Re: Beacon Classical Academy National City’s Rebuttal to ... · kitchen upgrade permit for a lunch program, a permit for a fence, and another permit for a ramp, and Beacon was prepared

Page 1

Beacon Classical Academy Rebuttal to National School District’s Opposition of Appeal of Revocation of Beacon Classical Academy Charter

accs-dec17item04 Attachment 5 Page 1 of 16

October 24, 2017

Via Overnight Mail and Via Email

Ms. Cindy S. Chan Director of Charter School Division California Department of Education 1430 N. Street, Suite 5401 Sacramento, CA 95814-5901

Honorable Members of the State Board of Education 1430 N. Street Sacramento, CA 95814-5901

Re: Beacon Classical Academy National City’s Rebuttal to National School District’s Opposition of Appeal of Revocation of Beacon Classical Academy National City’s Charter.

Dear Ms. Chan and Honorable Members of the State Board of Education:

Please consider this letter as Beacon Classical Academy’s written rebuttal to National School District’s (“National”) written opposition to the Appeal of Revocation of Beacon Classical Academy National City’s Charter (“Beacon”).

Beacon Classical Academy is appreciative of the opportunity to bring further clarity to two very divergent perspectives regarding the revocation proceedings. Fair treatment and support, is a distinction without difference and is relevant to this appeal. According to Education Code section 47607 and Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, section 11968.2, these laws provide for fair, equitable treatment (FTE) for charter schools by their authorizing agency. A just interpretation of the standard for fair and equitable treatment of charter schools is formed through diligent application of the above regulations and in the review of intentions and actions with these standards in mind. Opinio juris, in this case, the subjective element of actions based on beliefs that may be contrary to the role of a charter authorizing agency.



I. Rebuttal to National’s Procedural and Substantive Facts Limited to Matters in the Record and Relevant to National’s Opposition to Beacon’s Appeal of the Revocation of Its Charter.

Beacon will address National’s timeline summary with the objective of balancing the information to promote greater awareness of the facts.

● April 5, 2016: National raised concerns, which Beacon promptly addressed and refuted within 7 days, not the 30 days allotted [State Appeal Section (b) Pages 792-799].

● August - November 2016: National compared the test scores between two different Beacon charters, one site-based and the other an independent study program, which included substantially different student populations. National School District was not the authorizer of the independent study charter school and therefore its comparison of that charter to its charter as a prominent contention for the revocation of the charter is not applicable, and its legality questionable.

● There was no oversight visit the first year. National’s first official unannounced oversight visitation occurred the second year. Other charter authorizers schedule visits, provide observation rubrics, dialogue prior to the visitations, and debrief afterwards. The Executive Director was initially not at the school site when the unannounced visit occurred because she was attending an off-site IEP meeting scheduled by National. Beacon contracts with National for their special education services therefore communication between National’s special education staff and Beacon regarding services and the testing of special education students is expected, but this communication is separate from National’s oversight responsibilities. During the first year, National’s special education teacher had difficulty adding the testing modifications of Beacon’s special education students in the California Assessment of Accountability Performance and Progress (“CAASPP”) system so he contacted National for help. It was a California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data Systems (“CALPADs’) issue that National was not able to resolve. The Beacon staff contacted CALPADS and resolved the issue. National’s willingness to help demonstrated a cooperative spirit, but this was a minor event and it did not release National of its responsibility to provide comprehensive oversight during the entire first year.

● November 4, 2016 - During a routine fire inspection of the church building that Beacon leased, some issues were identified that Beacon was responsible for, the removal of a large freestanding flame retardant canopy that was anchored to the ground in the lunch arbor and two smaller ones in the kindergarten playground were also identified for removal until a wind resistant report was submitted, and the removal of a rolling cabinet and a paper roll stand from an 8-foot wide hallway. Beacon removed these items immediately. Also, Beacon was directed to disoccupy a corner of the gymnasium, and a back house/parsonage until an ADA compliant restroom was permitted. Beacon had one unresolved issue from the last visit, to add an outdoor light project to the open

Page 2



permit of a ramp. This ramp project had not been finalized so that permit was still open. The owner of the church, however, had started some new projects while only completing approximately 80% of his prior list of minor issues. The red-tagging of the building occurred because the City mistakenly identified a 2” by 4” board that holds up the drywall as a support beam, which the owner had exposed in the school’s hallway. The City identified this item as the reason for retagging the educational building. This is identified as item # 7 [State Appeal Section (b) Pages 442-445].

