Source: http://factchecker.stanjester.com/2014/06/1813/
Timestamp: 2019-01-16 07:49:32
Document Index: 269523769

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', 'art-2', 'art-2', 'art-2', 'art-1', 'art-1', 'art-1', 'art-2']

Dear School Board Chair, The Druid Hills Charter Petition | StanJester - FactChecker
← Graduation Rates – Georgia and DeKalb Schools
Posted on June 17, 2014 by Stan Jester | Comments Off on Dear School Board Chair, The Druid Hills Charter Petition
The Druid Hills Charter Cluster saga continues. After tumultuous board meetings and debates followed by a thumbs down from the DeKalb School Board last year, DHCC refiled their petition on May 1, 2014. The school board chair subsequently removed the revised petition from the mailbox of each of the board members, allegedly.
Thank you for your letter of May 30, 2014 regarding the Druid Hills Charter Cluster, Inc.’s (“DHCC”) revised petition filed May 1, 2014 in accordance with the Charter Schools Act of 1998, O.C.G.A. § 20-2-2060 et seq. (“Act”). The original DHCC Petition was submitted August 15, 2013 and provides for a conversion charter for seven schools in the Druid Hills High School feeder pattern under the Act. The Petition was supported overwhelmingly by vote at a rate of 92% in favor. The cluster is majority minority and majority Title I under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, addressing educational needs of students across the demographic spectrum. DHCC represents the academic rights of the students, educational and administrative staff, citizens and taxpayers within the cluster area.
– In terms of school funding, please be clear that DHCC seeks no more and no less than the funding provided by the General Assembly pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 20-2-2068.1. In a case won by your Board attorney Rocco Eugene Testani on behalf of charter schools, the Georgia Supreme Court made clear that “the funding mechanism for local charter schools is set forth in OCGA § 20–2–2068.1 and establishes a formula pursuant to which all local charter schools are included in the allotment of funds distributed pursuant to the Quality Basic Education Act. OCGA § 20–2–2068.1(a).” Attachment 1, Atlanta Independent School System v. Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School, Inc., — S.E.2d —- (Ga. Sept. 23, 2013). DHCC has identified no more, and no less, than is provided in OCGA § 20–2–2068.1 in the Petition. If that represents more funds ‘to the classroom’ than monies supporting administration (as was the result in the Atlanta Independent School System decision), then that result would be entirely consistent with and intended by the Act and supported by our Georgia Supreme Court.
The revised petition was submitted specifically to you and the DeKalb County Board of Education (“Board”) on May 1, 2014 in accordance with the procedures set forth by statute at O.C.G.A. § 20-2-2064(c). Those provisions provide for submittal of a revised petition addressing deficiencies cited in the denial “to the local board.” O.C.G.A. § 20-2-2064(c). The statute does not provide for submittal of the revised petition to a school district such as the DeKalb County School District “School District.”
Charter School Office has “no information regarding the bases for
denial” of the DHCC Petition
Your letter indicates that you have provided the revised Petition to the School District Charter Office. This not only contravenes O.C.G.A. § 20-2-2064(c)’s provision that the revised Petition be submitted to the Board, but is legally inappropriate and unnecessary in light of undisputed facts.
– The Director of the School District Charter Office Dr. Jose Boza testified on November 11, 2013, during the Board meeting that the DHCC Petition complied with all criteria under the Charter Schools Act and School District policies. http://factchecker.stanjester.com/recorded-meetings/board-meetings/11042013-dhcc-vote/11112013-meeting-part-2-of-3/, at 1:10 to 1:11:05.
Dr. Boza: “Absolutely, sir, it is whether it is in the public interest.” Member
Mayfield: “So the Petition is in order?”
Dr. Boza: “Yes sir.”
DHCC assures you that the revised Petition includes no changes to the criteria under the Charter Schools Act and School District policies and therefore the revised Petition meets all criteria as documented in Dr. Boza’s prior testimony.
