Judge revokes state oversight of 6 Aspire charter schools
July 9, 2012
Corey G. Johnson
California Watch
A superior court judge has invalidated the State Board of Education's oversight of one of the state's biggest charter school companies, giving six schools until June 2013 to gain approval from local school districts or be forced to close.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jo-Lynne Lee found that the board improperly awarded Aspire Public Schools rights to bypass local district oversight and open schools anywhere in California, without evaluating whether the company met the state's requirements.
Lee's ruling represents a victory for the California Teachers Association, California School Boards Association and Association of California School Administrators, which sued the education board in 2007.v
State law says charters can be allowed to open schools anywhere in California if they can prove their services are a "statewide benefit" that cannot be provided by a charter school overseen by a local district. But in their lawsuit, the school groups claimed the state education board awarded Aspire operating rights without assessing whether a benefit existed.
In 2010, an appeals court agreed and sent the case back to Alameda County for a final ruling. Lee published her 29-page order [PDF] last month. The state education board also must revamp its rules on state charters, according to the ruling.
Based in Oakland, Aspire is one of the most prominent charter school management organizations in the nation and serves nearly 12,000 students at 34 schools in California.
Six Aspire campuses with about 1,900 students were overseen by the state education board and now will have to reapply to local school officials. They are Aspire Alexander Twilight College Preparatory Academy and Aspire Alexander Twilight Secondary Academy in Sacramento, Aspire APEX Academy and Aspire Port City Academy in Stockton, and Aspire Junior Collegiate Academy and Aspire Titan Academy in Huntington Park.
Under the ruling, the schools have until June 24, 2013, to gain reapproval or close.
Aspire CEO James Willcox said he is confident Aspire's applications will be approved by local school boards. Meanwhile, Willcox said the organization might decide to appeal the judge's decision.
"We are committed to serving all of our students and families who count on Aspire and want to calm any uncertainty that this decision may cause," Willcox said. "As we discussed on our recent conference call, we have applied for charters or renewals nearly 60 times since our founding, with positive results in all cases. We are hopeful that the three school districts involved will recognize the success we have had for students from their communities."
In a statement, Karen Stapf-Walters, interim executive director of the school administrators association, said the organization was satisfied with the court's decision.
“We’re pleased by the judge’s decision to ensure the State Board adopts the required procedural rules so only those charters that truly meet the test of statewide benefit status are considered in the future,” Stapf-Walters said. "It is important that all public schools and students are treated equitably.”
The court ruling also has implications on Wall Street. Last month, Fitch Ratings downgraded and placed Aspire's bonds on "negative outlook" status, concluding that the organization hadn't fully shared the implications of the lawsuit with investors. Under statewide operating status, Aspire was able to successfully acquire $93.3 million in bond sales.
The assessment from the rating agency could scare off potential Aspire bond investors and result in higher interest rates for the company.
The organization is making strides nevertheless – outside of California. Six states have recruited Aspire to turn around underperforming schools, Willcox told Education Week recently. The Tennessee Achievement School District, a state entity, hired Aspire last month to take over schools in Memphis.
Court of Appeal, First District, California.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent; Aspire Public Schools, Inc., Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
No. A122485.
-- July 26, 2010
Deborah B. Caplan, N. Eugene Hill, Richard C. Miadich, Olson, Hagel & Fishburn, LLP, for Appellants, California School Boards Association, Association of California School Administrators, Stockton Unified School District.
Joseph R. Colton, Priscilla Winslow, California Teachers' Association, for Appellants, California Teachers' Association.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., California Attorney General, Susan M. Carson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Benjamin J. Riley, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondents, California State Board of Education.
Paul C. Minney, Andrew G. Minney, Middleton, Young & Minney, LLP, for Respondents, Aspire Public Schools, Inc.
Showing posts with label California Watch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California Watch. Show all posts
Monday, September 30, 2013
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Spending far from equal among state’s school districts, analysis finds
I think children should get the same education everywhere in California.
One tiny district, the Pacific Unified School District on a remote stretch of the California coast near Hearst Castle, spent close to $60,000 per student.
Spending far from equal among state’s school districts, analysis finds
June 2, 2011
Louis Freedberg and Stephen K. Doig
California Watch
Logan Salcido shows parents Katie and Bernardo his work during an open house at Veterans Elementary School in Bakersfield.Casey Christie/Bakersfield CalifornianLogan Salcido shows parents Katie and Bernardo his work during an open house at Veterans Elementary School in Bakersfield.
State lawmakers have struggled for decades to bring equality to how school districts are funded, yet some districts receive thousands more per student than others, a California Watch analysis has found. And the data shows spending more provides no assurance of academic success.
Last year, California schools spent an average of $8,452 to educate each student, a figure that includes money from local, state, and federal sources, including one-time stimulus funds.
But that average masks enormous differences in spending. The Carmel Unified School District, for example, spent nearly three times as much as the Norris School District in Bakersfield. One tiny district, the Pacific Unified School District on a remote stretch of the California coast near Hearst Castle, spent close to $60,000 per student.
Figures are typically available only for how much districts, not individual schools, spend on their students. But according to the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, some of the smallest schools in the Sierra foothills, with just a handful of students, received about $200,000 per student.
Public schools consume the largest share of the state’s shrinking general fund – 42 percent of the $86 billion total. How those funds are allocated is coming under increasing scrutiny by education leaders, advocacy groups, school districts and lawmakers.
In April, Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, D-Santa Monica, chairwoman of the Assembly Education Committee, introduced legislation to reform education financing. Similar to a plan proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown during his gubernatorial campaign, the bill would simplify funding formulas and direct money to students with extra needs, such as those from low-income families.
