measure the improvement of low performers by looking at changes (or lack of change) in their grade level, and experience shows that teachers have to put a lot more effort to get that improvement.
That's why so many people are furious that low-income schools don't have the very best teachers. The upscale schools don't need the best teachers; the downscale schools desperately need them.
Mario Koran
Voice of San Diego
July 10, 2014
That charter school the San Diego Unified school board tried to kill has roared back to life.
Thrive Public School was approved by the State Board of Education Wednesday night in a unanimous decision. The school will open in September.
Earlier this year, after spending months working with San Diego Unified staff, Thrive’s founder Nicole Tempel Assisi presented the school board her petition to open a charter school.
The petition had been vetted by various district departments, and was recommended for a five-year charter – its highest vote of confidence. The petition was so convincing Superintendent Cindy Marten gave it the thumbs-up.
It wasn’t enough to convince trustee John Lee Evans, however, who first moved to deny the charter. He noted how Thrive had once simultaneously tried to open a charter in San Diego Unified and another district, and said it represented bad faith in the local community.
Assisi had been a founding principal at Los Angeles charter schools, worked at High Tech High in its early years and had been awarded a grant from the Gates and Broad foundations for the innovative model that Thrive promised.
But ultimately Thrive was shot down in a 3-2 vote. Why the board decided to move the goalposts on this particular charter school was hazy.
The vote, and a separate move by the board in which it raised the bar on which charter schools would be eligible for a slice of Prop. Z money, kick-started a new round of debate about the school board’s relationship with charter schools.
Thrive wasn’t finished. It appealed the decision to the County Board of Education. That came with a bizarre twist: The same San Diego Unified staff that once supported the petition argued the County Board should reject it.
Sarah Sutherland, an outside legal consultant who spoke to the county board on the district’s behalf, said Thrive sounds “good in theory,” but had gone through fundamental changes that undermined its chance of success.
It worked. Thrive was denied. Again.
Thrive appealed again, this time to the state. Thrive’s petition faced another review board, another round of vetting, another hearing before the State Board of Education, where it had 10 minutes to make its case. San Diego Unified had the same. And once again, Thrive faced opposition from a onetime supporter: Marten.
Even though Marten, months earlier, had vouched for her staff’s decision to green-light Thrive, she wrote a letter to the State Board asking it to deny the school, citing concerns over its support for English learners. (Read the letter here.)
But this time, Thrive won out.
Thrive is scheduled to open in the fall. Assisi said there are spots for 160 students, half of which are currently filled. Assisi has been interviewing teachers, and has a list of nine finalists – six of whom will get the nod for the fall.
Assisi will soon sign a lease for the school, she said. Even though the school will exist within San Diego Unified boundaries, it will be overseen by the state, which will monitor its test scores and finances.
The state will also visit the school twice a year, over the course of Thrive’s five-year charter.
Of course, because Thrive won’t be part of San Diego Unified, it also won’t see any of the bond money that other charter schools in the district will receive.
For Assisi, that’s a rub, but she said it’s not what matters most.
“We didn’t come to San Diego to have access to bond money,” she said. “We didn’t come to pick a fight. We came to San Diego because there’s need and kids across the city on waiting lists for charter schools – because there are students across the city living in poverty, not meeting their potential.”
Still, it was a fight – one that cost Thrive and San Diego Unified time and money.
Assisi said the process also cost them a grant that they’d won, but ultimately lost because the school’s charter hadn’t been approved on time.
Thrive has a lot of work to do before it’s ready to open in fall, but Assisi said it’s the kind of work she got into the profession to do.
“We have such an expedited timeline now, and that wasn’t necessary. It’s unfortunate that so much time and money was wasted – on both sides. It’s unfortunate that this wasn’t spent on children,” she said.
Yes, Mario, we all see what Kathy S "did there": she listed the five organizations that had given grants to Thrive. Then she asked a question that brought our attention to the fact that one of those five organizations--the Girard Foundation--is led by Buzz Woolley, founder and donor of Voice of San Diego. She was being very gentle with her subtle message. I would have been more direct. I would have said that this is the sort of information that should be included in a "full disclosure" message attached to your story.
Also, how about you ask Ms. Assisi to tell us in one or two sentences what is the main idea of her educational philosophy? What is it that makes her plan innovative?
Sure, I could have written about Thrive's educational philosophy --
even though I did link to the presentation the school gave to the state
-- but then I would've gotten away from the reasons Thrive was denied by
the San Diego Unified school board in the first place. If you weren't
at that meeting, you're welcome to check it out on the district's
meeting archives. You'll note that Thrive's educational philosophy
wasn't really a consideration in the board's decision for voting it
down.
As far as your and Kathy's suggestion of my bias, I think, respectfully, it's a red-herring that distracts from the issues at play. I didn't answer Kathy's question because it sounded to me rhetorical. The Girard Foundation wasn't mentioned in the piece, and had nothing to do with my reasons for following the story. Of course, you're entitled to your opinions.
Whether every charter school that's authorized offers an educationally sound and fiscally responsible model is a valid concern. But it's a discussion the district and community should have in the open -- before a charter school is denied. Especially if the charter worked for months with the district, and the district helped shaped that very petition.
