MEETING NOTES
LIONSGATE
Conference Room B
3410 Westover Street
McClennan, California
Thursday, August 22, 2002
Mark
Kushner, Chair
Steve
Barr
Tom
Conry
Linda
Frost
Beth
Hunkapiller
Marta
Reyes
Jan
Sterling*
Johnathan
Williams
Vacancy
*
Jan Sterling is the State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s designee.
Eileen
Cubanski, Administrator, CDE Charter Schools Office
Greg
Geeting, Assistant Executive Director, State Board of Education
Call
to Order. Mr. Kushner called the meeting to order at
10:20 a.m.
Flag
Salute. Mr. Kushner asked Mr. Geeting to lead the
members, staff, and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Tentative
Agenda. Mr. Kushner indicated that the tentative
agenda for the day would be (1) an update on AB 14, the legislation dealing
with the charter school set aside in the forthcoming school bond act,
Proposition 47; (2) special education and charter schools; (3) the petition to
establish the School of Arts and Enterprise; (4) continuous enrollment of
individuals over the age of 19 in charter schools; (5) the SB 740 Charter
School Facility Grant Program; and (6) SB 740 determinations of funding for
2002-03 (and beyond).
Introductions. The members of the Advisory Commission introduced themselves
along with staff. Mr. Kushner then
invited audience members to introduce themselves briefly and indicate the organizations
(if any) they represented.
Update on AB 14, implementation legislation for the
forthcoming school bond act, Proposition 47.
Duwayne Brooks, Director of the School Facilities Planning Division of
the California Department of Education (CDE) briefed the members on AB 14. He indicated that a meeting was to be held
later in the day ostensibly to finalize the measure. He commented that the most controversial feature of the measure
would probably be the respective roles to be played by the State Allocation
Board (SAB) and the California School Finance Authority (CSFA). Among other features he mentioned were:
Considerable informal discussion followed Mr.
Brooks’ presentation. Mr. Barr
expressed concern about the role of districts in the proposal; the district
appears to retain the ownership interest even though the charter school bears
the financial responsibility. Mr.
Williams expressed his personal preference for consolidating implementation of
the statutory provisions in the CSFA and excluding the SAB; the SAB has proven
a considerable bottleneck in the process of disbursing bond act funds. Mr. Conry inquired about provisions that
would prevent “double dipping” by counting students for more than one
allocation. Mr. Kushner commented that
the charter school set aside appeared to be a win-win situation for districts
that need to increase capacity due to growing student load and that will have
obligations to charter schools under the provisions of Proposition 39. He inquired about the current interest rate
for 30-year lease payments (which is to be the earnings rate on the state’s Pooled
Money Investment Account at the time the allocation is made); he expressed
concern about the district holding title to the property/facility; he also
inquired about the years-of-experience qualification for charter schools.
Mr. Brooks indicated that the $100 million was only
expected to cover 8-10 projects. Ms.
Hunkapiller clarified that the current proposal was to have the chartering
authority certify as to the applicant school’s educational soundness. Ms. Frost inquired about Field Act
compliance. Mr. Brooks discussed “Field
Act equivalency” at some length, and suggested that the Advisory Commission
have a separate presentation on that subject from the Office of the State
Architect. Mr. Kushner asked if staff
would try to arrange for such a presentation at the next meeting. Mr. Barr commented that it was important to
have a system of “checks and balances” to ensure that funds are being used as
intended; no such system is ever going to be perfect, but overall the
directions being taken in AB 14 appear solid.
Mr. Kushner inquired as to whether there were any
public comments on the topics discussed with Mr. Brooks or any questions for
Mr. Brooks.
Public Comments. Mr.
Kushner noted that Glenda Driver (Insight Communications) had requested to
speak to a matter not on the agenda. In
accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, she would be allowed to make
a presentation for information. Mr.
Kushner requested that she limit her remarks to three minutes.
