LASD, Bullis exchange openly hostile open letters
Original post made on Nov 17, 2013
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, November 15, 2013, 12:00 AM
on Nov 17, 2013 at 11:22 am
LASD's letter was lacking in facts to support their accusations. One 'violation' was that a class was singing in one of the rooms. The charter school only has a dozen rooms on the site and some of them are not of much use. Apparently they tried using one of the rooms for a music class a single day and this is the incident that Doug refers to in his letter. In the case of the athletic field incident, this was not an issue with PE activities but rather simple recess. The districts offer says the two schools will mix all the kids together for their mutual recesses and lunches on the blacktop space (about an acre of it) at Blach, but that this is not allowed unless the charter school keeps the identical schedule as Blach, which changes depending on the day of the week. The offer says the charter school will be permitted on a small area of the athletic field if the schedules are not 'synchronous' and this is where they were when a Blach PE class decided to use that area of the field contrary to the predetermined schedule one Monday. Since that day, none of the charter school kids has been permitted on the athletic fields for recess or lunch.
The district uses comparison calculations in its offer which takes the credit for sharing approximately 80% of the Blach buildings and grounds with the charter school using them 25% of the time. In reality their offer does not come anywhere near this standard is there is a lot of confusion that results from this half-way thought out plan.
Over at Egan the charter is supposed to put no more than 443 kids at a time, and they are supposed to put their grades K-5 entirely there all the time. They had asked for space for 469 students in this grade but the district flat out cut them back to much less. In reality they h ave 477 kids in grades K-5. So what does the district do? It refuses to adjust its limits and it then accuses them of violating the offer which has an illegal failure to provide embedded in it.