As far as your and Kathy's suggestion of my bias, I think, respectfully, it's a red-herring that distracts from the issues at play. I didn't answer Kathy's question because it sounded to me rhetorical. The Girard Foundation wasn't mentioned in the piece, and had nothing to do with my reasons for following the story. Of course, you're entitled to your opinions.
Whether every charter school that's authorized offers an educationally sound and fiscally responsible model is a valid concern. But it's a discussion the district and community should have in the open -- before a charter school is denied. Especially if the charter worked for months with the district, and the district helped shaped that very petition.
Maura Larkins
I think you have a great story here, Mario. The about-face by Cindy Marten and the district is disgusting. This charter had no problems until the issue moved into the political arena.
So why not trust your readers to see this?
The fact that Buzz Woolley is a bigshot at both the Girard Foundation and Voice of San Diego doesn't prevent the story from being accurately reported and newsworthy.
You could have avoided the distraction of this issue by doing a full disclosure up front. A full disclosure is NOT a red herring. It's an expected practice that allows readers to judge for themselves whether or not the story is biased. Emily Alpert used to include disclosures when she wrote about Buzz Woolley.
For the record, I do not think your story is biased. I think you did a public service by writing it.
@richard brick That's why schools should be evaluated not on how well students score on tests but on how much they improve.
"It's much easier to improve the scores of average and advanced students than it is to bring up the scores of kids who are behind."
When you're using value-added, because it's impossible to improve a student who's at the 100th percentile as there is no 101st percentile, it can only be easier to improve the scores of students who are behind.
A student who is at the 99+%ile (there is no 100%ile) can most definitely improve. Let's say you have a third-grader who scores at a ninth-grade reading level. The next year, this child is almost certain to advance to tenth-grade or higher reading level. Of course, his (or her) percentile wouldn't change. If every single child were to improve one grade level each year, then each child would have exactly the same percentile score each year, but would nevertheless be scoring at a higher performance level. Unfortunately, a student who is two years below grade level is much less certain to advance a year or more during a school year. These students are usually not given proper instruction. They are likely to sit in class while everything goes over their heads because teachers "don't have time for the kids who are behind."
A student who scores at the top of the class one year cannot score
higher than the top of the class the next year. So at best, that student
can only remain at the same percentile rank from year to year. Do we
agree so far?
Now let's say that being two years below grade level puts a student in the 15th percentile. Would it not be easier to increase that student's percentile rank by 5% than it would be to increase a 94.99th percentile student's rank by 5%?
Now let's say that being two years below grade level puts a student in the 15th percentile. Would it not be easier to increase that student's percentile rank by 5% than it would be to increase a 94.99th percentile student's rank by 5%?
In your scheme of things, a kid who gets the top score in the whole country year after year, and rapidly raises his (or her) level of performance each year, has NOT improved.
You are also saying that a child who is in a low percentile to start with, who improves a little bit--but is still far below grade level--has improved MORE than the first kid!
This makes no sense.
Percentiles only allow you to know which kids are higher and which kids are lower.
Percentiles don't give you information about what kids actually know. If everyone makes less progress year after year, the percentiles remain the same. If everyone makes more progress year after year, the percentiles remain the same.
We want to know whether the student population as a whole is getting better, staying the same, or losing ground. This is CRUCIALLY important.
So we're not really much interested in looking at percentiles. Your mom is interested in your percentile, and college admissions departments are interested, but society as a whole is more interested in whether students are raising their grade levels..
The fact is that we ARE able to measure the improvement of the high performers by looking at changes in their grade level, and we know that teachers don't have to put very much effort into getting the high-performer to improve their academic performance.
We are also able to measure the improvement of low performers by looking at changes (or lack of change) in their grade level, and experience shows that teachers have to put a lot more effort to get that improvement.
That's why so many people are furious that low-income schools don't have the very best teachers. The upscale schools don't need the best teachers; the downscale schools desperately need them.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
A Battle Over Charter School Freedoms
A Battle Over Charter School Freedoms
Jun 28, 2011.
by Emily Alpert
...Charter schools aren't bound by the rules that restrict other public schools. They get public money but are run independently by their owhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifn boards, with limited oversight from school districts. They are free to choose their own school rules and educational methods. Most hire and fire employees as they wish.
They include some of the brightest stars among San Diego schools — and some of the dimmest.
The tradeoff for that freedom is that charters are supposed to be more accountable. If a charter school mismanages its money, falters academically or runs afoul of its own rules, it can be shut down.
The California Charter Schools Association has argued that the best way to keep charters in check is to beef up rules for shutting bad ones down. It has championed a bill that would ban school districts from letting charters with stagnant scores stay open unless the charters make a case to the state.
But some lawmakers want to seek more regulations to stop problems before schools must be shut down. Labor unions and traditional school groups such as the California School Boards Association have backed many of those bills, arguing that schools that get public money must be regulated more closely. They contend that classroom innovations can continue with the added rules, true to the charter dream.
"They may be laboratories of innovation, but that doesn't mean that employee rights have to stop," said Jim Groth, a California teachers union board member from Chula Vista.
