American Indian Model Schools

American Indian Model Schools (AIM Schools) is a charter school system with its headquarters in Oakland, California.[1] The main campus is in the Laurel area and includes American Indian Public Charter School (AICPS), a 5th grade-8th grade school, and American Indian Public High School (AIPHS), a high school (9-12). AIPHS students can also take select classes at Merritt College. American Indian Public Charter School II (AIPCS II) is a fifth grade through eighth grade school at a second campus. The Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) granted the charter to the school system and oversees it. The American Indian school system has its own school board and internal policies.[2]

AICPS students had poor academic performance from its founding in 1996 until 2000 when Ben Chavis became the head of school. Under his leadership, new teachers were brought in and the philosophy of the school changed. Test scores increased dramatically and enrollment picked up. Student demographics also changed. The AIM system has since opened two additional charter schools. They have been recognized for their academic performance while Chavis's discipline system has been controversial and drawn a lot of criticism. Administration of the schools includes philosophic opposition to U.S. liberal ideologies and support for free-market capitalism.[3]

Chavis and his wife, Marsha Amador, were found to have made improper payments in the amount of $1 million according to the results of an investigation released in 2012. The Oakland School Board requested the California Board of Education deny renewal of American Indian Public Charter School II's (AIPCS II) charter, which would have closed the school after the 2011-2012 academic year.[4] The School Board, recognizing the school's exceptional student performance, voted to approve the 5-year renewal of AIPCS II, including an expansion to serve K-4.[5]

History

The American Indian Public Charter School opened in 1996. It was intended to help Native American students in the Oakland, California area improve their academic performance; historically Native Americans had low academic performances. Martin Waukazoo, the executive director of the Native American Health Center, was one of the founders of the school. Shortly after the establishment of the school, Waukazoo withdrew his involvement because he believed it put too much emphasis on Native American cultural classes and not enough emphasis on basic educational skills. After its founding, the school had a high staff turnover rate and insufficient funds for textbooks and computers. In 2000 the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) considered closing the school.[6] Nanette Asimov of the San Francisco Chronicle said that the school, which had 37 students, was "sinking fast," could not keep its students, and did not have "viable test scores."[7]

Evelyn Lamenti, an employee of the OUSD Office of Indian Education, decided to ask Ben Chavis,[6] a Lumbee Native American,[3] to become the head of the school. At the time Chavis had an education job at the University of Arizona. Lamenti knew Chavis when he taught at San Francisco State University. Lamenti believed that he would do a good job since he had a background in education, and interest in charter schools, and a knowledge of children living in inner city American communities.[6]

In 2000 Chavis became the head of the school.[3] Chavis took the job as a favor for other native Americans.[8] He fired most of the school's employees and eliminated the Native American cultural classes.[9] Chavis said that he recruited new teachers who had "strong" academic backgrounds and "didn't see the students as victims, even though their lives often are incredibly difficult." By 2001, only the coordinator of the "Math, Engineering, Science, and Achievement" program remained from the pre-Chavis era.[6]

By 2002 the school's enrollment tripled and its test scores were increasing.[7]

In September 2006 the American Indian Charter High School opened.[7]

In 2007 AICPS became the first public school in Oakland to win the National Blue Ribbon Award.[10]

In March 2007, a professor and several students from Mills College in Oakland scheduled an appointment with the administration. One student was late to the appointment,[7] by fifteen minutes. The professor, Sabrina Zirkel, and four of the graduate students accused him of calling the student who was late, 25-year-old Unity Lewis, an African-American, "a fucking black minority punk."[11] They said that Chavis called the student a "worthless piece of shit" and, in the words of Robert Gammon of the East Bay Express, "screamed that he was going to kick the grad student's ass."[11] Chavis said that he told Lewis that he "a dumbass minority" who was "an embarrassment to his race."[12] Chavis said that he did not threaten to "kick" the student. He said "What I said was, 'You're going to look funny if you jump me and a sixty-year-old man kicks your ass.' " and that he did not call Lewis "a fucking black minority punk."[11]

