DC Public Charter School Board | Meeting Minutes

Board Meeting Minutes

Back to Board Minutes

April 21, 2008 - 7:30 PM

Board members in attendance: Mr. Thomas Nida, chair; Mr. Jentoft, Mr. Jones, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Patrick, III, and Ms. Baker, ex-officio and executive director

Acknowledgement of Public Officials
Mr. Nida asked if there were any public officials to be recognized. None were present.

Approval of the Agenda
Mr. Nida reviewed the previously established agenda, and made the following adjustments, with unanimous approval from board members:

Added:

Proposed board actions for City Lights PCS and KAMIT Institute for
Magnificent Achievers (KIMA) PCS

Proposed resolutions

Removed:

Bridges and Potomac Lighthouse accountability plan revision requests

Approval of February and March Meeting Minutes
Mr. Patrick moved to approve the minutes of the February and March 2008 meeting minutes. Mr. Jentoft seconded the motion, and it was unanimously carried.

Finance Committee

Contracts reviewed
Mr. Nida read the report of charter school contracts over $25,000 that were reviewed and approved by the Finance Committee. Mr. Marshall motioned to approve the report. Mr. Patrick seconded the motion. Mr. Nida indicated that he had recused himself from the review of the Potomac Lighthouse contract, as did Mr. Jentoft. The motioned was carried by the remaining board members.

Schools Committee

Proposed Notice of Probation - City Lights PCS

Background

City Lights Public Charter School opened in July 2005 and was authorized to establish a public charter school by the District of Columbia Board of Education (BoE). The school was established to provide an academic program to Level IV special education high school students. The school’s mission is, “…to educate and provide therapeutic programs for young people, preparing them socially, emotionally and academically as they enter adult life.” The school currently serves 49 students who all receive free and reduced lunch.

Through its accountability and monitoring process, the PCSB has found City Lights PCS to be out of compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act P.L. 101-476. The Self-Study and Special Education Quality Reviews revealed that the school was out of compliance in the following areas:

At the time of the reviews, City Lights PCS had no certified special education teachers or administrators to implement its mission-specific focus of intensive instruction and support to special education students.
Individual Education Plans (IEPs) reviewed did not show evidence of required participation in meetings to develop, review, or revise the IEP.
In half of the IEPs reviewed, there was no evidence that appropriate evaluations are being used to determine the students’ disabilities.
Implementation of the IEPs was questionable. While there was evidence that hours of special education and related services were being provided, there is question of the validity of those services when providers are not certified.

Further, the Self Study and Transcript Reviews found that City Lights PCS is performing inadequately in the following areas of Curriculum and Instruction, Governance and Management, and Evaluation:

The school has no written curriculum for the academic, therapeutic, life skills or transition-to-work curricular components.
The school’s Board of Trustees has not provided sufficient oversight of the areas of human resources, written policies and procedures, and academic rigor.
The school does not have adequate data management systems or standard policies and procedures established to maintain student performance or school-wide accountability data.
The school’s transcript review did not reflect effective management processes or record-keeping systems to ensure students’ meet graduation requirements.

Proposal

As a special education-focused charter school, accountability and strict adherence to the mandates of both federal and state legislation outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act P.L. 101-476 and Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007, as amended are essential. The D.C. School Reform Act, § 38-1802.13. as amended, established the following criterion by which a school can be considered for revocation: (a) Charter law or law violations; failure to meet goals.—Using the record established by the chartering authority, an eligible chartering authority that has granted a charter to a public charter school may revoke the charter if the eligible chartering authority determines that the school: (1) Committed a violation of a applicable law or a material violation of the conditions, terms, standards, or procedures set forth in the charter, including violations relating to the education of children with disabilities.

Based upon information gathered during the review processes relative to students with disabilities, City Lights PCS may be a candidate for charter revocation. However, as City Lights PCS is a school in transition from the BoE serving a critical population of Level IV emotionally disturbed students, and is seeking to change its Local Education Agency (LEA) status to better facilitate a conducive and productive learning environment for its students, it is proposed that the PCSB issue the school a Notice of Probation. The Notice of Probation would be issued immediately and would remain in effective for ninety (90) days from the date of issuance. Should the school fail to satisfactorily address the following conditions within the prescribed timeframe, the PCSB may elect to propose charter revocation based upon Section 38-1802.13 (A1) of the D.C. School Reform Act, as amended:

City Lights PCS must provide evidence of an adequate staffing model, including certified special education teachers and administrators, to implement its mission-specific focus of intensive instruction and support to special education students;
City Lights PCS must provide evidence that all IEPs reflect the required participation in meetings to develop, review, or revise the IEP; and
City Lights PCS must provide evidence that all IEPs have been appropriately evaluated to determine students’ disabilities; and
City Lights PCS must establish effective management processes or record-keeping systems to ensure students meet graduation requirements through a diploma or certificate of completion program.

The following representatives from City Lights PCS were present to discuss the proposed board action:

Ms. Iris Lewis, Executive Director
Mr. Stewart Land, Board member
Ms. Brenda Richards, Principal
Mr. Nick Battle, Operations Manager
Dr. Will Johnson, Board member

Mr. Nida asked the school representatives to respond to the proposal to issue a Notice of Probation to City Lights PCS.