Seven different bills have landed on watch lists for charter schools wary of losing their freedoms. Some are ideas that have been shot down before, vetoed under former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. But new Gov. Jerry Brown is a wild card for both sides, a Democrat who helped start up charter schools but has been dubious that they're a panacea...
Jun 28, 2011.
by Emily Alpert
...Charter schools aren't bound by the rules that restrict other public schools. They get public money but are run independently by their owhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifn boards, with limited oversight from school districts. They are free to choose their own school rules and educational methods. Most hire and fire employees as they wish.
They include some of the brightest stars among San Diego schools — and some of the dimmest.
The tradeoff for that freedom is that charters are supposed to be more accountable. If a charter school mismanages its money, falters academically or runs afoul of its own rules, it can be shut down.
The California Charter Schools Association has argued that the best way to keep charters in check is to beef up rules for shutting bad ones down. It has championed a bill that would ban school districts from letting charters with stagnant scores stay open unless the charters make a case to the state.
But some lawmakers want to seek more regulations to stop problems before schools must be shut down. Labor unions and traditional school groups such as the California School Boards Association have backed many of those bills, arguing that schools that get public money must be regulated more closely. They contend that classroom innovations can continue with the added rules, true to the charter dream.
"They may be laboratories of innovation, but that doesn't mean that employee rights have to stop," said Jim Groth, a California teachers union board member from Chula Vista.
Seven different bills have landed on watch lists for charter schools wary of losing their freedoms. Some are ideas that have been shot down before, vetoed under former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. But new Gov. Jerry Brown is a wild card for both sides, a Democrat who helped start up charter schools but has been dubious that they're a panacea...
Friday, May 08, 2009
Charter Schools May Have Fewer Secrets and Cozy Relationships if law passes
Photo: Guajome Park AcademyMaking Conflicts Law Apply to Charters
Voice of San Diego
May 5, 2009
A proposed California law would tighten rules around conflicts of interest and public information at charter schools, a change that would settle disputes over what public school rules apply to charters.
It would explicitly require charter school board members to file statements listing their economic interests, mandate that meetings be open and noticed to the public, and require schools follow the Public Records Act.
...Encinitas Union School District claimed that the charter school was subject to a state law that bans public officials and employees from participating in contracts that could benefit them financially.
Charters have long argued that the specific rule does not apply to them. They point to other protections in the California Corporations Code. The question has never been settled in court...
-- EMILY ALPERT
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Mike Simpson: Another message for Arnold regarding AB 2115 (regulating charter schools)
Mike Simpson writes:
Governor 's Workload
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger once again showed his long-term commitment to charter schools in California by signing Senate Bill (SB) 658, which contains around $100 million of public funds for privately operated charter schools.
It has been a very busy summer for the governor with the budget crisis and all. Getting caught up with his tremendous backlog of legislative bills that require his signature, he may have missed the financial meltdown on Wall Street. This meltdown has been attributed to deregulation and lack of transparency and oversight.
I say that the Governor may have missed the meltdown because at the same time that he pitched his charter school cohorts a cool 100 million of tax payer funds, he vetoed AB 2115 (Mullin) that would have required members of charter school governing boards to comply with the same conflict of interest laws as other public officials, including school board members.
The bill would have also established minimum eligibility criteria for charter school board members. The bill would prohibit charter school employees from serving on their governing boards.
In vetoing AB 2115, Governor Schwarzenegger stated “Not only would this bill create state mandated costs for charter schools to comply with its provisions, the measure runs counter to the intent of charter schools, which were created to be free from many of the laws governing school districts. For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill”.
So let’s see if I got this right, transparency and oversight is good for our public schools but “runs counter to the intent” of the laws that govern privately operated charter schools because it cost too much. This is exactly the philosophy that may cost the country $700-billion taxpayer dollars in the current deregulation SNAFU.
Locally the “dark shadow of doubt” that befalls the leading proponent of charter schools in Sacramento is a prime example of the need for regulation, transparency and oversight in the private charter school industry.
When financial institutions fail, it cost us money, when schools fail, the cost is far beyond financial.
Governor Schwarzenegger, if AB 2115 is not the right way to provide transparency and oversight to charter schools, would you please assure us that in 5-6 years we will not be reading in The BEE about the “meltdown in the private charter school industry”.
Mike Simpson, Parent
Website
Governor 's Workload
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger once again showed his long-term commitment to charter schools in California by signing Senate Bill (SB) 658, which contains around $100 million of public funds for privately operated charter schools.
It has been a very busy summer for the governor with the budget crisis and all. Getting caught up with his tremendous backlog of legislative bills that require his signature, he may have missed the financial meltdown on Wall Street. This meltdown has been attributed to deregulation and lack of transparency and oversight.
I say that the Governor may have missed the meltdown because at the same time that he pitched his charter school cohorts a cool 100 million of tax payer funds, he vetoed AB 2115 (Mullin) that would have required members of charter school governing boards to comply with the same conflict of interest laws as other public officials, including school board members.
The bill would have also established minimum eligibility criteria for charter school board members. The bill would prohibit charter school employees from serving on their governing boards.
In vetoing AB 2115, Governor Schwarzenegger stated “Not only would this bill create state mandated costs for charter schools to comply with its provisions, the measure runs counter to the intent of charter schools, which were created to be free from many of the laws governing school districts. For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill”.