Ms. Driver indicated that she wished to present
information about Sharwin Charter School Academy which has been chartered by
the Del Paso Heights School District.
She indicated that despite what she (and other supporters of the school)
felt to be high quality applications, the school had not received either a revolving
loan or an implementation grant. She
indicated that the school would be seeking “special project status” at the
federal level. Subsequently, Mr.
Kushner allocated an additional three minutes for Gary M. Underhill (Image
Works Architects, Inc.) to present a set of architectural drawings of Sharwin
Charter School Academy.
Ms. Cubanski summarized the review process for
revolving loan and implementation grant applications. Mr. Kushner and Mr. Barr commented that they too had had the
experience of having applications rejected.
Ms. Reyes commented on her experiences as a reader in the review process
for implementation grant applications; she indicated that she felt the review
process was very fair and impartial.
Mr. Kushner thanked the presenters on the Advisory Commission’s behalf
and wished them well in their efforts.
School of Arts and Enterprise. Mr. Kushner invited Mr. Conry to facilitate this part of the
meeting. Mr. Conry inquired whether
there were any opponents to the petition present, noting that a letter of
opposition had been received from the Superintendent of the Pomona Unified
School District. No opponents were
present. Mr. Conry then indicated that
the Advisory Commission would proceed by first hearing a summary of the staff
report on the petition, then hearing a presentation by the petitioners (during
which they could address the findings of the staff report), then having
Advisory Commission discussion and (based upon the members’ views at that time)
action to recommend or not to recommend approval by the State Board.
Deborah Connelly, who oversees State Board chartered
schools, presented the staff report.
She indicated that staff felt there were sufficient reasons to recommend
denial of the petition, including issues pertaining to the educational program
(e.g., the lack of clarity on dealing with students who (upon entry) are
substantially below grade level in reading and mathematics and uncertainties
around SELPA participation); likelihood of successful implementation (e.g., potential
governing board conflicts and the proposed facility); inadequacies in the
proposed budget; pupil health and safety (e.g., vision, hearing, and scoliosis
screening); pupil suspension and expulsion; and dispute resolution. If the Advisory Commission were to be
inclined to recommend that the State Board approve the petition, staff outlined
a number of approval conditions for the Advisory Commission’s consideration.
Mr. Conry invited comments and clarifying questions
from Advisory Commission members specifically regarding the staff
presentation. Mr. Barr indicated that
he would suggest more flexibility on the dates for addressing the various
conditions set forth in the staff analysis.
Mr. Kushner noted that the letter from Pomona Unified mentioned that the
petitioners had not submitted sufficient signatures; Ms. Connelly indicated
that the signatures “appeared to be sufficient,” but reminded the members that
she did not have the capability to verify the signatures independently. Mr. Kushner also commented on the proposed
facility’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Paul Minney (attorney representing the petitioners)
sought clarification on the proposed condition that approval of the charter be
negated if time deadlines for individual requirements are not met versus the
more traditional type of condition under which the school would remain an
entity (even though a specified deadline is not met) but not be permitted to
commence operations. He asked what
effect staff were seeking to achieve.
Mr. Kushner indicated that he didn’t feel he understood completely the
advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches and, therefore, would not be
inclined to change from the more traditional approach. Ms. Hunkapiller inquired about the SELPA issue,
which has been a difficult one for all of the State Board chartered
schools. Petitioner Simeon Slovacek
(Professor, Division of Educational Foundations and Interdivisional Studies,
Charter College of Education, CSU Los Angeles) indicated that flexibility on
the dates would be desirable (particularly with respect to SELPA participation)
because the petitioners cannot control the actions of others. Mr. Geeting commented that for conditions to
be meaningful, they need to have reasonably early time deadlines; as one gets
closer to the opening of school, it becomes increasingly difficult to deny
approval for the school to become operational because of the commitments that
have been made to parents (guardians) and students.
Mr. Conry indicated that rather than have the
petitioners begin their presentation, then have to interrupt it for the lunch
break, he would call for the lunch break now and hear them immediately after
the Advisory Commission reassembled.
