برچسب: Charter

  • Lawsuits charge antisemitism, civil rights violations at California charter school and high school district

    Lawsuits charge antisemitism, civil rights violations at California charter school and high school district


    Sequoia Union High School District in Redwood City.

    Credit: Flickr

    The parents of a former student of a San Jose charter school and six families in a wealthy Bay Area high school district have filed separate lawsuits charging “rampant” civil rights violations resulting from bullying, taunting, ostracism and other forms of antisemitic conduct. In the lawsuit brought against the Sequoia Union High School District, the families claim school officials ignored and showed “a deliberate indifference to the problem.”

    Both lawsuits, which were filed in the U.S. District Court of Northern California, say the discrimination escalated following the October 2023 attack on Israeli communities by Hamas and the Israeli retaliation and invasion of Gaza. 

    The lawsuit against the Sequoia Union High School District also reflects tension over how the ongoing conflict in Gaza has been taught in two Sequoia Union high schools as well as other districts engulfed in investigations and litigation. 

    The Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education is investigating whether Berkeley Unified failed to respond to rising incidents of antisemitism in its schools. Last month, several Jewish teachers in Los Angeles filed a lawsuit to overturn collective bargaining laws that they said force them to belong to a teachers union that helped create an ethnic studies curriculum that “is patently antisemitic.”

    Next month, an Orange County Superior Court judge will consider two nationally known Jewish legal groups’ motion to void an ethnic studies curriculum in Santa Ana Unified. They claim it was written by teachers and staff members who privately expressed antisemitic remarks and excluded Jewish community members from participating in the curriculum process.

    In their lawsuit, filed Friday, the six Sequoia Union High School District families named Woodside High Principal Karen Van Putten and three administrators of Woodside High, where five of the students attend, as well as Menlo-Atherton High School Principal Karl Losekoot, Sequoia Union Superintendent Crystal Leach, two district administrators, all five district board members, and Gregory Gruszynski, a history teacher at Woodside High.

    Placing the lawsuit in a wider context, lawyers for the Sequoia Union lawsuit said “leftist academics” have spread an ideology that “falsely portrays Jews as oppressors, engaged in ‘exploitive capitalism’ in the West and or ‘colonialism’ in the Middle East.”  

    “The result is not only a reprehensible failure of pedagogy but a hostile learning environment for Jewish students” — including in some Sequoia Union classes where the ideology is taught, the Sequoia lawsuit said.

    It cites as a relevant party but not a defendant the Liberated Ethnics Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, whose member groups are selling curriculum and training teachers in dozens of California districts. 

    Curriculum issues are not directly at issue in the lawsuit against University Prep Academy in San Jose. In that case, student Ella Miller, 13, and her parents filed the lawsuit on Oct. 23 against the charter middle and high school and its executive director. After months of abuse during which students taunted her as “the Jew” or “Jew,” Miller withdrew from the school and now attends a private school, the lawsuit said.

    The lawsuit also named as defendants the Santa Clara County Office of Education, which approved and oversees the charter school, and the California Department of Education, including State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond. The lawsuit claims county and state officials failed to respond to the family’s formal complaint that Ella’s rights had been violated or to intervene after learning of her mistreatment.

    The 55-page filing does imply some teachers were hostile to Israel. Ella’s father, Shai Miller, an Israeli, said he noticed on back-to-school night that Israel was erased from maps of the modern Middle East in Ella’s history class.

    Ella, who identifies as an Israeli American and speaks fluent Hebrew, has spent summers in Israel with cousins, the lawsuit said. The Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas, in which 1,200 Israelis were slaughtered, distressed her and her family. She was visibly upset in history class on Oct. 9, the first day back in school after the attack, the lawsuit states. But before allowing her to go to the bathroom to collect herself, her teacher told her she had to read aloud something he had written “to the effect that, in the past, Palestinians and Jews had gotten along.”

    The lawsuit alleges that “this requirement to publicly espouse a position that was at odds with present-day reality was overwhelmingly oppressive and humiliating. It also further identified Ella as ‘the Jew’ to her classmates.” 

    Did history teacher show bias?

    Allegations of prejudiced classroom instruction that included antisemitic materials are a central element of the lawsuit against Woodside and Menlo-Atherton, two of four high schools in Sequoia Union, a demographically diverse, 10,000-student high school district. 

