As we now know, the Davis Joint Unified School District attorneys have issued an additional 20 page legal opinion attacking the Valley Oak Charter Petition.
Bill Storm, science teacher and proponent of Valley Oak Charter School told the Davis Enterprise yesterday:
In response to the assertion by district that:
There are several things that the district claims that the charter does not do, that the charter petitioners claim they do.
For example the district claims:
Another example of this claim is found in response three by the district:
One example was the sexual orientation claim by the district, here is another example.
Vanguard Commentary
It is the opinion of the Vanguard that the initial resolution response was inappropriate, unnecessary, incendiary, and inflammatory.
As we suggested on Monday, most of the findings are subjective and nitpicky. The entire response seems to be bent on breaking on the will of the petitioners rather than addressing gaping holes in the charter petition. Much more could have accomplished with a meeting to flesh out concerns and tighten up language if so needed.
At this point the Vanguard is extremely disappointed in the district staff. While for the time being, the new Superintendent, who has not been involved in this process, is likely unfamiliar with Charter Law, gets a pass from us, we will be VERY closely watching how he responds to this situation and whether he can act to be a voice of reason toward resolution on the one hand or on the other hand help the existing staff to pile on in their apparent attempt to torpedo the Valley School Charter Program.
Additionally, this now becomes a burden for the outgoing school board. The Vanguard will particularly look toward three board members who will be staying: Sheila Allen, Gina Daleiden, and Tim Taylor to provide the necessary guidance and leadership to avoid what appears at this point to be almost inevitably a lengthy and destructive legal show that will only harm the students in this school district.
Make no mistake, this district is on the brink and only strong leadership from the school board and new superintendent can avoid metaphorical bloodshed from occurring. It is our hope that cooler heads will prevail in this and that the board can be the voice of reason and compromise, because quite frankly there does not seem to be a huge gap in the opinions here. However, if lines are drawn in the sand, this could become contentious, bitter and ugly. Again, it is our hope that this be avoided.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
Bill Storm, science teacher and proponent of Valley Oak Charter School told the Davis Enterprise yesterday:
"The draft resolution severely distorts both our proposal and the requirements of the Charter Schools Act and makes serious errors of fact in denying the petition... We continue to be willing to work with the district in resolving any legitimate issues. Such work would require that all parties act swiftly and in good faith... f the Davis school board acts to deny the charter, we are confident that the charter will be authorized through the appeal process outlined in the Charter Schools Act... We have made presentations, provided drafts of the educational plan, governance design and budget presentations (to the district), and have repeatedly requested meaningful dialogue and feedback. Instead, last Friday (the district) posted a draft resolution to deny the petition for the Valley Oak Charter School."Mr. Storm has sent the Vanguard a lengthy response to the resolution which is also posted on the Valley Oak Charter web page.
In response to the assertion by district that:
"The petitions submitted fail to affirm that the Charter was attached to the petition at the time of execution of the petition by the signatory as required by Education Code section 47605(a)(3)."The Valley Oak drafters contend:
"47605(a)(3) provides thatSecond in response to the charge that they failed to claim they would not discriminate against any pupil on the basis of sexual orientation:
'A petition shall include a prominent statement that a signature on the petition means that the parent or guardian is meaningfully interested in having his or her child, or ward, attend the charter school, or in the case of a teacher's signature, means that the teacher is meaningfully interested in teaching at the charter school. The proposed charter shall be attached to the petition.'
In fact, the signature pages were attached, and the signature page included a statement that it was attached to the petition."
"This “finding” is a misstatement of the law and is factually untrue. The sections of the Charter School Act that are cited specifically require that the charter school shall be nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations, shall not charge tuition, and shall not discriminate against any pupil on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, gender, or disability. VOCS Charter, page 60, DOES make those assurances and specifically references the relevant code sections. The Charter School Act does not anywhere mention the issue of discrimination against pupils on the basis of sexual orientation. By raising this issue, the drafters of the resolution apparently seek to imply that the school will discriminate against pupils on that basis. Such an implication is shameful."Many of the other objections to the district resolution can be summarized as follows.
There are several things that the district claims that the charter does not do, that the charter petitioners claim they do.