On Friday, November 4, shortly before the end of the school day, the Fire Marshall met with the Executive Director to inform her he was shutting down the building. Proof of the City’s error was provided on November 8 by a licensed engineer’s report [State Appeal Section (b) Pages 446-447]. Before Beacon had an opportunity to contact National, Beacon’s Executive Director received an email from National. Whereas a phone call from National showing concern and offering support would have been greatly appreciated, instead the Superintendent required Beacon to have a plan sent by 5 pm on Monday, November 7. She stated: the District reserves the right to take any and all actions consistent with its oversight authority including, but not limited to, the initiation of revocation proceedings, as appropriate [State Appeal Section (b) Pages 209]. There was no dialogue and no support demonstrated. This was a terribly upsetting situation, the uprooting of an entire school over a mistaken observation.

Unbeknown to the Superintendent, a plan had began the moment the Fire Marshall announced he would redtag the building. While still meeting with the Fire Marshall, the Executive Director texted a parent letter to the office staff to translate and mass produce, and within half an hour, the staff personally handed out the letters to the parents during the student pick up time. The letter explained the situation and offered an immediate plan of action. A detailed plan of action was emailed to the Superintendent on Sunday evening prior to the Monday deadline [State Appeal Section (b) Pages 209-210].

The building owner hired an engineer to evaluate the alleged structural damage, which the engineer reported there was no structural damage to the integrity of the building, and an architect to submit plans to address the City's requirements. The actual fixing of the nicked board was a half an hour job, but the process to get permission to fix the issue took 97 days! The City required plans for all the items to be corrected. However, the City kept adding more items for the Church to address. Finally, the Church hired an attorney and the permits were promptly released. Beacon was caught in the middle between the Church and the City. Beacon had followed City permitting protocol with a kitchen upgrade permit for a lunch program, a permit for a fence, and another permit for a ramp, and Beacon was prepared to submit another permit for an ADA restroom in the backhouse.

National scheduled a school visit on November 14, which was Beacon’s first day at a temporary site. It would have been helpful had National allowed Beacon to settle in at least a day before bringing in a group of administrators to observe. The temporary site

Page 3



was a gymnasium where all the students, transitional kindergarten through eighth grade were housed. Although there was good management control, it was not the most conducive setting for optimum learning. Beacon needed time to make this new environment work. Beacon also had to set up and break down makeshift instructional spaces each school day. Storage was limited and the acoustics were challenging, but for Beacon it was a haven. However, the City only allowed Beacon to use this facility for 4 weeks. After that, tutoring occurred at a library conference room and adjacent park. Consequently Beacon began losing students. During the homeless bout, Beacon lost over 70 students. At the same time that Beacon became homeless, National began three comprehensive audits: instructional, finance, and Memoranda of Understanding (“MOU”). However, according to the “MOU” in times of unprecedented emergencies such as being “homeless” force majeure is allowed, it is a reprieve from requirements, not an escalation [State Appeal Section (b) Page 734]. During the next few weeks, National required a flurry of documents, that were housed in the red-tagged building. On November 15, Beacon requested a meeting to clarify the financial concerns [State Appeal Section (b) Pages 684-686] with the National’s Superintendent and the Assistant Superintendent of Finance to meet with Beacon’s Business Manager, Executive Director, and Beacon’s back office provider, Charter School Management Corporation’s (“CSMC”), Certified Public Accountant (“CPA’), which National agreed to do. On the day of the meeting, however, National’s Assistant Superintendent of Finance, did not attend, and consequently the Superintendent declined to discuss the finances, therefore the financial concerns remained unresolved.

● December 9, 2016 National presented to its board a draft Notice of Violations (“NOV”). National did so without an opportunity for Beacon to clarify and address concerns.

● December 14-15, 2016: Beacon staff and parents implored National to dialogue with Beacon to resolve the concerns, but National proceeded with issuance of the NOV.

● February 7, 2017 - Beacon responded to all the alleged violations within the timeline.

● March 9 & 15, 2017: National contacted Beacon on March 9, 30 days after Beacon had submitted its response to the NOV for additional documents with a deadline to respond by March 16. Beacon responded on March 15.

