County Board of Education Ronald L. Stewart Center 77 Santa Barbara Road, Pleasant Hill, California December 7, 2011 ROLL CALL:
Pamela Mirabella, Area 1 Trustee; Daniel Gomes, Area 3 Trustee; Richard Asadoorian, Area 4 Trustee; and Cynthia Ruehlig, Area 5 Trustee
Absent:
Ellen Elster, Area 2 Trustee (due to illness)
Others:
Joseph Ovick, Karen Sakata, Pamela Comfort, Bill Clark, Peggy Marshburn, Mac Carey, Terry Foley, and Laura Dorsey Huerta, County Office staff; Joseph Partansky, Concord; Willie Mims, ECNAACP/BPA; Neil McChesney, Petitioner; Pat Middendorf; Petitioner; Marshall Mayotte, Clayton; Deborah Cooksey, counsel for MDUSD; MDUSD CFO Bryan Richards; Cheryl Hanson, MDUSD trustee; Linda Mayo, MDUSD trustee; Lorrie Davis, Concord; Dorothy Weisenberger, Martinez; Kathleen Strange; Cindy Rubin, Pleasant Hill; Pam Hall, Clayton; Joe Stokley, Pleasant Hill; Michael McNally, Concord; Ray Triana; Pleasant Hill; Marcia Eaton, Pleasant Hill; Jamie Terry, Clayton; John Wright, Clayton; Pittsburg; Cathy Boer; Julie Pierce, Clayton City Council; Jim Mills, Walnut Creek; Cate Sundling, Martinez; Christine Reamer; Amber Lineweaver; Dax Crabbe; Deb Heinzmann; Barb Johnson, Office of Congressman George Miller; Steven and Kathleen Prato, Clayton; Suzanne Molnar, Concord; April and Kendall Winship, Clayton; Jennifer DeAngelis, Clayton; Tom Fester, Concord; Steve Oldenbourg; Pleasant Hill; Yolanda Jagger, Concord; Jennifer Voris, Pleasant Hill; Leandro Enriquez, Concord; Alison Bacigalupo, Clayton; Grant Bazรกn, Clayton; Cindy McMurry, Clayton; JoAnne Creamer; Jennifer Packard, Clayton; Megan Kammer, Clayton; Ilana Samuels, Concord; Jeff Rogers, Clayton; Samantha Bergum, Concord; Sheila Beyn; Paige Anderson; Andrea Anderson; Clarice Adams, Concord; Livier Juarez; Dana Deely; Chase Davenport, California Charter Schools Association; Cathy Myers, Clayton; Phil Javete, Pleasant Hill; David Shuey, Clayton City Council; Kristy Smith, Clayton; Kathy Williams, Clayton; Lynette Giacokobazzi, Clayton; Bill Morones; Tom Branich, Clayton; Karen Jenkins, Walnut Creek; Gary Swanson, Clayton; Rogert Haserot, Clayton; Ana Villalobos, Concord; Michelle Latson, Walnut Creek; Sherry Whitmarsh, Concord; Lorenzo Ramos, Concord; Laurie Arbour, Concord; Joan Miller, , President of the Mt. Diablo Music Education Foundation; Stephen Bauer, Clayton; Sanjay Ray, Clayton; Warren Easly, Concord; Daniel Sullivan, Clayton; Brian Corbett, Walnut Creek; Rebecca Jensen, Pittsburg; Achilles Walker, Antioch; Paula Dillon; Lynda and Gillian Rush; Dylan Perreira; John McMorris; Ruth Carver, Walnut Creek; Jae Greenwald; Paul Minney; Joe Medrano, Vice Mayor, Clayton; Satinder Malhi; Office of Senator Mark DeSaulnier; Linda Loza, Walnut Creek; Howard Gellar, Mayor, Clayton; Les Garaventa, Jr., Concord; Ted Meriam, Clayton; Matt Gorgen, Concord; Steve Gonsalves, Clayton; Laura Hoffmeister, Concord City Council; Gary Swanson, Clayton; Keith Franklin, Concord; Rizzo Modicue; Hank Stratford, Clayton; Clayton Martin; James Mills, Walnut Creek; Carlyn Obringer, California Charter Schools Association; Mark Herbert, Office of Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla; Daniel Reynolds, Concord; and Karen Jenkins. A partial list of attendees is on file at the County Office of Education.
Presiding:
Pamela Mirabella, outgoing Board President, presided until after the election of new officers; she then passed the gavel to incoming Board President Cynthia Ruehlig, who presided for the remainder of the meeting. The regular meeting of the Contra Costa County Board of Education was called to order at 5:36 p.m. at Pleasant Hill Elementary School, 2097 Oak Park Boulevard, Pleasant Hill, California, with the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a rendition of the National Anthem sung by Trustee Richard Asadoorian in honor of National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. Mrs. Mirabella informed the attendees that following the Public Hearing on the Petition to Establish the Clayton Valley Charter High School, the Board meeting would recess and reconvene at the Contra Costa County Office of Education, 77 Santa Barbara Road, Pleasant Hill, California.
County Board of Education December 7, 2011
Reorganization of the Board
Outgoing President Pamela Mirabella announced the opening of nominations for the 2011-12 Board Officers. Mr. Gomes nominated the following slate of officers: Cynthia Ruehlig for president, Richard Asadoorian for vice president, and Ellen Elster for clerk. Mrs. Mirabella amended the motion to include the following caveat: If Mrs. Elster is unable or unwilling to serve as the clerk, Mr. Gomes would then serve instead in that capacity. Mr. Asadoorian seconded the amended motion. There being no further names put forth, nominations for president, vice president, and clerk were closed; and the Board voted 4-0 (Elster absent) to approve the proposed slate of officers. Mrs. Ruehlig then presided over the remainder of the meeting. Mrs. Ruehlig thanked Mrs. Mirabella for her excellent service as Board president and for her mentorship during the past year; she also presented her with a gift card from the Board, noting that Board members and staff members may also wish to express their thanks to Mrs. Mirabella and would be given that opportunity during Board Reports.
AGENDA REVIEW AND ADOPTION
The Board adopted the agenda as presented (M/S: Mirabella/Gomes; Elster absent).
PUBLIC COMMENT
Joseph Partansky addressed the Board, congratulating the newly elected Board officers and encouraging the Board members to review their agenda materials. He then brought to the Board’s attention that, while mention is made on the agenda that the Board would provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, there is also a requirement under the law to make the agenda available in an alternative format (e.g., Braille), which is not included in the agenda wording. He added that, in the future, he would also like to see wording included on the agenda that informs the public that copies of staff reports and other materials are available at the meeting venue or copies provided at a cost set forth in the Board’s policies. Additionally, he commented that Item 7.7.2 (consideration of adoption of proposed Schedule of Regulation Meetings of the County Board of Education) indicates that meetings would take place at the Santa Barbara Road address, and he expressed concern that meetings may take place elsewhere and that the public needs appropriate notice of changes in venue. He also informed the Board that, according to the Brown Act, the Consent Actions section of the Board’s agenda should include wording that a member of the public may request that any item under Consent be removed from the list for the Board to act on separately; and he reiterated that the agenda wording needs to be reviewed. He also mentioned that wording that informs the public of availability of language translation needs to be added to the agenda and that the public should be informed prior to the January 11, 2012, Board meeting that hard copies of all materials are available to them. Willie Mims of the East County NAACP and the Pittsburg Black Political Association congratulated Cynthia Ruehlig on being elected by her Board to serve as its 2011-12 president and wished her success during her presidency. Mr. Mims also commented regarding the Brown Act requirement that sets forth that the public has the right to speak on any item on the agenda, including any item under Consent, and he agreed that it is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act not to provide accommodation for disabled members of the public; and if the agenda wording is determined to be deficient in this regard, he encouraged the Board to remedy the situation to ensure that these legal requirements are met.
CLOSED SESSION
None.
