a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
DEHOFF: Went to New Orleans at the request of the Education Commission of the States to look at conversions of low-performing schools; many states are struggling with the same process and are looking to Colorado for what we learned in our experience in converting Cole Middle School. Was at the National Science Teachers Convention. Went from there to the CASB conference. Much discussion is going on about Science instruction and how we train and recruit Science teachers. At CASB, we had our Sunday-morning discussion with CASB members. Found that there is a tremendous amount of common ground between local boards and the State Board. Regarding the issue of this season of the year about including several holidays and the inclusion or exclusion of discussions about religion, said that there was a teacher in California censored for mentioning the religious references in the Constitutuion and other historical documents. Thinks that many schools ban all mention of Christmas, but allow other religious references. Said that we don’t include everyone by excluding some just because someone is offended by it.
HUDAK: I did another CSAN (Colorado State Accountability Network) conference in Cortez during the last month; in driving there, I drove past where Pam Suckla lives, gaining even more appreciation for how far she travels to come to our meetings. CSAN will be doing its conferences in the metro area in January and February. I am looking forward to the report of the Accountability Task Force, which will make recommendations about how to align the three systems of accountability. I am glad that the HR1 Hub Committee will be meeting next month; at its last meeting, the members decided to look at recommendations for amending our state’s plan based on flexibility granted to other states, particularly our HOUSSE. This year’s SARs are out, and I was glad to see that there are no schools that were Unsatisfactory for 3 years in a row; we had said in our decision about the conversion of Cole Middle School that we didn’t want to have to do that again, and fortunately, there will be no need based on this year’s SARs. I attended the CASB conference; I enjoyed attending the DASSC meeting and meeting with the many local school board members. I did a workshop along with several school board members and a Superintendent about early childhood education. I noticed an emphasis on early childhood throughout the conference in what various speakers said. This week I went to the annual Issues Forum sponsored by the Public Education and Business Coalition; the focus was on workforce development and the importance of K-12's involvement in that.LITTLETON: Spent a lot of time out of state at conferences. Went to an event put on by Stargate Academy (a charter school in Adams County for gifted and talented students) and spoke at it on behalf of the SBE. Attended the CASB conference. Pointed out an excellent article "Sounds Like Phonograms" from an Arizona newspaper, which emphasizes the importance of teaching reading properly. Has a couple of folders from a conference on Reading for parents to "leave no family behind." What she loves doing at this time of year is reading a Christmas story; misses reading to her first and second graders. Said that she appreciates Hudak’s inspiration today about what Hannukah represents [the fight for religious freedom], and then read the entire children’s book "Santa’s Favorite Story" out loud to everyone [which contained a part with very explicit religious statements about Jesus Christ].
MIDDLETON: Was also at the PEBC Issues Forum and the CASB conference. Yesterday the SBE had lunch with CCHE, for the first time in 8 years. It was important to get their perspectives and for them to get ours. Has been on the SBE for 4 weeks now; this is her second meeting.
MUNN: Has been dealing with issues related to the conversion of Cole. There is a lot of concern and discomfort about the process in the community. Is glad that many legislators are willing to look at making changes in the process. Worked on our Board’s comments to the Commission’s report on Closing the Achievement Gap. Our comments were about what the department and Board are doing on strategies mentioned in the report. It was not the intention for it to be a comprehensive report, but to mention strategies that can be incorporated in efforts to close the gap.
ORR: Thanked Munn for his work on the SBE’s comments to the CTAG report. Went to CASB, but was there for just a short time. Appreciates CASB inviting us to be on a panel and answer their questions. That relationship has been strengthened during his time (10 years) on the Board. Getting good participation on efforts to improve the School Trust Lands. His business is taking a tremendous amount of time. Ended his report with a short inspirational story about giving and sharing.
