In point of fact, those parents have incorrect information. LASD Superintendent Jeff Baier sent a letter today to BCS Principal Wanny Hersey to reiterate the sharing arrangements. In his letter, he provides a copy of the sharing schedule that has been in place since November, and mentions that the BCS Asst. Principal Schwartzbaum have adjusted the schedule from time to time to meet the needs of the parties. I provide a copy of the letter here in the hopes that BCS parents will see it and understand that the space has been provided properly. Whether BCS chooses to use that space or not is entirely up to them, but the District has provided the space.
Showing posts with label Prop 39. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prop 39. Show all posts
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Play Space At Blach
At a recent LASD board meeting, quite a number of BCS parents expressed concern that BCS children at Blach had no place to play other than on the blacktop between the classrooms. I believe this surprised most of the LASD board, since we provided for that in the 2013-14 facilities offer. We actually had a lengthy debate when we constructed the facilities offer to provide both a way to share space (BCS and LASD kids playing together) and also a fall-back position in case the sharing didn't work out.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
New School Year, Same Old PR Stunts
Once again, BCS has proven they are willing to use children to create PR stunts.
In the summer of 2012, BCS refused to answer questions about student furniture. As a result, LASD was forced to make decisions about where to put furniture for the BCS students. Shortly after school started, BCS then hired expensive luxury coaches to take students over to the Blach campus for a photo op. They snapped pictures of kids on the floor, and then ran to court, asking the judge to condemn LASD for failing to provide adequate equipment for BCS. Fortunately, LASD had a full record of the discussions, including email history showing that BCS had intentionally stalled. The courts saw through the charade and threw the complaint out.
Fast forward to this year.
The facilities offer for 2013-14 is specifically crafted to provide complete facilities for BCS K-5 students at the Egan campus, and complete facilities for BCS 6-8 students at Blach. There are enough classrooms, flex space, library space, offices, and yes, playground space and asphalt play space for all BCS K-5 students at the Egan facility, and similarly we've made appropriate arrangements to share space for BCS middle school students at Blach. The Final Offer spells all of this out. BCS agreed to this condition when they signed the Facilities Use Agreement for the school year. Knowing all of this, and fully aware that they've legally agreed NOT to take K-3 students to Blach, BCS chose to do it anyway. So what happened?
BCS took photos of children playing where they aren't supposed to be playing, and then blames LASD for the situation. They've run another full page ad in the Town Crier, complaining that LASD hasn't properly shared facilities. Of course they fail to mention that those exact same kids have an empty playground just a few miles away.
At some level, I'm amazed that parents tolerate this. I have school-aged kids of my own. I would be furious if the school to which I'd entrusted them took my children to a facility that is not properly prepared for them. I'd be even more outraged if I realized that my child was being used by a highly paid PR firm as nothing more than an extra in a photo shoot designed to mislead the public in my own community.
This trick was a bad idea last time, and the courts saw right through it. Does the BCS PR team really think so little of our community that you'd try the same trick all over again?
In the summer of 2012, BCS refused to answer questions about student furniture. As a result, LASD was forced to make decisions about where to put furniture for the BCS students. Shortly after school started, BCS then hired expensive luxury coaches to take students over to the Blach campus for a photo op. They snapped pictures of kids on the floor, and then ran to court, asking the judge to condemn LASD for failing to provide adequate equipment for BCS. Fortunately, LASD had a full record of the discussions, including email history showing that BCS had intentionally stalled. The courts saw through the charade and threw the complaint out.
Fast forward to this year.
The facilities offer for 2013-14 is specifically crafted to provide complete facilities for BCS K-5 students at the Egan campus, and complete facilities for BCS 6-8 students at Blach. There are enough classrooms, flex space, library space, offices, and yes, playground space and asphalt play space for all BCS K-5 students at the Egan facility, and similarly we've made appropriate arrangements to share space for BCS middle school students at Blach. The Final Offer spells all of this out. BCS agreed to this condition when they signed the Facilities Use Agreement for the school year. Knowing all of this, and fully aware that they've legally agreed NOT to take K-3 students to Blach, BCS chose to do it anyway. So what happened?
BCS took photos of children playing where they aren't supposed to be playing, and then blames LASD for the situation. They've run another full page ad in the Town Crier, complaining that LASD hasn't properly shared facilities. Of course they fail to mention that those exact same kids have an empty playground just a few miles away.
At some level, I'm amazed that parents tolerate this. I have school-aged kids of my own. I would be furious if the school to which I'd entrusted them took my children to a facility that is not properly prepared for them. I'd be even more outraged if I realized that my child was being used by a highly paid PR firm as nothing more than an extra in a photo shoot designed to mislead the public in my own community.
This trick was a bad idea last time, and the courts saw right through it. Does the BCS PR team really think so little of our community that you'd try the same trick all over again?
Thursday, June 20, 2013
In Court Today: 2013-14 offer
Today we had a court date to discuss the first of two BCS challenges to the 2013-14 facilities offer. Today's discussion centered entirely around whether LASD was able to split BCS into two sites, or if that was a violation of the process.
BCS essentially argued that prop 39 says we have to start by placing them on a single campus, and then restructuring the remaining LASD programs around that. Judge Pierce also spent time clarifying whether the courts should evaluate all of the options independent of the elected Board of Trustees. He also explored whether we have a "ministerial duty" or if the trustees have discretion in how we allocate facilities.
LASD's argument was fairly brief. We pointed to the case law in Ridgecrest that specifically permits districts to split charter schools across campuses under certain circumstances, provided that the district makes written findings supporting that decision. LASD did this back in January 2013, as part of our extensive evaluation of options for BCS. LASD attorney Ray Cardozo drew the court's attention to the resolution, which specifically starts with the single site solution (Covington) but then explains how that would have a disproportionate impact on District students- particularly special needs students who are heavily impacted by changes.
Judge Pierce asked some good questions, and it felt like he'd done his homework. he had a good command of the various sites in the district, and what has happened before this hearing. He did ask about a possible return to mediation. Our attorney provided a brief answer. My thought is that we're willing to engage in a discussion, but it can't be starting with the same old position ("Close an LASD school") I've said in the past that we would enter into discussions if BCS drops or freezes the litigation we would be willing to meet. The biggest driver for that is some sort of tangible proof that if we agree to something with the subset, there's reason to believe it will be accepted by the broader BCS Board. I can expand on this later, but as I said, this is a position I've expressed before.
This was the first time I've seen the new attorney for BCS. I'm encouraged that he was focused on the facts and law of the case rather than some of the more colorful language that their prior counsel employed. Given the number of open lawsuits, it is far too early to declare a change in approach. However, we did manage to get this hearing scheduled within a reasonable time frame, and with a minimum of the shenanigans and delay tactics we've seen in the past. Hopefully we'll deal with the issues head on.
Judge Pierce didn't issue a tentative ruling before the hearing, so we are all awaiting his decision. He is repute to be someone who doesn't waste time, though, so hopefully we'll see something soon.
PS to A Friend: Thanks.
BCS essentially argued that prop 39 says we have to start by placing them on a single campus, and then restructuring the remaining LASD programs around that. Judge Pierce also spent time clarifying whether the courts should evaluate all of the options independent of the elected Board of Trustees. He also explored whether we have a "ministerial duty" or if the trustees have discretion in how we allocate facilities.
LASD's argument was fairly brief. We pointed to the case law in Ridgecrest that specifically permits districts to split charter schools across campuses under certain circumstances, provided that the district makes written findings supporting that decision. LASD did this back in January 2013, as part of our extensive evaluation of options for BCS. LASD attorney Ray Cardozo drew the court's attention to the resolution, which specifically starts with the single site solution (Covington) but then explains how that would have a disproportionate impact on District students- particularly special needs students who are heavily impacted by changes.
Judge Pierce asked some good questions, and it felt like he'd done his homework. he had a good command of the various sites in the district, and what has happened before this hearing. He did ask about a possible return to mediation. Our attorney provided a brief answer. My thought is that we're willing to engage in a discussion, but it can't be starting with the same old position ("Close an LASD school") I've said in the past that we would enter into discussions if BCS drops or freezes the litigation we would be willing to meet. The biggest driver for that is some sort of tangible proof that if we agree to something with the subset, there's reason to believe it will be accepted by the broader BCS Board. I can expand on this later, but as I said, this is a position I've expressed before.
This was the first time I've seen the new attorney for BCS. I'm encouraged that he was focused on the facts and law of the case rather than some of the more colorful language that their prior counsel employed. Given the number of open lawsuits, it is far too early to declare a change in approach. However, we did manage to get this hearing scheduled within a reasonable time frame, and with a minimum of the shenanigans and delay tactics we've seen in the past. Hopefully we'll deal with the issues head on.
Judge Pierce didn't issue a tentative ruling before the hearing, so we are all awaiting his decision. He is repute to be someone who doesn't waste time, though, so hopefully we'll see something soon.
