Chair Boharich: Members, I'm gonna call the meeting to order.
And I'm gonna ask Dr Robinson to come up and give our invocation and pledges.
Member Dr. Robinson: Bow our heads. Dear Lord, please show us your wisdom. Give us your
guidance today, this morning, as we all make decisions that are affecting
parents, teachers, and most important, let's make sure help guide us
to do what's in the best interests of Texas schoolchildren. Amen.
Alright. Where are the flags?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic, for
which it stands, One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee,
Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.
Chair Boharich: Thank you, Dr. Robinson.
And I am going to do Approval of the Minutes. Member Dr. Robinson: Did you know that Ken is going to be here late because he's sick?
Chair Boharich: I'm gonna do the Approval of Minutes. Are there any corrections
to the minutes from the April 5th meeting? Hearing none, minutes are approved
as presented. Now, we will do Resolutions and Presentations. And the first one
will be the presentation of the Milken Educator Award. Thank you, Ms. Perez.
Member Perez: Madam Chair, on our list this morning, we have two
resolutions: one for our Student Heroes and one for a very special district.
Chair Boharich: Yes. That's true. Do you have the, do
you want to do the, which one did you want to do first?
Member Perez: The Student Heroes Award. If that's okay with you. Chair Boharich: That would be great.
Member Perez: This morning, I will be reading the resolution for the
Texas State Board of Education Student Hero Award. Whereas, the State
Board of Education Student Heroes Award was created in 2015, recognizes
Texas public school students who engage in unselfish acts of kindness
or service that benefit their fellow students or community; and whereas,
the Texas State Board of Education members reviewed nominations and
selected 15 students across the state as recipients of the 2019 Student
Heroes Award; and whereas, Hitzel Medrano, a sophomore at Del Rio High
School in the San Felipe-Del Rio Consolidated Independent School District,
a recent immigrant and English learner, voluntarily became a reading
and math tutor, guiding and mentoring her English as a Second Language
classmates; And whereas, Irasema Orozco, an eighth grade student at
Diaz Junior High School in Hidalgo ISD, found her passion in working
with donation drives to provide school supplies, clothes and toys to
children at a homeless shelter; and whereas, Samantha Almaraz, a junior
at Lamar Academy in McAllen ISD, tackled food, waste and food insecurity
by creating the Energy Bar, a food pantry on her campus; and where, as
Brianna Freeman, a senior at Carnegie Vanguard High School in Houston
ISD, mentors junior high students, volunteers at a summer math boot camp,
and serves regularly at a soup kitchen; and whereas Abigail Rendon,
a junior at Smithson Valley High School in Comal ISD, who spearheaded
the Soles4Souls Project that collected more than 5500 pairs of shoes in
eleven days, directly assisting people around the world; wheras, Claudia
Favela, a cancer survivor who is a senior at Klein High School in
Klein ISD, began the Be Bold, Go Gold Organization to spread awareness
about the impact of childhood cancer and the need for more research
funding; and whereas, Alexandria Swett, a third grade student at C. W.
Cline Elementary School in Friendswood ISD, goes out of her way to help
and encourage classmates who are having a tough day or feeling isolated;
and wheras, Eduardo Verastegui, a senior at Lewis Career and Technical
High School in Pasadena ISD, creates positive and inspirational Spanish
language videos for his 400,000 YouTube followers that document
what life is like in the United States for new immigrants; and whereas,
Joshua Silva, a junior at Robert E. Lee High School in Tyler ISD, helped
launch a local Best Buddies chapter that creates a 1-to-1 friendship
between students in general education and special education; whereas,
Epiphany Wilson, a senior at Royal Early College High School in Royal
ISD, is known as a student who steps up and takes care of others,
whether it is creating a Black History Month program, inspiring readers
or befriending lonely classmates; and whereas, Stella Austin, a third
grade student at Heritage Elementary School in Keller ISD, created more
than 110 stuffed cats to bring comfort to children who are hospitalized
or living in a homeless shelter; and whereas, Quinn Loach, a senior
at Allen High School in Allen ISD, helped grow the Spread the Loaves
program that prepares sandwiches for the homeless, tutors students in math
and physics, and recruits students from the International Baccalaureate
program; and wheras, Merissa Rieken, a senior at Harmony School of
Nature in DeSoto, actively volunteers hundreds of hours of service for
organizations such as Dallas Children's Aquarium and Mission Arlington; and
whereas, Meah Jones, a fourth grade student at Old Settlers Elementary
School in Lewisville ISD, makes and sells cookies to raise funds so
she can provide books, toys, socks and jackets to the less fortunate
students; and whereas Landon Morrow, a senior at Sands School in Sands
Consolidated ISD, feeds his community by assisting with canned food
drives, serving food at special school events and at funerals, and is
always willing to lend a helping hand; and whereas, these amazing students
have modeled caring and compassion in their communities, now, therefore,
be it resolved that the State Board of Education extends its heartfelt
thanks to each of these kind hearted students and commends them for
their unselfish volunteerism, good character and integrity; and be it
further resolved that this resolution be presented to each of them, and
that a copy will be included in the permanent records of the Texas State
Board of Education. Witness our signatures this 14th day of June 2019
in Austin, Texas. Donna Bahorich, Chair. Georgina Perez, Secretary.