Ms. Lewis stated that City Lights had submitted to PCSB a list of staff that were highly qualified or certified; she indicated that the school has special education and regular teachers; and she indicated that the school has an assistant principal with an advanced certificate in special education.

To address the concern about IEPs and evaluations being out of compliance, Mrs. Lewis indicated that DCPS was the school’s LEA. She said that DCPS had not been providing the needed services, and though the school preferred to perform the services, the school was not receiving the funding to do it, which DCPS was receiving. She indicated that school leaders had been trying since August 2007 to change their LEA for Special Education designation. Ms. Lewis stated that the school’s leaders had scheduled a meeting with DCPS to discuss with DCPS the fact that the evaluations were not done and the IEPs were not executed in a timely fashion. Ms. Lewis added that City Lights is a level 4 special education program that receives considerably less than other similar programs. She indicated that the school could not afford to provide the services with the hope of getting reimbursed later. She stated that they had submitted copies of documents that demonstrated that parents were able to participate in IEP meetings, and that the school has an IEP coordinator and teachers who participated. She also suggested that the school administrators have difficulty getting parents to participate because many of the students live in group homes and it is difficult to get guardians to come to the meetings.

In response to the compliance review report, Ms. Lewis indicated that they received the report in March and anticipated that they would have a reasonable amount of time to address issues in the review report. She asserted that the school leaders believe they are making a difference in the lives of the students, and that many would not be in school if there were not enrolled in City Lights.

Mr. Nida asked about the school leaders about their experiences with reviews in the past [when they were overseen by the D.C. Board of Education]. compared with the PCSB reviews.

Ms. Lewis stated that the PCSB reviews are very extensive. She said she could scarcely recall the reviews that were done by the BOE. She said she remembered having one review, and never getting the report back. She said it had been awhile.

Mr. Marshall thanked the school leaders for coming to meet with the Board the previous Friday. He acknowledged that with little notice, school leaders came in and brought several staff members to discuss the board’s concerns. Mr. Marshall stated that the BOE transition schools came under the PCSB’s oversight, having had much less oversight in the past. He stated that the school leaders were taking steps to deal with the problems identified by the Board – though late in the day. He suggested that the school needed more time to address the issues, under the PCSB’s supervision.

Mr. Jentoft stated that the special education standards are in the law. The expectations for managing IEPs, and making sure related services are provided are clear. He suggested that if the school’s mission is to serve level 4 special education students, they should be on top of making sure they have personnel, documentation, and are providing what is needed for those students. He asserted that the City [Government] and the PCSB are relying on the school’s leaders to provide for these kids. He stated that he was a little disappointed, given that the laws and standards are clear.

Ms. Baker suggested that, moving forward, the school leaders should inform the PCSB whenever they have changes in important school positions, particularly those directly related to serving the special education population.

Mr. Jentoft asked the school leaders if the issues in the review report were a surprise. Ms. Lewis responded that DCPS special education LEA reps came to review the school’s special education program and did not raise the issues raised by the PCSB. She stated that PCSB’s standards are not a universal standard. She said the school was praised by the DCPS representatives, who did not share the PCSB view about the quality of the school’s special education program. She added that the school’s leaders are aware of what the law requires, but the school does not receive the same amount of money that other schools that serve high percentages of special education students receive. She stated that they are doing the best they can with the resources they have available.

Mr. Marshall added that the PCSB had raised other issues that had to do with academic, governance, financial reporting issues. He suggested that the school leaders also familiarize themselves with these other performance measures.

Ms. Lewis responded that she had not gotten any feedback related to financial reporting. Reflecting back on the PSCB finance workshop, she understood that there might be a concern about the ratio of funding going to salaries, but stated that the school’s high-need population warranted paying a higher percentage towards salaries, because of the need for specialized talent.

Mr. Nida stated that the focus of the discussion should be on the school’s special education services.

Mr. Marshall motioned for a notice of probation for 30 days. He suggested the probation include a requirement that City Lights PCSB submit an action plan to address the issues raised in the review.

Mr. Nida declared that under some circumstances, an established school with these issues might be a candidate for revocation, but the Board decided that might not be fair in this situation, since the school had not previously been under the Board’s oversight. He added that the school would be provided timelines in which to address the issues outlined in the report. Mr. Jentoft seconded the motion, adding that 30 days would be more than enough time to get an action plan with deadlines together. The motion was unanimously carried.

City Lights board member Mr. Stewart Land stated that they received a letter on March 24 pointing out the problems, and suggested that the Notice of Probation caught them by surprise. He urged that it not be called probation, because it would create a stigma that is unfair to the school. He suggested that the PCSB simply give the requirement to provide the action plan, without labeling it as probation.

Mr. Nida responded that he had never seen a school that was pleased with the Notice of Probation. He suggested that since the issues in question are related to compliance with the law, it was necessary to make sure everyone is crystal clear. He stated that if the timetable was not met, the Board would be moving to charter revocation. He reasoned that the Board shouldn’t deal with the issues lightly and then later deal with the school much more harshly. Mr. Nida stated that many schools had taken the notice of probation seriously and make the necessary improvements in good time.

City Lights board member Dr. Will Johnson stated that the law is under reauthorization, and there are some caveats for level 4. He also asserted that there is a national phenomenon of need for special education teachers, and university enrollment of students majoring in special education is much lower now. He suggested that keeping the school open would benefit students with level 4 special education needs, and that 30 days is hardly enough time to respond to all issues in the very extensive review report. He asserted that finding special education teachers to work with emotionally disturbed students would be challenging.

