Lazaro Aleman
ECB Publishing, Inc.
The Jefferson County School Board last week had a fourth go at the statewide virtual school that Somerset proposes to create, only this time the purpose of the session was strictly to develop a letter stating the reasons why the board was denying the application.
It took a little doing, but the board members were finally able to state several reasons why they believed a virtual school would not be beneficial to Jefferson County. Which reasons they referred to administrative assistant Ramona Kinsey for transmittal to the school board attorney so that the latter could compose the appropriate response to the Florida Department of Education (FDOE).
These reasons included the poor quality of the local Internet service; the need of in-person classes for students to learn more effectively; the public sentiment against a virtual school, as expressed in many parents’ letters to the district; and the inability of many local parents, given their daytime jobs, to supervise their children and ensure that they complied with virtual learning requirements.
School Board Member Gladys Roann-Watson summarized the reasons after hearing her colleagues’ many arguments against the virtual school and Somerset, many of which complaints covered old ground.
As School Superintendent Eydie Tricquet explained it at the onset of the hour-long meeting, state law required that the school board stated in writing the reasons for its decision to deny the charter school’s application.
It was simply part of the process, she said, explaining that the board had 10 days after its denial to write the letter, after which period the charter school had 30 days to appeal the decision.
One of the problems creating confusion was that for sundry reasons, the virtual school application was first voted down by the school board in July, then again in February and a third time in March.
School Board Member Sandra Saunders wanted to know when the clock had started ticking on the 10-day deadline? Had it been in July, February or March? Her point was that it seemed pointless to submit the letter at this late date.
Tricquet explained that the delays had to do with the issue first coming to the board under the former superintendent and her own inexperience in handling the issue thereafter, being newly elected to the office.
But the bottom line, she said, was that the process had to be followed per state statute. If, however, the board chose to disregard the state requirement, that was on the school board.
She, for one, had done her part, which was to evaluate the virtual school application and recommend it for approval or denial. She had recommended it for approval but the board had denied it. Now it remained for board to state the reasons for the denial, she reiterated.
As to why a FDOE representative wasn’t present to explain the situation, as the board had requested, Tricquet said the agency had declined the invitation because it didn’t want to influence the board one way or the other.
This prompted Saunders to question the FDOE’s explanation.
“It’s strange that the FDOE can’t come,” Saunders said. “When they approved Somerset, the FDOE was here all the time.”
Chairman Charles Boland wondered why the board even had to take up the issue again, given that the board had voted it down three times previously.
“I’ve been on the board 23 years and I don’t remember us voting on something three times,” Boland said.
School Board Member Bill Brumfield offered that in a conversation with a Somerset official, he had had gotten the sense that the charter school would not appeal the board’s denial of the application.
Too, he said, he had let the Somerset official know that “it would create friction if they pushed this.” Meaning the appeal.
His reason for objecting to the virtual school, Brumfield reiterated, was that he saw no benefit for local students, given the poor quality of the Internet locally.
“We don’t have Internet,” Brumfield said more than once. “It’s not for our kids. It’s all going to go down south.”
Washington blamed part of the confusion on a persistent lack of communications between the school board and superintendent. But more importantly, she said, she opposed the virtual school because it wouldn’t serve the interest of local students.
Washington referenced a letter from the U.S. Secretary of Education touting the benefits of brick-and-mortar schools over remote learning, especially when it came to minority and economically deprived students.
“We were elected to represent Jefferson County,” Washington said. “That’s why I’m against the virtual school. I don’t flicker. If I’m against something, I’m against it and I say it.”
Saunders agreed.
“It needs to be bricks and mortars,” she said. “Remote learning is one of the reasons that our children aren’t doing well. If we feel strongly about it, let’s just tell the FDOE. Otherwise, they’ll hold it against us.”
It was a point that Roann-Watson had been making throughout.
“If we don’t do anything, they’ll force it on us,” she said of the FDOE. “We need to have specific reasons why we’re denying the application.”
She also offered that the reason that Somerset was pushing the virtual school in Jefferson County as opposed to other parts of the state – a question posed at various times in the discussion – “is because we’re the most vulnerable district in the state,” Roann-Watson said.
“We’re the little guys in the pond and they are looking to run over us,” she said.
It was then she began listing the various reasons for the denial, as expressed by others of board members throughout the discussion in different ways.