● April 4 & 5, 2017: On April 3, 2017, Beacon received a copy of National’s Notice of Intent to Revoke (“NIR”) and discovered why certain violation refutations or cures were not accepted. On April 4 & 5 Beacon sent further documents of its own accord. For example, out of the fingerprint record, two employee’s records were missing, these were sent, along with copies of voided checks. With last year’s closed audit report, updated Charter Vision Register, finance ledger, evidencing that no fiscal mismanagement, copies of voided checks were extra evidence. Most importantly, Beacon also sent their most recent MAP data, which Beacon had promised to send once the data analysis was complete.

Page 4



If National knew information was missing, why didn’t they request that information along with their request for more information? National had a staff and a law firm devoted to finding holes in our defense. It seemed like National exhibited a “gotcha attitude,” "I've caught you doing something wrong” throughout the process. As a charter staff, even before the revocation process began, Beacon was already understaffed. The revocation process along with being homeless further taxed their capacity and impacted their resources. Yet, despite the “underdog” challenges they faced, Beacon did whatever was necessary to satisfy National, and support their students’ progress.

● April 12, 2017: The National Board voted to proceed with the NIR. Again parents and staff requested National’s staff dialogue with Beacon to resolve misunderstandings.

● April 24, 2017: Beacon continued to do whatever was necessary to correct the record. This included scheduling a special board meeting to amend Beacon board minutes that National alleged were incorrect, and formulating a Response to the NIR.

● May 3, 2017: Beacon submitted a Response to National’s Intent to Revoke within 30 days on May 3 with the intent to clarify and/or demonstrate that National continued to be in error. In its Response to the NIR, Beacon compared MAP results from Winter 2016 to Winter 2017 to demonstrate student academic growth, proved there was no “missing checks” just missing details on the SAGE Report, a report that cannot be updated once the information is uploaded according to CSMC [Charter School Response to Notice of Violations (b) Pages 819-820]. CSMC stated all checks are captured and reflected in BCAs financial statements and that all voided checks were accounted for [State Appeal (b) Pages 432-434 and 498-500].

● May 8, 2017: At National’s board meeting on May 8, the Superintendent used the wrong charts [State Appeal Section (b) Pages 785-791] to make flawed future projections about how Beacon students would perform on the upcoming 2017 CAASPP results, and made innuendos about ongoing violations [State Appeal Section (b) Pages 800-803] casting doubt on Beacon. National alleged there were material violations of the charter. This misunderstanding had been clarified already. Beacon’s attorney had mistakenly stated that the curriculum was Board approved. The Executive Director explained this was an error [State Appeal Section (b) Page 1092] that nowhere was this stated in the charter petition. These and other misrepresentations were used to persuade the National School District Board (“NSDB”) to vote for the revocation of the charter.

● June 9, 2017: Beacon parents and staff were the momentum for appealing to the County. Parents and staff filled the May 16, 2017 Beacon board meeting room requesting an appeal. Beacon submitted its appeal to the County on June 9.

● June 21, 2017: National’s rebuttal to Beacon’s county appeal stated “that the District provided Beacon with due process and followed all procedural requirements in the

Page 5



revocation process...and that the District Board's Final Decision was based on substantial evidence, with increases in academic achievement and performances being weighed as the most important factor” (National School District’s Opposition to Appeal of Revocation of Beacon Classical Academy - National City’s Charter, page 6). How could National fairly consider increases in academic achievement and performances if National dismissed Northwestern Evaluation Association’s (“NWEA”) Measuring Academic Progress (“MAP”) Winter and Spring results from the 2015-16 and 2016-17 years?

● August 9, 2017: Although National refused to accept Beacon’s MAP results over a contention about the testing periods that were off schedule because of Beacon’s homelessness, NWEA stated that as long as there was meaningful instruction between the testing periods, the results were valid [State Appeal Section (b) Pages 437-441]. By June 29, National had received Beacon’s Spring MAP and CAASPP 2017 preliminary scores from the June 27, 2017 Beacon Board meeting agenda documents and the Local Control and Accountability Plan (“LCAP”) document which also included the CAASPP 2017 preliminary scores [State Appeal (b) Pages 432-434 and 498-500]. Yet at the County board meeting, National presented the same misinformation, wrong projection charts, and dismissed Beacon’s achievement growth.