    Of Woodside High’s 1,646 students, 50% are Hispanic, 42% are white, 4% are Asian and 1% are Black. Only 28% were identified as low-income. Its students include low-income sections of Redwood City, and Woodside and Atherton, which are among the wealthiest ZIP codes in the United States.

    The lawsuit claimed that Gruszynski, a Woodside High history teacher who currently chairs the bargaining committee for the Sequoia District Teachers Association, “singled out and harassed L.K. (all plaintiff students are identified with initials), the only openly Jewish student” in his 10th grade world history class.” Gruszynski displayed a “Free Palestine” bumper sticker on his classroom wall. The lawsuit stated that he “mocked her beliefs, undermined her attempts to provide factual information to classmates, and coerced her into endorsing his biased and ahistorical views to achieve satisfactory grades on exams.”

    On a multiple-choice test, for example, the correct answer to the definition of Hamas, which the United States government has designated a terrorist organization, was a “Palestinian political party which is continuing to fight against Israel.”

    “In this way,” the lawsuit said, “Gruszynski forced a Jewish student to condemn Israel and disavow her beliefs in order to receive a passing grade.” The lawsuit said that L.K. returned home in tears after Gruszynski’s classes and decided she could not participate in any further classroom discussions “without inviting further harassment.”                       

    L.K.’s father, Sam Kasle, filed a complaint against Gruszynski, who refused to meet with him. Kasle requested to see Gruszynski’s course materials, which he, like other parents, had a right to review, but the district rejected that request. In response to the complaint, the vice principal disputed that Gruszynski made L.K. feel “uncomfortable” or “browbeaten,” and considered the case closed without reporting any action taken.

    Student handbook guarantees civil rights

    David Porter, University Prep Academy’s executive director, said the school’s attorney advised him not to comment on the lawsuit because it is an ongoing complaint. However, he did say that as the case proceeds, “what actually happened will come forward.”

    He added, “Our student handbook’s policies around bullying and discrimination are strict, and we follow them as written.”

    The school’s staff and student handbook for 2023-24 was expansive on protecting students’ civil rights, and the lawsuit extensively quotes from it. “The University Preparatory Academy Board and Staff commit to raise our voices against racism, unconscious bias, intolerance, injustice, and discrimination starting by reflecting on our own policies and actions,” it read.

    Another section that the lawsuit cites states that, “To the extent possible, UPA will make reasonable efforts to prevent students from being discriminated against, harassed, intimidated and/or bullied, and will take action to investigate, respond, and address and report on such behaviors in a timely manner.”

    David Rosenberg-Wohl, the family’s attorney, said the anti-discrimination language “is obviously important to the school, and so if the school does not honor it, that’s relevant because it suggests that one group does not count.”

    “Everybody talks the talk,” he said.

    In the days following Hamas’s attack, the discrimination against Ella intensified, the lawsuit said. This was before the Israeli army’s counter-attack and continued occupation, in which Gaza health officials say more than 40,000 Palestinian people, including many women and children, have been killed, and hundreds of thousands of Gazans have been displaced.

    The lawsuit further alleges that two girls, who said they were Palestinian, told Ella, “Jews are terrorists,” and asked her, “Do you know your family in Israel is living on stolen land?” Of dozens of girls who had been friendly to her, only one girl would speak to her.

    Students began to call her “White Ella,” progressing to “White Ella’s family are terrorists;” two boys chased her around the school, yelling, “We want you to die,” the lawsuit said.

    During the three months between Oct. 7, 2023, and Jan. 9, 2024, when Ella withdrew from University Prep Academy, the family had multiple meetings with school administrators, including Porter, the school’s executive director, but felt that the school failed to acknowledge and address the bigotry and harassment she faced. 

    Complaints with no response

    On Jan. 22, Ellla’s mother, Elisa, filed a formal complaint with the Santa Clara County Office of Education, the charter school’s authorizer. By law, the office had until March 24 — 60 days — to respond. On May 6, according to the lawsuit, a spokesperson for the Bay Area Jewish Committee met with May Ann Dewan, then county superintendent, to request that she intervene and answer the complaint. In its answer on May 14, the county said the complaint does not fall within its oversight of University Prep Academy, and the complaint could be filed instead with the California Department of Education.

    Miller did that, and, on June 10, the department notified her that the complaint had been forwarded to Porter, who had until July 13 to respond.

    Since then, the lawsuit said, there has been no response from Porter, the school, the county office, or the state Education Department. “Doing nothing … despite knowing of the anguish of Ella and her family, was deliberate indifference,” it said.

