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, June 4, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rae Belisle, Chair
Jesse Barajas
Vicki Barber
Tom Conry
Beth Hunkapiller
Mark Kushner
Marta Reyes*
MEMBERS ABSENT
Steve Barr
Greg McNair
*Marta Reyes is the State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s designee.
PRINCIPAL STAFF TO THE ADVISORY COMMISSION
Deborah Domitrovich, 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.
Re-ordering of Agenda
Chair Belisle announced that the agenda would be re-ordered somewhat. The first order of business will be an information-only discussion regarding inclusion of charter schools’ scores in district accountability reports. The second order of business will the renewal of the New West charter. Following that, the ACCS will consider funding determinations, the two charter appeals, the updates, and the briefing on the new SB 740 funding determination forms.
Introductions
Chair Belisle introduced Ralph Burge, who has been hired as Staff Services Manager within the Charter Schools Division. She then invited the ACCS members and principal staff to introduce themselves.
Flag Salute
Chair Belisle invited Mr. Conry to lead the members, staff, and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Meeting Notes
Chair Belisle asked if there were any corrections or changes to the notes from the meeting held on April 20, 2007. Hearing none, she asked if there was a motion to approve the meeting notes.
- ACTION: Ms. Barber moved that the notes of the meeting held on April 20, 2007, be approved as presented. Mr. Conry seconded the motion, and it was approved by unanimous vote of the members present.
Public Comment
Chair Belisle invited public comment on any matter not on the day’s agenda. Jean Hatch, Redding School of the Arts, provided an update on the school’s chartering situation. A new charter has now been approved. A Mandarin-language program will begin in late August. She expressed appreciation for the assistance of CDE staff. Teachers for the new school will include individuals from the People’s Republic of China.
Jeff Rice, Association of Personalized Learning Services, described a research project the organization is launching concerning the “value-added benefit of personalized learning.” It will include pre- and post-testing, as well as the collection of demographic information. The project is funded by foundation grants, and it has been “a long time in the making.” Mr. Rice indicated that he will provide updates from time to time as the project proceeds.
Inclusion of Charter Schools’ Scores in District Accountability Reports
Rachel Perry, Administrator of the Evaluation, Research, and Analysis Unit, and Robert Bernstein, Administrator of the Academic Accountability Unit, discussed inclusion of charter schools’ scores in district accountability reports. Ms. Perry provided some historical perspective. Originally, accountability was entirely school-based. However, in implementing NCLB, the issue of district accountability was confronted. NCLB appeared vague on the topic, so the CDE and SBE fell back on the Education Code provision that essentially states that direct funded charters are to be treated as districts. Thus, the scores of locally funded charters roll up to district level, and the scores of direct funded charters do not. Instead, direct funded charters are reported as though they were separate districts. Similarly, the performance of direct funded charters is excluded from a district’s AYP. This arrangement is unchanged since 2003.
Ms. Barber clarified that the only real issue appears to be whether a means could be found for the scores of direct funded charters to roll up into the district level report. She indicated that she endorsed the current system which bases the rolling up of scores on the method of funding. She would not favor a change. Mr. Kushner indicated that he appreciated the “rationale” for the rolling up of scores based on the method of funding, but that the two (funding and accountability) were very separate in his view. “The method of funding has little to do with accountability,” he said. He expressed concern that charter authorizers “get no credit” for higher performing charter schools and, similarly, have no incentive to close charters that are lower performing. Districts often see “our good performance as a slap in our face,” he commented, “not something that they can celebrate.” He indicated that he felt we should strive for a “middle ground” that promotes “active authorizing” and “supports superintendents” in districts with high performing charter schools.
Mr. Bernstein indicated that score-reporting is “an issue that cuts both ways.” He commented that he mostly has to dispel the misperception that the direct funded charter schools’ scores contribute negatively to districts’ APIs and AYPs. “Some districts would like to exclude locally funded charters too,” he said. A chief complaint is that charters often have students from outside a district’s attendance area. Mr. Kushner called for exploration of any creative way that “we might give credit” to districts that have high performing, direct funded charters. Mr. Bernstein suggested that a report could be developed that summed up all charter schools in a district (or just the direct funded charter schools in a district), but yet was separate from the district’s report. Mr. Kushner did not believe that would help, as it could be viewed as simply emphasizing the district’s poor performance yet again. “It could be counterproductive,” he said.