As a result of this incident and prior incidents, OUSD officials asked the AIM governing board to pressure Chavis to act in a different manner. In response, the AIM board gave Chavis a $700 dollar fine. Kirsten Vital, an OUSD accountability head, said that it was not likely to correct the issue leading to the Mills incident.[7]

On March 15, 2007, Chavis told the AIM school board that he was leaving his post. The minutes of the board meeting stated that Chavis would remain as a part-time employee. Chavis said that he was not going to remain an employee and planned to go back to Arizona. Chavis said that he was not leaving because of the Mills incident, and that he planned to leave during that time regardless of the Mills incident.[7] Mitchell Landsberg of the Los Angeles Times said in 2009 that Chavis "remains a presence at the school."[3] The website refers to Chavis as an "advisor emeritus." Janet Roberts, a former teacher, succeeded Chavis as the head of the school system. Roberts said that once Chavis resigned, critics have not voiced objections to the school anymore. She said, in the words of Katy Murphy of the Oakland Tribune, "Many assumed that the academic success of the American Indian schools was personality-driven[...] but the program didn't lose its edge after Chavis left."[13]

On Tuesday, June 2, 2009 the first class of AIPHS, consisting of 18 students, graduated.[3]

Extraordinary Audit Published with Evidence of Fraud

In July 2011, the AIPCS governing board voted Dr. Chavis into an executive position to help with the expansion of the model. At a later board meeting in January 2012, the board announced Dr. Chavis’ resignation and thanked him for his service.[14] Less than one month later, California’s Fiscal and Crisis Management Team announced AIPCS would undergo an extraordinary audit. The recommendation for the audit was made by Alameda County School Superintendent Sheila Jordan, the audit was requested based on an anonymous complaint from a former AIPCS employee. Superintendent Sheila Jordan sat on the Board of the FCMAT for many years but is not currently a Board Member. The audit focused on the ASES grant for an after school program, facilities lease and rent expenditures, and the Political Reform Act of 1974 regarding conflict of interest laws. Oakland Unified School District Charter School Office Director, Gail Greely is responsible for delivering the FCMAT report and monitoring the process. Ms. Greely is leaving her OUSD post to become the Director of Charter School Education for Alameda County working for Sheila Jordan.

During the 2012 charter renewal process for AIPCS II, the Oakland Office of Charter Schools found practices in violation of the charter and applicable law. OCS also found lack of responsible governance on the part of the AIPCS governing board along with poor financial accountability. The shortcomings of the school adversely affected parents and students as not all financial resources were used to address the needs of students. OCS noted the following strength of the school: AIPCS II did pursue its measurable student outcome in its current charter and met its AYP. The following challenges were noted: adherence to proposed educational program and compliance with regulatory elements: financial audits, reporting, enrollment, admissions, Brown Act, Political Reform Act.[15]

On April 4, 2012, the OUSD board held its AIPCS II charter renewal hearing. OCS recommended denying the charter. This was supported by President London, who suggested OUSD could deny the charter and AIPCS II could renew with Alameda County, given the pending FCMAT extraordinary audit. OCS noted Chavis was both lessee and lessor, that his personal car insurance was paid by the school (the school does not have any cars), and checks were made out to a board member, among other financial issues. President Michael Stember defended AIPCS and new accountant Christina Chen denied all charges against AIPCS. Given the outstanding API and numerous parent, staff, and student speakers, the OUSD board voted 4-3 to renew the school's charter for another five years. Spearman, Gallo, Dobbins, and Hodge voted to renew the charter, Kakishiba, Yee, and London voted against the motion. The board will return to the issue in two years to verify training of the AIPCS governing board and more rigorous accounting practices at the school. The charter which was approved allowed AIPCS II to open an elementary school. AIPCS II is currently a K - 12 school. See minutes.[16][17]

