Mike Fedewa, Chairman

JoAnne Woodard

Kathryn Meyers

Ben Currin

Tony Cozart

John Geil

Alfred Bryant

Sandy Carmany

Arlene Ferren

John Crowder

Randy Dow

Jane Worsham, Executive Director, SBE

Otho B. Tucker, Director, Office of Charter Schools

Gail Scott Taylor, Consultant, Office of Charter Schools

Carl F. Pridgen, Consultant, Office of Charter Schools

Jackie W. Jenkins, Consultant, Office of Charter Schools

Laura Crumpler, Attorney, State Attorney General’s Office

Jennifer Bennett, Director, School Business

Linda Ivy, Accounting Specialist, Compliance/Audit/Policy

Deanna Carter, Accounting Specialist, Compliance/Audit/Policy

Gene Bruton, Accountant, Compliance/Audit/Policy

Scott Douglass, SIMS

Dr. Jackie W. Jenkins, Consultant, Office of Charter Schools shared that The Learning Center in Cherokee, NC was one of the 1600 nonprofits that submitted an application for consideration to the Oprah Winfrey Foundation for its first annual dream contest. Mary Jo Dyer, Director, The Learning Center, submitted her dream for the school to the Oprah Foundation, which is a community-based project that would create learning situations for students and community members. This project is intended to provide opportunities for the school to develop a program in which the students are learning while teaching about nutrition and other educational matters. Out of 12,000 applications submitted, The Learning Center was one of six to be chosen. The Oprah Foundation does not actually provide money to the grant recipient but puts them in touch with organizations that can provide guidance and services.

The New Dimensions Charter School in Morganton has received two grants. Dr. Carol Trivette, New Dimensions Board Chair shared that the school has received notification that it was awarded a three-year grant to look at charter schools nationally. This grant is from the Office of Special Education. The school will be examining special needs children across the nation in hopes of developing an understanding of the relationship between charter schools and the students that are served in charter schools. One of the goals of this grant is to gather outcome data about what is happening with special needs children in charter schools.

The school also received a Twenty-first Century Grant. New Dimensions Charter School was the only charter schools to receive a 21^st Century Grant

Dr. JoAnne Woodard shared that Sallie B. Howard Charter School entered a statewide contest sponsored by the North Carolina Literacy Society. The schools around NC were invited to develop a school literary magazine and submit it for competition. Sallie B. Howard came in third place across the state with 2 schools from Charlotte/Mecklenburg receiving first and second place recognition.

Mr. Roger Gerber shared that Franklin Academy Charter School had received accreditation by the Americans for Liberal Education.

Dr. Alfred Bryant provided highlights of his visit to The Homework Center Charter School in Laurinburg. This school has been designated low-performing for three consecutive years. Dr. Bryant reported that he had a very nice visit on short notice and was very well received. He was very impressed with the facility. He agrees with the school that they serve a very challenging student population. School representatives feel very strongly that Laurinburg Homework Center should be considered an alternative school. The school has a very supportive administrative staff, very competent teachers and doing a great job serving unique student population. He further added that the school choice opportunities are very limited in Scotland County considering that the system only has one high school. The students feel that they would not be successful in a large high school such as the local high school and would probably drop out of school if Laurinburg Homework Center were not an option for them.

Dr. Tony Cozart reported that he appreciates the opportunity to take a closer look at the issue of the process LEAs have in place for releasing local funds to charter schools. He has begun discussing this issue with the Granville County Board Chair to explore what the county commissioners can do to help in situations in which charter schools are having difficulties receiving funds from charter schools. The chairman of the Granville County Commissions who is also a member of the County Commissioners Association, will present these issues to the Association for further discussion and review. He has made contact with some of the charter schools regarding the matter of obtaining local funds from LEAs. Dr. Cozart expressed his pleasure over the fact that some charter schools contacted are pleased with the system in place in the LEA for releasing funds but he also recognizes that there still are some issues that will still need to be addressed.