Chair Belisle echoed the view that this issue “cuts both ways.” She indicated that she did not have an answer. She then inquired about scores of special education students. Mr. Bernstein indicated that the scores of special education students roll back to the district if the students are enrolled in a special education school, but not if the students are enrolled in a program. There was further dialogue on this subject.
Mr. Kushner reiterated his concern about the linkage of accountability to the method of funding. Ms. Barber, in contrast, commented that this is “really a media issue.” If districts want credit for high performing charter schools, they should be issuing press releases that incorporate the charter schools’ scores. She indicated that the media in her area always ask her for comment when accountability reports are released. The option is available to frame the charters’ performance in a positive way. However, she reiterated that she felt the general sentiment among districts and county offices was in favor of the current accountability rule, i.e., against rolling up the scores of direct funded charter schools. “How ‘we’ present information has much to do with the public perception,” she concluded, clarifying (at Mr. Conry’s request) that her reference to “we” related principally to county superintendents, whom she represents. Mr. Kushner expressed his appreciation to Ms. Perry and Mr. Bernstein, as did Chair Belisle.
Renewal of New West Charter School
Ms. Domitrovich provided an update on the situation with New West Charter School. She provided some historical context and noted that the SBE (at its May meeting) had granted a one-year extension to the initial approval of New West, in keeping with the recommendation of the ACCS. The LAUSD governing board denied renewal of the New West charter on May 22. She indicated that CDE staff recommends renewal of the charter. The school has met the threshold requirements in statute. In addition, Ms. Domitrovich noted that several material revisions to the New West charter had been proposed by the school. In general the revisions are acceptable, but there are a few exceptions. She noted that the school’s academic performance as measured by the API has been consistently high. New West is the fourth highest among the middle schools in the LAUSD. New West outperforms the district average “by a wide margin.”
Ms. Domitrovich reported on the financial problems New West had encountered, mentioning several audits and reviews, including the work of FCMAT. She indicated that the school had done an “excellent job of correcting deficiencies” in its fiscal operations. The school should have a balanced budget and be fully meeting its internal control objectives by the end of this year. She noted that CDE staff had performed a site visit during April.
In regard to material revisions to the charter, Ms. Domitrovich indicated that New West was again proposing a revamping of “founders’ status,” under which more families would quality for admission preference. CDE staff recommends against changing that part of the charter. She also mentioned that the special education provisions of the charter will need some modification. The school has received preliminary approval to join Southwest SELPA and hopes to have that matter squared away by July 1. She indicated that New West is proposing a “home-school contract,” with failure to meet the conditions of the contract punishable by disenrollment. CDE staff recommends against that change as students ought not be punished for their parents failure to fulfill the contract. Finally, she mentioned the school’s enrollment and application materials. The materials are quite extensive and rather “daunting.” They have the potential to dissuade parents from applying. She indicated that CDE staff would recommend deferring collection of the information until after the public random drawing has been completed and the following year’s students selected. The school “needs to be very clear that this is a two-stage process.”
Judith Branowski, New West board president, expressed appreciation for the continuing support of the school by the SBE and the CDE. She acknowledged that the school had had a “very difficult” start up period, but that everyone involved wants “excellence.” She introduced Sharon Weir, Tanisha Larkin, and Michele McClowry (FCMAT).
Sharon Weir, New West’s principal, reviewed the situation with the LAUSD. She expressed appreciation for the one-year extension and indicated that the school looked forward to “achieving stability with a five-year renewal.” She indicated that the school is striving to “raise the bar” and has “extensive waiting lists.” She commented that the school has “come a long way over the past four years.” She expressed particular appreciation for the guidance and support provided by CDE staff and by FCMAT over the past year.
Tanisha Larkin, New West’s assistant principal, covered a number of topics, including the school’s racial diversity and its efforts to close the achievement gap in English-language arts and mathematics. She noted some specific ways in which the school focuses on the achievement gap, including student success teams and monitoring student performance throughout the year. She also mentioned parent support and involvement, including the school’s commitment to a no-more-than-48-hour turnaround on messages. She also noted teacher- and student-led conferences as ways in which parents are kept informed. She concluded by presenting information on the school’s academic performance.
Michele McClowry, FCMAT, indicated that she had been assigned as an independent fiscal advisor several months ago. She indicated that the school had “done everything I recommended.” She also indicated that she had been to the school site numerous times, and found the school an “active, busy place.” She noted that the governing board “works together well.” She commented that when the unaudited actuals for 2006-07 come out in September, “you’ll see they have exceeded expectations.” She indicated that FCMAT has committed to stay at least through December 2007. She concluded that FCMAT is committed to making sure that New West is a successful school.