In early June 2012, the FCMAT audit was published. Evidence of fraud was listed, with recommendations to forward the audit to the local DA.[18] Michael Stember resigned between April and June; Jean Martinez is now president of the AIPCS governing board.[19] "The allegations against American Indian charter schools officials include $3.7 million in payments to businesses owned by founder Ben Chavis and his wife, including money for rent, storage fees, construction projects and the administration of summer school programs.”[19]

On September 27, 2012 the Oakland School Board voted to issue a "Notice of violation to American Indian Public Charter School." http://www.ibabuzz.com/education/2012/09/28/in-split-vote-ousd-board-puts-american-indian-charter-schools-on-notice/ School Board President Jody London, David Kakashiba, Jumoke Hodge and Gary Yee voted to issue the notice. Chris Dobbins and Alice Spearman voted against it and Noel Gallo was absent. After issuing the notice of violation the Board Members, Yee and Hodge urged concerned parents not to say that OUSD was closing the school but rather that they were "curing it." Board Member Gary Yee then told an AIPCS parent, Ann Nomura, that he could no longer speak to American Indian Charter School parents because American Indian Public Charter School's Board was suing the Oakland School Board and OUSD for trying to negotiate a hostile takeover of the school. Gail Greely in the OUSD Charter office provided concerned parents with an outline of a school closure process only after 3 requests from parents.

Charter Revocation

On January 23, 2013: The OUSD Board votes to issue a “Notice of Intent to Revoke” to the AIMS charter system and scheduled a public hearing on the matter for February 27, 2013.[20]

On March 20, 2013: The OUSD board votes 4-3 to revoke the AIMS charter effective June 30, 2013. Supporters vow to appeal to the county and state board of education.[21]

In April–May 2013: Alameda County Board of Education will decide whether to overturn OUSD trustees' decision to revoke the AIMS charter. If the county upholds the revocation, AIMS can appeal to the California Board of Education.[21]

In May–June 2013: The California Board of Education will decide whether to overturn or support the decision to revoke the AIMS charter.[21]

June 30, 2013: The revocation takes effect if the state and county boards of education do not intervene.[21]

July 15, 2013: Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo granted the school a preliminary injunction, allowing all three campuses to remain open.[22]

Campuses

The system includes three schools, American Indian Public Charter School (AICPS), a 5th grade-8th grade school,[23][24] American Indian Public Charter School II (AIPCS II), a fifth grade through eighth grade school,[25] and American Indian Public High School (AIPHS), a high school (9-12).[26]

The school system has two campuses. The original American Indian Public Charter School and the main campus of American Indian High School occupy a converted church located off of MacArthur Boulevard,[23][26][27] in the Laurel area of Oakland.[28] AIPCS II is located on another campus in Chinatown.[13][25] Students at AIPHS who attend dual credit classes with Merritt College attend some classes at the Merritt campus.[29][29]

AICPS II shared a campus with Little Hands School . AICPS II caters to students living in Chinatown and the Lake Merritt area. AICPS also admits students living in other areas of Oakland. The school states that it will consider the applications of students who live outside of Oakland.[2]

Operations

Kevin Drum of Mother Jones said "[...]AIPC is a super-strict, teach-to-the-test, no goofing off kind of place that apparently gets good results."[30]

The school system often fires teachers that it considers to be low performing.[3]

As of 2001 the American Indian Model School did not give out free school lunches. Ben Chavis said this is because "[y]ou've got to give them some responsibilities."[6]

In the pre-Chavis era school began at 9:30 AM. Chavis said this was so "because they said Indians couldn't get up early."[6] In the pre-Chavis era the school provided smoking breaks.[6]