PS to A Friend: Thanks.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Win at the Court of Appeals
Last fall, the lead attorney for BCS mocked the Superior Court judges, saying that they just don't have the time to study complex issues and that they generally don't understand cases like the ones we are involved in. Given the BCS willingness to run to the appellate courts, it seems that they've viewed the 2009-10 case as the sign that teh appellate courts are "in the BCS camp".
Back in December 2012, the Appellate court took just days to rule against BCS on one of their appeals. (link)
More recently, (this past week), the District was pleased to have the Appellate Courts dismiss the BCS appeal in the Anti-SLAPP case. Recall that BCS brought an anti-SLAPP motion against LASD in an attempt to kill the District's cross-complaint. By filing the anti-SLAPP, and by appealing when they lost at the trial court, BCS was holding at bay any legal discovery activities that might otherwise proceed. Now that BCS has lost their appeal, LASD will be able to move forward with discovery.
The Cross Complaint is an important action because it asks the courts to examine BCS admissions practices and their treatment of certain student groups, and asks the court to then determine whether those actions should impact LASD facilities allocation to BCS. Now that the roadblocks are cleared, we'll begin the important excavation work that is necessary to pull together the information we need to put before the court.
I have no illusions that the Cross-Complaint is moving swiftly to trial. BCS has, in the recent past, defied Discovery, and has been sanctioned by the courts for their behavior. (They've appealed those sanctions too, so we'll have to wait and see what happens there.) However, clearing these roadblocks is important- we need to move forward and get clarity from the court on the questions we've raised.
Regardless of what BCS attorneys seem to think of the trial courts, the Appellate Courts seem to think they've been "getting it right", because they have affirmed their decisions.
Back in December 2012, the Appellate court took just days to rule against BCS on one of their appeals. (link)
More recently, (this past week), the District was pleased to have the Appellate Courts dismiss the BCS appeal in the Anti-SLAPP case. Recall that BCS brought an anti-SLAPP motion against LASD in an attempt to kill the District's cross-complaint. By filing the anti-SLAPP, and by appealing when they lost at the trial court, BCS was holding at bay any legal discovery activities that might otherwise proceed. Now that BCS has lost their appeal, LASD will be able to move forward with discovery.
The Cross Complaint is an important action because it asks the courts to examine BCS admissions practices and their treatment of certain student groups, and asks the court to then determine whether those actions should impact LASD facilities allocation to BCS. Now that the roadblocks are cleared, we'll begin the important excavation work that is necessary to pull together the information we need to put before the court.
I have no illusions that the Cross-Complaint is moving swiftly to trial. BCS has, in the recent past, defied Discovery, and has been sanctioned by the courts for their behavior. (They've appealed those sanctions too, so we'll have to wait and see what happens there.) However, clearing these roadblocks is important- we need to move forward and get clarity from the court on the questions we've raised.
Regardless of what BCS attorneys seem to think of the trial courts, the Appellate Courts seem to think they've been "getting it right", because they have affirmed their decisions.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
LASD Brief - 2013-14 Suit
2013-14 Facilities Lawsuit
Yes, I understand the frustration- we're not even done with 2012-13, and we're already talking about the 2013-14 lawsuit. Not much I can do about that...
LASD has filed our reply brief in the 2013-14 facilities dispute. After LASD delivered our Final Offer for 2013-14, BCS accepted the offer and promptly turned around and filed a suit to challenge the offer. They highlighted two lines of attack-
1) They've challenged the District's ability to split the BCS program across Egan and Blach
2) They've also challenged the CEQA process under which we have allocated space to their program
After some legal wrangling, we've agreed that the case will be heard on a somewhat expedited calendar. The District remains very confident of the offer we've delivered, and the sooner the courts rule on this the better. Part of the process to expedite is that BCS will argue their key area of concern (the split across two sites) now, and will hold back the CEQA argument for later.
As BCS has been compelled by the courts to provide documents in the litigation, they've asserted that much of it is "confidential" and cannot be shared with the public. I'm not clear on the legal reasoning of positioning one's self as a public school but maintaining that much of your documentation is private. However, rather than add yet another that legal battle to the docket, we've submitted the documents under seal. If a member of the public comes forward to challenge the confidentiality of those documents, the court will rule on whether the docs should be released or not.
This hearing will take place on June 20 in Superior Court. The public is always welcome to attend these hearings.
LASD Opposition to BCS Motion for Judgement
Cardozo Declaration (part 1 of 3)
Cardozo Declaration (part 2 of 3)
Sorry, Part 3 is under seal for the moment
Yes, I understand the frustration- we're not even done with 2012-13, and we're already talking about the 2013-14 lawsuit. Not much I can do about that...
LASD has filed our reply brief in the 2013-14 facilities dispute. After LASD delivered our Final Offer for 2013-14, BCS accepted the offer and promptly turned around and filed a suit to challenge the offer. They highlighted two lines of attack-
1) They've challenged the District's ability to split the BCS program across Egan and Blach
2) They've also challenged the CEQA process under which we have allocated space to their program
After some legal wrangling, we've agreed that the case will be heard on a somewhat expedited calendar. The District remains very confident of the offer we've delivered, and the sooner the courts rule on this the better. Part of the process to expedite is that BCS will argue their key area of concern (the split across two sites) now, and will hold back the CEQA argument for later.
As BCS has been compelled by the courts to provide documents in the litigation, they've asserted that much of it is "confidential" and cannot be shared with the public. I'm not clear on the legal reasoning of positioning one's self as a public school but maintaining that much of your documentation is private. However, rather than add yet another that legal battle to the docket, we've submitted the documents under seal. If a member of the public comes forward to challenge the confidentiality of those documents, the court will rule on whether the docs should be released or not.
This hearing will take place on June 20 in Superior Court. The public is always welcome to attend these hearings.
LASD Opposition to BCS Motion for Judgement
Cardozo Declaration (part 1 of 3)
Cardozo Declaration (part 2 of 3)
Sorry, Part 3 is under seal for the moment
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Considering Raynor Site
The Town Crier ran an article today discussing the recent District action to consider the Raynor site in Sunnyvale as a possible location for BCS. (link to article) Overall, the article did a pretty good job of explaining the situation. In a nutshell, Sunnyvale has a parcel available for sale that was a school site back in the 1970's. LASD is submitting a bid to acquire that site to use as a location for BCS.
Of course, any sentence that includes "LASD" and "BCS" is bound to generate controversy, and this one is no exception. Before LASD even passed the resolution to do this, the lead BCS attorney threatened to get an injunction to block the action. BCS has stated that they do not believe it would be legal for LASD to place BCS outside of the District boundaries.
I'd love to be able to say that all laws surrounding charter schools are crystal clear, and that there is no room for doubt or interpretation. However, this area of the law is relatively new, and as such, the existing laws and regulation require some interpretation. BCS sees the issue as very "black and white". However, the District has a different view. Indeed, even the SCCBOE acknowledges that there are circumstances under which a charter school can be placed outside of the District boundaries. We received a letter from the county recently detailing their views, and we sent them back a letter in reply. Both of these letters were mentioned in the comments section of the LATC article. I'm attaching both the SCCBOE letter and the LASD reply here to dispel any debate about the content of those letters. (I imagine many will still apply their own interpretation, but there's little I'm going to be able to do about that.)
SCCBOE Letter to LASD
LASD response to SCCBOE
Clearly there are different interpretations of the law here.
Failing getting their thoughts informally, the court system actually provides a mechanism to seek clarification of what the law permits. That mechanism, called Declaratory Relief, is a simple way for LASD to seek clarification from the courts about the legal issues involved in placing BCS outside the District boundaries. This process is normally fairly quick (~90 days) and LASD is very interested to hear from the courts on this topic. We believe that BCS should also share that same interest, so we've asked them to agree to a speedy calendar for this motion. We'll have to wait and see if BCS really believes in their viewpoint, or if they'd prefer to drag out the process. Either way, this is a significant question on which we need to hear from the courts so that we can all be working from the same interpretation of the law.
Here's a copy of the request for Declaratory Relief
In closing, I'd observe that it didn't take long after the Town Crier article was posted before folks started weighing in with their views of the legality of this, and questioning the wisdom of the LASD Board in pursuing this option. I can't speak for the rest of the Board, but I will share my own thoughts.
This controversy has dragged on for 8 years. Over the past year, BCS has filed complaint after complaint with the court, and has exercised every conceivable legal maneuver to either delay the court's rulings or appeal decisions they've lost (multiple times). Despite their public statements of "compromise" and collaboration, BCS has made it clear through the pace and tenor of the litigation that they won't rest until LASD has closed a site and handed the keys to BCS. Any statements to the contrary fly in the face of a lengthy court record.