POLIS: Wished everyone a happy winter solstice. This is the first year that the SBE has had a proactive legislative agenda. Yesterday we discussed having a lobbyist of our own to work with the Legislature on our issues. Has visited a number of schools in the state, as well as some in New Hampshire, which has many very small districts, in both number of students and geographic size. They have good vocational programs, with vocational high schools organized through a BOCES-like organization. Also went to Massachusetts, where he found that they have considerable more resources for public education, including small class sizes and innovative programs. The High School Commission that he is co-chairing with former SBE member Pat Hayes will be issuing its report within the next few weeks, with a statement of principles, which will be expanded upon in the coming months. Wished everyone a happy holiday season.
SUCKLA: Has been gone from home for 9 days so far. Has had an interesting month. Had a good time at the CASB conference having a chance to touch base with constituents on local school boards. They were more than gracious with us, honoring us at a reception. Shows the good relationship that is being developed. Is missing a meeting today of the Commission of Indian Affairs, where they are looking at closing the achievement gap for Native Americans. Would like to thank our Director of Board Relations, Karen Gerwitz, for her excellent presentation about School Trust Lands at the CASB conference; the workshop had very good attendance, and people asked a lot of questions. Is watching the National Rodeo finals every night this week; we have several Colorado members winning competitions.
COMMISSIONER MOLONEY: As we have seen in the Fountain-Fort Carson School District, from comments from its Superintendent Dwight Jones yesterday at the SAR press conference, there are successful efforts around the state to close the achievement gap, especially at the elementary level. But the urgency of carrying this on at the secondary level has been brought home by the conversion of Cole Middle School and articles in The Denver Post about North High School. High rates of suspension and expulsion and poor academic achievement are problems of many urban high schools. It requires courage and work that is more than tweaking to improve high schools. Introduced a presentation by Charlotte Scarpella, Superintendent of the Mapleton School District, on education reform efforts in high school in her district.
SCARPELLA: Hopes that her presentation will inspire hope about what a school board can do to make significant changes. Skyview High School’s "Small by Design" has divided the school into six small high schools with different programs. All have a rigorous curriculum and include college preparation. It was done based on research on high school redesign throughout the country. The six "schools" are the following: New Technology, Learning Through the Arts, Expeditionary Learning (problem-based and interactive learning), Early College (where students earn college credits for an associate’s degree), Big Picture (personalized learning plans with internships in the community twice a week), and Academy (utilizing the AVID, Advancement Via Individual Determination). Although their reform efforts started at the high school level, their work will continue at other levels. When a district begins making changes, there is a lot of chaos that results, and they are working hard to manage that. They have a "Reinvention Roadmap" which the Superintendent designed through a strategic planning process. The began by doing research on educational innovation, and then they surveyed people in the community. They learned that parents wanted their high school children to be in smaller environments, with more mentors and more adults. They wanted more hands-on, relevant experiences. Many students were choosing to attend other schools outside the Mapleton system. They looked at successful charter schools and wanted to incorporate ideas from them into the traditional school environment. They insisted on using proven practices that were affordable. They wanted rigor, relationships, relevance, and results. They still can provide the full high school experience of athletics, band, prom, drama, etc. Two of the small high schools opened this year with freshman and sophomores (Big Picture and Expeditionary). Next year they will start the Early College and the Academy. Students and parents report that the students in these small high school programs are more engaged and excited about their education than ever. Still have many questions to answer. Warned that the plan will work because it comes from the community itself, and one solution will not serve every community.
Approved distribution of funds in the amount of $3,766,630 to eligible school districts for 2005 in accordance with the English Language Proficiency Act (ELPA). [ELPA recognizes that students’ educational potential is severely restricted when a language other than English is their primary means of communication. It further recognizes that transitional programs will improve not only these students’ English language skills but also their educational and career opportunities. As such, the Act provides funding to eligible school districts to help defray the coasts of programs for eligible limited-English proficient students.]
(1) EMERGENCY EDUCATOR AUTHORIZATIONS
Approved emergency Type III educator authorizations for 49 initially and 14 renewals.
