Believing in our local community public schools

In a new post on Patch.com, a Stoner Elementary school parent declares that it's time to start believing in our local community school, again.
    Westside parents are asking for more for their children, and LAUSD is responding by bringing new programs such as language immersion, STEM (science, technology, engineering & math), dance and music.
     Stoner ES has been benefiting from this reinvestment in community schools. We already have music, dance and art. Next year, Stoner is excited to start a bilingual Spanish program and a STEM lab.
     The Del Rey community believe in Stoner, and LAUSD is showing that it does to. #believinginLAUSD
   

   Read more: http://patch.com/california/venice/wake-westsiders-its-time-start-believing-our-local-schools-again

ICEF (sort of, but not really) responds to co-location concerns at Del Rey Residents meeting

    Yesterday, ICEF Vista Director Kristen Buczek attended the Del Rey Residents Association monthly meeting looking for help to avoid the problems that the ICEF co-location at Stoner will cause. Before the meeting, Friends of Stoner ES released an open letter to Buczek outlining their concerns about the co-location.

     At the meeting, Buczek tried to put her own spin on the co-location problems. She first claimed that ICEF Vista was a school for our local community and the co-location would serve Del Rey.  
     Unfortunately, the facts aren't on her side. Only 29 of the 170 students set to co-locate are from the service area of Stoner. The other 141 are coming from outside the area. The average distance of these students from Stoner is 7.33 miles, with some student coming in as far away as 13 miles. This means the co-location would not benefit our local community and would create the same, if not more, traffic problems that plagued CWC co-location.

    When the concern was brought up that ICEF will be taking away resource rooms from Stoner to have those same resources on the St. Gereard campus, Ms. Buczek twisted herslef in knots trying to explain that ICEF wasn't adding resource rooms, it already had them, but the rooms were currently occupied by ICEF students.
    The audience didn't buy it. If the resource rooms were full, it was because ICEF was over enrolling and creating their own loss of resource rooms. Why should the Stoner students suffer and lose out on resources because ICEF wants to enroll more students than it has room for?

   By the end, Ms Buczek admitted that the co-location would create problems for the Stoner community and surrounding neighborhood.
    How was she planning on dealing with these problems? The answer was simple, Ms Buczek would not be dealing with the problems, because she would be on leave next year. The problems with the co-location would be dealt with by ICEF Vista Instructional Specialist, Martine Pope, who would be acting as on-site vice principal during Buczek absence.

    Since it will be Ms Pope who will be dealing with the co-location, Friends of Stoner ES has asked Ms. Pope to have a meeting at Stoner so that she can face the parents, hear the concerns of the Stoner community and decide for herself if she wants to be part of this co-location.
    Ms Pope will have to face the Stoner community at some point and we are hoping to do this sooner rather than later.

Open letter to ICEF’s Director Kristen Buczek

Hello Ms. Buczek,

    I see that you are scheduled to appear at the Del Rey Residents Association meeting tonight.  The agenda item states:  "Discussion of ICEF Charter School grades K-2 co-location with Stoner Avenue Elementary School for the 2015-2016 academic year.  ICEF’s Executive Director Kristen Buczek wants to know what can be done to avoid the problems that came up in connection with the Citizens of the World colocation at Stoner in 2013-2014."

   There is one simple solution to avoid the problems created by a co-location: Dont' co-locate.

    Unfortunately, since ICEF has chosen to co-locate there is no way to avoid the problems that will occur.
    This co-location has been a bad idea from the start and I let you know that right away. The day after the Stoner community received notice of the co-location, I emailed you and all ICEF administration and board members to let them know that this co-location was a bad idea and would be met with intense resistance from the Stoner community and Del Rey residents.
    Unfortunately, when planning this co-location ICEF did not take the Stoner ES population or local residents into consideration.  As far as ICEF has been concerned, this co-location was a foregone conclusion and no thought was put into the reality the co-location will create or the people who will be effected. So, it is very sad to see you now scrambling for solutions to the problem ICEF has set up for you for next year. ICEF has set your school on inevitable collision course and you are the one who will be dealing with all the fall out.

