[Ed. Note: This conversation is in response to Mike Uhler's original letter RE: support for special needs at Bullis Charter School, which was sent to the Santa Clara County Board of Education, Superintendent and Staff. This follow-up conversation was CCed to everyone who received the original letter (except for the last 2 messages).]
On May 9, 2012, at 6:02 PM, Julia Hover-Smoot wrote:
I know that Dr. Weis will be following up in your questions regarding this FCMAT report from seven years ago and reporting back to the board.
We will be interested in the findings as well.
On May 9, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Mike Uhler wrote:
His response will be limited only to the FCMAT report, or to all four examples from my letter? I'd think a response to the totality of the information would be appropriate.
Sent from my tablet. Apologies for typos. / gmu
On May 9, 2012, at 6:58 PM, Julia Hover-Smoot wrote:
Hi Mike! I am not sure what you mean by the "totality" of your email. I can only deal with facts, not innuendo. Julia
Sent from my iPhone
On May 9, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Mike Uhler wrote:
Can you be specific about which part of my letter you consider "innuendo"? I gave four examples of behavior on the part of BCS that all lead to the conclusion that they are under-serving special needs students. Your reply only addressed the FCMAT report. Are you saying that the other three should be classified as "innuendo"? If not, please be very clear what you mean by your reply.
Mike Uhler, email@example.com
On May 9, 2012, at 7:31 PM, Julia Hover-Smoot wrote:
I can only deal in fact. We can follow up on issues that are "of record". The rest is conjecture. I will wait for Dr. Weis's response before venturing further afield.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 9, 2012, at 8:45 PM, Mike Uhler wrote:
You opened the topic by using the word "innuendo".
Webster: Innuendo: a) an oblique allusion : HINT, INSINUATION; especially : a veiled or equivocal reflection on character or reputation; b): the use of such allusions <resorting to innuendo>
I notice that you dodged my question about which part of my email you considered innuendo. Since I went to a great deal of effort to cite sources, I find it offensive that you would use that word, then immediately refuse to clarify your comment.
But, OK, let's look at the facts.
Fact: BCS illegally required that applicants provide a copy of an IEP and a driver's license going back at least as far as the 2008-2009 school year, and probably farther. I cited sources for this.
Fact: The FCMAT report concluded that 75% of $133,294 submitted for reimbursement to BCS from special education funds for the 2005-2006 year should not have been paid with state or federal special education funds. It's in the FCMAT report.
Fact: Our personal experience with BCS is documented. We've shared the details with member Beauchman and President DiSalvo.
Conjecture: Any serious attempt to determine if our experience is continuing today would identify cases that are very similar to ours. Have you bothered to look?
Fact: The data shows that, compared to the LASD population, BCS has consistently under-served the special needs student population going back at least as far as the 2005-2006 school year. I cited sources for this.
With the exception of our personal experience, each of these facts is "on the record" as you put it and therefore, not conjecture.
But, as you said, I'll wait for Dr. Weis' response, which I hope will address all of these facts.
Mike Uhler, firstname.lastname@example.org
On May 10, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Mike Uhler wrote:
Did you get this message? I was expecting to hear a response from you. I do really appreciate that you're taking the time to engage with me on this issue, which is very important to me and my family.
On May 10, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Julia Hover-Smoot wrote:
I am going to wait until I have the SCCOE's review before I comment. We do not know what the resolution of these matters were. There might even be further information that is not contained in that report.
The one issue I can address is the request for an IEP and a drivers license on the application. I know that Dr. Weis has explained to Bullis that they may not request such items up front (and drivers license never). They have responded that they have removed (or are in process of removing) the items from the application materials.
On May 10, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Mike Uhler wrote:
Thank you for your reply.
Based on your comment on the application form, I just checked the BCS web site and it appears that sometime between May 3rd when I downloaded their application is preparation for sending my letter, they have removed the application form. Their enrollment page now says
Enrollment | Registration Forms
The BCS Registration Packet is currently undergoing revisions. Anyone still interested in submitting a registration packet should send an email to our enrollment coordinator and updated forms will be sent to you when they become available to the public.
Please note that Registration Packets received after the close of the Open Enrollment period will be prioritized lower than those received by the February 3, 2012 deadline.
So they have removed the form that contains a offending information, but not yet replaced it, which is as you said. Do you think it's a coincidence that they finally took action after I raised this in the SCCBoE meeting?