Mr. Jentoft responded that the 30 day time limit is to develop a plan, not to resolve all the issues. He reiterated that the matters involved are very serious, but getting IEPs done is pretty basic. He asserted that a school specializing in special education services should be able to get that done.

Ms. Baker added that all institutions that specialize in special education are now being scrutinized not only by the U.S. Department of Education, but also by the courts. She stated that it is imperative for all schools to be sure that they are meeting those needs. She reiterated the need for City Lights to develop a timeline and a plan of how it’s going to be done.

Mr. Jentoft acknowledged that a special education focus is a tough mission, but it is something the city and students need. He stated that it is worth working together to make it happen.

Board members voted unanimously to carry the motion to issue a notice of probation to City Light PCS for deficiencies in special education services.

Request to Change LEA Status for Special Education Purposes - City Lights PCS

A PCSB Staff member shared the following background and outlined the school’s proposal:

Background:

Each public charter school must declare its intended Local Education Agency (LEA) status during the Application Review process. The school may elect to be treated as its own LEA for purposes of Part B of the IDEA, as amended and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended or it may elect to be treated as a District of Columbia Public School (DCPS) for purposes of Part B of the IDEA, as amended and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. In addition, under Section 2.6 of a school’s charter agreement, “…At least thirty (30) days prior to the first day of the School’s first academic year, the School Corporation shall notify the Board in writing of its election to act as either a LEA or a DCPS for purposes of Part B of the IDEA, as amended and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The School Corporation shall notify the Board in writing by April 1 prior to any academic year for which the School Corporation shall change such election from the current academic year.”

City Lights Public Charter School opened in July 2005 and was authorized to establish a public charter school by the District of Columbia Board of Education. The school was established to provide an educational program to Level IV special education high school students. The school’s mission is to educate and provide therapeutic programs for young people, preparing them socially, emotionally and academically as they enter adult life. Since its inception, City Lights has been treated as a DCPS for the purposes of special education services.

Proposal

City Lights Public Charter School is requesting permission to change its LEA status from a DCPS to become its own LEA for purposes of Part B of the IDEA, as amended and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. According to school leaders and the Board of Trustees, City Lights has not received adequate or appropriate services from the public school system over time and as a result, the school is experiencing financial difficulty. The school purports that the public school system has been receiving Part B of the IDEA funds to assess students with suspected disabilities, reevaluate students at least every three years, and provide representation during placement hearings. As well, City Lights contends that these services were not rendered expeditiously, and in some cases, not at all. Consequently, the school has been assuming the costs within its budget to ensure compliance with IDEA. Therefore, City Lights seeks to become its own LEA in order to receive full funding to support the school’s mission.

Mr. Marshall motioned to approve the request. Mr. Jentoft seconded the motion and it was unanimously carried.

Proposed Notice of Probation - KAMIT Institute of Magnificent Achievers (KIMA) PCS

A PCSB staff member shared the following background and outlined the board’s proposal:

Background

Kamit Institute for Magnificent Achievers (KIMA) Public Charter School has been in existence for eight years and was authorized to establish a public charter middle and high school by the District of Columbia Board of Education (BoE). The school has a current enrollment of approximately 200 students in grades 6-12. The school’s mission is to “…provide a challenging and stimulating academic course of study for college and career bound adolescents, supplemented by hands-on engagement in environment through cultural exploration, social research in the field, and outdoor education.” According to the school’s most recent data, 70% of students receive free and reduced lunch, with 95% being African American and 5% being Latino. Approximately 13% of the student population is identified with special needs.

Through its accountability and monitoring process, the PCSB has found KIMA to be out of compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act P.L. 101-476. The Self-Study and Special Education Quality Reviews revealed that the school was out of compliance in the following areas:

At the time of the reviews, KIMA had no special education coordinator or certified special education teachers on staff.
The only related service that the school offered was Speech and Language therapy, but there was no evidence of other services were being implemented in accordance with the Individual Education Plans (IEPs).
At the time of the reviews, none of the IEPs reviewed showed evidence of required participation in meetings to develop, review, or revise the IEP.
All IEPs reviewed contained procedural violations in regard to incomplete IEP documents.
In student records reviewed, there was no evidence that appropriate evaluations were being used to determine students’ disabilities.
The IEPs reviewed did not show evidence of appropriate justifications for least restricted environment placement decisions.
The school’s special education program is operating at 16% of compliance as related to IEDIA. The school received a rating of 2 on a 12-point scale as a result of the special education quality review.

Further, the Self Study and Transcript Reviews found that KIMA PCS is performing inadequately in the following areas of Curriculum and Instruction, Governance and Management, School Climate and Evaluation:

The school has no written curriculum to foster an academic program that supports its mission of delivering an instructional program based on Kamitic philosophy and principles.
The school does not have adequate data management systems or standards policies and procedures established to maintain student performance or school-wide accountability data.
The school has failed to provide a comprehensive program that ensures that the school’s course offerings meet graduation requirements.
Parent, teacher, and student focus groups communicated inconsistency in the level of rigor presented in the curriculum and instructional program for a college preparatory program.
The school has experienced high staff turnover, with more that half of the faculty being new during the SY 07-08. Mid-year attrition has negatively impacted school-wide discipline initiatives.

