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
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rae Belisle, Chair
Jesse Barajas
Vicki Barber
Tom Conry
Greg Geeting*
Beth Hunkapiller
Greg McNair
MEMBERS ABSENT
Mark Kushner
Vacancy**
* Greg Geeting is the State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s designee.
** Steve Barr resigned effective August 1, 2007.
PRINCIPAL STAFF TO THE ADVISORY COMMISSION
Deborah Domitrovich, Consultant, CDE Charter Schools Division
Call to Order
Chair Belisle called the meeting to order at 10:35 a.m.
Flag Salute
Chair Belisle led the members, staff, and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Introductions
Chair Belisle invited the members and principal staff to introduce themselves, followed by other CDE staff in attendance.
Approval of Meeting Notes
Chair Belisle asked if there was a motion to approve the notes from the meeting held on July 20, 2007.
- ACTION: Mr. McNair moved that the notes of the meeting held on July 20, 2007, be approved as presented. Ms. Barber seconded the motion, and it was approved by a vote of 6-0-1. Mr. Conry did not vote on the motion, as he had not been present at the preceding meeting.
Public Comment
Chair Belisle invited comments from the public on matters not on the agenda. There were none.
Agenda Change
Chair Belisle noted that consideration of the Ridgecrest Charter School Notice to Cure would be taken up first rather than last since the school board president had a very long trip back to Ridgecrest.
Ridgecrest Charter School Notice to Cure
Mr. Geeting summarized the history of Ridgecrest’s decline in academic performance to the point where the State Board of Education felt it was necessary to direct CDE staff to develop a Notice to Cure letter for its consideration. He noted that the SBE had asked for development of a Notice to Cure at the July SBE meeting. He explained that staff had worked with the school extensively and that a previous plan developed by Ridgecrest did not result in a turnaround of the declining student performance.
Deborah Probst, Consultant in the Charter Schools Division, described some of the challenges the school faced, including its remote, isolated geographical location, which made it difficult to recruit and retain experienced teachers, an inexperienced leadership team, and an historically contentious relationship with the surrounding school district. Ms. Probst noted that staff was presenting the proposed Notice to Cure to the ACCS now with the intent to provide Ridgecrest with ample time to improve student performance, but that if it did not improve, staff would recommend the SBE, at its March 2008 meeting, hold a public hearing as a next step toward possible revocation of the charter effective at the end of the 2007-08 school year.
Craig Bradley, President of the Ridgecrest Charter School Governing Board provided background information on his involvement with the school. He noted that all five of his children have attended Ridgecrest (four children are currently attending the school) and that he has been on the governing board for three years, two of which he has been the president of the board. Mr. Bradley stated that he felt the previous administrative team was not able to provide adequate support to teachers and that the school had a new team in place now that he believes will support teachers to grow in their profession. Mr. Bradley expressed concern that the school will be up for renewal in 2009 because that only provides the school with one more year of API scores before a renewal decision must be made. He indicated that he did not expect to see much improvement in the 2006-07 API scores. Mr. Bradley proposed that the school test students on a regular basis using the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and report results to CDE staff.
Ms. Barber asked if there had been any changes in the school’s population over time. Mr. Bradley stated that Ridgecrest has a very stable student population and many returning families, and that current enrollment is the highest it has ever been. Mr. Bradley also noted that the school was going to teach a single, combination class for 7th and 8th grade students this coming year. He further noted that the school had built out its computer lab and had enhanced capabilities to provide remediation to students. Mr. Bradley further noted that the ITBS has shown some student improvement, but that it does not seem to be a good predictor for student performance on STAR testing.
Chair Belisle asked what indicators CDE staff would review between now and March that would indicate whether or not progress in improving student performance was occurring and what were the school’s academic benchmarks. Mr. Bradley stated that they had not yet developed benchmarks. Chair Belisle suggested that the school might consider using the Open Court assessments which are designed to be given every 6-8 weeks. Ms. Hunkapiller noted that the school would need the same sort of benchmarks and testing in mathematics too. Mr. McNair stated that the SBE would have the same questions regarding what objective and measurable indicators we would be holding the school accountable for between now and March. Chair Belisle stated she wanted a commitment to objectives and that the school might also look at the Nine Essential Program Components advocated by CDE to support student academic performance in low performing schools. Mr. Bradley stated his commitment to developing objectives for the school. Ms. Barber indicated she would advise every school to do this.
- ACTION: Ms. Barber moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it approve the Ridgecrest Charter School Notice to Cure as presented by staff. Mr. Conry seconded the motion, and it was approved by unanimous vote of the members present.
Lifeline Education Charter School Appeal
Ms. Barber stated that she was going to recuse herself on this item because the school had applied to become a member of the El Dorado County Consortium SELPA. Ms. Barber left the room prior to any discussion on the appeal.