Student discipline

Mitchell Landsberg of the Los Angeles Times said that the AIM students "are subject to disciplinary procedures redolent of military school."[3] At AIMS schools students who are late to class, do not complete homework, or violate the dress code automatically receive detention.[28] A student who misbehaves once in a week receives one after-school detention lasting one hour. A student who misbehaves again in the same week will receive another after-school detention and a four-hour Saturday detention. Landsberg said that by the time students become eighth graders, "discipline is not really an issue. Classes are preternaturally quiet and focused. Visitors may be startled to notice that students do not so much as glance at them. They have been told to keep their attention on their work. They do as they are told."[9]

Discipline under Chavis

Ben Chavis, while heading the AIMS system, used threats and humiliation as mechanisms to discipline students.[7] He often used racially charged language. Robert Gammon of the East Bay Express said "Chavis' boorish behavior has been tolerated because of his school's incredible test scores."[11] During the Chavis era, students who repeatedly violated rules were humiliated by Chavis or by teachers. The administration often used namecalling, stereotypes, and profanities against students.[28] Some students were forced to hold signs that insulted the students.[3] After a student was accused of stealing, Chavis secured permission from the boy's parents to have his hair cut off.[28] Chavis shaved the student's head in front of the entire school.[9] Simone Sebastian of the San Francisco Chronicle said that in the Chavis era, some critics opposed some disciplinary practices.[28]

Kirsten Vital, an accountability head of the Oakland Unified School District, said in a latter to the AIM governing board dated on July 9, 2007 said that, during a visit to the American Indian Public Charter School in June 2007, she witnessed, in the words of Nanette Asimov of the San Francisco Chronicle, "incidents bordering on educational malpractice, and that came close to child endangerment."[7] Vital cited Chavis using the words "darkies" and "whities" to refer to racial and ethnic backgrounds in front of students, Chavis referring to a former employee as a "white b --" [sic] while in the presence of students, and the school forcing a girl to clean a restroom for boys as a punishment for bad behavior.[7]

A poster in the school hallway included a quote from Chavis, saying "You do outstanding things here and you'll be treated outstanding. You act like a fool and you'll be treated like one."[3] Landsberg said in 2009 that the concept is still active at AIMS schools, but had been "toned down" since Chavis left his post as head of the system.[3]

Philosophy

The school system's administration opposed to U.S. liberal philosophies, and it promotes free-market capitalism. The school administration opposes teacher's unions. Mitchell Landsberg said that the AIM system schools "sometimes seem like creations of television's "Colbert Report" and that the AIM system schools "mock liberal orthodoxy with such zeal that it can seem like a parody."[3] American conservatives have praised the AIM Schools. For instance George Will stated that he was in favor of the school system since it could form a "new paternalism" that could close achievement gaps between socioeconomic classes.[3]

School uniforms

Students are required to wear school uniforms.[3] Students wear white shirts and dark-colored trousers. The school does not permit students to wear makeup, jewelry, or brightly colored hair accessories.[28]

Demographics

Student body

American Indian Public Charter School ethnic breakdown by year, from 1996/1997 to 2008/2009

As of 2012 over 90% of AIPCS student body is Asian American.[4] The next largest ethnic groups were African Americans and Hispanic Americans. In 2009 almost all of the students were low income.[3]

Of the high school students who graduated in 2009, all planned to attend colleges and universities in the fall of that year. Ten students planned to attend various University of California System campuses. One planned to attend the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. One planned to attend Cornell University.[3]

In 2005 Ben Chavis said that the target demographic of the AIPCS was "ghetto, poor kids." During that year about 75% of the students qualified for free or reduced lunch programs.[31]