RECOGNITIONS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS Petition to Establish the Clayton Valley Charter High School
At 5:50 p.m., Mrs. Ruehlig opened the Public Hearing on the Petition to Establish the Clayton Valley Charter High School. She invited Associate Superintendent Bill Clark to provide his comments based on his analysis of the petition, and Mr. Clark stated that the proposed charter high school is a 9-12 grade conversion charter school whose goal is to have the flexibility to develop and sustain traditional and innovative programs and practices that will promote student acceleration; that the Petitioners assert that autonomy and fiscal management, scheduling, and curricular and instructional opportunities will empower Clayton Valley Charter High School to better meet student needs through focused collaboration; and that the school intends to begin in September 2012, maintaining the current enrollment of 1,870 students. He noted that on November 8, 2011, the Mt. Diablo USD’s board of education denied the charter petition for the Clayton Valley Charter High School based on the district’s findings that the Petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program because they have presented an unrealistic financial and operational plan. He reported that the
2
County Board of Education December 7, 2011
Clayton Valley Charter High School has appealed the denial to the Contra Costa County Board of Education and that Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations requires that a charter petition appeal to the county board of education be provided to the county board as denied. He noted that when presented to the county board of education for consideration, no material revisions or additions may be made to the petition; however, the petition appealed to the Contra Costa County Board of Education includes additional pages (pp. 824 to 844) that were not a part of the denied petition; therefore, these pages will not be considered part of the petition on which the Mt. Diablo USD based its denial. Mrs. Ruehlig then invited the Petitioners to offer their comments regarding their appeal of the proposed charter school conversion. Prior to the Petitioners’ presentation, Mr. Gomes asked if the budget prepared by the Petitioners’ CPA, Marshall Mayotte, for its appeal is a revised budget that differs from the budget that was presented to the Mt. Diablo USD. Petitioner Neil McChesney explained that pages 824 through 844 in the submission are not officially part of the charter that is being appealed and that it was included in the submission for informational purposes only. He noted that it is being removed from the packet that was submitted; however, the Petitioners plan to resubmit it to the County Board for its information as it proceeds through the appeal process. Clayton Valley Charter High School Petitioner Pat Middendorf introduced herself and Co-Petitioner Neil McChesney and thanked the staff and Board members for so quickly scheduling a public hearing on this matter. Ms. Middendorf explained that, after many issues had built up over the years at Clayton Valley High School, they arrived at the conclusion that something had to change. She listed the following concerns that compelled them to initiate the charter school petition: low Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) scores; low Academic Performance Index (API) (CVHS is in the bottom 10% of similar schools in the state); minorities are poorly served (in a study by Education Trust-West, the district earned a “D in educating African-Americans, Latinos, and socio-economically disadvantaged students); and English Language (EL) learners are poorly served (an audit conducted by Norm Gold Associates in 2011 found the district severely lacking in EL instruction and academic outcomes). Mr. McChesney explained that, in seeking solutions to these failures, the Staff Senate at CVHS comprised of teachers and other staff leaders tried to find solutions, and, after identifying a charter conversion as a strong possibility, a core group of dedicated individuals formed the steering committee for the movement. He noted that the group maintained good communication on its progress and transparency, and he informed the Board that there has been an amazing amount of energy and momentum behind the movement from the entire community. He pointed out that the group partnered with some of the best professionals in the charter business: the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA); Excellent Education Development (ExED); and Middleton, Young, and Minney (MYM), which is a law firm that has helped vet the charter and ensure that the petitioners are doing everything by the book every step of the way. He then mentioned the following top benefits that can be derived from a charter: ownership, accountability, and broad stakeholder involvement that provides on-site management and the ability to make swift, tailored decisions to allow them to be proactive rather than reactive in today’s educational environment, especially with regard to fiscal stability and responsibility. Ms. Middendorf explained that the streamlined decision-making can make CVHS a 21st century campus, and she provided examples of how new editions of texts can be accessed through the use of electronic tablets and how special education support programs could be put in place, such as the innovative freshman transition program, to acclimate all incoming middle schoolers to a high school climate with high school goals. She described the excitement of the teachers as they explore how to widen their curricula. Mr. McChesney explained that the group embedded these core values, principles, and benefits into the charter petition, and he highlighted some of the strengths they have identified in their petition. First, he described that, with regard to finances, ExED would be maintaining a constant presence on the campus to train CVCHS employees to be fiscally independent and that ExED has identified banking partners and lines of credit ready for the charter; and he noted that ExED has a track record of success with both efficient spending practices and fiscally solvent charters in the state. He listed some of the positive outcomes from this fiscal solvency and responsibility: elimination of furlough days, establish-ment of the freshman transition program, an increase in student services, improved employee benefits, and generation of substantial reserves. Ms. Middendorf informed the Board that another strength of the charter is transparent, responsible, accountable governance and explained that their governing board and standing committees would be comprised of parents, students, community members, paraprofessionals, and other stakeholders. She mentioned that
3
County Board of Education December 7, 2011
they are looking to expand their ROP classes, and they are seeking to work with colleges and universities to explore the possibility of bringing in an AA degree program to their campus. The Petitioners then addressed the possible impacts of the charter conversion, beginning with the following questions: Why is the MDUSD unwilling or unable to provide the actual cost to run CVHS, why does the MDUSD spend nearly $830 per ADA on central office costs (almost twice the state average for comparable districts), why is the MDUSD suggesting that funding equity currently exists among district schools when its student report cards clearly show otherwise, why is the MDUSD choosing not to spend allocated categorical funds on EL students (instead, they have opted to roll over the money annually, with nearly $4.5 million last year), and why is the MDUSD claiming financial hardship when it has more than $43 million in reserves (15.87%)? Petitioners also addressed the MDUSD’s argument that the charter petition has a problem with its proposed budget in that they are alleging that the charter high school would be taking money from other schools in the district and that it would not be fiscally solvent. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the charter school’s alleged fiscal impact and insolvency, the MDUSD was encouraged to do a study; the MDUSD appointed FCMAT to perform an audit, but not a full audit; and he pointed out that the Petitioners believe it is essential for a full audit to be performed and that the Petitioners deserve to be provided with the necessary numbers. The Petitioners then played a brief video prepared by CVHS students in which they expressed support for a charter conversion high school.
Mrs. Ruehlig stated that, following the presentation by the MDUSD, Board members would have an opportunity to ask questions of the staff, the Petitioners, and the district. After the question-and-answer period, she stated that the Board would take comments from the public and that members of the public would be heard in the order in which they submitted their speakers’ cards. She requested that speakers’ comments not be duplicative in nature in order to move the hearing along, and if their opinions have already been voiced by a prior speaker, the Board would appreciate it if they would simply state that they agreed with those prior statements. Mrs. Ruehlig directed all members of the public who wished to offer comments to fill out a speakers’ card and submit it to the Board Clerk at this time; however, she noted that if anyone did not get to speak this evening due to time constraints, the Board would like to encourage them to submit their comments in writing to the Board Clerk, which would then be forwarded to the Board for consideration. MDUSD Superintendent Steven Lawrence then addressed the Board, stating that he and other district representatives would be providing information that the district had considered in denying the proposed charter. He noted that if any of the MDUSD board members present this evening should choose to speak, they would be speaking as private citizens. He introduced Deborah Cooksey, who is part of the MDUSD’s in-house counsel team that led the review of the charter petition. Ms. Cooksey thanked the Board for giving the district the opportunity to speak and for removing Tab 2 (b) from the public record, the website, and the Board materials, as that information was included after the MDUSD had made its decision and, therefore, could not be considered by the County Board. She also asked that if at some point Board members plan to consider the information under Tab 2 (b), the MDUSD’s chief financial officer would like the opportunity to respond to those questions this evening. She stated that the new information may be important for the Board to have, but MDUSD representatives do not wish to belabor this point if the Board has no intention of including Tab 2 (b) as part of the record; and she reminded the Board that this new information was submitted in violation of the Education Code regulations. Ms. Cooksey then reviewed the Education Code requirements for approval of charters, stating that, in considering charter petitions that have been previously denied, the County Office is not limited to a review based solely on the reasons for denial by the school district; rather, it must review the petition as a whole and may find and use other grounds for denial based on its own review. She further stated that the Board shall not deny a charter unless, among other things, it finds that the Petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program that is set forth in the petition. She explained that the MDUSD board initially approved the charter based on numerous instructional, personnel, special education, insurance, and fiscal conditions; subsequently, MDUSD staff determined that many, if not all, of the instructional, special education, and insurance conditions had been met; however, there were significant shortcomings in the fiscal conditions; and, for that reason, the MDUSD board accepted the staff’s recommendation and denied the charter. She then proceeded to discuss several of the 12 initial conditions that the MDUSD board had listed
4
County Board of Education December 7, 2011