[Local districts may request Type III Emergency Authorization to employ non-licensed teachers, principals, administrators, or special services providers if they agree to provide an induction program. The SBE’s approval is based on consideration of whether the district has demonstrated a shortage of licensed personnel and the employment of non-licensed personnel is essential to preserving the instructional program and to the well-being of the children enrolled.](2) INDUCTION PROGRAM
Approved the Educator Induction Program for the Colorado Academy in Denver.
[Colorado school districts wishing to hire provisionally licensed educators are required to have induction programs approved by the SBE. Induction programs include mentors for new teachers and ongoing professional development.]
(3) DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
(These remain confidential until action is taken by the Board.)
(4) ENDORSEMENT IN ALTERNATIVE LICENSURE PROGRAM
Approved PS1 Charter School as a Designated Agency to offer the Special Education Generalist endorsement through their approved Alternative Licensing Program. [Newly adopted SBE rules provide that school districts, BOCES, accredited independent schools, accepted institutions of higher education, or any combination thereof may apply for approval of an alternative teacher preparation program. This proposal was reviewed by a committee that included representatives of higher education and educators who are experts in the field of Alternative Licensure. The agency received constructive comments on its proposal and made adjustments to its original proposal.]
(1) EXCESS COSTS FOR ELIGIBLE FACILITIES
Approved payments to school districts and administrative units for excess costs for eligible facilities, for 2004-2005, according to the amounts listed on the attachment.
(2) PAYMENTS UNDER PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE ACT
Approved payments of $231,498,572.52 under the Public School Finance Act. [Local districts are entitled to receive monthly payments from the state by the 25th of each month, under provisions of the Public School Finance Act of 1994, as amended.]
Adopted unanimously the amendments to the rules for the Administration of the School Improvement Plan, per the request of the Office of Legislative Legal Services. [The Office of Legislative Legal Services reviews all rules promulgated to ensure that they are appropriate. The amendments "requested" by OLLS either eliminate requirements that " go beyond statute," or align wording with statutory language, align wording with statutory interpretation, or replace outdated terminology.]
Continued the hearing to consider proposed amendments to the rules for the Administration of the Exceptional Children’s Educational Act (ECEA). [The proposed amendments are required for the following reasons: (1) HB 04-1297 and HB 04-1141 amended the special education tuition responsibility provisions of ECEA for public schools of choice, online programs, and charter schools; they establish notice requirements, tuition contract elements, and dispute resolution procedures for tuition cost disputes. They also necessitate amendments to be consistent with the tuition cost responsibilities. (2) They clarify special education administrative unit responsibilities for special education services. (3) They provide additional or clarifying language required by the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs, in order for the state to continue receiving federal special education funding under IDEA.]
LAURA FREPPEL (SESU in CDE): Presented a new side-by-side review of comments that have come in to CDE on these proposed rules. Provided written comments from CASE, CASB, BOCES, and a consortium of Special Education Directors, requesting that we extend the 60% rule to charter schools and online schools. Said that if the SBE decides to adopt the suggestions, CDE has proposed the placement for the wording.
Orr asked about the use of the term "child" rather than "student," which would seem inappropriate for high school students. Freppel said it is because IDEA uses that term. Orr also asked if there is a definition of an "appropriate" education. Freppel said that is determined by the IEP team, because it must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
KIN GRIFFITH (Colorado Virtual Academy): The reason there is a problem with the excess costs is that there is inadequate funding for special education students. Changing the rules [as suggested by CASB] just moves the costs to charter and cyber schools. Recommends a 50-50 split. There is a growing numbers of special education students in choice schools.
SCOTT MURPHY (CFO of Littleton Schools): Asks SBE to support changing the rules for students who receive special education services over 60% of time. To have districts charging back and forth for mildly or moderately disabled students is excessive paperwork. Littleton spends 11% of its funds on disabled students. Littleton’s charter schools pay the district to provide services.
