Mike Fedewa

JoAnne Woodard

Kate Alice Dunaway

Roger Gerber

Sandy Carmany

Alfred Bryant

Tony Cozart

Otho B. Tucker, Director, Office of Charter Schools

Gail Scott Taylor, Consultant, Office of Charter Schools

Jackie W. Jenkins, Consultant, Office of Charter Schools,

Dr. Jackie W. Jenkins provided insight regarding the grant American Renaissance Charter School received. She stated that of the 109 proposals submitted nationally, only 22 were awarded and that American Renaissance was the only public school to receive the grant award. The other institutions receiving funds in NC were universities.

Dr. Tucker reported on his visit to ArtSpace Charter School, Evergreen Community Charter School, Francine Delany New School for Children, and Engelmann School of the Arts & Sciences while en route to Mountain Discovery School. His visit to Mountain Discovery Charter School was to check on the school and the success it is experiencing with the facility school representatives secured for operating the school until its permanent site is available. There are approximately 75 to 80 students in the school and everything seems to be going well.

Updates

Dr. Tucker reported that the following items will be forwarded to the State Board of Education (SBE) for discussion and/or action at the November 6-7, 2002 meeting:

Regarding the CSAC membership recommendations, Dr. Tucker invited current members with expiring terms to let him know if they do not wish to be considered for another term, otherwise their names would be forwarded to the SBE for consideration for reappointment.

Linda Ivy, Accounting Specialist, Compliance/Auditing/Policy reported that the Compliance/Auditing/Policy section is still waiting on the first month ADM count. Once that information is received, the adjustments in allotments will be made and schools will receive the first 2/3 of their allotment. Ms. Ivy anticipates this action will take place this month by the end of October.

Chairman Fedewa inquired as how schools have been surviving financially up to this point pending the passing of the state budget.

Ms. Ivy said that as schools requested funds, the School Business Division have been providing a small amount of the funds to schools to operate.

Dr. Tucker reported that he has found out through communications with charter school operators that a significant number of charter schools have billed LEAs for local allotments and some LEAs have not provided funding. He also said that a significant number of schools have taken out operating loans to delay the request for state funds in the absence of local funds.

Chairman Fedewa asked Ms. Ivy her opinion of why there was such a lag time between the time the charter schools bill the LEAs and the LEAs pay the schools. He wanted to know if it is a function of a late budget or some other factor. It is Ms. Ivy’s opinion that it is more a function of the LEA than the budget due to the fact that there is a lack of consistency in how the LEAs forward local funds. She added that Wake and Durham are consistent and doing well in regards to advancing the local funds to the charter schools.

Chairman Fedewa asked Ms. Ivy to provide an update to the CSAC at its next meeting regarding the process LEAs have in place for getting local funds to charter schools.

Dr. Tucker suggested that the CSAC consider a recommendation to the SBE to look into the issue of how LEAs are responding to the request for local funds if it is found that some are not complying with payments. These funds are critical in the operation of a charter school.

Mr. Roger Gerber asked if it would be appropriate for the CSAC to make a recommendation to the SBE requesting LEAs to be more forthcoming with the advancement of local funds to the charter schools.

Mr. Bill Troutman sought clarification over the amount of control the SBE has over local dollars. It is his understanding that that control rest with the County Commissioners.

Chairman Fedewa responded that it is not the County Commissioners that are not releasing the funds in cases where that is an issue but the local boards. Although the SBE may not have a direct relationship with the local school boards in guiding the manner in which funds are released, the SBE’s involvement should have some impact on the process.

Mr. Tony Cozart shared that there may be a way for the County Commissioners Association to encourage the local school boards to send local funds to charter schools in a timely manner. He will review that option and report to the CSAC.

Dr. Tucker reported that there are still unanswered questions as to whether the state will have one assessment model or multiple accountability models. That decision has not been made due to a lack of any response from the federal government. There is no indication that from the federal government a decision will be forwarded in the near future. The Department of Public Instruction ( DPI), is waiting to decide how No Child Left Behind (NCLB) will affect the alternative schools across the state. Dr. Elsie Leake, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and School Reform has called together an Alternative School Review Committee consisting of Dr. Otho Tucker, Chairperson and Dr. Wandra Polk, Assistant Director, Instructional Services, to discuss whether charter schools should have that option of being designated as an alternative school. If charter schools should have that option then under what circumstances. This Committee posed the following question to the CSAC for discussion and input:

Do you believe that if there is an alternative school model, that charter schools should be able to be evaluated in the model? Why or why not?

