A father of family lodged a complaint with the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools in June 2016, raising concerns about the admission practices of a charter school. The mother of a prospective 7th-grade student for the 2016-17 school year attempted to enroll her daughter but encountered what they perceived as discriminatory hurdles.
According to the complaint, the school mandated a placement test as part of the enrollment process. Days after the daughter completed this test, the mother reported receiving a call from the school’s admissions office. The father stated in his complaint that the caller informed her that the school “would not be a good fit for [my daughter] because she did not score high enough” on the placement test.
The mother inquired about a leadership and organization class offered by the school, designed to support students needing additional instruction. She was allegedly told by the admissions secretary that this class was exclusively for students with an Individualized Education Program (IEP). Following this, the father asked if a meeting could be arranged with the school to develop an IEP for his daughter. However, the admissions secretary reportedly declined, reiterating the sentiment that the school was likely “not a good fit,” as detailed in the filed complaint.
Subsequently, the admissions secretary allegedly informed the mother that if she still wished to enroll her daughter, mandatory summer school attendance would be required.
In response to the complaint, the charter school refuted the claim of denying the student’s admission. The school clarified that while a placement test is administered to potential students, the results are used to determine the necessity of summer school attendance. They asserted that summer classes are designed to prepare students for the school’s rigorous curriculum but are not a compulsory prerequisite for admission.
Furthermore, the school denied informing the parents that their daughter was ineligible for the leadership and organization class. They stated that students interested in this class need to undergo an evaluation for special education eligibility first. Notably, the school’s response did not address the allegation that the admissions secretary had suggested the school was “not a good fit” for the complainant’s daughter.
