Getting Half The Job Done

“Criterion 3: Is the charter school serving all pupils who wish to attend, or does the charter school have substantial fiscal or governance issues? (Ed. Code, § 47607(e).) These criteria have been determined not to be bases for denial.”

–LAUSD Charter School Division

In its marketing, Ivy Bound Academy promotes the charter school as a “first stop” on the way to Harvard. With the academic performances listed on the California School’s Dashboard, it looks like the trip has been abandoned for most of Ivy’s students. The school is rated in the Red (very low) for English Language Arts and the Orange (low) for Mathematics. Even worse, the performance declined in both categories from the previous year showing a school on the wrong trajectory.

In comparison, the LAUSD is rated in the Yellow (medium) for both categories, with increasing performance. Van Nuys Middle School, the closest middle school to Ivy, performed in line with the District as a whole with its performance also showing improvement.

Another issue highlighted by the Academic Dashboard is the fact that a third of the students are chronically absent, a problem that grew worse over the previous year. Both the LAUSD as a whole and Van Nuys Middle School had a rate of around 23%, which is still a problem but shows better performance than the charter school. The rate for both LAUSD and the middle school improved over the previous year.

Given what the data shows about academic performance, it is not surprising that the Charter School Division recommended that the Board deny Ivy Bound’s request to renew its charter. Unfortunately, in doing so they ignored evidence that Ivy Bound is engaging in behavior that manipulates the demographic makeup of the school. I addressed my concerns in public comment before the Board voted on the denial:

I detailed issues with Ivy Bound Academy's website in an email to the Charter School Division on December 31, 2024. Ignoring the requirements of its charter, parents were not being notified that the electronic application could be completed in person at the school. They were also not informed that all students are admitted unless there are more applications than spaces.

How closely is the Charter School Division paying attention to the schools it oversees if it misses these overt failures to follow the terms of the charter? As of this morning, some changes have been made to the website, but it is still not in full compliance.

These requirements were meant to ensure that all students have equal access to the school and that the school is not manipulating the demographics of its student body. The school’s refusal to comply and the Charter School Division’s failure to provide proper oversight have resulted in a student body with a lesser percentage of students of color than the closest LAUSD middle school and the District as a whole. The same is true for students with Special Education needs and those who are economically disadvantaged. Ivy Bound also has a lesser percentage of English Language learners than the LAUSD. 51.1% of its students are white compared to just 5.9% at the closest LAUSD School.

The school deliberately markets the screening of students from at-risk communities. In a promotional video, the principal brags that “the special thing about our school is that you have to apply and go through the lottery system.”

Despite the demographics and the failure to follow the terms of the charter, the Charter School Division has determined that this is not a basis for denial. While I agree that the charter should not be renewed, I also ask that its failure to include all students be listed as a reason.

None of the Board members were driven to ask questions after my presentation. In fact, there was no discussion before the Board voted unanimously to deny the petition. Even Nick Melvoin, who has a history of approving charter schools that are failing academically and defending operators that are embezzling public funds voted against this charter school. Perhaps they neglected to donate to his ill-fated Congressional campaign.

While having one less failing charter school operating is a good thing (assuming the unelected Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) and state bureaucrats do not overturn the decision), the failure to call out the demographic manipulation sends a signal to other charter schools that this behavior is acceptable. It is bad enough when the previous iteration of the School Board approved Citizens of the World, another example of a White Flight Charter School. It was hoped that this Board would do better.

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.