Lunch Break. 12:30 p.m.
– 1:57 p.m.
School of Arts and Enterprise (continued). Mr. Slovacek began the petitioners’ presentation, noting that it
had really been “the community” that had called for the creation of this
school. Ultimately, the school is envisioned
to have about 480 students, but it would begin with grade nine only, then add
one grade per year. The school’s
objective is truly to address the state’s Visual and Performing Arts Standards,
but in such a way (through project- and inquiry-based learning – a hands-on
approach to involve working artists in the Pomona area) that students would
qualify for high school graduation and for UC and CSU admission having
completed required coursework in all subjects.
He then introduced members of the SAE team who, in turn, addressed
various aspects of the petition.
Lucille H. Berger (Assistant Principal, Division of Alternative Education, Los Angeles County Office of Education) and Barbara M. Morton (Vice President, Contracted Special Education Services, Total Education Solutions) addressed the SELPA participation issue and how the school would be prepared to meet fully the need for programs and services by any disabled students who might enroll. Ms. Berger also addressed the matter of underachieving students, indicating that a variety of strategies would be used with them, in keeping with the experience at the existing International Polytechnic High School. Alonzo B. Anderson (Executive Director, The Institute for the Collaboration in Education) noted that this school would be built upon the substantial (5-6 years) base of experience of the International Polytechnic High School operated by the LA County Office. Teachers define the curriculum; students have to apply knowledge on a high-order level in a variety of subjects to complete the projects; students often “demand” from teachers the knowledge they need to complete the projects. Student achievement is very high.
Constantine J. Singer, teacher, International
Polytechnic High School, indicated that the curriculum in project-based
learning begins with the state’s content standards. Each project is significantly reflective of the standards, and
International Polytechnic has had no difficulty in having project-based courses
approved for the UC/CSU a-g requirements.
Assessments are built into the projects as they proceed. Instead of remediation, project-based
learning relies on acceleration. The
plan includes after-school and summer activities to ensure that students
achieve at a high level. The
International Polytechnic experience has been about a 90 percent college-going
rate – significantly above other public schools.
Edward Tessier (Pomona Arts Colony) addressed the
facility issue, indicating that the primary facility would be located at 401
South Main Street. This facility is
located in the center of a thriving arts community in Pomona. Within a very short walking distance of this
facility, students can experience real-world artists at work. It’s a very safe environment. A partnership with Western University is
planned.
Mr. Minney indicated that the petitioners generally
had no problem with the petition changes and clarifications recommended in the
CDE staff analysis, but that the timing of meeting the various conditions was
problematic. He urged the Advisory
Commission to separate the consideration of the substance of conditions from
the timeline for completion of them.
Mr. Conry invited comments and questions from
Advisory Commission members.
Mr. Conry asked whether there was a motion on a
recommendation to the State Board.
Mr. Conry indicated his understanding that the
general consensus of the group favored the conditions recommended by staff,
although in limited respects the conditions themselves raised concerns with
some members. He suggested that the
Advisory Commission turn its attention first to the proposed deadlines. Following discussion, each of the following
amendments to the main motion was approved by consensus or, as noted, by vote.
Prior to the final vote, Mr. Conry indicated that he looked forward to visiting this school and felt it had all the ingredients to be an outstanding school. However, he indicated that he would vote against the motion as a whole because he did not want to see State Board chartering become an easy route for rejected charters. He felt the petitioners should have taken this charter proposal back to Pomona Unified for reconsideration prior to coming to the State Board. Mr. Barr commented that there appears to be a philosophical problem with chartering in Pomona; the option to come to the State Board is an important one for leveraging a change of attitude in districts.