    The family is seeking damages for Ella’s emotional and physical stress, the cost of a private school, and her lost access to educational opportunities.

    Long-standing ‘antisemitic sentiment’

    The lawsuit by the Sequoia Union families also cited “deliberate indifference to anti-Jewish harassment,” which it said started well before the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack. In one incident, according to the lawsuit, a long-term substitute teacher, who continues to teach at Menlo-Atherton High, asked plaintiff W.K. about his background. Told that his family is Jewish, the teacher allegedly shared jokes about the Holocaust with a group of students: “How do you fit 10,000 Jews in a Volkswagen?” she asked. “In the ashtray.”

    After the start of the Israeli-Hamas conflict on Oct 7, however, antisemitic incidents “surged,” the lawsuit said, citing several examples.

    A group of Woodside students yelled, “Go back to where you came from!” to another Jewish student at Woodside High. No disciplinary action followed, the lawsuit said.

    About that same time, a group of Menlo-Atherton students taunted plaintiff W.K. on the way to class, calling him a “kike” and said, “All Jews should die.”

    On Nov. 1, two swastikas were etched into the pavement in Woodside High. (Swastikas had been drawn on bathroom walls in Menlo-Atherton high a year earlier.) Two days later, Woodside High Principal Karen Van Putten emailed the Woodside community that an extensive investigation by school administrators and the San Mateo Sheriff’s Department confirmed that the swastikas were actually “spiritual symbol[s] from Japanese Buddhism known as Manji popularized by anime.” 

    The lawsuit called the investigation a “sham” that, in fact, did not involve the sheriff’s department. Citing administrators’ dismissal of the swastika incident, other derogatory remarks, and the failure of Van Putten and the Sequoia school board to address incidents, Scott and Lori Lyle, parents of a 12th grader at Woodside High, filed a detailed formal complaint.

    With no answer and no action taken in response for more than 200 days, the Jewish families filed their lawsuit, citing violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, the First Amendment’s right to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech, as well as protections under California education laws and the state constitution.

    Filing a lawsuit is a huge step for families, said Lori Lowenthal Marcus, legal director for The Deborah Project. “Students don’t want to embarrass teachers, risk ridicule and humiliation. All of the families went through internal procedures. They tried to speak with principals; they filed complaints to see if they could rectify their situations, but all felt let down. A lawsuit was the next option.”

    The families are seeking the court to order a dozen remedies. They include:

    • prohibiting discrimination and harassment of their children;
    • prohibiting the district from engaging in any antisemitic conduct; 
    • ordering the district to implement a comprehensive policy addressing antisemitism;
    • providing training for all teachers, administrators and staff in strategies to promote empathy and respect for Jewish individuals and their connection to Israel;
    • terminating any teachers found to have engaged in antisemitic discrimination; and
    • creating transparent requirements for disclosing course materials to the public.

    The families also call for appointing a special master to monitor compliance with the court’s orders for three years.

    The Deborah Project, a public interest law firm that defends the civil rights of Jews in educational settings, with pro bono assistance of California attorneys in the global law firm Ropes and Gray, are representing the families. The case is Kasle, et al. v. Van Putten, et al.

    Naomi Hunter, public information officer for Sequoia Union, said the district has not yet been served with the lawsuit. “We support a safe environment for all students, and we are very concerned any time we receive a complaint about a hostile environment, but we cannot respond further until we have more information,” she said.





    Source link

  • West Contra Costa Unified denies charter renewal application

    West Contra Costa Unified denies charter renewal application


    Credit: Louis Freedberg / EdSource

    For the first time in five years, the West Contra Costa school district board of trustees has denied a renewal petition of one of its charter schools.

    By a unanimous vote on Wednesday, the board rejected the renewal application of the Richmond Charter Academy, which serves just under 300 students.

    It is part of Amethod Public Schools, or AMPS, a charter management organization that also operates two other charter schools in Richmond and three in Oakland. 

    The vote followed impassioned appeals by staff and students wearing yellow T-shirts, trying to persuade the board to allow the school to continue operating. 

    A similar hearing about the school’s fate was held at a board meeting last month.  There are 13 charter schools in the district, serving close to 4,000 students of the district’s nearly 30,000 students. 

    The charter schools are among more than 1,300 in California, by far the largest number in any state. 