Ms. Weir commented that New West has grown and flourished over the past four years and is indeed a “high quality” school.
Ms. Barber inquired about the issues cited by the LAUSD in denying renewal. Ms. Domitrovich indicated that the issues were primarily the school’s admissions process and its “disciplinary process,” which the district claimed “did not meet Education Code standards.” She noted that it was unclear whether the LAUSD “reviewed the entire charter.” There was further discussion on the length of time New West had actually been under consideration by the LAUSD. Chair Belisle noted that the renewal process apparently restarted a number of times.
Ms. Barber indicated that the school appears “to have tried to be responsive.” She also noted that the school’s renewal did not need to be considered by the LA County Board of Education, as an initial charter would have, because the initial charter authorizer had been the SBE.
Ms. Hunkapiller, while acknowledging the school’s success, questioned the relatively small number of English learners and socioeconomically disadvantaged students. She commented that the school could probably do more to “reach out” to neighborhoods with large numbers of English learners and disadvantaged students. They, too, need the school’s high quality educational program. She also noted that the admission requirements must be adjusted to ensure that there is “no discouragement to these families.” Ms. Weir noted that school is quite diverse and has students from more than 60 zip code areas.
Mr. Conry inquired how the CDE will continue to monitor the school’s fiscal situation, assuming it is righted by year’s end. Ms. Domitrovich indicated that the CDE will be provided interim budget reports and the school’s independent annual audit. She described the “progressive discipline process” to address any fiscal issues that may arise. She also noted that FCMAT reports to us regularly. Mr. Conry indicated that FCMAT’s involvement appears to be ending in December and inquired about what would happen thereafter. Ms. Domitrovich noted that the school appears to want to extend its relationship with FCMAT voluntarily. Ms. Reyes indicated that the CDE would only require extension of the relationship with FCMAT if continuing fiscal problems are found. Mr. Conry asked if the MOU provides a sufficient guarantee that financial problems will not recur. Ms. Domitrovich indicated that it did.
Chair Belisle commented that she was “thrilled with the school’s performance,” but concerned about “the allegations of ‘creaming,’ of not taking the harder-to-educate.” Ms. Weir indicated that, in her view, the school goes “above and beyond in outreach efforts.” She commented that the school would be delighted to see the numbers of English learners and disadvantaged students increasing. One issue, she noted, is that many English learners are reclassified by the time they reach middle grades, so there is a smaller pool of them. Chair Belisle commented that the school “should consider targeting low-SCS zip codes” with its recruitment materials. Ms. Weir indicated that New West does target Richland Elementary, which is a low-SCS school. She also indicated that she believes the school’s number of socioeconomically disadvantaged students is actually higher than reported.
- ACTION: Mr. Kushner moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it renew the New West charter for a five-year period ending June 30, 2012, and approve material revisions to the New West charter in accordance with the recommendations of CDE staff. Mr. Barajas seconded the motion, and it was approved by unanimous vote of the members present.
2006-07 (and beyond) Funding Determination Requests
| School | Percent | Term |
|---|---|---|
| Charter Home School Academy #250 | 100% |
2 yrs |
| Learning for Life Charter School #362 | 100% |
2 yrs |
| Plumas Lake Charter School #647 | 100% |
2 yrs |
Mr. Edmonds presented information about each of the three schools, which are recommended for approval at 100 percent for two years. All are very small, and all have very low academic performance. He indicated that the CDE recommends that each be required to submit a plan for improving achievement. Two of the schools have substantial reserves.
Chair Belisle commented that these schools’ API rankings are troubling, and that she appreciated the idea of requiring a plan to improve academic achievement. Ms. Barber noted that one school’s request was signed by the district’s alternative education director. She indicated that if the school was serving a population typically served by alternative education that might explain in part low academic achievement in that one case.
- ACTION: Ms. Hunkapiller moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it:
- Approve a 100 percent determination of funding for each of the three schools identified above 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 et seq (Outside Source).
- 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 motion, and it was approved by unanimous vote of the members present.
| School | Percent | Term |
|---|---|---|
| Antelope Valley Desert Montessori Schools, Inc. #747 | 85% |
2 yrs |
Mr. Edmonds presented information about this school. It met one criterion for the 85 percent funding level, and one criterion for the 70 percent funding level. CDE staff gave “the benefit of the doubt,” and recommended funding at the 85 percent level for two years. He noted that the school is authorized by the Gorman Elementary School District, and that CDE had received information that the charter had been revoked as of June30, 2007. Chair Belisle sought clarification on the 85 percent recommendation. Mr. Conry sought clarification on the revocation issue. Mr. Edmonds indicated that written documentation of the revocation had yet to be received. Ms. Reyes noted that, under a new statute, the school would have the option of appealing the revocation.
