Advisory Commission on Charter Schools
An Advisory Body to the State Board of Education
California Department of Education
1430 N Street, Room 1101
Sacramento, California
Monday, March 19, 2007
Members Present
Tom Conry, Acting Chair
Jesse Barajas
Steve Barr
Rae Belisle
Mark Kushner
Marta Reyes*
Members Absent
Vicki Barber
Beth Hunkapiller
Greg McNair
*Marta Reyes is the State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s designee.
PRINCIPAL STAFF TO THE ADVISORY COMMISSION
Deborah Connelly, Consultant, CDE Charter Schools Division
Keith Edmonds, Consultant, CDE Charter Schools Division
Greg Geeting, Consultant, CDE Charter Schools Division
Call to Order
Acting Chair Conry called the meeting to order at 10:40 a.m., indicating that Chair Belisle would be delayed in arriving and had asked him to preside.
Flag Salute
Acting Chair Conry led the members, staff, and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Introductions
Acting Chair Conry invited the members and principal staff to introduce themselves, followed by other CDE officers and staff in attendance, including William J. Ellerbee, Jr., Deputy Superintendent, School and District Operations Branch; Andrew Laufer, School and District Operations Branch Office; Lynda Nichols and Jill White, Professional Development and Curriculum Support Division; and Julie Klein, Oluwole Olukoya, Gary Page, Deborah Probst, and Joan Strohauer, Charter Schools Division.
Approval of Meeting Notes
Acting Chair Conry asked if there were any corrections or changes to the notes from the meeting held on January 29, 2007. Hearing none:
- ACTION: Mr. Conry declared, in the absence of objection, that the notes of the meeting held on January 29, 2007, were approved as presented. Ms. Belisle was not present when the action was taken.
Public Comment
Acting Chair Conry invited comments from the public on matters not on the agenda.
Jan Jablecki, The Camptonville Academy, provided brief comments on a facility issue the school is confronting. The school has several resource centers located outside Yuba County (the county in which the school is chartered), and the majority of the school’s students do not reside in Yuba County. In order to comply with statutory provisions relating to out-of-home-county facilities, the school is seeking charter authorization in the two counties (Butte and Placer) where most of the school’s students reside. Appeals are underway in both counties. Ms. Jablecki summarized issues being addressed in the process of local charter consideration. She indicated that the school may eventually appeal to the SBE for charter authorization. She provided contact information to the members.
There were no other public comments.
Updates
Acting Chair Conry invited Ms. Reyes to provide updates on various matters.
- Audits and Investigations. Ms. Reyes reported on a recently-released audit of Gorman Learning Center and the Lifeline Education Charter Schools. She indicated that, fortunately, audits such as this one (documenting fiscal mismanagement) are becoming increasingly rare. Ms. Reyes also reported that the audit of Options for Youth/Opportunities for Learning had been expanded to include one additional year.
- Closure Regulations. This regulatory package has been completed by the CDE and transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). OAL has until approximately April 10 to complete its work and approve, approve in part, or deny the regulations. No problems with approval are anticipated at this time. If approved by OAL, the regulations would be filed with the Secretary of State’s Office and then be operative within about 30 days.
- Proposition 39 Regulations. Ms. Reyes asked Mr. Geeting to summarize the current status of the Proposition 39 regulations. Mr. Geeting reported that the SBE had taken no action on the regulations at its March meeting, and therefore the regulatory package will be presented again in May (or perhaps sooner if a special meeting is called in April). The SBE will, at that time, consider the CDE’s recommendations for amendments to the proposed regulations. If amended, the regulations would be sent out for a supplemental 15-day public comment period.
- SB 740 Facilities Grants. Ms. Reyes reported that SB 740 facilities grants will be paid a bit later than usual this year due to coordination (as required by the 2006-07 Budget Act) with Charter School Facility Incentive Grants Program (administered by the State Treasurer’s Office). The Budget Act places a limit on total funding a charter school can receive from the two sources combined. The SB 740 allocation schedule went to State Controller’s Office for payment about 10 days ago, so the funds should be made available to the affected charter schools very soon.
- NCLB Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) Provisions. Lynda Nichols was invited to make a brief presentation regarding NCLB HQT provisions in relation to charter schools. She summarized ways in which the Professional Development and Curriculum Support Division (PDCSD) has worked with charter schools to comply with the HQT requirements. “When we get into the charter schools and talk to them,” she said, “we find ways to be successful.” There are many ways of addressing the NCLB HQT requirements. “This is quite doable,” she emphasized. “We are not interested in changing a charter school’s programs. We are just interested in achieving compliance with federal law.” She stressed that she and her colleagues are happy to meet with smaller groups and “brainstorm” at any time. Jill Rice of the PDCSD will be attending the CCSA convention this month to present a session on NCLB HQT issues.
