Skip to content

Concerned parents crowd an upstairs room at the Paul Robeson building and watch the proceedings of the September 27, 2012 OUSD meeting, during which AIMS was formally given a notice of violations. Photo by Lauren Kawana.

OUSD starts process of revoking three AIMS schools’ charters

on January 31, 2013

American Indian Model Schools (AIMS) founder Ben Chavis said Tuesday that the Oakland Unified School District’s recent decision to start the process of revoking the three AIM Schools’ charters is unfair and based on biases. “OUSD is upset because I did my job right and they lost students to me,” Chavis said. “They just want their kids back so they can get more state and federal funding.”

School board members voted 6 to 1 to give a “notice of intent to revoke” to AIMS during last week’s school board meeting. AIMS runs two middle schools—American Indian Public Charter School and American Indian Public Charter School II—and one high school, American Indian Public High School. After a public hearing in February and a final vote in March, administrators will have the chance to appeal to Alameda County and the State of California. If they appeal and lose, the schools will close in June. A shutdown would affect over 1,000 downtown and East Oakland students.

The vote came about two months after AIMS administrators submitted a response to a “notice of violations” given to them by the district in September. The notice was the latest in a series given to AIMS administrators alleging improper business contracts, inappropriate credit card usage and lack of school board meeting documentation.

The 1,080-page notice of violations given to AIMS in September was based on a Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team audit requested by the Alameda County of Office of Education, as well as public records and previous correspondence between OUSD and AIMS board members. These included a January 2011 notice of concern from OUSD regarding complaints from anonymous sources about “serious allegations of sexual harassment and verbal or physical abuse of students,” according to the September OUSD report. They also included a complaint about a staff member kissing a 14-year-old female student, and a sexual harassment complaint filed against Chavis in 2011.

After the district issued its notice in September, AIMS administration members were required to provide a written response to the OUSD and a plan for remedial measures. They were also given 60 days to provide missing documents. A response from AIMS was submitted in November, but had not been discussed at a school board meeting until Wednesday. The response, which fills 13 binders, has not yet been made available online.

But a shorter summary of the response, provided by Chavis to Oakland North, addressed the alleged conflict of interest violations. According to the district’s notice, Chavis leased property to AIMS, and its board gave a series of remodeling contracts to his companies, American Delivery Systems and Lumbee Holdings, while he was still the charter schools’ director. Since state laws prohibit public officials, officers and employees from engaging in a contract in which they have a financial interest, Chavis’ membership on the AIMS board and the contracts that financially benefited him appear to be conflicts of interest, according to the FCMAT audit report.

The schools’ response stated that AIMS rented property from Chavis because his rates were cheaper than renting facilities from the school district. The response states that Chavis’ company charged $1.089 per square foot monthly, and OUSD would charge $2.50 per square foot monthly.

During last week’s board meeting, John Yeh, a lawyer from Burke, Williams and Sorenson representing the district, presented a summary of the response to the board and pointed out that the AIMS administrators had confused the district’s per year charge for a per month charge. He pointed out that AIMS could have actually saved over $600,000 and that it was clear that the research in the response wasn’t done correctly.

Speaking Tuesday, Chavis agreed that the research hadn’t been done correctly, but he said that the rental contract was still justified because OUSD didn’t have a big enough property available for AIMS to use when they needed it.

Chavis also said he filed a statement of economic interest disclosing his financial ties regarding the remodeling contracts with the schools, and that the AIMS board agreed to give his company the contract despite other bids. “All the board members knew for a long time what I owned and I didn’t force them to do anything,” he said. “This was the best deal for our school. I don’t understand why we can’t make our decisions on our own.”

Chavis denied that he ever used a school credit card for personal purchases, saying that some of his bills were paid by accident when he let the school use his personal credit card to purchase school supplies.

“That was a mistake. I agree with that,” Chavis said. “But we fixed this mistake that happened once in twelve years. I think that’s pretty good.”

He also briefly addressed a sexual harassment claim that was made against him in August 2011 by a teacher. The teacher sent a letter to a site administrator claiming that Chavis had sexually harassed her on multiple occasions, including in school. Chavis denied the claims, saying that they were made after the woman was fired from an AIMS school. “The claims are ridiculous,” Chavis said. “In front of students? Why would I do anything in front of my students?”

Chavis said the school district has unfairly targeted AIMS despite a record of strong student achievement.

“When OUSD had to shut down five schools last year and got parents all riled up, we were expanding our middle school,” Chavis said. “I have unorthodox methods and some people don’t like that. You can call me a sexist, a racist, whatever. I do what’s best for my kids and it works.”