Jill Barrett, the school’s director, commented that the school is “important to the community,” providing services to approximately 150 “low income students.” She indicated that the district has been “unable to provide the oversight we need,” and that the school has now hired a back-office management group, as well as legal representation, and has acquired Power School for tracking attendance. She urged the ACCS to recommend full funding. Andrea Sexton, Spector, Middleton, Young & Minney, also urged approval of the funding determination request.
Mr. Conry indicated that he would be more comfortable with a 70 percent recommendation. Mr. Kushner asked Mr. Edmonds to reiterate the reasons for recommending 85 percent. He did so. Ms. Barber indicated that if the school has not been revoked (or if the revocation is overturned), the school could seek a second determination of funding next year.
- ACTION: Ms. Barber moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it:
- Approve an 85 percent determination of funding for Antelope Valley Desert Montessori Schools, Inc. (#748), 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 et seq (Outside Source).
- Determine that approval for a two-year period, instead of the four-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 a vote of 6-1. Mr. Conry voted against the motion.
Lunch Break
Chair Belisle called for the lunch break at 11:59 a.m. She reconvened the meeting at 12:46 p.m.
Recusal by Ms. Barber
Exercising an abundance of caution, Ms. Barber recused in regard to the Bay Area Technology School, San Francisco, because the petitioners had specifically listed participation in the El Dorado County SELPA as an option under consideration for addressing special education. She left the meeting room.
Chair Belisle requested that staff inquire with the CDE Legal Division concerning the need for Ms. Barber to recuse in a situation of this type should it occur in the future.
Bay Area Technology School, San Francisco (BayTech-SF)
Mr. Geeting provided a brief summary of the CDE staff analysis and recommendation, which is to deny the petition. The proposed school would serve the Mission and Bayview Hunters Point neighborhoods of San Francisco. It proposes replication of Willow Education’s BayTech-Oakland school in downtown Oakland. BayTech-Oakland is just completing its third year of operation.
Mr. Geeting indicated that the petition has much to recommend it. However, because it is a replication petition, the ACCS does need to be cognizant of how well BayTech-Oakland is doing, and it is in that regard that CDE staff has some fundamental misgivings, at least at this time. If BayTech-Oakland were to post solid increases across the board in its STAR 2007 testing (which will be released next August), Mr. Geeting commented that CDE staff could possibly reach a different recommendation.
BayTech-Oakland commenced operations in 2004-05 and posted a disappointing 1 on the statewide API based on spring 2005 STAR tests. The next year, however, the school went up to the 3 on the statewide ranking. Nominally, this would appear to be good progress. However, further analysis found that the growth was largely due to English-language arts scores of the school’s seventh graders. In the sixth grade, academic performance in both English-language arts and mathematics actually declined between 2005 and 2006.
Mr. Geeting indicated that the description of the educational program, for the most part, appears to be composed of fairly high-order generalizations and lists of bullet points. There is more detailed information in supplementary materials, but these materials appear to be largely cut-and-paste from the state standards and from certain instructional materials. The relationship between the charter and the supplement is unclear. It is not clear, for example, whether a specific commitment is being made to the instructional materials programs mentioned in the supplement, some of which do not appear to be state adopted.
Mr. Geeting commented that, if the ACCS chose to recommend approval of the petition, there are a number of changes that CDE staff believes should be incorporated. In addition, CDE staff recommends the SBE’s traditional conditions be applied to the opening and operation of this school. He concluded by saying that gathering together 150 students and seven teachers for a fall 2007 opening appears optimistic at best, and that CDE staff is concerned that “rushing” the opening in this way would diminish the chances of successful operation.