Mr. Kushner indicated his understanding that there are three parts to being HQT compliant: bachelor’s degree, credential, and demonstrated competence. He then indicated his understanding that federal law deferred to state law in relation to the credentialing provision. Under state law, charter schools are given flexibility in relation to credentialing for non-core, non-college preparatory classes. Ms. Nichols concurred: NCLB does not change charter law in relation to credentialing. Mr. Kushner indicated that he was reassured by her agreement on that point. Ms. Nichols indicated that “we are trying to separate the issues and be clear.” She appealed to the Commissioners for their help in getting the message directly to the charter community. “Unfortunately,” she said, “some are not listening and understanding message. They assume compliance cannot be achieved, when it can.” Mr. Kushner suggested that some districts and county offices are sending charter schools the “wrong message,” i.e., that every teacher has to be specifically credentialed and that there’s no flexibility. Acting Chair Conry suggested that a fuller presentation be scheduled for a future ACCS meeting. Ms. Reyes indicated that she would make the arrangements. - CalSTRS and CalPERS. Ms. Reyes commended the efforts of CalSTRS and CalPERS to meet periodically and discuss issues related to the inclusion of charter school employees in the two retirement system. The STRS and PERS representatives have demonstrated an “openness to working through issues and problems.”
Determination of Funding Requests
The ACCS first considered a group of three determination of funding requests recommended for five-year approval (2006-07 through 2010-11).
| School | Percent | Term |
|---|---|---|
| Shenandoah High School #366 | 100% |
5 yr |
| Stellar Secondary Charter High School #490 | 100% |
5 yr |
| Coastal Academy Charter School #516 | 100% |
5 yr |
Acting Chair Conry read off the list of school names, and he asked if any ACCS member wished to pull a school from the list for individual consideration; none did. He then asked if any member audience wished to speak on any of the requests; none did.
- ACTION: On behalf of the ACCS, Acting Chair Conry moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it:
- Approve a 100 percent determination of funding for each of the schools listed above for five years, 2006-07 through 2010-11, because each school meets the requirements of Education Code Section 47612.5(d)(2) (Outside Source) for a five-year determination of funding.
- Determine in each case that a level greater than 70 percent is appropriate within the meaning of Education Code Section 47634.2(a)(4) (Outside Source), because the recommended level is consistent with the criteria specified in the regulations pertaining to determinations of funding as contained in California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 11963 (Outside Source) et seq.
- Determine in each case that approval for a five-year period is consistent with the school’s request.
Mr. Kushner seconded the motion, and it was approved by a vote of 5-0. Ms. Belisle was not present when the vote was taken.
The ACCS next considered a group of four determination of funding requests recommended for three-year approval (2006-07 through 2008-09).
| School | Percent | Term |
|---|---|---|
| Santa Barbara Charter Elementary School | 100% |
3 yr |
| Union Hill Charter School | 100% |
3 yr |
| Learning Community Charter School | 100% |
3 yr |
| Santa Barbara Charter Middle School | 100% |
3 yr |
Acting Chair Conry read off the list of school names, and he asked if any ACCS member wished to pull a school from the list for individual consideration; none did. He then asked if any member audience wished to speak on any of the requests; none did.
- ACTION: On behalf of the ACCS, Acting Chair Conry moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it:
- Approve a 100 percent determination of funding for each of the above-listed schools for three years, 2006-07 through 2008-09.
- Determine in each case that a level greater than 70 percent is appropriate within the meaning of Education Code Section 47634.2(a)(4) (Outside Source), because the recommended level is consistent with the criteria specified in the regulations pertaining to determinations of funding as contained in California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 11963 (Outside Source) et seq.
- Determine in each case that approval for a three-year period, instead of the five-year period requested, is advisable based upon review of the information presented in its totality.
Mr. Barr seconded the motion, and it was approved by a vote of 5-0. Ms. Belisle was not present when the vote was taken.
The ACCS next considered a group of nine determination of funding requests recommended for two-year approval (2006-07 and 2007-08).
| School | Percent | Term |
|---|---|---|
| Horizon Charter School #15 | 100% |
2 yr |
| Vantage Point Charter School #24 | 100% |
2 yr |
| Mid Valley Charter School #88 | 100% |
2 yr |
| Mattole Valley Charter School #159 | 100% |
2 yr |
| Stellar Charter School #223 | 100% |
2 yr |
| W.E.B. DuBois Public Charter School #270 | 100% |
2 yr |
| Carter G. Woodson Public Charter #378 | 100% |
2 yr |
| University Preparatory Charter School #386 | 100% |
2 yr |
| Venture Academy #423 | 100% |
2 yr |
Acting Chair Conry read off the list of school names, and he asked if any ACCS member wished to pull a school from the list for individual consideration; none did. He then asked if any member audience wished to speak on any of the requests; none did.
