URL not found in WebNET System!

 

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

Friday, April 20, 2007

MEMBERS PRESENT

Rae Belisle, Chair

Jesse Barajas
Vicki Barber
Tom Conry
Beth Hunkapiller
Greg McNair
Mark Kushner
Marta Reyes*

MEMBERS ABSENT

Steve Barr

*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

Chair Belisle called the meeting to order at 10:33 a.m.

Flag Salute

Chair Belisle invited Ms. Barber to lead the members, staff, and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Moment of Silence

Chair Belisle requested that the members, staff, and audience observe a moment of silence in recognition of the tragic events that had unfolded earlier in the week at Virginia Tech.

Introductions

Chair Belisle invited the members to introduce themselves.

Oath of Office

Chair Belisle administered the Oath of Office to Ms. Barber, Ms. Hunkapiller, and Mr. McNair.

Ordering of Agenda

Chair Belisle indicated that the tentative order of the agenda would be: the briefing on the Public Charter Schools Grant Program (PCSGP), public comment, funding determinations, and the two appeals (CLAS and South Bay).

Approval of Meeting Notes

Chair Belisle asked if there were any corrections or changes to the notes from the meeting held on March 19, 2007. Hearing none, she asked if there was a motion to approve the meeting notes.

• ACTION: Mr. Barajas moved that the notes of the meeting held on March 19, 2007, be approved as presented. Ms. Reyes seconded the motion, and it was approved by a vote of 5-0-3. Ms. Barber, Ms. Hunkapiller, and Mr. McNair did not vote as they had not attended the March 19 meeting.

Public Charter Schools Grant Program (PCSGP)

Carol Barkley, Charter Schools Division, briefed the members on the status of California’s application to the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) for the 2007-10 PCSGP grant cycle and the anticipated changes (from 2004-07) in the California application and review process. She indicated that the state is hoping that the USDOE will approve three-year funding in the amount of approximately $100 million. She reported that the changes envisioned in the application will make California’s process more competitive with new priorities and incentives. California will be retaining the emphasis on low performing (high priority) schools, but the definition has been changed to ensure that funds are focused on areas where non-charter schools are chronically low performing. New language in the application will be a closer match to federal terminology. The application process will be online (paperless) and should be more efficient, with an anticipated six-week time line from submission to approval. She described in detail the time line from development, to submission, to allocation of funds. She commented on the option for “inactive status” under certain circumstances. She noted that the application will be (in effect) the school’s approved charter petition scored against a rubric. She described the funding levels and the structure of the rubric. Finally, she summarized how dissemination grants had been modified.

Mr. Kushner inquired about the issue of facilities (particularly with respect to delays often encountered when seeking Prop 39 facilities). This can lead to delays in opening. Ms. Barkley indicated that this issue has largely been addressed by the fact that all grants will now have a three-year life, notwithstanding when they are awarded. She also commented on ways in which the state is endeavoring to help those caught by the challenging deadlines applicable in the 2004-07 grant cycle.

Chair Belisle asked if there was any public comment on this issue. There was none. She then indicated that the PCSGP application is submitted to the SBE for approval. She asked if there was a motion to recommend that the SBE approve the proposal.

• ACTION: Ms. Barber moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it approve the 2007-2010 PCSGP application and process as proposed by CDE staff. Mr. Kushner seconded the motion, and it was approved by a vote of 7-0-1. Mr. Conry did not vote.

Public Comment

Chair Belisle asked if there was public comment on any matter not formally on the agenda. Representatives of New West Charter Middle School sought recognition. Chair Belisle noted that New West was listed under the Update item, but that this would be an appropriate time to hear from the representatives.

Sharon Weir, principal of New West, described the school’s history and record of academic achievement. Tanisha Larkin, vice principal of New West, described the school’s diversity of students, educational objectives, and success in closing of achievement gap over the past several years. Ms. Weir discussed the school’s efforts to seek charter renewal from the LAUSD. She indicated that things had come to the place where changes sought by the LAUSD were undermining the school’s basic tenants and threatening its continued existence. Carrie Wagner, chief operating officer of ExED, indicated that New West had been diligently sticking with its financial recovery plan established last fall. Michele McClowry, Fiscal Intervention Specialist with FCMAT, also complimented New West on its diligence in adhering to the financial recovery plan. She indicated that the school’s governing board spends considerable time on finances and that the school had done a better job of financial recovery “than any other school I have worked with.” Judith Bronowski, New West’s governing board chair, commented that renewal is major issue, fundamental to the school’s stability. She indicated that “we need to know this month whether we’re in business.”

Mr. McNair commented that the New West renewal petition is in process before the LAUSD Board of Education. He noted that some view the process of chartering and charter renewal as a “necessary inconvenience” that leads to the “real work of educating kids.” However, the process is nonetheless vital to charter authorizers. The LAUSD process is “very rigorous,” and it generally benefits the charter developers and operators. “There are risks in renewal,” he said, and the authorizer cannot simply ignore the charter document. Authorizers have a duty to approve quality charters. Mr. Kushner inquired about the New West representatives’ reference to 22 months of work with the LAUSD. “I thought the required time line was 60 days,” he said. Mr. McNair indicated that the New West petition had not been pending with the LAUSD Board of Education for 22 months and that any representation in that regard was inaccurate.

Chair Belisle reminded the group that this matter was really being presented for information only and that debating specific points was not really in order, although she appreciated the additional information Mr. McNair had supplied. She commented that Ms. Reyes had several options to discuss with the New West representatives at the break, such as the possibility that the SBE could extend the school’s initial charter approval for one additional year, since 2006-07 was the school’s fourth year of operation and an initial charter approval can be up to five years. She indicated that it is generally the state’s preference to have schools chartered at the local level, and that New West is no exception in that regard. Ms. Weir concluded by saying that the school’s major goal was to achieve “stability in our organization” through renewal.

Colin Miller, California Charter Schools Association, spoke briefly in support of New West. He indicated that the school has been overseen well and has become very successful. He commented that the difficulty New West is having in the renewal process is “a situation we’re seeing statewide.” Unilateral requirements are often being imposed, he said, and “it’s very disturbing, particularly in the renewal process where we’re dealing with operating schools.” He cautioned that the ACCS and the SBE will “be seeing more schools coming on appeal.” He encouraged the ACCS to discuss the issue. There is a place for guidance from the state level, he suggested, to strike a reasonable balance in the local charter authorizing process. “We need to move forward in a positive way,” he said.

