LAUSD Candidate Andreas Farmakalidis on PROP-39 Co-Locations

“I am an advocate for school choice, including charter schools and voucher programs.”

– BD3 Candidate Andreas Farmakalidis

Andreas Farmakalidis is running against incumbent Scott Schmerelson in LAUSD’s Board District 3, which covers most of the western San Fernando Valley. As part of my ongoing Candidate Forum series, Farmakalidis was asked five questions about PROP-39 co-locations. For the introduction to this subject along with answers from other candidates, please see the article LAUSD Candidate Forum: PROP-39 Co-Locations.

The following are the candidate's responses, printed exactly how he provided them with the exception of some minor formatting edits:

• Question 1: Do you support the "Creating a Charter Schools Co-Location Policy to Mitigate Impacts Caused by Proposition 39" authored by Board President Jackie Goldberg and Dr. Rocio Rivas? Yes

It's important to note that addressing complex issues like Prop 39 for LAUSD often requires nuanced perspectives, and a simple "yes" or "no" answer may not do justice to the intricacies involved. However, I'll do my best to provide concise responses while offering a more detailed explanation when necessary.

Charter schools, like any diverse group, do not have a uniform stance on Prop 39. Some charter schools may support it, as it can provide them with access to public school facilities, while others may oppose it due to concerns about resource allocation and the impact on traditional public schools. The opinions within the school community vary significantly depending on their specific circumstances and perspectives.

I support the "Creating a Charter Schools Co-Location Policy to Mitigate Impacts Caused by Proposition 39" authored by Board President Jackie Goldberg and Dr. Rocio Rivas. This policy aims to address the challenges posed by Proposition 39 and ensure that charter schools co-located on public school campuses do not negatively impact traditional public schools. It's crucial to strike a balance between charter schools' autonomy and the needs of the broader public school system, and this policy appears to be a step in the right direction.

I suggest considering the following amendments to Prop 39 for LAUSD:

Improved Transparency: Enhance transparency in the allocation of shared facilities, ensuring that all stakeholders have access to clear and up-to-date information on how space is allocated and utilized.

Equitable Resource Distribution: Implement measures to ensure that resources, including facilities and funding, are distributed equitably between traditional public schools and charter schools to prevent any undue advantage for either side.

Community Input: Establish a robust system for gathering input from the local community, including parents, teachers, and community leaders, to inform decisions regarding co-locations and facility allocations.

Performance Accountability: Develop clear performance metrics for both traditional public schools and charter schools co-located on the same campus, with a focus on educational outcomes and student achievement.

Conflict Resolution Mechanism: Create a fair and efficient mechanism for resolving disputes and conflicts that may arise between traditional public schools and charter schools sharing the same facilities.

Long-Term Planning: Encourage long-term planning for facility needs to minimize disruptions caused by frequent changes in co-locations and to ensure stable learning environments for students.

Impact Assessment: Conduct regular assessments to evaluate the impact of co-locations on the overall quality of education within the LAUSD, with the aim of making data-driven adjustments as needed.

These amendments would help strike a balance between the autonomy of charter schools and the needs of traditional public schools within LAUSD, ultimately benefiting the education of all students in the district.

To sum up: We should be addressing Prop 39 and its implications for LAUSD on a case-by-case basis. This approach allows for a more flexible and tailored response to the unique circumstances of each school and community, taking into account their specific needs and concerns. It can help strike a balance between accommodating charter schools and preserving the integrity of traditional public schools within the district

• Question 2: Under The way that PROP-39 is currently implemented, rooms used to provide Special Education Services are considered to be "empty" and must be turned over to a charter school to satisfy its demand for space. As a Board member would you work to end this discriminatory practice? Yes

Yes, I would absolutely work to end the discriminatory practice of considering rooms used for Special Education Services as "empty" under the current implementation of PROP-39. Every student, including those with special needs, deserves access to the resources and spaces necessary for their education. We must ensure that our policies prioritize inclusivity, equity, and support for all students within LAUSD, regardless of the school type they attend.

I would suggest the following amendments and solutions:

Revised Evaluation Criteria: Modify the evaluation criteria used to determine "empty" rooms to account for the specific needs of students receiving Special Education Services. Consider factors such as class size, specialized equipment, and accessibility requirements.

Special Education Consultation: Implement a mandatory consultation process between charter schools and LAUSD's Special Education Department to assess the impact of co-locations on special education programs. This would ensure that the needs of students with disabilities are considered in facility allocations.

Resource Allocation: Allocate additional resources and funding to support Special Education Services within LAUSD, recognizing the unique challenges and expenses associated with providing quality education to students with disabilities.

Facility Sharing Guidelines: Develop clear guidelines for sharing facilities that respect the requirements of Special Education Services, ensuring that these programs have the space and resources they need while accommodating charter schools' needs.

Community Input: Involve parents, teachers, and advocates for students with disabilities in the decision-making process regarding co-locations and facility use to ensure their concerns and perspectives are heard.