- ACTION: On behalf of the ACCS, Acting Chair Conry moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it:
- Approve a 100 percent determination of funding for each of the above-listed schools for two years, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
- Determine in each case that a level greater than 70 percent is appropriate within the meaning of Education Code Section 47634.2(a)(4) (Outside Source) , because the recommended level is consistent with the criteria specified in the regulations pertaining to determinations of funding as contained in California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 11963 (Outside Source) et seq.
- Determine in each case (where different from the number of years requested) that approval for a two-year period, instead of the longer period requested, is advisable based upon review of the information presented in its totality.
Mr. Kushner seconded the motion, and it was approved by a vote of 5-0. Ms. Belisle was not present when the vote was taken.
The ACCS next considered a single determination of funding request recommended for a three-year, forward-funded approval (2007-08 through 2009-10), or a five-year, forwarded-funded approval (2007-08 through 2011-12).
| School | Percent | Term |
|---|---|---|
| Excelsior Education Center #74 | 100% |
3 yr |
Acting Chair Conry read off the school’s name, and he asked if any ACCS member wished to have a discussion on the staff recommendation; none did. He then asked if any member audience wished to speak on the request; none did.
- ACTION: On behalf of the ACCS, Acting Chair Conry moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it:
- Approve a 100 percent, forward-funded determination of funding for Excelsior Education Center (#74) for three years, 2007-08 through 2009-10), with an automatic extension to five years (2007-08 through 2011-12), if CDE staff determine that the school’s API ranking (to be released in spring 2007) is consistent with the requirements of Education Code Section 47612.5(d)(2) (Outside Source) for a five-year determination of funding.
- Determine that a level greater than 70 percent is appropriate within the meaning of Education Code Section 47634.2(a)(4) (Outside Source) , because the recommended level is consistent with the criteria specified in the regulations pertaining to determinations of funding as contained in California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 11963 (Outside Source) et seq.
- If the school’s API ranking is not consistent with the prerequisite for a five-year funding determination as set forth in Education Code Section 47612.5(d)(2), determine that approval for a three-year period, instead of the five-year period requested, is advisable based upon review of the information presented in its totality.
- If the school’s API ranking is consistent with the prerequisite for a five-year funding determination as set forth in Education Code Section 47612.5(d)(2) (Outside Source), determine that approval for a five-year period is consistent with the school’s request.
Mr. Kushner seconded the motion, and it was approved by a vote of 5-0. Ms. Belisle was not present when the vote was taken.
The ACCS next considered a group of 12 determination of funding requests recommended for two-year, forward-funded approval (2007-08 and 2008-09).
| School | Percent | Term |
|---|---|---|
| Visions in Education #248 | 100% |
2 yr |
| Choices Charter School #275 | 100% |
2 yr |
| Antelope View Charter School #344 | 100% |
2 yr |
| Connecting Waters Charter School #477 | 100% |
2 yr |
| Crossroads Charter School #571 | 100% |
2 yr |
| Gateway to College #620 | 100% |
2 yr |
| William Finch Charter School #634 | 100% |
2 yr |
| Capistrano Connections Academy #664 | 100% |
2 yr |
| Community Collaborative Charter School #699 | 100% |
2 yr |
| FAME Public Charter School #728 | 100% |
2 yr |
| Vista Real Charter High School #735 | 100% |
2 yr |
| Crescent View West Charter School #746 | 100% |
2 yr |
Acting Chair Conry read off the list of school names, and he asked if any ACCS member wished to pull a school from the list for individual consideration; none did. He then asked if any member audience wished to speak on any of the requests; none did.
- ACTION: On behalf of the ACCS, Acting Chair Conry moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it:
- Approve a 100 percent, forward-funded determination of funding for each of the above-listed schools for two years, 2007-08 and 2008-09.
- Determine in each case that a level greater than 70 percent is appropriate within the meaning of Education Code Section 47634.2(a)(4) (Outside Source) , because the recommended level is consistent with the criteria specified in the regulations pertaining to determinations of funding as contained in California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 11963 (Outside Source) et seq.
- Determine in each case (where different from the number of years requested) that approval for a two-year period, instead of the longer period requested, is advisable based upon review of the information presented in its totality.
Mr. Barr seconded the motion, and it was approved by a vote of 5-0. Ms. Belisle was not present when the vote was taken.
Acting Chair Conry noted that the determination of funding request from Eleanor Roosevelt Community Learning Center (#395) had been withdrawn by the school.
The ACCS next considered a single determination of funding request recommended for five-year approval (2006-07 through 2011-12) at the 85 percent level.
| School | Percent | Term |
|---|---|---|
| Nevada City Charter School #69 | 85% |
5 yr |
Having discerned that a member of the audience wished to address this determination of funding request, Acting Chair Conry began by moving the CDE staff recommendation for purposes of discussion. Mr. Barr seconded the motion.
