Ethical Conflict Alleged in Online School Lawsuit

Face The State Staff Report

An education official involved in a lawsuit against an online charter school and the state school board is acting with conflicted interests, say some of those impacted by the legal action.

Critics charge that Michael Poore, the assistant superintendent for Colorado Springs School District 11 and chairman of Colorado's Online Learning Advisory Board, faces a conflict when it comes to his district's legal action against Hope Online Learning Academy and the Colorado State Board of Education.

Specifically, they object to the fact that he has been permitted to craft regulations that govern online programs with learning centers in multiple districts, and then use these regulations to sue Hope and the state board.

“How can [Poore] lead the lawsuit when he’s the one writing the rules?” said Lisa Villanueva, director of a Hope learning center in central Colorado Springs.

Poore was appointed to chair the OLAB last October. In this capacity, Poore helped to craft propose statewide rules governing online education programs. The rules were written to comply with a 2007 state law that requires a multi-district online charter school to adopt a Memorandum of Understanding with each school district in which one of its learning centers operates.

District 11 spokeswoman Elaine Naleski said that Poore “is not directly involved with the lawsuit.” Still, the fact Poore signed the complaint, and his representation of the district on the issue to local media sources, does not sit well with Villanueva and other opponents.

Peggy Littleton, who represents Colorado Springs on the State Board, said the assistant superintendent's dual role calls for caution in assessing the merits of the complaint.

"It would be a great concern to me that [Poore] was helping put together the rules for online," said Littleton. She also said that Poore was unhappy with changes the Board made to his committee's recommendations, changes that limited a district's authority to block a MOU.

After being denied a MOU by District 11, Hope successfully appealed to the state board. But rather than accept the board's order to enter into negotiations with the online charter school, District 11 filed suit against Hope and the state board on May 9.

“Because of the information we had regarding their finances, their test scores, and because of services we already offer, we did not feel that the state should have granted them permission,” said Naleski.

But Villanueva disputes the claims, saying Hope largely serves at-risk students who have made substantial progress in overcoming the challenges they bring to school with them. A significantly greater share of the at-risk student population served by Hope improved to reach proficiency on state assessments than their District 11 counterparts.

“I think it’s very unfair to judge us on the strides we are making, when we are moving forward,” she said. “All of a sudden they are holding us to standards higher than their own.”

Littleton further observed that the Board’s rules do not place responsibility for the online school’s academic performance with the district signing the MOU.

But Naleski said that Hope does not provide a viable learning center option the district can support.

“We recognize that parents should have a choice. Given the track record of this particular charter, it is something we felt should not be placed within the boundaries of D-11,” she said.

Villanueva nevertheless noted that many of the families her center serves are not satisfied with the other school choices offered by District 11.

“One of the things my parents have said consistently is, ‘We chose you because the district failed us.' And now [the district is] stepping in front of the choice they made,’” said Villanueva.

Naleski says District 11 has received “letters of support” for its legal action from other school districts and former Hope affiliates, but declined to name them due to the ongoing proceedings.

Founded in 2005, Hope today operates 67 learning centers statewide, serving about 3,500 students. Three centers serving 88 students located in District 11 would be affected by the lawsuit. Of the 13 districts in which Hope has learning centers, only District 11 has refused to enter a MOU.

After rapid growth of its unique learning center model brought on early challenges, Hope has parted ways with its initial authorizer, the small Vilas School District in southeastern Colorado. On Tuesday, the Douglas County school board agreed to become the online charter’s authorizer as of July 1.

“We’re excited to work with Hope in providing educational opportunity to kids,” said Douglas County schools chief of staff Pat McGraw. “We think this is part of providing access to all kids anywhere.”

Littleton, a resident of District 11, expressed her displeasure with the school district’s decision to file the lawsuit.

“I resent the way my tax dollars are being spent to counter the wishes of parents and students,” she said.