This issue will be brought up for discussion at the December 11,2002 County Commissioners Association meeting. Dr. Cozart anticipates some recommendations coming out of this meeting that can be forwarded to LEAs. He will keep the Committee abreast of the situation, as this may be a work in progress for a short period of time. He suggested that the Office of Charter Schools might provide some guidance in identifying those charter schools that are having problems receiving local funds.

Ms. Jennifer Bennett reported that the charter schools are submitting audits in a timely fashion. Based on review of the audits, three schools have minor deficits under $10,000.00.

In regards to the school budgets, Ms. Bennett reported that the appropriate Financial Services Staff members have reviewed the budgets submitted by the charter schools. Of the budgets submitted 20 budgets might have overestimated the Average Daily Membership (ADM) and state revenues. The Financial and Business Services division will send these schools letters detailing how the budgets can be adjusted so that they fall within expected budgetary guidelines.

Ms. Bennett gave updates on the following schools:

The Financial and Business Services Division has finally received the 2001 audit for Imani Charter Schools 2001 and the auditor is working on the 2002 audit. The school is currently on Financial Probationary Status and will remain until the 2002 audit is received.

Upon preliminary review of the budget, Rowan Academy has a significant deficit situation of about $319,000.00. The projected overall budget would show an increase of that deficit by $43,000.00 by the end of December and $109,000.00 by the end of June if the school’s budget kept going. The budget shows no new revenue for operating cost and no revenues to honor payroll obligations for the year. There still is an outstanding issue of 2 months back pay for teachers. The teachers willfully went without 2 months of pay last school year. The school does participate in the State Retirement System. If the teachers are not paid by the first week of December, the teachers will not be credited service for that time.

The school has not responded to the request to submit a revised budget. As a means of providing some revenue the school attempted to adjust its mortgage payments with the landlord. The school was unable fulfill that transaction.

Representatives from the Rowan Academy were present to address the Committee regarding the schools financial situation. Present were board chair Ms. Charlene Montford, H.A Thompson board member and two parents. Ms. Montford addressed the measures the school is taking in dealing with the financial deficit. Rowan Academy is in the process of applying for an unconventional loan in the amount of $500,000.00. Ms. Montford feels very positive about the loan. She said that there is more than enough equity in the school to support the loan.

The Committee expressed concerns over the severity of the school’s budget deficit. The Committee felt that even if the unconventional loan is approved, the amount of $500,000.00 would probably only cover the existing deficit but would not generate funds for operating expenses. Questions were asked as to what created the deficit whether it was a result of not paying the rent or other factors that attributed to the deficit.

Ms. Bennett said that the deficit was due to the school never adjusting the budget to the funded ADM and continued spending on the higher ADM. The deficit is due to overspending on general operating costs.

Mr. Gerber inquired about the status of the school’s budget in the past to which Ms Bennett responded that the school has had a balanced budget in past years.

Ms. Montford informed the Committee that the Board of Directors was scheduled to meet Saturday, November 16^th to discuss the school’s financial situation.

Ms. Bennett recommended that the school be placed on Financial Disciplinary Status giving the school ten working days to present a revised budget effective November 15, 2002. This would give the school until December 3, 2002 to present a working budget that shows how the deficit will be addressed.

Chairman Fedewa recommended that the Committee not take any action at this time but allow the Financial and Governance Noncompliance policy to take affect.

Mr. Thompson, Rowan Academy board member stated that once the Rowan Academy school board evaluates and assesses its situation and discovers that it is unable to provide a workable budget that Board would voluntarily come to the Committee and offer to relinquish the charter.

Dr. Otho Tucker updated the Committee on the SBE’s actions regarding the charter school items presented to the SBE in October. He reported that the SBE approved the federal grant funds awarded to charter schools over the next three years. The state was awarded a $16.3 grant through 2005 with $4,284,210.00 being awarded for the 2002-03 year. He acknowledged Gail Scott Taylor for the work she did on this project as part of her work responsibilities. This grant award is the largest the state has received.

Dr. Tucker shared highlights of the Boards discussion regarding the three 1998 schools the Committee recommended for nonrenewal. The schools were Carter Community School, Sugar Creek Academy for ABCs issues and Wayne Technical Academy for Financial Compliance issues.

