Morgan Hill school district has until April 1 to find the new charter school a site for 2016-2017 year
Published in the March 30 – April 12, 2016 issue of Morgan Hill Life
By Staff Report
Frances Teso
The Morgan Hill Unified School District has a deadline of April 1 to find required classroom space for Voices College-Bound Language Academy. The MHUSD administration suggested to the school board using the Charter School of Morgan Hill facility several miles north of the downtown as a temporary option, a decision not pleasing to both charter schools.
Voices opened its Morgan Hill campus Sept. 8 at the Advent Lutheran School with more than 90 students in three classrooms ranging from transitional kindergarten to first grade. We asked the charter school’s founder and CEO, Frances Teso, about the MHUSD’s decision for classroom space at CHSMH and how it would impact both schools.
Voices has two school sites in San Jose and one in Morgan Hill. What were the reasons that led Voices to decide to place a school in Morgan Hill?
About two years ago we were approached by a group of very active, organized parents in Morgan Hill who had kids in the district schools and who were searching for options. They were a part of the community-based organization PACT and they visited us in San Jose and basically pleaded with us to open a school in Morgan Hill. We had made a commitment to only expand our excellent school and model where there is high need and high demand. Morgan Hill had both.
The MHUSD staff recommended that Voices use classrooms in the Charter School of Morgan Hill facility as a one-year option until Voices can find a permanent location. What are the reasons for your opposition to this option?
Our primary objection to the CSMH site is it simply is not accessible to our families and our target community. Nine miles out of town is an obstacle for many of our families. Additionally, the facilities are substandard. The space, the amount of renovations, the current state of the buildings, it doesn’t meet the legal standard of Prop 39, which states that the facilities offered need to be “reasonably equivalent” to district schools. We’ve been to other schools in the district and none of them are as dilapidated as the CSMH site. So we stand by our brothers and sisters at CSMH as they work with the district to get their own needs met. The offer lacks integrity.
You suggested in your letter to the school board using Central High School’s location or El Toro Elementary School, but the district said it could not place Voices at those locations. They say that they cannot place elementary school students with high school age students, and El Toro does not have any available classrooms. What is your response?
Our response is twofold: first of all high schools and elementary schools have co-located before and it works. We are doing it now with one of our San Jose sites. It takes a little effort to ensure that space is divided appropriately, but two parties working in good faith and with the needs of students at the forefront can make it happen. Secondly, the district’s own demographic study shows ample space at El Toro, more than enough space, in fact, for Voices’ needs. Citing future development in the area makes no sense. Voices’ presence there would give those families an additional option.
Voices requested space at the Adult Education site (the former Central High School) but the district decided against that option because students would be placed in the same facility as adults. Do you still think that site is good for Voices and, if so, why?
We absolutely still think the site makes sense. Trustee Gino Borgioli made some strong points we agree with, namely that moving the adult center to the new Burnett School which has a considerable amount of room makes sense especially because most classes are held in the evening. And that if a hardship is to be had, it would be preferable it be to adults than to children.
The district staff seem to be in a situation where there are few or maybe even no real options to place Voices in a MHUSD site. Is that perception accurate, and if not, why would you say it’s not?
We disagree. There does not appear to be the political will to make a legal offer in good faith. While the district is in the process of buying up land, making renovations to existing sites, and getting involved in countless lawsuits, the district is unwilling to come forward with a fair and reasonable offer to meet its Prop 39 requirements. The district’s recent activities all point to the fact that there is more than enough money to make a short-term solution happen, thus allowing all parties to move ahead with providing good quality education. But for reasons only known to them, the district is unwilling. We have been more than willing and able to enter an “in lieu agreement” for facilities that would meet our needs and cause the least interruption to current district facilities. Instead of moving in that direction, the district is putting up obstacles and dragging its feet. We’re ready at any time to negotiate a fair and legal option, but we seem to be at the table alone.
