Amador County – The Amador County Unified School District board of trustees voted 5-0 Wednesday to deny a petition for a charter by the Foothill Charter School, with independent analyses finding dozens of legal insufficiencies.
Superintendent Dick Glock in a report to Trustees requested denial of the application because a “review of the three independent analyses reveals numerous insufficiencies.”
The petition was denied on 53 legal insufficiencies, Glock said, and the Foothill Charter School, led by local parent Ramona Longero must decide its next steps. The Foothill group was given a matrix and results of the analyses, which showed them how to improve and correct the petition.
Glock in the report said three independent reviewers analyzed the Foothill Charter School petition. The agencies were the San Joaquin County Charter School Authorizing Consortium, School Services of California, and the school district’s law firm of Girard Edwards & Hance. He said each agency “regularly reviews charter petitions,” and the San Joaquin Consurtium has reviewed hundreds of petitions over many years.
The Foothill petition was presented Nov. 10 by Longero and six others, and the school board was required to grant or deny the petition within 60 days.
Glock submitted and the board approved a resolution denying the petition. The draft resolution said the “board hereby finds the petition not to be consistent with sound educational practice.”
The resolution said Foothill Charter School’s petition “presents an unsound educational program for the pupils,” and petitioners are “unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth.”
The analyses found legal bases for denying the petition, based on the San Joaquin Consortium’s “standard approval measures,” including that the petition “does not contain the necessary assurances for a successful operation.” It also did “not propose a coherent academic program and student assessment system,” and did not “propose a governance and administrative structure that will support student and organizational success.”
The petition lacked a “a reasonable facilities plan” and a financial information. It also made “enrollment estimates that are likely to be too high,” and “unreasonable assumptions” regarding receipt of state charter program grants. It also failed to “adequately identify the facilities needed for its operations.”
Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
