MEETING NOTES
California Department of
Education
721 Capitol Mall, Room 166
Sacramento, California
Wednesday-Thursday, April
10-11, 2002
Steve
Barr
Tom
Conry
Linda
Frost
Beth
Hunkapiller
Marta
Reyes
Jan
Sterling*
Johnathan
Williams
Vacancy
Mark
Kushner, Chair
*
Jan Sterling is the State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s designee.
Greg
Geeting, Assistant Executive Director, State Board of Education
Eileen
Cubanski, Administrator, CDE Charter Schools Office
Call
to Order. In Mr. Kushner’s absence, Ms. Reyes called
the meeting to order at 10:12 a.m.
Flag
Salute. Ms. Reyes led the members, staff, and
audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Introductions. The members of the Advisory Commission introduced themselves
along with staff. Ms. Reyes invited
audience members to introduce themselves briefly and indicate the organizations
(if any) they represented.
Review of Determination of Funding Requests. Ms. Reyes explained that the Advisory Commission’s principal
business for the day would be the review and the making of recommendations
regarding determination of funding requests that had been received (in
substantially complete form) by the CDE after February 13, 2002. The requests had been sorted by CDE staff
into four groupings:
Recommendations
on the “green” group. Ms. Reyes asked if there was
a motion to approve the “green” group at the 100 percent level as recommended
by CDE staff.
CHARTER SCHOOL NAME CHARTER SCHOOL NUMBER
1. Audeo Charter School........................................................................................... 406
2. La Vida Independent Study Charter....................................................................... 375
3. Lammersville Charter School................................................................................. 203
4. Monterey County Home Charter............................................................................ 327
5. Paradise Charter Network..................................................................................... 155
6. Santa Barbara Elementary Charter School................................................................ 20
7. Santa Barbara Middle Charter School.................................................................... 179
8. Summit Charter..................................................................................................... 301
9. Vantage Point Charter School.................................................................................. 24
Recommendations
on the “pink” group. The Advisory Commission next
turned its attention to the “pink” group, considering each request in turn.
Academy
for Academic Excellence (#137). Attention
was drawn to the school’s major construction projects and minor audit
findings. Rick Piercy spoke on the
school’s behalf.
Cornerstone
Academy (#311). Attention was drawn to a substantial
management contract and the method of appointment of members to the Board of
Directors. The school’s percentage of
revenues spent on certificated staff costs was substantially above the 50
percent test.
Delta
Charter High School (#393). Attention was drawn to the
school’s substantial excess revenues.
It is a new school and is relatively small.
East
Bay Conservation Corps (#99). Attention
was drawn to the school’s relatively low certificated employee costs, as well
as to the method for appointment of governing board members. The school serves a local conservation
corps.
Escondido
Charter High School (#109). Attention was drawn to the
school’s high pupil-teacher ratio, substantial number of contracts in excess of
$50,000 each, and high excess reserves.
· MOTION FAILS: Mr. Conry moved that the Advisory Commission recommend that the State Board of Education approve this school’s request at the 95 percent level. In this case, the 95 percent funding level reflects a reduction (from the full funding requested) within the meaning of Education Code section 47634.2(b)(4). Therefore, reasons for the denial are to be stated and, if appropriate, a description of how any deficiencies or problems may be addressed is to be included. Recommended Reason: The charter school’s pupil-teacher ratio is greater than 25:1 and the school’s percentage of public revenues expended for instructional costs was significantly below 70 percent in 2000-01. Taking into account the totality of the information presented, the school did not present compelling evidence to justify funding in 2001-02 at the 100 percent level. One way in which the deficiency or problem could be addressed would be to expend a greater percentage of public revenues for instructional purposes and lower the pupil-teacher ratio in this and forthcoming fiscal years. Ms. Frost seconded the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 4-2-1. [Ms. Hunkapiller and Ms. Reyes voted against the motion. Mr. Barr did not vote on the motion.]
Gold
Rush Home Study Charter (#392). Attention
was drawn to the school’s average salary being below the comparison range,
method of appointment of members to the governing board, potential conflicts of
interest, and substantial management contract.
Ms Sterling indicated that this school had been operated under charters
granted by several different entities, and that its history had been a
troubling one.