Given this backdrop, LASD needs to move as expeditiously as possible to secure a site for BCS so that we can prevent the disruption of the education of 4500 students who attend District schools. Under these circumstances, we would be foolish - and I believe also derelict in our responsibilities - if we didn't consider every possible option for a site for BCS. The Raynor site happens to be the first available site, so we are moving on that site. If we had a different relationship with BCS- one based on cooperation instead of litigation- I could envision working closely together to evaluate sites and select one that is workable for the district and that is also appealing to BCS. Under the current circumstances, though, we would be remiss if we didn't pursue every available option. BCS can change this equation by dropping the litigation and working with LASD. If they want to continue to pursue litigation, though, that's the clearest signal they can give that LASD has to find them a site- any site- as fast as we possibly can.
Of course, any sentence that includes "LASD" and "BCS" is bound to generate controversy, and this one is no exception. Before LASD even passed the resolution to do this, the lead BCS attorney threatened to get an injunction to block the action. BCS has stated that they do not believe it would be legal for LASD to place BCS outside of the District boundaries.
I'd love to be able to say that all laws surrounding charter schools are crystal clear, and that there is no room for doubt or interpretation. However, this area of the law is relatively new, and as such, the existing laws and regulation require some interpretation. BCS sees the issue as very "black and white". However, the District has a different view. Indeed, even the SCCBOE acknowledges that there are circumstances under which a charter school can be placed outside of the District boundaries. We received a letter from the county recently detailing their views, and we sent them back a letter in reply. Both of these letters were mentioned in the comments section of the LATC article. I'm attaching both the SCCBOE letter and the LASD reply here to dispel any debate about the content of those letters. (I imagine many will still apply their own interpretation, but there's little I'm going to be able to do about that.)
SCCBOE Letter to LASD
LASD response to SCCBOE
Clearly there are different interpretations of the law here.
- BCS contends that LASD cannot place them outside LASD borders
- SCCBOE acknowledges that there are some instances in which LASD can place BCS outside LASD borders
- LASD believes that those circumstances and other reasons make it legal for LASD to place BCS outside the LASD borders
Failing getting their thoughts informally, the court system actually provides a mechanism to seek clarification of what the law permits. That mechanism, called Declaratory Relief, is a simple way for LASD to seek clarification from the courts about the legal issues involved in placing BCS outside the District boundaries. This process is normally fairly quick (~90 days) and LASD is very interested to hear from the courts on this topic. We believe that BCS should also share that same interest, so we've asked them to agree to a speedy calendar for this motion. We'll have to wait and see if BCS really believes in their viewpoint, or if they'd prefer to drag out the process. Either way, this is a significant question on which we need to hear from the courts so that we can all be working from the same interpretation of the law.
Here's a copy of the request for Declaratory Relief
In closing, I'd observe that it didn't take long after the Town Crier article was posted before folks started weighing in with their views of the legality of this, and questioning the wisdom of the LASD Board in pursuing this option. I can't speak for the rest of the Board, but I will share my own thoughts.
This controversy has dragged on for 8 years. Over the past year, BCS has filed complaint after complaint with the court, and has exercised every conceivable legal maneuver to either delay the court's rulings or appeal decisions they've lost (multiple times). Despite their public statements of "compromise" and collaboration, BCS has made it clear through the pace and tenor of the litigation that they won't rest until LASD has closed a site and handed the keys to BCS. Any statements to the contrary fly in the face of a lengthy court record.
Given this backdrop, LASD needs to move as expeditiously as possible to secure a site for BCS so that we can prevent the disruption of the education of 4500 students who attend District schools. Under these circumstances, we would be foolish - and I believe also derelict in our responsibilities - if we didn't consider every possible option for a site for BCS. The Raynor site happens to be the first available site, so we are moving on that site. If we had a different relationship with BCS- one based on cooperation instead of litigation- I could envision working closely together to evaluate sites and select one that is workable for the district and that is also appealing to BCS. Under the current circumstances, though, we would be remiss if we didn't pursue every available option. BCS can change this equation by dropping the litigation and working with LASD. If they want to continue to pursue litigation, though, that's the clearest signal they can give that LASD has to find them a site- any site- as fast as we possibly can.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
LASD Delivers Final Offer
Note: This blog post is late- we delivered the final offer on April 1, 2013 as required by law. At that time, I delivered a letter to the community. This post includes that letter, as well as links to the various documents for the 2013-14 facilities process.
On April 1, 2013, LASD delivered the Final Offer of Facilities to BCS. They have responded with their Notice of Intent to Occupy, along with their customary statement that says they deem the offer insufficient and they reserve the right to sue us.
This offer is an exceptionally strong offer, and it is actually more than what is required by law. I can only hope that BCS will decide it isn't worth suing over this, and we can return our focus to the children we educate.
I state this in my letter, but I also want to point it out here: the District staff has worked incredibly hard to prepare this offer. There are countless hours devoted to measuring, counting, and calculating, as well as then working through all the logistical and programmatic impacts of this type of arrangement. The District's Chief Business Officer, Randy Kenyon, has taken point on this, and done a fantastic job. I also want to specifically call out Sandra McGonagle for her hard work. As the principal at Blach, she and her staff have gone through a great deal to revise their program to accommodate BCS and welcome them into a new way of sharing facilities. We are fortunate to have such superb folks advancing the work of the District. To accomplish this while maintaining such an excellent program, and to continue to achieve State-level recognition for our efficient administration, well, it says a lot about our team.
Note: I'm note sure why, but Google Docs has trouble dealing with the latest Jan 1 letter from BCS. It won't show it in preview mode, but it is possible to download the document locally and read it.
(letter to community sent on April 3, 2013)
Parents, Guardians, and Community Members
I'm pleased to say that the District has successfully completed and delivered the final facilities offer to BCS for the 2013-14 school year. This year's process incorporated an unprecedented level of community input, spanning more than a dozen public meetings over a 5 month period. In developing the Final Offer, the District has offered BCS generous access to shared space on the Blach campus, as well as maintaining their footprint on the Egan campus. The shared space, in particular, represents a significant change in the offers we have made to BCS. In addition to providing their 6-8 students with access to specialized teaching space, it also creates an opportunity for us to work together and share, thereby increasing trust between the groups.
The District also strives to be transparent in our operations, so I would like to acknowledge a mistake we made recently. Under the open meeting laws in California, we agendize all topics to be discussed in closed session, so that the community can stay apprised of those discussions. At Monday's Board meeting, we met with consultants to discuss real estate during closed session, as permitted under the Brown Act. However, in the press of preparing the Final Offer, we neglected to use the correct language to agendize this item. Due to this oversight, the Board is required to meet again and discuss this item anew, which will provide the public the opportunity to weigh in before the Board adjourns to closed session. We will do this by holding a special board meeting on April 15th at 6pm.
The process of delivering the Final Offer is a challenging one, and on behalf of the board I would like to extend our thanks to the district employees who have worked so hard to evaluate options, develop alternatives, and make adjustments to our program in order to make this all work. They have been professional throughout the process. We can all be grateful that we have such a fantastic team working on behalf of our students.
Have a wonderful spring break, and we will see you on your return.
Warm regards,
Doug Smith
President, LASD Board of Trustees
On April 1, 2013, LASD delivered the Final Offer of Facilities to BCS. They have responded with their Notice of Intent to Occupy, along with their customary statement that says they deem the offer insufficient and they reserve the right to sue us.
This offer is an exceptionally strong offer, and it is actually more than what is required by law. I can only hope that BCS will decide it isn't worth suing over this, and we can return our focus to the children we educate.
I state this in my letter, but I also want to point it out here: the District staff has worked incredibly hard to prepare this offer. There are countless hours devoted to measuring, counting, and calculating, as well as then working through all the logistical and programmatic impacts of this type of arrangement. The District's Chief Business Officer, Randy Kenyon, has taken point on this, and done a fantastic job. I also want to specifically call out Sandra McGonagle for her hard work. As the principal at Blach, she and her staff have gone through a great deal to revise their program to accommodate BCS and welcome them into a new way of sharing facilities. We are fortunate to have such superb folks advancing the work of the District. To accomplish this while maintaining such an excellent program, and to continue to achieve State-level recognition for our efficient administration, well, it says a lot about our team.
Date
|
Action
|
Documents
|
Nov 1
|
BCS submits request for facilities, incl. enrollment forecast and preferred location.
| |
Dec 1
|
LASD provides counter-projection to enrollment
| |
Jan 1
|
BCS responds to counter-projection
| |
Feb 1
|
LASD provides preliminary facilities offer (draft)
| |
Mar 1
|
BCS responds to draft offer
| |
April 1
|
LASD provides final facilities offer
| |
July 1
|
LASD adjusts classroom space based on final district budget for upcoming school year
(Note: This is a negotiated step, not part of the Prop 39 process)
|
Note: I'm note sure why, but Google Docs has trouble dealing with the latest Jan 1 letter from BCS. It won't show it in preview mode, but it is possible to download the document locally and read it.