“We talk a lot about the achievement gap, but there is also a parallel financial gap,” Brownley said. Unless the system is reformed, she said, “we will continue to have this disparity and this divide.”
As districts struggle to cope with massive budget cuts, an extra few hundred dollars per student can make a significant difference. In a school district like Los Angeles Unified, by far the largest in the state, $500 more per student would yield about an extra $300 million, precisely the amount the district aimed to save when it sent out thousands of layoff notices this spring...
One tiny district, the Pacific Unified School District on a remote stretch of the California coast near Hearst Castle, spent close to $60,000 per student.
Spending far from equal among state’s school districts, analysis finds
June 2, 2011
Louis Freedberg and Stephen K. Doig
California Watch
Logan Salcido shows parents Katie and Bernardo his work during an open house at Veterans Elementary School in Bakersfield.Casey Christie/Bakersfield CalifornianLogan Salcido shows parents Katie and Bernardo his work during an open house at Veterans Elementary School in Bakersfield.
State lawmakers have struggled for decades to bring equality to how school districts are funded, yet some districts receive thousands more per student than others, a California Watch analysis has found. And the data shows spending more provides no assurance of academic success.
Last year, California schools spent an average of $8,452 to educate each student, a figure that includes money from local, state, and federal sources, including one-time stimulus funds.
But that average masks enormous differences in spending. The Carmel Unified School District, for example, spent nearly three times as much as the Norris School District in Bakersfield. One tiny district, the Pacific Unified School District on a remote stretch of the California coast near Hearst Castle, spent close to $60,000 per student.
Figures are typically available only for how much districts, not individual schools, spend on their students. But according to the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, some of the smallest schools in the Sierra foothills, with just a handful of students, received about $200,000 per student.
Public schools consume the largest share of the state’s shrinking general fund – 42 percent of the $86 billion total. How those funds are allocated is coming under increasing scrutiny by education leaders, advocacy groups, school districts and lawmakers.
In April, Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, D-Santa Monica, chairwoman of the Assembly Education Committee, introduced legislation to reform education financing. Similar to a plan proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown during his gubernatorial campaign, the bill would simplify funding formulas and direct money to students with extra needs, such as those from low-income families.
“We talk a lot about the achievement gap, but there is also a parallel financial gap,” Brownley said. Unless the system is reformed, she said, “we will continue to have this disparity and this divide.”
As districts struggle to cope with massive budget cuts, an extra few hundred dollars per student can make a significant difference. In a school district like Los Angeles Unified, by far the largest in the state, $500 more per student would yield about an extra $300 million, precisely the amount the district aimed to save when it sent out thousands of layoff notices this spring...
Oversight problems prompt freeze of school reform funds
San Francisco Unified, for example, did not replace any staff at schools who chose the "turnaround" option, despite the requirement that all be removed and no more than 50 percent rehired, federal officials found.
Oversight problems prompt freeze of school reform funds
Corey G. Johnson
California Watch
August 1, 2011
This year's payout of a three-year $416 million federal grant to struggling schools has been delayed for several California schools after monitoring teams found the state Department of Education and local districts not implementing required reforms.
At a tense meeting last month, unhappy State Board of Education members unanimously voted to withhold funds from 90 schools until they meet all conditions of the grant. The board also rejected the applications of 54 additional schools and ordered sweeping corrections in oversight at the state Education Department.
“I think that what appeared today was a major breakdown in the implementation of an important federal program,” board President Michael Kirst told the Top-Ed blog. “We got a significant rebuke from the federal government and we felt we had to act in order to show that we’re really trying to implement the federal law with integrity.”
Last year, schools on a controversial state "persistently low performing" list pledged to carry out broad reforms, ranging from firing their principals and half of their staffs to closing and restarting as charter schools. In return, each school received U.S. Department of Education grants of up to $2 million each year for three years. State education officials promised to ensure the reforms were carried out.
But when federal monitoring teams went to Los Angeles Unified, San Bernardino City Schools and San Francisco Unified in February, they found reforms not being implemented and the state completely unaware. San Francisco Unified, for example, did not replace any staff at schools who chose the "turnaround" option, despite the requirement that all be removed and no more than 50 percent rehired, federal officials found...
Oversight problems prompt freeze of school reform funds
Corey G. Johnson
California Watch
August 1, 2011
This year's payout of a three-year $416 million federal grant to struggling schools has been delayed for several California schools after monitoring teams found the state Department of Education and local districts not implementing required reforms.
At a tense meeting last month, unhappy State Board of Education members unanimously voted to withhold funds from 90 schools until they meet all conditions of the grant. The board also rejected the applications of 54 additional schools and ordered sweeping corrections in oversight at the state Education Department.
“I think that what appeared today was a major breakdown in the implementation of an important federal program,” board President Michael Kirst told the Top-Ed blog. “We got a significant rebuke from the federal government and we felt we had to act in order to show that we’re really trying to implement the federal law with integrity.”
Last year, schools on a controversial state "persistently low performing" list pledged to carry out broad reforms, ranging from firing their principals and half of their staffs to closing and restarting as charter schools. In return, each school received U.S. Department of Education grants of up to $2 million each year for three years. State education officials promised to ensure the reforms were carried out.
But when federal monitoring teams went to Los Angeles Unified, San Bernardino City Schools and San Francisco Unified in February, they found reforms not being implemented and the state completely unaware. San Francisco Unified, for example, did not replace any staff at schools who chose the "turnaround" option, despite the requirement that all be removed and no more than 50 percent rehired, federal officials found...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)