Proposal

KIMA is a public charter high school designed to prepare both regular and special education students for college and careers. Therefore, accountability and strict adherence to the mandates of both federal and state legislation outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act P.L. 101-476 and Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007 as amended are essential. The D.C. School Reform Act, § 38-1802.13. as amended, established the following criterion by which a school can be considered for revocation: (a) Charter law or law violations; failure to meet goals.—Using the record established by the chartering authority, an eligible chartering authority that has granted a charter to a public charter school may revoke the charter if the eligible chartering authority determines that the school: (1) Committed a violation of a applicable law or a material violation of the conditions, terms, standards, or procedures set forth in the charter, including violations relating to the education of children with disabilities.

Based upon information gathered during the review processes relative to students with disabilities, KIMA PCS may be a candidate for charter revocation. However, as KIMA PCS is a school in transition from the BoE and purports that appropriate special education staff has been hired to serve students with disabilities, it is proposed that the PCSB issue the school a Notice of Probation. The Notice of Probation would be issued immediately and would remain in effective for ninety (90) days from the date of issuance. Should the school fail to satisfactorily address the following conditions within the prescribed timeframe, the PCSB may elect to propose charter revocation based upon Section 38-1802.13 (A1) of the D.C. School Reform Act, as amended:

KIMA PCS must provide evidence of an adequate staffing model, including certified special education teachers and administrators, to implement its academic programs;
KIMA PCS must provide evidence that all services identified in students’ IEPs are being provided in accordance with the IEPs;
KIMA PCS must provide evidence that all IEPs reflect the required participation in meetings to develop, review, or revise the IEP;
KIMA PCS must provide evidence that all IEPs have been appropriately evaluated to determine students’ disabilities; and
KIMA PCS must provide evidence of appropriate justifications for least restricted environment placement decisions.

The following school representatives were present to discuss the proposal:

Mr. Ur Aua H.R. Enkamit, Executive Director
Ms. M. Saungktakhu Richey, Principal
Ms. Baker, Student
Mr. Mwanga Akerele- Ae, President of Board of Trustees
Ms. Sandra Johnson, Board member
Ms. Cheryl Journiette, Parent

Mr. Nida asked if any of the representatives would like to respond to the proposal.

The school’s principal responded that, at the time of the SPED review, the school had an acting special education staff. She felt the statement in the report that said, “none of the IEPs” should have said that “none of the IEPs reviewed.” She contended that DCPS had done an extensive review in June 2006.

Ms. Richey acknowledged that the previous special education personnel were incompetent. She said she had spent the summer reviewing at least five candidates, and that they wanted to make sure they hired someone who is well qualified, not just certified. In the meantime, they hired a contractor who was not available full time, but whose reputation and competence was high.

Ms. Richey said that when they received their special education compliance review report, they began to address the issues outlined immediately. She said that when they received the letter dated April 2nd, it said “we welcome the opportunity to work with you to address these issues.” Prior to that letter, there was no indication of anything that they needed to be urgently concerned about.

Mr. Nida asked the principal how the PCSB special education reviews compared to those conducted by the BOE/DCPS. She responded that DCPS’s were no where near as rigorous as PCSB’s.

Mr. Marshall shared with the board and audience members that he and PCSB staff had met with school leaders on the previous Friday. He suggested that, like City Lights PCS, KAMIT had experienced a bumpy transition into the PCSB’s oversight. He asserted that KAMIT has been open for 8 years, and thus has less excuse for not fulfilling the basic requirements of the law. He advised the school leaders to focus intently on addresses the outstanding special education issues. In addtiion, he shared that the self-study and transcript review highlighted weaknesses in other areas. He advised the school’s leaders to focus first on the special education issues, but also the other issues that were exposed during the reviews.

Mr. Marshall motioned for a notice of probation for 30 days, in which time KAMIT would be expected to submit a plan to come into full compliance with the law for the provision of special education services.

Mr. Jentoft seconded the motion, clarifying that the school would have 30 days to write the plan and get it approved. He advised the school not to wait 30 days to turn in a plan without review.

Mr. Nida asked if KAMIT if it’s LEA status was an issue for the school, or if they were content with DCPS serving as the LEA for special education purposes.

Ms. Richey answered that DCPS has become more rigorous now that the Office of the State Superintendent of Education has taken responsibility. She added that the school leadership had discussed the pros and cons of the school becoming its own LEA, but hadn’t resolved it either way.

Ms. Baker asked if they had any challenges serving students with special needs. Ms. Richey responded that they have had difficulty hiring a credentialed special education coordinator, despite extensive interviews. She shared that they had a problem earlier in the year in which evaluations were not delivered in a timely fashion. She said it was turning around, as they were getting improved response from DCPS as the LEA.

Board member voted unanimously to carry the motion to place KAMIT Institute of Magnificent Achievers PCS on probation due to deficiencies in the provision of special education services.

Ms. Richey asked how the 30 day probation would roll out. Mr. Nida responded that the probation would remain until the condition is fulfilled. Ms. Richey asked what the process would be once the plan was submitted. Mr. Nida responded that the school leaders would be asked to come back before the board at the next monthly meeting.