Jean Hatch, Redding School for the Arts, echoed Mr. Miller’s comments. There is a growing conflict between charters and charter authorizers, she commented, which is exacerbated by declining enrollment. She mentioned materials distributed by ACSA that indicate exactly how to deny charter approval. She also noted the increased involvement of attorneys in the process of preparing reasons for charter denials. She mentioned specific special education issues relating to a petition her organization is now pursuing in Shasta County, and recounted some personal experiences in that regard. “We could make the changes and respond,” she said, “but ultimately you’re going to get more charters coming to you.” She acknowledged that districts do have important responsibilities in their role as charter authorizers, but that the kind of opposition her organization is encountering “is crazy.” Chair Belisle inquired about several issues, including the effect of withdrawal and whether new signatures were being required. “It’s one thing to amend,” she said, “but quite another to amend and then deny.” She indicated that the ACCS would “want to follow this” and invited Ms. Hatch “to keep us informed.” She indicated, though, that Ms. Hatch should endeavor to address local objections and secure local approval. “They are your family,” she commented, “you should move forward in good faith.” However, a long process followed by denial could be evidence of a lack of good faith. “That would make me uncomfortable,” she said. “Legal minds differ” on how much change is allowed in the process of charter consideration, she concluded.

Mr. Kushner noted that some charter petitions include specific language empowering petitioners to make certain kinds of changes. Mr. McNair commented that it was probably time to reexamine the Charter Schools Act (and other statutory provisions affecting charter schools) because “it’s getting to be a patchwork of requirements.” He also indicated that the 60-day period for consideration of charters and appeals is not long enough. It is very difficult to do the necessary work in that amount of time. “We need to look at alternatives,” he said.

Sue Miller Hurst, Chief Executive Officer, The New School, described a serious facility-related issue involving non-education local government entities that has led to the school’s decision to close. She noted that The New School has an extensive waiting list and a high API. She commented that the school had to retain three experts on property law to engage the local government entities. “As a small school,” she said, “we simply couldn’t fight anymore. We had to sign a settlement. We will have to close our doors.” She expressed support for statutory changes to address the matter.

Chair Belisle indicated that she would like to have further conversation about this at the May ACCS meeting. She noted that the Attorney General’s Office may be interested in investigating this matter and providing assistance. She commented that she was “troubled“ by Ms. Hearst’s remarks. “If true,” she said, “we would be interested in pursuing this matter.” Ms. Barber sounded a cautionary note, indicating that “we have no data to suggest there’s any systemic issue here.” Chair Belisle agreed that “the facts here may not be applicable to other situations” and that the ACCS certainly should proceed cautiously. Mr. Conry concurred that “we sometimes make assumptions based on limited information” and echoed the need for caution.

Reordering of Agenda

Noting the presence of Michele Huntoon, FCMAT, Chair Belisle indicated that the ACCS would reorder the agenda to take up the CLAS charter appeal before the funding determinations.

Recusal by Mr. McNair

Chair Belisle announced that Mr. McNair had recused in regard to the CLAS petition appeal and was not present in the meeting room. CLAS is currently a charter school authorized by Mr. McNair’s employer, the LAUSD, and he is personally acquainted with the petitioners.

Culture and Language Academy of Success (CLAS)

Chair Belisle invited Mr. Geeting to summarize the CDE staff analysis and recommendation on the CLAS appeal for chartering by the SBE. Mr. Geeting began by noting that, at the March meeting, Deborah Probst of the Charter Schools Division had presented the staff analysis and recommendation to deny the charter. He indicated that the denial recommendation was – and continues to be – a difficult recommendation to make. He commented that CLAS achieved a 6/6 in the 2006 API rankings, and the school’s similar schools ranking might have been even higher if the socioeconomic status of the school’s students had been properly coded on the 2006 STAR tests. The school’s 2006 API of 771, placed it in the upper third of LA Unified’s 475 elementary schools, and would have placed it fourth among the 15 elementary schools in Inglewood. He noted that the CLAS student body is almost exclusively African-American.

Notwithstanding these positives in the area of academic achievement, Mr. Geeting noted that the school’s financial situation – as reported at the March meeting – appeared in critical condition, and most of the ACCS discussion had been focused on that topic. The CLAS representatives presented information indicating that the school’s fiscal challenges had largely been addressed and that the school was on track to end 2006-07 with no monies due the federal or state governments. The representatives also indicated to the ACCS that a financial management organization had been retained to strengthen fiscal discipline and ensure that back office functions were properly carried out. As the representatives put it in March, the school now has the “necessary transparency.”

Mr. Geeting reminded the ACCS of its desire for independent analysis and corroboration related to CLAS’s financial situation. He noted that the CLAS representatives withdrew their petition at the March meeting and requested that it be considered further at the April meeting. It has been agreed that the CDE would ask FCMAT to review the school’s financial situation. Mr. Geeting noted that FCMAT’s summary letter had been distributed to the ACCS members. In brief, FCMAT did not find any reason to disagree with the school’s own projection of a 2006-07 year-end deficit of nearly $250,000. “In our view,” said Mr. Geeting, “this is strong evidence that the school would be demonstrably unlikely to succeed, given that the State Board simply has no means for assisting a school with debt.”

Mr. Geeting also noted that, even though fiscal concerns are key, the CDE staff analysis also pointed out significant issues within the 16 required charter elements. One element (closure procedures) is missing altogether, and the CDE staff found the descriptions of 10 other elements needed to be amended or rewritten – in addition to the assurances page. CDE staff also suggested changes to the descriptions of two more elements. If, the ACCS were to recommend approval of the CLAS petition, Mr. Geeting commented, CDE staff would strongly encourage a concurrent recommendation that the charter be amended to address the CDE staff concerns and include the traditional SBE conditions on opening and operation, appropriately tailored to address the circumstances of CLAS as an operating school.

Mr. Geeting pointed out that the Inglewood district elected not to send a representative to this meeting, but had submitted a letter of opposition that had been distributed. He then introduced Ms. Huntoon, who briefed the members on the FCMAT review.

Ms. Huntoon emphasized that CLAS’s debt level had increased substantially during 2005-06. The “going concern issue” is significant, she noted. The school is at high risk of not meeting its obligations within next 12 months. It has ended the past two fiscal years with a “negative cash status,” and that is likely again in 2006-07. Ms. Huntoon also touched on recommended follow-up activities and the payment of payroll taxes. Overall, she said, “we concur with the CDE findings.” Chair Belisle inquired whether the April 11 documents from CLAS had been reviewed. Ms. Huntoon noted deficiencies in these documents that make them essentially useless from the standpoint of verification.