· RECOMMENDATION APPROVED: Ms. Frost moved that the Advisory Commission recommend that the State Board of Education approve this school’s request at the 95 percent level. In this case, the 95 percent funding level reflects a reduction (from the full funding requested) within the meaning of Education Code section 47634.2(b)(4). Therefore, reasons for the denial are to be stated and, if appropriate, a description of how any deficiencies or problems may be addressed is to be included. Recommended Reason: The charter school’s management contract represented a substantial portion of its public revenues in 2000-01, and there appears to be a significant conflict of interest on the school’s governing board. Taking into account the totality of the information presented, the school did not present compelling evidence to justify funding in 2001-02 at the 100 percent level. One way in which the deficiency or problem could be addressed would be to terminate the management contract and ensure that no conflicts of interest exist in the granting of future contracts for any purpose. Mr. Barr seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1. [Ms. Hunkapiller indicated that this school has an association with the Aspire organization, as does she, and that therefore she did not participate in the discussion or the vote on this school’s request.]
Learning
with a Purpose (#300). Attention was drawn to a
possible conflict of interest on the school’s governing board, lower than
average certificated employee costs, audit findings related to internal
controls over financial reporting.
· RECOMMENDATION APPROVED: Mr. Conry moved that the Advisory Commission recommend that the State Board of Education approve this school’s request at the 95 percent level. In this case, the 95 percent funding level reflects a reduction (from the full funding requested) within the meaning of Education Code section 47634.2(b)(4). Therefore, reasons for the denial are to be stated and, if appropriate, a description of how any deficiencies or problems may be addressed is to be included. Recommended Reason: There appears to be a significant conflict of interest on the school’s governing board and internal financial controls appear questionable. Taking into account the totality of the information presented, the school did not present compelling evidence to justify funding in 2001-02 at the 100 percent level. One way in which the deficiency or problem could be addressed would be to ensure that no conflicts of interest exist on the governing board in the future and that appropriate financial controls are put in place. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-1-1. [Ms. Hunkapiller voted against the motion. Ms. Reyes did not vote on the motion, indicating that she had a personal friendship with members of the school’s executive staff and felt that friendship might influence her vote.]
Mountain
Community Charter (#339). Attention was drawn to the
school’s relatively low certificated employee costs, as well as its relatively
high excess revenue. This was a
start-up school in 2000-01.
Olive
Grove Home Study Charter School (#421). Attention
was drawn to the school’s relatively low certificated employee costs, as well
as its high excess revenue. to the
method for appointment of governing board members. The school was a start-up school in 2000-01.
Break. 11:09 – 11:17 a.m.
Consideration
of the “yellow” group. The Advisory Commission next
turned its attention to the “yellow” group.
Hart-Ransom
Academic Charter School (#80). In
addition to the school’s certificated staff costs being under the 50 percent
threshold, attention was drawn to the pupil-teacher ratio being higher than
25:1, the total of instructional costs being below 70 percent of public
revenues and of total expenditures, and the average cost per certificated
employee being below the comparison range.
Comments were offered by Sherry Smith (representing the school); she
indicated that the school had endeavored to adhere carefully to the independent
study rules; she pointed out that a district-employed resource specialist works
30 percent time at the school and, if that individual’s costs had been included
as certificated salaries, the school would have exceeded the 50 percent
threshold test. District Superintendent
R. Ream Lochry added that the school’s director provides some instructional
services; he suggested that some reworking of the figures on paper could make
the difference in this case. Jonelle
Pena (Axis 4 Learning) indicated that the facts in this case appeared similar
to the Natomas Charter School for which the Advisory Commission had recommended
(and the State Board had approved) the 100 percent level.
· RECOMMENDATION APPROVED: Ms. Hunnkapiller moved that the Advisory Commission recommend that the State Board of Education approve this school’s request at the 95 percent level. In this case, the 95 percent funding level reflects a reduction (from the full funding requested) within the meaning of Education Code section 47634.2(b)(4). Therefore, reasons for the denial are to be stated and, if appropriate, a description of how any deficiencies or problems may be addressed is to be included. Recommended Reason: The charter school’s expenditures for certificated employees were less than 50 percent of its public revenues in 2000-01, and its pupil-teacher ratio was greater than 25:1. Taking into account the totality of the information presented, the school did not present compelling evidence to justify funding in 2001-02 at the 100 percent level. One way in which the deficiency or problem could be addressed would be to increase expenditures as a percent of public revenues above the 50 percent level and lower the pupil-teacher ratio in this and forthcoming years. Mr. Barr seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the members present.
Home
Tech Charter School (#67). In addition to certificated
staff costs being significantly below 50 percent of public revenues, attention
was drawn to the school’s relatively low average certificated employee costs,
as well as potential conflicts of interest among governing board members and a
high oversight fee. Jim Aird spoke on
the school’s behalf, indicating that the school’s bylaws had been revised, the
school would exceed the 50 percent threshold this year, and that the oversight
fee included services rendered by the district. The school has a very low pupil-teacher ratio.
