(See pdf below)
A week of predictable Culver City political outcomes continued at last night’s School Board meeting when the Innovatory School for Professional Youth, a charter school, soundly was rejected, as expected, with dramatic appendages, also as anticipated.
While the Board maintained its perfect 20-year record of never allowing a charter school – widely regarded as a rival for dollars – into the community, Florina Rodov, co-founder of the latest petitioning charter, suggested the outcome was pre-ordained.
“We were certainly disappointed to hear from many community members who support us, who understood the decision to deny us already had been made before tonight’s vote is taken.”
Unmistakable acerbity has scarred the eight-month decision process, almost from the start, as you may have suspected. The environment was chilly enough last night to force observers to don heavy coats.
‘Never Happened’
Rebutting the charge, District Supt. Dave LaRose said directly after Ms. Rodov’s remarks:
“Based on our comprehensive review and analysis of the recently submitted petition decision, staff recommends the petition be denied.”
As for Ms. Rodov’s accusation:
“Absolutely, positively at no time was a pre-decision made about this.”
It would have been easy to get lost among the dense documents, he suggested.
Mr. LaRose said the staff conclusions “were so comprehensive that maybe we will focus on some of the minutiae of the denial instead of the core.” That would be a mistake, he implied. “I recommend everyone take a look at the application (in a pdf below) as well as the denial.”
The atmosphere hardly was congenial for the Innovatory School for Professional Youth, which intends to cater to professional boys and girls as well as at-risk children, grades 6 to 12.
Up and down the dais, friendly faces for the charter school not only were scarce but nearly non-existent.
On the first anniversary of her arrival on the School Board, Laura Chardiet, a public schools administrator, unabashedly declared, “I have a problem with charter schools.” She said they cause “unintended consequences” and ultimately are “a net negative.”
On Nancy Goldberg’s first anniversary, the retired Culver City High School teacher admitted, “I also am not a fan of charter schools.”
Kathy Paspalis, freshly elected new president of the School Board a few minutes before, flatly said, “I don’t think an online model can serve the needs of at-risk students.” Further, “charter schools are not a magic bill. They are more like a band-aid.” She asserted that “there are huge deficiencies” in the business plan for the Innovatory School for Professional Youth.
Will County Bring Relief?
Ms. Rodov and her partner Jessica Jacobs next intend to petition the Los Angeles County Office of Education in January. They are hoping for a favorable ruling that would allow them to open the virtual doors of ISPY in September.
“The process with the County,” Ms. Jacobs explained, “is basically the same as with the School District. Only the County isn't afraid of losing students. They have no bias. We will rebut everything the District critiqued and submit that with the petition in its original form.”
Ominously, Ms. Rodov, speaking before the vote, opened by saying that “While we again expect the Board to deny the ISPY charter petition, we are here to conclude our relationship with the Board. However, we wish to maintain the strong relationship we have created among Culver City residents.
Tardy?
“We have read the 23-page staff report recommending denial. Once again, we are troubled by the fact this document was delivered at the 11th hour with no opportunity for clarification regarding the staff reviewers' unusual misunderstandings outlined within.
“It is clear there was a ‘pre-decision’ to recommend denial. Yet we are confident we can rebut every issue presented. We hope that interested parents, educators, community leaders, and even students, will take time to read the ISPY petition alongside the staff report where they will find obvious subjective criticisms.
“For example, the report takes issue with us describing a sample architecture project without identifying an architecture firm willing to host an intern, which of course is premature. Or that we should not call ourselves a small school because a blended learning school cannot be considered small simply based on enrollment.
“Or that the term ‘college prep’ cannot refer to middle school courses.
“Or repeated accusations of cutting-and-pasting simply because our boilerplate language is similar to other schools' boiler- plate language, boiler-plate language that is required by law.
“Or despite detailed descriptions of our blended learning model (online coursework, in-person content workshops, internships, advisory group work), an accusation that we are unclear about whether we are an online school or a brick-and-mortar school.
“Or that we haven't identified a building to occupy. Again, premature.”
Turning to the sensitive subject of salaries, Ms. Rodov said the District “noted that we have unrealistically low teachers’ salaries, $50,000.
“But from what we understand, CCUSD salaries start at $40,000, and it actually takes them seven years to get up to $50,000.”
Clearly, she has learned her way around the District since last spring, closing with the following salty line:
“Too bad Mr. (David) Mielke (President of the Teachers Union) isn’t here to hear this.”
[img]1638|exact|ISPY_Petition_Final_With_Budget_Oct_9_2012-email.pdf||no_popup[/img]