(letter to community sent on April 3, 2013)
Parents, Guardians, and Community Members
I'm pleased to say that the District has successfully completed and delivered the final facilities offer to BCS for the 2013-14 school year. This year's process incorporated an unprecedented level of community input, spanning more than a dozen public meetings over a 5 month period. In developing the Final Offer, the District has offered BCS generous access to shared space on the Blach campus, as well as maintaining their footprint on the Egan campus. The shared space, in particular, represents a significant change in the offers we have made to BCS. In addition to providing their 6-8 students with access to specialized teaching space, it also creates an opportunity for us to work together and share, thereby increasing trust between the groups.
The District also strives to be transparent in our operations, so I would like to acknowledge a mistake we made recently. Under the open meeting laws in California, we agendize all topics to be discussed in closed session, so that the community can stay apprised of those discussions. At Monday's Board meeting, we met with consultants to discuss real estate during closed session, as permitted under the Brown Act. However, in the press of preparing the Final Offer, we neglected to use the correct language to agendize this item. Due to this oversight, the Board is required to meet again and discuss this item anew, which will provide the public the opportunity to weigh in before the Board adjourns to closed session. We will do this by holding a special board meeting on April 15th at 6pm.
The process of delivering the Final Offer is a challenging one, and on behalf of the board I would like to extend our thanks to the district employees who have worked so hard to evaluate options, develop alternatives, and make adjustments to our program in order to make this all work. They have been professional throughout the process. We can all be grateful that we have such a fantastic team working on behalf of our students.
Have a wonderful spring break, and we will see you on your return.
Warm regards,
Doug Smith
President, LASD Board of Trustees
Monday, March 25, 2013
BCS update to enrollment projections
Last night I received the attached letter from Ken Moore, Board Chair for BCS. In the letter, he provides statements about the enrollment process, essentially confirming some of their earlier enrollment projections. In the spirit of transparency, I'm posting it here. It doesn't address much of the content we've asked for (and BCS has previously promised) but at least they are engaging.
Also, I believe that a couple of BCS Board members will be attending the LASD Board meeting tonight, so we'll have a chance to ask them questions as well.
See you at 7pm...
Letter from BCS 2013-03-24
Also, I believe that a couple of BCS Board members will be attending the LASD Board meeting tonight, so we'll have a chance to ask them questions as well.
See you at 7pm...
Letter from BCS 2013-03-24
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Shared Space at Blach
2013-14 Facilities Offer
I received a very thoughtful letter from a BCS parent about the shared space at Blach. Since I think this is an area where others may have some questions, I thought I'd share my personal thinking with a wider audience. Again, this doesn't take place of official Board action, but it should help folks understand what I'm driving at.
The offer is premised around BCS 6-8th grade located at Blach. I believe this can minimize the amount of duplicate space we need to build out. I've advocated for an approach that "generally" allows 6th graders to have access to Specialized Teaching Space (STS) at Blach, but not "always". You can think of it in three buckets:
1) I don't have any concerns about giving 6th grade access to some areas, like the drama & music space. That's the same as an MPR they would have at Loyola or Santa Rita anyway, so no problem there.
2) Somewhere in the middle, 6th graders aren't really "entitled" to access to the track, the gym, soccer field, and tennis courts. However, I lean towards providing them that access. The big driver is because that access is in lieu of other STS that we might otherwise build out. The LASD Board can make a determination as a Board that providing this access creates a reasonably equivalent experience. BCS kids have more PE facilities, but maybe they don't have a small group space. it's not exact- but it is within the discretion of the Board.
3) There are some spaces, like the science labs, that aren't appropriate for 6th graders. We use chemicals there, and Bunsen burners, and we have made a determination that it's just not smart to allow access to younger kids in that space, so we don't share that with the 6th graders.
The parent also asked about building space where we can't provide enough shared access. If we can't provide reasonable access to shared space, then we would build it out. For example, the servery- we need it at the exact same time BCS would need it, so we can't really say we'll share. (Who gets it from 11:30-1pm while the other party gets it from 9:00-11:30? Not really fair, so that doesn't work. So we build a second servery.) But really, I want to minimize the amount of duplicated space. These portables cost a small fortune, and I'd rather time share than build out more buildings where we can. But for a lot of other space, we can work out sharing arrangements, and we are doing just that.
We have a plan for sharing PE space, including on rainy days. We really aren't barbarians. I don't want to see a scene with kids standing out in the rain while other kids have PE inside a warm, dry gym. I met with the Blach principal this morning, and she and her PE staff had just wrapped up a discussion about this. It will be included in the final proposal. We really wanted Wanny to interact with Sandra more, but that hasn't happened. C'est la vie. We will have a specific offer in the final offer, in order to comply with the court rulings (that said we have to be specific). However, if the BCS staff is willing to collaborate, we can certainly entertain "swaps" etc.
So in the long run, I think we'll have a final offer that creates a very workable solution for both parties. It won't be the whole "pony list" that BCS asked for, but it is reasonably equivalent and certainly workable and functionally equivalent.
I also want to tip my hat and thank the Blach Principal and her staff. We've had a number of conversations to pull together this offer, and their attitude was consistently one of partnership and fairness. They are, pardon the pun, a class act.
I received a very thoughtful letter from a BCS parent about the shared space at Blach. Since I think this is an area where others may have some questions, I thought I'd share my personal thinking with a wider audience. Again, this doesn't take place of official Board action, but it should help folks understand what I'm driving at.
The offer is premised around BCS 6-8th grade located at Blach. I believe this can minimize the amount of duplicate space we need to build out. I've advocated for an approach that "generally" allows 6th graders to have access to Specialized Teaching Space (STS) at Blach, but not "always". You can think of it in three buckets:
1) I don't have any concerns about giving 6th grade access to some areas, like the drama & music space. That's the same as an MPR they would have at Loyola or Santa Rita anyway, so no problem there.
2) Somewhere in the middle, 6th graders aren't really "entitled" to access to the track, the gym, soccer field, and tennis courts. However, I lean towards providing them that access. The big driver is because that access is in lieu of other STS that we might otherwise build out. The LASD Board can make a determination as a Board that providing this access creates a reasonably equivalent experience. BCS kids have more PE facilities, but maybe they don't have a small group space. it's not exact- but it is within the discretion of the Board.
3) There are some spaces, like the science labs, that aren't appropriate for 6th graders. We use chemicals there, and Bunsen burners, and we have made a determination that it's just not smart to allow access to younger kids in that space, so we don't share that with the 6th graders.
The parent also asked about building space where we can't provide enough shared access. If we can't provide reasonable access to shared space, then we would build it out. For example, the servery- we need it at the exact same time BCS would need it, so we can't really say we'll share. (Who gets it from 11:30-1pm while the other party gets it from 9:00-11:30? Not really fair, so that doesn't work. So we build a second servery.) But really, I want to minimize the amount of duplicated space. These portables cost a small fortune, and I'd rather time share than build out more buildings where we can. But for a lot of other space, we can work out sharing arrangements, and we are doing just that.
We have a plan for sharing PE space, including on rainy days. We really aren't barbarians. I don't want to see a scene with kids standing out in the rain while other kids have PE inside a warm, dry gym. I met with the Blach principal this morning, and she and her PE staff had just wrapped up a discussion about this. It will be included in the final proposal. We really wanted Wanny to interact with Sandra more, but that hasn't happened. C'est la vie. We will have a specific offer in the final offer, in order to comply with the court rulings (that said we have to be specific). However, if the BCS staff is willing to collaborate, we can certainly entertain "swaps" etc.
So in the long run, I think we'll have a final offer that creates a very workable solution for both parties. It won't be the whole "pony list" that BCS asked for, but it is reasonably equivalent and certainly workable and functionally equivalent.
I also want to tip my hat and thank the Blach Principal and her staff. We've had a number of conversations to pull together this offer, and their attitude was consistently one of partnership and fairness. They are, pardon the pun, a class act.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Responsible versus Influence
In tech, we talk sometimes about who is “responsible” and who has “influence”. You get to define a process or deliverable when you have primary responsibility for it. You influence it when you don’t have ownership, but have an interest in the outcome.**
Sales execs go to great lengths to determine who will make the final decision, and who is “providing input”. Likewise, in the professional services practices I run, I ask my teams to be crystal clear about who at the client has actual signature authority over a change order or acceptance for a deliverable. Knowing up front who “influences” versus who is “responsible” helps avoid ambiguity as you near the end of a process.
There is a huge disconnect right now, in that BCS seems to feel that they have the right to define the final facilities offer for the 2013-14 school year. That responsibility, by law, is assigned to the LASD Board of Trustees. We’ve offered them the opportunity to influence what we propose, but the LASD BoT will retain final responsibility for the content of the offer. We provided a preliminary offer that gave some insight into our thinking, and they had an opportunity to provide feedback through their March 1st response. That was a great opportunity to influence the Final Offer. Unfortunately, they have come back with a completely different proposal- once again trying to redefine the offer in terms of their choosing. In the process, they are squandering the opportunity to influence the outcome, because they’re so insistent on trying to define a path the District has no interest in pursuing.