Suleyman Bahceci, President of Willow Education, made the primary presentation in support of the petition. He contended that the reasons for denial by the SFUSD governing board were “not sound.” He indicated that the petitioners were willing to “accept all staff conditions,” including the postponement of the school’s opening to fall 2008. He provided some historical information about Willow Education, and indicated that its philosophy is to emphasize mathematics, science, and technology. A computer lab is a principal focus of the school, and technology is used to “integrate the subjects.” He commented that “if we make a commitment, we keep it.” He introduced the members of the leadership team and advisory committee who were present. He noted that there had been an error in the reporting of student socioeconomic data on BayTech-Oakland’s 2006 STAR tests and that corrections were in process with the testing contractor. The similar schools ranking of BayTech-Oakland (the school being replicated) is lower than it should be. The school has outpaced the Oakland Unified School District in academic growth which, he indicated, “demonstrates the hard work by our staff.” He noted the school’s academic accomplishments. It has received “many grants,” and WASC accreditation “is being pursued.” Some key features of BayTech-Oakland include after-school programs, college-prep focus, and a university-industry connection, as well as parent involvement and communication. He discussed the issue of petition signatures, and noted that more had signed even after the petition was submitted to the SFUSD. He also discussed several facility options under consideration. He concluded the presentation by playing a video composed of short testimonials in support of the school from residents of the Bayview Hunters Point community.
Mary Richards, Director of the Public Charter Schools and Equity Office, SFUSD, spoke in opposition to the petition. She described the district’s process for reviewing the charter and highlighted the local governing board’s reasons for denial, even though finding the proposed educational program “to be strong.” She noted that several existing charter schools are already operating in the Bayview Hunters Point community serving the middle grades, including KIPP. She indicated that community support appeared “limited” when the charter was presented to the SFUSD governing board. She concurred with points made in the CDE staff comments.
Ms. Hunkapiller commented that she would be more comfortable with this petition if there were more data related to the BayTech-Oakland. “I would like to see you wait a year,” she said. Ms. Reyes concurred that the petition is being submitted “too soon.” The school being replicated needs more time to establish a solid track record. She suggested that the petitioners return to the SFUSD with an improved petition. Mr. Kushner indicated that he, too, questioned whether the group could deliver on another school while still operating BayTech-Oakland. He also questioned the extent to which the petitioners had support in San Francisco, because most of those listed as “supporters” were from outside San Francisco. Mr. Bahceci noted two individuals on the list of supporters from San Francisco. Mr. Kushner inquired about Mr. Bahceci’s experience with charter schools, most of which was amassed in the State of Texas.
Chair Belisle recognized several others who wished to speak in support of the petition.
- The grandmother of a student at BayTech-Oakland, and herself a retired school teacher, urged approval of the petition. She complimented the BayTech-Oakland principal and staff for “truly leaving no student behind.” She noted the after-school programs and Saturday school as key features. She indicated that she would love to see a similar school in San Francisco. It would be “a positive influence in reducing crime.”
- Colin Miller, CCSA, expressed support for the petition. He indicated that the SFUSD is not recognizing quality charters. “A school like this should not be here,” he said, “things could have been worked out at the local level.” He concluded by saying that the Bayview Hunters Point community needs this type of program.
- Marlene Gurl, a lifelong resident of the Bayview Hunters Point area, read a letter of support from a professor at UC Davis.
- Wallace Frasier, a BayTech-Oakland parent and after-school sports coordinator, indicated he was “very supportive” of providing this opportunity to parents in San Francisco.
- A science teacher from San Francisco indicated that she had visited BayTech-Oakland and was “very impressed,” particularly with its emphasis on “hands-on science.” The teaching is “very sophisticated,” yet “fun and comprehensible to students.” The teachers do not just emphasize “cramming facts.” Instruction is “alive and relevant.”
- Oscar Yildez, principal of BayTech-Oakland, complimented his “wonderful administrative team.” He noted that the school has an upcoming public meeting in Bayview Hunters Point on June 20 and described his efforts to meet with people in that community. He also commented on the search for a school site. “Everyone is asking for a better option in their community,” he concluded.
Chair Belisle commented that she wished “we had more data.” She indicated that, from the data available, she did not know if “this is something I want to support.” It is premature. She indicated that she appreciated the long process the petitioners had been through with the SFUSD, and she indicated that many of the SFUSD’s concerns did not appear that significant. She indicated that opening in fall 2007 is not realistic. She commented that she was undecided concerning how to proceed, i.e., whether to advocate for a return to the SFUSD, or simply to delay for a time to get more data about BayTech-Oakland. She did indicate that she had some concerns with the charter itself, including how instructional time would actually be used, and about intervention with low-achieving students.
Mr. Kushner inquired about the option of delay. Mr. Conry commented that the petitioners could withdraw, revise the charter, and come back, but that the ACCS does not have authority to require them to do so. Ms. Hunkapiller commented that a fall 2007 opening was not realistic in any case and that, therefore, there was ample time to revise the charter and pursue the process again. She recommended that the petitioners withdraw. Mr. Kushner agreed that he could not support a fall 2007 opening and that withdrawal appeared the better option. He also indicated that, as the petitioners worked to modify and strengthen the petition, they should closely consider the achievement goals, which appear “rather low,” not sufficiently robust. “You don’t want to over-promise,” he said, “but this petition under-promises.”
