[NSD, Feb. 5] – Superior Court Judge James Chalfant determined today that he has no jurisdiction to proceed further in Newhall School District’s case against Acton Agua Dulce Unified School District (AADUSD) and the Albert Einstein Academy (AEA)-SCV Charter School.
The Newhall School District was declared the prevailing party in the judge’s October 9, 2014 ruling, but the district believes that judge erred when he allowed Albert Einstein Academy’s charter school to continue operating within NSD boundaries without a validly approved charter. Instead, he directed the charter to be properly approved by AADUSD. Consequently, NSD filed an appeal of the judge’s original ruling.
Judge Chalfant’s decision today is consistent with NSD’s argument that the Superior Court could not take any action to “extend” AEA’s operations at the former Pinecrest School. The judge declined a request by AADUSD and AEA to extend AEA-SCV’s current operation, validate its charter or validate the new “STEAM” charter petition submitted late last year by AEA and approved by the AADUSD board at its Jan. 8, 2015 public hearing.
All of this leaves the status of AEA-SCV in serious question. Last October, the court told AADUSD and AEA that the school could continue operating despite its invalid charter, but only until Feb. 5, 2015 while school officials attempted to fix the invalid charter. The fact that the court has not taken action to extend the school’s operations beyond Feb. 5 casts considerable doubt on the legitimacy of the school’s operations and its future.
It is notable that, late last month, a superior court in San Diego County ruled that under facts similar to the AEA-SCV issue an AEA charter approved by the Alpine Union School District for operation in the San Diego Unified School District (Endeavour Academy) was invalid and required the AEA schools operating under the invalid charter to close. In its appeal, NSD will ask the court to require the same immediate closure of AEA-SCV due to its illegal operations within NSD boundaries.
“We are relieved by the court’s decision today, and continue to hope for a final resolution that upholds the sanctity of the law and is in the best interests of students and families in both AADUSD and Newhall School District,” said Michael Shapiro, president of the NSD governing board.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Tweet This
Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
RSS
REAL NAMES ONLY: All posters must use their real individual or business name. This applies equally to Twitter account holders who use a nickname.
25 Comments
I am sure district people aren’t happy. But, it is pretty awful to close down a school in the middle of a school year. Think of the children. It’s not their fault.
I am sure district people aren’t happy. But, it is pretty awful to close down a school in the middle of a school year. Think of the children. It’s not their fault.
Tony Ressler
Tony Ressler
All it means is that he can’t rule on it any further since NSD is appealing his initial decision. It’s in the appellate court now and he has no jurisdiction anymore.
All it means is that he can’t rule on it any further since NSD is appealing his initial decision. It’s in the appellate court now and he has no jurisdiction anymore.
Anne Marie
Anne Marie
BTW this is a press release from NSD that SCVTV is posting. They spin it how they like.
BTW this is a press release from NSD that SCVTV is posting. They spin it how they like.
This is completely inaccurate and irresponsibly misleading. The truth is that the Newhall School District appealed the judge’s ruling BEFORE he actually rendered the ruling. Therefore, he informed all parties that he could no longer rule on the case. It is in the hands of the appellate court to either rule or send back to the judge. A “stay put” is in place until any ruling is made, meaning AEA continues to operate under the existing charter.
Wow. That headline is so not the reality of the situation. Absolutely a NSD misinterpretation. Thank you Chris Dunne for providing the facts for those who won’t read the real news on the situation.
Wow. That headline is so not the reality of the situation. Absolutely a NSD misinterpretation. Thank you Chris Dunne for providing the facts for those who won’t read the real news on the situation.
What a waste of time and money. At the same time other local school districts are announcing open enrollment. School choice will be the norm soon. And here is NSD spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and putting out misleading press releases.
So let me see if I understand this…
1. AEA was issued a charter.
2. NSD spent thousands of dollars suing.
3. The verdict at that time was not that the charter was invalid, but that it had a issue.
4. A judge said there was an issue that needed to be addressed, and it was.
5. This judge says he and the previous judge had no jurisdiction in the matter.
Then there is no question that the charter remains valid.
In the mean time the NSD and the unions lobbying to change the laws to keep public schools a monopoly instead of an oligopoly as defined by the laws was rightfully vetoed by the governor.
To paraphrase Neil Armstrong said, this is one small step for families, and one giant leap for mankind.
God bless the USA, freedom of choice and the ability to send our children to schools that value education over politics.
Since when does a public relations press release become a lead story? SCVNews, Please fact check before running a purported news story or put this in the opinion section where it belongs.
I fail to see how Shapiro sees this as “….in the best interests of students and families in both AADUSD and Newhall school district.” It’s NSD’s best interest. Period. Students and families benefit from more choices and, furthermore, schools become better for it in the long run. It’s a shameless and transparent attempt to monopolize.
So let me clarify this for you…
1. AEA filed a charter illegally with the help of AAUSD.
2. Newhall has not spent any money fighting this. Because Newhall was the prevailing party, AAUSD is responsible for the legal fees.
3. The verdict allowed the school to refile the charter legally…which was not done correctly, yet again.
4. The judge informed Einstein early on that there was a possibility of closure midyear and that they should take that into consideration when beginning the school year. Einstein chose to open under those conditions.