It is the opinion of Chairman Fedewa that when an applicant identifies the target population the school plans to serve, by doing so, the applicant is entering into an agreement with the state to serve that target population. They are stating upfront that they have a plan for serving this population. He is not sure he would want a charter school to be labeled as an alternative school and questioned the value of such a label. He considers all charter schools as alternatives to traditional school. If the only reason for a charter school to be designated as an alternative school is to escape the ABCs program then he would not consider that as a valid reason for such designation.

Dr. JoAnne Woodard requested clarification on the implication of being designated an alternative school. She wanted to know if the only implication is that the school would not fit into the ABCs testing model.

Dr. Tucker stated that the characteristics of students some of the charter schools are serving include highly at-risk students, adjudicated students and court assigned students. Many of the students are quite transient in nature. Many of the students are in schools that seek to serve this student population.

Mr. Fedewa maintains that when a charter application identifies the type of students they are going to serve. It is his opinion that a potential applicant is entering into an agreement with the state that says the school will serve a population of students that have been underserved by the traditional public schools. He again questioned whether labeling a school as an alternative gets at the heart of the matter.

Dr. Woodard commented that it is the goal of some schools to serve those students who would have otherwise dropped out of school thereby keeping them in school. The school is meeting its mission by serving such a population of students. These students may not be at the higher end of the academic spectrum but they are being served in a productive educational setting. She proposed that there should be indicators other than those in the ABCs model to measure whether these students are making academic progress.

Ms. Kate Alice Dunaway disagreed with Chairman Fedewa’s perspective of charter schools being "alternative" schools just because they are public schools of choice. When using the word alternative it implies to the general public the characteristics common to alternative schools. Because it implies to the general public the characteristics of an alternative school, many of the charter schools that have no desire to be alternative schools by definition continue to receive students who are highly at-risk. She agrees with Dr. Woodard that some schools need and deserve the designation of an alternative school. At this point, the current charter school application does not allow for applicants to select some other model other than the ABCs model. That option should be offered in the application and that alternative model should be the same as the traditional public schools are using.

Ms. Sandy Carmany said that she is not sure every charter school that serves at-risk students should be allowed to be designated as alternative. However in schools that serve very specialized categories of children who are adjudicated or in specific residential settings, it would be appropriate for the schools to be alternative schools.

Mr. Troutman said that he agrees with Chairman Fedewa’s perspective that when a charter school identifies the population of students it plans to serve, it is entering into an agreement with the state that the school will serve those students.

Mr. Cozart said that it is a challenge for traditional public schools to serve students with more severe labels beyond general "at-risk." Now that these same students that were having difficulty in the traditional public schools have gone to charter schools, these difficulties are still prevalent. It is his opinion that the CSAC should help the SBE realize and accept the fact that this type population will struggle with the ABCs program and assist the SBE in recommending another model for the charter schools that are serving such a population.

In summary, Chairman Fedewa said that the Committee seems to see the need for an alternative model and the clarification of the definition between "at-risk" and alternative students. Alternative characteristics should be set to identify the population of students that would compose an alternative school.

The Committee discussed recommendations for the 1998 schools on one-year renewal delay. Dr. Woodard said that she thought all of the schools have been working hard to address the deficiencies for which they were recommended for a one year renewal delay. She has concluded that these schools have the capability to fulfill the requirements of acceptable governance and financial compliance.

Dr. Tucker reviewed for the Committee the supporting documents submitted by Carter Community School.

Dr. Woodard said that she feels the fair thing to do would be to delay the decision regarding Carter Community School until the Spring 2003 test scores are available. She further recommended that the Committee recommend delaying any action until it had reviewed the preliminary scores and make a renewal recommendation to either renew or non-renew based on that additional information.

Ms. Carmany felt delaying until Spring 2003 would be too late in the process of awarding new charters. Delaying would create a situation of having empty charter school slots that could potentially be filled. She said that it looks as if this is an effort to delay making hard decisions.

Chairman Fedewa reminded everyone that the CSAC was only making a recommendation.