Our next resolution, will be read by, I'm sorry. Madam Chair.
Chair Boharich: Yes, Members. All those in favor of
approving the resolution for our student heroes say aye.
Group: Aye.
Chair Boharich: Congratulations. This particular
award is our very favorite award, and we are so, so
honored. All of us, as you can see from the great
pictures that we have all across state, to recognize
these outstanding students that serve others, serve
their community so well. So again, we're so pleased
about our student heroes and congratulations to
each and every one of them. Alright, Miss Perez.
Member Perez: Our next resolution will be read by Member Cargill
of The Woodlands recognizing Katy Independent School District.
Member Cargill: Good morning. So, this is a very
special resolution, and I have asked Dr. Christine
Caskey from Katy ISD to come and stand next to
me while I read the accoldate. Whereas, the Katy
Independent School District is celebrating its centennial
year; whereas, the district’s record of providing
an outstanding education was recently recognized
by the College Board; whereas, the College Board
recognized Katy ISD for expanding access to and
increasing performance in Advanced Placement courses
over a three-year period; and whereas, this performance
has earned Katy ISD a position on the annual
AP Honor Roll seven times; whereas, from 2017 to
2018 alone, the number of Katy students enrolled in
AP courses increased 25 percent; whereas, the number
of AP exams taken during that period increased by
20 percent; and whereas, three out of every four Katy
students earned a 3 or higher on an AP exam taken,
which can earn college course credit; and whereas,
Katy ISD was among 373 districts considered for
additional prestigious honors from the College Board;
whereas, Katy ISD was recently selected as the
College Board Advanced Placement Large District of
the Year; now, therefore, let it be resolved that
the State Board of Education commends the students,
teachers, staff, administrators, and school trustees
for the district’s outstanding record of performance;
and, be it further resolved that the board
congratulates the district on its selection as the AP
Large District of the Year. Witness our signatures
the 14th day of June, 2019, in Austin, Texas.
Donna Bahorich and Georgina Perez.
Congratulations. This is awesome. Dr. Caskey: Thank you.
Member Cargill: Thank you so much for coming in. We appreciate it.
Chair Boharich: This was, we so appreciate you being
here. This, Dr. Caskey, we'd really, if you would just
like to say a few words, just to us, about this special
award. Because this is the only one in the nation, so.
Dr. Caskey: It is. We were just recently recognized as the Large
District AP District across the nation, which is a testament
to the hard work of our teachers, our curriculum stuff and, most
importantly, our students. They looked at data trends over three
years, and included in that three year data was actually a year
that we were impacted by Harvey and our students actually lost
ten instructional days. So it's a great testament to our students
to receive this great honor. So we appreciate your support.
Chair Boharich: Absolutely. And thank you so much
for driving all the way from Katie to receivethis
is very important. And I did want to say I went to
the actual presentation ceremony, which was this
very exciting, huge gathering and extremely excited
students and faculty. It was really quite an event
and what I loved about it that they've done in Katy,
they actually have student ambassadors that work
together as a team to recruit their fellow students
to get involved in AP classes. I think that's just
an incredible way to increase participation by getting
fellow classmates to say you should be taking
AP classes, let's let's do this together. So
congratulations to Katy. This is a very momentous for the
district, and I know it took a lot of work from
students, faculty, administration, so congratulations.
Dr. Caskey: Thank you so much.
(applause)
Chair Boharich: Members, is there, all those in favor of the resolution
recognizing that Katy ISD for this momentous achievement say aye.
Group: Aye.
Chair Boharich: Again, congratulations. And we have
one more presentation of the Milken Educator Award,
and I'm gonna call on Allie Freelander, who will
introduce the Milken National Educator Award recipient.