The District is, therefore, proceeding with our legal responsibility and defining the Final Offer. I’ve reached out to BCS in the past few days to try to give them a chance to influence the final configuration. However, if they keep insisting on trying to define it on their own terms, we will do what we are responsible to do under the law- we will balance the impact on students, we will weigh the financial impacts, and we will define the Final Offer and move forward.
**Note: Using this explicit terminology has fallen out of favor in the collaborative workplaces of the Silicon Valley, but the concepts still apply. People describe it differently, but ultimately the concepts still exist.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Back in Court This Week
2012-13 Facilities Complaint and Cross Complaint
This Tuesday morning at 9am we will be back in court again. BCS has brought a third motion in an attempt to quash a hearing on the District's Cross-Complaint. (The first two were the BCS anti-SLAPP motion, and the BCS demurrer. Judge Lucas ruled for LASD on both motions.)
In this motion, BCS has expanded their argument and is telling the court that LASD need to have addressed raised our concerns about their admissions practices and handling of students through the SCCBOE. I would make the observation that LASD, and the parent community, have repeatedly raised these concerns to the SCCBOE, who have taken no action. In many cases, the responses we have received from the SCCBOE members have been downright hostile. I would also note that we are not asking the court to take any specific action regarding the practices. We are simply asking the court whether these practices have any impact on our facilities obligation.
Revisiting the same request (dismissal of the Cross-Complaint) is highly unusual, which LASD has raised in our response. LASD has asked the courts to sanction BCS for bringing the same motion several times, as this is not permitted under the law. It is another example of the "litigate at all costs" approach to dealing with LASD.
This will be our first hearing in front of a Judge Carol Overton. Judge Lucas has rotated to a new assignment, and Judge Overton is now hearing this matter.
This Tuesday morning at 9am we will be back in court again. BCS has brought a third motion in an attempt to quash a hearing on the District's Cross-Complaint. (The first two were the BCS anti-SLAPP motion, and the BCS demurrer. Judge Lucas ruled for LASD on both motions.)
In this motion, BCS has expanded their argument and is telling the court that LASD need to have addressed raised our concerns about their admissions practices and handling of students through the SCCBOE. I would make the observation that LASD, and the parent community, have repeatedly raised these concerns to the SCCBOE, who have taken no action. In many cases, the responses we have received from the SCCBOE members have been downright hostile. I would also note that we are not asking the court to take any specific action regarding the practices. We are simply asking the court whether these practices have any impact on our facilities obligation.
Revisiting the same request (dismissal of the Cross-Complaint) is highly unusual, which LASD has raised in our response. LASD has asked the courts to sanction BCS for bringing the same motion several times, as this is not permitted under the law. It is another example of the "litigate at all costs" approach to dealing with LASD.
This will be our first hearing in front of a Judge Carol Overton. Judge Lucas has rotated to a new assignment, and Judge Overton is now hearing this matter.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
LASD provides responses to BCS questions
2013-14 Offer Process
On Feb 13, 2013, Tamara Logan and I met with BCS Board members Joe Hurd and Peter Evans to disucss the Preliminary Offer (PO). As I noted in my Feb 11 email to Ken Moore , there were some practical limitations to that meeting. For example, since District staff were already committed to a different meeting to review District finances, we wouldn't be able to provide answers to some of their questions. During the meeting, we kept running notes of the question, which all parties reiviewed and accepted. Since then, the District has pulled together responses to the questions.
Yesterday, I sent these responses to BCS. I've also committed that we would make these responses public, in an effort to maintain transparency in the process. I have attached the responses here.
Responses to BCS Prop 39 Questions
Transmittal Note to BCS
On Feb 13, 2013, Tamara Logan and I met with BCS Board members Joe Hurd and Peter Evans to disucss the Preliminary Offer (PO). As I noted in my Feb 11 email to Ken Moore , there were some practical limitations to that meeting. For example, since District staff were already committed to a different meeting to review District finances, we wouldn't be able to provide answers to some of their questions. During the meeting, we kept running notes of the question, which all parties reiviewed and accepted. Since then, the District has pulled together responses to the questions.
Yesterday, I sent these responses to BCS. I've also committed that we would make these responses public, in an effort to maintain transparency in the process. I have attached the responses here.
Responses to BCS Prop 39 Questions
Transmittal Note to BCS
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Meeting set to discuss Prop 39 Requirements
I received a confirmation today from Ken Moore indicating that BCS will participate in the Prop 39 meeting later this week. I look forward toa constructive dialogue. As is our custom, the public is invited to attend the meeting, which will be held at 7pm at the Covington Multi.
Monday, February 11, 2013
LASD offers to meet
This letter has just been sent to Ken Moore, Chairman of the BCS Board.
Ken-
This evening at our Board meeting, the District discussed the need for improved dialogue regarding the Prop 39 offer. As you are probably aware, we had previously considered holding a special Board meeting on February 25th to collect BCS input on the current prop 39 offer.
On behalf of LASD, I'd like to invite BCS to participate in a Prop 39 meeting on Wednesday, Feb 13th. Although this is exceptionally short notice, we believe this discussion would be beneficial to both sides. LASD is concerned that a meeting that late in the month would not provide adequate time to collect the questions you might have, prepare meaningful responses, and then to have that feedback incorporated in the BCS response due on March 1st. By accelerating the discussion, it gives a greater opportunity to provide information which might be important in your Prop 39 response on March 1st.
In keeping with the LASD requirements for openness and transparency, the meeting will be open to the public. In an effort to make the meeting as productive as possible,we are requesting that you send a team of no more than 2 people. LASD will do the same. Other Board members are welcome to observe from the audience, but our goal is to have a constructive dialogue, and we believe that is best achieved with small teams form both sides.
I want to make sure we set expectations correctly. Randy Kenyon will be attending a CACF meeting, and we are not likely to be able to answer a large number of questions. However, we'll collect the questions, discuss what you need, and we will commit to as quick a response as we can. All of our responses will be posted to the District web site, so that the public can follow along with the dialogue.
We are nailing down specifics of location, but I expect the meeting will be held at 7pm on Wednesday evening. Please let me know as quickly as possible of the BCS team will be able to attend. I've already discussed this with Joe Hurd, and I'm hoping that the BCS team will come in a spirit of collaboration and constructive dialogue.
Best wishes,
DJS
Ken-
This evening at our Board meeting, the District discussed the need for improved dialogue regarding the Prop 39 offer. As you are probably aware, we had previously considered holding a special Board meeting on February 25th to collect BCS input on the current prop 39 offer.
On behalf of LASD, I'd like to invite BCS to participate in a Prop 39 meeting on Wednesday, Feb 13th. Although this is exceptionally short notice, we believe this discussion would be beneficial to both sides. LASD is concerned that a meeting that late in the month would not provide adequate time to collect the questions you might have, prepare meaningful responses, and then to have that feedback incorporated in the BCS response due on March 1st. By accelerating the discussion, it gives a greater opportunity to provide information which might be important in your Prop 39 response on March 1st.
In keeping with the LASD requirements for openness and transparency, the meeting will be open to the public. In an effort to make the meeting as productive as possible,we are requesting that you send a team of no more than 2 people. LASD will do the same. Other Board members are welcome to observe from the audience, but our goal is to have a constructive dialogue, and we believe that is best achieved with small teams form both sides.
I want to make sure we set expectations correctly. Randy Kenyon will be attending a CACF meeting, and we are not likely to be able to answer a large number of questions. However, we'll collect the questions, discuss what you need, and we will commit to as quick a response as we can. All of our responses will be posted to the District web site, so that the public can follow along with the dialogue.
We are nailing down specifics of location, but I expect the meeting will be held at 7pm on Wednesday evening. Please let me know as quickly as possible of the BCS team will be able to attend. I've already discussed this with Joe Hurd, and I'm hoping that the BCS team will come in a spirit of collaboration and constructive dialogue.
Best wishes,
DJS
Thursday, February 7, 2013
BCS Presentation on Prop 39 offer
I run a professional services practice in my day job, so I end up negotiating a lot of agreements with clients. Typically there's a Professional Services Agreement, and a series of Statements of Work that fit under the agreement. As in any business, we want to have a long term relationship with our clients.
Occasionally when we start the negotiating process, it becomes clear that the parties have very different expectations. At that point, we have a lot of ground to cover. If I start lobbing back contract redlines with statements like "you guys are crazy, you don't know what you're talking about", what are the chances that I'm going to come to an agreement with the client? Even if I do, what are the chances that the next negotiation is going to go well?
This past week, BCS had a Board meeting and they discussed the Prop 39 offer. I've attached the slides presented by one of their Board members, Janet Medlin. I'm disappointed in the tone of this document. Frankly, it reads like pre-litigation notes much more than any sort of constructive dialogue. If someone is genuine in their desire to negotiate, and in a desire to foster better relations, they would moderate what they say. This document reflects no such moderation.