Dr. Tucker began by sharing highlights of the SBE’s concern regarding the populations these schools serve and that members of the Board questioned the amount of intervention offered by the state. There were some members he added that felt strongly that the schools are dealt with according to the SBE policy and the renewal rubric. He shared that the State Board of Education asked that if the Committee has any concerns regarding the schools recommended for a one year delay or if it wishes to revisit the recommendations submitted in October, then the SBE would like for the Committee to do so. Otherwise, the SBE will take the recommendations the Committee has already submitted.

Regarding Wayne Technical Academy, Ms Bennett reported that Wayne Technical Academy did get the audit contract in to the LGC pending auditor peer review. The LGC has signed off on the school’s audit contract that was submitted on November 04^th, 2002 to the Local Government Commission. The LGC had three questions for the auditor to clarify the following issues which are:

(1)Statement of cash flow not included

(2) prior period adjustment of less than $2000 made from general fund without an explanation as to why the adjustment was made and

(3) opening fund balance in the special revenue funds does not agree with what was presented in previous year and upon review the ending special revenue fund balance is inconsistent with the 2001 audited statements.

The audit has not formally passed from the LGC to DPI. The preliminary review of the audit does not reflect any material questions, cost, or finding.

Chairman Fedewa summarized Ms. Bennett’s report by saying that the school has complied with the request. Since the recommendation was for nonrenewal pending the school completes it audit by the November 5-6, 2002 SBE meeting, Chairman Fedewa reminded the Committee that the school has complied and that the Committee will forward a recommendation for a 5-year renewal.

Ms. Carmany stated that she is still uncomfortable with the school’s financial situation.

Chairman Fedewa reiterated the fact that Wayne Technical Academy has complied with the request to submit an audit before the November SBE meeting. Therefore, the Committee will forward the recommendation for a 5-year renewal as stated in the October 10, 2002 motion.

Dr. Tucker summarized the SBE’s discussion of Sugar Creek Charter School and Carter Community. He conveyed that the SBE was concerned with the number of Committee members present at the October 10, 2002 meeting to vote on action items. The Board wanted to make sure that the Committee had the opportunity if it felt it was appropriate to review the issues raised concerning the Sugar Creek and Carter and forward any new information to the SBE that would be appropriate in helping the SBE make its decisions.

Mr. Fedewa reviewed the process involved that led to the Committee’s vote regarding the 1998 renewal schools. Schools were invited in September to present the results of their Corrective Action Plans and share any other compelling information with the Committee. At the October meeting, the Committee considered three recommendations upon which to vote:

The decision for both schools was to not renew based on failure to satisfy the ABCs Accountability aspect of the rubric by a 4/3 vote.

In terms of the process, Chairman Fedewa reminded everyone that 8 people were present at the October 10, 2002 meeting, which satisfies the quorum requirement for the Committee.

Dr. Tucker further added that he feels the SBE wants to make sure the Committee has considered all the information necessary in helping them make the decision. The SBE is concerned that both of these schools are serving highly at-risk populations and have shown some interesting growth based on EOG retest. Information presented also show that students who have remained

at the school multiple consecutive years have made modest to significant growth. The SBE wants to make sure it has all the information necessary to make an informed decision regarding the renewal status of these two schools.

In response to Dr. Tucker’s comments regarding the SBE’s discussion of the two schools in question, Attorney John Geil feels that the SBE wants the Committee to consider the school’s population in making its decision. He further added the ABCs Accountability is what counts and that student population has never been a consideration. If that is the case, the SBE should come up with a policy that includes student population as a factor when considering renewal.

Dr. Ben Currin said that until the No Child Left Behind legislation is fully established the SBE is in a quandary as it is not sure the ABCs will be in existence. It is his opinion that the State does not feel as comfortable with the ABCs as it did last year. The SBE is going through a transition as to whether the state will continue with the ABCs as is, modify it, or consider some other testing mechanism.

Attorney Geil restated the fact that the rubric the Committee used in making its decision is the one the SBE approved. If the SBE wants recommendations from the Committee to change the rubric then it should forward specific information to this advisory body regarding the need to change the current rubric to include student population or other factors.