Pacific
View Charter School (#277). In addition to the school’s
certificated employee costs being substantially below 50 percent of its public
revenues, attention was drawn to substantial expenditures for management
services. It was pointed out that a
revised submission from the school indicated that certificated employee costs
were actually 51.78 percent of public revenues. Ron Flenner spoke on the school’s behalf; his mentioned the fact
that the school has 9 learning centers, special education costs (a contract
through TES), art and foreign language, library services, music; he indicated
that management services contracts were being downsized as the school took over
more responsibilities directly; the school is becoming a school within the
district; the school operates a home-hospital program.
· RECOMMENDATION APPROVED: Mr. Barr moved that the Advisory Commission recommend that the State Board of Education approve this school’s request at the 95 percent level. In this case, the 95 percent funding level reflects a reduction (from the full funding requested) within the meaning of Education Code section 47634.2(b)(4). Therefore, reasons for the denial are to be stated and, if appropriate, a description of how any deficiencies or problems may be addressed is to be included. Recommended Reason: The charter school devoted a substantial portion of its expenditures to management services. Taking into account the totality of the information presented, the school did not present compelling evidence to justify funding in 2001-02 at the 100 percent level. One way in which the deficiency or problem could be addressed would be to reduce expenditures for management services and devote more funds to instruction in this and forthcoming years. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the members present.
Consideration
of the “blue” group. The Advisory Commission next
turned its attention to the “blue” group.
Elise
P. Buckingham Charter School (#56). In
addition to the school’s certificated employee costs being substantially below
50 percent of its public revenues, attention was drawn to a high average
pupil-teacher ratio, instructional costs being substantially below 70 percent
of public revenues and of total expenditures, high average costs per
certificated employee, and high excess revenues. Bob Hampton spoke on the school’s behalf, indicating that changes
were in the process of being made; he also indicated that the form’s structure
did not permit the school to account for some instructional costs; the excess
revenues are associated with a plan for facilities acquisition.
· RECOMMENDATION APPROVED: Mr. Conry moved that the Advisory Commission recommend that the State Board of Education approve this school’s request at the 95 percent level. In this case, the 95 percent funding level reflects a reduction (from the full funding requested) within the meaning of Education Code section 47634.2(b)(4). Therefore, reasons for the denial are to be stated and, if appropriate, a description of how any deficiencies or problems may be addressed is to be included. Recommended Reason: The charter school devoted substantially less than 50 percent of its public revenues to expenditures for certificated employees. Taking into account the totality of the information presented, the school did not present compelling evidence to justify funding in 2001-02 at the 100 percent level. One way in which the deficiency or problem could be addressed would be to increase expenditures for certificated employees in this and forthcoming years. Mr. Barr seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0-2. [Ms. Reyes and Mr. Williams did not vote on the motion.]
Greater
San Diego Charter Academy (#261). In
addition to the school’s certificated employee costs being substantially below
50 percent of its public revenues, attention was drawn to a high pupil-teacher
ratio, low average cost per certificated employee, and high excess
revenue. Kathy Bass spoke on the
school’s behalf; she indicated that the school uses the district’s salary
schedule; the school had endeavored to “stay in the black” by not hiring great
numbers of new teachers as enrollment grew; the revenue from enrollment growth
was not realized until late in the year; she pointed out a number of the
school’s features, including professional development for parents and
newsletters for parents and for students.
The school’s facility is provided free of charge by the district.
· RECOMMENDATION APPROVED: Mr. Barr moved that the Advisory Commission recommend that the State Board of Education approve this school’s request at the 95 percent level. In this case, the 95 percent funding level reflects a reduction (from the full funding requested) within the meaning of Education Code section 47634.2(b)(4). Therefore, reasons for the denial are to be stated and, if appropriate, a description of how any deficiencies or problems may be addressed is to be included. Recommended Reason: The charter school devoted substantially less than 50 percent of its public revenues to expenditures for certificated employees. Taking into account the totality of the information presented, the school did not present compelling evidence to justify funding in 2001-02 at the 100 percent level. One way in which the deficiency or problem could be addressed would be to increase significantly the percentage of public revenues devoted to certificated employees in this and forthcoming years. Mr. Conry seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the members present.
All
others in “blue” group. Noting that no one was
present to speak on behalf of the “blue” group schools remaining to be
considered, Ms. Sterling suggested that it would be appropriate to recommend
the 95 percent level for all of them.