Ms. Barber inquired specifically about a loan from one of the school’s operators that had apparently been converted into a grant. Ms. Huntoon commented that the documentation on the status of the funds was unclear. One document indicated it had been “turned into a grant,” but the cash-flow statement “still shows this as a liability.”

Chair Belisle invited CLAS’s representatives to make their presentation. Janis Bucknor began by recapping the previous month’s activities and the documents that had been produced. She requested more time “to show you what we’ve done.” She acknowledged that the materials produced were incomplete, because “the request for information was broader than we had thought.” She described the ongoing nature of the school’s financial recovery effort. She commented that CLAS would accept a condition “to show definitively that our financial condition is stable by June 1.” With more time, she continued, the school can show a much stronger financial position. “We are still in the process of assembling information,” she said. She strongly urged the ACCS to recommend conditional approval of the CLAS petition. With respect to the CDE staff recommendations regarding other charter elements, Ms. Bucknor commented that the school was in the process of refining the language in the petition consistent with the CDE staff report.

Ms. Barber inquired as to the school’s second principal apportionment ADA. The response was 289. She then inquired as to the budget assumptions for 2006-07. The response was an enrollment of 310. Ms. Bucknor indicated that the school had “added students when we moved to the new site.” Ms. Barber inquired further about ADA and enrollment and the relationship to the school’s funding. Ms. Bucknor responded that the school was dedicated to preserving teaching positions and that she would “forego my own salary to keep teachers.” The school has reduced spending, but not jobs, she said. Instructional materials was an example cited of an area where spending had been cut. “We are using laptops in place of some hardcopy materials,” Ms. Bucknor commented.

Ms. Barber indicated that she appreciated the request for more time, but that she was unclear what the benchmarks for financial recovery might be. “How can we move forward in good conscience?” she asked. Ms. Bucknor responded that there “have been some missteps” and that “we may have to reorganize our team.” The school does need to improve processes for sounder business management, she concluded.

Mr. Kushner indicated that he was “sympathetic to the petitioners,” but cautioned that “we don’t work in a vacuum” and that the ACCS must be firm in recommending to the SBE only “solid charters with all the papers in order.” He asked if FCMAT had a specific recommendation. Ms. Huntoon indicated that FCMAT had fulfilled the analytical work requested, but that FCMAT had not actually been requested to make a recommendation. Mr. Kushner commented that even setting aside the question of the related-party grant of funds, the school still appeared to be about $250,000 in debt. This is not “tight enough,” he indicated, to send forward to the SBE. Mr. Barajas, citing the incompleteness of the information presented, concurred with Mr. Kushner’s assessment. Ms. Barber indicated that a local educational agency would have more flexibility to help a school like CLAS to rectify deficit spending, but that the SBE did not have the same flexibility. She inquired about certain aspects of FCMAT’s work, and Ms. Huntoon responded on the issues of major expenses and the cash balance. Ms. Barber concluded that CLAS appeared “unable to meet its current obligations, and I’m afraid that’s it for me.”

Ms. Hunkapiller inquired as to the harm in allowing CLAS representatives another month to prepare information. Based on high quality academic performance, she commented, providing more time appeared justified. Ms. Barber commented that any additional information would have to be verified by FCMAT or CDE. She also indicated that the school had an established “pattern” of deficit spending that was very disturbing. There are clearly internal structural and systemic problem, she said.

Chair Belisle indicated that postponing consideration to the ACCS meeting on May 21 would mean that the matter could not proceed to the SBE until July, after the next fiscal year had begun. She suggested that CLAS representatives could go forward to the SBE in May with a denial recommendation from the ACCS and do their best to present convincing new evidence that the funding issues had been addressed. She suggested that the school could make arrangements with FCMAT for continuing assistance in the interim period (between now and the SBE meeting). Ms. Huntoon indicated she would help facilitate a continued relationship between FCMAT and CLAS if that was the school’s desire.

Mr. Barajas commented that the school clearly has amassed a fine record of academic achievement, but that “we have a responsibility as leaders” to ensure fiscal and operational soundness (“that the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed”). This is a very difficult decision to make, he concluded.

Sharroky Hollie, co director of CLAS, commented that the proceedings had really been “inauthentic.” The school’s finances “are just a side-show,” he contended. The fiduciary element is certainly relevant, he indicated, but the latest information considered by FCMAT appears to have come from January. “We went out and paid for additional information,” he said, but it does not appear to have been used. He discussed the facility issue at some length, and his recollections of the involvement of Mr. McNair in the events that led to the school acquiring the facility, subsequently presenting the charter petition to Inglewood Unified, and now appealing for chartering by the SBE. He also discussed the school’s seeking of a court order to remain open.

Mr. Hollie reiterated that CLAS should be accountable for its finances, but that “dirt has been dug up at every level” in relation to fiscal issues. CLAS has consistently tried to do the right thing, he indicated, and acquired the facility because it was “needed to house our students.” He described the issue of class size in relation to the building. He commented that “independent charter schools are on a hit list, and we were a big target.” He also commented that California is “at a crisis in how it is educating African American students.” Many come to see the approach taken at CLAS because it is so successful. “You become a target when you’re doing that,” he said. “This process overrules our process when it comes to the kids,” he concluded, “and we will take our chances before a judge.” Mr. Kushner wished them good luck in court, but indicated that he did not know of a “legal theory” that would be successful in keeping the school open by court order on more than a temporary basis.

Chair Belisle commented that the ACCS had done what it could by providing CLAS the additional month to pull together convincing information as to financial problems having been resolved. In addition, she commented, the school can go forward to the SBE and present new information. “We are an advisory body,” she indicated, “and the SBE can take other information into account.” She encouraged Ms. Huntoon to facilitate FCMAT continuing to assist the school if such was the CLAS representatives’ desire. “If you can show you’re fiscally solvent,” she concluded, “the SBE may support you.” Ms. Reyes commented that the school would have to make independent arrangements with FCMAT for continued assistance. “The burden is on you,” she said, “to show us that the fiscal issues have been resolved. You have the power here.”

• ACTION: Mr. Conry moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it deny the CLAS charter petition for the reasons set forth in the CDE staff analysis. Ms. Barber seconded the motion, and it was approved by a vote of 7-0-1. Mr. McNair did not participate in the consideration or vote on this matter as explained above.