    So, Ms. Buczek, I'm going to break down the major problems you will be facing.

Problem #1. Traffic & parking  -- Traffic and parking around campus will again be a problem with this co-location.  ICEF wants to bring in 170 students on to campus. According the ICEF co-location proposal, only 29 student are from the service area of Stoner, which means the majority of students would have to be driven in. The average distance ICEF student would travel to the Stoner campus is 7.3 miles. Some ICEF students would be coming as far away as 13 miles.
    CWC only had 120 students and the traffic and parking was a nightmare. I can't image traffic will be better with 141 student coming from outside the area.

Problem #2. Safety -- Both on and off campus, the co-location creates major safety issues. The entrance door to the co-location side of campus is not secure. There is no one watching the entrance and the entrance can be easily opened by a child by merely turning a handle.  Last year, a special needs student escaped through the charter school entrance.
     On campus, we also had numerous reports of charter students bullying Stoner students in the shared bathroom. What was most troubling, is that the charter students would pick mainly on special needs students.

     Off campus, the traffic creates a huge safety issue.  We had multiple instances of children and families nearly being run over in the crosswalks on Lindblade near the co-location entrance.
   It's understandable that parents are in rush to drop off or pick up their children. Unfortunately, the front entrance to the co-location is on a residential street meaning that rushing in and out creates dangerous conditions for all in the area.

Problem #3. Segregation  -- Yes, I said it: segregation. Segregation is not just a black/white thing that happened in the South in the past century. This co-location will bring segregation to Del Rey.
    This or any co-location creates separate and thus unequal conditions on campus.  This is segregation and by working to support this co-location, Ms. Buczek, you are supporting creating and bringing segregation to the Stoner ES campus. Unless you are in favor of segregation, you should be actively opposing this co-location.
    However, it seems that segregation is what ICEF is looking for. In the February 2015 ICEF SSC meeting minutes, it is stated that "...there will be a definite divide between Vista and Stoner students."
    The biggest symbol of the segregation is the separate, private entrance for the co-location. Stoner students enter campus through the main campus entrance on Braddock across the street from the Mar Vista Gardens housing projects, but the co-located charter students enter through a private entrance in the back of the school on a residential street. This is quite literally separate and unequal access to education for different students on the same campus.

Problem #4. Entering a campus that is hostile to any charter co-location
   Last year, the Stoner community saw first hand what a co-location actually is and they were disturbed and disgusted.  The traffic, safety and segregation issues united the Stoner community against co-location and for improving the school.
   This year, we were able to add music and dance programs. However, the rooms for music, dance theater, speech therapy and the parents center are being taken away to give to ICEF. Stoner parents are furious about this are not willing to work in any capacity with a charter school that is taking resources from their children.
   There is nothing that ICEF can do to assuage the anger of the Stoner community, short of cancelling the co-location. ICEF will be seen as an unwelcome occupier that will eventually be leaving. We would like to see that departure sooner rather than later, and will be doing everything we can to show ICEF out.


Problem #5. Constant and growing protests and opposition
   You will be facing multiple protest through out the year. Last co-location we had three protest, but that's because the opposition did not start right away. This year, we've started early. The co-location hasn't even started and you've already faced a protest on your own campus. How do you think it will be like when you are on our home turf? And yes, it is our home. ICEF is co-locating with the intent to leave. Stoner has been at its location for 58 years and will still be there long after ICEF has left the area.
   The protests were effective and got our message out loud and clear, but what we found was that the most effective protest was the lawn signs.  Since people have work and school, we can't be out protesting everyday, but the yard signs made our position salient. These were a daily reminder to the charter community that the co-location was not welcome.
   The yard signs were so upsetting to the charter community that people would steal the signs though out the year. By the end of the year, one charter family (mother, father and children) was so upset they went around the neighborhood stealing all signs from people's yards.
   As the school year progress, the tension on campus and the opposition off will only increase leading to problems like we had last year where a toddler was almost sent on fire over a parking dispute between a charter community member and a local resident.
___________
These are just some of the problem you will be facing with the co-location. How can you deal with these problem? Well, that's not my job, that's yours.  You are an education professional it is your job to deal with these problems that your school is creating.
    The fact that you are going to Del Rey Neighborhood Association this late in the co-location process looking for help does not inspire confidence in your or ICEF's ability to handle these problems since these were known problems that should have been taken into account when planning and applying for the co-location.