II. Rebuttal to Summary of Arguments that National Did Not Err in Its Decision.

National claims it did not proceed with or promote the revocation of any violations that appeared to be remedied or refuted by Beacon (Summary of Arguments that the District Did Not Err in Its Decision - page 6). Yet National continued to allege of material violations of conditions, standards and procedures, engagement in fiscal mismanagement, and violations of law after Beacon had addressed every alleged violation with a refutation, cure or proposal to cure. Specifically, National continued to allege Brown act violations, sectarian curriculum, conflict of interest, and an unsafe building, disregarding Beacon’s evidence. It appears that National’s one track mind to revoke Beacon overrode their ability to admit their error regardless of the truth or logic of Beacon’s argument. National did not demonstrate valid substantial evidence for the County to support the revocation.

National alleges that there was new information and arguments that were not raised during the revocation process. Statements in Beacon’s Appeal to the State were identified and highlighted in National’s Exhibit A. Beacon hereby addresses these concerns that are highlighted from pages in Beacon’s State Appeal titled Beacon Classical Academy National City Written Argument in Support of Charter Revocation Appeal to the State Board of Education. The statements will be referenced as Exhibit A.

Inclusion of CAASPP results for 2016-17 - Exhibit A - Pages 2, 21, 22, 23

National would not accept the Winter MAP 2016-17 test results but used those results to project erroneous CAASPP results for 2017 by using the wrong conversion charts; therefore the Rule of

Page 6



Completeness applies, which is a principle of evidence law that when a party introduces part of a writing or an utterance at trial, the adverse party may require the introduction of any part to establish the full context in fairness of consideration [State Appeal Section (c) Pages 41-53] in this case, the actual CAASPP test 2016-17 results. As stated. National did not provide sufficient time for true multi year data to be applied such as the 2016-17 Spring MAP results or the 2016-17 CAASPP results, but forged ahead with the revocation without valid multi year data to compare student achievement growth.

Update of Status of Resolution of Pay Back of Tax Benefit - Exhibit A - Page 14

Beacon had explained to National the process involved in addressing the misclassification of substitute or temporary workers as independent contractors which consequently resulted in an alleged violation. This cure required legal advice and professional consulting, and a timeline for the cure to be completed. This was not new information.

Further Clarification on SAGE Report Restrictions - Exhibit A

National had copies of the Charter Vision Reports which were aligned to our bank statements showing that the voided checks had never been cashed. To further prove that, copies of voided checks were provided, but National contended that some voided checks had “voided” written in a different handwriting. Beacon explained that because they were carbon copies, if a person wrote too lightly, it needed to be rewritten. Unfortunately the stop payments placed on those checks to prove that those checks could never be cashed were no longer available because the bank had merged with a new bank. Beacon reissued new stops. This was done to satisfy National once and for all time.

Repayment Schedule Ignored - Exhibit A, Page 25

A board approved repayment schedule was approved on 4/11/17 with the first payment beginning in May. By May 8, National assumed no payment had been made but in fact the first payment had already been made.

City and District Communication - Exhibit A, Page 25

There were many instances of communication between the City and National regarding Beacon. Whereas National could have used that relationship with the City to garner support for Beacon’s facility challenge, National did not.

National’s Unprofessional Conduct - Exhibit A - Page 26

National was aware that Beacon had legal counsel; attorneys had spoken at Board meetings, and the Beacon Board agendas and minutes stated that Beacon had closed board meetings with legal counsel. The Executive Director invited the National School Board to tour Beacon, not the attorney. National brought their attorney without informing Beacon’s attorney in violation of

Page 7

Beacon Classical Academy Rebuttal to National School District’s Opposition of Appeal of Revocationof Beacon Classical Academy Charter


the Rules of Professional Conduct. During the tour as noted, the Superintendent and the attorney left the guided tour and went on their own tour, this too was unprofessional conduct.

National Misrepresents and Refuses to Accept Information - Exhibit A - Page 26

National stood before its Board at the revocation board meeting and before the County Board to persuade an affirmative vote to revoke or uphold the revocation by alleging the use of religious curriculum. The room was not a classroom, the books were not being used. An explanation letter of Beacon’s due diligence in vetting all books and of the church using the facility was provided to National as a defense and as a possible reason for those two books found in the resource room [Appeal to the State (c.) page 152].