Following that action, further discussion ensued in regard to a second motion encouraging the SBE to consider support of the CLAS petition under certain circumstances. Chair Belisle commented that she could support such a motion if it involved the school presenting verifiable information that fiscal problems had been resolved. Ms. Barber indicated that in her view the evidence presented by the school would have to cover more than simply resolution of the immediate fiscal crisis. The school not only needs to make structural changes in its budget but also needs to make systemic and infrastructure changes in its operations to prevent the fiscal problems from simply recurring in the future. “This is not just a one-year problem,” she concluded.

• ACTION: Mr. Kushner moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it consider supporting the CLAS charter petition if substantial evidence is provided that the school (1) will end 2006-07 without a deficit and (2) has rectified the structural, systemic, and infrastructure problems that created serious financial problems in previous years. If substantial evidence is provided, the ACCS would recommend that an approval action by the SBE (1) include the incorporation of needed charter revisions as identified in the CDE staff analysis and (2) be subject to the SBE’s traditional conditions on the opening and operation of charter schools, modified appropriately to reflect the fact that CLAS is a currently operating school. Ms. Barber seconded the motion, and it was approved by a vote of 6-1-1. Mr. Conry voted against the motion. Mr. McNair did not participate in the consideration or vote on this matter as explained above.

Mr. Conry asked that the record reflect that he voted against the preceding motion because he felt it merely recommended process-related actions that the SBE would take in its normal course of business.

Lunch Break

Chair Belisle called for the lunch break at 12:47 p.m. She reconvened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.

Next Meeting

 

Ms. Reyes noted that a meeting date of May 21 has been listed as tentative. She indicated that there was plenty of work expected to justify a meeting on that day. By consensus, the members confirmed that the ACCS would meet on May 21, 2007. [Subsequent to this meeting, the next meeting was rescheduled for Monday, June 4, 2007.]

2002-03 Funding Determination Requests

School	Percent	Term
Options for Youth-Victor Valley #013	60%	1 yr
Options for Youth-Upland #105	60%	1 yr
Options for Youth-San Gabriel #117	60%	1 yr
Options for Youth-Burbank #130	60%	1 yr
Options for Youth-Mt. Shasta #139	60%	1 yr
Options for Youth-San Juan #217	60%	1 yr
Opportunities for Learning-Hacienda #188	60%	1 yr
Opportunities for Learning-William S. Hart #214	60%	1 yr
Opportunities for Learning-Baldwin Park #402	60%	1 yr
Opportunities for Learning-Capistrano #463	60%	1 yr

Mr. Edmonds briefly described the history of ten 2002-03 funding determination requests for Options for Youth and Opportunities for Learning (OFY/OFL) schools. A court order has voided the SBE’s previous funding determinations, so the SBE is required to make new funding determinations for these schools. CDE staff looked anew at the requests based upon regulations pertaining to them. Mr. Kushner inquired about the differences between the levels requested and the 60 percent level recommended. Mr. Edmonds indicated that the differences relate to information principally from audits of the OFY/OFL schools.

Ms. Reyes provided additional historical context. She indicated that staff reviewed the requests both in terms of the individual schools, as well as OFY/OFL as a whole. She commented that, looking at the “entire program,” we felt we could support and justify the 60 percent recommendation.

Ms. Hunkapiller inquired as to the issue addressed in the court proceeding. Ms. Reyes indicated that the SBE action had been taken on these schools’ 2002-03 funding determinations prior to the regulations actually being in effect; the court ruled that the SBE action was premature and needed to be redone. Ms. Hunkapiller inquired whether OFY/OFL had been awarded court costs in relation to this matter, and she commented that a lower funding level might be in order, suggesting 50 percent. Kerry Mazzoni, representing OFY/OFL, indicated that OFY/OFL had not received an award of court costs or legal fees. Mr. Edmonds indicated that certain key issues identified in the audits, in particular the pupil-teacher ratio used by OFY/OFL, will be considered by the Education Audit Appeals Panel (EAAP) in the context of an audit appeal and, thus, did not need to be resolved in this setting. The EAAP hearing is scheduled in August 2007. Given that information, Ms. Hunkapiller indicated that she would be comfortable with the 60 percent recommendation.

There was discussion of whether to consider each school individually, or to consider all ten schools as a group. Chair Belisle indicated that she would be comfortable in considering the group of schools as a whole, unless there was objection from the members or those who may wish to speak on the requests. No objection was expressed to considering the group of schools as a whole. Mr. Edmonds reiterated that the teacher-pupil ratio issue was not part of the consideration today. He highlighted the transfer of monies to Pathways in Education as a major issue. Chair Belisle questioned whether all schools had made such transfers; Mr. Edmonds indicated that only four of the OFY schools had done so. In regard to OFL schools, Mr. Edmonds indicated that a main issue was excessive amounts for compensation for executive management, management services relationships, and $4 million in distributions to the shareholders. Mr. Conry asked if there were shareholders other than the two individuals who had been identified. Mr. Edmonds indicated that apparently there were no other shareholders. In closing, Mr. Edmonds indicated that he did want to emphasize that the OFY/OFL schools had significantly increased the percentage of revenues expended for instruction and instruction-related costs since 2001-02.

Chair Belisle called for public comment on these funding determination requests. Kerry Mazzoni, representing OFY/OFL, stated specifically that the organizations would “accept” the 60 percent level for all schools and that they want to “focus on students.” She concluded that the organizations looked forward to “a bright future.”

Chair Belisle commented that OFY/OFL schools were showing “great trend lines.” When the funding determination process started, things were much less clear, she indicated. Some felt the schools were not serving pupil needs, but this has “turned around.” The schools are “going in a good direction” and focusing on students significantly at risk, students “we really care about.”

Mr. Conry expressed disagreement with Chair Belisle’s assessment. He indicated that OFY/OFL had been around for years, and that he was not impressed with one year of good effort. He pointed out that OFY/OFL is “fighting the audit findings.” Ms. Hunkapiller commented that it should not be forgotten that the organization “sheltered $10 million” from the funding determination process, money that “should have been spent on students.” However, she also indicated that “changes in direction” are being seen, even though the “jury is still out.” She commented that she was willing to be encouraging, but that the ACCS should “not forget” OFY/OFL’s past behavior.

