April 3, 2006

Halima Academy Remains Open!

Judge Polaha of the Second Judicial District Court ordered this afternoon a stay to keep Halima Academy open to finish its scheduled academic year. Judge Polaha cited the irreparable injury to Halima's seniors should the school close as he was not convinced, based on the testimony, that all of them could be placed in another school. Judge Polaha also noted the importance of a high school education in the court's criminal schedule as many facing the court lack a diploma or even a GED.

The Nevada State Board of Education, Halima's sponsor, revoked its charter March 4^th, and wanted the school shut down the following week claiming Halima's students could be placed in other schools and student funding would follow them to the Washoe County School District. Parents, students, and staff showed up in force to the March 4^th meeting and were shocked by the decision, hiring attorney Ian Silverberg to stay the closing and counter the misrepresentations presented to the Nevada State Board of Education and the public in general.

The most serious charges on face value against Halima Academy revolved around criminal background checks and insurance coverage. The impression given at the Nevada State Board of Education meeting by Nevada Department of Education staff was that Halima had not bothered to submit the required background checks and did not have insurance coverage. In fact it came out in testimony in Judge Polaha's court that Halima DID submit the criminal background checks and fingerprints several times: first to Tom McCormack, consultant for charter schools with the Nevada State Department of Education in August, then to the Department of Public Safety when told to do so, and then having to wait for the Department of Public Safety to open an account for them as a submitting agency.

A good analogy is waiting in line at the DMV only to find when you get to the window that you spent all lunch hour in the wrong line, have to go to the correct line to start the wait all over, and filled out the wrong form. It is a world of difference to leave the impression that the academy did not bother to do the right thing.

The same false impression was given regarding the insurance issue. I was present at the March 4^th presentation, and it was conveyed by Nevada Department of Education staff that the lack of insurance endangered the students. This was surely a major factor in the decision for revocation. Court testimony revealed Halima DID have the required insurance for students to operate, but during policy renewal the liability insurance to protect Halima's governing board AND the Nevada State Board of Education was overlooked. This was rectified when brought to Halima's attention.

Now that Halima did the right thing for the criminal background checks and the insurance coverage for the governing body and the Nevada State Board of Education, prove it! Given the background checks are still being processed by the Department of Public Safety, they provided copies of the fingerprints and money orders submitted. Deputy Attorney General James E. Irvin representing the Nevada State Board of Education asserted that it is not proof they have been submitted.

The evidence Halima provided including the policy given by their insurance company was also deemed not good enough by Tom McCormack. Halima's attorney, Ian Silverberg, asked Mr. McCormack, "Since you relied on the insurance spokespersons to say they did not have the coverage, why couldn't you rely on it when they got it?" Mr. McCormack's reply was, "I don't know." "I don't know" was the same answer Mr. McCormack gave when asked why he consistently gave Halima the absolute minimum number of days to rectify any oversights.

Another issue that received a great deal of play during court testimony was a student who was enrolled by a parent falsely as a 9^th grader. The transcripts later arrived showing the student was a technical 8^th grader and not eligible to attend high school. It is standard practice among all public schools to enroll students based on parent information, waiting for transcripts to arrive for verification. Halima was falsely portrayed as being grossly negligent in this matter by the Nevada Department of Education. Adding insult to injury, NDOE staff tried to say it was a "danger" to the welfare of an 8^th grader to be in a high school setting with older students. Of course NDOE staff conveniently forgot to mention the student was 15 years old and of high school age though not as such academically.

Do you see a pattern and practice? Ian Silverberg stated in court the revocation was a "result oriented process from the beginning." Testimony by NDOE staff suggested Halima Academy received its charter only because they had to give it to them, but legislation has since changed the word "shall" to "may", which now allows the denial of a charter. Do you get a sense that they wanted to strangle this baby in the crib, couldn't then, but will find excuses to do so now?

A Tale of Two States

Nevada and Arizona both have charter schools. A comparison demonstrates Nevada is not a charter school friendly state. Arizona has about 500 charter schools according to The Heritage Foundation's figures for 2005. The Heritage Foundation writes, "Arizona's School Improvement Act of 1994 remains the nation's strongest charter school law, according to the Center for Education Reform. Any citizen, group, or organization may apply for a 15-year charter from the Arizona State Board of Education, the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools, or the local school board." The Brookings Institute rates Arizona #1 among the 50 states for its strong charter school laws.

