The adversarial relationship between one in-town charter school and the local school district reared its head recently as the two sides again took swipes at one another over a proposal for a new school site.
Voices College-bound Language Academy, which has been operating out of a short-term lease agreement on the grounds of Advent Lutheran Church on Murphy Avenue, was supposed to go before the city council last month for consideration of establishing a permanent school on Juan Hernandez Drive.
That item was removed from the city’s Dec. 14 agenda at the request of the charter operators, but not before a back-and-forth in letter form between the two feuding entities.
“It has never been clear why the district would go out of its way to interfere with a school which welcomes the very population which the district has struggled so mightily to serve,” wrote Voices’ Chief Operating Officer Frances Teso in her Dec. 14 submission to the city council.
Furthermore, Teso stated Voices “is seeking to minimize its impact on the district by locating private facilities rather than district facilities under Prop. 39.”
Morgan Hill Unified Superintendent Steve Betando claimed the charter leaders violated an agreement they had with them and took exception to their proposal “to purchase a 3-acre portion of land located at Juan Hernandez Avenue, and owned by The Health Trust, to locate a public charter school that would eventually serve 505 students…”
“The charter school never advised the district, or fulfilled its legal duty to meet and confer with the district, over the district’s concerns or objections to its proposed purchase of the portion of the Health Trust Land,” wrote Betando in his Dec. 12 letter addressed to Mayor Steve Tate and the city council. He requested the council table the item for 30-45 days.
In her rebuttal letter to the city council, Teso claimed that Betando misinterpreted the agreement in place and that they are under no obligation to meet with district officials at this early stage in the land acquisition process.
“Your letter falsely claims that Voices had violated the settlement agreement by not meeting and conferring with the district regarding a potential private site,” Teso wrote. “Voices has not currently sought a (Conditional Use Permit) from the city regarding the relevant site, and as such has no obligation to meet and confer with the district regarding this site at the current time.”
Voices has been working with city staff to locate “several facilities options,” according to Teso. However, they still plan to seek an early determination on the Tennant/Juan Hernandez site from the city council in February.
“We are working with all stakeholders to come to the best decision for our students and families, and that will work with city plans and values,” Teso added.
Voices and MHUSD settled a facilities dispute in May 2016. That agreement kept the charter school operating out of its current location off Murphy Avenue with the installation of two portable classrooms to meet its growing enrollment needs. Each school year, the charter adds a grade level until eighth grade. MHUSD also made a $125,000 lump-sum payment to the charter, which agreed to drop its complaint and waive all rights to facilities for three years through the 2017-18 school year.
“Because the proposed site is adjacent to the district’s Barrett Elementary School, the district believes that the potential traffic impact of the proposed project must be studied and considered,” Betando continued in his letter. “At the very least, the charter school breached its legal obligation to meet and confer with the district…”
The two sides had been battling over facilities since Voices won its appeal with Santa Clara County’s Office of Education to open a Morgan Hill school in fall 2015 and filed an initial Prop 39 request with MHUSD. Under Prop 39, a local district must offer fair and equitable facilities to an incoming charter school as long as space is available and does not disrupt any of their existing programs.
“We will remain optimistic about our future discussions, however, even as the district appears eager to commence litigation even though Voices has yet confirmed the basic feasibility of the property as an alternative site,” Teso continued.
This is the first public spat since the agreement was finalized last year. A pair of parents of Voices students brought the conflict to light at the Dec. 13 school board meeting, one day before the city council meeting.
“I’m here to express my disappointment and sadness for the continual actions taken by the district to keep us from having a facility,” said Tanya Martinez, a Morgan Hill resident. “The relationship between Voices and the district thus far has been a bit contentious and we as parents are feeling picked on and a little bit harassed by the district and by at least one superintendent in particular.”
Martinez said district staff misled families living near Barrett Elementary School on the impact it would have as far as traffic congestion if Voices was allowed to build a new school in the same neighborhood.
“The letter mentions that there is going to be a lot of traffic issues because of the possible proximity of the schools. But we would like you to know that our current school is down the street from Nordstrom and there aren’t any issues so far,” added Martinez, who also asked for the district to work with rather than against Voices. “It’s real important to have your support.”
However, Voices has never garnered support from the MHUSD board, which denied its petition prior to the county board giving overriding approval. The district then denied Voices’ initial Prop 39 request, which was later pulled by the charter leaders who refiled their facilities request only to settle on a temporary private location.
“While Voices understands and appreciates the district’s concerns, Voices and the property owner must make a preliminary determination of feasibility before such an application can be prepared,” Teso wrote. “This leaves ample time for representatives of our school to meet with members of your (MHUSD) staff as contemplated in the agreement.”
