Is The School Board Willing To Give Up $7,678,022?

"I believe that a shady deal was made by the previous superintendent to allow the charters to just pay a percentage of what was owed. Again, all done in secret."

- Scott Schmerelson

When PROP-39 appeared on the California ballot in 2000 the name of the measure stated the purpose was to "decrease [the] Supermajority from two-thirds to 55% for [the passage of] School Bonds." While most of the electorate probably did not read beyond the title before deciding how to vote, this proposition had a little surprise tucked into its text. After its passage "each school district [had to] make available, to each charter school operating in the school district, facilities sufficient for the charter school to accommodate all of the charter school's in-district students in conditions reasonably equivalent to those in which the students would be accommodated if they were attending other public schools of [the] district." While the word "co-location" does not appear, it is the way that the requirements are most often met.

The California Charter School Association (CCSA) has used the courts to aggressively expand the availability of public school facilities for the publicly financed private schools they represent. Millions of dollars in campaign funding have also ensured that the LAUSD Board has built a bureaucracy that favors charter students over their LAUSD peers. This has been particularly evident in the enforcement of the law that is supposed to prevent charter schools from overestimating the amount of space they take from public school students, as noted in my comments before the Board while they considered the renewal of KIPP Corazon's charter:

On January 17, 2022, the Charter School Division published a report showing the past due balance owed by charter schools for overallocation fees was $13,745,310. Three months later that balance was $5,174,029. While $665,696 was accounted for by payments, $7,678,022 had mysteriously disappeared from the assessed fees. No public explanation was given for the reduction. KIPP Corazon benefited from $28,111 of this gift.

It is my understanding that the Board was also kept in the dark about this reduction. The Charter School Division and the Superintendant's office acted unilaterally and did not seek the Board's approval for lowering these state-mandated fees. Unless the District's elected representatives gave them authority to take these actions, they are not valid. The Charter School Division needs to provide a legitimate explanation for the deductions. Otherwise, the $7,678,000 should be returned to the balance sheet.

It is important to remember that under District policy, 90% of these payments go to the schools directly affected by charter schools taking more space on their campuses than they were entitled to under the law. This includes children with special education needs who received services in stairwells and closets because Jose' Cole-Gutie'rrez decided that the space used for these purposes was "empty" and could be given away.

With KIPP Corazon seeking renewal of their charter, this may be the only opportunity you will have to get answers. What were the specific reasons their balance was reduced by $28,111? If a sufficient explanation can not be provided, then the charter renewal should be contingent upon the school paying what is due plus interest.

Unfortunately, not one of the Board Members addressed my concerns before they voted on this renewal. Jose' J. Cole-Gutie'rrez, the Director of the Charter School Division, was available to answer questions, but he was not asked about this issue. School officials were also present, but the forgiveness for the debt was not addressed. KIPP Corazon was unanimously approved to operate for another five years.

With the Board unwilling to even ask questions about the $28,111 that was given away to this one school, it seems unlikely that anything will be done about the $7,678,022 owed by other charters. The Board, with a majority elected on their promise to support public schools, failed in its fiduciary duty to stand up for the students they are supposed to represent.

---

Carl Petersen is a parent advocate for public education, particularly for students with special education needs, who serves as the Education Chair for the Northridge East Neighborhood Council. As a Green Party candidate in LAUSD's District 2 School Board race, he was endorsed by Network for Public Education (NPE) Action. Dr. Diane Ravitch has called him "a valiant fighter for public schools in Los Angeles." For links to his blogs, please visit www.ChangeTheLAUSD.com. Opinions are his own.