when they conditionally approved the petition before later denying it. These conditions included adequacy to fund programs described in the petition, exclusion of sources of revenue that the Petitioners could not substantiate (e.g., remove that material from their budget), and addressing the negative cash balances identified in the initial budget document along with identifying and linking all FTEs to job type in the charter budget. She noted that one of the requirements that was not met and about which the MDUSD was very concerned was the fiscal recovery plan addressing the significant shortfalls that would exist on an annual basis, based on the numbers that the Petitioners presented. Ms. Cooksey then discussed the process for clearing the conditions, explaining that she has worked in many districts before on many charter school petitions and that she feels that the CVCHS Petitioners’ level of cooperation and collaboration during the process was unprecedented; and she noted the day-to-day process that was followed during the negotiations with the Petitioners. Additionally, she stated that the MDUSD received updated information and fiscal guidance from the CCCOE on November 3 and that they had forwarded that information on November 4 to the Petitioners, asking them to ensure that all of the guidance that the CCCOE has required of the MDUSD and that the MDUSD is requiring of the Petitioners is submitted in the final budget that the Petitioners would be submitting to the MDUSD board for consideration. She noted that MDUSD Chief Financial Officer Bryan Richards was ensured by ExED’s fiscal consultant that all of the CCCOE’s guidance had been incorporated into the final budget document that was submitted to the MDUSD. She emphasized that, notwithstanding the district’s one-revision rule, by November 4 the MDUSD staff had accepted six different iterations of fiscal data; Mr. Richards then examined the numbers to determine whether or not they met the conditions of the MDUSD board. She also assured the County Board that all requested information for clearing conditions was provided by MDUSD staff in a timely manner; however, she noted that information was provided in the same form in which the district maintains it, since they are not required to put the information into a form to make it easier for an outside entity to understand it. She stated that she is unaware that the Petitioners have made a non-public school placement information request having to do with special education students and their non-public placement in other schools throughout the state and that she does not believe it is correct that the Petitioners requested this information or that the district was noncompliant in responding. Ms. Cooksey stated that the district did respond to the Petitioners regarding rental estimate information on Proposition 39 negotiations over the cost of renting the facility. She emphasized that the Petitioners did have an opportunity to provide a revised budget that included the CCCOE’s first interim guidance and that after submitting six different iterations, the district believes that they have afforded the Petitioners ample opportunity to get the numbers right; additionally, MDUSD Chief Financial Officer Bryan Richards would be presenting his assessment that the Petitioners were unable to submit workable figures. Mr. Richards then addressed the Board, stating that after the Petitioners had submitted their final financial information with the incorporation of the CCCOE’s guidance, he compared the figures to the MDUSD board’s requirements for the conditions of approval, as well as the CCCOE’s first interim guidance, and determined that not all of the CCCOE’s guidance was included in the budget documents; in addition, some of the MDUSD board’s conditions had not been met. Specifically, he pointed out several concerns that he had regarding the figures and stated that the largest issues had to do with revenues being overstated and the fact that the Petitioners did not incorporate the CCCOE’s guidance with regard to the loss of COLA in 2013-14 and the midyear trigger cuts being ongoing rather than one-time reductions; and, as a result, their revenue is overstated by $530,000 in the first year, overstated by $839,000 in the second year, and, depending on whether or not the trigger cuts end up truly being ongoing and continuing well into the future, overstated by either $315,000 or $848,000 in the third year out. He also expressed concern that between the first and last iterations the projected special education expenditures were reduced when other costs increased or there were losses in revenue. He also noted with regard to the negative cash issue, when corrected for overstated revenues, the cash projections were negative in 14 out of the 36 months of the three-year period even when taking into account the $2 million loan the Petitioners included as an additional funding source. Additionally, he stated that in the last petition version submitted by the Petitioners, the food services FTE was still included in the submission but was not included in the budget and there was not an increase in Other Services to cover the cost of outsourcing food service, which the Petitioners had indicated they would be doing in the narrative of their prior budget. Lastly, since there was no fiscal recovery plan to address the overstated revenues and the cash shortfalls, the Petitioners had not met six out of the twelve fiscal conditions set forth by the MDUSD board; as a result, the MDUSD staff recommended
5
County Board of Education December 7, 2011
denial of the charter petition, and the MDUSD board subsequently denied the petition. Mr. Richards commented that the information that was submitted to the County Board and subsequently pulled from the record (Tab 2 [b]) was a seventh iteration of the budget from the Petitioners and that the MDUSD has not had a full opportunity to analyze the new figures since they only became aware of them on Monday; however, the MDUSD does have some issues related to the new figures, and he left the matter to the will of the County Board as to whether or not it would like him to respond to questions on the new material. Mr. Clark noted that a discussion of the new material is probably not warranted at this time because the budget figures represent significantly complex calculations; therefore, he recommended that the figures be submitted for further analysis. Mr. Gomes asked Mr. Richards if he could estimate the percentage that the $2 million loan would represent of the proposed charter school’s budget, and Mr. Richards provided an approximate estimate of 15% of CVCHS’s entire budget; however, it would represent approximately 85% of the state deferral amount. Mr. Gomes informed Mr. Richards that he had read an article in which it was stated that 35% of new charter schools’ budgets represents overhead costs, and Mr. Richards responded that Mr. Gomes would need to ask the Petitioners to be certain but that he does not believe that that percentage is accurate. Mr. Asadoorian asked if the $2 million line of credit is being collateralized based on projected ADA, and Mr. Richards responded that that is a question that the charter school organizers would have to answer. Mr. McChesney then introduced Marshall Mayotte, a representative from ExED, who explained that the school is expecting a net income of approximately $1 million to $1.3 million; therefore, with the debt coverage ratio payable over five years, the school’s borrowing capacity should be approximately $5 million. Secondly, he explained that when the school collateralizes, it would be based on the future receivables; and the $2 million line of credit would represent about 55% of the school’s receivables, explaining futher that usually banks will go up to 75% or 80% of receivables. Mrs. Mirabella asked the Petitioners if they are concerned that they may not receive the $357,000 start-up funds that they are expecting, and she also asked for their thoughts about the 14 out of 36 months of negative cashflow in their budget; and Mr. Mayotte responded that MDUSD has ignored the fact that the Petitioners have been very conservative with the financial figures, but he argued that they were projecting increases in expenditures by $600,000-$700,000 per year in anticipation of implementing programs, improving the teachers’ lives, buying materials, etc.; however, if budget crises should occur, the charter would make the appropriate cuts. He noted that he worked with a charter conversion immediately following the fiscal collapse in 2008 but that, even though the charter school’s revenues fell by millions of dollars, the charter school still hit its reserve target for that year and still received a $2.5 million line of credit when no banks were giving out money. He then pointed out that Mr. Richards had given the Petitioners a list of his financial concerns at 4:00 p.m. prior to the MDUSD board meeting, so they had had no time to respond to any of those issues. He further stated that there are so many iterations of the budget because every time the MDUSD expressed concerns about certain figures, the Petitioners felt compelled to submit yet another set of financial figures to satisfy them; and he explained that while he believes that the first version of the budget worked well, the MDUSD’s increasing demands to make changes resulted in numerous iterations. Mr. Mayotte also responded to Mrs. Mirabella’s concerns about the charter school startup funds, stating that although concerns exist, a school that was converted just this year is still receiving these funds and he has not yet seen any funding issues in this regard; and, again, he noted that if grant monies are cut, the proposed charter school would simply make adjustments to its budget. He also stated that the increases being shown from year to year in their budget represent two to three times more than what the MDUSD was showing with CVHS still being a part of the district. Mrs. Mirabella noted that she had focused her review on Tab 2 (b), so she asked which budget in the index she should be studying instead. Mr. McChesney responded that the additional packet that he submitted just prior to tonight’s meeting represents a budget that is not supposed to be considered as part of the charter petition; rather, it was supplied in order for Mr. Mayotte to address some of the concerns that Mr. Richards brought up in the district’s denial; however, the budget that should be considered by the County Board can be found beginning on page 782. Further, he reiterated that the multiple versions of the charter’s budget were not massive revisions but merely addressed minor, individual concerns that the district had raised and that they were confident in the budget that has been presented. Mrs. Mirabella mentioned that she had sent several of her questions for the petitioners through staff, and Mr. McChesney stated that he had not received them. Mrs. Mirabella noted that the County Board has a criterion (Education Code 47605[d] and [e]) where it must consider the racial and ethnic balance in a proposed charter
6
County Board of Education December 7, 2011