Acting Chair Conry then invited Mr. Edmonds to brief the ACCS on the background of the request and reasons for the CDE staff recommendation. Mr. Edmonds did so, and in so doing, he noted some mitigating factors that the ACCS might consider if it was persuaded that a 100 percent funding determination was in order, e.g., this is a very small school, and it is a relatively high performing school academically (exceeded growth target). He noted that the school is showing a 32 percent reserve, but that the reserve was artificially high due to money being set aside for remodeling. He pointed out that expenditures were approximately $17,000 (or 7 percent) from meeting the minimum expenditure target for a 100 percent funding determination.
Donna Fitting, business manager of the Nevada City Elementary School District, urged the ACCS to approve a 100 percent determination of funding for five years based on mitigating factors. “Two major decisions brought us in under the expenditure target,” she said. One was to set aside money aside for remodeling. The other was to forego hiring an additional teacher. As a result, the school’s staffing ratio (approximately 25-to-1) came in higher than was desired (approximately 20-to-1). She indicated that funding at the 85 percent level will adversely affect services. She also pointed out that the school “financials today are quite different. The renovation is now complete, so the reserve is much lower.” She also commented that enrollment has jumped 18 percent, and the school has hired an extra teacher. She suggested that, as an alternative to 100 percent for five years, the ACCS could recommend a shorter period at the 100 percent level.
Mr. Kushner inquired whether the district governing board is the charter school’s governing board. It is. He also inquired about the nature of the renovation project, and Ms. Fitting described it. She indicated that “our families wanted more classroom-based instruction,” and that the district needed to address “building code, safety-related issues” at the existing facility. Mr. Barr indicated that the school missed the expenditure target by a very small percentage. Mr. Conry indicated that he would be comfortable in recommending a 100 percent funding determination for a two-year period because of the testimony that the reserve had been spent down to perform the facility renovation.
- ACTION: Mr. Barr made a substitute motion (replacing the main motion then on the floor) that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it:
- Approve a 100 percent determination of funding for the Nevada City Charter School (#69) for two years, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
- Determine that a level greater than 70 percent is appropriate within the meaning of Education Code Section 47634.2(a)(4) (Outside Source), because the recommended level is consistent with the criteria specified in the regulations pertaining to determinations of funding as contained in California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 11963 (Outside Source) et seq., with mitigating factors being taken into account (i.e., the school is very small and the school’s academic performance is relatively high).
- Determine that approval for a two-year period, instead of the five-year period requested, is advisable based upon review of the information presented in its totality.
Mr. Kushner seconded the substitute motion, and it was approved by a vote of 5-0. Ms. Belisle was not present when the vote was taken.
Appeals for SBE Chartering
The Carden School
Acting Chair Conry noted that the appeal for SBE chartering submitted by The Carden School had been withdrawn by the petitioners.
Sputnik Math, Science and Language Academy
Acting Chair Conry invited Mr. Geeting to summarize the CDE staff analysis and recommendation. He did so, indicating that every charter petition ultimately boils down to the question of whether the charter is “close enough” to work with the petitioners on revisions, or whether the charter would need so much substantive modification as to make denial the more reasonable course of action. Mr. Geeting commented that the Sputnik petition is clearly the product of substantial and very well-intentioned effort, but that there are certainly sufficient grounds to recommend denial. He indicated that, on balance, CDE staff had concluded that the more reasonable course would be for the ACCS to recommend denial because of uncertainties surrounding both the educational program and the petitioners’ likelihood of success.
Mr. Geeting highlighted four major areas of concern identified in the CDE staff analysis.
The first related to the educational program, and in particular the treatment of history-social science. Within the school’s educational philosophy, emphasis is placed on mathematics, hands-on science, literacy, early foreign language acquisition, and multiculturalism. However, it is unclear whether sufficient attention would be paid to history-social science for students to reach mastery of the state’s academic content standards. This content area is far less developed than the areas of mathematics, science, English-language arts, and foreign language.
Second, he indicated that plans for professional development did not appear sufficient to implement the Open Court reading program with the thoroughness and integrity necessary to be successful, and Open Court will consume the largest single component of instructional time.
Third, he commented on the area of admission preference, noting that the Sputnik petitioners want to grant special consideration in admissions to students who have foreign language proficiency – Russian language in particular. The CDE staff is uncertain how this would work and how it would square with the public random drawing requirement of statute.
Finally, in regard to the proposed budget, he indicated that the analysis conducted by the School Fiscal Services Division indicated that there are clearly some assumptions that need reworking, particularly with respect to revenues, cash-flow, and reserves.