For example the district claims:
"The proposed Charter does not contain a reasonably comprehensive description of measurable pupil outcomes. The Charter does not identify specific pupil outcome goals in the subject matter areas of Reading and Language Arts, Mathematics, History and Social Science, Science, or Health and Nutrition."The charter petitioners respond:
"Presented finding is not factual. The VOCS document employs district assessment protocols. For the district to say the charter does not contain a “reasonably comprehensive description of measurable pupil outcomes” is an indictment of its own practice. “Specific pupil outcome goals” in the content areas specified are indeed detailed in the VOCS Charter, pages 40 to 41, thus this finding has no basis in fact."There are a number of such claims and counter-claims through this exchange. Part of the problem at this point may be the definition of "reasonable" and whether that adds enough subjectivity to enable the district to legitimately reject the petition.
Another example of this claim is found in response three by the district:
"The proposed Charter does not contain a reasonably comprehensive description of the charter school’s methods to assess pupil progress. The Charter does not identify which assessment instruments will be used in all core areas, except English language acquisition. The Charter does not describe specific interventions for any core areas, except English language acquisition, or identify the criteria for placing students in an intervention program."Once again the petitioners respond by arguing that they do indeed address this point:
"Presented finding is not factual. Each item the resolution says is deficient is indeed detailed in the charter. Refer to pages 40 and 41 in the charter. Specific interventions are detailed in the VOCS Charter, pages 29 through 32. Assessments (STAR, BEAR, salmon/blue cards, etc) are identified in both primary and intermediate grade level sections as well as in the MSO portion. Specific assessments in each content area will be dictated by the publisher's tests for each textbook adoption. Present adoptions are listed by publisher's name in the grade level sections."There are also a number of objections that the charter petition is not required by law to contain some provisos.
One example was the sexual orientation claim by the district, here is another example.
"The proposed Charter does not contain a reasonably comprehensive description of dispute resolution procedures. The proposed dispute resolution process fails to expressly exempt revocation proceedings from the dispute resolution process. The District cannot be compelled through the charter granting process to submit to disputes to binding arbitration or relinquish its right to seek resolution of disputes through legal process. The proposal that the District pay the costs of arbitration is unsound by removing financial incentives for the charter school to resolve disputes without recourse to arbitration."The petitioners respond:
"Presented finding is not factual. There is no requirement that the charter contain any notice that revocation proceedings be exempt from a dispute resolution process. The dispute resolution mechanism provides arbitration before a neutral third party arbitrator. By raising this issue it is grasping at straws."In response to claim that the Charter does not provide a preference of District residents immediately after pupils currently attending the charter school and
"unlawfully grants priority preferences to: students residing within the Valley Oak attendance area, children of Valley Oak School employees, and siblings of students enrolled in the District or the charter school. The description of the public random drawing process in the event of over enrollment is ambiguous, incomplete, and fails to admit students entitled to an attendance preference ahead of other students."According to the petitioners, once again this finding is not factual.
"Ed Code specifically permits enrollment preferences to neighborhood students in charter schools. Refer to Section 47605 (d)(2). Also, the paragraph is internally contradictory. It initially says preferences are unlawful, and then later says we fail to admit students from a preferred attendance area. If the district is not happy with how we state how preference will be designated and how the attendance lottery will be run, those issues are easily negotiated."The school board itself will hear tonight what ought to be a bitterly contentious meeting. This is unfortunate.
Vanguard Commentary
It is the opinion of the Vanguard that the initial resolution response was inappropriate, unnecessary, incendiary, and inflammatory.
As we suggested on Monday, most of the findings are subjective and nitpicky. The entire response seems to be bent on breaking on the will of the petitioners rather than addressing gaping holes in the charter petition. Much more could have accomplished with a meeting to flesh out concerns and tighten up language if so needed.
At this point the Vanguard is extremely disappointed in the district staff. While for the time being, the new Superintendent, who has not been involved in this process, is likely unfamiliar with Charter Law, gets a pass from us, we will be VERY closely watching how he responds to this situation and whether he can act to be a voice of reason toward resolution on the one hand or on the other hand help the existing staff to pile on in their apparent attempt to torpedo the Valley School Charter Program.
Additionally, this now becomes a burden for the outgoing school board. The Vanguard will particularly look toward three board members who will be staying: Sheila Allen, Gina Daleiden, and Tim Taylor to provide the necessary guidance and leadership to avoid what appears at this point to be almost inevitably a lengthy and destructive legal show that will only harm the students in this school district.
Make no mistake, this district is on the brink and only strong leadership from the school board and new superintendent can avoid metaphorical bloodshed from occurring. It is our hope that cooler heads will prevail in this and that the board can be the voice of reason and compromise, because quite frankly there does not seem to be a huge gap in the opinions here. However, if lines are drawn in the sand, this could become contentious, bitter and ugly. Again, it is our hope that this be avoided.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