So let’s see if I got this right, transparency and oversight is good for our public schools but “runs counter to the intent” of the laws that govern privately operated charter schools because it cost too much. This is exactly the philosophy that may cost the country $700-billion taxpayer dollars in the current deregulation SNAFU.
Locally the “dark shadow of doubt” that befalls the leading proponent of charter schools in Sacramento is a prime example of the need for regulation, transparency and oversight in the private charter school industry.
When financial institutions fail, it cost us money, when schools fail, the cost is far beyond financial.
Governor Schwarzenegger, if AB 2115 is not the right way to provide transparency and oversight to charter schools, would you please assure us that in 5-6 years we will not be reading in The BEE about the “meltdown in the private charter school industry”.
Mike Simpson, Parent
Website
Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes bill to regulate charter schools
Sometimes I get information from commenters that I missed in the news media. (I have an excuse this time: I've been out of the country for most of the last three weeks.)
Here is an open letter from Anonymous to Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was posted as a comment on the Mike Hazelton article:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
RE: AB 2115
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,
Yesterday I read on the news and reported on the net that you vetoed AB 2115 authored by Assembly Member Gene Mullin (D-South San Francisco). A bill that would requires a charter school to adopt and comply with a conflict-of-interest policy applicable to public agencies in the state of California.
The Net article says that the bill would have forced every charter school to reconstitute their governing boards…you are quoted as saying:
"Not only would this bill create state mandated costs for charter schools to comply with its provisions," said the Governor in his veto letter, "the measure runs counter to the intent of charter schools, which were created to be free from many of the laws governing school districts."
Governor Schwarzenegger perhaps you should have been more informed about what goes on in our state than simply rubber stamping advise from charter school lobbyists. I wonder if the facts about charter schools would have made a difference or if you are just as twisted as the Charter School Association and SIATech/Guajome Park Academy the only two opponents to AB 2115 bill.
Yesterday on my way home from San Diego I noticed that our tax dollars were paying for security for First Lady Maria Shriver who came to San Diego to promote “family day.”
The First Lady first stopped at Ramona, where she marked the start of construction on a playground at Camp Hope, which serves at-risk, abused and neglected children.
Now Governor, isn’t this a bite too hypocritical because if you, the first lady and your administrative staff truly cared about and wanted to prevent abuse and neglect in our American children you would take measures to prevent abuse and neglect in PUBLIC charter schools. So reasonably and logically you would take steeps to create policies and regulations to PROTECT the HEALTH and SAFETY of ALL of California students.
Yet you placed lobbyists interest ahead of the HEALTH and SAFETY of CALIFORNIA’S CHILDREN.
Perhaps I can assist you in finding your interests or a conscience if you have one.
Look up SIATech, the only charter school who opposed AB 2115, in the IRS form 990’s of 2005 filed 2006 and 2006 filed 2007.
Both state contributions of $ 55,599 for the year 2005 and $ 55, 467 for 2006 were political contributions paid with PUBLIC FUNDS. So Governor Schwarzenegger who got paid from PUBLIC FUNDS to sit in your office and convinced you to oppose AB 2115? That people of the State of California are entitled to know this much, but there is much more.
We finally have a well written a report by a gutsy reporter Emily Alpert who is not afraid to research, chase the stories and write about the facts as they are.
In the Voice of San Diego Reporter Emily Alphert is correct Mr. Hazelton was very successful starting up flout charter schools up and down the state of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Georgia, Florida….and they were all started under the Charter that was granted and sanctioned by Vista Unified School District “VUSD,” Guajome Park Academy. Would you believe that VUSD claims to be ignorant about the illegal operations of Guajome Park Academy?
The Drop out recovery program is alive and well at both Guajome Park and SIATech. The New Education for the Workforce is doing well too so much that SIATech top executive salaries for former employees of Guajome Park Academy cap the California Governor and the California Superintendent of Education salaries with only about 5,000 enrolled students. Yes, Hazelton was very successful in popping these charter schools all over the country.
These fellows left Guajome Park Academy to go off into SIATech [division of Guajome Park] to collect their high roller salaries and continued their clandestine practices with unregulated federal fund from the United States Department of Labor.
SIATech is another VUSD charter school 100% funded by the United States Department of Labor (Job Corps).
The CA state scores showed rankings 904 in 2007 and 858 in 2008. Now these scores are impressive at a glance! When you look closer at the numbers you will find that the SIATech student composition on the tests include only 3% of students, and no students with disabilities. According to the federal regulations under the NCLB and also state regs schools are supposed to test over 90 or 95% of students.
SO HOW DOES SIATech GET WAY WITH ONLY TESTING ABOUT 3% OF THE TOTAL STUDENT POPULATION?
SIATch tested a total of 135 students out of almost five thousand-student enrollments according to their own numbers in the form 990’s and state stats.
Now based on the salaries for SIATech Board of Directors and employees one can see that there is some real serious scamming of PUBLIC FUNDS:
LINDA DOWSON President of the Board of Directors and Operations Manager $ 220,461.
ED BROWN Director and Operations Manager $ 124,878.
LINDA MILLER Director of Educational Services $172,860.
DAVID JENKINS Assistant Supervisor $ 169,81.