– The Director of the School District Charter Office Dr. Jose Boza stated to DHCC representatives on April 1, 2014 that neither the Charter Office and indeed, to his knowledge, no one at the School District had information regarding the basis of the Board’s denial letter of January 9, 2014. Dr. Boza stated that the Board of Education – not the School District – would be the only entity that could elaborate on the bases for denial of the DHCC Petition. A copy of documentation of the April 1, 2014 [Note: need link to doc] teleconference is attached as Attachment 3 Ms. Maleika Vaughner, Ms. Campbell and Ms. Frazier were on the teleconference and similarly indicated they had no information regarding the basis for denial.
On March 12, 2014, DHCC representatives met with Assistant Superintendent Trenton Arnold and Interim Deputy Superintendent Dr. Alice Thompson. At the March 12, 2014 meeting, DHCC presented the statutory criteria under the Act for approval of a charter school petition; the Board’s January 9, 2014 letter [Note: need link to doc], and initial responses for discussion to each of the four items in the Board’s letter. A copy of the power point presentation which formulated the discussion is attached as Attachment 4. Mr. Arnold and Dr. Thompson stated that they did not have the level of detail necessary to discuss the bases for the January 9, 2014 denial letter and suggested that DHCC contact the Director of the Charter Office, Dr. Jose Boza, regarding these items.
– Board member John W. Coleman expressed concern during the Board meeting of September 11, 2013, that the process followed by the School District – specifically handing out exhibits that no one had seen, attempts to block the public from receiving information prepared by the School District, last minute provision of information to the Board – constituted an aberration from the Board’s normal processes and procedures. http://factchecker.stanjester.com/recorded-meetings/board-meetings/11042013-dhcc-vote/11112013-meeting-part-2-of-3/, at 20:00-22:30.
– The Charter Schools Office mislabeled documents as attorney client privileged in an effort to conceal information from the public and DHCC. http://factchecker.stanjester.com/recorded-meetings/board-meetings/11042013-dhcc-vote/11112013-meeting-part-2-of-3/, at 24:50 – 24:60. The chair attempted to maintain this erroneous position depriving DHCC and the public of notice and an opportunity to respond.
– At the November 11, 2013 meeting, it is well documented that School District staff attempted to withhold documents and information regarding its review of the DHCC Petition, yet provided to the Board in an open meeting documents not available to the public or the DHCC. http://factchecker.stanjester.com/recorded-meetings/board-meetings/11042013-dhcc-vote/11112013-meeting-part-1-of-3/ at 22:40-23:00
– School District staff erroneously testified on November 11, 2013, that several programs that are not available to charter cluster students, specifically stating that International Baccalaureate (IB); Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Math (STEAM) and Advanced Placement (AP); and Montessori choices were available to all 100,000 students enrolled in the School District. http://factchecker.stanjester.com/recorded-meetings/board-meetings/11042013-dhcc-vote/11112013-meeting-part-1-of-3/ at 21:20 – 22:40.
– School District staff also erroneously testified that the DHCC Petition does not offer significantly different educational opportunities than offered by the School District. However, in documents initially concealed but later released, the same staff member had identified the DHCC Petition as having “Differences” from current School District offerings in 11 of 30 categories, or over 30% of his documented categories of academic offerings. Attachment 5, Beasley Table. That is a substantial difference. Later in testimony, the same School District staff clarified that some of the DHCC offerings he characterized as duplicative were actually not being offered by the School District, but rather being ”reviewed for expansion or enhancement.”
http://factchecker.stanjester.com/recorded-meetings/board-meetings/11042013-dhcc-vote/11112013-meeting-part-1-of-3/, at 22:20-22:40. This testimony was misleading to the Board and prejudicial to the DHCC Petition. The DHCC’s May 1 revised Petition, including Preface and cover letter, clarifies and specifically identifies the vast differences and enhancements of the DHCC Petition, which should be readily obvious to members of a Board committed to educational improvement.
With all due respect, Dr. Johnson, in the transcript of the November 11, 2013 Board meeting, you stated that School District staff had followed the policy and procedures required by law, taking issue with other Board members questioning the process and intent. http://factchecker.stanjester.com/recorded-meetings/board-meetings/11042013-dhcc-vote/11112013-meeting-part-2-of-3/, at 17:10 to 17:50. All of the above is documented, demonstrable, and constitutes numerous instances of actual deprivation of due process and failure to follow procedures established by law. Indeed, the list is so extensive that it raises serious questions regarding bias and intent of the School District and Charter Schools Office with respect to the DHCC Petition.