National Blocked Funding From Beacon - Exhibit A - Page 27

During its first year, Beacon reminded National’s finance department that according to the MOU, in lieu of tax funds were supposed to be transferred every month by the 15th beginning in August of the school year. However, Beacon did not receive these funds until October 23, 2015 when a $44,907.00. The next payment of $113, 815.00 to Beacon did not occur until June 28, 2016 via auditors transfer. On October 11, 2016 of the second year, Beacon again requested from NSD the in lieu tax funds that should have been paid beginning on August 15th, but did not receive a response until October 24, 2016. NSD transferred $37,647 on October 25, 2016 for the months of August through October. Monthly transfers began on November 15, 2016, which is 4 months late according to the MOU and Ed Code 47635 requirements [State Appeal (b) Page 714].

National Rejects Beacon’s Proposal to Self Close - Exhibit A - Page 28

Beacon gave National an opportunity to let Beacon self close if they didn’t reach certain benchmarks, but National rejected the proposal [State Appeal Section (b) Pages 483-487].

Not Providing Sufficient Opportunity to Remedy Violations - Exhibit A - Page 28

National set the timelines. It was explained to National that Beacon needed more time to remedy the tax benefit payback, for a board approved payback schedule to be completed, and to prove academic achievement.

Alleging Financial Mismanagement After Proven Wrong - Exhibit A - Page 28

Beacon’s former audits proved there was no fiscal mismanagement.

Using Invalid Comparisons as a Basis for Revocation - Exhibit A - Pages 28 and 29

National dismissed our explanations as to why the two charters had different populations. At NSDB meetings Beacon also explained the differences. An authorizer can not use another

Page 8



charter authorized by another district to compare scores as a weightiest premise for the revocation of its charter. This is unlawful.

Alleging Beacon Used an Unsafe Building - Exhibit A - Page 30

The safety of the building was a non-issue. There were minor issues to address, but the building was never unsafe for use. But the Superintendent used this argument as one of the reasons for the NSDB to revoke and for the County to uphold the revocation.

Ignoring “Force Majeure” Clause in MOU - Exhibit A - Page 30

Just like Beacon was expected to know and follow the Memoranda of Understanding Between National School District and Beacon Classical Academy National City (“MOU”), National was also obliged to know and follow what it required. National would not accept any violation remedies that were in progress.

1. Lack of Student Achievement and Performance.

National claims that it closely monitored the academic achievement and performance of Beacon but does not give examples of how they did that. Did they request our testing schedule? No. Did they request the data after each testing period to analyze it? No. Additional data was requested prior to March 16, 2017 and National was informed that as soon as the testing was completed and the analysis was completed, it would be provided, but National criticized Beacon for providing it and raw data that accompanied it. In fact, National displayed a slide at the May 8, 2017 NSDB meeting of Beacon’s raw data with the words “More Confusing Data From Beacon” written across it [State Appeal Section (b) Page 786].

National continued to misunderstand the document we called a Strategic Plan. Its purpose was to align professional development with teaching practices. If National wanted a specific type of strategic plan that targeted student proficiency levels with timelines then National could have requested one with an example of what they had in mind.

2. Consideration of Increases in Student Academic Achievement and Performance as the Most Important Issue

If National was truly aware that it needed to consider increases in student achievement and performance as the most important issue then why did it dismiss the MAP results, use the wrong conversions charts to extrapolate future CAASPP results, and then not wait for the preliminary CAASPP 2017 results to make valid comparisons between two years of data?

Beacon appreciates any and all feedback to improve its practices. The instructional audit was helpful but with all the other audits requiring their own list of documents, and the lack of a suitable learning facility, it was difficult to fully appreciate all the information nor was National

Page 9


accs-dec17item04 Attachment 5

Page 10 of 16

able to offer any support on how to use the information. Beacon had a lot more information to share about its instructional program but was unable to provide beyond the minimum requested documents for reasons of inaccessibility to the red-tagged building. The site visits that were used to inform the instructional practices were flawed. The first unannounced visit occurred during and right before lunch time. Student textbooks were not visible. Beacon could have provided an inventory of the quantity of all the textbooks and supplemental curriculum, not just the names of textbooks that National requested. The second announced visit occurred on Beacon’s first day in a temporary site with all students, transitional kinder through eighth grade, housed in a gymnasium. Teachers and students were trying adjust to the new setting, and limited furniture caused several grades to be combined.

National states that it used the 2014-15 CAASPP as a baseline, the data from the independent study charter that was authorized under another district. As stated before, the independent study charter had a different population. The socioeconomic level of the students was higher, less Title 1 students. A comparison between these two charters is invalid and is noncompliant with Education Code 47607(c)(1)(C). This data cannot be used as the most important issue or reason to revoke their charter. Had National used two years of data from their own charter, then their argument would crumble because their charter demonstrated an increase in student achievement school-wide in ELA and Math and across subgroups.