KRISTIN MALLORY Assistant Supervisor $ 168, 896.
DIANE FAIRCHILD Director of Special Education $ 161,348
MANOUCHEHR HADJIAGHAI Director of Administrative Services $ 160, 210.
Link
Link to jobcorps.
Maybe you can contact the United States Department of Labor and ask them to see a copy of SIATech/Guajome Park Audit? He! They don’t have one try the Director of Job Corps Esther Johnson at 202-693-3000 or Chris Convoy at 202-693-3093. Maybe they have some answers as to how money can be handed out with no accountability no IRS tax forms and no audits. Thank the Vista Unified School District for failing to monitor them and have looked the other way while SIATech continues to pop satellites all over the states.
Like VUSD Board Member David Hubbard says, he doesn’t care about organizations doing ILLEGAL businesses under VUSD’s roof as long as they can get an insurance company to cover them it is perfectly OK.
By the way Stephen Halfaker and SIATech high-ranking employees come from Poway Unified School District just like VUSD and SDCOE preferred Attorney Daniel Shinoff.
Halfaker is a Board Member at SIATech and his brother is an administrator some of their board members are high salaried administrators who pad their wallets with unregulated PUBLIC FUNDS. That is ok! Guajome Park incestuous relationships also extend to the majority of their 23 employee run and operated Board of Directors and their families who are also sitting as Board of Directors and sit on all of Guajome Park Committees. Unreliable the VUSD claims to have no knowledge of Guajome Park and SIATech’s clandestine endeavors. Hazelton continued his practices from Guajome Park and SIATech on to TIP Academy. However Guajome and SIATech make TIP, Las Banderas, El Cortez and all of the other satellites looks like alter boys in comparison to the criminal activity-taking place at Guajome Park.
You can rest assure that the Hazelton’s recommendations were true and correct however those closely associated with the Hazelton’s are trying to distance themselves from them.
Roy Adams, president of Adams and Associates, Inc. is just bluffing. Hazelton was very much involved in developing new charters and pushing the curriculum for alternative high school programs through out the state and other states as well.
Yes, Hazelton was and can be tracked as co-founder and board president of the award-winning School for Integrated Academics and Technologies “SIATech” headquartered in Vista between 2001 and 2002. It is virtually impossible to believe unanimous spokespersons for SIATech and Guajome Park Academy since they have a track record of double-dipping, incestuous relationships, deceitfulness, fraud, lack of reporting and accountability and theft of public funds.
Oh, yes the so-called award winning elite International Baccalaureate program is alive and not doing so well at Guajome Park Academy but no one seems to care around here and certainly not the Vista Unified School District, the San Diego County Office of Education, and the California Department of Education Charter School Division. After all according to CDE’s Kathleen Seaborne it’s a federal program and CDE has no oversight over charter schools (not true).
Here is the well kept San Diego County cover up: The SDCOE, VUSD and Guajome Park Academy all belong to the same JPA where SDCOE Diane Crosier is the Director and represents the SD JPA’s with SELF.
Crosier reports back to SELF where the other JPA’s come together to form what it is called a “super pool.”
Three insurance brokers namely Driver Alliant, Keenan and Associates and Marsh & McLennan manage these super pools. These insurance brokers are being sued in Alameda County where the allegations are for unlawful business practices, in violation of California Business and Profession Code section 17200 et. seq. false and misleading advertisement where they cream millions of dollars in public funds in violation of Business and Profession Government Code Section 17500 et. seq., breach of fiduciary duty, illegal and secret kickbacks, steering premium dollars and getting public agencies to purchase services at high rates.
San Diego County Office of Education, “SDCOE” refers to their JPA’s as the “The Authority.”
Keenan and Associates has a “HYBRID SELF-INSURANCE and REINSURANCE” [SDCOE has SELF-JPA where Keenan is also a member of this “Super Pool”] pooling program for nearly 400 schools and community colleges.
Keenan advertised for its Super Pool’s conference at Lake Tahoe as, “The Pudding is in the Pooling,” in their invitations. Yes, the pudding is good, they are raking in Millions of PUBLIC FUNDS through their billable hours and their preferred attorney Daniel Shinoff is rolling in the CASH $$$.
Daniel Shinoff and his SASH firm takes the cream of the Southern District billable hours for BOTH Keenan and SELF which are brokered by Marsh & McLennan. The premium billable hours are steered to his firm with the blessing of Keenan, SELF and Diane Crosier.
Keenan and Marsh and McLennan as the agents of California’s public entities have a fiduciary duty to recommend the best coverage at the best price for its clients. They are to provide independent, objective advice, and to put ‘their clients best interests’ ahead of their own. Keenan and Driver and Marsh and McLennan are hired to act as consulting, billing/premium administration, and claims administration. Their duty is to provide full disclosure, candor, and loyalty. Disclose the amounts of income; Contingent Commissions Agreements and remuneration they receive form all transactions to the public agencies they represent. Keenan has a policy where every employee, associate and partner has to belong to several churches, golf clubs, non-profit organizations and civic groups. This is how they create friendships with judges, political figures, churches and organizations who look the other way. While attorneys like Daniel Shinoff bully public boards into contractual agreements and decisions that are not in the best interest of PUBLIC AGENCIES but bring in a lot of billable hours to his firm and bigger premiums for insurance Brokers and JPA’s.