Attorney Randy Dow posed a philosophical issue stating that he feels the Committee should act in a capacity beyond that of being a "cop." The situation involving the SBE’s request for the Committee to revisit the vote taken at the October 10, 2002 meeting regarding the 1998 renewal schools is a perfect opportunity for the Committee to voice its opinions on certain issues other than take directives from the State Board of Education. It is up to the SBE to either accept or reject the recommendations coming from the Committee. Attorney Dow further emphasized that he understands the need for rules and policies, but on certain occasion there is a need to examine the extenuating circumstances and consider ways to get around self-imposed hurdles such as the renewal rubric in this case. The rubric may not be the answer originally intended by the Committee or the SBE when evaluating the schools for renewal status.

Ms. Sandy Carmany reminded the Committee that the original rubric offered more flexibility recalling that it offered an option for 5-year renewal, 3-year renewal, one-year, or nonrenwal, but the SBE directed the Committee to revise the rubric to include tighter renewal options.

Dr. JoAnne Woodard thinks that the SBE has reconsidered its stance on dealing with schools serving large populations of minority students especially with the federal NCLB legislation and the attention given to the closing the achievement gap. She noted that the two schools in question are serving a significant minority population. One of the schools, Sugar Creek Charter School is serving a large population of minority students and is making some modest gains. Voting to close these two schools looks to be contrary to the state and federal legislation and guidelines regarding student achievement and public school choice. Dr. Woodard thinks the SBE is giving the Committee an opportunity to take into consideration the state and federal initiatives regarding the ABCs Accountability model, NCLB, and the efforts to close the achievement gap in making its recommendation.

Mr. Roger Gerber added that the law dictates that the charter schools have to take the end-of-grade test but the law does not dictate the schools have to be evaluated clearly on the results of the end-of-grade test. It is his opinion that the ABCs do not apply very well to some charter schools and maintains that some schools are probably overrated based on the ABCs results. Mr. Gerber thinks that the best way to more accurately gauge how well the schools are doing academically is to examine the results of the students that have remained at the school for consecutive years.

Ms. Carmany reminded the Committee that it operates in an advisory capacity to the SBE. The Committee is operating under an existing policy and she would feel uncomfortable making a recommendation that is in opposition to the policy. The SBE is the policy maker and as the policymaking body, if it is uncomfortable with any recommendations from the CSAC then they have the power to make a different decision. She is not comfortable with recommdending reversing the decision that has already been forwarded to the SBE.

Attorney Geil agreed with Ms. Carmany and added that the issue is not the two schools in question but the fact the CSAC acts in an advisory capacity and the SBE is the policy making body. As the policy making body, it has the authority to accept or reject any recommendation the Committee sends forth. If the SBE wants the Committee to offer recommendations as to how the policy should be changed or change the rubric to include consideration of the student population, then the SBE should forward that request to the Committee in a timely manner.

Dr. Woodard requested that the Committee take another vote since there are more members in attendance and that the new vote is forwarded to the SBE with the same recommendations as before.

Ms. Carmary sought clarification regarding a parliamentary procedure issue. It is her understanding that the only way to reopen a vote is that someone on the prevailing side makes a motion to open the questions.

Chairman Fedewa summarized the discussion by reviewing the options available to the Committee to:

(1) to maintain the original recommendation

(2) to withdraw recommendation and vote again

(3) to withdraw recommendation and provide the SBE with an alternative recommendation that may or may not involve voting.

In further discussion of the matter, Dr. Cozart added that he hopes recommendations will come forth very soon regarding the alternative school status for schools serving challenging populations which would include options for evaluating schools.

Attorney Dow said the he is not opposed to the original recommendation and the purpose of setting precedent in regards to nonrenewal based on ABCs accountability. He is opposed to letting the vote stand without some comments that would convey to the SBE that there are other considerations that should be taken into account in addition to the ABCs.

Chairman Fedewa added that he feels that the SBE is split on how heavily one considers the ABCs. Some may feel that if a school is low performing three consecutive years then there is no question that the policy is enforced. There are some that may share feelings similar to members of the CSAC that the ABCs are not the appropriate method to measure some of the schools.