ROGER PUVOWARSKI (Harrison School District): Concerned about equity, fairness for special education funding. One group shouldn’t get preference over another. That value needs to be exercised in this issue. Over 70% of the costs for special education come from a district’s general fund. It wouldn’t affect funding any more than it already does.
ED STEINBERG (Cherry Creek Schools): Here representing the metro-area directors of special education. The issue is not one of choice; they support that. The issue is of equity. Has been privileged to serve on the Kiowa School Board, which has a great concern on the disproportionate impact this will have on small districts.
ARCHIE NEIL (Ft. Lupton/Keensburg consortium of special education directors): Also supports the CASB proposal for the reason of equity. Showed that several of their special education directors are in attendance today.
DeHoff said that last month there was a question about whether we have the authority, given the way the statute is written, to apply the 60% rule to charter schools and online schools. He said that it is now clear that we do have the authority, and moved that we do so. Motion passed unanimously to direct that revision and schedule for consideration at the next meeting.
Adopted unanimously the amendments to the rules for the Administration of the Educator Licensing Act. [The Office of Legislative Legal Services has requested changes to these rules to correlate with statutory language.]
Conducted a hearing to consider amendments to the rules for the Administration of the Waiver of Statute and Rule. [The SBE is required by HB 04-1141 to adopt rules for the automatic waiver of certain statutes on behalf of charter schools. At the same time, the rules must be amended to comply with the statutes regarding the new Charter School Institute, which will serve as a state authorizer of Institute charter schools pursuant to HB 04-1362.]
DENISE MUND (Charter School Unit at CDE): The automatic waivers will not come to the Board if local school boards approve them. The law requires a form to be filled out for districts to request waivers.
I moved to remove several of the statutes from the proposed list of automatic waivers – those that are not waived by more than 85% of the charter schools in the state. Suckla said that she supports local control and she is not interested in busy work. She feels that removing any waiver from having to come to the SBE saves us time. Polis said that my proposal is a reasonable one, to select those only waivers that most charter schools ask for as automatic. He thinks that it is all right for us to pick a reasonable level for the SBE’s discretion. DeHoff said that we are not imposing these waivers on any charter school. I pointed out that this is a reduction in the SBE’s authority. Motion failed 4:4 (supporting were Hudak, Middleton, Munn, and Polis).
Motion for reconsideration at the next meeting passed unanimously.
Considered proposals for exclusive chartering authority, as follows (Polis first reviewed our counsel’s reminder that our decision is whether the district provided "fair and equitable treatment" to charter schools, and that the decision to grant exclusive authority requires a majority vote):
(1) Proposed motion to deny the request of Adams County District 50 (Westminster), pursuant to 22-30.5-504.
PAT MOONEY (Legal counsel): Contends that there has not been any explanation of how the district failed to comply with an order of the State Board. There is no charter school in the district that complained of unfair or inequitable treatment. The district did not refuse to negotiate with the charter school remanded to them by the SBE.
DELORES ATENCIO (on behalf of the League of Charter Schools): The League received information from charter schools in the state, which they sent to the SBE. Reminded us that there were a number of charter schools fearing reprisal by their districts if they came to speak today. Said that in the case of DeSpain Academy in Westminster 50, the district fought against the charter by going to court and appealing the SBE’s decision to remand.
JIM GRIFFIN (League of Charter Schools): The district didn’t start working with the charter school in Westminster until two years after the cases went to court. Also, the district set a limit of 3% of students attending charter schools, which amounts to a moratorium. The one charter school in the district did submit information about how they were treated by the district.