·
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVED: Mr. Kushner moved, in keeping
with the discussion and recommendations reported above, that the Advisory
Commission recommend to the State Board of Education that it grant approval of
(and assign a charter number to) the petition by Haven Gallery to establish the
School of Arts and Enterprise (SAE) for a three-year period (from July 1, 2003,
through June 30, 2006), subject to the petitioners (or their designees)
satisfying the following conditions (and such other conditions at the State
Board may specify):
(1) Not
later than May 1, 2003 (or such earlier time as SAE may employ individuals or
acquire or lease property or facilities for which insurance would be
customary), submit documentation of adequate insurance coverage, including
liability insurance, which shall be based on the type and amount of insurance
coverage maintained in similar settings.
(2) Not later than January
1, 2003, either (a) accept an agreement with the State Board of Education
(administered through the California Department of Education) to be the direct
oversight entity for the school, specifying the scope of oversight and reporting
activities, including, but not limited to, adequacy and safety of facilities;
or (b) enter into an appropriate agreement between the charter school, the
State Board of Education (as represented by the Executive Director of the State
Board), and an oversight entity (pursuant to Education Code Section
47605(k)(1)) regarding the scope of oversight and reporting activities,
including, but not limited to, adequacy and safety of facilities.
(3) Not later than February
1, 2003, submit written verification of having applied to a special education
local plan area (SELPA) for membership as an local education agency and, not
later than June 1, 2003, submit either written verification that the school is
(or will be at the time students are being served) participating in the SELPA,
or an agreement between a SELPA, a school district that is a member of the
SELPA, and SAE that describes the roles and responsibilities of each party and
that explicitly states that the SELPA and the district consider SAE’s students
to be students of the school district in which SAE is physically located for
purposes of special education programs and services (which is the equivalent of
participation in the SELPA).
Satisfaction of this condition should be determined by the Executive
Director of the State Board of Education based primarily on the advice of the
State Director of Special Education.
(4) Not later than January
1, 2003, submit a description of the curriculum development process the school
will use and the scope and sequence for grades 9-12 envisioned by the school;
and, not later than July 1, 2003, submit the complete educational program for
students to be served in the first year (anticipated to be grade nine students
only), including but not limited to, a description of the curriculum and
identification of the basic instructional materials to be used, plans for
professional development of instructional personnel to deliver the curriculum
and use the instructional materials, identification of specific assessments
that will be used in addition to the results of the Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) program in evaluating student progress, and a budget which
clearly identifies the core program from enrichment activities and reflects
only those loans, grants, and lines of credit (if any) that have been secured
by the petitioners. Satisfaction of
this condition should be determined by the Executive Director of the State
Board of Education based primarily on the advice of the Deputy Superintendent
for Curriculum and Instructional Leadership.
(5) Not later than May 1,
2003, submit for approval the specific means to be used for student attendance
accounting and reporting that will be satisfactory to support state average
daily attendance claims and satisfy any audits related to attendance that may
be conducted. Satisfaction of this
condition should be determined by the Executive Director of the State Board of
Education based primarily on the advice of the Director of the School Fiscal
Services Division.
(6) Not later than January
1, 2003, present a written agreement (e.g., a lease of similar document)
indicating SAE’s right to use the principal school site identified by the
petitioners for at least the first year of the school’s operation and evidence
that the facility will be adequate for the school’s needs. Not later than June 1, 2003, present a
written agreement (or agreements) indicating SAE’s right to use any ancillary
facilities planned for use in the first year of operation. Satisfaction of these conditions should be
determined by the Executive Director of the State Board of Education based
primarily on the advice of the Director of the School Facilities Management
Division.
(7)
Not less than 30 days prior to the school’s opening, present evidence that the
facility is located in an area properly zoned for operation of a school and has
been cleared for student occupancy by all appropriate local authorities. For good cause, the Executive Director of
the State Board of Education may reduce this requirement to fewer than 30 days,
but may not reduce the requirement to fewer than 10 days. Satisfaction of this condition should be determined
by the Executive Director of the State Board of Education based primarily on
the advice of the Director of the School Facilities Management Division.