NWEA MAP does not provide the subgroup breakdowns, Beacon breaks down its own data. Breaking down data into subgroups is new to Beacon. The breakdowns Beacon provided were pertinent to the charter goals regarding student growth for students at grade level and students below grade level, and English language learners. Beacon’s population was primarily 90% Hispanic and 68.4% Title 1, and 57% English language learners, the other subgroups were basically insignificant in number.

Beacon did, however, breakdown the preliminary 2017 CAASPP data, which included Title 1 (Economic Disadvantaged), English Language Learners, Female, Male, and Hispanic, and compared the results to the 2015-16 CAASPP results, Beacon’s first year as a classroom-based program. This was a fair comparison that demonstrated growth across all these subgroups.

3. Fiscal Mismanagement

Beacon contracted with CSMC, an experienced Back Office provider. As noted, National has a highly streamlined finance program, but CSMC contracts with a different payroll company. There’s payroll checks, checks issued by CSMC, and two different types of school checks. Then there’s the SAGE report that does not allow changes once information is uploaded into the system. But all the finance information with details are provided in the Charter Vision Report and Beacon’s financial statements.

Page 10



Page 11 of 16

4. Other Arguments Raised in Beacon’s Appeal

National withheld the in lieu of taxes for 14 months, SB 740 was blocked because National would not provide a letter of good standing, and training for EL Achieve, a research-based English language program, recommended by National who has certified trainers, but National denied training for Beacon. An inquiry into EL Achieve began in November right after the instructional audit. National had highly recommended EL Achieve and had the certified trainers. The company stated [State Appeal Section (b) Pages 1019-1020] they would not be able to train Beacon until the Spring, but would inquire if National could train Beacon so that Beacon could begin implementing the program. Beacon’s Executive Director followed up with the Assistant Superintendent of Instruction and with the Language Director, neither said they knew why Beacon were denied the training.

Whereas National states that Beacon “did not have the understanding or ability to effectively operate a charter school,” the same could be said about National’s ability to provide oversight. Their other charter has been operating for 15 years, but National forgot how to support a new charter or doesn’t remember how the first charter also had growing pains. Beacon knows the founding charter members of the first charter, who have shared about their start up challenges with National.

B. The District Satisfied All Procedural Requirements Applicable to the Revocation Process.

Beacon requests that the State please weigh the facts objectively. National claims that it met all the requirements related to the underlying charter revocation but Beacon has offered significant arguments for reasonable doubt of the validity of the evidence offered by National as well as evidence for procedural errors. If consideration of increases in student achievement among school-wide and for numerically significant subgroup populations is the most important factor in whether to revoke the charter, then the revocation is not merited.

Seventeen procedural issues committed by National were listed by Beacon. Beacon will address National’s denial of these errors.

1. “Concealing Vital Information.”

Beacon was concerned about the safety of its students. The restroom incident occurred in October and the Executive Director was not informed until December. Neither of two ladies that work in the front office recall being informed. The secretary stated that the Superintendent had only asked her where the adult restrooms were and what was the restroom protocol for visitors. The Assistant Superintendent of Finance visited the school the same week of the incident. He did not report to the office nor did he greet any staff member. He attended Beacon’s morning assembly. After the assembly he left with the parents. This visit was witnessed by the Executive Director. While he was there he took pictures. After the February 21, 2017 Beacon Board meeting, he showed the Executive Director a picture of a male teacher he had taken at

Page 11



Page 12 of 16

the assembly whom he confirmed he saw exiting the boys restroom. This was four months later. Why did National withhold this information that was pertinent to the curing or explanation of an alleged violation?

2. “Declining to Provide Audience to Clarify Concerns.”

The goal of the requesting an audience was to clarify National’s concerns through dialogue. Beacon parents and staff did not feel that National was listening to them. As previously stated, on November 15, Beacon requested a meeting to clarify the financial concerns [State Appeal Section (b) Pages 684-686] but National’s Assistant Superintendent of Finance did not attend the meeting, consequently no discussion of the finances ensued.

3. “Refusing to Provide Services.”