school and that she is concerned that if the school is at capacity, she does not understand how students from all over the district who are eligible to attend would be able to do so. Mr. McChesney responded that it is standard operating procedure for a conversion charter school to give preference to its regular attendance area so that those students still have a home school, and he noted that those students obviously represent the racial and ethnic diversity in that attendance area; however, he believes that the school would still have room to grow and would use an objective, fair lottery process to allow students throughout the district and even outside the district to attend. Ms. Middendorf also pointed out that the charter includes an outreach plan, which states very clearly that they would get information on the charter out to all the diverse populations in the school district. Mrs. Mirabella asked the Petitioners how their charter school would look different than presented if state triggers did not allow for the planned additional tutoring time, summer school time, etc., and Mr. Mayotte replied that such triggers would probably only result in a 4% budget reduction, which would not end those programs. He pointed out that the school would be separating from a district that carries $913 per student in central overhead costs where the overhead cost for the charter would only be approximately $200 per student, representing a significant savings that will generate adequate reserves, allowing the charter school to offer these programs despite the cuts. Mr. McChesney added that even if circumstances should require them to make budget adjustments, he reiterated that localized governance will control community and parent involvement, there is the ability to be flexible, and the charter would be able to use that autonomy to make swift and tailored decisions. Mrs. Mirabella stated that, as a County Board member, she needs to understand the difference between the proposed charter’s course catalog on page 510 and the district’s catalog of courses that it is currently delivering. Mr. McChesney responded that the charter’s course catalog is the same one currently offered at CVHS, and he pointed out that the innovation does not need be represented by different courses; rather, it can be represented by the delivery of that content and the programs that can be built around content. He assured the Board that high school students still need to achieve the same standards, be tested on the same material, and expected to be prepared when they graduate; they expect to have a wider course offering in the future; but the Petitioners are using the current course selection as a baseline so that nothing is irresponsibly included in the mix without properly vetting and piloting it. Ms. Middendorf added that the charter was written as an outline, which is how a legal document like a charter should be written, and this necessitated having a baseline; however, they are excitedly exploring other courses, while also promising to use discipline when implementing innovative ideas. Mr. Asadoorian asked if the charter school will have adequate faculty to implement the outreach program bilingually in both print and verbally when recruiting from the Hispanic population, and Mr. McChesney responded that they do have bilingual staff members but that they have Hispanic parents and community members who are part of the charter school process who can help with that outreach. Mr. Asadoorian asked if there are currently teachers at CVHS who possess BCLAD certification, and Ms. Middendorf stated that there are and that a number of them are present this evening to offer their comments. Mr. Asadoorian also asked why the charter does not offer expelled students and their parents the right of appeal, and Paul Minney, an attorney working with the Petitioners, responded that two levels of due process were created for expelled students with the charter’s board making the final decision; however, he explained that the Petitioners do not have the right to commit the MDUSD board or the County Board to act as its appellate body but that they would be happy to discuss having the County Board serve in that role. He pointed out that the current language in the charter petition does meet state and federal due process laws, and if the Board were to request another layer of appellate rights, he is confident that the Petitioners would be willing to do so and this could be worked out by way of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the County Board. Mr. Asadoorian asked the Petitioners if the 80% of the teachers who signed the petition in favor of the charter conversion were aware that they would have to resign from the MDUSD with no right to return to the district regardless of tenure, and Ms. Middendorf responded that she believes that some of them may not have been aware of that; however, in all of the conversions that they have explored, they have found that all of the districts have given the teachers the right to come back. She explained that the Petitioners followed up with a straw vote after this information was understood by the teachers, and more than 80% of the teachers were in favor. Mr. Gomes asked the Petitioners to expand on the current lack of consistent programs for intervention with regard to students with special needs, and Ms. Middendorf described how a special program was purchased and adopted, teachers were trained to use it, and how technical computer difficulties resulted in the program not being utilized for a number of years. She also described another very expensive special education
7
County Board of Education December 7, 2011
program that has sat at the school for five years with the teachers being unable to use it, and she stated that these were only two examples of the many programs that were purchased over the years but never implemented. Mr. Gomes noted in the petition materials that a statement on page 15 is made that “so many issues are being examined concurrently that many feel that none are being addressed effectively,” and he asked whether this is the fault of the school site or the district. Mr. McChesney replied that the disarray is just as the petition articulates, that there is a sense of disenfranchisement and a lack of focus and follow-through, and he alleged that it definitely occurs with the campus leadership but that he believes that that mirrors the district leadership and is also felt on other campuses; it is felt that they do not have a voice on that higher level, which does not allow them to take ownership and responsibility for the decisions they make on campus. Mr. Gomes asked if this might involve communicating with the leadership at the district level to let them know that staff on the campus cannot do everything at once and that tasks should be prioritized, and Ms. Middendorf responded that she personally sees how slowly everything takes to get done and how many tasks are required to be accomplished on a daily basis. She pointed out that while a number of items were brought to the attention of the Staff Senate in order to accomplish things themselves on campus, which produced some success, they can only change so many things on a campus without having someone approve them. Mr. Gomes asked how the Petitioners planned to go about recruiting a student body reflective of the district’s demographics, and Ms. Middendorf referenced a plan in the appendix of the petition appeal that she described as a thorough plan that covers every neighborhood (e.g., including a church that serves a Hispanic population, grocery stores that serve middle-eastern populations, etc.). Mr. McChesney clarified that it is their legal obligation to grant preference to the attendance-area students first because it is their home school. Mrs. Ruehlig asked if the charter school’s board structure would include a nonvoting representative from the County Board of Education, and Mr. Minney clarified that the County Board’s representative is generally not a trustee, but, rather, a representative from the community appointed by the Board and that he believes that this representative is, in fact, a voting member of the charter’s board. Mrs. Ruehlig noted that the petition states that the second tier for student appeals involves an administrative panel comprised of teachers from the school itself, and she expressed concern about the panel’s lack of neutrality; she remarked that this is a facet of the petition that should be reviewed so that consideration can be given to having the County Board serve as the appellate body for the charter school. Mr. McChesney stated that this is a valid point and that, as mentioned earlier by Mr. Minney, the Petitioners had not wanted to commit the Board to something it might not be amenable to. Dr. Ovick cautioned that the Board’s legal counsel would need to review this matter and counsel the Board on the direction it should take with regard to student appeals. Mrs. Ruehlig then inquired with regard to employee status, asking if after the school converts, the Petitioners planned to offer employment to only some of the teachers and staff rather than to all of them, and Mr. McChesney clarified that every teacher and every classified staff member would have the option to remain employed at the charter school. Mrs. Ruehlig pointed out that the Petitioners have indicated in the paperwork that there will be one less full-time employee (FTE) based on comparing the current school structure to the converted structure, and Mr. Mayotte responded that the salary list for the charter should be identical to the salary list for the proposed charter and that there should not be one less FTE. Mrs. Ruehlig stated that it was mentioned in the rejection of the charter by the MDUSD in that there was one less FTE in food service. Mr. Mayotte explained that because the MDUSD took so much out of the budget, the Petitioners began to offer other scenarios, such as the one where the food service would be outsourced resulting in one less FTE. Mrs. Ruehlig asked Mr. Clark what the difference in the County Board’s responsibilities and role would be if a charter school is denied at the county board level and then approved at the state level, and Mr. Clark responded that the State would need to make a determination as to whom it should assign the oversight responsibility and many other aspects of the charter; he noted that the State might involve the County Board or not; and he mentioned a recent example where the State Board approved a charter that was denied at the county board level and where the State retained oversight responsibility while assigning some responsibilities to the local school district; therefore, it is not foreseeable to know what the State would do with respect to this particular charter petition if it were denied at the county board level. At this point, Mr. Minney referenced a portion of the petition to address an earlier question posted by Mrs. Ruehlig in which it states that, “the district, as per the Education Code, has the right to appoint a representative,” and in the bylaws section, it states, “all directors shall have full voting rights, including any representative appointed by the charter authorizer as consistent with the Education Code.” Mrs. Ruehlig asked how many
8
County Board of Education December 7, 2011
ROP classes are being offered right now and whether the same number of ROP classes will continue to be offered by the charter, and Ms. Middendorf responded that the charter’s steering committee is comprised of a number of ROP teachers, who will be speaking under Public Comment later in the evening, and that there is much excitement about increasing the number of ROP classes on the campus. Mr. Mayotte added that the ROP teachers’ salaries were included in the petition’s budget as an expenditure. Mr. Asadoorian noted that this is only the first year of the newly appointed CVHS principal’s tenure and that it is his understanding that the school’s API scores have risen into the 700s, indicating that the school is making progress in its API scores; however, Ms. Middendorf responded that that the API scores actually went down for CVHS, College Park High School, Northgate High School, and other high schools in the MDUSD; and, in addition, the school’s failure to make adequate yearly progress is due largely to low math scores. Mr. Gomes asked for the ratio of the number of support staff to the number of people who would actually be teaching students, and Mr. Mayotte responded with examples of other charter conversions where three people oversee the operations of a charter with 4,000 students and another has two employees overseeing the operations of a charter with 2,500 students. Mr. Gomes reiterated that he recognizes that permanent staff would eventually need to be hired to assume these responsibilities and that he would like to know the anticipated ratio of employees to students. The Petitioners stated that they could not recall this information at the moment but that they would provide that information later, and they encouraged Board members to submit questions to them. Mr. Gomes then asked if the Petitioners really felt it would be wise to farm out the budget to each of the department heads to administer, as indicated in the petition, since there exists the possibility that they could lose control over the budget; and Mr. McChesney stated that ExED’s responsibility would be to maintain control over the budget but that having the department chairpersons involved in the budgeting process is crucial and that they should have a voice in the process. The Petitioners clarified that everything would need to be approved by the charter’s governing board. Mrs. Ruehlig asked whether County Board members could visit the high school campus, and the Petitioners stated they would be happy to take them on a tour if they were to choose to visit. Mrs. Ruehlig then invited the Board to ask questions of the MDUSD representatives. Mr. Clark recommended that, in the interest of time, Board members submit questions to the charter and MDUSD for written responses with