Chairman Fedewa asked if the Committee wants to continue with the recommendation forwarded in October or change the recommendation.

Dr. Currin said that in light of the work going on regarding alternative schools status and a possible modification of the ABCs Accountability program, he would not want the Committee to make a decision to close a school prior to the SBE’s final review of the alternative status for charter schools and the ABCs program.

Attorney Geil stressed that if the SBE is concerned about the current renewal rubric and would like the Committee to make recommendations regarding changing the rubric, this request should come prior to the renewal cycle. A request to have the Committee review the rubric during a current renewal cycle would put the schools in that cycle at a disadvantage. Secondly, he recommended that if the SBE is considering alternative school status that they move forward with all haste.

Chairman Fedewa reviewed the issues for consideration. The first being the original recommendations to not renewal the charters of Sugar Creek Academy and Carter Community School as per the renewal rubric. He called for a motion from someone from the prevailing side to reopen the discussion and vote.

Since a motion to reopen the discussion and vote was not made, Chairman Fedewa stated that the original recommendation stands. As a part of the recommendation, he added that the Committee would like for the State Board of Education to make a decision regarding the alternative schools model for charter schools. Additionally, if the SBE is considering requesting the CSAC to revise the existing renewal rubric that it inform the Committee in a timely manner so that such action can be factored into the upcoming renewal cycle.

Dr. Jackie Jenkins presented the list of schools requesting to increase the student enrollment by greater than 10% and/or to change the grade structure. After the request from each school was presented, the CSAC voted on each school individually.

A motion was made and seconded to approve the request of each of the following school to increase its enrollment by greater than 10%.

1. Hope Elementary School (92Q) Wake/3 = from 90 to 114

2. Bethany Community Middle School (79A) Rockingham/5 = from 150 to 170

3. Lincoln Charter School (55A) Lincoln/6 = from 426 to 537 (add 11^th grade in 2003-04 & grade 12 in 2004-05)

4. Phoenix Academy (41D) Guilford/5 = from 322 to 385 (43 per K-8^th grade)

5. Tiller School (16B) Carteret/2 = 116 to 120

6. Washington Montessori Charter (7A) Beaufort/1 = from 175 to 220; addition of grade 6 in 2003 and grades 7-8 in 2004

A motion was made and seconded to approve the request of The New Dimension School to change it current grade structure from K-2 to K-5. The motion was approved. The Committee noted that the change of grade structure constitutes a material change in the charter and ask that the school submits that change to the Office of Charter Schools.

The CSAC approved the request for grade structure changes for the following school:

1. The New Dimension School (12A) Burke/7 = from K-2 to K-5

The following schools requested both a grade change and enrollment increase:

1. East Winston Primary School (34E) Forsyth/5 = from grades K-5 to grades K-6 in 2003 and Grades K-8 in 2004. The enrollment request is to grow from 235 to 406.

Members of the Committee concluded that the school’s current enrollment was not within 10% maximum authorized enrollment, therefore an enrollment increase could not be approved.

The Committee also indicated that there was no indication that the school had a comprehensive education plan for the middle school component.

Mr. Roger Gerber made a motion to approve the change in grade structure from grades K-4 to K-6 providing the school is still under its authorized cap and for the school to present a middle school plan for grades 6-8 grades. The motion was second and approved.

Chairman Fedewa requested that East Winston School submit a definitive education plan for the middle grades.

2. PreEminent Charter School (92M) Wake/3 = from grades K-5 to K-8; enrollment increase from 468 to 522.

The Committee voiced some concern about the schools current enrollment 396, which is less than the maximum enrollment of 468. Therefore a request to increase the enrollment by greater than 10% could not be approved because it does not meet the legislative criteria of being within 10% of the maximum enrollment.

Board Chair Jannet Barnes, PreEminent Charter School explained that the current enrollment request was made with the intent of having three 5^th grade classes. The current facility only allows for two 5^th grade classes instead of three. Ms. Barnes said the new facility, which will be ready by the end of June, will be able to accommodate all grade levels.