• ACTION: Mr. McNair moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it:
  1. Approve a 60 percent determination of funding for each of the schools listed above for one year (2002-03), in response to the court order in the case entitled EMS-BP et al. v. California Department of Education et al., May 31, 2005, C046457.
  2. Determine with respect to each school that the reasons justifying a level lower than 80 percent in 2002-03 are that (1) the schools are below the minimum criteria specified in regulation for the 80 percent level and (2) no mitigating factors reasonably overcome the failure to meet the minimum criteria.
  3. Determine that the reason justifying a level lower than 70 percent in 2002-03 is that taking into account the totality of the information received, the purposes for which the schools spent public revenues in 2001-02 do not warrant funding at the 70 percent level in 2002-03.
  4. Take note that OFY/OFL’s representative explicitly expressed acceptance of the 60 percent level for all schools in a presentation before the ACCS.

  Mr. Kushner seconded the motion, and it was approved by unanimous vote of the members present.

2006-07 (and beyond) Funding Determination Requests

 

School	Percent	Term
Audeo Charter School #406	100%	3 yrs

Mr. Edmonds presented the CDE staff recommendation for approval at the 100 percent level for three years. Lynne H. Alipio, Director of Business and Fiscal Services, presented the school’s request for approval for more than three years. She commented on the school’s history, the fact that it has been renewed for five years, and its accreditation by WASC. She indicated that the school felt its record of success serving at-risk students merited a longer approval period than three years. Mr. Edmonds indicated that the school did not qualify for a five-year funding determination as provided in statute, and that the ACCS had used three years as its benchmark in similar cases to this one. He pointed out, however, that it was within the authority of the ACCS to recommend a period longer than three years. Mary Bixby, the school’s director, indicated that the school could not achieve the statutorily prescribed benchmark for a five-year determination because of the student population served. Ms. Barber suggested the possibility of a four-year recommendation. However, Mr. Kushner indicated that he was not comfortable with that recommendation because it would treat this school differently from others that have already been granted a three-year approval period. Mr. Conry concurred with Mr. Kushner’s reservations about the four-year period. Ms. Barber indicated that she was “looking for middle ground” because the school’s size prevents it from receiving a similar schools ranking. “That creates a special circumstance,” she commented. She indicated, though, that a three-year period would be acceptable to her if her colleagues did not support the four-year alternative.

• MOTION: Ms. Barber moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it:
  1. Approve a 100 percent determination of funding for Audeo Charter School (#406) for four years, 2006-07 through 2009-10.
  2. Determine that a level greater than 70 percent is appropriate within the meaning of Education Code Section 47634.2(a)(4), 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 et seq.
  3. Determine that approval for a four-year period, instead of the five-year period requested, is advisable based upon review of the information presented in its totality.

  This motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Barber then made the following motion, which was approved.

• ACTION: Ms. Barber moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it:
  1. Approve a 100 percent determination of funding for Audeo Charter School (#406) for three years, 2006-07 through 2008-09.
  2. Determine that a level greater than 70 percent is appropriate within the meaning of Education Code Section 47634.2(a)(4), 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 et seq.
  3. 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.

  Mr. Kushner seconded the motion, and it was approved by unanimous vote of the members present.

Ms. Bixby commented that the school’s representatives had waited patiently to be heard and, though having great respect for the members of the ACCS, felt that the school had made a solid case for at least a four-year funding determination. Chair Belisle indicated that there was clearly a difference of opinion, and noted that the school can come back next year to seek a longer funding determination. By next year, she added, the school may qualify for a five-year funding determination approval by statute.

School	Percent	Term
California Virtual Academy@Jamestown #495	100%	3 yrs

Mr. Edmonds summarized the CDE staff recommendation for 100 percent funding for three years. James Konantz, the school’s director, expressed agreement with the staff recommendation. He noted recent academic achievements by the school’s students, and he indicated that the school had been renewed for five years (to 2012).

• ACTION: Mr. Kushner moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it:
  1. Approve a 100 percent determination of funding for California Virtual Academy@Jamestown (#495) for three years, 2006-07 through 2008-09.
  2. Determine that a level greater than 70 percent is appropriate within the meaning of Education Code Section 47634.2(a)(4), 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 et seq.
  3. 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.

  Mr. McNair seconded the motion, and it was approved by unanimous vote of the members present.

School	Percent	Term
Lammersville Charter School #203	100%	2 yrs
Eleanor Roosevelt Community Learning Center #395	100%	2 yrs
The Met Sacramento High School #586	100%	2 yrs

Mr. Edmonds presented the CDE staff recommendation for these three schools for the 100 percent level for two years. He noted various issues justifying two-year approval periods in each case. No members of the public wished to comment.

• ACTION: Ms. Hunkapiller moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it:
  1. Approve a 100 percent determination of funding for each of the schools identified above for two years, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
  2. Determine in each case that a level greater than 70 percent is appropriate within the meaning of Education Code Section 47634.2(a)(4), 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 et seq.
  3. Determine in each case 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. McNair seconded the motion, and it was approved by unanimous vote of the members present.

School	Percent	Term
Heritage Peak Charter School #687	100%	2 yrs

• ACTION: Ms. Hunkapiller moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it:
  1. Approve a 100 percent determination of funding for Heritage Peak Charter School (#687) for two years on a forward funded basis, 2007-08 and 2008-09.
  2. Determine that a level greater than 70 percent is appropriate within the meaning of Education Code Section 47634.2(a)(4), 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 et seq.
  3. 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. McNair seconded the motion, and it was approved by unanimous vote of the members present.

School	Percent	Term
Shasta Secondary Home School #256	100%	5 yr

Mr. Edmonds noted that, based on the recent release of API rankings, this school had qualified for extension of its determination of funding to five years (2006-07 through 2010-11), pursuant to EC Section 47612.5(d)(2).

School	Percent	Term
Excelsior Education Center #74	100%	5yrs
Julian Charter School #267	100%	5 yrs

Mr. Edmonds noted that, based on the recent release of API rankings, these two schools had also qualified for extension of their determinations of funding to five years, though on a forwarded funded basis (2007-08 through 2011-12), pursuant to EC Section 47612.5(d)(2).

• ACTION: Ms. Barber moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it extend the determinations of funding for each of the schools identified above to five years, pursuant to EC Section 47612.5(d)(2). Mr. McNair seconded the motion, and it was approved by unanimous vote of the members present.

