Unelected School Board Approves Charter School's Expansion
LACOE ignores First Amendment concerns and a lack of community impact data when voting to allow Lashon Academy to add a third campus.
“we were shocked with the baseless questions that arose regarding this separation of church and state.”
– Lashon Academy’s Josh Stock
The Los Angeles County Office of Education is one of the five county Boards of Education in the state that is not elected. Unlike the boards of 53 other counties, the LACOE Board is appointed by the County Board of Supervisors and is not accountable to their constituents.
Without having to answer for their actions, the LACOE Board has built the county into a haven for rogue charter schools. In the most infamous example, LACOE overruled the elected LAUSD Board and its staff to renew North Valley Military Institute (NVMI)’s charter. Without providing the oversight required by law, LACOE allowed this school to operate for years despite allegations of fiscal mismanagement, operational deficiencies, bullying, and the sexual assault of its students.
Another charter school in LACOE’s stable is the Lashon Academy. Also rejected for renewal by the LAUSD Board, the county allowed it to operate despite blurred lines between the separation of church and state by celebrating Jewish holidays, providing students with trips to Israel, and sponsoring religious events. An inappropriate, if not illegal, large budget reserve has consistently been questioned by LACOE staff without any follow-up action by the Board.
On August 13, 2024, the LACOE Board considered a request for this charter school to expand to another campus where it would rent space at a synagogue where it used to operate a private religious school. I sent the following email to the board in anticipation of their vote:
On August 13, 2024, you will consider the Material Revision requested by the Lashon Academy to expand to a third campus along with an updated version of its charter. These requests should be rejected for the following reasons:
- Neither LACOE staff, the LAUSD, nor the charter school has conducted a Community Impact Assessment.
AB 1505, the law that made critical updates to California’s charter school law, mentions “community” on nine separate occasions, including:
- “The governing board of the school district shall grant a charter for the operation of a school under this part if it is satisfied that granting the charter is consistent with sound educational practice and with the interests of the community in which the school is proposing to locate.”
- “The governing board of the school district shall not deny a petition for the establishment of a charter school unless…the charter school is demonstrably unlikely to serve the interests of the entire community in which the school is proposing to locate.”
- “The governing board of the school district shall grant a charter for the operation of a school under this part if it is satisfied that granting the charter is consistent with sound educational practice and with the interests of the community in which the school is proposing to locate.”
Despite this emphasis on ensuring charter schools will help and not harm the communities where they operate, the Superintendent has recommended approval of the proposed changes without conducting a thorough analysis of how these changes will affect neighboring schools. Instead, two generalized comments are presented without any data to back them up:
- A review of the educational language offerings at local schools reveals that none of the nearby local district schools currently include Modern Hebrew language instruction in their curriculum.
- There is no additional enrollment or grade levels in the petition and therefore, no additional fiscal impact to the district.
The first statement presents a situation that could negatively affect neighboring schools since an unmet demand for these language classes could result in students transferring from their existing school to the relocated charter school. This could be especially true if parents are paying for private instruction so their students can learn Hebrew.
The second statement pretends that the 710 square miles that the LAUSD covers is one community. While shuffling students around will not have a fiscal impact on the entire district, it can affect individual schools. This impact may be magnified by the fact that the socioeconomic breakdown is dramatically different in the Van Nuys area where the school currently operates and the Valley Village neighborhood where it wants to expand.
- The charter specifies its service area as Van Nuys and the proposed campus is not located in this community.
Even with the proposed changes, Lashon’s charter makes it clear that it is serving the Van Nuys area:
- “Lashon Academy is a high‐performing public school option for families and their children in Van Nuys” (page 9)
- “Lashon Academy is proud to serve a diverse student population in the Van Nuys neighborhood.” (page 32)
- “Outreach efforts use the language of the community in Van Nuys” (page 154)
In all, “Van Nuys” is mentioned 25 times in the charter. “Valley Village” is mentioned in just three instances. On page 35, the “Education Level of Adult Population: Van Nuys Average” is presented but similar information is not presented for Valley Village.
- Adding a third campus for a charter school that has paid $325,953 in overallocation fees is a reckless use of taxpayer money.