I have attached the document exactly as I received it from BCS. The red font, etc. are entirely theirs.
link to BCS presentation
This stands is stark contrast to the pleas from other BCS Board members for constructive discussions. However, the LASD Board has to deal with both ends of this spectrum. To those who argue in favor of increased engagement, a gentle reminder that the LASD Board has to deal with this type of discourse also. Unless this faction of the BCS board can be reigned in, I have little hope for any sort of constructive engagement outside of the courtroom.
In case it needs to be clarified- changing the text of the presentation isn't enough. What we say is just as important, and it is critical that the entire dialogue be more civil. There is a recording of the meeting that I'll try to get to post here also.
Occasionally when we start the negotiating process, it becomes clear that the parties have very different expectations. At that point, we have a lot of ground to cover. If I start lobbing back contract redlines with statements like "you guys are crazy, you don't know what you're talking about", what are the chances that I'm going to come to an agreement with the client? Even if I do, what are the chances that the next negotiation is going to go well?
This past week, BCS had a Board meeting and they discussed the Prop 39 offer. I've attached the slides presented by one of their Board members, Janet Medlin. I'm disappointed in the tone of this document. Frankly, it reads like pre-litigation notes much more than any sort of constructive dialogue. If someone is genuine in their desire to negotiate, and in a desire to foster better relations, they would moderate what they say. This document reflects no such moderation.
I have attached the document exactly as I received it from BCS. The red font, etc. are entirely theirs.
link to BCS presentation
This stands is stark contrast to the pleas from other BCS Board members for constructive discussions. However, the LASD Board has to deal with both ends of this spectrum. To those who argue in favor of increased engagement, a gentle reminder that the LASD Board has to deal with this type of discourse also. Unless this faction of the BCS board can be reigned in, I have little hope for any sort of constructive engagement outside of the courtroom.
In case it needs to be clarified- changing the text of the presentation isn't enough. What we say is just as important, and it is critical that the entire dialogue be more civil. There is a recording of the meeting that I'll try to get to post here also.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Case Management Filings
Today both sides filed Case Management paperwork. I don't pretend to know all of the nuances, but in the spirit of transparency, I've posted the docs for both sides.
The key issue is that the case may transition to Judge Overton from Judge Lucas. Judge Lucas is rotating to new responsibilities within the same court, and so the case may be shifted to Judge Overton. However, Judge Overton also may decide that the case is complex and nuanced, and that Judge Lucas has the best handle on it. So we'll wait and see what happens.
BCS Case Management Filing
LASD Case Management Filing
The key issue is that the case may transition to Judge Overton from Judge Lucas. Judge Lucas is rotating to new responsibilities within the same court, and so the case may be shifted to Judge Overton. However, Judge Overton also may decide that the case is complex and nuanced, and that Judge Lucas has the best handle on it. So we'll wait and see what happens.
BCS Case Management Filing
LASD Case Management Filing
Friday, February 1, 2013
BCS Preliminary Facilities Offer Delivered
2013-14 Facilities Process
After a great deal of work and voluminous public input, we've presented the 2013-14 Preliminary Facilities Offer for Bullis Charter School.
This is part of the annual Prop 39 cycle, although this year we have made a conscious effort to ensure the process is as public as possible. Including the meeting we added this past Wednesday, we took public input at 7 different meetings, including facilitated sessions and broad public commentary. I am grateful to everyone who came out to share their thoughts with us.
Broadly speaking, BCS is split across 2 campuses: Egan and Blach. At Egan, they have about 40% of the students on that site, and they have about 40% of the land also. At Blach, they have 20% of the students and 20% of the land, but they also have further impact to Blach in the form of shared access to the specialized teaching space.
Given what this is, there's no way to please everyone. Some will think we've offered too much, and others will say we haven't accommodated enough. That's the job of the trustees- to weigh the input, and balance the needs of all students. I believe we've done a good job of meeting that goal.
I look forward to receiving feedback from BCS, and to considering that feedback in the preparation of the final offer.
Note: I'm note sure why, but Google Docs has trouble dealing with the latest Jan 1 letter from BCS. It won't show it in preview mode, but it is possible to download the document locally and read it.
After a great deal of work and voluminous public input, we've presented the 2013-14 Preliminary Facilities Offer for Bullis Charter School.
This is part of the annual Prop 39 cycle, although this year we have made a conscious effort to ensure the process is as public as possible. Including the meeting we added this past Wednesday, we took public input at 7 different meetings, including facilitated sessions and broad public commentary. I am grateful to everyone who came out to share their thoughts with us.
Broadly speaking, BCS is split across 2 campuses: Egan and Blach. At Egan, they have about 40% of the students on that site, and they have about 40% of the land also. At Blach, they have 20% of the students and 20% of the land, but they also have further impact to Blach in the form of shared access to the specialized teaching space.
Given what this is, there's no way to please everyone. Some will think we've offered too much, and others will say we haven't accommodated enough. That's the job of the trustees- to weigh the input, and balance the needs of all students. I believe we've done a good job of meeting that goal.
I look forward to receiving feedback from BCS, and to considering that feedback in the preparation of the final offer.
Date
|
Action
|
Documents
|
Nov 1
|
BCS submits request for facilities, incl. enrollment forecast and preferred location.
| |
Dec 1
|
LASD provides counter-projection to enrollment
| |
Jan 1
|
BCS responds to counter-projection
| |
Feb 1
|
LASD provides preliminary facilities offer (draft)
| |
Mar 1
|
BCS responds to draft offer
| |
April 1
|
LASD provides final facilities offer
| |
July 1
|
LASD adjusts classroom space based on final district budget for upcoming school year
(Note: This is a negotiated step, not part of the Prop 39 process)
|
Note: I'm note sure why, but Google Docs has trouble dealing with the latest Jan 1 letter from BCS. It won't show it in preview mode, but it is possible to download the document locally and read it.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
BCS Preliminary Facilities Offer
(Note: This letter went to all LASD parents and those who subscribe to our email list. It includes a letter I sent to Ken Moore regarding the facilities offer that the District will deliver this week.)
Dear Parents, Guardians, and Community Members-
Last night at a Special Board Meeting, the LASD Board of Trustees instructed staff to deliver a preliminary facilities offer to BCS for the 2013-14 school year. The Prop 39 process provides for the District to make the preliminary offer, for BCS to respond with objections by March 1, and for the District to provide a final offer by April 1. This is the same process we follow every year.
Prop 39 requires the District Trustees to balance the needs of all students. Our offer to BCS this year proposes that their K-5 students be located at Egan, and their 6-8 students would be at Blach. In practical terms BCS would have about 40% of the students on the Egan campus, and about 40% of the land. Similarly, they would have about 20% of the students at Blach, and 20% of the land. However, Blach will also be impacted further because we are required to provide specialized teaching space to Jr High students. Principal Sandra McGonagle and her staff have worked with the administration to rework the Blach schedule to ensure reasonably equivalent access to the Specialized Teaching Space for BCS students while trying to minimize the impact on our own students. We have asked Principal McGonagle to reach out to BCS Principal Wanny Hersey to have a tactical discussion to review the sharing arrangements as proposed in the offer. We will consider that feedback as part of the final offer we present on April 1.
BCS held a PR event last week where they announced their willingness to accept a split between Egan and Blach. We are pleased that they are demonstrating an understanding of the need to balance the needs of all students. They have also acknowledged our requirement that all board-level discussions of the facilities offer be held in public, so that the community can observe the process. The LASD Board remains committed to transparency of this process, as we have done throughout the year. They also requested a whole series of Board-level meetings to discuss the offer. At this time, the LASD Board is planning to hold a Special Meeting on Feb 25th, and we may consider a further meeting in March.
The District cannot afford to spend as much time as BCS requests in meetings since we already are spending an inordinate amount of time dealing with the multiple lawsuits brought by BCS. BCS continues to litigate every issue and sub-issue within the 2012-13 offer, despite having lost every action they've brought in the past year. The courts have consistently recognized that the LASD Board is properly balancing the needs of all students. There are only so many hours in the day. LASD runs one of the leanest administrations in California. We rightly focus our resources in the classroom where they belong. In order to prepare the Prop 39 offer, we already divert tremendous resources to analyze possible scenarios and weigh the impacts. Couple that with the need to perform basic functions to continue to run a district that educates 4,500 students, and there simply isn't any additional time in the week to add another series of meetings. Said another way, we are already meeting with BCS several times per week to discuss facilities issues. It is unfortunate that BCS has decided that those meetings should be managed by the attorneys and held within the framework of the judicial process. I continue to call upon BCS to put a freeze on the litigation so that the hundreds of hours we spend each week on BCS issues can be spent more constructively engaged in a more respectful, solutions based dialogue.
I look forward to your continued input at the Board meetings.