School	Percent	Term
Options for Youth-San Gabriel #117	85%	2 yrs
Options for Youth-San Juan #217	85%	2 yrs
Opportunities for Learning-Capistrano #463	85%	2 yrs

Mr. Edmonds indicated that these three schools met the criteria for the 85 percent level, and CDE staff recommended approval at that level for two years, as requested by the schools. He noted that the pupil-teacher ratio issue would await a ruling on the audit appeal. Ms. Barber inquired if the ACCS could recommend a level below 85 percent. Mr. Edmonds indicated that was possible, but he commented that these three schools had the highest levels of instruction and instruction-related expenditures seen within the OFY/OFL organization. He reiterated the CDE staff recommendation of 85 percent. Mr. Kushner indicated that he was comfortable with the 85 percent level, but asked if there was a way to retain some of the funding “in escrow” pending the outcome of the audit appeal. Chair Belisle inquired about the possibility of approval at the 70 percent level. Mr. Edmonds noted that approval at the 70 percent level might “discourage” the trend toward higher spending on instruction and instruction-related costs. Ms. Hunkapiller indicated that she was comfortable with the 85 percent level given the information presented. Ms. Barber asked if there was certainty that the figures presented were in fact “discrete to these schools,” and that OFY/OFL was not simply moving money around among the schools. Mr. Edmonds indicated that CDE staff had a “high degree of confidence” in the figures and was certain these schools had “met the bar for 85 percent.”

Kerry Mazzoni, representing OFY/OFL, noted the academic achievement of OFL/OFY sites, as well as various other achievements, including WASC accreditation. She noted that the organizations were pleased with the recognition they had received and supported the 85 percent funding level recommended by CDE staff. She indicated the OFY/OFL looks forward “to continued improvement for our students in partnership with the state.”

Mr. Conry inquired as to Ms. Mazzoni’s association with OFY/OFL. She indicated that she is a registered lobbyist retained by the organizations, and that her business relationship with OFY/OLF is listed on the Secretary of State’s Web site. Mr. Kushner indicated that he was “thrilled” to have Ms. Mazzoni representing charter schools.

• ACTION: Ms. Hunkapiller moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it:
  1. Approve an 85 percent determination of funding for each of the three schools identified above for two years, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
  2. Determine in each case that a level greater than 70 percent is appropriate within the meaning of Education Code Section 47634.2(a)(4), 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 et seq.
  3. Determine in each case that approval be granted for a two-year period, because that is the period requested and because a two-year period is advisable based upon review of the information presented in its totality.

  Mr. McNair seconded the motion, and it was approved by a vote of 7-1. Mr. Conry voted against the motion.

School	Percent	Term
Choice 2000 Charter School #61	85%	2 yrs

Mr. Edmonds summarized the CDE staff recommendation for approval at the 70 percent level for two years. He noted that the school faces a serious audit exception that could result in the loss of essentially all funding. He noted that, based on the revenue and expenditure data submitted, the school would qualify for an 85 percent funding determination per the regulations, absent the mitigating factor of the audit. The audit appears to be credible evidence, although it has yet to be certified by the State Controller’s Office. The audit exception will be addressed through the EAAP process regardless of what the ACCS and SBE do with respect to the funding determination. Ms. Barber described her understanding of the audit exception, i.e., that the school’s synchronous online scheduling of classes does not constitute classroom-based instruction, which must be under the “immediate supervision” of a charter school employee. She indicated that since this issue has yet to be reviewed and decided in the audit resolution process, she would be more comfortable in recommending approval at the 85 percent level consistent with the regulation.

Chair Belisle called for public comment on this funding determination. Dina Harris, attorney with Best Best & Krieger, representing Choice 2000, asked that the audit findings not be considered as they will be appealed. She noted that new language in the school audit guide resulted in the audit finding for 2005-06, and that the school will definitely appeal. She encouraged the ACCS to allow the EAAP process to be completed, and not reduce the funding determination while the appeal was pending. The issue, she indicated, is whether independent study contracts are required. She commented that the school’s instruction takes place in “100 percent real time” and meets “a higher standard of attendance.” The organization believes its instruction is nonclassroom-based, but is not independent study. “It makes no sense,” she said, “to have independent study contracts for these students.” She indicated that she looked forward to arguing the audit appeal, and was confident the school would prevail. Ms. Reyes indicated that she understood the argument, but that clearly it is EAAP that must decide. Mr. McNair inquired about “financial responsibility” for the school if the appeal is unsuccessful. Ms. Barber reiterated her point that the revenue and expenditure data support an 85 percent funding determination, and the audit should not be taken into account at this point.

Candace Reines, Director of Fiscal Services for the Perris Union High School District, indicated that she was working with staff to present evidence that would justify a 100 percent funding determination. She commented that there had been “lots of staff turnover” resulting in some deficiencies in bookkeeping. Mr. Kushner briefly discussed the issue of nonclassrom-based instruction and independent study. Chair Belisle indicated that she would be inclined toward the 85 percent level.

• ACTION: Ms. Barber moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it:
  1. Approve an 85 percent determination of funding for Choice 2000 Charter School (#61) for two years, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
  2. Determine that a level greater than 70 percent is appropriate within the meaning of Education Code Section 47634.2(a)(4), 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 et seq.
  3. 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.

  Ms. Hunkapiller seconded the motion, and it was approved by unanimous vote of the members present.

School	Percent	Term
Gorman Learning Center #285	60%	2 yrs

Mr. Edmonds summarized the SBE staff recommendation for approval at the 70 percent level for two years. He noted that the school faces numerous audit exceptions, including misuse of funds. Mr. Conry inquired as to the status of the audit. Mr. Edmonds indicated that the audit called into serious question whether the school qualified for the funding determinations it received in past years. The school will have to do a lot of review and revision.

Chair Belisle called for public comment. Kim Clark, President of Gorman Learning Center Board, commented on the corrective actions that have been taken, including the hiring of a new interim director. He indicated that the two staff members responsible for misspending funds were no longer with the school. Cynthia Markham, the school’s new interim director, provided information on her personal background. She acknowledged that errors had been made in previous years, and that governing board action had been swift once the matters were brought to light. She noted that “we will be more responsible and responsive going forward.” She described some specific reforms implemented. “We are committed to repaying all the over-claims,” she noted. She felt that through careful budgeting and a multiple-year repayment plan, the school would be able to remain financially viable. She also noted that “we are on the right track educationally.” She stated that the school needed a higher funding level than 70 percent. If funded at that level, she indicated that there would be “a great cost to our students.” Funding at the 70 percent level would mean “gutting the school with Draconian cuts” and “would really harm children.”