Ms. Richey asked what type of media information is disseminated. Mr. Nida responded that members of the media were present, and he could not control what they reported, however, the communication from the PCSB would make efforts to have the media distinguish between the probation status and an imminent charter revocation. He indicated that the issues outlined in the probation status were issues the PCSB expected the school to fix.

Ms. Baker added that the school should clearly articulate to staff and the school community what had happened, and what the school leaders intended to do.

The school’s Board chair, Mr. Akerele, asked for confirmation that the school should develop a plan for special education services, and not to address the issues revealed in the self-study. Mr. Nida confirmed that the special education services should be the first priority. He added that staff could address any questions about other reviews and requirements.

Mr. Enkamit, the school’s executive director, stated that the school leaders were taken aback by the proposal. He said the special education review report, and the meeting with the Board and staff members did not convey the sense of urgency that was conveyed in the proposal presented during the board meeting. He suggested that had they gotten this sense of urgency in November, they could have begun addressing the issues with more urgency in December. He shared that he personally felt the process was unfair to the school. He also asked if he could share some positive information about the school.

Mr. Nida acknowledged Mr. Enkamit’s feelings, and asked him if he could wait until the other matters before the board were addressed before he made his presentation, which was outside the scope of the matters on the agenda. Mr. Enkamit agreed to wait.

Request to Increase Enrollment Ceiling - Excel Academy Public Charter School

A PCSB staff member provided the following background and outlined the school’s proposal:

Background

Section 2.3 of each school’s Charter Agreement states the maximum number of students a school may enroll over a five-year period. Further, it states that schools may submit written requests to “the Board to increase the maximum enrollment of the School from the original maximum enrollment for such five-year period provided that the School Corporation delivers to the Board (i) evidence that (a) the School Property has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increased enrollment, (b) the financial position of the School Corporation will improve as a result of such increase, (c) the quality of the educational program at the School is satisfactory and will not deteriorate as a result of such increase and (ii) such other items as the Board may request.”

A school must meet the following criteria in order to be considered for an enrollment ceiling increase request:

at least a satisfactory rating on all areas of the Program Development Review for the two most recent reviews;
access to a facility to accommodate the projected enrollment (as demonstrated through a lease);
a history of meeting enrollment projections (within at least 80% of enrollment projections for the two most recent years);
currently not under corrective action; and
at least a satisfactory rating on 3 of the 5 Fiscal Management criteria outlined in the Charter Review Framework.

Additional consideration will be given to the following:

size of the requested increase;
rationale for the requested increase;
years in operation; and
if beyond Year Six of operation, accreditation status (or at least a candidate for accreditation).

Proposal/Request

Excel Academy is requesting a revision to its previously submitted enrollment five-year enrollment projections (see chart below). School leadership’s decision to request a multi-year increase is driven by current demand. To date, the school has received 119 applications and feedback obtained from perspective families indicates a firm commitment to what Excel Academy has to offer. Of the applications received, 58 are for Pre-School, 35 for Pre-Kindergarten and 25 are for Kindergarten.

Academy Revised Enrollment Chart

Grade	2008-09	2009-10	2010-11	2011-12	2012-13
Pre-S	60	40	40	40	40
Pre-K	40	60	40	40	40
K	25	40	60	40	40
1		50	40	60	40
2			50	40	60
3				50	40
4					45
Total:	125	190	230	270	310

An evaluation of the school’s performance in comparison to the criteria reveals the following:

At least a satisfactory rating on all areas of the Program Development Review for the two most recent reviews
- N/A
Access to a facility to accommodate the projected enrollment (as demonstrated through a lease)
- School leadership has indicated that the school’s current location can comfortably accommodate three classes of Pre-School, two classes of Pre-Kindergarten and one class of kindergarten students.
A history of meeting enrollment projections (within at least 80% of enrollment projections for the two most recent years)
- N/A
Currently not under corrective action
- N/A
At least a satisfactory rating on 3 of the 5 Fiscal Management criteria outlined in the Charter Review Framework
- N/A

School representatives present at the meeting:

Ms. Kay Savage, Founder and president
Ms. Caroline John, Founding principal

Mr. Nida asked the school’s leaders why they wanted the increase. Ms. Savage answered that the school entered into a lease agreement last July. Since that time they were able to develop a curriculum and recruiting packages. She shared that they had received 118 applications, and additional parents were asking about the school. She said they currently have 51 families enrolled for the fall.

Mr. Nida asked about the classes they would offer for the fall. Ms. Savage answered that they would have three preschool, two pre-Kindergarten, and one Kindergarten class.

Mr. Jentoft asked if they had enough space. Ms. Savage answered, “yes, we are back-filling.”

Mr. Patrick asked PCSB’s finance manager, Jeremy Williams, to comment on the school’s budget. Mr. Williams responded that the school would be required to submit a revised budget by June 1.

Mr. Patrick motioned in favor of the proposal; Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. It was unanimously carried.

Request to Increase Enrollment Ceiling - Eagle Academy Public Charter School

A PCSB Staff member shared the background and outlined the school’s proposal:

Background

A school must meet the following criteria in order to be considered for an enrollment ceiling increase request:

at least a satisfactory rating on all areas of the Program Development Review for the two most recent reviews;
access to a facility to accommodate the projected enrollment (as demonstrated through a lease);
a history of meeting enrollment projections (within at least 80% of enrollment projections for the two most recent years);
currently not under corrective action; and
at least a satisfactory rating on 3 of the 5 Fiscal Management criteria outlined in the Charter Review Framework.