Munn said that he supports granting the authority to Westminster, because they believed they had a legal argument in appealing the SBE’s decision to remand; they had a legal right to avail themselves of legal redress. If someone felt that it was done just to delay the remand, nobody filed an order alleging that. We have no basis to say that. It is unfortunate that it took a long time to work its way through the system. Polis said that he feels that the lawsuit was a delaying tactic. I said that I opposed both remands of DeSpain Academy, I believe the district acted in what it felt was its best interests, and I oppose denying them exclusive authority. Munn questioned how seeking legal redress amounted to defying a State Board order. Polis said that by not creating the charter school, they defied the remand. DeHoff said that the Booth case had already established that SBE remands are valid. Munn said that if they had won the lawsuit, it would have shown that the SBE’s order was invalid. Littleton said that she will support the motion because their 3% limit appears to be defiance of the new law.
Vote was 5:3 to deny (Hudak, Middleton, and Munn dissented).
(2) Proposed motion to deny the request of Boulder Valley School District, pursuant to 22-30.5-504.
REP. JACK POMMER: This is a bad law. Has spoken with the majority leaders of the House and Senate, who agree that it punishes districts for actions that were taken legally in the past. The Boulder Valley district was reeling from a number of state changes forced on them, such as open enrollment, charter schools, etc. The district reacted by doing what it thought was in its best interests. The district wants both the power to run the schools and the accountability for results. Quoted Commissioner Moloney, who once said, "External control murders accountability."
JUDY LAWSON (parent in BVSD): During the past 8 years in the district, has seen radical trend towards stratification along racial/ethnic lines, with demographic shifts of affluent white parents open-enrolling into schools away from diverse neighborhoods. She is on a task force in the district working on the problem. Open enrollment and charter schools are part of the problem. We would take away the ability of school board to make good decisions for their schools by removing their exclusive chartering authority. The only entity legally authorized to make decisions is the local school board.
RICHARD CRABBE (Legal counsel): Met with the SBE’s legal counsel to discuss whether we have the authority to apply the law retrospectively. Today he heard from DeHoff that a refusal to hear a charter school application was also a reason for the motion to deny. The board immediately rescinded its policy for a moratorium as soon as the new law passed.
LOUISE BENSON: Parent of a child that attended Peak to Peak Charter School in Boulder Valley; her child suffered religious discrimination at the school against non-Christians and insufficiently Christians. It is a hostile environment of proselytization (for example, frequently students say "what would Jesus do" and have creationist outbursts in class). Children of different religious beliefs are viciously bullied. Her son become suicidal after two years of abuse at the school. If the SBE does not allow the district exclusive authority, the issue will land in the SBE’s lap.
JENNIFER (Flagstaff Academy Charter School): Their dealings with BVSD in trying to local Flagstaff Academy in Boulder Valley show that the district has been hostile to charter schools. Applicants do not have a fair chance of success. Flagstaff Academy’s application was refused because the district had a moratorium.
DELORES ATENCIO (League of Charter Schools): The concept of ex post facto applies to criminal law and not to civil law or this kind of issue. The purpose of the new law is to allow charter schools access to an authorizer that is willing to create charter schools. The SBE is supposed to look at the district’s recent actions to decide if they are fair.
PAT MOONEY (lawyer): His personal legal opinion is that the original charter law allowed districts to be good stewards, including deciding what a district could "digest" in terms of what schools it had. We don’t have to deny the authority based on districts’ having had a moratorium.
ADELE REESER (lawyer): The previous comment on ex post facto law is that no laws may be made that are retrospective, so it does apply to this situation.
I said that I believe the district needs to retain its authority over charter schools so that it is able to deal with the situation at Peak to Peak, and that the charter school law in general has a weakness in not really allowing districts to deal with problems that occur in their charter schools. I also said that I believe that BVSD has made decisions that it believed were the best for all of its students and that were legal at the time they were made. Suckla asked how many charter schools are in the district and what percentage of students are in their charter schools; the district said that it has 5 charter schools and 7.33% of its students in charter schools. Orr said that the new law was created because of the problem with the charter school in Steamboat Springs, and ironically that district is exempted from this law. DeHoff said that it was Democrats that sponsored this law. Suckla said that she finds the mention of political party inappropriate; she is angry with the Legislature for putting us in this bad position. She is unhappy that her vote, being cast last, becomes meaningless. Middleton said that she has been quiet on this, but she has been spending much of her time during the last few weeks listening to people from the League of Charter Schools as well as school districts. She believes that the Charter School Institute could serve a function that benefits charter schools; if districts are unable to deal with problems of their charter schools, there should be a better solution. Littleton said that Rep. Pommer’s comments about taking away a district’s authority is not valid, because the district would still be able to authorize charter schools, and our decision should be about the kids, not the adults. Motion failed on a tie vote (Hudak, Middleton, Munn, and Suckla dissented), but because it requires a majority to grant the exclusive authority to a district, the motion actually passed.
