LAUSD Incumbent Scott Schmerelson on PROP-39 Co-Locations

“If it were not for the questioning of Board President Goldberg, this lie would continue.”

– BD3 Board Member Scott Schmerelson

As of publication, Scott Schmerelson is defending his seat against seven opponents in LAUSD’s Board District 3, which covers most of the western San Fernando Valley. As part of my ongoing Candidate Forum series, Schmerelson 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? Yes

Prop 39 locations must be eliminated at all costs. They falsely claim that hundreds of students are waiting to enroll and then we discover that 80% of our co-located charter schools are under-enrolled. This exaggeration of its enrollment numbers eliminates classrooms for use in the host school.

Recruiters ask parents to sign forms that ask, “Do you want your child to have a good education?” and then claim that the parents signed a commitment to attend that charter school. This is a common and deceitful practice.

As a board member, I needed to purchase classroom furniture from my BD3 allocation funds to have our host school classrooms look as nice as the charter co-located classrooms that received brand-new furniture. Having a private catering firm provide breakfast and lunch which may not be as healthy as our LAUSD offerings is unfair to our students.

How do I know all this? I have personally witnessed what I described.

• 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

This practice of declaring “empty rooms” as free for the taking by the co-located charter school is a lie that has been perpetrated since I was an administrator. This is not just for special education rooms, but also for general education classrooms. If it were not for the questioning of Board President Goldberg, this lie would continue.

As an administrator, I was told that if the room did not have a roster-carrying teacher, it was free to give away to the co-located charter school. Rooms designated for art music and dance should not have been given away because there was not a roster-carrying teacher. Rooms for Restorative Justice should not have been given away because they were not used throughout the day. Rooms for IEPs, teacher conferences, and common conference discussions should not have been surrendered either.

As I look back now, schools have suffered because of this failure to clearly explain how rooms for co-location were unfairly taken. I am just appalled.

• 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? Yes

I have asked over and over to former superintendent Beutner, followed by former acting superintendent Reilly, to release the information about the over-allocation money that we board members had in our possession for quite some time. We were absolutely forbidden to share that information discussed in a closed session. I don’t know why they would not release that information.

There were charter operators whom I personally witnessed at school board meetings who defiantly stated that they owed nothing and were not going to pay a cent.

Any charter that refuses to pay what is owed should be revoked. Of course, I would offer a payment plan, but they must pay the entire over-allocation amount. This amount is returned to the co-located school that had to endure the co-location’s over-allocation.

• 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

I believe that a shady deal was made by the previous superintendent to allow the charters to just pay a percentage of what was owed. Again, all done in secret. I would never have voted for a “deal.” Every cent needed to be repaid and the money returned to the co-located public school that had to endure the over-allocation.

My “deal” would be a payment plan for the entire amount owed. We need a complete investigation of this travesty.

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? Yes

We must be extremely careful about the vetting of employees at a charter school. We need to be sure that they really follow the same rules that we in LAUSD are required to follow in hiring employees. Are they correctly credentialed? Have they gone through proper security checks? The current system is broken If we must rely on our Charter Schools Division to do this scrutiny. I am very concerned and this is high on my list of issues to address immediately.

In the past, we usually find out too late and must issue the charter a “Notice to Cure” which is not an immediate action. As the authorizers of charter schools, we need to be more vigilant and in a timely way. The revocation of a charter school that puts the LAUSD in danger should be done.

____________________________

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.