Not all charter proposals are alike; here’s where Promise Academy went wrong

During the 13 years I have served as a trustee for the San Jose Unified School District I have voted to approve charter applications, including Downtown College Prep, ACE, Sunrise and a conversion of Bachrodt to a charter school. But not all charter schools are the same. The board recently voted to deny a charter school application, but it was not a pro-or anti-charter decision.

As a trustee, I am obligated to ensure that the proposal meets the legal requirements established by the state education code. After reviewing the application, it was my opinion and that of the majority of my fellow trustees to deny the petition of Promise Academy.

This was not an easy decision. Nor was it one that I arrived at without doing my homework. I personally read the extensive application submitted by the charter school applicant. We reviewed the recommendations made by the school district’s attorney and by a third-party reviewer. Additionally, we listened to more than six hours of public testimony and presentations by the founder of Promise Academy.

First, state law requires that the petitioner include provisions for educating students with special needs. This component was missing from the Promise Academy application except to indicate that they would be relying on San Jose Unified to provide these services. Second, there was no provision for helping students for whom English is a second language. Given that this was their target population, this caused concern as to how the school would improve educational outcomes for all of its students.

Another issue was the requirement that in order for a student to receive a diploma, they had to be accepted into a four-year university. This puts the student’s diploma under the control of a third party rather than a student’s academic performance, as well as outside of many students’ financial capabilities.

Additionally, the charter school mandated that students take six Advanced Placement courses in their junior and senior years. While laudable goals, they may not be in the best interest of every student. As the parent of a college student, I know how much stress AP classes cause. All students should be encouraged to take AP classes, but requiring six classes causes undo stress to these students. Some students who need to get a job may find it difficult to maintain grades in this number of AP courses.

This is not the end of Promise Academy’s application. They could take the feedback they received from us, modify their application and bring it back to us. As I indicated publicly, with certain changes, I would be willing to support this charter. Or they could submit it to the Santa Clara County Board of Education for their consideration.

This was a long, difficult process. As a school district, we realize that we need to provide charter applicants with a checklist and process for each submission. We are in the process of creating such a document and expect it to be submitted to the school board in August. Going forward, this will alleviate some of the frustrations on both sides.

Finally, I recognize the need for charter schools to provide students and parents with options. I believe an open dialog between charter operators and local school districts is beneficial for all.

We all have the same goal: providing our students with the skills they need to pursue their dreams.