(3) Proposed motion to deny the request of the St. Vrain Valley School District, pursuant to 22-30.5-504.
DELORES ATENCIO: The League of Charter Schools concurs with the recommendation to deny the authority of St. Vrain Valley. The issue of retrospective law is not relevant if you assume that the purpose of the law was not to punish.
JENNIFER (Flagstaff Academy): The district has a proven track record of not supporting charter schools. They delayed the decision on Flagstaff Academy and disallowed the use of a donated parcel of land, because it is located within the Boulder Valley School District. There is still no signed contract for the school. Flagstaff Academy’s requests for use of district lands were refused. There is an enrollment cap on the school. The group organizing the school been accused of being disingenuous.
ADELE REESER (legal counsel for SVVSD): Re-addressed concerns about the constitutionality of the law regarding districts that imposed a moratorium and the fact that it says "OR the absence of any district-wide charter school enrollment limits."
REP. POMMER: Pointed out that the sponsor of the bill supported it only because it exempted his own district. Believes that it is a punitive law set out to punish districts. The SVVSD had bailed out one of its charter schools when the school had a financial crisis. When the district had severe financial problems, everyone in the district was asked to sacrifice. A handful of people wanting to create this one charter school [Flagstaff Academy] were not willing to make that sacrifice.
SANDRA SEARLES (president of SVV school board): The timing of the moratorium followed what happened in November 2002, when the district found out that it had no cash. The district had strict controls placed on it by the State Treasurer. They still kept student learning at the forefront. They tried to make decisions that were best. Feels that denial would punish the district a second time for their financial crisis.
JIM GRIFFIN: Denver was exempted from this bill because it has a great record over the last few years of chartering schools. There have been no appeals to the SBE in the last few years from any charter schools in Denver. The law isn’t retroactive, because it doesn’t require districts to revisit denials they made in the past.
SHERRY STEVENS-CARTER (charter school liaison for SVVSD): The question is whether the district treated its charter schools fairly and equitably. Regarding the question about their fairness in allowing Flagstaff Academy to use land in BVSD, the district negotiated a contract with Flagstaff. The district also approved another charter after that.
RANDY ZILA (Superintendent of SVVSD): District has never rejected an application of a charter school. It complied with all aspects of the charter school law. It has assisted in providing all charter schools with a building, as well as providing money to one that had extra building costs. Is surprised that Flagstaff complained, because the district made every effort since the remand to work with the charter to open it.
Suckla said that she resents people "sitting in their ivory towers" in Denver making decisions for local districts, and we have to look at the reasons that SVVSD had the moratorium. Orr agreed that the district had helped its other charter schools and had a good reason to put on the moratorium. DeHoff agreed that in this case, it was prudent for the district to delay the opening of Flagstaff Academy. He thinks we have evidence after the approval of that charter about how the district has handled negotiations with it and that they are not giving fair and equitable treatment. He pointed out that even if we deny the authority now, they can request the authority next year if they prove that they have provided fair and equitable treatment during the next year. I said that I oppose the motion, as the others, because I believe the district has made the best decisions for all its students, especially in the case of their severe fiscal crisis. Polis said that he thinks the law’s provision about a district having a moratorium clearly applies to SVVSD. He hopes that perhaps charter schools can be part of the solution to the district’s financial problems. Motion to deny failed 3:5 (Hudak, Middleton, Munn, Orr, and Suckla dissented). Motion to grant exclusive chartering authority passed 5:3 (DeHoff, Littleton, and Polis dissented).