To reiterate, National recommended the EL Achieve program for Beacon to use. Beacon sought out the materials, but training was not available until the Spring. The company called National asking for National’s certified trainers to train Beacon, but National refused [State Appeal Section (b) Pages 1019-1020].

4. “Not providing reasonable opportunity to Remedy Alleged Academic Violations.” Academic violations

How could Beacon show growth if National dismissed the Winter MAP two year assessment comparisons, did not wait for Spring MAP assessments nor for the 2016-17 CAASPP preliminary results in order to make valid two-year comparisons of student achievement?

5. “Not Providing Reasonable Opportunity to Remedy an Alleged Violation.” There were many alleged violations that served as distractors. Some were quick to fix, others required research and depended on external agencies to obtain information and/or services such as the payback of benefit taxes for the independent contractors.

6. “Rejecting a Cure and Then Not Providing Reasonable Opportunity to Remedy the “Alleged Violation to the (the District’s) Satisfaction.”

National required payback for the cost of materials purchased to remedy a facility problem and for the repayment of services rendered for the labor to the fix the issue. This project occurred over a year ago, this person had already paid the taxes on his earnings which included the materials as earnings though he did not earn any money from the materials. The materials were purchased at retail price, and he should have been allowed to collect the reimbursement for those materials since the materials stayed with the school. He requested that the board allow him pay back the money on a monthly schedule so as to lessen the financial impact. The board approved a payback schedule.

Page 12



Page 13 of 16

7. “Ignoring the Approved Repayment Schedule and Alleging that No Payment Had Been Made.”

In continuation, the Board approved a plan to allow the person to pay back the money (materials and labor) by monthly installments. National ignored the board approved schedule and alleged that no payments had been made. This accusation was unfounded.

8. “Totaling Checks for Payback Incorrectly.”

National made an error calculating the amount of the payback. Regardless of whether it was small or large, it was still an error.

9. “Not Accepting a Successful Audit Report from the Year Alleged Financial Mismanagement Occurred.”

With the books balanced and no concerns expressed from the auditors why did National perseverate on alleging financial mismanagement after evidence was provided otherwise?

10. “Misrepresenting Future CAASPP Projections.”

National’s rebuttal is a denial of their actions either purposely deceive or admit they made an error. Beacon can accept an apology for a mistake, but is deeply disappointed with National’s refusal to admit an error or worse, a purposeful deception.

11. “Comparing Scores from Two Different Charter School.”

Once again National is unwilling to accept this major error that of comparing two different charters. The differences include: programs - independent study versus classroom-based, student populations, specially income level. Regarding the “failed petition” that National referred to is the identical petition that was submitted to both Escondido and National. National voted unanimously to accept this so called “failed petition.” This petition was meticulously reviewed and edited by two law firms, National’s Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost and Beacon’s law firm, Young, Minney, & Corr.

12. “Misrepresentation of Fact” - Oversight Visits.

It’s important to begin with the truth in order to move forward in the right direction. As stated Beacon contracted with National for special education services, communication between National’s special education staff and Beacon regarding services and testing of special education students is expected, but this is not oversight. When National’s special education teacher could not add the special education students in the CAASPP system, he contacted National for help, but it was Beacon that contacted CALPADS to resolve the problem.

Page 13



Page 14 of 16

13. “Misrepresentation of Facts” - Ongoing Brown Act Violations.

What seemed like to National like ongoing Brown Act Violation was not the case. Agendas were posted within the appropriate times. When National did not receive the agendas at the same time as the posting, explanations were provided for those instances, or when a typographical error occurred on the agenda heading, the paragraph below had the correct date. Nevertheless, Beacon re-voted on the items at the following meeting in case someone missed the former meeting due to the date confusion.

14. “Alleging that (Beacon is) a Religious School.”

Beacon demonstrated that its curriculum was not religious. The challenge is leasing from a church. Church members or other religious organizations that also rent the rooms in the evening or on weekends sometimes leave their items behind. The school is careful to remove these items and screen all book donations. Nevertheless, teachers check their bookcases periodically to ensure that no religious books have found their way into the classroom bookshelves [Appeal to the State (c.) page 152]. Yet somehow two religious books ended up in a room not accessible to the students. The room has extra copies of books, and the room is used for special education services, but the special education teachers to allow their students to take any of the books from that room. This was explained to National, but National used this incident to cast doubt on Beacon. There was never any religious entanglement in Beacon’s program as National agendized.

15. “Allegation that the Charter School Facility was ‘Unsafe.’”