Milena Levitin, a member of the Sputnik founding group, provided introductory comments and summarized key objectives of the founders. Her remarks addressed the qualifications of the members of the founding group, a proposal to implement grades K-2 instead of K-3 as set forth in the charter, the school’s goals and how they would be achieved, endorsements of the school by academicians, and financial viability. She noted that as a condition of its PCSGP grant, the school had to open in fall 2007. She spoke in more detail about the educational program and operational components.
Valerie Yevtushenko, a member of the Sputnik founding group, commented on the CDE staff analysis. She indicated that most of the staff recommendations could be incorporated relatively quickly. She commented on the principal instructional resources to be used at the school. She also provided a revised breakdown of instructional minutes and sample school day. She addressed concerns raised in the CDE staff analysis regarding professional development, indicating that the school planned to have teachers in place two months before school begins in order to ensure that professional development would be timely and sufficient. She indicated that the school planned to have its administrator trained through AB 430 training, and its teachers trained through AB 466 training for mathematics and reading. She focused attention on the key subjects of English-language arts and English language development. She also addressed mathematics, science, history-social science, and foreign language. She discussed in more detail the alternative plan to open the school with grades K-2, serving 120 students or even as few as 40 students.
Rostislav Smirnov, another member of the founding group, commented that he was very excited about this initiative and dedicated to making it succeed. He briefly discussed his experience as a teacher and school administrator. He indicated that the San Francisco area “is in need of the strong academic program” the school will provide.
Mina Teper, another member of the founding group, commented on her experience as teacher and the “proven and effective methods” of instruction that would be provided at the school.
Yana Rathman, parent and graduate student, commented on her experiences finding a rigorous and challenging public school option for her son. “None of the public schools met his needs,” she commented, “and he is now in a private school.” She indicated that there would be “a great opportunity with this school.”
Acting Chair Conry called for testimony from any opponents to the charter.
Mary Richards, Director of Equity and Charter Schools, San Francisco Unified School District, provided a brief synopsis of her own background in education and the role of the Equity and Charter Schools Office. She commented on the districts relationship with petitioners and previous iterations of the proposed charter. She noted that district representatives had “spent extensive time with the petitioner group.” The petition was withdrawn the first time around. There was extensive discussion of developing an in-district magnet program featuring Russian language. The SFUSD has received a substantial grant for a Russian language program in the district. She indicated that she anticipated the Russian language school being implemented by “the beginning of next year.”
Ms. Richards noted that the Sputnik petitioners had “enhanced the petition this year.” It changed from “dual immersion” to a focus on math, science, and language, including foreign language. She indicated that the SFUSD “came to conclusion that we would like to work with petitioners on the district’s program” and that the SFUSD governing board, though denying the petition, included the “caveat to work with this petitioner group and work with the community.”
Proponents and opponents having spoken, Acting Chair Conry called for discussion by the ACCS. Mr. Kushner commented that the ACCS and SBE are “not really allowed to consider the past history.” He inquired whether the SFUSD staff shared the concerns expressed by CDE staff. Ms. Richards commented that the SFUSD staff report reached “very similar conclusions.”
Mr. Kushner inquired who would actually be in charge of the school. He indicated that the materials are “impressive,” but that he didn’t have a sense of who would actually be implementing the vision. Mr. Smirnov indicated that he would be the school leader. Mr. Kushner asked Mr. Smirnov whether mathematics and science, or Russian language, was the “really driving the school.” Mr. Smirnov indicated that the school was designed to provide rigorous instruction in mathematics and science, but that instruction in Russian language was also important. Mr. Kushner inquired about the educators who would be involved with the school’s operation. Mr. Smirnov described the advisory committee working with the founding group, and also described some specific individual teachers being recruited. Mr. Smirnov also commented on his experience as a principal of a school in the Ukraine that was substantially similar to a charter school. He indicated that he had no experience as a school administrator in the United States.
Mr. Barr commented that lots of good work had gone into the charter’s development, but he suggested that it would make sense for the petitioners to take all of the information they had received in the consideration process at the district and state level, revise the petition, and resubmit it to the SFUSD. Ms. Yevtushenko indicated that the founding group had considered that course of action, but would prefer to start the school (even with fewer grade levels) in fall 2007. “A lot is contingent upon our opening,” she said. She indicated the group’s view that “more time in the approval process would not contribute to the school’s success.”
Mr. Barr commented on how difficult it is to operate a school that is chartered by the SBE. He indicated that the petitioners’ relationship with the SFUSD “doesn’t seem to be adversarial.” He acknowledged that the district is pursuing developing of its own Russian language magnet program, but that “competition wouldn’t be a bad thing.” He stressed that it is “always better to work at the district level and reiterated his advice to “go back to district.” Ms. Levitin indicated that the founding group had worked with the SFUSD for a year and a half and hadn’t been successful. “We believe [the problem] is a local political situation,” she concluded.