In 2000 the school had a 62% Native American student body.[11] In 2001 the school had about 100 students. 52% of the students were Native American. According to Chavis, during that year 12-15 percent of the children were homeless. During the same year he said that some students had been expelled from other schools for because they carried knives on their persons.[6] Since Chavis became the head of the school, the Native American population decreased. In 2005 20% of the students were Native American.[31] In 2006 the percentage of Native Americans was over 13%. By that year the school began to receive many Asian Americans from Laurel.[11] In the 2010-2011 school year, the AICPS system was 86% Asian American, while the Oakland Unified School District was 13% Asian. In 2010-2011, the school had no Native American students. Ellen Cushing of the East Bay Express said that the demographics were "homogenous" and that the demographic change was "an ironic twist for a school that was originally intended to serve American Indians — and which is still thought of by many as a haven for a population that's struggled mightily with institutional oppression."[32] Cushing said that "one prominent member of the Bay Area American-Indian community" who asked to be anonymous said that many Native Americans feel upset by the school's name, and "If anything, I just wish they would change their name — it's misleading, and potentially damaging to our community."[32]

In 2012, the original AICPS drew from many elementary schools. During the same year, John Melvin, the principal of Lincoln Elementary School, a high performing OUSD elementary school, said that 75% of his students go to AICPS II when they previously had been going to Westlake Middle School.[32] Cushing said "AIPCS II is mere blocks away from Lincoln, making it a defacto neighborhood school," and Gary Yee, an OUSD board member and husband of a Lincoln Elementary teacher, said, as paraphrased by Cushing, "its rigorous teaching style is [...] similar to what you might find in an elite East-Asian school, perhaps making it more appealing to Lincoln's overwhelmingly Asian-American parent base."[32] Several Chinese American parents of AIMS students expressed support for the school's methods.[33]

Faculty

As of 2009 most AIM system teachers were young, attended prestigious universities and were, in the words of Mitchell Landsberg of the Los Angeles Times, "self-confident" and "mature."[9]

In 2005 American Indian Public Charter School had seven teachers. The student teacher ratio was 25 to one. Most of the teachers had ages in the twenties. Most of them graduated from prestigious universities. During that year Ben Chavis said that the few teachers who are not credentialed were enrolled in credentialing programs.[31]

As of 2005 AIPCS paid each first year teacher an annual salary of $42,000 and allowed for a $1,500 bonus at the end of the school year. The annual salary of an entry level teacher in the Oakland Unified School District was $37,000 during that year.[31]

Curriculum

In the American Indian middle schools one teacher teaches all of the subjects for a given class.[8] The regular teacher does not teach physical education.[3] This differs from the practices of most American middle schools, where teachers specializing in different subjects teach different classes.[8] The school has this policy in order to make the students form bonds with their teachers and to save time normally allotted to class passing periods. Mitchell Landsberg of the Los Angeles Times said that "Five minutes per passing period might not sound like much, but over the course of a year, American Indian saves the equivalent of more than a week's worth of instruction."[9] A middle school class's given teacher is to stay with his or her given class for all three years, until the class graduates. Landsberg said in 2009 that it is "a policy that seems to be more theory than reality, given high teacher turnover."[9]

Each middle school day begins with three hours of language arts and mathematics classes.[28] For middle school students English and mathematics make up 90 minutes per day.[9] Afterwards, students have a twenty minute lunch period. During each day, students have 45 minutes worth of physical education instruction.[28] The school system has few classes that do not directly affect standardized test scores. Carey Blakely, a former American Indian system teacher, said that "I don't see it as teaching to the test. I see it as, there are certain skills and knowledge that you're supposed to impart to your students, and the test measures whether your students have acquired those skills and that knowledge."[9] The school system only allows instruction in arts to take place after school.[28]

The AIM system schools do not have laboratory equipment for science classes. Because of this and the school's emphasis on learning from textbooks, Landsberg said "it is hard to imagine that American Indian will turn out the next Darwin or Edison."[34] AIM classrooms do not have computers and televisions.[35] Ben Chavis disapproved computers since he believed computers could cause students to easily access pornography and that the presence could invite theft and lead to unforeseen expenses.[28]

Students are assigned homework so they have several hours' worth on most nights. Students at the AIM system middle schools are required to attend two weeks of summer school each summer.[28]