Freelander: Good morning. We are here today, we're very excited (inaudible)
Chair Boharich: I want to make sure your microphone is on there. Does it have a green?
Freelander: There we go. Can you hear me better? Good
morning. Great. So we're here to celebrate one of the very best
educators in the state of Texas. Earlier this year, the
Commissioner and Mr. Cortez and a few other members of the
education community paid a visit to Dr. Sam Cash Elementary
in San Benito, Texas to surprise one of our very best
teachers, Krystal Contreras, with the Milken Educator Award.
This award recognizes outstanding educators and the impact
that they have on students in the broader community, and
community is what Krystal is all about. Not only has she taught
at Cash Elementary for a number of years, she also attended
the school as a child, and both her kids, who are here
with her today, also attend the school now. And when I talked
with her after award to ask about what has contributed
to her success, one of the first things that she mentioned
was a community of teachers and educators with whom she
works, and we know that this is what great teachers do.
They depend on one another to support each other in their
professional development and always look for ways to further
the impact that they can have on students. Krystal teaches
fourth grade Writing and, year after year, has led her team
in the schools who achieve incredible impact on students’
learning and writing. She just mentioned, again, this morning,
that their school achieved the highest writing scores
in their entire, whole district. And I think that's a second
or third year in a row for that accomplishment. When you
walk into her classroom, I had the pleasure of visiting her
classroom, you see a very warm, inviting classroom community.
She has a fantastic rapport with her students, she uses
flexible seating and engages them in all sorts of fun
activities and projects. So I would like to invite you to
help me congratulate Krystal on this incredible achievement.
(applause)
Member Cortez: Madam Chair, can she bring her children
up with her. Can she bring up her children? For the photo?
Chair Boharich: Again, we want to congratulate Miss Contreras.
(applause)
Alright, members, we're gonna go ahead and go into the Approval of
the Consent Agenda. And I'm gonna go ahead and read those items. Oh,
yeah. I forgot to call roll. Our funding. If I don't call Roll. My
goodness, I can't believe I didn't call roll. Yeah, Mr. Cortez.
Member Cortez: Madam Chair, there was an item, I believe it's in Consent,
with the recommendations for the TRS board. I'd like to have that one
considered. My nominee didn't make it on the list, so I'd like to bring
that back up so that we can include my nominee for potential consideration.
Chair Boharich: We can add that to that agenda item for the Committee of
the Full Board because that's where we talked about it. Would be the TRS.
Member Cortez: Yeah, if there's no objection. Chair Boharich: Yeah, if there's no objection, we'll go ahead and move that from Consent.
Member Cortez: Thank you, Madam Chair. Chair Boharich: Absolutely.
(inaudible speech off-microphone)
Chair Boharich: That's right. Alright, members,
I'm gonna go ahead and read the items, and starting
with item number two then because we've pulled item
one to be considered later today. One time procedural
action to correct the effective date of proposed
repeal of 19 TAC Chapter 118 Texas Essential Knowledge
and Skills for Economics with an emphasis on the
Free Enterprise System and its benefits. Item number
three, proposed amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 74,
Curriculum Requirements, Subchapter C, Other provisions
74.30, Identification of Honors courses, first reading
and filing authorization. Item number four, per
capita appointment rate for the 2018-2019 school year.
Item number five, ratification of the purchases
and sales of the investment portfolio of the Permanent
School fund for the months of February, March
and April 2019. Item number six, Permanent School
Fund pending contract renewals. Item seven, review
of the Bond Guarantee Program Charter capacity. Item
number eight, review of the Permanent School Fund
Emerging Market Equities Asset class. Item nine, Permanent
School Fund-related legislation 86th Legislature,
regular session. Item 10 was also removed from the
Consent Agenda because the matter had no action
before the Permanent School Fund committee. So that
one we're also not considering. Item number 11,
recommendation for appointment to the Fort Sam Houston
Independent School District Board of Trustees. Item
12, recommendation for appointment to the Lackland
Independent School District Board of Trustees. Item
13, recommendation for appointment to the Randolph
Field Independent School District board of trustees.
Chair Boharich: Are there any other comments on
the consent agenda? All those in favor say aye.
Group: Aye
Chair Boharich: All those opposed say no. Consent Agenda is approved as amended.
Let's go ahead and take a roll.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Miss Perez? Member Perez: Present.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Cortez? Member Cortez: Here.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mrs. Perez-Diaz? Member Perez-Diaz: Present.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Allen? Member Allen: Present.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Mercer?