Deborah Domitrovich summarized the CDE staff analysis and position on the additional information Lifeline petitioners had submitted since the last ACCS meeting to satisfy concerns of the ACCS and CDE staff. She noted that, in spite of the submission of new material, CDE staff still lacked confidence that the school had the organizational and administrative capacity to operate the school on its own now that it had severed ties with the Gorman Learning Center.
Paula DeGroat, Lifeline’s Executive Director, introduced the following individuals who were to be instrumental in operating the school: Halilu Haruna, Lifeline’s new Chief Business Officer; Samuel Hancock, a consultant providing professional development for the school; and the new director of the school, Brandon Cohen.
Mr. Haruna of Bali Business Management stated that he had just recently been hired and that he had not had enough time to produce a revised budget. He indicated that he did have cash flow information though. He further summarized the steps Lifeline had taken to put administrative procedures in place. He indicated that the school had policies and procedures for internal controls, check writing, and purchasing. Lifeline is contracting with the Los Angeles County Office of Education to do its payroll processing. Mr. Haruna also indicated that he would meet with the executive director every month and that Lifeline was creating a finance committee to handle budgetary matters and that the governing board was being trained in the budget process.
Mr. Samuel Hancock provided a summary of his expertise and indicated that he is working with the governing board of the school to provide administrative guidance and leadership training. He stated that he believed Lifeline has a strong leadership and administrative team in place. Ms. Hunkapiller asked Mr. Hancock why he decided to join the governing board of the school. He stated that he was convinced by the passion of the director and other board members, and he further felt the school was essential to the Compton community.
Mr. Cohen introduced himself and briefly summarized his background. He stated that he felt it was important for the school to demonstrate moral leadership and that he also felt Lifeline has a strong team in place to operate the school. In response to a question from Mr. Conry, Mr. Cohen indicated that he had been with the school only one week.
Mr. McNair asked a number of questions of Mr. Haruna regarding the FCMAT audit and the school’s internal administrative capacity to implement policies and procedures. Mr. Haruna responded that because his contract with the school was only recently signed, he had only looked at the budget data, but he could say that the school had a positive cash flow. In fact, the school had $1 million in cash in the bank. He stated that he would exercise stringent controls. Mr. McNair asked Mr. Cohen about reporting relationships in the organization. Mr. Cohen responded that he would report to Ms. DeGroat and that he would supervise two campus administrators.
Chair Belisle stated that she still had many concerns about the capacity of the school leadership and administrative team. She felt the school needed more fiscal prowess on the board. She also wished that the ACCS had one more academic performance data point to consider before making a recommendation to the SBE on Lifeline. Mr. McNair, Mr. Conry, and Mr. Barajas expressed similar concerns, indicating that there is always a concern when people are trying to do things quickly and do not really have an adequate structure in place. They indicated that many questions were still unanswered in regard to whether Lifeline could indeed be a viable school if operated under the auspices of the SBE.
Chair Belisle opened the meeting up to public comments. Doris Lester, President of the Lifeline governing board, spoke in support of the school. She stated that Lifeline was vital to the community and that they desperately needed alternatives. She cited her own child as having made a successful transition from Lifeline to Howard University and working on Wall Street. She felt that the school was solid academically and financially. There was no opposition.
ACCS members reiterated their general feelings that it was premature for Lifeline to open this year (2007-08) as an SBE-chartered school, and that if they took a year to develop a strong leadership team that can implement a solid administrative structure and academic program, the school would be in a better position to submit a charter to Compton USD, and, if necessary, on appeal to the LA County Board and the SBE. Ms. Hunkapiller stated that she believed Lifeline deserved a chance and she would vote against the CDE staff recommendation. She felt that the school had attracted a fine group of individuals.
- ACTION: Mr. Conry moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it deny the Lifeline Education Charter School Appeal as recommended by staff. Mr. McNair seconded the motion, and it failed by a vote of 4-2. Chair Belisle and Ms. Hunkapiller voted against the motion. Ms. Barber did not participate in the consideration or vote on this matter (as noted above).
Recess
Chair Belisle called for a brief recess at 11:56 a.m. She reconvened the meeting at 12:09 p.m.
SBE Revocation Appeal – Junior Space Exploration Academy
Chair Belisle outlined the format for hearing the two revocation appeals. First, CDE staff would present information and recommendation, followed by a presentation by petitioners of no more than 15 minutes, followed by a public comment period. Mr. Geeting provided a brief summary of the new statutes governing revocation appeals, and presented the findings and recommendations of the CDE staff review. He noted that there were no regulations in place governing the appeals at this time and that there was no definition of what constitutes “substantial evidence” for purposes of determining whether Oakland USD acted appropriately to revoke the charter. CDE staff concurred that the district did base the revocation on substantial evidence. There ensued a discussion of ACCS members regarding how to define “substantial evidence” and what they were to accept as fact. Chair Belisle suggested that there was a definition of substantial evidence in administrative law and she felt that the revocation appeals could be considered in the same manner, and that the ACCS could look at whether the district acted appropriately given the evidence cited. The role of the ACCS was not to treat these cases like normal appeals where the ACCS reviewed the same information as the district and made its independent judgment about the quality of the petition. Chair Belisle then invited the petitioners to speak.