the idea of moving the hearing forward. Mrs. Mirabella noted that she had previously submitted some questions to the MDUSD by way of COE staff, and she wished to know if the MDUSD received them. She then noted that the petition states that the Petitioners are planning for 181 days, and she asked the MDUSD how many days their current schedule shows, and Mr. Richards responded that it is currently 180 student days but that they are still in negotiations with their teachers. Mrs. Mirabella noted that she would like to see a list of the MDUSD’s schools of choice and the academies that are linked with Linked Learning. In addition, she stated that she would like to know how the CVHS principal, Superintendent Steven Lawrence, and the MDUSD board are addressing the Petitioners’ concerns about the achievement gap and poor test scores at CVHS, and Mr. Lawrence responded that the new principal requested a teacher-led program with student tutors that would run afterschool tutorials, particularly in math, and the district is moving forward on putting together a job description for those tutors and has helped the school identify funding sources within their budget to pay for those tutors. He noted that, because he had not received Mrs. Mirabella’s list of questions, he would need to discuss this matter further with the principal to receive specific information on what she has been doing to address this situation. Mrs. Mirabella mentioned that there is a limited amount of time before a decision needs to be made in this matter and that she has quite a few questions, and Mr. Lawrence assured her that his staff would respond immediately to her questions once they receive them. Mr. Gomes asked if the MDUSD would entertain a modification of this petition where, if the charter were approved by the County Board, it would agree to fund the charter school at the same level as all other high schools in the district, thus allowing them to remain a charter school and apply for federal and state aid, as this would overcome some of the resistance from parents who claim that the charter school would drain revenue from their students’ schools. Mr. Lawrence responded that he could not commit the MDUSD board to anything but that if the charter school Petitioners were interested in having such a dialog, the district could take the matter before its board for them to discuss and consider. Mrs. Ruehlig asked if the charter were granted, to which school those students from CVHS who did not wish to attend the charter school would be allowed to attend, and Mr. Lawrence stated that school capacity would be taken into consideration, rather than proximity, to determine where students would be able to attend. Mrs. Ruehlig asked if such students would need to provide their own transportation to
9
County Board of Education December 7, 2011
the alternate high school, and Mr. Lawrence confirmed that this would be the case. Mrs. Ruehlig asked for a summary of the district’s consent decree, its start date, and its end date, and Mr. Lawrence stated that it has already ended and invited Dr. Mildred Browne, MDUSD’s Assistant Superintendent, Pupil Services/Special Education, to respond more fully to Mrs. Ruehlig’s question. Dr. Brown explained that the consent decree was a ten-year obligation of the district where a parent liaison position was created and 23 plans were put in place that dealt with either access to curriculum or access with regard to extracurricular activities; an ongoing facilitator monitored these plans and reported directly to the federal courts; all of the plans were successfully completed, including modifications of all special education programs, ensuring success as far as Section 504 and all of the compliance issues regarding special education and developing triage processes with regard to mental health services; and as a result, the MDUSD met all of the conditions of the consent decree. Mr. Asadoorian asked if the charter is granted, who would own the equipment, uniforms, and band instruments of the current athletic and music programs, which could represent a huge financial obligation if the charter must replicate these things. Ms. Cooksey indicated that the state of the law at this point is that the MDUSD owns those items. She clarified that, where physical education equipment is concerned, the MDUSD is obligated to provide the charter with a school that is fully equipped for use if the charter is approved; however, if boosters have purchased certain materials, those materials are considered property of the district; therefore, any equipment, instruments, etc., would remain the property of the district. Ms. Middendorf then informed the County Board that it has been almost three years since the MDUSD stopped funding high school sports, so a foundation of which she was president for two years raised the money to continue high school sports; therefore, there are currently no high school sports funded by the MDUSD. She expressed concern about what would happen to the band uniforms and equipment, and she asked the MDUSD representatives if they would actually take them from CVHS’s students. Dr. Ovick reminded all parties that they are participating in a public hearing of the County Board of Education and not a forum for debating issues between the MDUSD and the Petitioners. As there were no other questions by the County Board, Mrs. Ruehlig invited members of the public to speak in support of, or in opposition to, the petition, and she asked that all speakers keep their comments to two minutes so that the Board could accommodate all who wished to speak. The following speakers spoke in favor of the petition to establish the CVCHS: Alison Bacigalupo, Daniel Sullivan, Brian Corbett, Christine Reimer, Pam Hall, Grant Bazari, Cate Sundling, Amber Lineweaver, Achilles Walker, Paula Dillon, Lynda Rush, Gillian Rush, Barb Johnson (on behalf of Congressman George Miller), Dylan Perreira, Ruth Carver, Jae Greenwald, Neil McChesney, Pat Middendorf, Marshall Mayotte, Tom Branich, Paul Minney, Kendall Winship, April Winship, Jennifer DeAngelis, Joe Medrano, Satinder Malhi (on behalf of Senator Mark DeSaulnier), Linda Loza, Howard Gellar, Les Garaventa Jr., Ted Meriam, Matt Gorgen, Steve Gonsalves, Laura Hoffmeister, David Shuey, Gary Swanson, Livier Morris, Keith Franklin, Rizzo Modicue, Julie Pierce, Dana Deely, Laurie Arbour, Tom Fester, Clayton Martin, Chase Davenport, James Mills, Carlyn Obringer, Mark Herbert (on behalf of Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla), Warren Easly, and Lauren Valory. Reasons given for supporting the petition included the following: the charter would better the education of its students and, ultimately, all of the students of the MDUSD; the intention of charter schools was to stimulate academic competition so that all schools improve; this charter school is the first real step in education reform in this local area; administrators in the MDUSD change with the wind, and decision-making is concentrated in a distant district leadership that suffers from a chronic lack of transparency; the charter would spread out the decision-making from a select few to a more stable, more representative body of parents, employees, administrators, and community members; this type of governance structure would allow for a better perception of student needs and quicker adjustments when changes are needed; cuts to special education assistants have been extreme, and priorities would be different under the charter where poor budgeting decisions like this could be identified and remedied much more quickly; under a charter program, there would be the necessary funding to offer sheltered courses for English Language learners at CVCHS, making greater strides in closing the achievement gap; many of the highest achieving eighth grade students at feeder schools do not choose to attend CVHS, causing CVHS to miss out on the volunteer families that go along with those students, and the conversion charter would provide local students with a choice and keep our best students in
10
County Board of Education December 7, 2011
the public schools; the education offered at CVHS is completely unsatisfactory, since the MDUSD enforces policies that teach to the lowest common denominator where highperforming students are not asked to reach for higher goals and low-performing students are required to meet performance metrics that are simply not attainable given the lack of support programs, whereas the promise of CVCHS is to provide the right education for any student of any level; rather than trying to get rid of children with special needs, one of the chief motivations of the charter from the beginning has been to better serve all of CVHS’s special needs students; the MDUSD administration has been operating out of fear and selfpreservation in a systematic attempt to fight the charter petition; the students at CVHS are begging for teachers and administrators to do more for them and to make them college ready; the charter conversion movement is an indication that a “one size fits all” education model is not working and is failing students all over America; the opponents have been misinformed over what it means to convert to a charter in that students would not be kicked out of the school and that there would not be any loss of funding to other schools; the charter conversion is supposed to be financially neutral; placing the decision-making process in the hands of distant politicians and policymakers has not created equality for all, but, rather, an aggressive and institutional view of culture, curriculum, learning, and knowledge; the charter should be viewed with excitement, not fear; people who are speaking against the charter are merely parroting back what they have been told by their authority figures—the superintendent, some of the district’s board members, principals, teachers, and possibly parents; all persons need to uncover the true facts for themselves and take them into consideration before choosing a side; the charter petition presents an important opportunity for educators to explore alternative educational forums and opportunities in this very diverse, dynamic region; there are currently many well-thought-out charter programs that are providing both learning and teaching environments with significant improvements in both school and student performance; many charters give school districts the opportunity to try different models for teaching and learning under more flexible rules and regulations and to serve as laboratories for innovation in their districts; change happens when there is a need and when the status quo becomes intolerable due to changing environmental or social conditions; when the problems are systemic, transformative change is needed, and it was the legislative intent of the California Charter Schools Act to have charter schools serve as such a catalyst for this type of change; many parents at Northgate High School do not oppose this charter because they have a lot in common with CVHS parents in that they want the best schools for each and every child; communities and cities should have local control of schools to foster collaborative governance that should exist between a city and its school system, and this petition exemplifies local control (a teacher petition supported by parents and endorsed by the Clayton City Council, the Clayton mayor, and the Concord mayor); this is a change that could benefit future generations; the governance structure of the charter allows six of the nine members to be elected by their stakeholder groups and they are part of the local community; there is evidence that high school conversions have raised the API scores of both the conversion and the other high schools in the district; people would see that the charter’s financial plan appears sound if they reviewed it in detail; successful corporations innovate, empower their employees to do what is right, ensure that their employees take ownership of the plans and the results and are held accountable for delivering those results, drive the decision-making to the lowest level, and they have a positive work environment, and this charter school has the same opportunity using this model to be just as successful; the charter school Petitioners have been unable to receive the supporting documentation from the MDUSD to substantiate any alleged financial losses to the district; if the charter school does not achieve the higher academic goals that it is shooting for, the County Board can choose to return the charter back to the school district; CVHS students’ academic performance is comparable to the bottom 10% of similar schools in California, which indicates that the MDUSD is not meeting the academic requirements of all of its teens; the goal of CVCHS is to work together with every stakeholder at a more localized level to deliver a robust and relevant education, and CVCHS can be a working model for all high schools; the charter conversion represents a proactive, rather than a reactive, approach to education; the MDUSD does not communicate well with teachers at CVHS; the charter conversion would provide new, tenured, and classified staff the opportunity to energize both the curriculum and the community in a way that a large bureaucracy does not allow; the governance structure of the charter conversion would have greater transparency in determining how the school would move forward; all parties need to work collaboratively to find ways to provide a quality education for the benefit of all children in the MDUSD; if the MDUSD is concerned about the loss of students, they should stop blaming everyone and start addressing the things they have the ability to change today; the Clayton City Council is so much in favor