The agreements that the PUBLIC AGENCIES get pressured into signing with the JPA’s have different names like: “Contingent Income Agreements” “Production Service Agreements” “Volume Based Commission Agreements” “Profit-Sharing Commission Agreements” “Commission Override Agreements” Premium Value Contingent Commission Agreements” “Preferred Agency Agreements” and “Platinum Profit Sharing Agreements.”
These commissions create a blatant CONFLICT of INTEREST and a direct financial interest for these brokers, JPA’s and preferred law firms. These commission and preferred agreements cause CONFLICT of INTEREST, along with premium prices in many cases with lower benefits. The insurance companies recoup the kickbacks paid to marsh & Marsh and McLennan, Keenan and Driver by higher insurance prices passed on to the public agencies. Whereby, suppressing competition in the market of insurance.
This is the reason why the PUBLIC AGENCIES in San Diego cannot get insurance apart from the JPA’s. No insurance company can do business in California without belonging to one of the three “insurance brokers.” The insurance brokers have contractual agreements with certain JPA’s; like SDCOE SELF and these JPA use the same law firms they have contractual agreements with like Best Best and Krieger, Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff and Holtz “SASH” and Winet.
Daniel Shinoff also has complaints with the Bar Association by elected officials. The Bar Association up to now has failed to investigate him. I wonder why--isn’t San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis a member of the Board in the Bar Association? Isn’t Leslie Devaney a friend of Bonnie Dumanis and a registered lobbyist?
San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis claims to be investigating his involvement in the Palmgate MiraCosta Community College scandal. Many elected officials have given up on her investigation and have seen the light and the intertwined corruption that extends to the highest levels of government.
http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/fortecgi/fortecgi.exe?ServiceName=DomainWebService&TemplateName=html/complitcase.html&CurrBatchNbr=1&CaseNbr=RG04183334
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200507/ai_n14684403
Back to the charter schools, how can the Vista Unified School District, the SDCOE investigate Guajome Park Academy and SIATech if they all belong to the same buddy pool? How Can Daniel Shinoff investigate these charter schools if he works to protect them through their contractual agreement with the JPA’s? It is like investigating yourself or a member in your immediate family. Talk about “CONFLICT of INTERESTS.”
So Governor Schwarzenegger is your job as a Governor to protect white-collar criminal activity taking place in the state of California or to protect the constitutes in your state? Your veto sends a message loud and clear.
Governor Schwarzenegger you have no interest in protecting the health and safety of students because the civil right violations in these charter schools are acquiesced and enabled by these tumultuous incestuous relationships that you just rubberstamped.
Here is an open letter from Anonymous to Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was posted as a comment on the Mike Hazelton article:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
RE: AB 2115
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,
Yesterday I read on the news and reported on the net that you vetoed AB 2115 authored by Assembly Member Gene Mullin (D-South San Francisco). A bill that would requires a charter school to adopt and comply with a conflict-of-interest policy applicable to public agencies in the state of California.
The Net article says that the bill would have forced every charter school to reconstitute their governing boards…you are quoted as saying:
"Not only would this bill create state mandated costs for charter schools to comply with its provisions," said the Governor in his veto letter, "the measure runs counter to the intent of charter schools, which were created to be free from many of the laws governing school districts."
Governor Schwarzenegger perhaps you should have been more informed about what goes on in our state than simply rubber stamping advise from charter school lobbyists. I wonder if the facts about charter schools would have made a difference or if you are just as twisted as the Charter School Association and SIATech/Guajome Park Academy the only two opponents to AB 2115 bill.
Yesterday on my way home from San Diego I noticed that our tax dollars were paying for security for First Lady Maria Shriver who came to San Diego to promote “family day.”
The First Lady first stopped at Ramona, where she marked the start of construction on a playground at Camp Hope, which serves at-risk, abused and neglected children.
Now Governor, isn’t this a bite too hypocritical because if you, the first lady and your administrative staff truly cared about and wanted to prevent abuse and neglect in our American children you would take measures to prevent abuse and neglect in PUBLIC charter schools. So reasonably and logically you would take steeps to create policies and regulations to PROTECT the HEALTH and SAFETY of ALL of California students.
Yet you placed lobbyists interest ahead of the HEALTH and SAFETY of CALIFORNIA’S CHILDREN.
Perhaps I can assist you in finding your interests or a conscience if you have one.
Look up SIATech, the only charter school who opposed AB 2115, in the IRS form 990’s of 2005 filed 2006 and 2006 filed 2007.
Both state contributions of $ 55,599 for the year 2005 and $ 55, 467 for 2006 were political contributions paid with PUBLIC FUNDS. So Governor Schwarzenegger who got paid from PUBLIC FUNDS to sit in your office and convinced you to oppose AB 2115? That people of the State of California are entitled to know this much, but there is much more.
We finally have a well written a report by a gutsy reporter Emily Alpert who is not afraid to research, chase the stories and write about the facts as they are.