Jerry Simmons, Spector, Middleton, Young & Minney, spoke on behalf of the school. He indicated this was a precedent setting occasion since this was the first revocation appeal to be considered by the ACCS and the SBE. He suggested there were two questions before the ACCS:
- Did the district follow the revocation process?
- What constitutes “substantial evidence”?
Mr. Simmons stated that he believed the legislative purpose of the statutory provision was to expand due process for charter schools, and that in this case due process was not followed by Oakland USD. For example, conditions of opening were never formally adopted, the district allowed the school to open in spite of the fact that enrollment conditions were not met, notices of deficiencies were never sent to the school, and approval of the charter and revocation were adopted on the same day.
Camron Gorguinpour, Executive Director of the Junior Space Exploration Academy and the Space Exploration Academy provided background and history of the circumstances leading up to the revocation. In addition, he handed out copies of e-mails to the ACCS that he claimed showed that the school submitted all required documents to Oakland USD. The district representative, Allison Sands, stated that 15 of 32 conditions still had not been met by February 2007.
Michael Moody of the Insight Education Group, stated that he was working with the school on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association. He stated that he will conduct an academic performance review to document that the school has the Nine Essential Program Components in place. At this time, Mr. Moody stated he has only done a paper review, but has not talked to teachers.
Wilhelmina Santa Maria, the former principal of the school, provided testimony relative to the academic program at the school. She indicated that the instructional materials were aligned with the content standards and that the academic program is intact. She further stated that the school was using High Point and Open Court instructional materials programs. ACCS members queried her regarding some of the facts stated in the revocation appeal documents, such as the observed lack of textbooks in classrooms. She indicated that all students had textbooks, and further stated she was only aware of the district making a visit to the school once, not multiple times.
Randall Echevarria, a lobbyist for the California Space Authority, and Maria Rios, a teacher at the Junior Space Exploration Academy, also spoke in support of the school.
Colin Miller, representative of the California Charter Schools Association, expressed concern that the district did not provide the school with a reasonable time to cure deficiencies. He also felt the scope of review of revocation appeals needs to be clarified and requested that regulations be developed and adopted as soon as possible.
There ensued a discussion among ACCS members regarding the confusing facts and time lines surrounding the appeal. Several ACCS members expressed the view that many issues remained unclear. Chair Belisle commented to the petitioners that distributing copies of lengthy documents on the day of the meeting did little to advance their objectives, because it did not give ACCS members an opportunity to reflect on the documents in any meaningful way. Some ACCS members felt that the district had legitimate reasons for revoking the charter, but that it was difficult to determine if the school had been provided adequate notice of the unmet conditions. ACCS members generally agreed this was a difficult case to sort out. It was noted that Oakland USD was not known as a district that was hostile to charter schools and that, in fact, the district had provided more rather than less flexibility to the school in meeting the conditions. Concern was expressed about “punishing” the district for giving the charter the opportunity to open.
- ACTION: Mr. McNair moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it approve the CDE staff recommendation to deny the revocation appeal. Mr. Conry seconded the motion, and it was approved by a vote of 6-0-1. Mr. Barajas did not vote on the motion.
SBE Revocation Appeal - Space Exploration Academy
Mr. Geeting pointed out that the issues surrounding the revocation of the Space Exploration Academy were identical to those of the previous revocation appeal.
Mr. Gorguinpour and Mr. Simmons briefly reiterated the points previously stated regarding the Junior Space Exploration Academy revocation appeal. Mr. Simmons additionally pointed out that it was the Oakland State Administrator, not the district’s governing board, who both amassed the evidence and made the decisions to revoke the schools.
- ACTION: Mr. McNair moved that the ACCS recommend to the SBE that it approve the CDE staff recommendation to deny the revocation appeal. Mr. Conry seconded the motion, and it was approved by a vote of 6-0-1. Mr. Barajas did not vote on the motion.
Updates
Chair Belisle invited Mr. Geeting to provide updates as necessary.
In view of the time, Mr. Geeting provided only one update:
- Recruitment for ACCS. Mr. Geeting noted that the terms of four ACCS members would expire on December 31, and that the SBE was recruiting interested persons. An announcement will be sent out on the charter schools listserv very soon.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the ACCS, Chair Belisle adjourned the meeting at 1:46 p.m.
The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 25, 2007, at the CDE Building, 1430 N Street, Room 1101, Sacramento.
