UPDATE: Fresno Unified trustee accused of intimidating charter school parent – EdSource

Report on Golden Charter Academy Incident and Sustainable Development Goal Implications

Executive Summary

This report details an incident at Golden Charter Academy involving a parent’s request for curriculum access, which escalated to include allegations of intimidation by a Fresno Unified School District board member with ties to the school. The events highlight significant challenges related to the achievement of key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). The conflict underscores systemic issues in institutional transparency, educational equity, and accountable governance.

Incident Analysis: Curriculum Access and Governance at Golden Charter Academy

Background

Golden Charter Academy, a charter school authorized and overseen by the Fresno Unified School District, combines academics with a nature-based learning model. The school was co-founded by Fresno Unified board member Keshia Thomas and her son-in-law, former NFL player Robert Golden, who serves as the school’s CEO. The institution serves a diverse student body, with a majority from racial or ethnic groups that historically experience educational equity gaps.

Chronology of Events

1. A parent, Matthew Gillian, requested access to his fifth-grade student’s curriculum.
2. The school initially required the parent to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to view the materials.
3. Two meetings were held with the parent, one of which included Trustee Thomas and CEO Golden, which the parent described as intimidating.
4. Following the meeting, the parent alleged that Trustee Thomas initiated a “smear campaign” to compel the withdrawal of his complaints.
5. The parent publicly addressed the Fresno Unified board, stating that a trustee used the “full weight of their office, community ties and defamation to protect family interests.”
6. Golden Charter Academy subsequently provided the curriculum to the parent without the NDA requirement.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 4: Quality Education

The incident raises critical concerns regarding the provision of quality education as outlined in SDG 4.

• Target 4.1 (Equitable and Quality Education): The school’s academic performance presents a significant challenge to this target. In the 2024-25 school year, less than 20% of students met state standards in English, and less than 10% achieved proficiency in math. These outcomes indicate a failure to provide effective and equitable learning for its students.
• Target 4.a (Effective Learning Environments): The alleged intimidation of a parent by school leadership and a public official undermines the goal of creating safe, non-violent, and inclusive learning environments. Parental partnership is a key component of an effective educational ecosystem, and actions that discourage it are counterproductive.
• Parental Rights: The initial barrier to curriculum access contravenes the principle of transparency and the fundamental right of parents to be informed partners in their children’s education, a cornerstone of a quality education system.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The situation at Golden Charter Academy has direct implications for SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequality within and among countries.

• Target 10.3 (Ensure Equal Opportunity): By serving a majority population of students from groups facing achievement gaps, the school has a responsibility to reduce educational inequalities. The low proficiency rates suggest that, instead of closing these gaps, the institution may be perpetuating them, thus failing to ensure equal opportunity in educational outcomes.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The events directly challenge the principles of SDG 16, which calls for effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions.

• Target 16.6 (Effective, Accountable, and Transparent Institutions): The initial lack of transparency regarding curriculum and the alleged use of intimidation tactics point to a deficit in institutional accountability. The requirement of an NDA for public educational material is contrary to the principles of open and transparent governance.
• Target 16.7 (Responsive and Inclusive Decision-Making): The alleged actions of a school board trustee represent a potential conflict of interest and an abuse of public office. Such conduct undermines the integrity of public institutions and their ability to engage in responsive, inclusive, and representative decision-making. It erodes public trust and obstructs the path to justice for stakeholders seeking accountability.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The article is centered on a school and directly discusses issues of educational quality, access to curriculum, and student achievement. It highlights significant failures in learning outcomes, as evidenced by low proficiency rates in core subjects, and touches upon equity gaps among the student population.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article points to disparities in educational outcomes by stating that the school serves “a majority of students from racial or ethnic groups that experience equity gaps in achievement.” The extremely low test scores confirm that these inequalities are not being reduced but are instead reflected in the school’s performance, indicating a failure to provide equal opportunity.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This goal is relevant due to the reported abuse of power, lack of transparency, and failure of accountability within a public institution. A school board member allegedly used her position to intimidate a parent, and the school initially tried to restrict access to public information (the curriculum) with a non-disclosure agreement. These actions undermine the principles of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.

2. Specific SDG Targets

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.

     This target is directly addressed by the article’s mention of the school’s poor academic results. The statement that “Less than 20% of students met state standards in English, and less than 10% met math proficiency” indicates a failure to provide a quality education that leads to effective learning outcomes.

   • Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education… for the vulnerable…

     The article notes that the school’s student body includes a “majority of students from racial or ethnic groups that experience equity gaps in achievement.” The poor performance data suggests that the school is not ensuring equal access to quality education for these vulnerable groups, thus failing to close existing equity gaps.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome…

     The significant gap in achievement, where less than 10% of students meet math proficiency, points to a severe inequality of outcome for a student population already facing equity challenges. This demonstrates a failure to provide the equal opportunity necessary to achieve better results.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

     The actions described in the article run counter to this target. The school’s initial demand for an NDA to view the curriculum shows a lack of transparency. Furthermore, the allegation that a board member launched a “smear campaign” to “protect family interests” highlights a severe lack of accountability and effectiveness in governance.

   • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms…

     This target is central to the parent’s complaint. His struggle to view the curriculum without an NDA is a direct fight for public access to information. The quote, “Parents have a fundamental right to know what their children are being taught,” explicitly supports the principle of this target.

3. Indicators for Measuring Progress

1. Proficiency Levels in Core Subjects (Implied Indicator 4.1.1)

   The article provides explicit quantitative data that can be used as an indicator for Target 4.1. The statistics, “Less than 20% of students met state standards in English, and less than 10% met math proficiency,” are direct measures of student achievement and learning outcomes.

2. Public Access to Information Policies (Implied Indicator 16.10.2)

   The core conflict over the curriculum and the school’s attempt to use a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) serves as a qualitative indicator of whether policies guaranteeing public access to information are being implemented. The parent’s complaint and the subsequent reversal by the school to provide the curriculum without an NDA measure the responsiveness of the institution to upholding this right.

3. Accountability of Public Officials (Implied Indicator 16.6.2)

   The parent’s complaint about the board member’s alleged intimidation and “smear campaign” is an indicator of a breakdown in institutional accountability. The filing of complaints with “Golden Charter, Fresno Unified and the state” implies a process to measure and address the conduct of public officials, reflecting on the effectiveness and accountability of the institution.

4. Summary Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: edsource.org