Mr. Kushner reiterated that he was impressed with the petitioners’ materials, but uncertain about their ability to implement the charter. Though complimenting the founding group’s intelligence, he indicated that he did not “see the depth of experience” necessary to make the school work.
Mr. Barajas commented that he was “struggling with same issue” as Mr. Kushner. He recommended that the petitioners “work on improving the petition” and recruit members into the founding group who have more background and experience with the operation of charter schools.
- ACTION: Recognizing the group’s consensus, Acting Chair Conry moved on the member’s behalf that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it deny the Sputnik Math, Science and Language Academy petition for the written reasons set forth in the CDE staff analysis, in particular the reasons pertaining to the soundness of the educational program, the petitioners’ likelihood of successfully implementing the charter, and the comprehensiveness of the descriptions of certain charter elements. Mr. Barr seconded the motion, and it was approved by a vote of 5-0. Ms. Belisle was not present when the vote was taken.
Lunch Break
Acting Chair Conry called for the lunch break at 12:16 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 1:01 p.m.
Culture and Language Academy of Success (CLAS)
Acting Chair Conry invited Deborah Probst to provide a summary of the CDE staff analysis and recommendation. Among other things, Ms. Probst noted that CLAS is a currently operating K-8 school. She provided background information as to how the school came to be located on a site outside the boundaries of the charter authorizing entity, the Los Angeles Unified School District. She explained the reasons that CDE staff recommended denial of the petition. She commented that this is “a relatively strong academic program, but we would need clarification on some issues.” She highlighted, for example, the school’s negative ending balance in 2005-06, and its identification of grant funding to offset shortfall that the school is not eligible to spend for that purpose. Ms. Probst commented that some of the SBE’s traditional conditions on opening and operation do not fit in this situation since CLAS is an operating school. She suggested ways in which the traditional conditions would need to be adapted. Finally, she pointed out that the one required charter element – closure procedures – was missing altogether.
Ms. Belisle commented that the school “looks fine academically, but needs to address the financial issues.” She noted that the SBE is simply unable to “take on a school with debt.” She asked that the school’s representatives focus on this point in their presentation.
Janis Bucknor, one of the CLAS administrators, began the presentation. She noted that the school was “seeking refuge from the state.” She indicated that the school had performed “due diligence” in searching for a facility, and had been assured that locating the school in Inglewood would be acceptable and cause no problem in regard to renewal. She noted how difficult it is to find space in the Los Angeles area. She provided a detailed history of the facility situation, including how the school came to sign a lease with the option to purchase. “We are willing to be held accountable,” she said, “but this situation put us on the defensive.”
Ms. Bucknor indicated that last year “was tumultuous, incredible, and disastrous.” The LAUSD has refused to sign off on grants, but yet the school was committed to moving ahead with the facility. She discussed financial issues in some detail. The school has “made progress” since audit was completed in 2006 to resolve debts. A cash-flow loan was obtained from the CCSA, and it has now been paid in full. She discussed her personal financial support of the school. She commented on repairs that were made. She also commented that the school “did not stay on top of personnel obligations, but is now on track to finish the year with no monies due to the state or federal government.” She indicated that ExED has been hired to provide back office services. “We now have the necessary transparency,” she said. She discussed various documents provided to the ACCS members. She characterized the situation with the LAUSD as “desperate, but not adversarial.” She concluded that she and her colleagues “did the best we could” and that the school “will not be in this situation again.”
Anthony Jackson, another CLAS administrator, characterized the school’s situation as the “proverbial football,” being “punted a number of times.” He indicated that the school’s administration truly believes that it will be able to follow through on the commitments that have been made. He discussed the provision of special education services. He discussed various documents submitted to the ACCS. If approved, he indicated that the school would be “100 percent compliant with special education.” He pointed out his proposed rewrite of the special education section of the charter. He concluded by expressing “hope that you see us as someone you could partner with to serve students who have been historically underserved. We have much to offer the state.”
Howard A. Friedman, attorney representing Inglewood Unified School District, urged the ACCS to recommend denial of the petition. He indicated that the school’s fiscal status had been a major issue in the district’s denial of the charter. He expressed “no doubt about the passion” expressed by the CLAS representatives, but noted that both the district and LACOE had identified serious, substantive issues. He pointed out that, though currently operational, enrollment appears to be around 260 versus a projection of 450. He also pointed out the demographics of the students body do not reflect the demographics of Inglewood Unified. He discussed financial concerns in more detail. “If this were a business prospectus,” he noted, “it would not be convincing. The documentation presented is simply not adequate to grant the petition.”