11
County Board of Education December 7, 2011
of the charter conversion, it voted to endorse the charter school and made an unsecured loan to help get the process started, and the loan was soon repaid through funds given to the charter group from the Clayton Business and Community Association, which is a local organization with about 200 members of influential community members who strongly believe in the need to change CVHS to a charter school; it has been disheartening to see the school’s academic ratings fall over the years, and the physical buildings and grounds are deteriorating to a point of embarrassment; it is believed by the Clayton City Council that a charter school run by qualified teachers and members of the community would not only bring back the quality of teaching they once had, but also make the community one in which people would want to live; the Clayton City Council is confident that CVCHS will become the jewel of high schools in education for the area and the MDUSD; the CVHS community has helped lead the way to save sports in the entire district and is not now attempting to take anything away from others; the CVHS community does not solely look to improve conditions for itself but strives to help others in the district; the accounting that the MDUSD has provided addressing the alleged losses that the other schools in the district would incur is questionable and cannot be substantiated; the charter conversion will jumpstart a worn and beleaguered school district while providing a system that is conducive to a better learning environment; the MDUSD’s contention that the estimations of the charter’s financials are unhealthy is in direct opposition to the numerous successful charters throughout the state of California and to the MDUSD superintendent’s own statements made to the Pleasant Hill Education Commission that “the charter will have plenty of ADA to successfully run our high school as most kids will want to go to their current home school”; the future leaders of the Clayton Valley community need to be supported through this charter conversion; the Clayton community has always pulled together to make needed changes to the schools (e.g., new gymnasium, football field, football field lighting) that benefited the district; over 1,200 people have submitted e-mails and signed letters of support for the charter to the Clayton City Council; despite the fears surrounding charter schools and all the efforts to stop them, they have not only succeeded, but have thrived and are growing; the present system of laying off new teachers every year and not being allowed to hire teachers when necessary is not working, and the flexibility to hire the best qualified teachers earlier would provide a higher standard; the highest achievers are leaving the public school system to attend private high schools, and they take their school-focused families with them; with a charter, you do not have to appeal to a downtown office to make decisions about curriculum or programs or wait for weeks to get an appointment with a program specialist; the district may benefit financially from the charter because the feeder schools may experience improved enrollment since students may wish to attend the new charter school; of all the educational experiments that have been tried at the high school during the past 30 years, this one has the greatest potential for success; educational experiments can only be successful when individuals understand and commit to the experiment, and the level of teacher commitment to this proposed charter is unprecedented in the district’s history; the teachers are willing to risk their job security, seniority, and tenure to make the proposed charter a success; there is evidence that autonomous high school conversions excel and outperform traditional high schools on API scores and all API subgroups, and this effort has the necessary ingredients to do the same; contrary to the two questionable studies cited by speakers in opposition to the proposed charter, conversion schools in California are excelling; one such high school conversion, Granada Hills, maintains one of the highest graduation rates in the state at 92+%, and another conversion high school in the same district has an even higher graduation rate; CVCHS offers a clear mission, high expectations, increased opportunities to learn, a safe environment, and positive home-school relationships; the figures produced by the MDUSD cannot be trusted, and the MDUSD has been either unwilling or unable to produce the requested revenue figures; according to the California Charter Schools Association, the CVCHS petition is one of the most comprehensive petitions that it has reviewed to date, presents a sound education program, and meets the intent of charter legislation; the Petitioners and their team have demonstrated in the face of much adversity that they have a very high capacity to accomplish the goals that they have set forth for themselves, which is a strong indicator of future success; Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, who stated through her representative that she is supportive of this community process, has identified a problem with the process in that it does not allow school districts and the community to have a transparent conversion that includes the potential financial impact that a charter conversion may have on a district; therefore, Assemblywoman Bonilla will be carrying legislation in January to allow local jurisdictions to consider all financial information as they make these important decisions; one student alleged that what he learned in eight years at a private school has superseded
12
County Board of Education December 7, 2011
everything he has learned in the public school system during the past five years and that a charter school system operates very much like a private school system; in the current system, it is not uncommon for students to be asked to watch movies during class time, which is not the best way to educate students; and this charter school will foster healthy competition among schools. The following speakers spoke in opposition to the petition to establish the CVCHS: Matt Lovett, Linda Mayo, Dorothy Weisenberger, Rebecca Jensen, JoAnne Creamer, Michael McNally, Deb Heinzmann, Samantha Bergum, Marcia Eaton, Phil Javete, John McMorris, Kathleen Strange, Bill Morones, Willie Mims, Sherry Whitmarsh, and Joan Miller. Reasons given for opposing the petition included the following: specifics are lacking in the petition when describing innovations or academic philosophies; rather than this charter being about something that comes from a passion and desire to create a unique kind of educational opportunity for students, it is instead about a group of teachers and parents wanting to distance themselves from a school district with whom they have had gripes; creating a conversion charter is easier than trying to leave the district; this proposal is designed primarily to benefit the children of the proponents, since Clayton Valley area children would be given lottery preference over all other children in the district; the charter would unquestionably harm every other child in the MDUSD by reducing everyone else’s site funding; this charter would cause the potential encroachment of $941 per student, or $1.8 million, and represents 26 teacher layoffs, the closure of several schools, or possibly bankruptcy of the district; if the charter is approved, Mt. Diablo voters and taxpayers will no longer elect the governing board, which would be responsible for more than a $13 million budget annually; the proposed charter school’s governing board members are not required to reside in Clayton Valley or the MDUSD attendance areas or even in Contra Costa County; there are concerns with the charter’s execution and continuation of special education services for students, since it is unclear if the charter will discontinue using the Mt. Diablo SELPA; when funding is scarce, the cost of special education is of concern to all parents and could cause increased negative attention on those students with special needs and their families; without Mt. Diablo oversight, special education students may not receive their required services and achieve their IEP goals and objectives; one does not need to attend a charter school in order to receive a good education in the MDUSD; even with fewer resources, there are still many dedicated teachers who provide challenging and imaginative courses for the students; figures show that this proposed charter would cost an already beleaguered district more money, and the education of students at other schools would be compromised if the charter is approved; the other students in the MDUSD will be penalized because their education will worsen if CVHS must receive $940 more per student if it becomes a charter school; parent involvement is what helps make schools succeed, and CVHS could succeed if all the energy in the room tonight could be focused on making a difference without having to penalize the rest of the students in the MDUSD; charters should be an augmentation to, not a displacement of, public schools; the freewheeling approval of charter schools is undermining school districts across the state along budgetary and enrollment lines; everyone would be better served if the local board and superintendent continue to work directly with the Clayton Valley community to address their concerns and issues; if the charter petition is approved, the MDUSD’s budget would be negatively affected by a deficit in excess of $2 million per year, and the resulting cuts would likely impact arts education across the district; it is not fair to place the education of CVHS’s 1,800 students above that of over 30,000 other children in the same community; there is no justification for spending more money on one student than on another; the new principal at CVHS is a first-rate educator who should be given a chance to turn CVHS around; the results of a U.S. Department of Education thorough study on the impact of charter schools on increasing student achievement showed that there is zero impact; the County Board’s decision should be made based on what is best for all 32,000 students in the MDUSD; although charter schools meet the needs of certain subgroups whose needs have not been met, there may be a negative impact on the MDUSD; the problems at CVHS are no different than those of any other high school, and the district is attempting to resolve them; diversity is a concern, since the charter may result in a segregated school; the high school attendance areas may have to be redrawn because of the number of students who may have to be given the chance to attend another high school if they do not wish to attend CVCHS; the success of a high school is based on the staff, parents, students, and community and not on whether it is a charter school; and there is concern that there is a potential for reduced funding for existing music programs if the charter is granted and that if the MDUSD is put in the position of having to come up with more budget cuts in the future, funds that would have been allocated for elementary instrumental music would be nonexistent.