Mr. Bahceci reiterated that the petitioners would accept all staff recommendations, and asked to simply delay the decision until after August (when STAR 2007 scores are released). Ms. Reyes noted that the charter changes being discussed (e.g., use of instructional time, academic goals, governance structure) were quite material in nature and that she would recommend going back to the district. Chair Belisle indicated that it was better procedurally for the ACCS to simply “go up or down now,” unless the petitioners wished to withdraw. Mr. Conry reminded the petitioners that they needed five votes for a positive recommendation and that it seemed clear, in any event, that the school would not open this fall. He recommended that the petitioners “go through the process again.” Chair Belisle reminded the petitioners that the ACCS is an advisory body, not the final decision making body, and asked them how they wished to proceed.
The petitioners and supporters held a brief conference, following which Mr. Bahceci announced that the petitioners wished to withdraw and return to the SFUSD with a revised petition. Chair Belisle accepted the withdrawal of the petition and emphasized that, as the petitioners worked to revise the document, they be clear as to the status of the supplementary materials, as well as addressing the goals (per Mr. Kushner’s comments).
Afternoon Break
Chair Belisle called for a brief break at 1:50 p.m. She reconvened the meeting at 2:00 p.m.
Bayview Essential School of Music, Art and Social Justice (BES)
Ms. Domitrovich summarized the CDE staff analysis and recommendation that the petition be denied. BES would provide a high school option for the Bayview Hunters Point community. The charter developer is the Coalition for Essential Schools, and the school will emphasize college preparation. The SFUSD governing board had a number of reasons for denial. CDE staff recommends denial because the charter is insufficiently developed. The educational program is described very generally, and the governance structure is not clear. Most problematic is the practicality of opening in fall 2007. On the “strengths” side, a number of the people involved with the school have considerable expertise. However, the role of these individuals as the school becomes operational is unclear. CDE staff would recommend that the petitioners withdraw, “beef up” the charter, and return to the district. If the ACCS does wish to recommend approval, then CDE staff suggests a fall 2008 opening and immediate steps to get a governance structure in place, as well as addressing the ongoing involvement of the Coalition.
Maurice Goodman, petitioner, expressed support for the school, which has been in development for over a year and half. He indicated that the school has support from over 25 organizations. The SFUSD has “let the children down,” he commented. The students are neither prepared for college nor prepared for the workforce. He urged the ACCS to move the petition forward to the SBE.
Lewis Cohen, Coalition of Essential Schools, indicated that this school will be “taking advantage of our 20 years’ experience” and will be successful. There is a compelling need in the Bayview Hunters Point community. He indicated that the SFUSD does not do well by African American and Hispanic/Latino students. This would become a “demonstration site” for best practices. The Coalition would participate to a much greater extent in this school than in other schools it has developed. He described the Coalition’s involvement thus far and how it will be involved from here. He commented on the role of the Life Learning Academy as a mentor school for BES. He also emphasized how the Coalition has “worked with the community” and “built the school from the ground up.” The Coalition has conducted parent forums and town hall meetings to build community support. He mentioned the Coalition’s association with various community groups in this project.
Mr. Cohen noted that the school does have a community advisory board that would be the “foundation for our governing board.” He indicated that the school would provide an interdisciplinary, project-based curriculum. Digital arts would be a focus area, as well as service learning and internships. Literacy across the curriculum would be emphasized. Teachers would have lots of professional development. He reiterated that the SFUSD is not doing a good job by the students in this community. He described the Coalition’s experiences in working with the SFUSD. He commented that “we have to go forward in a way that meets the needs of the community.” He indicated that the group could accept the staff alternative of opening in fall 2008, and would be willing to modify the charter in accordance with CDE staff comments, if the ACCS would allow the petition to move forward. This is a community that has had “lots of disappointments” to date and the Coalition wants “to provide hope.”
Mr. Kushner noted for the record that he had no formal connection with the school being proposed, although he was acquainted with some of the people involved. He indicated that his knowledge of the individuals was such a remote association as not to present any conflict in relationship to deciding upon a recommendation to the SBE.
