ICEF's plan is to "steal from Peter to give to Paul"

Protesters asking ICEF to not covet their classrooms

Wow, I was just alerted to the ICEF Vista School Site Counsel's February 2015 meeting minutes where ICEF makes it very clear that their intent is to take away resources from Stoner ES to open up space on the ICEF Vista St. Gerard campus to provide those same resources to their own students.

In section e. Expansion Discussion v. We want parents to know all the benefits of the move 2. the minutes state "We get to use some of the facilities at Stoner and will now have open space at our school."  Subsection a goes on to state "Our open space can be used for:  Art room, computer lab, resource room, room for one more section of 6th graders."

Wow, wow, WOW! ICEF wants to take away resources from Stoner which would include the art room, computer lab, music room and other resource rooms so that they can create empty space on their campus to provide almost the exact same resources they are taking away from the Stoner ES students to their own students.
     This is unconscionable. ICEF, which many in the neighborhood refer to as "the school at the church", is "stealing from Peter to give to Paul." They want to take resources away from students at Stoner ES to give those same resources to ICEF students on the St. Gerard campus.

   One other thing I should point out is section e. viii. states "Stoner overall may not be very happy about this move" and in subsection 3 states "We need to clear up misconceptions that Stoner families may have."

     First off, Stoner is not just unhappy, the Stoner community is extremely mad and is fighting back against this co-location. 'Not be very happy' is an understatement. The Stoner community has already held a protest in front of the ICEF Vista campus at the church, and the co-location hasn't even happened yet.

ICEF Vista: "Stealing from Peter to give to Paul"
ICEF Vista SSC Feb 2015 minutes show that ICEF plans to take
resources from Stoner, to provide those same resources to  ICEF

    Secondly, ICEF doesn't need to clear up misconceptions about a co-location, Stoner lived through a co-location last year and knows what it will be like. Stoner parents began asking for a protest when news of the co-location was announced.
     A co-location creates problems and competition for resources. A co-location creates segregation on campus and ICEF even acknowledges this in in the SSC minutes in section e. ii. stating "..., there will be a definite divide between Vista and Stoner students." In other words, there will be a divided campus with separate and unequal conditions for the different school's students.
      If you don't believe me, you can see the minutes on ICEF website at: http://icefivms.sharpschool.net/UserFiles/Servers/Server_31331/File/SchoolSiteCouncilMeeting-212.docx
    There is also a jpg of the minutes included with this post.

     I am going to repeat what I told the ICEF Board at their February meeting: "ICEF please don't steal from Peter to give to Paul."
   

LA School Report: Deadline questions

LA School Report has another story in the Stoner/ICEF co-location drama.
    Apparently, ICEF submitted their application on Nov 2, 2014, and the deadline set by state regulation was Nov 1.
    However, due to a "technical error," on Nov 1 and noon, LAUSD extended the deadline to Nov 4.
     Now Stoner parents are asking, does LAUSD have the authority to ignore state regulations and extend the deadline? Is the ICEF request valid?

Read the article here:
http://laschoolreport.com/stoner-parents-challenging-lausd-for-extending-co-location-deadline/#more-34080

ICEF gets $100K to NOT co-locate in Inglewood

Stoner parents speak at ICEF board meeting to oppose co-location

A charter school co-location brings many problems. So much so, some school districts are willing to pay to not have to deal with a co-location.

    At the February 2015 ICEF Monthly board meeting, the board discussed a proposed co-location at an Inglewood Unified School District site. Per the board, "the site offered was not appropriate." So, Inglewood and ICEF entered into negotiations. Ultimately, Inglewood offered ICEF $100,000 to buy its co-location rights for the next two years. ICEF accepted the offer. Basically, Inglewood is paying ICEF $100K to not co-locate.
     This is very troubling. What type of business is given money to do nothing?  What about the ICEF students who signed up that were used as justification for the co-location request? What about the Inglewood students whose school district will have $100K less to spend on them?