Ms. Carmany reiterated the fact that according to the rubric the school has to be within 10% of its authorized maximum. Since the school is not that precludes the ability of the Committee to approve an increase of greater than 10%.

Mr. Roger Gerber asked if the request to expand the grades from K-5 to K-8 and increase the enrollment to 522 is predicated on the fact that the school already has an educational model in place provided by National Heritage Academies. Also, whether this request is made in consideration of the fact that it will occupy a new facility next school year.

Dr. Ben Currin offered that since the Wake County School’s impact statement does not show opposition to the enrollment increase then he is in favor of approving the request. With that, he made a motion to approve the request of the school to increase the enrollment and expand the grades from K-5 to K-8. The motion was denied.

Attorney Laura Crumpler reminded the Committee that it could recommend that the school amend the charter to more accurately reflect their current enrollment. That would entail amending the charter to show a maximum of 440 students, which would then mean that the current enrollment of 396 students would be within 10% of the authorized maximum.

Dr. Les Steins, principal, Pre Eminent Charter School requested to amend the charter to more accurately reflect the school’s current enrollment situation.

Ms. Kathryn Meyers questioned whether or not the discussion of the enrollment and grade expansion was premature since it is in the renewal process as well.

A motion was made to table the consideration of the schools request to amend the charter until after the renewal discussion. The motion was seconded and approved.

The following members of Sub-Committee A were present to review the renewal reports:

Kathryn Meyers, Chair

Ben Currin

John Crowder

Absent: Kate Alice Dunaway and Betty Huskins

The Subcommittee recommended each of the following schools for a five year renewal:

1. Forsyth Academy – Winton Salem/Forsyth/5

2. Guilford Charter School – Guilford/5

3. Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy – Rutherford/8

4. Torchlight Academy – Wake/3

5. Quest Academy – Wake/3

A separate motion was made and seconded to approve the recommendation for five-year renewal for each of the schools. The motion passed.

The Subcommittee recommended postpone for further information and action for the following schools due to ABCs Accountability compliance:

1. Provisions Academy – Lee/4

2. Laurinburg Homework Center – Scotland/4

A separate motion was made and seconded to approve the recommendation for postponement for one-year delay for each of the schools. The motion passed.

The following members of Sub-committee B were present to review the renewal reports:

Sandy Carmany, Chair

John Geil

Roger Gerber

Tony Cozart

The Sub-committee recommended 5-year renewal for the following schools:

1. Evergreen Community School – Buncombe/8

2. The Mountain Community School –Henderson/8

3. Sandhills Theatre Arts Renaissance Academy (STARS) – Moore/2

4. Vance Charter School – Vance/3

A separate motion was made and seconded to approve the recommendation for five-year renewal for each of the schools. The motion passed.

The Subcommittee recommended postpone for further information and action (one year delay) for the following school due to ABCs Accountability compliance:

1. Crossnore Academy – Avery/7

A motion was made and seconded to recommend that action regarding Crossnore Academy be postponed for further information and action. The motion was approved.

The Subcommittee recommended postpone for further information and action (one year delay) for the following school due to Governance Compliance in the area of teacher licensure:

2. Omuteko Gwamaziima – Durham/3

A motion was made and seconded to recommend that the action regarding Omuteko Gawamaziima be postponed for further information and action. The motion was approved.

The following members of Subcommittee C were present to review the renewal reports:

JoAnne Woodard, Chair

Arlene Ferren

Randy Dow

Alfred Bryant

Absent – William Troutman

The subcommittee recommended 5-year renewal for the following schools:

1. Research Triangle Charter Academy – Durham/3

2. Greensboro Academy – Guilford/5

3. American Renaissance Middle School – Iredell/7

4. Raleigh Charter High School – Wake/3

5. PreEminnet Charter Academy – Wake/3

A separate motion was made and seconded to approve the recommendation for five-year renewal for each of the schools. The motion passed.

The subcommittee recommended postpone for further information and action (one year delay) for the following school due to failure to comply with financial responsibility:

1. Rowan Academy – Rowan/7

A motion was made and seconded to recommend that the action regarding Rowan Academy be postponed for further information and action. The motion was approved.