Mary Richards, SFUSD, conveyed the district’s opposition to the petition and urged that the ACCS recommend that it be denied. She noted that the SFUSD was committed to the development of small schools, and that she had been directly involved in preparing a policy toward that end. She focused on the district’s reasons for denial, a key one being the lack of clarity as to who would be “on the ground running this school.” She indicated that the petition while solid on the surface “didn’t hold together when we dug a little deeper.” She indicated that we “support the program, but not the details.”
Chair Belisle recognized several people who made brief statements in support of the school.
- Janine Long, resident of the Bayview Hunters Point community, discussed the “urgency of need for a school of this type.” She indicated that her daughter had a good experience with a summer program associated with the Coalition. She commented that this school would “meet needs of students, like my daughter, who are bored and disengaged.” She urged the ACCS to support creation of “a quality school in our neighborhood.”
- Yvette Marie Robles, parent, indicated that she supports the proposed school. She indicated that the Coalition had done a good job of “community-building” by developing partnerships with the local area. She appealed for “everyone to collaborate to move this forward.” She expressed the view that it would not be productive to return to the SFUSD.
- Bruce Marcus, community member, and operator of a nonprofit, school-based program called “e-magic,” indicated that there is lots of revitalization underway in the community and that “we want to create a rigorous educational linkage.”
- Craig Miller, principal of Life Learning Charter High School, discussed the school’s role as a mentor to BES. He urged the ACCS to recommend approval of the petition.
- Gregory Peters, Coalition of Essential Schools in San Francisco, indicated that the district had experienced “big problems” in providing good options for high school students in this community. He indicated that “much work needs to be done” and that the Coalition has a solid track record of success.
- Olivia Lynch, Stanford University, commended the Coalition “for working with this community” and encouraged the ACCS to support the school.
Chair Belisle noted that the ACCS “has a balance to maintain.” On one hand, there is a lot of flexibility to allow petitioners to make changes. On the other hand, it is inappropriate to “really rewrite the whole thing.” She noted that the “testimony told me lots I didn’t know about this charter, and that’s not a good thing.” She indicated that there was “a lot of work” needed to make the charter “look like what we just heard.”
Mr. Kushner indicated that he was not necessarily in agreement with Chair Belisle. There may indeed be enough in the charter to be approvable. He noted “some tension” between the Coalition for Essential Schools’ ideas and the state’s academic content standards. He commented that the petitioners were obviously “very dedicated to community engagement,” which is a big plus for the charter’s potential success.
Ms. Hunkapiller indicated that the petitioners have a “strong vision and strong community involvement.” However, it was not clear in her view “who will run the school.” There is more developmental work to do.
Mr. Barajas inquired whether the petitioners were still intent on opening this fall, or whether they had changed to a fall 2008 opening. Mr. Cohen indicated that the petitioners were in agreement to open in fall 2008. He pointed out that “we have a community design team and advisory committee, but we can’t hire staff.” He indicated that the Coalition had a pool of about 40 teachers and three candidates for principal. “We are developers, not operators,” he indicated. He noted that an MOU would be prepared to describe the Coalition’s continuing role.
Ms. Barber indicated that she was weighing the value of sending the petitioners back to the district. She commented that she was struck by the fact that the SFUSD’s analysis described most charter elements as “strong.” Given the decision for a 2008 opening, “the pressure is off,” she said, “so this should go back to the district.” She indicated that she “would be more comfortable that way.” The petitioners could be back here in the fall “if they don’t meet with success.” She recommended that the petitioners “respond to the SFUSD’s comments” and “add the pieces that are missing.” Ms. Reyes also recommended that the petitioners withdraw and return to the district.
Mr. Kushner noted that the vote would obviously be “close” if the petitioners wanted to move forward now. He suggested that they return to the district as well, noting that they “could come back fairly quickly.” Ms. Hunkapiller also indicated to the petitioners that “it would be good to go back.”
Chair Belisle commented that there are practical limitations as to the extent changes to a charter can be allowed. “Process is very beneficial, but time taking,” she said. She encouraged the petitioners to rewrite the charter “to incorporate everything that was said here today.” If the district is not sympathetic, she indicated that she, for one, would be inclined to support the petition if it is revised in the way described.
Mr. Kushner suggested that members provide as much as possible in the way of “concrete suggestions” to the petitioners, such as including resumes of those who would actually run the school. He also suggested providing more background on the mentor school, as it would provide important context. Chair Belisle indicated she would be willing to provide the petitioners a copy of the specific notes she had made in her review. She then asked what they wished to do.
Following a brief conference with petitioners and supporters, Mr. Cohen withdrew the petition. Chair Belisle accepted the withdrawal.
