LAUSD Candidate DeWayne Davis on PROP-39 Co-Locations

“I believe in the importance and necessity of transparency.”

– BD1 Candidate DeWayne Davis

DeWayne Davis is running for the seat currently occupied by the retiring George McKenna in LAUSD’s Board District 1. As part of my ongoing Candidate Forum series, Davis 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.

It should be noted that these responses were received after the Board meeting on September 26, 2023, where the resolution proposed by Goldberg and Rivas was passed by the LAUSD School Board by a vote of four to two (Kelly Gonez did not record a vote). At this meeting, the Director of the Charter School Division, José Cole-Gutiérrez, revealed that, despite what has been told to public school parents for years, state law does not state that a room without a certificated teacher is considered empty. This means that it has been the District’s choice to force some students with special education needs into closets or stairwells to receive needed services.

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?

I believe that all schools will benefit from the added clarity and defined processes the proposed Policy addresses.

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?

As a principal who had a colocation on campus, I believe that the implementation of Prop 39 has disadvantages for both co-located schools with respect to the allocation of space for the provision of Special Education Services. There are instances on co-located sites where both schools are using less than ideal space to work with students. I see the question around how available space is identified and determined to be a broader issue on process and unintended negative impact. As a Board Member I would work to implement a clear and consistent District policy that ensures all students receiving Special Education Services are receiving those services in adequate and resourced spaces that parallels a students least restrictive environment (LRE) designation.

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?

There may be a variety of reasons why a school’s enrollment projections are not met. Further, as a Board member with a Chief Business Official (CBO) background, I want to know more on why the funds have NOT been collected to date—What are the fiscal oversights, internal controls, accountabilities etc (or lack thereof) that make this possible. We would need to follow the provisions of the Charter Schools Act (Ed Code Section 47607) for guidance on revocation otherwise the entire process becomes litigious— and that is something we can not afford.

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?

I believe in the importance and necessity of transparency. Matters concerning the District finances, specifically the presentation of the balance sheet, including write-offs or other off-sets should come with an explanation for the public which accounts for the use and determination of those funds.

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?

Safety of our students is our top priority. When you say “ does not appear parents…. were notified” I would need to know more. In instances involving children and the careers of staffs, we MUST ensure all parties are provided their due process. If any school puts our students in danger, then we have strict guidelines and processes to handle such matters up to and including separation from the district and state licensing sanction.

For more information on our campaign please visit www.drdavis4lausdkids.com

____________________________

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.