(4) Proposed motion to deny the request of Harrison 2 School District, pursuant to 22-30.5-504.
I said that I am very uncomfortable considering this motion today, considering that it was just added to our agenda two days ago. Nobody came to testify either way. Orr said that they have known for several months that we would be making a decision. Middleton pointed out that someone from the district was here to testify on the special education issue. I said that it was an entirely different issue. Gerwitz said that the district had contacted her asking her to let them know what our decision was. The motion passed unanimously 7:0 (I was temporarily absent).
(5) Proposed motion to approve the request of Adams-Arapahoe School District (Aurora Public Schools).
A parent from a proposed charter school said they were told that the district had a limit on enrollment in charter schools. They had 300 parents who wanted to form a new charter school.
DELORES ATENCIO (League of Charter Schools): The district had a limit on charter schools during a period of 14 months. It sent a message that charter applicants should not bother to apply. They rescinded their limit this past summer just to look good for the State Board, as evidenced in the public record of their school board meeting.
STUART STELLER (legal counsel for APS): The limit in Aurora did not prevent them from looking at charter applications, and they did.
JIM GRIFFIN (League of Charter Schools): Just because the district never refused to review an application doesn’t mean that they didn’t send a message to charter applicants that they should not bother to apply.
DeHoff said that the district’s attitude clearly shows that they should be denied exclusive authority. Munn said that the definition of "moratorium" in the law says that they must have both "a policy and a practice" of limiting charter schools. Polis said that he agrees that the district did not have the practice of limiting charter schools. While it is a "close call," he doesn’t think the district strictly met the criteria for denial. Motion to grant the authority passed 5:3 (DeHoff, Littleton, and Orr dissented).
(6) Proposed motion to deny the request of Poudre School District on the basis of 22-30.5-504.
DELORES ATENCIO (League of Charter Schools): The district did have a moratorium in place.
STU STELLER (legal counsel for the district): Believes they should be granted the authority based on the written arguments submitted to CDE staff.
Munn said that they might have had a policy of limiting the number of charter schools, but their practice was to take applications and consider them. DeHoff said that the record includes information about questions about their financial dealings. The motion to deny failed 4:4 (Hudak, Middleton, Munn, and Suckla voted against the motion), but because it requires a majority to grant the exclusive authority to a district, the motion actually passed.(7) Proposed motion to approve the request of Jefferson County School District.
LEE BARRETT: Has been in Jeffco for 8 years and has been trying to get a new charter approved this year. The district has not approved any new charters this year. Would like us to deny the authority.
DELORES ATENCIO: The League of Charter Schools urges us to consider that the district had to prove that it followed the law in regard to charges for central administrative costs. For example, there are reconciliation documents showing that it charged for certain expenses before the law allowed such automatic charges. Believes that the charter schools can provide the most accurate information.
JOHN PEERY (Charter School Liaison for Jeffco): The charter school accounting was out of compliance with the state’s chart of accounts, but there have not been any appeals that came to us, because it was clear that there were no unfair charges. The district has responded to all charter school concerns.
DeHoff asked Peery to describe the district’s allowance of charter schools in bond issues. Peery gave a long list. He believes that the charters have been very happy with their inclusion in that.
Motion to grant the authority passed 7:1. (DeHoff dissented.)
Issued a notice of denial and appeal rights for an applicant for an alternative teaching license and an applicant for a substitute authorization.
The Board will be asked to fill a vacancy on the Colorado Library Advisory Board (CoLAB), for a representative from a large academic library.
The Board will be asked to approve the licensure/endorsement programs for Special Education Generalist at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and the University of Colorado at Denver:
(It was 1:15 p.m. and nobody came to address the Board.)
Copyright © 2001-2007 Evie Hudak - All Rights Reserved