Proponents and opponents having completed their presentations, Acting Chair Conry called for discussion by the ACCS. Ms. Belisle commented on her inclination to support schools that produce solid results academically. “This is one of the highest achieving schools in Inglewood at these grade levels,” she noted, “I don’t want to vote to close it down.” She indicated that the school “is doing something that Inglewood is not doing” and asked if the district had observed and tried to replicate the school’s instructional approach. Mr. Friedman indicated that he did not know if Inglewood had observed the school, but reiterated that his purpose in speaking was not to “challenge the school’s inspiration or pedagogy. However, the difficulty in the real world is that passion can’t be all of it.”
Ms. Belisle commented on her concern about the “charter friendliness” of the Inglewood district. The idea of creating the appeal route to the state was to take account of schools “that don’t get a fair shake locally.” Mr. Friedman responded that, in this instance, Inglewood appears to have done a good job of analysis and had solid reasons for the denial. He noted that Inglewood’s denial had been validated by the LACOE analysis and the CDE staff analysis. Ms. Belisle noted that the fiscal issues are of major concern, but that she wanted to postpone consideration to the April 20 ACCS meeting to see if staff could independently confirm the school’s financial status.
Acting Chair Conry indicated that it would be up to the school’s representatives to decide whether to postpone consideration. “We will give you an answer today,” he commented, “but you may wish to withdraw to the April meeting.” Ms. Reyes indicated that she could contact the FCMAT regarding the possibility of taking an independent look at the school’s finances. Ms. Bucknor reassured the ACCS that the “biggest portion has been paid.” Mr. Kushner commented that, although the finances concerned him, he would be comfortable in supporting a recommendation to approve the appeal if the financial concerns are resolved.
Mr. Barr discussed the history of Green Dot Public Schools’ relationship with the Inglewood district. The district, he commented, is “a very adversarial place for charters.” He also noted that Inglewood’s middle school students, in particular, often enter Animo Inglewood Charter High School reading and performing mathematics at the fourth grade level. “We have got to find a way to keep this school open,” he said, “but we have to shore up its finances.” He recommended postponing further consideration to the April 20 meeting.
Ms. Bucknor commented that the school “would like a decision now, even if it’s conditional.” Acting Chair Conry cautioned that a decision at this time would likely be negative. Mr. Barr reiterated his counsel that the school’s representatives “come back in April.” Upon reflecting on the advice received, Ms. Bucknor stated that the school would withdraw its appeal at this time and request that the appeal be considered further at the April ACCS meeting. Acting Chair Conry acknowledged that the appeal had been withdrawn and would be considered further at the April ACCS meeting.
Ackerman All-Charter District Petition
Acting Chair Conry invited Mr. Geeting to summarize the CDE staff analysis and recommendation. He did so, indicating that it the ACCS had not considered an all-charter district petition for some years. He commented that there are currently eight all-charter districts in the state, all of which had been renewed by the SBE over the past several years.
Mr. Geeting indicated that there are some unusual circumstances surrounding the Ackerman petition. Ackerman had long been a single-school district (stretching back to its creation in the late19th Century). However, the district governing board approved a petition to add a locally-funded charter school in 2005-06. In this case, though, the charter school students not only were on the same school site as the non-charter students, but also were commingled in every teacher’s classroom. Mr. Geeting commented that the former Placer County Superintendent was quite displeased with the situation, and took a number of steps to try and end it. However, the current Placer County Superintendent, who recently took office, has endorsed this all-charter district effort as a means of clarifying the situation in keeping with the Charter Schools Act.
Mr. Geeting stated his understanding that if all-charter district status is granted, the district plans to close one of the schools, thereby returning the district to a single K-8 school, and that school will have approximately 450 students. Closure of the one school would be transparent from the standpoint of the students.
The all-charter district petition was signed by 100 percent of the district’s teachers, and Mr. Geeting indicated that the CDE did not know of any opposition. The district outlined reasons for seeking the all-charter district status that are substantive, including the expansion of public school choice in the surrounding area, improvement of pupil learning, elimination of the controversy that has swirled around the district for the past couple of years, and re-establishment of a harmonious and supportive relationship with the Placer County Office.
Mr. Geeting noted that the Ackerman district has had a solid record of academic achievement, being at or above the 800 mark since the year 2000, though a couple of years the district experienced a relatively small amount of negative growth. Mr. Geeting concluded by saying that the petition meets the criteria set forth by the SBE in its 1999 policy on creation of all-charter districts. The CDE staff recommends that the ACCS recommend approval of the petition.