Additional consideration will be given to the following:

size of the requested increase;
rationale for the requested increase;
years in operation; and
if beyond Year Six of operation, accreditation status (or at least a candidate for accreditation).

Proposal/Request

Eagle Academy Public Charter School was chartered in 2003 to serve 125 students, ages 3-5 (grades pre-school to kindergarten). In February 2007, PCSB approved Eagle Academy’s request to increase its maximum enrollment threshold to 294 students for SY2007-2008. The school exceeded its enrollment forecast by meeting 101% of its SY2007-08 enrollment projections as indicated in the table below:

Enrollment Status	2006-07	2007-08	2008-09
Current Enrollment	256	297	N/A
Projected Enrollment	260	294	330
Proposed Enrollment Increase	N/A	N/A	330

School leadership’s long-term growth strategy, coupled with increased demand for the school’s programmatic offerings, necessitate that the school’s maximum enrollment threshold be increased to 330 students for SY2008-09. The school has a waiting list, is in good standing and has submitted timely financial statements to the PCSB, per their charter.

An evaluation of the school’s performance in comparison to the criteria reveals the following:

At least a satisfactory rating on all areas of the Program Development Review for the two most recent reviews.
- In the 2005-06 review, the school received exemplary and satisfactory ratings in all areas.
Access to a facility to accommodate the projected enrollment (as demonstrated through a lease)
- The existing Certificates of Occupancy can accommodate the expected enrollment.
A history of meeting enrollment projections (within at least 80% of enrollment projections for the two most recent years)
- The school’s enrollment projection satisfaction rate was 98% and 101% respectively for SY’s 2006-2007 and 2007-2008.
Currently not under corrective action
- Eagle Academy is not currently under any corrective action.
At least a satisfactory rating on 3 of the 5 Fiscal Management criteria outlined in the Charter Review Framework
- Eagle Academy demonstrated satisfactory or above average performance in 5 of 5 categories.

School representatives present:

Ms. Cassandra Pinckney, Founder and Executive Director
Mr. Ronald Hasty, Principal

Mr. Nida asked the school’s leaders why they wanted the increase. Ms. Pinkney responded that the school that was co-locating in the space has left the building, and they have a lot of space to fill. She said they had leased part of the space, but the remaining vacancy would put a strain on their budget. She added that there is considerable interested from parents of young children.

Mr. Jones motioned to approve the request. Mr. Patrick seconded the motion, and it was unanimously carried.

Request to Approve Accountability Plan - Maya Angelou Public Charter School

A PCSB Staff member offered the following background and outlined the school’s proposal:

Background

In its monthly meeting held on January 28, 2008, the District of Columbia Public Charter School Board (PCSB) placed Maya Angelou Public Charter School (MAPCS) on Charter Warning. As part of the PCSB monitoring process, schools in their fifth year of operation receive feedback on their academic, non-academic, and organizational performance, including governance, compliance, and fiscal management, against the goals set out in the school’s accountability plans and the PCSB’s Charter Review Framework.

In conducting verification of accountability plan data, MAPCS was unable to provide student performance data for the approved alternative assessment designated on its plan (Star Reading and Star Math). The school, therefore, was unable to provide evidence of student achievement for all grade levels of students beyond those assessed by the state-wide assessment (DC-CAS). Additionally, the school did not meet 4 of 18 academic targets considered during the preliminary charter review process. Although there was a school-based decision to change the assessment from Star Reading/ Math to NWEA (Northwest Evaluation Association), the change was not officially approved by the PCSB. During the SY 06-07, MAPCS administered the NWEA to a cohort of students in grades nine through eleven in order to establish a measure of academic growth. Because there is no identified academic target for this assessment on the accountability plan, the school is unable to document performance data for the newly adopted assessment (NWEA) within the Charter Review Framework.

Proposal/Request

In a memorandum from the Executive Director dated April 2, 2008, MAPCS officially proposed an accountability plan amendment to include academic targets to be considered in the Fifth-Year Charter Review. The proposed targets would provide performance data about the growth of students attending MAPCS for 1 or more years. It is the intent of the school to provide a broader view of the academic performance of students enrolled using the data below.

Baseline data for the cohort was established in SY06-07 in is delineated per campus.

Evans – 54% of students assessed during the 2006-2007 school year showed RIT growth gain of 1 or greater on the NWEA Reading MAP test.
Evans – 55% of students assessed during the 2006-2007 school year showed RIT growth gain of 1 or greater on the NWEA Math MAP test.

Shaw- 55% of students assessed during the 2006-2007 school year showed RIT growth gain of 1 or greater on the NWEA Reading MAP test.
Shaw- 47% of students assessed during the 2006-2007 school year showed RIT growth gain of 1 or greater on the NWEA Math MAP test.

The following proposed target represents a cohort of students in grades 9-11 and will be targeted for the fifth year of the school’s review cycle (SY 07-08).

Reading
2% annual increase in the number of students with a RIT growth gain of 1 or greater on the NWEA Reading MAP test within the cohort tested over consecutive school years.

Math
2% annual increase in the number of students with a RIT growth gain of 1 or greater on the NWEA Math MAP test within the cohort tested over consecutive school years.