All AIM middle school students take Algebra I during the eighth grade.[34]

Pre-Chavis curriculum

The American Indian Public Charter School, in its early years, offered Native American cultural classes. Martin Waukazoo, one of the founders of the AIPCS, said that he withdrew from the school because it did not sufficiently emphasize basic educational skills. He said "They were doing too many fuzzy, warm things like bead-making classes and drum classes. Those are good hobbies, but our kids need to learn to read and write. I felt it was doing more harm than good."[6] After Ben Chavis became the head of the school, he eliminated the Native American cultural classes.[9]

Admissions

In the State of California, charter schools are required to take all students who apply to the school if the schools have enough capacity to house them. If a charter school has more prospective students than room available to house them, the charter school has to hold a lottery. The AIM school system, as of 2009, has never held a lottery. Ben Chavis and Janet Roberts, a school principal in the AIM system, said that AIM never received enough students to require the system to hold a lottery.[34]

In the fall of 2008 the State of California did not allow the AIM system to open a new campus, partly because, according to the authority, the administrators were "unable to describe" the system's selection process.[34]

Chavis and Roberts said in 2009 that the American Indian system attracts representative samples of students from various public elementary schools in Oakland. Ron Smith, the principal of Laurel Elementary School and a parent of two AIM system children, said that of the children who went from Laurel to the AIM system, "I'd say 70% are academically strong, and 30% are a cross-section. . . . They have kids who I know could go anyplace in the state and succeed."[34]

The AIM school system did not disclose the elementary school test scores of its students. Mitchell Landsberg of the Los Angeles Times could not determine whether the students at American Indian middle schools had above average scores in the elementary school grades.[34]

In a letter dated June 9, 2006 sent to the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD), a parent said that when she tried to register her child at AIPCS officials said that they were not accepting students and were not placing children on waitlists. She said that when she talked to a White coworker afterwards, the coworker said that his son received a spot on the waitlist. The writer of the letter said that Chavis had told the coworker that the school needed more White students, so the child would be placed at the top of the waitlist.[12]

Other critics of the AIM System schools speculated that the school tries to recruit high performing elementary school students, and that it banishes low performing students before testing season.[13]

Academic performance

In May 2009, American Indian Public Charter School had an Academic Performance Index (API) of 967. Mitchell Landsberg said that the other two AIM schools "are not far behind."[3] The state API target is 800. The state average of public middle and high schools is 750. The state average of schools with underprivileged students is 650. Of the public schools in California, during that year four middle schools and three high schools had higher API scores than AIPCS; none of them had student bodies of mostly underprivileged students. Mitchell Landsberg of the Los Angeles Times stated that while critics of the school often said that the high number of Asian American students causes the test scores to be high, the African American and Hispanic students "do roughly as well -- in fact, better on some tests" so "[t]hat makes American Indian a rarity in American education, defying the axiom that poor black and Latino children will lag behind others in school."[3] In 2008, Janet Roberts, the head of the AIM system, said that the speculation that the increased numbers of Asian students caused test scores to go higher demonstrated that the educational establishment has low expectations of low-income African American, Hispanic and Latino, and Native American children.[13]

Landsberg said that the school system has high performance because it "attracts academically motivated students, relentlessly (and unapologetically) teaches to the test, wrings more seat time out of every school day, hires smart young teachers, demands near-perfect attendance, piles on the homework, refuses to promote struggling students to the next grade and keeps discipline so tight that there are no distractions or disruptions. Summer school is required."[3] Landsberg added "There is no secret to any of this. Portions of the American Indian model resemble methods used by the KIPP charter schools or, for that matter, urban parochial schools."[3]

Between 2001 and 2005, while AIPCS was under Ben Chavis, the API increased by over 200% to 880, making it, in 2005, the middle school in Oakland with the highest API. The next highest Oakland middle school was almost 80 points lower than AIPCS.[28]