The accusation that the building was unsafe is false. If the building was unsafe it would have been red-tagged for being unsafe since the previous year. Even when the building was red-tagged in November 2016, the designation was a mistake as verified by the engineer’s report but if the building was “unsafe” then the City was wrong for not allowing the owner to rectify the issue in a timely manner to promote safety.

16. “(The District) Brings (Its) Own Attorney to Beacon for a School Visit.”

National knew Beacon had legal counsel, attorneys had spoken at the Board meetings, and it Beacon Board agendas and minutes confirmed that Beacon had closed board meetings with legal counsel. The Executive Director had only invited the Board to tour. National brought their attorney without informing Beacon’s attorney in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. During the tour as noted, the Superintendent and the attorney left the guided tour and went on their own tour.

Page 14



Page 15 of 16

17. “Continuing the Revocation Process During the Time that Beacon was ‘Homeless.’”

National and its law firm had a major role in drafting the MOU, the clause “force majeure” was not new information. Both Beacon and National were expected to know the MOU contents and follow the MOU. When Beacon shared the stress related illnesses the staff was experiencing, National did not respond with compassion. When Beacon shared how extraordinarily problematic the loss of their facility was, National quibbled over the exact dates of the homelessness. Yes, there were holidays during the time frame, but all of Beacon’s documents, curriculum, and supplies were locked up inside the building. Not having access to their building created a severe hardship.

III. Conclusion

Did National School District demonstrate fair treatment and support towards their charter when they neglected their oversight responsibilities, withheld and blocked funding, and when they ignored the MOU clauses such as force majeure when their charter was homeless?

The argument is strong that National made several procedural errors: making invalid comparisons between two separate charters, dismissing student achievement growth, not providing information or support to cure a violation in a timely manner, not providing sufficient time to cure violations, and refusing to accept the evidence when it was presented in a variety of ways. With the release of 2017 CAASPP resutls, Beacon has definenately shown an increase in student achievement school-wide and across the main subgroups, despite the challenges Beacon faced which were unprecedented. Beacon anticpates that the last two violations will be resolved within the next 30 days. These were the ones that were in progress, the repayment of alleged conflict of interest and of the tax benefits of the alleged misclassified independent contractors.

There comes a time to retract one’s opinions for the love of truth. To admit error overrides one’s ability to reject the truth or logic of an argument, and releases the other party from contempt. Otherwise no matter how progressive we become, we remain backwards in our ways, if we ignore our mistakes. Being willing to admit mistakes, accept responsibility, and make amends is a starting point for both Beacon and National.

In a healthy relationship between two parties there is what is known as giving the other party the “benefit of the doubt.” By having a nonjudgmental attitude, a bridge to effective communication is extended, giving each other room to grow. A healthy relationship requires good faith, a commitment to see the good and seek the good of another. Good faith begins with trust, trust grows in small increments. Trust will develop if one does not despise small beginnings, but celebrates the tiniest advancements.

Page 15


accs-dec17item04Attachment 5

Page 16 of 16

Both Beacon and National are learning organizations, who can grow beyond these misunderstandings and errors, and begin to trust one another. When the focus on why they are in the “educating kids” business, the conclusion is that they have more in common than not. There’s a lot of things they could have done instead, but they chose to lay a foundation of basic knowledge, to nurture, to cultivate, to counsel, to inspire and to enlighten young minds who will grow up to accomplish more that what they could ever do. That’s the common goal.

Beacon has a strong desire to work with National to complete their charter term. This year would have been Beacon’s third year. Unfortunately, this year was lost, Beacon is hoping to still redeem the second half, but Beacon still has two full years left. The entire Beacon community has suffered an incalculable loss and needs affirmation, everyone from the youngest to eldest worked hard and gave their best in pursuit of the Beacon vision. They need to have their faith restored in the public education system, and its checks and balances that promote fair treat and support. Your support of Beacon Appeal would greatly help towards making the Beacon community whole.

Sincerely,

Alma D. Van Nice, Ed.D, Executive Director, 125 N. Palm Ave. National City, CA., 91950 Phone: (619) 477-1399 Cell: (619) 931-9722 Fax: (619) 477-1354 [email protected]

Page 16

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Re: Beacon Classical Academy National City’s Rebuttal to ... · kitchen upgrade permit for a lunch program, a permit for a fence, and another permit for a ramp, and Beacon was prepared