Updates
Chair Belisle invited Ms. Reyes to provide brief updates.
- At its May meeting, the SBE approved commencement of the rulemaking process for the conflict of interest regulations, as recommended by the ACCS. The proposed regulations are currently circulating for the 45-day public comment period. The public hearing is scheduled for July 10, and the regulation package should return to the SBE at its July meeting.
- Also at its May meeting, the SBE approved the Proposition 39 regulations (as amended). The CDE is currently awaiting sign-off by the Department of Finance on the Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement, which is required before the regulation package can be submitted to the Office of Administrative Law.
- The statewide charter SELPA proposal will be considered by the SBE at its July meeting.
- No updates on audits.
Policy Discussion on Local Charter Authorizing
Chair Belisle opened the discussion by indicating that the issue of competition from charter schools in a time of declining enrollment overall has changed the landscape of charter authorization. Charter authorizing appears to be taking longer and longer. Some of the information provided by charter petitioners suggests a lack of “good faith” consideration in certain instances. She indicated that she was not sure whether the SBE had any legal ability to address these issues, but it “does appear to be a real problem area.”
Ms. Barber commented that she was not sure how to address the issues either, but that in some ways it reminded her of pursuing her doctoral degree. After accommodating “suggestions” from her doctoral committee up to (and beyond) the point they appeared reasonable, she finally asked for an up or down vote. The committee chair actually expressed surprise that she had not called for a vote earlier, and she was successful. She indicated that charter petitioners perhaps should consider the same strategy, i.e., continue to respond to local comments and suggestions to the extent they are positive and constructive, but then draw a line and bring the local process to a conclusion.
Mr. Kushner indicated that a process of “negotiation and change, followed by denial” demonstrated a lack of good faith in his view. In a practical sense, the opening for charter authorization by the SBE “is very narrow.” He suggested the possibility of the state considering expansion to “some alternate authorizers.” As for trying to tighten further the process of reviewing charters, he was somewhat dubious because the process is “pretty gray.” He concluded that it is simply “not clear what we could do here.”
Ms. Hunkapiller commented that, even with its faults, the appeal route does offer a means for charter petitioners to pursue, and that “we should probably just be grateful to those districts that do a good job,” Chair Belisle noted that some of the denials the ACCS is now seeing involve renewals, not exclusively original charters. Echoing Ms. Hunkapiller’s comments, Ms. Barber noted that there are “lots of places where it is working” and that the appeal process provides “relief when districts don’t do the right thing.” She indicated that she did not concur with Mr. Kushner’s suggestion for “alternative authorizers.” Chair Belisle commented on perhaps emphasizing somehow the existing flexibility to make changes in charter petitions. “Some authorizers are very strict,” she said, “and allow no changes at all.”
Mr. Conry indicated that it is the petitioners’ responsibility to develop the charter. He expressed worry that increasing the flexibility exercised by authorizers would ultimately result in more (not fewer) appeals. Mr. Kushner echoed the comment that indeed many authorizers are “doing the right thing.” Ms. Hunkapiller indicated that, in terms of evaluating petitions as a member of the ACCS, she felt a degree of obligation to be supportive and not “undercut the work of staff.” Ms. Reyes responded that the Charter Schools Division staff “feels totally supported by you.” There are many times that recommendations “could go either way.” Members should “never feel badly” about asking questions or departing from staff recommendations.
Mr. Barajas expressed appreciation for the dialogue. He encouraged the group to seek “ways to be more consistent” and to “honor the work of petitioners.” He indicated that he completely understood how “totally frustrating” the process of charter developing appeared at times. Chair Belisle suggested that it might be useful to gather more information about what a process of “substantial evaluation” involves. Mr. Kushner suggested that a “survey of what locals have to say” might be of value.
Revised SB 740 forms
Julie Klein provided the members a briefing on the revised SB 740 forms to be used in 2007-08. A major feature of the revised forms is the consideration of one-time funds. A summary page displays the data in a variety of ways, including in per-ADA terms. Ms. Barber inquired about the apparently synonymous use of “excess revenues” and “ending balance.” She suggested that staff review that matter and be sure the terms are properly applied. The members were provided a printout of funding determinations by county.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the ACCS, Chair Belisle adjourned the meeting at 3:37 p.m.
The next regular meeting is scheduled for Friday, July 20, 2007, at the CDE Building, 1430 N Street, Room 1101, Sacramento. The meeting thereafter is scheduled for Monday, September 17, 2007, at the East End Auditorium, 1500 Capitol Mall, Sacramento.