Overallocation fees are assessed when a charter school requests more space under PROP-39 than they are entitled to. In the 2022-23 school year, Lashon Academy projected that it would need space for 565.15 students but only enrolled 505.54 resulting in a penalty of $85,240.65.
According to the Superintendent, the addition of a new campus will not result in “additional enrollment or grade levels.” Moving the estimated 40 families to the new campus will mean that these students will not be using space that has already been reserved on LAUSD campuses and taxpayers will pay additional overallocation fees. This is confirmed by the school’s spokesperson who stated during last month’s LACOE hearing that if the Material Revision is not approved the students will remain on the Fulton campus.
- Conditions created by having this charter school operate on a religious campus blur the line between the separation of church and state and have not been completely rectified.
The Superintendent has recognized that the lease provision allowing religious iconography to be displayed in common areas represents a violation of the First Amendment and she requires the needed changes to be made before August 20, 2024. However, the school has already begun moving supplies and students’ belongings onto the new campus. It plans to start instruction as soon as approval is received. What happens if the changes to the lease are not made? Can the taxpayers depend on this Board to revoke the revision for non-compliance?
- Questions about the governance of this charter school need to be addressed before allowing it to expand its operations.
The agenda for the Lashon Academy’s board meeting where the Superintendent’s recommendations were discussed was not posted on its website 72 hours in advance of the meeting required by the Brown Act. LACOE staff has complained about the way meetings are conducted without any apparent change by the school. The Superintendent states that there is a “commercial real estate expert serving on its governing board” but there is no indication that the Board has authorized a search for a new facility. The charter school has an ending Unrestricted Net Position (Fund Balance) of $16,119,265 and a Reserve for Economic Uncertainties (REU) of 137.85%. The taxpayers provided this money for the education of students but the school is holding it in a bank account.
These are issues that need to be rectified by the Governing Board before the county can allow the school to take on the responsibilities of another campus. To approve this Material Revision before they do so would be a betrayal to the students of Los Angeles and the taxpayers who provide the funds for their education.
True to its reputation, the LACOE Board ignored these concerns and the law. With a 4 to 3 vote it approved Lashon’s request.
______
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.
About the Creator
Carl J. Petersen
Carl Petersen is a parent advocate for students with SpEd needs and public education. As a Green Party candidate in LAUSD’s District 2 School Board race, he was endorsed by Network for Public Education (NPE) Action. Opinions are his own.
Keep reading
More stories from Carl J. Petersen and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Those Pesky Parents
“I thrive under controversy.” – LAUSD Superintendent Alberto Carvahlo At the end of the 2023-24 school year, LAUSD Superintendent Alberto Carvalho made an appearance during a meeting of the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) responding to recommendations made by this state-mandated group of students, parents, teachers, and other community members who have ties to those who require Special Education services. A brief question and answer period provided the leader of the country's second-largest school district the opportunity to show empathy to parents who often feel that the LAUSD is an adversary instead of a partner in ensuring vulnerable children receive the services they need. Instead, he veered into a complaint about how he is sometimes criticized. He should consider using some of his $440,000 annual salary to purchase armor for his thin skin.