Therefore the recommendation coming from the Committee could either be any of the following:

Ms. Kate Alice Dunaway shared that she visited three of the schools that received a one-year delay and talked to others on the phone. She reported that in some of the communities where these schools are located one can see an economically depressed environment surrounded by housing projects and other factors that would be indicators of a challenging student population. Ms. Dunaway feels that a school serving such a population of students from such an environment cannot be turned around in just a few years. With that, she feels that the schools deserve the chance to continue serving students through the year.

A motion was made and seconded to not renew the charter for Carter Community School. Four were in favor of non-renewal of the school’s charter. Three opposed the motion. The motion carried. Recommendation will be forwarded to the SBE to not renew the Carter Community Charter.

Dr. Tucker gave an overview of the demographics and history of Sugar Creek Academy. The school, which was approved in 1998, delayed opening until 1999. At that time, Advantage Schools, Inc. managed the school, an educational management organization based in Boston, MA. After careful evaluation and assessment of the student population, the local Sugar Creek Academy board of directors and school leadership felt that the direction the educational management organization designed for the school was not in the best interest of the student population. The school has since severed its managerial contract with Advantage and has assumed local management of the school.

The school serves a very diverse group of students based on the lack of academic readiness of many of the students when they enter the school. Dr. Tucker also noted that the data that the school submitted points to the fact that students who have been at the school since the initial year have demonstrated academic proficiency. The school also has about a 40% turnover rate each year.

Dr. Woodard said that since the school opened up after a one-year delay and since they have only three years of data, the school should be allowed to operate through the current school year and base renewal decisions on the present information and 2003 test scores. She noted that Sugar Creek showed a significant increase in performance from the first year to the second and third year.

A motion was made and seconded to delay the renewal decision regarding Sugar Creek.

The motion to delay the renewal of Sugar Creek Charter School was denied. Three members were in favor of the motion to delay renewal and four opposed the motion.

Ms. Dunaway said that she visited the school. During her unannounced visit, she said she found a school that was very well organized, students were well focused and on task. She stated that she is extremely impressed with what is happening with the children in that school in that they are in a very effective learning environment. The school is using the Direct Instruction Model and is doing an excellent job following the model.

Another motion was made and seconded not to renew the charter of Sugar Creek Charter School. The motion carried 4 to 3.

New Century Charter School was placed on one-year delay status due to ABCs Accountability issues. The school was low performing during the year of renewal but is now a priority school. The school is a Priority School with a composite of 49.1. Upon hearing this review, a motion was made and seconded to recommend renewal of the New Century Charter School charter. The motion carried with a unanimous vote of 7-0.

Wayne Technical Academy was placed on a year delay due to governance, financial and ABCs accountability issues. The school was low performing (5.8) the year of renewal. The school also did not meet licensure requirements, did not have Insurance & Bonding certificate on file with the Office of charter schools and had unsolved student accounting data issues.

According to Ms. Linda Ivy, Wayne Technical Academy has not submitted an audit contract to the LGC for the financial audit that is due October 31,2002. She reported that last year’s audit was acceptable. The implications for not having an audit contract in place means that the school is out of compliance and placed on Cautionary Status as of September 6, 2002. The schools submitted documentation to the Financial Services Staff that satisfied the student accounting issues. Scott Douglass will review this information.

In response to the timeliness of the data submitted on October 9, 2002, Ms. Ivy said that the data was a late submission.

Chairman Fedewa pointed out that there were two issues under consideration, one being whether the school met the criteria that was established for renewal. The second issue is the financial and business practices that are being questioned and have caused them to be placed on Cautionary Status.

The school has met the ABCs accountability criteria but the financial compliance is still in question.

A motion was made and seconded to not renew the Wayne Technical Academy charter unless they have met all financial reporting requirements prior to the November 6, 2002 SBE meeting. This would include an audit contract with the LGC and an audit submitted on time by October 31, 2002 to the LGC and DPI. If the school meets these expectations, the recommendation would be changed to one for renewal of the charter of Wayne Technical Academy.

This category is different in that Provisions Academy and Laurinburg Homework Charter School have been low performing each year of operation.

Mr. Tony Cozart said that these schools have taken on a tremendous challenge in endeavoring to serve the population that they currently serve. To this end, he would like for the Committee to work with these schools and he would be able to support allowing these schools to continue to operate.