(8) Not later than January
1, 2003, present a final charter that includes all provisions and/or
modifications of provisions that reflect appropriately the State Board of
Education as the chartering authority and otherwise address all concerns
identified by California Department of Education staff (except the CDE staff
recommendation regarding composition of the SAE governing board) and that
includes a specification that the school will not operate satellite schools or
campuses without the prior written approval of the Executive Director of the
State Board of Education based primarily on the advice of appropriate CDE
staff. The Advisory Commission
recommends that the composition of the SAE governing board not be further
constrained than is provided for under applicable provisions of non-profit
public benefit corporation law.
(9) In the final charter
presented pursuant to condition (8), resolve any provisions related to legal
issues that may be identified by the State Board’s Chief Counsel.
(10) Prior to the employment of any individuals by SAE, present evidence that SAE has made appropriate arrangements for the processing of the employees’ retirement contributions to the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and the State Teachers’ Retirement System (STRS).
(11) If any deadline specified in these conditions is not met, approval of the charter is terminated, unless the State Board of Education deletes or extends the deadline not met. If SAE is not in operation by September 30, 2004, approval of the charter is terminated.
Mr. Barr seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-1. Mr. Conry voted against the motion.
Mr. Kushner thanked Mr.
Conry for facilitating consideration of the SAE petition.
Break. 4:42 – 4:56 p.m.
Special education and
charter schools. Mr. Kushner noted that the
invited guests who were to address this topic had to cancel their appearances
due to unforeseen circumstances. He
also noted that a background paper had been circulated with a suggestion
related to a uniform, statewide process for resolving disputes regarding the
admission of charter schools to SELPAs as local education agencies. He asked if there were any public comments
regarding the background paper and proposal.
There were none.
Continuous enrollment in charter schools of individuals over the age of 19. Mr. Geeting summarized a background paper that he had been circulated on this topic which included a proposed regulation for the members’ consideration. Ms. Cubanski noted that there had been considerable internal discussion regarding the traditional CDE position that there is no maximum age for charter school enrollment provided (1) enrollment remained continuous, (2) the individual received a comprehensive, full-time-basis high school curriculum leading toward a diploma, and (3) the individual received passing grades. She commented that a number of reports (including press reports) had revealed apparently substantial numbers of 30- and 40-year-old students being claimed for apportionment and being funded at the K-12 revenue limit, but receiving only the equivalent of GED preparation. Mr. Geeting commented that the proposed regulation (by having a delayed effective day) was designed to be a compromise that would provide for an orderly transition of adult students to other educational opportunities.
Mr. Kushner and Ms.
Hunkapiller asked why charter schools would be targeted for this
provision. Mr. Geeting indicated that
it is because of the specific statute establishing conditions on individuals
over the age of 19, although he suggested that a companion regulation providing
the same for non-charter schools would probably not meet with substantial
opposition. Ms. Cubanski commented that
in non-charter high schools its impractical to mix substantially older students
with students who are traditional high school ages. Ms. Frost indicated that if something broader were to be
contemplated, care must be taken no to exclude older students from regional
occupation centers and programs where they are allowed. Mr. Kushner asked for public comment.
·
Chuck
Gehrke. The proposal would take away
opportunities from older students.
Excelsior has approximately 39 students over the age of 19. They are told the rules at the time they
enroll. If they don’t make passing grades
in a full-time course of study, their enrollment ceases, and they may not
return. This is an effective option to
help those who dropped out when they were younger, but now want to study in
earnest for a real high school diploma, not an adult education certificate of
completion.
·
Steve
Halfaker. Their school runs a
WASC-accredited, full diploma program.
It is combines federal job training with academic curricula. The students take all state-required
tests. The program integrates
industry-quality software, such as CAD, to provide instruction in a real-world
context. This is an important
alternative education program for adult students. He provided an extensive anecdote concerning one student who
earned a diploma through the program.
·
Ernie
Silva. Take a careful look at this
proposed regulation. It would prelude
some adult students from being able to earn a high school diploma.