By Carl J. Petersenabout a year ago in The Swamp
France Steps Back as G7 Summit Is Rescheduled to Avoid Clash With White House UFC Event
In an unexpected twist that has raised eyebrows across diplomatic circles, France has agreed to step back from its preferred scheduling as the G7 summit was moved to avoid a direct clash with a White House–hosted UFC event. The decision, while seemingly procedural, has sparked wider debate about political priorities, international symbolism, and how global diplomacy increasingly competes with high-profile domestic events for attention. The Group of Seven (G7) — comprising the United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, and Japan — is traditionally a stage for coordinated responses to the world’s most pressing challenges. From wars and climate change to economic instability and technological regulation, the summit is meant to project unity and seriousness. That is why the rescheduling, reportedly prompted by a clash with a major UFC event linked to the White House calendar, has drawn both criticism and bemusement. How a Scheduling Conflict Became a Diplomatic Issue According to diplomatic sources, France had initially proposed dates for the upcoming G7 meeting that aligned with its broader foreign policy agenda. However, those dates conflicted with a high-profile UFC event scheduled to take place with strong White House backing. Rather than competing for political attention — particularly from U.S. leadership — negotiations led to a decision to move the summit. France, as a key diplomatic player within the G7, ultimately agreed to “tap out,” a phrase borrowed from mixed martial arts that has been widely used by commentators to describe the outcome. While the term adds humor to the situation, the underlying implications are far more serious. At its core, the episode highlights how domestic political events in powerful countries can influence international diplomacy, sometimes in unexpected ways. The White House, Spectacle, and Soft Power The involvement of a UFC event — a sporting spectacle with massive popular appeal — points to a broader trend in modern politics: the blending of entertainment, image-making, and governance. Sporting events have long been used as tools of soft power, from Olympic Games to World Cups. However, the idea that a global diplomatic summit would be rescheduled to avoid clashing with a combat sports event hosted around the White House is a striking illustration of changing priorities. For U.S. officials, the UFC event reportedly carried significant domestic political value, attracting media attention, high-profile guests, and a large public audience. In an era where optics and engagement matter as much as policy substance, the White House appeared unwilling to divide focus. This placed allies like France in a difficult position. Insisting on original dates risked reduced U.S. engagement at the summit — something no G7 country wants, given Washington’s central role in global decision-making. France’s Calculated Compromise France’s decision to accept the rescheduling reflects diplomatic pragmatism rather than weakness. French officials are well aware that the effectiveness of a G7 summit depends heavily on full participation and attention from all members, particularly the United States. By stepping aside on scheduling, France avoided a potential scenario where the summit would be overshadowed, poorly attended, or perceived as secondary. Still, critics argue that the move sets an uncomfortable precedent, suggesting that entertainment-driven political events can take priority over multilateral diplomacy. Supporters of France’s decision counter that diplomacy is about choosing battles wisely. Preserving unity and ensuring productive discussions, they argue, matters more than symbolic rigidity over dates. Reactions From Other G7 Members Other G7 nations have reacted cautiously, with most avoiding public criticism. Privately, however, diplomats have expressed concern that the episode reflects a deeper imbalance in how global governance is conducted. Some European officials worry that repeated concessions could weaken the perceived seriousness of forums like the G7. If summits are seen as flexible around domestic political calendars — particularly those tied to spectacle — their authority may gradually erode. At the same time, countries such as Japan and Canada are said to have supported the compromise, emphasizing the importance of maintaining smooth relations and ensuring the summit remains effective rather than symbolic. What This Says About Global Leadership Today Beyond the immediate scheduling issue, the incident offers insight into the evolving nature of global leadership. Politics today operates in a crowded attention economy, where leaders juggle international crises, domestic pressures, and media-driven events simultaneously. The clash between a G7 summit and a UFC event may seem trivial on the surface, but it reflects how political capital is increasingly tied to visibility and public engagement. Leaders must balance governing with maintaining relevance in a fast-moving media landscape. For traditional diplomatic powers like France, this shift can be frustrating. European diplomacy often emphasizes process, continuity, and institutional strength — values that can clash with more performative political styles. Critics Warn of Slippery Slope Critics argue that accommodating such conflicts risks normalizing the sidelining of diplomacy. Today it may be a UFC event; tomorrow it could be an election rally, a media appearance, or another high-profile spectacle. They warn that global challenges — from ongoing conflicts to climate emergencies — demand sustained, focused leadership. Anything that dilutes the importance of forums designed to address these issues could have long-term consequences. Some commentators have also pointed out the irony of world leaders struggling to align schedules at a time when global cooperation is more urgently needed than ever. Conclusion: Symbolism Matters France’s decision to step back as the G7 summit was moved to avoid clashing with a White House UFC event is more than a quirky headline. It is a reflection of the changing dynamics of power, attention, and symbolism in international politics. While the rescheduling may ensure better participation and smoother logistics, it also raises uncomfortable questions about what global leaders prioritize — and how diplomacy competes with spectacle in the modern age. As the G7 eventually convenes, the real test will not be the date on the calendar, but whether leaders can rise above distractions and deliver meaningful action. Still, the episode will linger as a reminder that in today’s world, even the most serious global gatherings are not immune to the pull of entertainment and domestic politics.
By Muhammad Hassan5 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.