In the Voice of San Diego Reporter Emily Alphert is correct Mr. Hazelton was very successful starting up flout charter schools up and down the state of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Georgia, Florida….and they were all started under the Charter that was granted and sanctioned by Vista Unified School District “VUSD,” Guajome Park Academy. Would you believe that VUSD claims to be ignorant about the illegal operations of Guajome Park Academy?
The Drop out recovery program is alive and well at both Guajome Park and SIATech. The New Education for the Workforce is doing well too so much that SIATech top executive salaries for former employees of Guajome Park Academy cap the California Governor and the California Superintendent of Education salaries with only about 5,000 enrolled students. Yes, Hazelton was very successful in popping these charter schools all over the country.
These fellows left Guajome Park Academy to go off into SIATech [division of Guajome Park] to collect their high roller salaries and continued their clandestine practices with unregulated federal fund from the United States Department of Labor.
SIATech is another VUSD charter school 100% funded by the United States Department of Labor (Job Corps).
The CA state scores showed rankings 904 in 2007 and 858 in 2008. Now these scores are impressive at a glance! When you look closer at the numbers you will find that the SIATech student composition on the tests include only 3% of students, and no students with disabilities. According to the federal regulations under the NCLB and also state regs schools are supposed to test over 90 or 95% of students.
SO HOW DOES SIATech GET WAY WITH ONLY TESTING ABOUT 3% OF THE TOTAL STUDENT POPULATION?
SIATch tested a total of 135 students out of almost five thousand-student enrollments according to their own numbers in the form 990’s and state stats.
Now based on the salaries for SIATech Board of Directors and employees one can see that there is some real serious scamming of PUBLIC FUNDS:
LINDA DOWSON President of the Board of Directors and Operations Manager $ 220,461.
ED BROWN Director and Operations Manager $ 124,878.
LINDA MILLER Director of Educational Services $172,860.
DAVID JENKINS Assistant Supervisor $ 169,81.
KRISTIN MALLORY Assistant Supervisor $ 168, 896.
DIANE FAIRCHILD Director of Special Education $ 161,348
MANOUCHEHR HADJIAGHAI Director of Administrative Services $ 160, 210.
Link
Link to jobcorps.
Maybe you can contact the United States Department of Labor and ask them to see a copy of SIATech/Guajome Park Audit? He! They don’t have one try the Director of Job Corps Esther Johnson at 202-693-3000 or Chris Convoy at 202-693-3093. Maybe they have some answers as to how money can be handed out with no accountability no IRS tax forms and no audits. Thank the Vista Unified School District for failing to monitor them and have looked the other way while SIATech continues to pop satellites all over the states.
Like VUSD Board Member David Hubbard says, he doesn’t care about organizations doing ILLEGAL businesses under VUSD’s roof as long as they can get an insurance company to cover them it is perfectly OK.
By the way Stephen Halfaker and SIATech high-ranking employees come from Poway Unified School District just like VUSD and SDCOE preferred Attorney Daniel Shinoff.
Halfaker is a Board Member at SIATech and his brother is an administrator some of their board members are high salaried administrators who pad their wallets with unregulated PUBLIC FUNDS. That is ok! Guajome Park incestuous relationships also extend to the majority of their 23 employee run and operated Board of Directors and their families who are also sitting as Board of Directors and sit on all of Guajome Park Committees. Unreliable the VUSD claims to have no knowledge of Guajome Park and SIATech’s clandestine endeavors. Hazelton continued his practices from Guajome Park and SIATech on to TIP Academy. However Guajome and SIATech make TIP, Las Banderas, El Cortez and all of the other satellites looks like alter boys in comparison to the criminal activity-taking place at Guajome Park.
You can rest assure that the Hazelton’s recommendations were true and correct however those closely associated with the Hazelton’s are trying to distance themselves from them.
Roy Adams, president of Adams and Associates, Inc. is just bluffing. Hazelton was very much involved in developing new charters and pushing the curriculum for alternative high school programs through out the state and other states as well.
Yes, Hazelton was and can be tracked as co-founder and board president of the award-winning School for Integrated Academics and Technologies “SIATech” headquartered in Vista between 2001 and 2002. It is virtually impossible to believe unanimous spokespersons for SIATech and Guajome Park Academy since they have a track record of double-dipping, incestuous relationships, deceitfulness, fraud, lack of reporting and accountability and theft of public funds.
Oh, yes the so-called award winning elite International Baccalaureate program is alive and not doing so well at Guajome Park Academy but no one seems to care around here and certainly not the Vista Unified School District, the San Diego County Office of Education, and the California Department of Education Charter School Division. After all according to CDE’s Kathleen Seaborne it’s a federal program and CDE has no oversight over charter schools (not true).
Here is the well kept San Diego County cover up: The SDCOE, VUSD and Guajome Park Academy all belong to the same JPA where SDCOE Diane Crosier is the Director and represents the SD JPA’s with SELF.
Crosier reports back to SELF where the other JPA’s come together to form what it is called a “super pool.”
Three insurance brokers namely Driver Alliant, Keenan and Associates and Marsh & McLennan manage these super pools. These insurance brokers are being sued in Alameda County where the allegations are for unlawful business practices, in violation of California Business and Profession Code section 17200 et. seq. false and misleading advertisement where they cream millions of dollars in public funds in violation of Business and Profession Government Code Section 17500 et. seq., breach of fiduciary duty, illegal and secret kickbacks, steering premium dollars and getting public agencies to purchase services at high rates.