In contrast the Brookings Institute rates Nevada 30^th among the 50 states. Nevada has 18 charter schools; 17 if the State Board of Education had its way today. These figures demonstrate Nevada is not charter school friendly. How helpful is the NDOE to charter schools? According to Halima Academy, not very.

Bill Arensdorf, NDOE director of office for fiscal accountability, and Tom McCormack's supervisor testified, "We put emphasis on helping people to start charter schools. We back off; we provide written materials to run it." Mr. Arensdorf's statement confirms the assertion made by Halima's principal, Marc Deal, and Halima's attorney, Ian Silverberg, that simple references to read the manual did not meet the NDOE's obligation under NRS 386.545 to provide technical and other reasonable assistance to Halima Academy.

It reads:

NRS 386.545 Duty of Department, board of trustees and sponsor to provide information and assistance.

      1.  The Department and the board of trustees of a school district shall:

      (a) Upon request, provide information to the general public concerning the formation and operation of charter schools; and

      (b) Maintain a list available for public inspection that describes the location of each charter school.

      2.  The sponsor of a charter school shall:

      (a) Provide reasonable assistance to an applicant for a charter school and to a charter school in carrying out the provisions of NRS 386.500 to 386.610, inclusive;

      (b) Provide technical and other reasonable assistance to a charter school for the operation of the charter school; and

      (c) Provide information to the governing body of a charter school concerning the availability of money for the charter school, including, without limitation, money available from the Federal Government.

      3.  The Department shall provide appropriate information, education and training for charter schools and the governing bodies of charter schools concerning the applicable provisions of title 34 of NRS and other laws and regulations that affect charter schools and the governing bodies of charter schools.

What leaves a bad taste in Halima's mouth is that they are required to pay around $10,000 a year to the NDOE for this assistance, or the lack thereof. What is reasonable assistance? It does not sound unreasonable to say it is more than citing a given NRS or telling an inquirer to look it up in the manual, both of which are open to interpretation and naturally fraught with the potential for making good faith mistakes. Add to it incorrect advice from the NDOE regarding quorum rules for the governing body and you have a recipe for honest mistakes.

Parent/Students Testify

Jackie Grebois testified as a parent regarding the turn around of her daughter at Halima. Ms. Grebois pointed out her daughter faded in the background at other schools academically stating, "I'm thrilled about them (Halima), it is the first time my daughter is excited about school. I am passionate about this school, teachers."

Bobby Pares testified as a graduate of Halima that he is now in the National Guard. Mr. Pares testified, "I enjoyed smaller classes, more attention from the teachers." He also mentioned getting a good education at Halima, which helped him in the military.

Current Halima student Holly Pearl confirmed she is too old at 19 to go back to regular public school. Miss Pearl said, "Teachers always are willing to help me, even after school. I love going to Halima, am more engaged, and go every day unless absolutely sick."

Two Sets of Standards

A recurring thought ran throughout viewing the 3 days in court. Could public schools withstand the close and hostile scrutiny that Halima Academy faced? Why are regular public schools' problems ignored, dismissed, or excused while a charter school that has yet to even complete its 2^nd year is roasted on the barbie.

I have a theory that involves the priorities of time and effort spent by Halima Academy's leadership. Being new to the education business, they actually believe the priorities are the students and their learning. How naïve. Veteran administrators could have told them the real priority is paperwork and bureaucracy. Halima 11^th grade student Caleb Briggs said, "The State Board of Education doesn't care about students or our education."

The challenge for Halima Academy is to continue making students the priority and keep their paperwork in order knowing full well they will be pounced on for the slightest mistake. They are not out of the woods yet. They remain open to complete the school year, but whether they continue beyond will be decided June 9^th by Judge Polaha. Those interested should be at the Second Judicial District Court in Reno at 8:30.

The Nevada State Board of Education would be wise to reconsider Halima's charter revocation in light of the testimony and evidence given in court for the stay. It is better for a deliberating board to be viewed as thoughtful and fair minded rather than as selective, arbitrary and capricious. Let us all hope the former will be the case and prevail in the true best interests of the students.

Joe Enge
Chairman
EdWatch Nevada

Wisdom is knowing what to do next; virtue is doing it.

David Starr Jordan