It seems that every day brings more documents from BCS. In the spirit of transparency, I'm posting the latest round of BCS filings here. Basically, they've objected to some of the things in our filings and have blanketed the court with additional documents. I am anxious to get this discussion in front of Judge Lucas.
Bullis Objections to Evidence
Response to Objections
Reply ISO Motion to Compel
Gonzalez Decl ISO
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Mellela Decl w Sig Page
Mellela Decl Exhibit A
Supp Hersey Decl w Sig Page
Supp Moore Decl w Sig Page
Moore Supp Decl Exhibit A
Supp Eyring Decl w Sig Page
Eyring Supp Decl Exhibit A
Request for Judicial Notice
Proof of Service
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
CSBA weighs in too
Just the other day, I had a post discussing the fact that the ACSA had submitted an amicus brief in support of the District's position in the BCS litigation. Today brings another submission, this time form the California School Board Association.
The CSBA advocates on behalf of school boards within the State of California. In the brief they submitted today, they have asked the court to consider the impact of the BCS request. They focus their discussion on the need to balance a charter school request with the impact on other students. Specifically, they call out that (a) there is nothing in Prop 39 that guarantees a single site to a charter school, and (b) the impact of BCS's request to close a school would have significant impact on District students- an impact that can't just be ignored because BCS finds it inconvenient.
As with the other amicus briefs, I hope that the Court will admit this document. They have examined this issue thoroughly, and understand that a ruling here could impact schools across California. The voices of the 95% of California students not in charter schools should not be ignored.
CSBA Amicus Brief and related docs
The CSBA advocates on behalf of school boards within the State of California. In the brief they submitted today, they have asked the court to consider the impact of the BCS request. They focus their discussion on the need to balance a charter school request with the impact on other students. Specifically, they call out that (a) there is nothing in Prop 39 that guarantees a single site to a charter school, and (b) the impact of BCS's request to close a school would have significant impact on District students- an impact that can't just be ignored because BCS finds it inconvenient.
As with the other amicus briefs, I hope that the Court will admit this document. They have examined this issue thoroughly, and understand that a ruling here could impact schools across California. The voices of the 95% of California students not in charter schools should not be ignored.
CSBA Amicus Brief and related docs
Monday, August 6, 2012
ACSA Weighs into BCS Lawsuit
Recently another group has stepped forward to express their thoughts on the BCS lawsuit. The Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) has petitioned the court to add their amicus brief to the proceedings. This is fairly unusual, in that the ACSA doesn't normally weigh in on cases at this level, but it appears that they felt this important enough to do here.
The ACSA brief reminds the court that the standard to be followed in Prop 39 is "reasonably equivalent". It specifically calls out that BCS has attempted to reduce this to a mathematical formula, which was not the intent of Prop 39. Several courts, including the trial court in our case and the appeals court in Ridgecrest, have been careful to explain that exact equivalence isn't possible, and that public officials must have some flexibility in their decision-making. The brief also takes BCS to task for cherry-picking their metrics. They point out that BCS picks and chooses which measurements they don't like, while ignoring the overall standard of "reasonably equivalent."
I hope that the court admits this brief- it highlights the difficult decision-making process we need to go through as we balance the needs of all public school students.
ACSA Amicus Brief
ACSA Application To Appear
Chatterjee Declaration
Proof of Service
The ACSA brief reminds the court that the standard to be followed in Prop 39 is "reasonably equivalent". It specifically calls out that BCS has attempted to reduce this to a mathematical formula, which was not the intent of Prop 39. Several courts, including the trial court in our case and the appeals court in Ridgecrest, have been careful to explain that exact equivalence isn't possible, and that public officials must have some flexibility in their decision-making. The brief also takes BCS to task for cherry-picking their metrics. They point out that BCS picks and chooses which measurements they don't like, while ignoring the overall standard of "reasonably equivalent."
I hope that the court admits this brief- it highlights the difficult decision-making process we need to go through as we balance the needs of all public school students.
ACSA Amicus Brief
ACSA Application To Appear
Chatterjee Declaration
Proof of Service
Friday, August 3, 2012
BCS response
As you'll recall from my earlier post, BCS has an opportunity to respond to the documents we recently filed with the courts. That document was received today, and I've posted it here for folks to read.