In 2008, every AIM system eighth grader scored either a "proficient" or a higher rating in the State of California algebra examination. In California, half of the eighth graders overall took algebra. Of all of the state's eighth grade students who took algebra, fewer than half scored "proficient" or higher.[34]

Kevin Drum of Mother Jones argued that while the AIMS schools get high test scores, the teaching style may not get the same results in every type of school. Drum cited the small sizes of AIMS schools and that the system "plainly attracts only parents and children who are academically motivated in the first place" and "requires middle school teachers to teach every subject and keeps them on a grueling pace, which means lots of turnover."[30] Drum further argued that "the odds that the AIPC formula is scalable to an entire school district is nil."[30]

Student progress

Ron Smith, the principal of Laurel Elementary School, disclosed the middle school test scores of the 51 students from Laurel who entered the AIM system in 2004, showing their progress in English and mathematics between the 6th and 8th grades. Landsberg said "It's impossible to tell whether the students were academically strong at the start of sixth grade or were brought up to grade level by the rigors of a year at American Indian."[34] Of the students from Laurel who had completed the 6th grade at the AIM system, 39 finished all three years at the AIM system.[34]

Of the 51 students, six scored lower than proficient in both English and mathematics during the end of their 6th-grade year. Three of them left the AIM system and, according to Landsberg, the remaining three "showed some progress" by the end of their final year.[34] Landsberg said that he could not determine why the three students left the school. The school system stated that, in 2009, it had never expelled any student for any reason, and that some students voluntarily leave because they moved or because the families decided that the school is not well suited to them.[34] Around 2005, the school overall loses 10 students per year. Chavis said that most students moved out. Some parents quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle said they removed their children because they were dissatisfied with the authoritarian environment. Chavis said that he encouraged some students to leave.[31]

Patricia Gimbel, the dean of admissions for Deerfield Academy, a private university preparatory school in Massachusetts, said in 2005 that AIPCS had "taken kids who are not the brightest and propelled them to the top of state standards."[31] Betty Olson-Jones, the president of the Oakland Education Association, the teachers' union of the Oakland schools, said that the AIM system "had a reputation among the local public schools as being very interested in kind of recruiting kids who are going to do well, and getting rid of kids who won't."[34] Ben Chavis and Janet Roberts, a school principal in the AIM system, said that this was not true.[34]