The three AIMS schools reported a total enrollment of almost 500 students during the 2010-2011 school year; in that year, reports to the California Department of Education indicated that almost 70 percent of the students were Asian, 18 percent were Hispanic and 1 percent were American Indian. For the past few years, the schools have had consistently high Academic Performance Index scores, which measure a school’s yearly progress and determine federal funding. During the 2009-2010 school year, American Indian Public Charter School had an API of 988, the highest of all the schools in the state.

Chavis firmly believes that he is being targeted because if the AIMS schools close, OUSD schools will gain more students, ultimately resulting in more state and federal aid. “They don’t want me around because I’m successful, and they’re losing money because of me,” he said.

But after reviewing AIMS’ official response, most of the members of the school board agreed that there are enough concerns to warrant withdrawing the schools’ charters.

District 1 school board representative Jody London, who voted to give AIMS the notice of intent to revoke, said that in the past few years there have been many problems with the schools, beyond financial and organizational misconduct. “Not only were there clear conflicts of interest, but we have complaints coming in from people involved with the schools, saying that there have been issues with kids not being treated right,” London said. “If this were a low-performing school, people would be screaming bloody murder.”

She also denied that OUSD is trying to shut the school down to get more students, saying that the district’s investigation first arose through a whistleblower from the school itself, not an outsider. “It’s not like we said, ‘Hey, let’s go after AIMS.’ There were enough issues at these schools for someone to step up and try to get help,” London said.

But District 6 representative Christopher Dobbins, a defense attorney and the only school board member who voted against revoking the charters, called Chavis “a galvanizing force” within the school district and said that his attitude and past conflicts with the district were reasons many school board members voted against AIMS. “If this guy really did steal millions of dollars, then the district attorney would be after him,” Dobbins said. “There’s no reason to shut the schools down when the kids are doing well.”

AIMS administrators, staff and teachers are currently deciding what to do next and trying to reassure parents that everything is going to be fine, said administrative assistant and AIMS alumna Karely Ordaz. “We’re the top schools in Alameda County,” said Ordaz. “The parents are confused as to why this has gone so far and we’re just trying to figure out what our next step is going to be.”

A community meeting at Lincoln Elementary School with Superintendent Tony Smith with be held on February 5 at 6 p.m. in which he will discuss next steps with AIMS families. A public hearing for AIMS community members will be held at La Escuelita Education Center on February 13 at 6 p.m. Those who want to offer their opinions and input will be able to speak to the board that day. The OUSD board members’ final decision will be made on March 20 at La Escuelita Education Center.


  1. Joe on January 31, 2013 at 10:58 pm

    Chavis should step down and let his schools continue without him. If they are so good, other staff can keep the tradition going.

    Mistaking a per-year charge for a monthly charge is pretty bad math. It means he charged 5 times more than the district would have for property. Also, he made this mistake in his response to a legal inquiry, when he had every reason to be careful and get good financial advice.

    I know nothing of the situation up to this point, but Chavis isn’t winning any confidence with his response to it.

    • OUSDParent on February 5, 2013 at 11:38 am

      Decent article, Nauseen.

      My only advice is that Nauseen should have a conversation with the current Executive Director of AIMS, Sylvester Hodges, instead of Dr. Chavis, who is no longer running AIMS.

      @Joe. Chavis *has* stepped down.

      He no longer has any official capacity with AIMS (nor has he had for a while). His involvement with AIMS at this point is strictly as a parent (he has 2 kids currently studying at AIMS) and a landlord.

      OUSD’s focus on this $2.50 rent per month/per year issue is really cynical, irrelevant, and misleading. It really shows off the weakness of OUSD’s case if this is the main point they are hanging their hat on. The OUSD presentation leads the reader to believe that AIMS is paying significantly above market rate for these rents. It also misrepresents the essence of AIMS’ response on this matter.

      AIMS’ argument is that the leases are appropriate since 1) All appropriate disclosures were made before entering into the contract; and 2) the board made a decision that was appropriate since the rental amount (avg $1.09/sf/year) is lower than the going rental rates in that area (~$1.80/sf/year). The comparison to what OUSD theoretically would charge AIMS for space in their facilities is a distraction

      That OUSD is arguing that the going rate is $0.20 (20 cents a year/sf) is ridiculous. Of course, if OUSD would offer 65,000+ sf of appropriate space in AIMS’ current neighborhoods, AIMS would be thrilled to have OUSD as their landlord.