13
County Board of Education December 7, 2011
Karen Jenkins offered neutral comments and urged the Board to consider this matter very seriously before making a decision that will be in the best interest of the community. President Ruehlig then closed the public hearing at 9:39 p.m., and she stated that the County Board of Education would deliberate and make its decision on whether to approve or deny the Clayton Valley Charter High School petition at its meeting on January 11, 2012. She also announced that the Board would now recess and reconvene its meeting at the Contra Costa County Office of Education Board Room, 77 Santa Barbara Road, Pleasant Hill, California. RECESS
The Board recessed from 9:39 p.m. to 10:22 p.m., when the regular meeting was reconvened by President Ruehlig at the Contra Costa County Office of Education, 77 Santa Barbara Road, Pleasant Hill, California.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SUPERINTENDENT Report
Dr. Joseph Ovick, County Superintendent of Schools, thanked Mrs. Mirabella for her year of service as Board president.
BUSINESS SERVICES 2011-12 First Period Interim Report of the County School Service Fund Budget
Associate Superintendent Bill Clark presented the 2011-12 First Period Interim Report of the County School Service Fund Budget, calling the Board’s attention to the executive summary of the revenues and expenditures. Mrs. Mirabella asked if the $573,553 loan for “Compensated Absences” in long-term commitments had been paid off, and Mr. Clark responded that this loan was indeed paid off and explained that “Compensated Absences” are sick leave and vacation balances that are required to be calculated and disclosed. Mrs. Mirabella asked if she was reading correctly that there were 19 more retirees between the time of the adopted budget to the First Interim, and Mr. Clark responded that there were indeed 19 more employees who chose to retire after June. Mrs. Mirabella suggested that the Board be provided with a copy of its budget to review the figures to date. She also expressed concern that a number of her questions that were voiced at the time of the budget adoption have not yet been answered, and she noted that she had requested a list of memberships, conferences, and other pieces of information that staff had promised to provide. Mr. Clark responded that he thought that his department had previously provided expenditure details by classification previously, but Mrs. Mirabella stated that she is still waiting to receive the list of agency memberships and their costs, the list of conferences and associated costs, and total expenses for the County Counsel’s legal services, regardless of whose budget pays for those services. Mrs. Mirabella then thanked Mr. Clark for preparing the helpful analysis and the listings denoting where major percentage changes have occurred as well as the analysis of the unaudited actuals. Mrs. Mirabella asked whether Mt. Diablo USD decided to provide its own transportation because they were able to do it more cheaply, and Mr. Clark stated that that was Mt. Diablo USD’s analysis. Mrs. Ruehlig asked if the $20,000 increase in the employee benefits represents step increases, and Mr. Clark noted that the employee benefits follow the changes in staffing. Mrs. Ruehlig asked if the staffing increase for Munis is something that is a one-time expense and that some of the staff will no longer be needed once Munis is fully implemented, and Mr. Clark responded that some of the costs relate to one-time stipends and working-out-of-class arrangements; additionally, a number of these changes were instituted in order to manage the implementation costs in-house rather than pay for consultants. Mrs. Ruehlig asked if the decrease in Court and Community Schools means that there are fewer students who are entering the system, and Mr. Clark reported that there were reductions in the CDCR program and there was an enrollment reduction in the Court and Community Schools program due to the class being too small. Mrs. Sakata reminded Mrs. Ruehlig that significant reductions were made in the In-Custody Drug Treatment Program (ICDTP) due to cuts in funding. The Board then voted unanimously to approve the 2011-12 First Period Interim Report of the County School Service Fund Budget (M/S: Gomes/Asadoorian; Elster absent).
County School Service Fund (CSSF) Investment Activities
Associate Superintendent Bill Clark updated the Board on the County School Service Fund (CSSF) Investment Activities for the quarter ending September 30, 2011. Mr. Asadoorian asked if all the CCCOE’s investments are backed by government insurance, and Mr. Clark directed his attention to the list of investments, which include federal investments and the most secure kinds of short-term investments available with a required AAA rating. Mrs. Mirabella asked if the property tax advance is holding up the County Schools Service Fund because of
14
County Board of Education December 7, 2011
deferrals, and Mr. Clark responded that the money is not coming in because of deferrals; therefore, the County Treasurer advanced the CCCOE’s property tax funds so that it would not need to arrange for short-term borrowing to cover that deficit. Mrs. Mirabella asked if perhaps the County Board should be given a report on the cashflow issues, and Mr. Clark stated that there is growing concern about this matter, particularly if the midyear triggers are pulled in the January timeframe, which would place a lot of pressure on the May and June cash balances; therefore, he agreed that he could prepare a cashflow analysis as part of the Second Interim to show the Board what the CCCOE’s cash projection looks like and how the CCCOE plans to manage it. Mr. Asadoorian asked how the CCCOE’s reserves are looking at this time, and Mr. Clark stated that the CCCOE’s current reserve is approximately 5.6%, which is short of its target of 6%; however, it is well above the recommended amount of 2-3%. Board Resolution No. 7-11/12
The Board voted by the following roll call vote to adopt Board Resolution No. 7-11/12 to verify the Certificate of Signatures of person or persons authorized to sign orders drawn on the funds of the county office and Notice of Employment as defined on the Certificate: Mirabella, aye; Gomes, aye; Asadoorian, aye; and Ruehlig, aye (M/S: Mirabella/Gomes; Elster absent).
Lease Between the CCCOE and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS)
Associate Superintendent Bill Clark informed the Board that the CCCOE has had an ongoing relationship with the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS), which has been a benefit to the community since people have been able to receive retirement counseling at the CCCOE; however, CalSTRS has restructured its delivery of counseling services and approached the CCCOE for a leased space in this building; therefore, a fair market rate was negotiated for the rental space; and he noted that Associate Superintendent of Human Resources Karen Sakata handled the lease negotiations. Mrs. Mirabella asked how the services were provided last year, and Mrs. Sakata responded that previously there had been a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CalSTRS where the counselors were CCCOE employees; however, now CalSTRS has been making changes statewide so that its employees are State employees. Additionally, she noted that, while individual counseling is still offered to employees who are about to retire, more group counseling is now provided to CalSTRS members. The Board then approved the lease between the CCCOE and CalSTRS for the period of January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2012, at the rate of $801 per month to provide benefit counseling services to CalSTRS members, their families, and legal representatives (M/S: Mirabella/Gomes; Elster absent).