·
Helen
Wallquist. Gather more data before
making any recommendations to the State Board.
Find out if there is really a problem.
·
Jessica
Hawthorne. Believe this would have a
very significant impact on some schools.
As many as 90 percent of students are over 19 in some schools. The law is clear that as long as students
are continuously enrolled and making progress toward a high school diploma with
passing grades, it does not matter how old they were when enrollment
began. The proposed regulation does not
address any identified problem.
·
Eric
Premack. The proposed regulation would
reverse a compromise that was carefully worked out when the legislation was
passed. The legislation was written at
one point to do what the regulation proposes, but that was changed in the
compromise. The compromise was, in
effect, no maximum age on enrollment, provided that once enrolled a student had
to be continuously enrolled and make satisfactory progress toward a high school
diploma. The existing regulation
defining “satisfactory progress” was also carefully worked out to mirror the
legislative intent. This is an option
for older students that should be maintained.
To the extent there are any abuses, they are mostly related to the
existing regulation on satisfactory progress.
·
Jayna
Gaskell. To the extent this proposal
reflects a review done of Prosser Creek Charter School by the Fiscal Crisis and
Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), I want everyone to know that the review
contained incorrect information in its original draft form. Unfortunately, the draft review was
circulated with the incorrect information.
Prosser Creek students receive a comprehensive high school curriculum
that leads to and earned diploma. All
students perform at “C” level or better; we don’t even bother with “D”
level. We do not provide a GED-prep
program. Do not use incorrect
information as the basis for a regulatory change.
·
Buzz
Breedlove. This regulatory proposal
should be viewed as a threat to individuals.
Who isn’t worthy of being able to pursue an earned high school diploma? The regulation would be arbitrary and
capricious. There should be alternative
routes for older individuals.
·
Dwight
Washabaugh. Keep focused on
individuals. There are many reasons
that students drop out of high school.
We want to encourage them to pursue earned high school diplomas when
they are ready to do so. We don’t want
them going to prison. The CCC and local
conservation corps provide the opportunity for and encourage corpsmembers to
seek high school diplomas.
Ms. Reyes and Mr. Williams
indicated that they would like to see more documentation of a problem before
considering a regulation. Mr. Kushner
commented that there is clearly abuse in some schools, but there is also a lot
of good work going on with older students.
We should take a look at what’s happening in non-charter schools before
placing more constraints on charter schools.
We need to look at the extent to which audits are enforcing the existing
regulation. Ms. Hunkapiller commented
that solid progress with older students had to be protected; we need a balanced
approach. Ms. Frost suggested that the
advent of the High School Exit Examination would change the whole picture and
might, in and of itself, do much to curb abuses. Mr. Kushner indicated that the Advisory Commission needed to look
more carefully at this issue.
SB 740 Charter School
Facility Grant Program. Ms. Cubanski indicated that
letters had gone out and documentation of qualification for grants is being
sought. However, no distribution will
be made until the 2002-03 budget is signed.
She also noted that legislation is under consideration that could increase
the pool of qualified schools. If that
legislation is signed, but no additional funding is provided, it’s likely that
there would be a deficit factor applied to the grants.
Mr. Premack commented that if the CDE could do an “advance” apportionment of the grants, it would be very welcome in the field. He also noted that the fact the CDE had delayed distribution of funds in 2001-02, made the funds a target for reversion when the budget crisis hit.
SB 740 determinations of
funding for 2002-03 (and beyond). Ms.
Cubanski reported that forms had been distributed during the preceding
week. The form will be going up on the
CDE Web site in the near future. Forms
are not due until February 1, 2003, but early returns are expected and
encouraged. The earlier, the better.
Future meetings. The members agreed on the following meeting schedule for the
balance of 2002-03:
2002
September 30 – October 1
October 17
December 16
2003
January 21-22
February 19-20
March 19-20
April 11
May 21-22
Adjournment. Mr.
Kushner adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m.