    Renewal petitions are rarely denied in California.  The Legislature approved a law (Assembly Bill 1505) in 2019 governing charter school applications and renewals, but its full implementation was delayed until after the pandemic. As a result, many charters are just now coming up for renewal under the 2019 law. 

    The board’s decision was not entirely unexpected. It was based on a strong recommendation by district staff, outlined in a detailed 79-page report that the district deny the school’s charter based on concerns about its finances and its ability to guarantee that it could offer the educational programs it was promising. 

    The staff reviewers said they “found fiscal concerns that could not be remedied and the school would not likely implement the program as described in the petition.” 

    The denial came despite students showing academic results somewhat higher than the district average. 

    Beyond fiscal worries, several board members also expressed concern about the small number of Black students in the school. 

    The school has a 91% enrollment of Latino students, while Black students only make up 4%.  That’s in a district with an 11.5% Black enrollment.  

    School administrators said the school admitted students based on a lottery, and thus, the racial or ethnic makeup of the school was determined by who applied.

    The school now has a chance to appeal the denial to the county school board, and if the renewal is denied there, the school could then appeal to the State Board of Education. 

    Among the issues identified in the staff report was the very low number of teachers with a “clear” teaching credential. 

    Another concern was the considerable turnover in leadership. Some board members had high praise for the current interim CEO, Adrienne Barnes. But in light of leadership turnover in the past few years, they said they weren’t confident that the current leadership would stay much longer.  

    “Ms. Barnes, you have made a Herculean leap forward, and I appreciate your efforts,” board President Leslie Reckler told her at the meeting. “But I have deep concerns over whether you’re going to be here in a year, or even less than that.” 

    In 2020, the board voted not to renew the application of the Manzanita Elementary charter school, despite a staff recommendation that the application be approved. The school then appealed to the Alameda County Board of Education, which overruled the district board. Manzanita is still operating today.  

    None of the current district board members were on the board in 2020. Reckler and Demetrio Gonzalez-Hoy, the two most senior current members, pointed out that this was the first time they had voted against a charter renewal, and that it was a difficult vote to cast. 

    “As the people in charge of renewing the charter, I simply cannot do that,” Gonzalez-Hoy said. “I am sorry for that because I know how painful this is. And as the first charter that I have to deny, I feel the pain.”

    “The staff’s findings raise serious questions that we cannot ignore, and it would be irresponsible to move forward without addressing them fully,” added board member Guadalupe Enllana in explaining her vote. “My decision is not made lightly, but it’s made with students at the center because that is who we are here to serve.”





    Source link

  • North Dakota Becomes 47th State to Authorize Charter Schools Despite Decades of Broken Promises

    North Dakota Becomes 47th State to Authorize Charter Schools Despite Decades of Broken Promises


    North Dakota became the 47th state to authorize charter schools. There are three states that do not have a charter sschool law. Nebraska, South Dakota, and Vermont. Kentucky has a law but its courts declared them unconstitutional.

    When charter schools first began in 1991, they were sold to the public as a miracle cure. Their promoters said they would operate with greater accountability, no bureaucracy, and the freedom to hire and fire at will. Because of this flexibility, charters would produce higher test scores, would cost less, would “save” the failing students, would close if they didn’t get the promised results, and would produce innovations that would help public schools.

    None of these promises came true. The charters are no better than public schools, and many are far worse. The ones that produce higher scores choose their students carefully and avoid the neediest, most difficult students. Charters have produced no innovations. They have a well-funded lobby that fights accountability and seeks more funding. They close at a startling rate: more than one of every four are gone within five years of opening.

    Charters have also been notorious for waste, fraud, and abuse. Scores of charters have been rife with fraud and outright theft. One online charter operator in Ohio collected $1 billion over twenty years, donated generously to elected officials, and when confronted by an audit and demand for repayment, declared bankruptcy. An online charter operator in California stole nearly $100 million. Some operators of brick-and-mortar charter schools have gone to jail for financial fraud.

    The Network for Public Education keeps track of charter frauds. All this information is freely available. Yet North Dakota Governor Kelly Armstrong recited the same broken promises in signing charter legislation. The charters will not produce higher student scores, will push out students they don’t want, and will not produce innovation. In coming sessions of the legislature, their lobbyists will weaken or eliminate the provisions they don’t like. If North Dakota is fortunate, the big charter chains will ignore them because the market is small.