Staff Report
Bill Clark, Associate Superintendent, Business Services, reported that the Synergy Charter School, whose appeal was denied by the Contra Costa County Board of Education, has been approved by the State Board of Education. He informed the Board that the petitioners dropped their independent study charter program due to budgetary issues, and while the California Department of Education (CDE) staff had recommended denial of the Synergy Charter School (site based), the State Board of Education approved the establishment of the charter under a five-year term with oversight by the CDE. Mr. Asadoorian commented that he believed that the matter would be revisited by the State Board of Education in November, and Mr. Clark agreed that the petitioners are being required to return in November to demonstrate enrollment and fiscal solvency. Mrs. Mirabella asked who constitutes the California Advisory Commission that recommended that the State Board of Education approve this charter, and Mr. Clark responded that, although he does not know who sits on the Commission, it was established under the direction of the State Board of Education and the members were appointed to perform an initial review of the appeal after CDE staff made a recommendation. Mrs. Mirabella stated that she intends to review the minutes of the meeting at which the State Board of Education approved the charter to understand the conversation that took place, since the CDE staff recommendation had been to deny the appeal. Mr. Gomes asked if the State Board of Education received the minutes from the Contra Costa County Board of Education meeting at which the charter petition appeal had been denied, and Mr. Clark clarified that the County Board and the district both had representation at the State Board of Education meeting. Mr. Asadoorian stated that the State only has 3% of all of the charters in California. Mr. Gomes asked if the CDE holds back the portion of funds to finance its own charter schools, or whether it passes the funds through to the County Office to distribute the funds to the charter school. Mr. Clark explained that the revenue limit calculation is submitted by the charter school, and, depending on the jurisdiction, some locally collected property tax will be included, and the CDE does the calculation, submits it to the State Controller, and the State Controller distributes the funds; additionally, the categorical block grant and the loans are
15
County Board of Education December 7, 2011
issued through the CDE. Mrs. Mirabella noted that the CDE could have sent the charter back to be overseen by the CCCOE or the Pittsburg Unified School District, and she would like to understand from CCCOE staff why the CDE chose not to do that, especially since she assumes that staff could have advocated for local control. Dr. Ovick responded that CCCOE staff was not directed to do that, because the Contra Costa County Board of Education had voted to deny the charter; therefore, there was no reason for the CCCOE to seek responsibility for a charter that had been denied by its own board. He noted that since the Board found fault with the proposed charter, it would make no sense to wish to inherit the charter and be responsible for it, and Mrs. Mirabella concurred with Dr. Ovick’s reasoning. Mrs. Ruehlig asked if any CCCOE staff time would be used for any oversight responsibility for the charter that was approved by the State Board of Education, and Mr. Clark responded that no CCCOE staff time would be utilized with regard to the approved charter. Mr. Asadoorian asked if the charter school has located a site yet, and Mr. Clark responded that it appears that the charter school has not yet determined where the school would be located. Mrs. Mirabella asked if an MOU was prepared by the CDE to clarify the site and other questionable items, and Mr. Clark responded that the CDE did communicate its conditions, although he does not know if they were in the form of an MOU. Mrs. Ruehlig informed Mr. Asadoorian that she understands that the charter school to date has not yet found a facility. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Staff Report HUMAN RESOURCES Staff Report
None.
Karen Sakata, Associate Superintendent, Human Resources, reported that she would be representing Dr. Ovick at the Dozier-Libbey Medical High School’s Distinguished Schools celebration and would be introducing any Contra Costa County Board members in attendance.
COMMUNICATIONS Staff Report
None.
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS Staff Report
None.
BOARD Legislative Update
Mrs. Mirabella distributed the Governor Brown’s tax proposals.
2012 Proposed Schedule of Regular Meetings
The Board made no changes to its 2012 Proposed Schedule of Regular Meetings and voted to adopt it (M/S: Asadoorian/Gomes; Elster absent).
Proposed Trustee Area Alignment
Mrs. Ruehlig informed the Board members that, with regard to her initial belief that having one member representing one school district would be ideal, she has adjusted her position and believes that having more than one Board member representing one school district is probably good because the public could lobby several trustees on matters. Mrs. Mirabella thanked staff for responding to the Board’s questions regarding the proposed trustee map. In response to a question posed by Mrs. Ruehlig, Mr. Clark confirmed that the Board’s trustee areas are now identical to the Contra Costa Community College District board’s trustee areas. The Board then voted to adopt the proposed Trustee Area Alignment (M/S: Asadoorian/Gomes; Elster absent).
CONSENT ACTIONS Minutes of November 9, 2011; Applications for Temporary County Certificates; Donation; and a Contra Costa Co. High School Diploma
The Board voted unanimously to approve the following Consent Actions: the minutes of the November 9, 2011, Board meeting; applications for Temporary Certificates; a donation of a 2002 Chrysler Town & Country LX Van; and a Contra Costa County High School Diploma to adult school student CCAS 1 12-07-11 (M/S: Mirabella/Asadoorian; Elster absent).
16
County Board of Education December 7, 2011
CORRESPONDENCE/ EVENTS CALENDAR
Correspondence: Correspondence was received from the following members of the public regarding the Clayton Valley Charter High School: Kristi Buchholz, Anna Rikkelman, Candy Oar, Diane MacIver, Francine Kelly, John McMorris, Michele Sheets, Kelly Shine, Kendra Phair, Ilana Israel Samuels, Heidi Hastings, Alan and Kelly Hi, Lisa and Jon Kubokawa, Tracy McCollam, Jean Bouch, Michael J. McNally, Robin Alvarez, Chris Stieger-Maguire, Gary and Lisa Powell, Joseph Hernandez, Angela Brown, Pat Middendorf, Catherine Myers, Norma and Norman Therkelson, Alexandra Lioanag, Mary Gray, Joni Maurer, Lisa Thompson, Joy Johnson, Jill Scheidel, Sean Ewing, Sharon Brae, Carol Ferrara, S. Powell, Clarice Adams, Jon Adams, Ronel Scheepers, Sergio Blandon, Claudia Erne, Marcia Mason, Steve Oldenbourg, Congressman George Miller, and Kathleen Ely. Calendar of Events: Dec. 12 – Special Board meeting, 6:00 p.m.; Dec. 13 – Serendipity Holiday Luncheon, 11:45 a.m., 1126 East St., Concord; Dec. 14- Serendipity Holiday Luncheon, 11:30 a.m., 1126 East St., Concord; Dec. 15 – CC Adult School Qtly. Awards Ceremony, 10:00 – 10:45 a.m., Marsh Creek Det. Fac.; Jan. 18 – CSBA Forecast Webcast, 10:00 a.m. to noon.
BOARD REPORTS OF ACTIVITIES
A written report of activities was submitted by Mrs. Mirabella. In addition, the following oral reports were provided: Mr. Asadoorian reported that he would submit his Board report in writing. Mrs. Mirabella reported that she attended the Alameda County School Boards Association meeting on November 17 at which CSBA president-elect Jill Wynns presented her goals and listened to attendees’ concerns; tomorrow she plans to attend the Dozier-Libbey Medical High School’s Distinguished Schools celebration; and she clarified that dates for CCCSBA meetings include January 19, February 16, and May 17. Additionally, she reported that board training dates are being explored, including one for Region 7 and another on Common Core Standards, and a list of speakers is being gathered at this point. Mrs. Ruehlig reported that she attended the luncheon at Serendipity Restaurant, the Hamlet play at Deer Valley High School, and the String Winter Concert at Antioch High School; additionally, she will be attending the Dozier-Libbey Medical High School’s Distinguished Schools celebration. Mr. Gomes lauded Mrs. Mirabella for her year’s service as Board president, and Mr. Asadoorian mentioned that Mrs. Mirabella has helped me many times over the past year. Mrs. Mirabella thanked everyone for their comments and stated that, as the third anniversary of her daughter’s death approaches, she has reflected on why she has chosen to serve as a Board member and believes that her daughter gave her the passion and purpose in life to advocate for children. The Board members took a moment to reflect on Trustee Ellen Elster and to wish her the strength to recover.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 11:09 p.m. Joseph A. Ovick, Ed.D., Ex Officio Secretary County Board of Education
Copies of all resolutions adopted by the Board are on file in the Office of the Superintendent, Ex Officio Secretary of the Board of Education. These unadopted minutes are summaries and excerpts from the regular meeting of November 9, 2011, and are subject to amendments and/or correction prior to the approval of the County Board of Education.
17