Charter Steering Committee and MDUSD Publicly Trade Blows

The chances of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District and the Clayton Valley Charter Steering Committee working together on a conversion seems less likely after the MDUSD released a statement Friday that enraged the steering committee.

In what it called a "news update," the MDUSD released what it believes will be the financial, personnel and student consequences if the Clayton Valley were to become a charter school. (The entire MDUSD update can be read by clicking the PDF file to the right of this article.)

But the heart of the update is probably that the MDUSD believes "the board must cut its general fund by $2.4 million dollars or approximately $74 per pupil, beginning in 2012-13 school year when CVCHS opens."

The Clayton Valley Charter Steering Committee fired back on Saturday, saying, in their own letter, that they were "shocked and disappointed" by the MDUSD charter update.

"This clearly undermines the previous public statements of both the District staff and Board that they wish to work in a collegial manner with the Charter steering committee," the letter reads. "Both the timing of the Superintendent's 'News Update' and the content make it clear that the Superintendent has no interest in working with the Charter."

In an email, Clayton Mayor David Shuey, who has been a strong supporter of the conversion, said the update "was nothing more than bad faith propaganda since they cannot properly consider this when deciding on the petition."

(The steering committee letter can also be read at the bottom of this article.)

The steering committee and the MDUSD board will be face-to-face tonight, with charter conversion on the board's agenda.

Clayton Valley Charter supporters say they will show that they have met the board's conditions for the charter and are hoping for full approval by the board at its Oct. 25 meeting.

If the board eventually rejects the charter, charter supporters say they will appeal the decision to the Contra Costa Office of Education.

--------

The steering committee response to the MDUSD:

The Clayton Valley Charter High School Steering Committee is shocked and disappointed at the latest action of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District Superintendent. This clearly undermines the previous public statements of both the District staff and Board that they wish to work in a collegial manner with the Charter steering committee.  Both the timing of the Superintendent's "News Update" and the content make it clear that the Superintendent has no interest in working with the Charter.

 Following the Board's de-facto denial of the Charter Petition under the guise of an "approval with conditions," the Charter group moved forward in good faith efforts to meet and confer with District Staff to respond to and reach agreement on the 56 conditions.  There have been two meetings with staff and a multitude of emails back and forth between both parties.  In fact, the Charter has been appreciative of the efforts of staff, particularly Deb Cooksey, Rose Locke, Julie Braun-Martin, and Felicia Stuckey-Smith, and felt that both sides were working in good faith toward a mutually agreeable resolution of the conditions.  Our last meeting was on Thursday, October 8, 2011, one day before the Superintendent's update was sent out to all parents in the District.  At no point during our meeting with staff or at any other time were we informed the District, or at least the Superintendent, was working on a separate track aimed at publicly undermining the good faith meet and confer process going on with staff.  However, the Superintendent did choose to meet with District principals during the week to share this information.  In point of fact, the Superintendent has never been involved in direct communication with the Charter steering committee since the petition was submitted.           

Following the release of an earlier and very similar "update" from the Superintendent on August 26th, informal discussions were initiated between the Charter steering committee and the Board after the issue went viral in the media.  It was our informal understanding that an effort would be made on both sides to work more closely together so as not to engage in one-sided, potentially misleading information being disseminated.  Clearly, this is not the case for the District and so the Charter steering committee is once again forced to respond to propaganda when we would rather concentrate on continued progress toward resolution. 

As the "update" was provided to everyone, including the Charter, after 6:00 p.m. on Friday night, we are working to review and respond to the claimed facts and impact.  We hope to have a comprehensive response by the Board meeting on October 11, 2011.  However, in the interim, we have the following thoughts and comments:

            1.  What is the purpose of this public "update" if the Board cannot consider this in its denial or approval of the petition? 

            2.  Where in the update is there listed any data or foundation for the savings the District will incur as a result of not having to pay for the expenditures of running Clayton Valley?  Remember, the District's own staff report previously estimated the District would save approximately $1.7 million from closing CV.  What is the actual per ADA cost of operating the school and and why won’t the District disclose this figure?

            3.  What data was given to School Services for their review?  Did they get information or were they asked to verify the cost savings?  Why did the District choose not to share the fact that they were hiring an outside source to review the Charter financials at any time before the staff recommendation?

            4. Why did the District not partner with the Charter to ensure that this was a "fair" assessment that included cost savings before making it public?  Why does the District continually and deliberately refuse to work with the Charter steering committee?  It is extremely difficult to interpret these consistent tactics as anything but underhanded and nefarious.

            5.  Why, despite repeated requests by the Charter for financial information dating back to April of this year, including the costs to run CV (and therefore the potential savings to the District should it not be responsible for those costs), has the District not provided that information even today?

            6.  Why, if " Educational programs generally become more costly as students’ progress through the grades" has the District apparently continually underfunded ALL high schools from the average daily attendance rate the State indicates should be given for students in High School?  Doesn't this point to historical and continued fiscal mismanagement and misappropriation by the District?

            7.  If the District and State recognize the District is underfunding ALL high schools in the District, why do not other high schools in the District demand proper funding or request their own charter?

            8.  Why would the Country and the State have written charter legislation and encouraged charter schools if doing so would devastate existing Districts?  Similarly, why have so many conversion charters throughout the State been approved and successfully operated, collaborated with and positively impacted their Districts? Is MDUSD doing something different such that it would be the only District to suffer from a charter and, if so, isn't that more a condemnation of the District's management?

             9.  Why has Superintendent Lawrence never met or communicated with the Charter since the petition? 

            10.  Why does MDUSD use an archaic account code structure that is out of compliance with the rest of the State of California? Is it so it can massage the numbers to suit its purpose?  The District’s own financial records are constantly in question and fiscal solvency seems to be teetering on the brink; perhaps the public deserves a closer look at MDUSD’s books.

 We will be making a formal request that the Superintendent share any information that we provide regarding the District claims to every MDUSD family, just as the current “update” was disseminated.  In the interest of unprejudiced truth, this seems a fair proposition. We urge anyone interested to come to the Board meeting on October 11, 2011 and ask the Board to answer these and other questions.  Please pass this information on to those who want to hear from both sides of this issue and please see our Facebook page or website (http://sites.google.com/site/claytonvalleycharterhighschool/) for further information.

Sincerely,

Clayton Valley Charter High School Steering Committee