    Edsource reported:

    North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong signed Senate Bill 2241 Monday, allowing public charter schools to operate in the state.

    The legislation takes effect Aug. 1.

    Charter schools are state-funded public schools that have greater flexibility in hiring, curriculum, management and other aspects of their operations. Unlike traditional public schools that are run by school districts with an elected school board and a board-appointed superintendent, most charter schools are run by organizations with self-appointed boards.

    Senate Bill 2241 requires charter schools to operate under a performance agreement with the state Superintendent of Public Instruction, according to a media release from the governor’s office. The schools must meet or exceed state academic and graduation requirements and be open to all North Dakota students.

    “The public charter schools authorized by this bill can drive innovation, improve student outcomes and increase parent satisfaction,” Armstrong said in a statement.



    Source link

  • Carol Burris: With Religious Charters, the Charter Lobby’s Chickens Have Come Home to Roost

    Carol Burris: With Religious Charters, the Charter Lobby’s Chickens Have Come Home to Roost


    Carol Burris is the executive director of the Network for Public Education. She was a high school teacher and principal in New York State, where she was honored by the state principal’s association as principal of the year. She is a tireless advocate of public schools and an equally tireless opponent of privatization.

    She writes:

    On April 30, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a pivotal case concerning whether a charter school can teach a religious curriculum. The Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board v. Drummond addresses Oklahoma’s St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School’s attempt to become the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school. 

    This case was always intended to go to the Supreme Court, testing the limits of the separation of Church and State. What is surprising, however, is who has entered the fight against St. Isadore. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS), which has never met a charter school it did not like, has filed an amicus brief against its existence. This is unexpected from an organization that has supported charter schools run by for-profit corporations, virtual schools with poor outcomes, and even micro-schools, claiming that different models provide needed choice and innovation. When public money is allocated to religious private schools via vouchers, the charter lobby is either supportive or silent in the name of “choice.”

    The reason for their present opposition is self-interest. According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, “a decision to allow religious charter schools will throw charter laws into chaos nationwide, resulting in significant financial and operational uncertainties.”  Nina Rees, the former long-time CEO of the organization, lamented that a ruling in favor of St. Isadore “could also jeopardize the myriad federal and state funding streams they [charters] currently qualify for—funding that the sector has fought hard to secure and continues to fight for on the premise that students attending public charter schools are entitled to the same funds they would receive in district schools.”

    On what basis, then, will SCOTUS make its decision? At the heart of the case is whether charter schools are state actors or state contractors providing educational services. The Oklahoma State Virtual Charter Board argues that merely because the state legislature declares a charter school “public,” it does not transform it into a public school. Furthermore, even if charter schools are state actors for some functions, they might not be state actors for purposes of the First Amendment, specifically regarding curriculum matters.

    There is precedent for their argument.

    In 2010, both a federal court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, determined, in an employment case, that an Arizona charter school was not a “state actor” and thus a wrongful termination lawsuit could not be brought forth by a former teacher.  “This case presents the special situation of a private nonprofit corporation running a charter school that is defined as a ‘public school’ by state law,” the three-judge appeals court panel said in its unanimous Jan. 4 decision in Caviness v. Horizon Community Learning Center. The court concluded that the corporation running the charter school (private non-profit or for-profit corporations run most charter schools) was not a state actor but a contractor providing a service.

    In some states, where districts are the only authorizers of charter schools, charter schools likely fully meet the “state actor” test. That was the original intent of the charter movement—schools within a district free of some restraints to try innovative practices. However, only a few states still embrace that model, thanks to the relentless pressure from organizations like NAPCS, which have provided St. Isadore with more than enough fodder for its arguments. Over the years, charter trade organizations have successfully lobbied for looser charter laws, expanded charter management organizations, and vigorously defended for-profit corporations like Academica and Charter Schools USA, which use nonprofit schools as a façade. In short, they have made charter schools as “private” and profitable as possible. 

    Remember how charter schools could secure Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) funds during COVID-19 when public schools could not? Charter trade organizations, including NAPCS, encouraged charter schools to leverage their corporate status, resulting in the sector securing billions of dollars. Some even provided talking points for justification.

    The truth is that charter schools have used their private status when it is in their interest, even as they secure an advantage from the public label. And that is why they have only themselves to blame if the chicken comes home to roost and the sector is thrown into chaos. If that results in a shake-up of the charter industry and a return to truly public charter schools in most states, that may not be a terrible outcome. 



    Source link