    Ms. Buczek, you do have a voice in this. Do you really believe that this co-location is in the best interests of your school and the ICEF students and families? Do you believe this co-location will be beneficial to ICEF? Will the co-location benefit or hurt Stoner?
   If you disagree with this co-location, you can do the right thing by refusing to be part of this co-location.  It would send a powerful message to the ICEF administration and ICEF community about what you really stand for.

    However, if you choose to support and be part of this co-location, you have been informed and are well aware of the problems that you are inviting on both the ICEF and Stoner communities. I do not envy the position you will be in next year in having to deal with all the problems caused by the co-location.

    Sincerely,
Adam C. Benitez
President, Friends of Stoner Avenue Elementary

ICEF SSC stays calm until after meeting

Your diligent, dutiful and humble Stoner representative attended today's ICEF SSC meeting to present the communities concerns.
   Public comments were moved to second on the agenda. The ICEF community played it nonchalant during the public comments. After my spiel, I opened the floor to questions. An ICEF teacher asked why there was no colocation now. The principal quickly responded citing the missed deadline. I quickly added that that was the technical reason, but that there were other issues such as security and safety, including an incident were a toddler was almost set on fire over a parking dispute, and and incident where a charter student was stripped naked and hosed down outside.
   After that the meeting moved forward with no problem, almost as if I hadn't even spoke.

   However, after the meeting things went a little off.
    As the meeting progressed, I realized that the primary language of the three ICEF parents at the SSC was Spanish, since there was translation for them during the meeting. There was translation for them except during the public comments. So, it was not clear to me if they understood my comments and concerns
    When the meeting ended, I decided to schmooze the ICEF SSC chair. I introduced myself in Spanish and spoke with him in Spanish about his role as chair and my concerns about the co-location. The translator/office assistant stood next to him and would shake her head, almost as if disputing each point I made. The ICEF principal and teachers stayed in the classroom hovering closely, waiting to see what I was trying to do.
    After a few moments, the principal interrupted in English with a question. I turned to talk to her and asked her what she knew of the co-location. She shook my hand, thanked me for my comments. I asked if she if she had read this blog. She grimaced and said they were going through as planned.
    I replied that it was a shame and the whole lot of us; parents, teachers, admin and I began to walk out. We exited the room and I continued with my concerns to the principal as she walked to her office. She quickly lost composure. She said there were "two sides to each story" and told me I need to "consider the children." That's what I am doing, I said.
    ... and she's right, there are two sides, the side that is taking, and the side being taken from.
    If dealing with one person face to face is a problem, what will next year be like?
    While it might be easy to blow off one guy in a meeting on your home turf, it is going to be a lot more difficult to ignore scores of people when you move in with them.

____________
I am still praying for some Hail Mary that will bring this nightmare on my street to an end, but it looks like we are co-location bound.  Pray for us.

ICEF SSC rescheduled to tomorrow 4/16

Maybe it's was just a coincidence that when the Stoner community started inquiring about the next ICEF Vista School Site Council meeting, the meeting was rescheduled. 

    At any rate, as promised, the Stoner community representatives will be attending the SSC meeting tomorrow to represent the community's concerns about the co-location, and dispel the myths about the co-location and the opposition.
    In February, the ICEF SSC/ELAC discussed the co-location. When the Stoner community saw the meeting minutes in March, they were incensed and referred to it as "stealing from Peter to give to Paul".
     ICEF's plan was to take set aside rooms at Stoner that are used for music, art, special needs and parent's center, among other resources, to open up classrooms on the ICEF Vista St. Gerard campus to bring "art, computer lab and resource room"
   We hope the ICEF community will have a better understanding of our concerns once they have a human face to the concerns. We look forward to speaking to the ICEF community tomorrow.