· RECOMMENDATION APPROVED: Ms. Sterling moved that the Advisory Commission recommend that the State Board of Education approve the following four schools’ requests at the 95 percent level. In each case, the 95 percent funding level reflects a reduction (from the full funding requested) within the meaning of Education Code section 47634.2(b)(4). Therefore, reasons for the denial are to be stated and, if appropriate, a description of how any deficiencies or problems may be addressed is to be included. Recommended Reason (in each case): The charter school devoted substantially less than 50 percent of its public revenues to expenditures for certificated employees. Taking into account the totality of the information presented, the school did not present compelling evidence to justify funding in 2001-02 at the 100 percent level. One way in which the deficiency or problem could be addressed would be to increase significantly the percentage of public revenues devoted to certificated employees in this and forthcoming years. Mr. Barr seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the members present.
CHARTER SCHOOL NAME CHARTER SCHOOL NUMBER
1. Charter 101........................................................................................................... 101
2. Fort Ross Charter School...................................................................................... 273
3. One Step UP Charter Academy............................................................................. 379
4. Plumas Charter School.......................................................................................... 146
Lunch
Break. 12:57 – 1:58 p.m.
Consideration of how to proceed. The Advisory Commission discussed how to proceed, eventually agreeing that it would be best to hear from the one member of the public who wished to address the issue of the permanent SB 740 regulations (and who was unable to be present at the next day’s meeting) and then adjourn for the day.
Public
comment. Jeff Rice (horizon Instructional Systems)
provided his perspectives on the permanent SB 740 regulations. He suggested that there are at least four
distinct types of nonclassroom-based study in charter schools: (1) traditional independent study; (2) home
schooling; (3) technology-based distance learning, and (4) personalized learning. He suggested that a growing body of research
supported personalized learning which includes access to technology, greater
parent involvement, and more educational choices. He commented that savings that result from the diminished need
for facilities did not significantly offset the higher costs associated with
personalizing the educational experience; personalized learning needs full ADA
funding. He suggested that charter
schools be permitted to justify full funding through a more detailed display of
costs in a number of major categories of expenditures, including certificated
employee salaries and benefits; technology-related costs; instruction-related
costs, including facilities; contracted courses; resource libraries; staff
development; parent development; and dedicated reserves. He estimated that as many as half the
charter schools providing nonclassroom-based instruction are using the
personalized learning model.
Adjournment
of day’s session. Indicating that the next
day’s meeting would focus primarily on the subjects of permanent SB 740
regulations and State Board chartering of schools, Ms. Reyes adjourned the
day’s session at 2:17 p.m.
Thursday,
April 11, 2002
Mark
Kushner, Chair
Steve
Barr
Tom
Conry
Linda
Frost
Beth
Hunkapiller
Marta
Reyes
Jan
Sterling*
Johnathan
Williams
Vacancy
None
*
Jan Sterling is the State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s designee.
Greg
Geeting, Assistant Executive Director, State Board of Education
Eileen
Cubanski, Administrator, CDE Charter Schools Office
Call
to Order. Mr. Kushner called the meeting to order at
9:25 a.m.
Flag
Salute. Mr. Kushner invited Mr. Geeting to lead the
members, staff, and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Introductions. Mr. Kushner invited the members of the Advisory Commission to
introduce themselves along with staff.
He then invited audience members to introduce themselves briefly and indicate
the organizations (if any) they represented.
Agenda
for the day. Mr. Kushner suggested that the day’s agenda
include discussion of the following:
Framework
for permanent SB 740 regulations. Mr.
Kushner presented his suggestion for a framework for decision-making to be
embodied in the permanent SB 740 regulations.
|
TEST # |
DESCRIPTION |
FULL |
90% |
80% |
70% |
0% |
|
1, or |
At
least 50% of revenues spent for certificated employees. |
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
2, or |
At
least 55% of revenues spent for instructional employees. |
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
3 |
At
least 75% of revenues spent for instructional employees and instructional
costs. |
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
4 |
200
of fewer ADA (exemption) |
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
5 |
First-year
school (exemption) |
X |
|
X |
|
|
Proximity
to threshold(s) could be used for weighting purposes to justify less than full
funding.
Other
possible tests (could result in automatic zero or reduced percentage):
In
addition, Mr. Kushner suggested:
Ms.
Cubanski presented a three-part general framework for making determinations of
funding.
In
addition to the three statutorily prescribed criteria (certificated employee
salaries and benefits; schoolsite costs; and pupil-teacher ratio), she provided
the following list of potential criteria the Advisory Commission might wish to
consider:
She
also suggested:
Mr.
Kushner invited the members to comment on these various ideas presented.