Best Wishes,
DJS
(Link to the attached letter that I sent to Ken Moore)
Update @ 10pm. Someone contacted me and asked me to publish Ken's letter, to which this responds. Here is the letter and here is the presentation they used at their PR event.
Dear Parents, Guardians, and Community Members-
Last night at a Special Board Meeting, the LASD Board of Trustees instructed staff to deliver a preliminary facilities offer to BCS for the 2013-14 school year. The Prop 39 process provides for the District to make the preliminary offer, for BCS to respond with objections by March 1, and for the District to provide a final offer by April 1. This is the same process we follow every year.
Prop 39 requires the District Trustees to balance the needs of all students. Our offer to BCS this year proposes that their K-5 students be located at Egan, and their 6-8 students would be at Blach. In practical terms BCS would have about 40% of the students on the Egan campus, and about 40% of the land. Similarly, they would have about 20% of the students at Blach, and 20% of the land. However, Blach will also be impacted further because we are required to provide specialized teaching space to Jr High students. Principal Sandra McGonagle and her staff have worked with the administration to rework the Blach schedule to ensure reasonably equivalent access to the Specialized Teaching Space for BCS students while trying to minimize the impact on our own students. We have asked Principal McGonagle to reach out to BCS Principal Wanny Hersey to have a tactical discussion to review the sharing arrangements as proposed in the offer. We will consider that feedback as part of the final offer we present on April 1.
BCS held a PR event last week where they announced their willingness to accept a split between Egan and Blach. We are pleased that they are demonstrating an understanding of the need to balance the needs of all students. They have also acknowledged our requirement that all board-level discussions of the facilities offer be held in public, so that the community can observe the process. The LASD Board remains committed to transparency of this process, as we have done throughout the year. They also requested a whole series of Board-level meetings to discuss the offer. At this time, the LASD Board is planning to hold a Special Meeting on Feb 25th, and we may consider a further meeting in March.
The District cannot afford to spend as much time as BCS requests in meetings since we already are spending an inordinate amount of time dealing with the multiple lawsuits brought by BCS. BCS continues to litigate every issue and sub-issue within the 2012-13 offer, despite having lost every action they've brought in the past year. The courts have consistently recognized that the LASD Board is properly balancing the needs of all students. There are only so many hours in the day. LASD runs one of the leanest administrations in California. We rightly focus our resources in the classroom where they belong. In order to prepare the Prop 39 offer, we already divert tremendous resources to analyze possible scenarios and weigh the impacts. Couple that with the need to perform basic functions to continue to run a district that educates 4,500 students, and there simply isn't any additional time in the week to add another series of meetings. Said another way, we are already meeting with BCS several times per week to discuss facilities issues. It is unfortunate that BCS has decided that those meetings should be managed by the attorneys and held within the framework of the judicial process. I continue to call upon BCS to put a freeze on the litigation so that the hundreds of hours we spend each week on BCS issues can be spent more constructively engaged in a more respectful, solutions based dialogue.
I look forward to your continued input at the Board meetings.
Best Wishes,
DJS
(Link to the attached letter that I sent to Ken Moore)
Update @ 10pm. Someone contacted me and asked me to publish Ken's letter, to which this responds. Here is the letter and here is the presentation they used at their PR event.
Friday, January 25, 2013
BCS Accepts Split, Asks for More at Blach
In a Luncheon/PR event held this past Wednesday, BCS has stated that they will not seek to close down Covington this year, and are embracing the idea of a Blach/Egan split. (Patch Article, Town Crier Article) I'm certainly pleased to see that they're internalizing what we've been saying- that closing a high performing neighborhood school isn't a viable option. Now we have to figure out what comes next.
I was unable to attend the luncheon, as my invite arrived less than 48 hours before the event and I'd already made commitments to clients in my "other job". I will be interested to see how this proposal meshes with the delivery of education to the students we already have on these campuses. That will require quite a bit of analysis.
I've already been asked several times what I think of the proposal. From a practical viewpoint, I really don't know. Preparing the Preliminary Offer under Prop 39 is a time-consuming task. We have staff analyzing multiple options already, and they're stretched beyond the breaking point just to get that work done. The LASD Board gave instruction to staff on Jan 14 to analyze several configurations, and come back with their thoughts on those options. This new wrinkle from BCS arrived on January 23rd, and it's not fully fleshed out yet. Staff simply won't have time to add one more configuration to the options list and still complete their task for the Board meeting this Monday. Any consideration of the BCS request will have to come after the preliminary offer due on February 1st.
One other positive development has come from this- BCS is embracing the requirement that all discussions be public. I've been saying since October of last year that the process needs to be open and transparent. I've rejected requests for private meetings, and have emphasized the need for transparency. I do this for very practical reasons- I want parents on both sides to understand the balancing process. When parents at Blach understand that there is likely to be increased encroachment on their campus next year, I want them to have seen that we didn't do it lightly. Likewise, I want BCS parents to understand that we do have other considerations to balance, that this really is a "zero sum" situation. The district has a fixed set of buildings, land, and money. We can't just "add more" so we have to balance the needs of all students. By having the process open to the public, hopefully everyone will understand the trade-offs we've chosen to make.
At our last Board Meeting, I suggested that we might want one or more study sessions with BCS to discuss the preliminary offer. I still believe that is the right course, and I expect that I'll be taking that up with my colleagues on Monday at our Board meeting. As always, the public is welcome to attend and see how things progress.
It is worth noting that the litigation train keeps moving too. We were back at Court this week for a Case Management Conference, and we had discovery responses to deliver in answer to demands from BCS. We are a comparatively small school district. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the same people who work on the Prop 39 offer are also the ones who have to respond to discovery requests and sit through depositions. I wish they had 72 hours in each of their days, but they don't- which means that the time they spend on litigation is time not spent exploring creating solutions. I can't stress enough the need for BCS to dial down the litigation, so that we have bandwidth to explore other options for facilities.
I was unable to attend the luncheon, as my invite arrived less than 48 hours before the event and I'd already made commitments to clients in my "other job". I will be interested to see how this proposal meshes with the delivery of education to the students we already have on these campuses. That will require quite a bit of analysis.
I've already been asked several times what I think of the proposal. From a practical viewpoint, I really don't know. Preparing the Preliminary Offer under Prop 39 is a time-consuming task. We have staff analyzing multiple options already, and they're stretched beyond the breaking point just to get that work done. The LASD Board gave instruction to staff on Jan 14 to analyze several configurations, and come back with their thoughts on those options. This new wrinkle from BCS arrived on January 23rd, and it's not fully fleshed out yet. Staff simply won't have time to add one more configuration to the options list and still complete their task for the Board meeting this Monday. Any consideration of the BCS request will have to come after the preliminary offer due on February 1st.
One other positive development has come from this- BCS is embracing the requirement that all discussions be public. I've been saying since October of last year that the process needs to be open and transparent. I've rejected requests for private meetings, and have emphasized the need for transparency. I do this for very practical reasons- I want parents on both sides to understand the balancing process. When parents at Blach understand that there is likely to be increased encroachment on their campus next year, I want them to have seen that we didn't do it lightly. Likewise, I want BCS parents to understand that we do have other considerations to balance, that this really is a "zero sum" situation. The district has a fixed set of buildings, land, and money. We can't just "add more" so we have to balance the needs of all students. By having the process open to the public, hopefully everyone will understand the trade-offs we've chosen to make.
At our last Board Meeting, I suggested that we might want one or more study sessions with BCS to discuss the preliminary offer. I still believe that is the right course, and I expect that I'll be taking that up with my colleagues on Monday at our Board meeting. As always, the public is welcome to attend and see how things progress.
It is worth noting that the litigation train keeps moving too. We were back at Court this week for a Case Management Conference, and we had discovery responses to deliver in answer to demands from BCS. We are a comparatively small school district. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the same people who work on the Prop 39 offer are also the ones who have to respond to discovery requests and sit through depositions. I wish they had 72 hours in each of their days, but they don't- which means that the time they spend on litigation is time not spent exploring creating solutions. I can't stress enough the need for BCS to dial down the litigation, so that we have bandwidth to explore other options for facilities.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Next steps: BCS Offer Process
Last night the Board met in a regular meeting to discuss the BCS preliminary offer for 2013-14. LASD Asst Supt. Randy Kenyon worked with a wide range of people within the district to evaluate 4 potential configurations for BCS. That analysis can be found here: (link to presentation)
After Mr. Kenyon's presentation, we heard from the principals at Covington, Blach, and Egan. Each of them expressed that they're willing to do whatever is necessary to accommodate BCS, but also expressed concern for their students and the impact that the BCS program continues to have on our own students.
We invited the BCS Board to participate, but they've chosen to wait until we have a preliminary offer to discuss in more detail. We also invited the BCS PTA, and they did come and provide input. We heard from the PTA presidents from Egan, Blach, and Covington, as well as ~50 community members.