     

Stoner community to bring concerns to ICEF SSC/ELAC

ICEF Vista SSC/ELAC less then 72 hours to meeting and no posted agenda

      In an unprecedented move, a community school is taking their grips to the SSC/ELAC of a charter school that wants to co-locate next year.
     This Thursday, April 9 at 5 PM, the Stoner community is taking their concerns about the proposed co-location to the ICEF School Site Council (SSC) and the ICEF Vista English Learner Advisory Committee (ELAC) monthly meeting in room 11 of ICEF Vista on the St. Gerard campus.

     Stoner parents and community are mad and are fighting back aginst the proposed co-location. Parents are saying that it amounts to "robbing Peter to pay to Paul" because resources would be shifted from Stoner students to give those same resources to ICEF students.
     The ICEF SSC/ELAC previously discussed the co-location at Stoner in their February meeting. When the Stoner community saw the meeting minutes in March, they were incensed and wanted to attend the next SSC/ELAC meeting to express their outrage to the proposed co-location.


_______
      However, there is concern if the meeting will actually happen. Here we are, less then 72 hours from the meeting, and reports are that no schedule has been posted physically or online. This could create a violation of the Brown Act for the ICEF SSC/ELAC meeting.

    If the meeting happens on Thursday, or whenever it happens, the Stoner community will be there.

ICEF blames co-location concerns on a "few people" and other new myths

    In a tone deaf move that imitates the misguided steps of the previously co-located charter at Stoner ES,  ICEF is blaming the co-location concerns on a "few people" who want to "stir unrest and provide misinformation in an attempt to inflame public sentiment over the co-location."
    The notice pictured, dated March 6, was still taped outside the ICEF Vista main office today. This notice presents new co-location myths that need to be debunked.

MYTH# 1. "There are a few people in the community who do not agree with this placement"

TRUTH: Over 100 Stoner and ICEF community member wrote letters, sent emails and signed petitions opposing the co-location.
      The Stoner community also held a protest on March 10 to oppose the co-location in front of the ICEF Vista campus at the St. Gerard Majella church.
    Just as CWC did last year, ICEF is trying to minimize the concerns of an entire community by claiming that only a "few" representatives are the ones with concerns.

MYTH #2. "We believe that keeping students within the community where they live and play is an important factor in their education."

TRUTH:  This platitude sounds great, and I would love it if it was true, but it doesn't jibe with the reality of this co-location. More then half of the 170 students who will be co-located will come from outside of the neighborhood and will thus be leaving "the community where they live and play" to take resources from our neighborhood students.

MYTH #3. "unassigned rooms"

TRUTH: A few weeks ago, they were calling them "empty" rooms, now they are "unassigned" We've gone over this before, these "unassigned rooms" are our arts, music, computer lab, parents center, etc, etc, etc.... [read more here]


MYTH #4 "...if ICEF Vista does not co-locate at Stoner, another charter school will."

TRUTH: Ah, the threat of inevitability. This is my favorite myth. CWC would often use this threat too: if not us, then someone else will co-locate here....so, just get used to it.
     Just a few weeks back, ICEF admin was telling their community that the co-location was a "done deal" and could not be stopped. This was later walked back by ICEF when opposition to the co-location started.
     ICEF is using the threat of an inevitable co-location at Stoner as justification for their proposed occupation to both the Stoner and ICEF community. Someone will be there, so why not us?
    If some charter will inevitability co-locate at Stoner, then why is no charter co-located at Stoner right now? It looks like the inevitable can be evaded.    

     This co-location does not need to happen. ICEF still has until May 1 to withdraw their request, or not respond to the offer and end this proposed travesty with no penalty.
     LAUSD issued the Final Offer for space on April 1, 2015. It is now up to ICEF. They can choose to do what's best for the community or what is best for their business. They can choose to continue being the "school at the church" or they can be greeted with the following at their entrance if they co-locate at Stoner.