5. The appeal should support NSD as the violations were obvious and flagrant.
6. Unions do not oppose charter schools. In fact, there is a large movement by CTA to organize charter school teachers. Many charters are mismanaged and teachers and students get the brunt of that misuse of funds.
My interpretation of Neil Armstrong…One small step for an outstanding school district, and one giant leap in showing our kids that acting illegally has consequences.
The only reaaon NSD has an issue with AEA is clearly for monetary reasons. They want the $ for each Aea student. Nothing more. If AEA closes down, I will pay for private school…Pretty sad they are willing to disrupt my childs school year
By trying to close down the school. NSD doesnt care about the children, only the money..sad.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. You’re willing and able to pay for private school, but you don’t. Instead you send your child to a public school that behaves like a private school. It does not recruit students from our impoverished Latino communities. It likes to talk about minority enrollment, but a preponderance of its minority enrollment is middle-class Asian, not lower-income Latino. Want proof? Compare the Latino enrollment and the impoverished enrollment of Einstein vs. the Newhall School District. (Also, compare test scores between the Newhall School District and the Acton-Agua Dulce district. You might be surprised.) Upshot? I am not willing to spend my tax dollars on your child’s private-school education.
Mr. Worden. In California, public school funding follows the student, with the funding going to the public school the parents choose, whether a charter school or a traditional district school. Also Albert Einstein has a lottery to accept students and by law it does not discriminate. Unbelievably you want to shut down a school because you cannot count enough “lower-income Latino” to your liking. I do not want Newhall School District, that has a monopoly in the area, using our tax dollars to shut down this very popular charter school mid year.
If you want to be surprised, compare test score between AEA High and any other around here, or any in the state, – they use a lottery system for enrollment. Also, you pay your tax dollars to support the Postal Service, and then still chose to pay extra to use UPS when it suits you, due to superior benefits to you, and those recipients you value. I wish we weren’t forced to support your child’s government school education.
All excellent points that demonstrate to me the clear need to file a civil rights action. The “academics” argument is specious in this instance because withdrawing a child who lives in Newhall, Valencia or Saugus from his or her local school district and enrolling in Einstein involves transfering the child from one of the top-performing school districts in the state – Newhall and Saugus – to a district with lower test scores (Acton-AD). So when you remove the “academics” argument, all that’s left is class and race. Or more particularly, economic status and ethnicity. Fortunately there are laws that compel schools to mirror the economic status and ethnicity of the community in which they’re located, which Einstein does not. The charter law was written as a way to improve the education of inner-city children where school districts are failing – which is the opposite of the case here. The lottery system probably works in South-Central Los Angeles, but even a lawyer with a charter school education could demonstrate that by failing to reach out to Spanish-speaking parents in lower-income neighborhoods, the lottery system violates the Civil Rights Act *in this case.* Luckily the law doesn’t require a demonstration of disparate intent, only disparate impact. In other words, there’s no need to debate whether there has been malice on anyone’s part; rather, the numbers will speak for themselves. As for our tax dollars supporting public education, that’s the price of living in a nation of laws and civil liberties. Those who don’t like it might want to consider moving to a country that has no sense of civic pride or social responsibility. There certainly are plenty from which to “choose.”
No, all that is left is values, and not all parents value education the same. Leon, I salute you for being so willing not only to express your views but to allow other to do the same. You are so intelligent, but I can’t follow all you say – you may feel the same about me. My guess is that our points are a reflection of a divergence much more foundational. As Dennis Prager says, the Left has a trinity of sorts: Race, Gender, Class. This was not the American trinity of the Founders, which was, and should remain, E Pluribus Unum, Liberty, and In God We Trust. Even as recent as MLK – who said he did not want his children given special privilege due to their race/ethnicity, but rather he wanted them judged only by their character.
Dare I say Amen? I don’t see how you can mock charter school educated lawyers while knowing that AEA High School is ranked 24th in California which has 4,500 high schools. Numbers can indeed speak for themselves. Man’s laws and regulations are the left’s answer to everything because they need something to replace the chaos that comes from pretending eternal laws don’t exist. No amount of regulation is going to change a heart. Thanks for listening Leon, and for your responses, but I think my idea of America is much closer to the phenomenal original. E Pluribus Unum.
Thanks, Richard. I do fear what will happen if we create a system of haves and have-nots based on inequality of opportunity. And yes, the AEA lottery system is the dictionary definition of inequality of opportunity when nobody TELLS the lower-income Latino community that such an opportunity exists. (Yes, upper-income Latinos in this valley should know about it; they tend to read the paper or read this website and speak English. The inequality is socioeconomic, not ethnicity alone or language alone.) The problem we face, if parents withdraw their kids from their local public school system in droves — they tend to be higher-income parents — then there is less money funneling to the local school districts (I’m talking Newhall, Saugus here), leaving them with less money to hire the best teachers, as they do now, to teach the kids who are left behind. We end up with a class of less-educated graduates, or dropouts, who can’t get a good job and end up on the street and resort to crime. We pay now or we pay later; either way we pay. (Different but I suppose related topic: As for the “founders” and the “original,” you might know I love history, but I leave history, in which a slave was 3/5th of a person, in the past, where it belongs. Right or wrong, good or bad, we do not live in the world of 240 years ago, and frankly, I would not want to.)