San Diego County Office of Education, “SDCOE” refers to their JPA’s as the “The Authority.”
Keenan and Associates has a “HYBRID SELF-INSURANCE and REINSURANCE” [SDCOE has SELF-JPA where Keenan is also a member of this “Super Pool”] pooling program for nearly 400 schools and community colleges.
Keenan advertised for its Super Pool’s conference at Lake Tahoe as, “The Pudding is in the Pooling,” in their invitations. Yes, the pudding is good, they are raking in Millions of PUBLIC FUNDS through their billable hours and their preferred attorney Daniel Shinoff is rolling in the CASH $$$.
Daniel Shinoff and his SASH firm takes the cream of the Southern District billable hours for BOTH Keenan and SELF which are brokered by Marsh & McLennan. The premium billable hours are steered to his firm with the blessing of Keenan, SELF and Diane Crosier.
Keenan and Marsh and McLennan as the agents of California’s public entities have a fiduciary duty to recommend the best coverage at the best price for its clients. They are to provide independent, objective advice, and to put ‘their clients best interests’ ahead of their own. Keenan and Driver and Marsh and McLennan are hired to act as consulting, billing/premium administration, and claims administration. Their duty is to provide full disclosure, candor, and loyalty. Disclose the amounts of income; Contingent Commissions Agreements and remuneration they receive form all transactions to the public agencies they represent. Keenan has a policy where every employee, associate and partner has to belong to several churches, golf clubs, non-profit organizations and civic groups. This is how they create friendships with judges, political figures, churches and organizations who look the other way. While attorneys like Daniel Shinoff bully public boards into contractual agreements and decisions that are not in the best interest of PUBLIC AGENCIES but bring in a lot of billable hours to his firm and bigger premiums for insurance Brokers and JPA’s.
The agreements that the PUBLIC AGENCIES get pressured into signing with the JPA’s have different names like: “Contingent Income Agreements” “Production Service Agreements” “Volume Based Commission Agreements” “Profit-Sharing Commission Agreements” “Commission Override Agreements” Premium Value Contingent Commission Agreements” “Preferred Agency Agreements” and “Platinum Profit Sharing Agreements.”
These commissions create a blatant CONFLICT of INTEREST and a direct financial interest for these brokers, JPA’s and preferred law firms. These commission and preferred agreements cause CONFLICT of INTEREST, along with premium prices in many cases with lower benefits. The insurance companies recoup the kickbacks paid to marsh & Marsh and McLennan, Keenan and Driver by higher insurance prices passed on to the public agencies. Whereby, suppressing competition in the market of insurance.
This is the reason why the PUBLIC AGENCIES in San Diego cannot get insurance apart from the JPA’s. No insurance company can do business in California without belonging to one of the three “insurance brokers.” The insurance brokers have contractual agreements with certain JPA’s; like SDCOE SELF and these JPA use the same law firms they have contractual agreements with like Best Best and Krieger, Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff and Holtz “SASH” and Winet.
Daniel Shinoff also has complaints with the Bar Association by elected officials. The Bar Association up to now has failed to investigate him. I wonder why--isn’t San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis a member of the Board in the Bar Association? Isn’t Leslie Devaney a friend of Bonnie Dumanis and a registered lobbyist?
San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis claims to be investigating his involvement in the Palmgate MiraCosta Community College scandal. Many elected officials have given up on her investigation and have seen the light and the intertwined corruption that extends to the highest levels of government.
http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/fortecgi/fortecgi.exe?ServiceName=DomainWebService&TemplateName=html/complitcase.html&CurrBatchNbr=1&CaseNbr=RG04183334
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200507/ai_n14684403
Back to the charter schools, how can the Vista Unified School District, the SDCOE investigate Guajome Park Academy and SIATech if they all belong to the same buddy pool? How Can Daniel Shinoff investigate these charter schools if he works to protect them through their contractual agreement with the JPA’s? It is like investigating yourself or a member in your immediate family. Talk about “CONFLICT of INTERESTS.”
So Governor Schwarzenegger is your job as a Governor to protect white-collar criminal activity taking place in the state of California or to protect the constitutes in your state? Your veto sends a message loud and clear.
Governor Schwarzenegger you have no interest in protecting the health and safety of students because the civil right violations in these charter schools are acquiesced and enabled by these tumultuous incestuous relationships that you just rubberstamped.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
In petition to the state Assisi claims....."Educational experts throughout the country have reviewed Thrive’s educational program, resulting in Thrive being selected over three-hundred school proposals nationwide to win the highly competitive Next Generation Learning Challenge; and receiving grants from the Broad Foundation, the Girard Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Public Charter Schools Grant Program and the Charter School’s Growth Fund. A primary concern of all of these reviewers and entities has been whether Thrive could provide an educationally successful program. Certainly differences of opinion can exist, but in this case, Thrive has raised over a million dollars in grants in support of its educational program and the successful administrative experience of its leadership after thorough vetting, interviews, and competitive processes."
Which grant did Assisi lose the Girard Foundation grant (Buzz Woolley) or some other one?