Full agenda, so we're starting early, but not too early. The person who records the meeting was stuck on delayed Trax.
During the Accreditation report at the beginning of the meeting, Georgia Loutensock clarified the issue behind American Leadership's "
advised" status--they handed in a report late.
Then the board gets to the Accountability and Performance Framework. The board says they didn't get as much feedback from as many groups as they wanted, though they thank me for the letter I sent, which was co-signed by more than 30 schools. Chris Bleak is at the meeting and prepared to speak to the issue. Will they allow it? Nope. No public comment on this topic. The board says they want feedback, but then why not allow it in the format that stakeholders want to provide it? Chris makes his comments during the following "Public Comments" section of the agenda.
A few amendments: Wasatch Peak amended its charter to make it less of a dual immersion approach, to specific instruction in Spanish. Reagan Academy had several clarification and consistency amendments to its charter. Lots of questions and comments from the board, and Reagan withdrew their app in the face of obvious opposition by the board. How will Renaissance handle their amendment request, which is described on the agenda in the same way?
Renaissance may have learned from Reagan's experience just prior, because discussion is much friendlier. It's going well until they called their charter a "fluid document." That may be a nail. Yup. They also withdrew their request until next time. Now it's Utah Connections. Brian Allen, former SCSB chair, is on their board. He'll be back up there again, too. Connections is asking for a waiver from "traditional structures," since they'll have a physical office, but not an actual school building, since their an online school. The discussion, which was long enough combined with the previous ones to put the board behind schedule, centered on whether the waiver was necessary at all. No need for a waiver, it turns out, and so no action taken.
Now to the new applicants. There are three on the agenda. First up is Endeavor Hall, a writing focus school proposed for West Valley. (I consulted on their charter and have agreed to provide some startup financing if they are approved.) Endeavor is seeking approval of its charter and for a waiver to open in the fall of 2011. Their presentation is awesome (see above statement of bias and conflict), and there is clear board support for the charter. There's hesitation on the waiver, though, which was predictable. There's another school (Valley Academy in Washington County) asking for the same waiver, and there's not enough statutory enrollment space to grant both. The board tables action until after they hear from Valley.
High Mark Charter School is next, hoping to open in South Weber. They aren't seeking a waiver, but to open in 2012, so theirs might go easier. Are they associated with HighMark School development? Scott Smith asks. Nope. Big laughs on the coincidence of the name. (I was confused too when I reviewed their charter as part of the vetting process before this presentation.) Theirs is a school focused on business and entrepreneurship--a cool focus that is unique among Utah charters. Their model calls for a small elementary and a large junior high, of which there is not a successful model in Utah. Doesn't seem to be an issue for the State Board, however. Approved unanimously.
Valley Academy now. They call themselves an
iSchool Campus. They look and sound a lot like Vista School, already operating in the same district, but not filled to enrollment capacity. How can there be both growth enough in the area to sustain a new school and at the same time have vacant public schools? Tim Beagley asks. Many questions about the quality of the application, and the likelihood of them having enough students to draw from to operate at their requested capacity. Board votes to not approve, and the school can re-apply if they want to try.
Since Valley is a no-go, the board moves back to Endeavor Hall. Seems like there is resistance to the waiver, which isn't necessarily a surprise, but is still antithetical to the idea of charters being laboratories of innovation that don't fit in a single box. I argue that the existing rule was put in place to address the common model of charter startup, but that such rules should be freely and happily waived when a model comes along that doesn't fit with the target. Here we have a school with a short-term opportunity on a building, with an experienced board, and with access to low-cost money. YAY!
Into closed session. I wish I could blog all about the Coleman lawsuit, but no go. Off to Cedar City.
**Update** I neglected to mention that the "YAY!" above was because EH was approved unanimously, waiver and all. Not because I took a bit of a verbal beating (no offense taken) for being willing to put my money where my mouth is and provide some short-term cash to a quality applicant.