I found it interesting that BCS doesn't want to address the core of the issues raised in our cross-motion. They've focused their argument on procedural questions, and have asked the judge to ignore our cross-complaint based on those procedural questions. I'm not surprised by this- it's straight out of the playbook they followed with SCCBOE. They push hard on "you must do it THIS way," and skip over the overarching issues raised by the community. At least they are consistent.
I'm told that our procedure is correct, so I have every reason to believe that the judge will hear our cross-motion. When we raised the cross-motion, we specifically said that we are doing so not because it's the best way to do it. BCS has already abused the process by trying new facts under the old case. As such, we've raised the cross-motion to preserve our ability to argue these facts. Whether all of this proceeds under the existing set of motions or as new trials is entirely up to the judge. We'll have to wait and see for certain what the judge decides to do, but I believe that this case is important, and that the voices of the District (speaking on behalf of the students), and the greater community need to be heard.
BCS Response
I found it interesting that BCS doesn't want to address the core of the issues raised in our cross-motion. They've focused their argument on procedural questions, and have asked the judge to ignore our cross-complaint based on those procedural questions. I'm not surprised by this- it's straight out of the playbook they followed with SCCBOE. They push hard on "you must do it THIS way," and skip over the overarching issues raised by the community. At least they are consistent.
I'm told that our procedure is correct, so I have every reason to believe that the judge will hear our cross-motion. When we raised the cross-motion, we specifically said that we are doing so not because it's the best way to do it. BCS has already abused the process by trying new facts under the old case. As such, we've raised the cross-motion to preserve our ability to argue these facts. Whether all of this proceeds under the existing set of motions or as new trials is entirely up to the judge. We'll have to wait and see for certain what the judge decides to do, but I believe that this case is important, and that the voices of the District (speaking on behalf of the students), and the greater community need to be heard.
BCS Response
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Additional Voices in the BCS discussion
Recently a group of concerned citizens petitioned the court to file an amicus brief in the litigation BCS has brought against LASD. I can't say that I agree with everything they have said in their papers, but it certainly is interesting to hear from them. Over 200 people have already signed their petition, and in essence they are telling the courts "hey, there's a lot of folks out here affected by this decision".
Many years ago, I sat with the prior superintendent of LASD, and sought answers to a questions about a decision made at my children's school. The superintendent told me that I had "no interest" in the outcome of the decision. Seeing that he was talking about the education of my children, I assured him that I had an extensive and lifelong interest in the outcome. Thus began my involvement in LASD politics.
BCS Chair Ken Moore recently dismissed the amicus brief by saying "It’s really an opinion piece by folks who are not party to the case." His choice of words are eerily reflective of the words that activated me years ago. These papers were filed by community members, many of whom have children in the schools. To suggest that they have no interest in the outcome, and that the court shouldn't care what they have to say- that shows a profound lack of understanding of just how involved in education our community really is. Our students benefit from that involvement every day, and in this instance, I do understand why these people felt compelled to come forward and participate in the discussion.
The papers themselves are pretty interesting- some of their points are similar to things the District has said, and some points are new/ different. I've posted a copy here for folks to read. Having sifted through them, I believe that the court should hear from these people- they, too, have a huge stake in the outcome of this proceeding.
Application To Appear
Amicus Brief
Parent Testimony
Many years ago, I sat with the prior superintendent of LASD, and sought answers to a questions about a decision made at my children's school. The superintendent told me that I had "no interest" in the outcome of the decision. Seeing that he was talking about the education of my children, I assured him that I had an extensive and lifelong interest in the outcome. Thus began my involvement in LASD politics.
BCS Chair Ken Moore recently dismissed the amicus brief by saying "It’s really an opinion piece by folks who are not party to the case." His choice of words are eerily reflective of the words that activated me years ago. These papers were filed by community members, many of whom have children in the schools. To suggest that they have no interest in the outcome, and that the court shouldn't care what they have to say- that shows a profound lack of understanding of just how involved in education our community really is. Our students benefit from that involvement every day, and in this instance, I do understand why these people felt compelled to come forward and participate in the discussion.
The papers themselves are pretty interesting- some of their points are similar to things the District has said, and some points are new/ different. I've posted a copy here for folks to read. Having sifted through them, I believe that the court should hear from these people- they, too, have a huge stake in the outcome of this proceeding.
Application To Appear
Amicus Brief
Parent Testimony
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