Ms. Barber inquired as to why this funding determination was coming so late in the year. Mr. Edmonds indicated that the delay had largely to do with factoring in the audit findings. He indicated that the request could have been submitted earlier in the year. He also noted that the school has substantial reserves. Mr. Conry inquired as to what happened “to those who did not protect public trust.” The school’s representatives indicated that those two individuals had resigned. Mr. Conry expressed surprise that only two individuals could be responsible for this level of misappropriation. Mr. Clark explained that to help ensure more vigorous oversight, the governing board had been expanded. He indicated that he was “the only one left” from 2003-04, a key year in the audit.

Mr. McNair expressed his surprise that “this school is still operating.” He inquired what district authorized the charter (Gorman Elementary). He concluded that 70 percent seemed overly generous to him. This is not a matter of the state letting down the school, he said, this is a matter of the school letting down the students. Mr. Conry expressed concern that Mr. Clark remained on the governing board under the circumstances. Mr. Clark responded that the board members had relied to their detriment on what appeared to be solid information from a professional staff. “Things did not come to our attention,” he said. Mr. Conry inquired whether the superintendent of the Gorman district was present; she was not. Chair Belisle indicated that this “is a tough one.” She noted that all boards “tend to rely on staff,” but that there were obviously serious issues in this case. She suggested funding at the 60 percent level, indicating that the 60 percent level had been the recommendation on earlier funding determinations where there were issues regarding the appropriateness of expenditures. Mr. Barajas commented that he found it difficult “to find this credible” and that it was “hard to see what was going on here.” Ms. Barber concurred with Chair Belisle that the ACCS should be consistent with its recommendation regarding the OFY/OFL schools.

• ACTION: Mr. Conry moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it:
  1. Approve a 60 percent determination of funding for Gorman Learning Center (#285) for two years, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
  2. Determine that a level lower than 70 percent is appropriate within the meaning of Education Code Section 47634.2(a)(4), because of serious concerns regarding the propriety of the school’s administration. An audit of the school conducted by MGT of America on behalf of Los Angeles County Office of Education found numerous issues including teacher credentials, misuse of charter school funds, asset misappropriation or misuse, funding irregularities, compensation irregularities and nepotism. The auditors reported the school incorrectly categorized thousands of dollars in revenues from reporting for funding determination purposes and consequently did not qualify for 100 percent funding in 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06. According to the audit, the school was overpaid $5.9 million due to inaccurate reporting. In addition, there were other audit findings resulting in financial penalties, i.e. ineligible teachers resulting in over-claiming of $1.8 million. In view of these findings, it is prudent to reduce the school’s funding determination to the 60 percent level.
  3. 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. McNair seconded the motion, and it was approved by unanimous vote of the members present.

Recusal by Ms. Barber

Chair Belisle announced that Ms. Barber had recused in regard to the South Bay Preparatory (SBP) petition appeal, upon learning that the SBP has submitted an application for membership in the El Dorado County SELPA, contingent upon the charter being approved.

South Bay Preparatory Charter School

Ms. Connelly summarized the key features of the SBP charter, as well as the CDE staff analysis and the CDE recommendation that the charter be denied. She noted that the charter was denied by the Campbell Union High School District and the Santa Clara County Board of Education. She discussed an issue pertaining to the proposed “build out” of grade levels. She commented that overall this is an “underdeveloped petition,” with much that is vague and general. It is not reasonably comprehensive in its description of key required elements. Among other things, the educational program lacks specificity, and the founding group members per se do not appear to have sufficient expertise and experience to implement the charter successfully. However, among the advisory group members, there is quite a depth of expertise and experience. If the ACCS chooses to recommend approval of the charter, she indicated, CDE staff would encourage the members to include the incorporation of changes to resolve staff’s concerns, as well as include the SBE’s traditional conditions on the opening and operation of a school.

Felicia Gershberg, Chris Duckering, and Colleen Wagner participated in the presentation of the SBP charter. Ms. Gershberg indicated that SBP was willing to accept the charter changes recommended by CDE staff. She then provided some history on the chartering process with the Campbell district. She addressed some of the key issues mentioned in the CDE staff analysis, including special education (the school plans to become a member of the El Dorado County Office SELPA), attendance accounting (to be outsourced), curriculum development process, plan for English learners, professional development plan, and other supplemental information. She indicated that the school would submit a full description of the educational program for approval at a subsequent time. In regard to a facility, she indicated that the school is actively seeking locations. She addressed certain charter elements, as well as the school’s goals, budget issues, and the expertise of personnel. She indicated that the school’s developers have participated in sessions provided by CCSA and CSDC. The school has received a PCSGP grant. The school has “over 600 supporters” in the community. “We are determined to open,” she concluded.

Ms. Duckering discussed the issue of teacher-created curriculum. “We have outlined as much as we can,” she noted. “We have something of a ‘chicken and egg’ problem.” She indicated that supplementary, clarifying materials would provide specificity.

Colin Miller, CCSA, indicated that SBP is a member school. “The petition continues to evolve and strengthen,” he said. The group has made significant progress, he commented. They will be ready for a fall 2008 opening. Going back to the local level “doesn’t make sense” in this case, because it is clear that the district “is not interested” in approving charter schools. He encouraged the ACCS to “move forward today,” because there is “lots of potential here.” Mr. McNair asked if Mr. Miller had any statistics to back up his allegation that the district was unfriendly to charter schools. There was further discussion on how many charters the Campbell district had considered.

Patrick Gaffney, Campbell Union High School District, commented that the district’s governing board had legitimate concerns about this charter and did “due diligence” prior to deciding to deny the petition. He noted that the same concerns were echoed in the analyses performed by staff at the county and state levels. He indicated that he was unaware of any statements by district staff or board members that they “wouldn’t work with charter petitioners.” He encouraged the ACCS to recommend that the petition be denied.

Chair Belisle noted the Ms. Barber had recused (as noted above) and had left the meeting room upon learning that SBP has an active application for membership in the El Dorado County SELPA contingent upon the charter being approved. Mr. Kushner indicated that he would not participate in the discussion on the SBP petition, because one of the Leadership Public Schools would “compete for the same students.” However, he felt that this potential conflict was remote enough that he need not leave the meeting room.

Ed Sklar, attorney with Lozano Smith, representing Campbell Union School District, mentioned the district’s key concerns with the SBP charter and its concurrence with the CDE staff recommendation to deny the charter appeal. He distributed copies of a letter from the district’s superintendent, Johanna VanderMolen.