There appears to be wide support for a 10th site, but also an acknowledgement that it would be difficult to get a 10th site live by the end of this school year. In the end, the Trustees decided that we don't believe there will be a 10th site in time for the start of school this fall, so that's not a viable option for this year. However, we reaffirmed our desire to find a 10th site.
We also had considerable discussion about Covington. That site has a thriving school community, and it simply isn't rational to close a high performing neighborhood school to accommodate BCS if there are other options available to us. Additionally, it would cost in the neighborhood of $1m to relocate portables to redistribute those pupils to other parts of the district, so it's not exactly an economical option. Perhaps most important, it would have a huge negative impact on the special needs students that come from all over the district to attend classes at Covington. Those pupils are among our most vulnerable. Asking them to change schools and to uproot their program and impact all of the progress they've made does not make sense.
We considered whether we would need to spread BCS across three sites instead of just two sites. While this option does "share the pain", it creates additional issues for BCS and for LASD students. So far we haven't been very successful in "getting along" at our shared facilities. There have been a number of concerns and issues that keep cropping up. Trying to make that work at a third site isn't attractive. It is worth noting that this was the least supported option during the community input throughout our process, including both last night and during the facilitated discussions in December.
That left the Board with the Egan/Blach split. We have asked Staff to consider three possible scenarios:
Egan: K-3, Blach 4-8
Egan K-4, Blach 5-8
Egan K-5, Blach 6-8
We are quite concerned about the total number of students BCS is projecting, and we're looking to balance the impact across the two campuses. Part of that depends on the numbers of students, and part of the facilities they require. We'll have to see what staff brings back to the Board at the end of the month.
Based on the discussion, I expect that we'll invite BCS to participate in some sort of study session in February. Historically meetings between our respective Prop 39 teams have been relatively low key, and they were not publicly noticed meetings. This year, I believe we will hold a formal study session, and the meeting will be open to the public to attend. I feel very strongly that we need to be completely transparent with our process. If we do hold this meeting as a study session, we will not accept public input during that portion of the meeting. However, rest assured that we will continue to seek public input throughout the facilities process.
It's worth reminding folks that the study session will likely go through a litany of "wants" from BCS. They'll raise concerns about various aspects of the offer. For example, I heard from a reporter today who'd spoken with BCS about the current facilities offer (2012-13). BCS apparently complained to her that the restrooms at Blach are too far away from their classrooms. While we will carefully consider each issue BCS raises, it still is up to the discretion of the Board as to how to craft the final offer. We will weigh the totality of the offer, not just look at each individual part. The restrooms might not be exactly where they want, but they may have more classroom space than their peers at LASD. They might not have first pick of when they get access to the science lab, but we might allow them to include their 6th graders in the PE space. The standard used to evalute the offer is "reasonably equivalent", not "exactly as requested". The LASD Board will be balancing the impact of the BCS request against the needs of the LASD students who attend our own schools. BCS students represent about 10% of all students within our boundaries (not 20% as stated last night). The needs of all 5000 students need to be balanced as we consider how we will meet our facilities obligations.
I would encourage the public to remain engaged in this discussion as we move forward. At the Board meetings, we tend to see a large number of parents from a specific site. One week it's Egan, the next week it's BCS, and then it's Covington or Santa Rita. Maybe we've hit the right balance when we have an equal number of parents from all 10 schools showing up at the Board meetings? Seems unlikely, but one can hope. Until then, though, I appreciate those who came out, those who spoke, and particularly those who added to the discussion with positive suggestions.
One final point: Last night I talked about the need for BCS to step back from the litigation. I believe it will be hard for the community to support a 10th site until we are able to work together. The District Board is elected by the people of our community to oversee the schools and facilities. If BCS would like to have more input to the process, and perhaps seek a solution other than those that are on the table right now, I'm open to that dialogue. However, given the pace of the litigation, it seems impossible to contemplate slowing down on any viable option for a BCS location. If that means we end up "solving" this with a site that BCS isn't thrilled with, it will be a direct result of their Board using the courts to drive home the urgency of solving the issue. I'm willing to consider other options, but the message they are sending today is "close a school, and do it now", and that's not something I'm willing to do. I look forward to working with BCS, including their new board member Joe Hurd, to address the needs of all students in our community.
After Mr. Kenyon's presentation, we heard from the principals at Covington, Blach, and Egan. Each of them expressed that they're willing to do whatever is necessary to accommodate BCS, but also expressed concern for their students and the impact that the BCS program continues to have on our own students.
We invited the BCS Board to participate, but they've chosen to wait until we have a preliminary offer to discuss in more detail. We also invited the BCS PTA, and they did come and provide input. We heard from the PTA presidents from Egan, Blach, and Covington, as well as ~50 community members.
There appears to be wide support for a 10th site, but also an acknowledgement that it would be difficult to get a 10th site live by the end of this school year. In the end, the Trustees decided that we don't believe there will be a 10th site in time for the start of school this fall, so that's not a viable option for this year. However, we reaffirmed our desire to find a 10th site.
We also had considerable discussion about Covington. That site has a thriving school community, and it simply isn't rational to close a high performing neighborhood school to accommodate BCS if there are other options available to us. Additionally, it would cost in the neighborhood of $1m to relocate portables to redistribute those pupils to other parts of the district, so it's not exactly an economical option. Perhaps most important, it would have a huge negative impact on the special needs students that come from all over the district to attend classes at Covington. Those pupils are among our most vulnerable. Asking them to change schools and to uproot their program and impact all of the progress they've made does not make sense.
We considered whether we would need to spread BCS across three sites instead of just two sites. While this option does "share the pain", it creates additional issues for BCS and for LASD students. So far we haven't been very successful in "getting along" at our shared facilities. There have been a number of concerns and issues that keep cropping up. Trying to make that work at a third site isn't attractive. It is worth noting that this was the least supported option during the community input throughout our process, including both last night and during the facilitated discussions in December.
That left the Board with the Egan/Blach split. We have asked Staff to consider three possible scenarios:
Egan: K-3, Blach 4-8
Egan K-4, Blach 5-8
Egan K-5, Blach 6-8
We are quite concerned about the total number of students BCS is projecting, and we're looking to balance the impact across the two campuses. Part of that depends on the numbers of students, and part of the facilities they require. We'll have to see what staff brings back to the Board at the end of the month.
Based on the discussion, I expect that we'll invite BCS to participate in some sort of study session in February. Historically meetings between our respective Prop 39 teams have been relatively low key, and they were not publicly noticed meetings. This year, I believe we will hold a formal study session, and the meeting will be open to the public to attend. I feel very strongly that we need to be completely transparent with our process. If we do hold this meeting as a study session, we will not accept public input during that portion of the meeting. However, rest assured that we will continue to seek public input throughout the facilities process.
It's worth reminding folks that the study session will likely go through a litany of "wants" from BCS. They'll raise concerns about various aspects of the offer. For example, I heard from a reporter today who'd spoken with BCS about the current facilities offer (2012-13). BCS apparently complained to her that the restrooms at Blach are too far away from their classrooms. While we will carefully consider each issue BCS raises, it still is up to the discretion of the Board as to how to craft the final offer. We will weigh the totality of the offer, not just look at each individual part. The restrooms might not be exactly where they want, but they may have more classroom space than their peers at LASD. They might not have first pick of when they get access to the science lab, but we might allow them to include their 6th graders in the PE space. The standard used to evalute the offer is "reasonably equivalent", not "exactly as requested". The LASD Board will be balancing the impact of the BCS request against the needs of the LASD students who attend our own schools. BCS students represent about 10% of all students within our boundaries (not 20% as stated last night). The needs of all 5000 students need to be balanced as we consider how we will meet our facilities obligations.
I would encourage the public to remain engaged in this discussion as we move forward. At the Board meetings, we tend to see a large number of parents from a specific site. One week it's Egan, the next week it's BCS, and then it's Covington or Santa Rita. Maybe we've hit the right balance when we have an equal number of parents from all 10 schools showing up at the Board meetings? Seems unlikely, but one can hope. Until then, though, I appreciate those who came out, those who spoke, and particularly those who added to the discussion with positive suggestions.
One final point: Last night I talked about the need for BCS to step back from the litigation. I believe it will be hard for the community to support a 10th site until we are able to work together. The District Board is elected by the people of our community to oversee the schools and facilities. If BCS would like to have more input to the process, and perhaps seek a solution other than those that are on the table right now, I'm open to that dialogue. However, given the pace of the litigation, it seems impossible to contemplate slowing down on any viable option for a BCS location. If that means we end up "solving" this with a site that BCS isn't thrilled with, it will be a direct result of their Board using the courts to drive home the urgency of solving the issue. I'm willing to consider other options, but the message they are sending today is "close a school, and do it now", and that's not something I'm willing to do. I look forward to working with BCS, including their new board member Joe Hurd, to address the needs of all students in our community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