School representatives present:

Ms. Cynthia Robbins, ED S
Ms. Thaly Germaine, Principal Evans
Mr. Eugene Pinkard, Principal Shaw

Mr. Nida asked the school leaders to share their reason for the proposal.

Ms. Robbins responded the school’s leaders want to make sure that as they approach the high stakes review year, they can show growth. She said their current assessment doesn’t show that.

Ms. Baker asked how changing from STAR to NWEA had impacted the program. Ms. Robbins answered it had impacted the school in a positive way, as they are getting more substantive data.

Mr. Jones motioned to approve the request. Mr. Patrick seconded the motion, and it was unanimoulsy carried.

KIMA Presentation

Mr. Nida invited KIMA’s school leaders back to make their presentation.

Mr. Enkamit first asked about request for enrollment ceiling increase, stating that he thought it would require a charter amendment. He asked if was too late to request an increase. Mr. Nida confirmed that it would not require a charter amendment or public hearing, but that it was too late to request it for the fall.

Mr. Enkamit shared with the board members that KAMIT is one of eight public schools that has made AYP two times; He added that the school is one of three public schools with open enrollment. He suggested that, In spite of all the school’s challenges, it is an accomplishment that should be noted.

Mr. Enkamit shared that ten percent of the D.C. students selected for the POSSE program were KAMIT students. He introduced one of the students who was present at the meeting. Mr. Nida asked the student what school she planned to attend and what she would study. The student, Ms. Baker, answered that she planned to attend Suwanee College, and would study bio medical engineering.

Mr. Nida asked her why that major. Ms. Baker [no relation] asked the student what kinds of courses at KIMA led her to that decision.

Ms. Baker answered that through her enrollment at KIMA she had the opportunity to go to engineering conferences and programs, including a program encouraging women to pursue engineering careers. She chose Suwanne because when she visited the school she learned of opportunities to study engineering there.

Mr. Nida asked the student what influenced her your success. The student responded that her cousin is an engineer.

Mr. Enkamit added that the student is one of the students that had been with KIMA for 4 years. She is one of 34 students scheduled to graduate. Of those, 16 have been with KIMA for 4 years. He added that another of the graduating students who had been with KIMA for four year had been accepted to several schools including Harvard. He suggested that DCPS had raised its standards to KIMA’s standards.

Mr. Enkamit added that their program allows students to take classes at UDC. He referred to a nationwide study which reported that 71 colleges have dual enrollment program, in which 5% of high school students participate. He said 7% of KIMA’s student body are enrolled in UDC’s dual enrollment program. He said Ms. Baker started taking college classes in her junior year.

Mr. Nida asked the student if she would come back to DC after finishing college. Ms. Baker answered that she didn’t think so. She said she wanted to travel and see how she can help other people in third world countries. She said she wants to affect change.

Mr. Nida and other board members thanked KIMA representatives and the student for their presentation.

Proposed Timeline for Conversion Applications

PCSB staff shared the background and outlined the proposal:

Background
The DC charter school law allows for the conversion of DC public schools or existing private or independent schools in the District of Columbia to public charter school status. The law requires the conversion application to be endorsed by two-thirds of: (a) the total number of parents of minor students attending the school or (b) the total number of adult students attending the school. Additionally, the application must be endorsed by at least two-thirds of full-time teachers employed by the school.

In addition to endorsement signatures, the PCSB Application Guidelines require conversion applications to include:

rosters, including the names and addresses, of: all minor students, including the names and addresses of their parents or legal guardians; all adult students attending the school; and all full time teachers employed by the school;
a brief explanation of the procedures that have been used to obtain and count the signatures of parents;
a description of the community outreach efforts that provides clear evidence that the community has been informed of the proposed conversion;
the Conversion Endorsement Certification form; achievement data for the past three years, including performance on district-wide assessments;
attendance data for the past three years; and
a report of incidents involving outside authorities (police, fire department) over the past three years.

While the conversion guidelines for public, private or independent schools are clear, the charter school law does not prescribe a timeframe for an applicant to begin operating as a public charter school. Historically, the PCSB placed all newly chartered schools on a fifteen-month pre-opening track. The fifteen-month window provides schools the necessary time to address any conditions identified in the application, recruit staff and new students, and as needed, time to secure a suitable facility. In addition, the PCSB utilizes the time to conduct trainings (residency, OLAMS, financial, accountability plan development, etc.) so that schools may become fully cognizant of the Board’s expectation prior to opening. This timeframe also allows the Office of the Chief Financial Officer to incorporate the schools into the next year’s budget based on their enrollment projections. As well, the PCSB uses this period to adjust its internal capacities and structures to ensure that it will effectively oversee and provide meaningful support to each authorized charter school.

Proposal
The educational landscape in Washington, D.C. is ever evolving and a significant number of traditional organizations are interested in joining the charter school movement to serve a diverse learning community. Such organizations, particularly existing public, private and independent schools may have the assets and human capital necessary for charter conversion earlier than PCSB’s standing 15-month prerequisite to begin operations. Essentially, these schools may demonstrate the capacity to begin operations within three months of being granted full approval and they may prefer to serve their target population sooner than later. Other worthy applicants, however, may need additional time to address concerns, i.e. facilities, enrollment, or curriculum development. In the event that a conversion applicant requests that their approval be considered for opening within three months of the application approval, staff proposes specific criteria that reflect PCSB’s approval requirements and include milestones that are critical to successfully opening within three months of application approval.