Marilyn Gilbert, superintendent/principal of the Ackerman Elementary School District, made a brief presentation in support of the petition. She commented that many parents prefer the K-8 configuration of the district’s single school site as contrasted to the elementary school and middle school configuration in neighboring districts. She noted that Ackerman’s test scores are generally higher than neighboring districts, thanks to the district’s “excellent teaching staff.” She indicated that she “would not hesitate to put my own children in any one of our classrooms.” She commented that several districts in the Auburn area had “clamped down” on interdistrict attendance agreements, much to the consternation and frustration of parents who wanted to keep their children in the Ackerman district. She indicated that the existing charter school was created as the result of community meetings, and she explained the decision to commingle charter and non-charter students. She commented that the all-charter district petition was a positive way to “get rid of all that controversy.” She indicated that the district will “stay with revenue limit funding.” She expressed appreciation to CDE staff for their assistance, and indicated that it would be no problem to amend the petition consistent with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Kushner inquired whether there were factors motivating the all-charter district petition other than expansion of parent choice in the region. Ms. Gilbert indicated that indeed there were other factors, such as greater flexibility in the use of funds and the ability to require parent/student compacts.
Mr. Barr recalled that the San Carlos Elementary School District had done something similar to Ackerman by approving local petitioners to convert all schools but one to charter status.
- ACTION: Ms. Belisle moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it approve the Ackerman all-charter district petition with the changes outlined in the CDE staff analysis. Mr. Barr seconded the motion, and it was approved by a vote of 6-0.
Statewide Charter SELPA
Ms. Reyes indicated that Vicki Barber had submitted a proposal to create a statewide SELPA for charter schools. The proposal is now under review by the CDE Special Education Division. She noted that the proposal was in some respects an outgrowth of a workgroup that had been established to review SELPA issues related to charter schools. She noted that there are currently four SELPAs in the state that admit charter schools located outside the SELPA’s geographic boundaries: Desert/Mountain (San Bernardino County), Lodi, El Dorado, and Yuba City.
Mr. Kushner hailed this as “an excellent innovation.” He commented that it will be great for all students in California, as it will compel SELPAs to be more responsive and collaborative. He noted that several bills have been introduced to help create greater “fairness in funding” taking into account declining enrollment in many areas of the state. He asked whether the ACCS could take a position in support of the statewide SELPA proposal.
Acting Chair Conry indicated that he would not be comfortable in taking any position on the proposal at this time since the members have nothing before them by way of explanation, only an oral description. Mr. Kushner responded that he would certainly be willing to defer to others as to how to proceed. Ms. Belisle asked whether anything would be going to SBE on this topic. She suggested that an appropriate time for the ACCS to provide guidance and advice would be once the Special Education Division had completed its analysis and, perhaps, would be presenting something to the SBE. “That would be appropriate time to weigh in,” she commented.
Later in the meeting, Jennifer Faukner, Special Education Division, commented that she and her colleagues had been working closely with the El Dorado County Office to review the proposed statewide charter SELPA. She indicated that the Division is doing a “very thorough review” and should have something ready “in about a month.” Ms. Belisle suggested that a report be made at the April ACCS meeting. Ms. Faukner indicated that the Division’s work may not be finalized by that time, but that “an interim report” could certainly be made.
Draft Conflict of Interest Regulations
Ms. Reyes summarized the process by which the draft regulations distributed to the ACCS members had been developed. She also provided a brief history as why the regulatory effort was being undertaken. She noted that some additional comments had been received from Ms. Belisle and others.
Deborah Probst provided further elaboration on the development process and the provisions of the draft regulations. She commented that staff could further refine the proposals based upon the latest comments received. She sounded a cautionary note concerning the mandate issue which may act as an impediment to approval of some of the proposed provisions. Ms. Reyes indicated that the proposed regulations could proceed to the SBE in May or July to initiate the rulemaking process.
Acting Chair Conry asked if there were public comments on the proposal. Lisa Corr, Spector, Middleton, Young & Minney, commented that “a number of charter schools that are pending approval, are actually awaiting the type of information this regulatory package would provide.” She noted that the issue of staff members serving on charter school governing boards was of particular interest. She urged the ACCS to recommend that the SBE initiate the rulemaking process.
Ms. Belisle commented that she would be comfortable with endorsing the commencement of the rulemaking process and, at the same time, delegating to CDE staff the authority to make refinements in the proposal. “Let them tinker with it a bit,” she said, “but let’s move it forward to the SBE in May.” She noted that the proposal is rooted in the concepts and (in some places) specific language endorsed by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).
- ACTION: Recognizing the group’s consensus, Acting Chair Conry indicated that in the absence of objection the ACCS recommended to the SBE that it initiate the rulemaking process for conflict of interest regulations based upon the proposal presented to the ACCS with modifications to be incorporated by CDE staff consistent with the comments that had been received and discussed.
May Meeting
Ms. Reyes noted that the next meeting is scheduled for April 20, and that a tentative meeting date of May 21 had been established. She asked whether the group wished to wait until the April meeting to determine whether the May meeting should be retained or canceled. The consensus was to wait.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the ACCS, Acting Chair Conry adjourned the meeting at 2:37 p.m.
The next regular meeting is scheduled for Friday, April 20, 2007, and a tentative meeting following that is scheduled for Monday, May 21, 2007.