Jerry Simmons, attorney with Spector, Middleton, Young & Minney, but not working as a member of that firm in this instance, spoke in favor of the SBP charter. He commented on a “significant need in the community” for this school. He pointed out that the achievement gap is significant in district and that this school’s proposed educational program would be successful in addressing that issue. He spoke to the conundrum of evaluating a charter that proposes teacher-prepared curriculum. He expressed hope that the ACCS would give the charter “every consideration.”

Ms. Duckering addressed the issue of the petitioners’ contact with the district. She expressed the view that the petitioners had “started out at a disadvantage.” The district was “against the charter from the beginning,” she commented.

Mr. Gaffney responded to Mr. Simmons’ comment by saying that the district is addressing the achievement gap, and that the gap is closing.

Chair Belisle thanked the speakers for their comments and called for deliberation among the members. Mr. McNair expressed concern that the district has a record of not approving any charters, but also commented that the vagueness of the proposed curriculum was a significant issue in this case. He indicated that he had experiences with some charter developers who “never got the curriculum together.”

Ms. Hunkapiller indicated that she was wrestling with the issue of sending the petitioners back to the local chartering process only to have them “come back here again.” She commented that since the ACCS is now aware of the situation, it may be to the petitioners’ advantage to go back through the local process. She concluded that there were definitely improvements to be made in the charter, and that it would “not be the end of world to be denied and go back through again.”

Mr. Barajas indicated that he was aware of the current environment for chartering in Santa Clara County and that it gave him pause for concern in relation to sending the petitioners back for another round of consideration at the local level. However, he commented that the ACCS would not be “closing the door on the charter.” Rather, he said that going back to the local level with more information “will give you a better chance.” He mentioned that it was “a big plus” for the petitioners to have the support for a particular member of the County Board (who recently resigned from the County Board, having accepted a position with the U.S. Department of Education.)

Mr. Conry commented that it is always advantageous to be chartered locally. There is little or no help for schools chartered by the SBE. “Since you only went to Campbell once,” he said, “I’m inclined to have you go back.” It will be more time, he concluded, but it will be time well spent.

Chair Belisle focused on two areas of concern. First, she indicated that the legal positions of the district and county are suspect in her view vis-à-vis modification of a charter. She commented that it is an art to determine “how much change is too much” and, thus, when a charter should go back through the process again. However, there is “lots of flexibility” for allowing changes in a charter. It appeared to her that the circumstances may have been “engineered” for denial of the charter. She also commented on the issue of phasing-in grade levels. Second, she expressed concern about “negotiation followed by denial” which she felt was “disingenuous.” Those concerns stated, she expressed her perspective that this charter would not get through the SBE due to the inadequacy of the curriculum description. Overall, she indicated, the charter is simply not complete enough “to garner my support.”

Ms. Gershberg indicated that she felt the SBP charter followed the model application on the SBE Web site very closely. Chair Belisle commented that the model was developed at an earlier point in time and that, while a source of some good ideas, should not be viewed as a template to be used without regard to the changes in thinking that have occurred over the years. She suggested the petitioners look at some of the recent charters approved by the SBE, not to lift language directly, but rather to broaden their base of knowledge about constructing successful charters. Mr. Hunkapiller suggested that the petitioners withdraw, rework the charter in light of the information they now had, and work on developing “a relationship with the district.” It would be to the petitioners’ advantage, she concluded, to be chartered “at home.” Mr. McNair also recommended that the petitioners withdraw rather than have an ACCS denial recommendation added to the record. He complimented the petitioners on their “good, committed leadership,” but suggested that the charter needed more development.

On behalf of the petitioners, Ms. Gershberg indicated that she wished to withdraw the charter from consideration. Chair Belisle acknowledged the withdrawal and indicated that no action by the ACCS would be necessary.

Updates

Chair Belisle invited Ms. Reyes to provide brief updates.

• The May 21 meeting will be held in the usual location (CDE, Room 1101). [Subsequent to this meeting, the next meeting was rescheduled for Monday, June 4, 2007, in CDE, Room 1101.]
• Status of audits of OFY/OFL, Gorman Learning Center, and Choice 2000.
• Closure regulations have been approved by OAL and become effective May 1.
• Proposed conflict of interest regulations go to the SBE in May.
• Proposition 39 regulations (as amended) return to the SBE for final approval in May.

Ms. Barber reported that the El Dorado County Office of Education had submitted a waiver request to establish a statewide SELPA for charter schools. The waiver is needed to isolate the participating charter schools from the financial impact of declining enrollment in El Dorado County. The waiver may be considered by the SBE in May or July. The intent is for the statewide charter SELPA to be operational in 2007-08. The El Dorado County Office will maintain its existing pilot, under which out-of-county charter schools are included. Three other SELPAs have similar pilots (Yuba, Lodi, and Desert Mountain). She also noted that the LAUSD is doing some innovative things with charter schools in its single-district SELPA. She indicated that “having a fall-back option” (a statewide charter SELPA) is important for charter schools and that she would appreciate support in the endeavor.

Mr. Kushner noted that test scores for direct funded charters do not currently roll-up into the API of the charter authorizer. Thus, if the charter does well, the authorizer’s API “gets no benefit.” He inquired whether there would be a way to remedy this situation. Mr. Geeting pointed out that the rule that has been established by the CDE Policy and Evaluation Division is for the scores of students in locally funded charters to roll-up into the API of the charter authorizer (typically a district), but for the scores of students in direct funded charters not to roll-up. Mr. Kushner indicated that he would like to see the rule changed, because (for direct funded charters) authorizers “can’t take credit for the student’s good work.” Mr. McNair sounded a note of caution, indicating that it might be preferable to explore “doing it both ways.” What is really important, he suggested, is how the issue is presented in the press. It would be counterproductive, he felt, to promote an “us versus them” environment. Mr. Kushner commented that his interest is in “supporting superintendents who have great charters.” It was agreed that staff would explore the issue and report back at the next meeting.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the ACCS, Chair Belisle adjourned the meeting at 4:26 p.m.

Subsequent to this meeting, the next regular meeting was rescheduled for Monday, June 4, 2007, and the meeting thereafter is scheduled for Friday, July 20, 2007.

California State Board of Education
1430 N Street, Suite #5111
Sacramento, CA 95814

Contact SBE  |  Web Policy