Stoner to take petitions to ICEF Board meeting

Over the past few weeks, the booster club, Friends of Stoner, has been collecting signatures from the Stoner community, local community and ICEF community to oppose the co-location of ICEF Vista on the Stoner ES campus for 2015/16.
    At the Thursday, March 19 ICEF Board Meeting, Friends of Stoner will be presenting the petitions and again expressing opposition against the proposed co-location to the ICEF Board.
     FOS has collected over 100 letters and signatures on petitions asking ICEF to withdraw its co-location request.
     If the co-location hasn't even started and ICEF has already been faced with a protest and petitions, do they think things will get better if the co-location happens?

Stoner supporters take to ICEF Facebook

ICEF 1 star reviews asking for no co-location

Over the weekend, supporters of Stoner Avenue Elementary School took to the review section of the ICEF Facebook page to express their opposition to the co-location at Stoner.
    Supporters bombarded the school with 1 star reviews and brought the school's rating down from 5 star last week to 3 stars today.  The reviews came from all over the place including the Stoner community, local community and ICEF community.  All the reviews were asking ICEF to "do the right thing" and not co-location at Stoner.
   The opposition to the co-location is growing, and it hasn't even started yet. ICEF is being told online and out in the real world that this co-location is a bad idea and they should withdraw their request. Are they listening?

PROTEST: ICEF Vista co-location at Stoner

Hoy, there fellow adventurers! You've probably wondering where I've been. Judging from the number of hits to the blog, people have been waiting for info on the protest, but I've been busy. I'm not a full time writer and sometimes life gets in the way, but I've got time now. So, here we go....

Tuesday, March 10, 2015 the Stoner Elementary School community held a protest against the proposed "ICEF Vista Elementary School co-location at Stoner Avenue" in front of the ICEF Vista Elementary/ICEF Vista Middle School location on the St. Gerard's campus.
   Over 30 parents plus Stoner students participated in the protest. A half a dozen ICEF parents joined the protest, by standing on the church grounds asking for help to make ICEF a better school.

   ICEF had four security guards stationed around campus and there were 3 cops cars on Inglewood. So, the Stoner protesters felt safe.
   There was even a military fly over. Stoner had air support!
   One odd-ball ICEF parent openly, immaturely, and sophomoricly mocked the Stoner protesters for their willingness to defy state law and ask for a better future for their children. The display was comical and sadly amusing.
    ICEF administration was present for the protest but stayed far away from the protesters behind a red barricade near the school classrooms.
   A reporter for the Argonaut showed up to the protest and interviewed parents for an article that is supposed to come out this week. We'll let you know when this is published.

   Finally, the Stoner community plans to continue the opposition to the co-location with more protests and stronger actions. This week, Friends of Stoner will be presenting the ICEF Board with over 100 letters and petitions signatures from the Stoner and ICEF community stating their opposition to the co-location.

ICEF co-location myths

In talking to ICEF and its community regarding the co-location, we have encounter many myths about the co-location and would like clear some of them up.

Myth #1: The co-location is a “done deal” and cannot be stopped.
FALSE: The co-location process requires many steps and has various deadlines. ICEF can still withdraw its request at this time. At this point ICEF has only accepted the preliminary offer. The co-location contract is not complete until ICEF agrees to the FINAL offer which has not yet been made but will be issued on or before April 1, 2015. There still is time for ICEF to withdraw its co-location request.

Myth #2: ICEF did not choose Stoner, LAUSD offered it.
FALSE: On PROPOSITION 39 ONLINE FACILITIES REQUEST FORM submitted by ICEF, ICEF specifically selected Stoner ES as the site it would like to co-location. See picture.

Myth #3: Stoner offered and is freely giving ICEF empty classroom space on campus.
FALSE: ICEF initiated a space request under the Prop 39 charter school co-location process. Stoner and LAUSD must follow the law and offer any rooms for co-location that don’t have a teacher and a roster of 20 students, even if these rooms are being used for other resources.

Myth #4: A co-location would have no impact on Stoner students.
FALSE: If ICEF co-locates, Stoner students would be directly impacted. Stoner would lose space for art, music and dance among other resources. Taking any of these rooms or programs would be devastating to the Stoner scholars and would create discontent among the students.

    These are the biggest myths about the proposed co-location at Stoner. I look forward to dispelling these and more at today's anti-coloocation protest rally.