Proposed Timeline for Conversion Application Criteria

The PCSB grants full approval when an applicant has: a) obtained nonprofit status; b) a curriculum or a timeline for its development; c) identified highly qualified individuals to fill key roles—chief academic officer, curriculum leader, business officer, and legal counsel; and d) secured a suitable facility. In addition, an applicant must meet the following criteria in order to covert to a charter school within three months of approval:

certificate of occupancy;
a fully developed curriculum;
demonstration of enrollment that would sustain the school’s fiscal viability;
accommodated in the OCFO’s annual budget; and
evidence of past academic success.

Should an applicant fail to meet all of the above criteria, it will be granted permission to operate fifteen months from the date of conditional approval.

In determining whether to approve an application for a charter conversion within three months of approval, the PCSB may consider any other factors it deems appropriate to determine whether a school will be successful given a short-time frame for opening.

It is proposed that the Timeline for Conversion Application Criteria become effective beginning with the 2008 Application Review Cycle.

PCSB Deputy Director, Tamara Lumpkin, shared that the proposal was a follow up from the previous month. As part of the research, staff reached out to the national alliance for public charter schools, Friends of Choice in Urban Schools (FOCUS), the D.C. Association of Chartered Public Schools, and shared it with staff of the City Council.

Mr. Jentoft asked fellow board members to consider how it would view schools going into restructuring seeking to reconstitute under a different program.

Ms. Baker responded that it could be possible to have a school in restructuring for reasons that are irrelevant to the quality of the school. She suggested that a school could be in restructuring because of one subgroup consistently not making AYP.

Mr. Nida responded that since the PCSB has its own definition of success, it can use some common sense.

Mr. Jentoft stated that he wanted to be sure that the Board can be flexible.

Mr. Patrick moved to approve the proposal. Mr. Jones seconded the motion and it was unanimously carried.

Resolution – Per Pupil Funding Following Students

Mr. Jentoft shared that the issue of funding following students when they transfer from one public school to another on many occasions. He stated that critics of charter school and members of the city council had advocated for it. He stated that since schools are paid for students enrolled at the time of the enrollment audit, there is no financial incentive for charter schools to take additional students after the enrollment audit. Mr. Jentoft proposed a resolution in support of payments following students. He suggested that there be at least one other time frame when students are counted. He asserted that it is the fair thing to do, to have the funds follow the child through the course of the year. He acknowledged that the PCSB could not effectuate this change, but suggested the board get it on the record.

Mr. Patrick seconded the motion. Mr. Marshall stated that he thought it made sense. Mr. Nida added that the spirit is straight forward.

Ms. Baker added that there had been an OSSE study that proved that there were not significantly more students leaving charter schools than DCPS. She acknowledged that ensuring that the money follows the child would be difficult to maneuver; a system would have to be established. Yet, she agreed that it would a good thing for the board to support.

Board members unanimously carried the motion.

Resolution – Limited Neighborhood Preference

Mr. Jentoft proposed an additional resolution in support of a limited neighborhood preference for enrollment in charter schools. He shared the rationale that, because charter school enroll children citywide, there is no benefit for the immediate neighborhood where school chooses to locate, unless it is a conversion. Mr. Jentoft suggested that it would ease a lot of fears across neighborhoods to support a limited neighborhood preference. He asserted that it might be something looked upon favorably by community groups when new charter schools are seeking facilities.

Mr. Marshall stated that he would like to hear from the two board members who were not present (Tony Colon and Dora Marcus).

Ms. Baker questioned whether that provision would further discourage children from attending DCPS neighborhood schools.

Mr. Jentoft suggested that the resolution be tabled after board members had more time to consider the proposal.

Mr. Nida suggested they might act on the motion during the May meeting. He asked Dr. Ramona Edelin, Executive Director of the D.C. Association of Chartered Public Schools, who was present in the audience, if she would give some thought to the idea and share her thoughts later. She agreed to do so.

Mr. Nida asked Ms. Edelin if she cared to offer any other public comment.

Ms. Edelin stated that she wanted to impress upon the board members as deeply as possible how painful it had been over the past 18 months for charter schools previously authorized by the D.C. Board of Education to go through “a bonafied authorizer crisis”, which included the transition to the PCSB oversight. She stated that everyone understands that OSSE needs greater resources and capacity; she asserted that they felt the same was the case with the PCSB. She added that nobody is pointing out that the schools also need greater resources to make the transition. She stated that they don’t know what they don’t know. She asked that the board members be a bit forbearing as they work through the transition, and she asked that staff help them understand what support is available.

Ms. Baker thanked Dr. Edelin for her insights, and responded that the schools need to be very much aware of the additional energy and intellect that it has taken to be sure that those schools were served well and fairly. She shared that the PCSB didn’t get all of the money that had previously been allocated to the BOE, and the job to facilitate the transition has been beyond anyone’s expectations.

Dr. Edelin suggested that there should be greater communication between the PCSB and the transition schools; perhaps more public communication. She asserted the importance of having high quality charter schools and authorizers, for the sake of the students, the city, and the charter school movement. She offered her support, and to be a bridge in any way needed.

Mr. Nida thanked Dr. Edelin for her comments.

With no further business scheduled, adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:40 pm.