      However, this whole “Is the rent at or below market rate” discussion is really a distraction.

      OUSD’s lawyers have specifically stated that the decision to proceed with the Intent to Revoke is because OUSD “came to the conclusion that AIMS has not remedied the violations in any of those five areas [that the NOV identified].”

      In fact, significant remedition and controls have been put in place in all 5 areas. Evidence of these new controls/remediations were included in the NOV Response submitted by AIMS.

      For a crisp video summary of OUSD’s position taken from the video of the January 23rd meeting view this youtube video:

  2. Teri Smith, OUSD Parent on February 5, 2013 at 6:07 pm


    Did you ask Chavis why he will not resign as Director of the school and AIMS school Board? This will be in the best interest of the students.

    If OUSD does not have space for the school would you agree that the market rate is less than the 1.89 that Chavis is charging the school?

    From your story he sounds like a crook to me.

    • OUSDParent on February 5, 2013 at 6:48 pm


      Two quick corrections to your post.

      1) Chavis has completely resigned from all directorships, board positions, and other official position.

      2) Lumbee Holdings only charges $1.09 per square feet.

      Market rate for similar space in the same neighborhood is around $1.80.

  3. JCR on February 8, 2013 at 12:14 pm

    AIPHS’s in the Laurel District of Oakland is clean on the outside but has serious undercurrents that are not noticeable.

    The majority of the high school students are of Asian descent.
    I feel the site administrators can get away with so many unfair practices because they know parents may feel their children are safer there than in other public schools.
    How is it that the following occurs at AIPHS:
    1- No free meal programs for students when every other charter school has provisions for it?
    2- Why does staff need to drop and pick up high students from the chruch gym turned lunch room?
    3- Why is lunch time only twenty minutes for all except the site administrator?
    4- Why are students required to have at least 5 hours of homework per night?
    5- Why are students so tired while in class?
    6- Why are there no computers in the “class rooms” or on campus for that matter?
    7- Why are the females required to keep their hair dyed black?
    8- Why is Saturday School conducted by the site secretary (without pay) to monitor students?
    9- There is no onsite janitor, food service employees, technology for teachers, teacher lunch rooms, phones in classrooms in case of an emergency, biology lab despite there is a biology class…one copier machine.

    The list goes on and on. Makes me wonder where is all the money going?

    • JCR on February 8, 2013 at 12:15 pm

      Sorry about the typographical error.

      I meant to say AIPHS located in the Laurel District….

      • JCR on February 8, 2013 at 12:22 pm

        Another typographical error on number 2.
        I meant to write church gym…..

  4. JH on February 13, 2013 at 7:53 am

    It is crazy that the School Board would shut down not only the best school in Oakland but one of the best schools in the STATE.

    The District has so many other options besides shutting down the school. The decision appears to be made purely out of spite to shut down an expanding and successful charter system.

  5. […] administration made an official response in November to the district refuting many of the charges, the Oakland school board voted to begin the process of revoking the schools’ charter at the end of […]

  6. […] vote came almost two months after the OUSD voted to begin the process of revoking the charters, and almost three months after AIMS administrators submitted a response to a “notice of […]

  7. 立河 恵理 on August 5, 2013 at 5:17 am

    That was talented. I’ll be stopping back.

  8. tblmoto on August 6, 2013 at 11:00 am

    I love the BBQ COOKIES, Laura! The Apron and Utensils COOKIES are my favourite Are you enjoying the Summer days or is it too hot? We’ve had some Tropical Depressions and lots of rain, so the weather is really good Unfortunately some regions in NE Mexico were severely damaged Have a nice week!

  9. whodan on August 16, 2013 at 11:28 am

    Can I just say what a relief to find someone who actually knows what theyre talking about on the int

Oakland North welcomes comments from our readers, but we ask users to keep all discussion civil and on-topic. Comments post automatically without review from our staff, but we reserve the right to delete material that is libelous, a personal attack, or spam. We request that commenters consistently use the same login name. Comments from the same user posted under multiple aliases may be deleted. Oakland North assumes no liability for comments posted to the site and no endorsement is implied; commenters are solely responsible for their own content.

Photo by Basil D Soufi
Oakland North

Oakland North is an online news service produced by students at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism and covering Oakland, California. Our goals are to improve local coverage, innovate with digital media, and listen to you–about the issues that concern you and the reporting you’d like to see in your community. Please send news tips to:

Latest Posts

Scroll To Top