Regular Assessments: Conduct regular assessments to monitor the impact of co-locations on Special Education Services and make necessary adjustments to policies and practices to address any issues that may arise.

These amendments and solutions aim to safeguard the rights and educational opportunities of students with disabilities within LAUSD while maintaining a balanced approach to facility sharing with charter schools.

• Question 3: The text of PROP-39 specifies that charter schools that base their space requests on inflated enrollment must pay an over-allocation fee. Currently, charter schools have a past-due balance of $3,708,006. As a Board Member would you revoke the charter of any school that refused to pay these fees when a bill is presented? No

Revoking the charter of a school is a serious decision that should be made carefully and with consideration for the best interests of the students involved. While unpaid fees are a matter of concern, my approach as a Board Member would prioritize open dialogue and resolution rather than immediate revocation. I would work to engage with the charter schools to understand the reasons behind the unpaid fees and explore possible solutions, which may include payment plans or other measures to ensure financial responsibility. Ultimately, the goal is to find a fair and equitable resolution that doesn't disrupt the education of students who rely on these schools while upholding accountability for charter schools operating within LAUSD.

• Question 4: In April of last year $7,678,022 of over-allocation debt was suddenly wiped off of the balance sheet without any explanation to the public. As a Board Member would you demand an investigation to determine whether this write-off was legal and proper? Yes

Absolutely, as a Board Member, I would advocate for transparency and accountability in all financial matters concerning LAUSD. A sudden write-off of $7,678,022 in over-allocation debt without a clear explanation to the public raises valid concerns. I would indeed support and demand a thorough investigation to determine the legality and propriety of such an action. The public has a right to know how their resources are managed, and we must ensure that any financial decisions align with legal and ethical standards.

Transparency and accountability are fundamental principles that underpin the effective management of public funds within LAUSD. When a substantial write-off of over $7 million in over-allocation debt occurs without a clear and transparent explanation, it can understandably raise questions and concerns among the community, parents, and taxpayers.

As a Board Member, my commitment to ensuring the responsible stewardship of public resources would lead me to advocate for a comprehensive investigation into this matter. The investigation would serve several important purposes:

Legal Compliance: We need to determine whether the write-off was conducted in accordance with all relevant laws and regulations. Ensuring legal compliance is paramount to maintain public trust.

Financial Prudence: It's essential to assess whether this decision was financially prudent and whether it aligns with LAUSD's long-term financial goals and strategies.

Transparency and Accountability: LAUSD must be transparent about its financial decisions, particularly those that involve significant sums of money. The investigation should provide clarity and transparency to the public about the reasons behind this action.

Preventing Future Issues: By thoroughly investigating this write-off, we can identify any systemic issues or weaknesses in financial management processes that need addressing to prevent similar situations in the future.

Public Trust: Rebuilding and maintaining public trust is paramount. Demonstrating that LAUSD is willing to investigate such matters thoroughly can go a long way in reassuring the community that their concerns are taken seriously.

I firmly believe that such an investigation is in the best interest of LAUSD as it ensures fiscal responsibility, transparency, and accountability in managing the district's finances. It's crucial that the public has confidence in how their tax dollars are utilized for the betterment of education in the community.

1. Question 5: The North Valley Military Institute (NVMI) was co-located on the campus of Sun Valley High School / Valley Oaks Center For Enriched Studies (VOCES) when one of its administrators was accused of “abhorrent child sex abuse” against a student. It does not appear that parents of students on the public school campus were ever notified about these accusations. As a Board Member would you terminate the PROP-39 lease agreement for any charter school that put LAUSD students at a district campus in danger? No - see answer below

The safety and well-being of our students should always be our top priority. If a charter school, like the North Valley Military Institute (NVMI), is co-located on an LAUSD campus and poses a threat to the safety of district students, it's essential to take swift and appropriate action. As a Board Member, I would prioritize a thorough investigation of any such incidents and ensure that the safety protocols and accountability measures in place for charter schools are rigorous and effectively enforced.

While I believe in fostering partnerships with charter schools to expand educational opportunities, any instance where students are put in danger is unacceptable. The decision to terminate a PROP-39 lease agreement should be made on a case-by-case basis, following a thorough review of the circumstances and ensuring that the safety and welfare of LAUSD students are paramount. It is our responsibility to maintain a safe and nurturing learning environment for all students within the district.

The isolated incident at NVMI underscores the need for vigilance and accountability in co-locations. While maintaining partnerships with charter schools is valuable for expanding educational opportunities, we must never compromise on the safety of our students.

• Do you have any other thoughts that you would like to express about this subject?

I always talk about accountability - On the LAUSD Board, I would push for a rigorous assessment and accountability measures to ensure that students are receiving a high-quality education. I am an advocate for school choice, including charter schools and voucher programs. I am committed to expanding educational options for parents and students in District 3, including supporting charter school initiatives.

____________________________

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.