See also

References

  1. ↑ "Family Handbook." American Indian Public Charter School. Updated June 22, 2009. 17. Retrieved on September 9, 2011. "Mr. John Glover Director, AIM Schools 171 12th St Oakland, CA 94607"
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 "Family Handbook." American Indian Public Charter School II. 4. Updated June 22, 2009. Retrieved on September 9, 2011.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 Landsberg, Mitchell. "Spitting in the eye of mainstream education." Los Angeles Times. May 31, 2009. 1. Retrieved on September 8, 2011.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Oakland charter school accused of fraud may close, Jill Tucker, Monday, April 2, 2012
  5. ↑ http://www.ibabuzz.com/education/2012/04/04/live-blog-american-indian-charter-hearing/
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 Wilson, Emily (November 14, 2001), Beating a New Kind of Drum, East Bay Express
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 Asimov, Nanette. "Charter school principal who raised scores to leave But some parents at American Indian were upset by his methods." San Francisco Chronicle. Friday July 27, 2007. B-2. Retrieved on September 9, 2011.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Mathews, Jay. "A Crazy Idea for Middle Schools." The Washington Post. October 2, 2009. Retrieved on September 8, 2011.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 Landsberg, Mitchell. "Spitting in the eye of mainstream education." Los Angeles Times. May 31, 2009. 2. Retrieved on September 8, 2011.
  10. ↑ Murphy, Katy. "Oakland public school a contender for the National Blue Ribbon." Oakland Tribune. Thursday, December 10, 2009. Retrieved on September 13, 2011.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 Gammon, Robert. "Too Hot for School?" East Bay Express. May 9, 2007. Retrieved on September 8, 2011.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Gammon, Robert. "Chavis in Hot Water." East Bay Express. June 6, 2007. Retrieved on September 8, 2011.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 Murphy, Katy. "Oakland charter schools get high marks and skepticism." The Oakland Tribune. Monday November 3, 2008. Retrieved on September 11, 2011.
  14. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFHzGKVit3o
  15. ↑ http://ousd.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1099958&GUID=C5656E8D-7547-4B5A-96E7-83FB6553BA11&Options=ID
  16. ↑ http://ousd.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=192606&GUID=C020E1B1-4CEA-48E9-8C86-6303EEA8848B&Options=ID&Search=
  17. ↑ http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Fate-of-American-Indian-Charter-School-II-debated-3460397.php
  18. ↑ http://wwwstatic.kern.org/gems/fcmat/AlamedaCOEfinalreport6121292.pdf
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Oakland-schools-officials-may-face-criminal-probe-3632797.php
  20. ↑ http://www.ousd.k12.ca.us/AIMS
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_22851989/oaklands-american-indian-model-schools-seek-new-charter
  22. ↑ Kwamilele, Tasion. "American Indian Model Schools to Remain Open". Oakland North. UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism. Retrieved 29 July 2013.
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 "AIPCS Contact Information." American Indian Public Charter School. Updated June 22, 2009. Retrieved on September 9, 2011. "American Indian Public Charter School 3637 Magee Avenue Oakland CA 94619"
  24. ↑ "Family Handbook." American Indian Public Charter School. Retrieved on September 9, 2011. "American Indian Public Charter School 3637 Magee Ave. Oakland, CA 94619"
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 "Family Handbook." American Indian Public Charter School II. Updated June 22, 2009. Retrieved on September 9, 2011. "American Indian Public Charter School II 171 12th Street Oakland, CA 94607"
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 "Family Handbook." American Indian Public Charter School. Updated June 22, 2009. 17. Retrieved on September 9, 2011. "Mrs. Claudia Walker Site Administrator, AIPHS 3637 Magee Ave Oakland, CA 94619"
  27. ↑ Brand, Madeleine. "A Charter School's Unconventional Success." National Public Radio. August 23, 2006. Retrieved on September 9, 2011.
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 28.5 28.6 28.7 28.8 28.9 28.10 28.11 Sebastian, Simone. "HARD LINE, TOP SCHOOL." San Francisco Chronicle. Friday, December 16, 2005. 1. Retrieved on September 11, 2011.
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 "Family Handbook." American Indian Public High School. 8. Updated June 22, 2009. Retrieved on September 11, 2011.
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 30.2 Drum, Kevin. "Extreme Charter." Mother Jones. Sunday May 31, 2009. Retrieved on September 9, 2011.
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 31.5 Sebastian, Simone. "HARD LINE, TOP SCHOOL." San Francisco Chronicle. Friday, December 16, 2005. 2. Retrieved on September 11, 2011.
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 32.2 32.3 Cushing, Ellen. "Are American Indian Public Charter School's Test Scores Inflated?" East Bay Express. June 13, 2012. Retrieved on August 2, 2012.
  33. ↑ Chiang, Summer and Peter Schurmann. "For Chinese Parents, Success Outweighs Scandal at Oakland School." New America Media. April 13, 2012. Retrieved on August 2, 2012.
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.5 34.6 34.7 34.8 34.9 34.10 34.11 34.12 Landsberg, Mitchell. "Spitting in the eye of mainstream education." Los Angeles Times. May 31, 2009. 3. Retrieved on September 9, 2011.
  35. ↑ Landsberg, Mitchell. "Spitting in the eye of mainstream education." Los Angeles Times. May 31, 2009. 4. Retrieved on September 8, 2011.

External links