Debbie Ratcliffe: Doctor Robinson? Member Dr. Robinson: Present.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Ms. Cargill? Member Cargill: Here.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Dr. Ellis? Member Dr. Ellis: Here.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Maynard? Member Maynard: Here.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Ms. Hardy? Member Hardy: Here.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Ms. Little? Member Little: Here.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Ms. Davis? Member Davis: Here.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Ms. Melton-Malone? Member Melton-Malone: Here.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Rowley? Here.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mrs. Bahorich? Chair Boharich: Here.
Chair Boharich: Alright, members, I'm gonna go ahead if there's
no objection and take up the report from the Committee on School
Initiatives. I understand that some board members have to leave a
little earlier today, so I'm gonna go ahead and take up that report
first. And so, the first item that will consider is the consideration
of Commissioner of Education's Generation 24 Open Enrollment
Charter School proposals. And I believe, Ms. Cargill, I don't know if
you're going to speak, or if Heather will come up and speak first.
Member Cargill: Both. Both. Yeah, I mean, I'll call her to (inaudible crosstalk). So we have two other items, you want me to skip those until the end?
Chair Boharich: Yeah, let's go ahead and just do the charter. Member Cargill: Okay, that's fine.
Member Cargill: So, members, if you take out your minutes, they were
in your or on your desk rather, for the Committee on School Initiatives,
this is agenda item seven, consideration of the Commissioner of
Education's Generation 24 open enrollment charter school proposals.
And if staff would come up, Ms. Mauze, and give us an introduction and would you like
me to explain how we're going to do this for everybody?
Chair Boharich: No, I think we'll just, she's got it in her,
Member Cargill: So we do have invited representatives
from each of the charter applicants that made
it through to this final stage. And so, after Ms
Mauze speaks, then, we will be calling them up.
Heather Mauze: Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Board, Heather Mauze, Director of the Charter School Administration Division.
Chair Boharich: And your light is on right? Is the light on? Heather Mauze: Yes, ma'am.
Okay. Let me...better? Maybe? As Miss Cargill stated, there are five
Generation 24 Open Enrollment Charter applicants before you today.
The Commissioner is confident they will deliver on the high standards
and expectations that we have for our public schools in Texas. We
hold a high bar for the proposals he makes, and while the charter
schools don't aim to detract from the traditional ISDs, they do aim to
expand the educational options available to parents and their children
wanting school choice. As part of the application process, we have
invited the proposed Generation 24 Charter Founders, and their board
representatives that made it through the rigorous application process,
here to Austin today to share their passion and vision for operating
a Texas Public Charter School with the State Board of Education
and make themselves available to you to answer any of your questions
or address concerns. It's my honor to present to you the proposed
charter applicant teams, and in no particular order, here today,
representing the Generation 24 Charter Proposals are The Gathering Place.
This team proposes an innovative, first-of-its-kind, arts-integrated, personalized learning
curriculum in Grades K through Eight in the San
Antonio area, with some demonstrated success in
their summer programs as well as participation
in the NSCF Fellowship out of High Tech High.
Here today is the proposed Superintendent, Ryan York, and Board President Joanna Klekowicz.
Joanna Klekowicz: We are honored to be standing here today as the co-founders
of The Gathering Place and are thrilled to share our vision with you. I am the
daughter of Polish immigrants who grew up with parents that strongly encouraged
education but did not speak English. I had to learn to navigate an educational system
that did not see me for who I was, never for my cultural background or my native
language, and failed to make meaningful connections with my family. I know what it
feels like to be in a school where you don't belong. And I became a teacher on the
promise that no child I worked with would ever feel the same way. Years later,
Ryan and I met, we built a project-based curriculum that grew from serving 250
students to serving 10,000 students across the South. We heard from teacher after
teacher that they often felt like their hands were tied and their voices ignored
by the big systems that they worked in. Believing that school could be different
and wanting to lift up the voices of students and teachers, we dreamed of creating
The Gathering Place, a school built by educators focused on nurturing and
celebrating the inner brilliance within every single child. We left our jobs with no
funding and no guaranteed path forward, but with a burning fire to never give up.
Ryan York: And since then, we've had the opportunity to work alongside
hundreds of members of our community to design and build The Gathering
Place. We worked with our board to curate that into a mission and vision
and are here to present something for you today that we believe will be
transformational for students. I got started as the Executive Director of a
nonprofit music and arts organization for kids. I then transitioned to being
a district teacher, an instructional coach, and then a principal. Most
importantly, I got to navigate the educational landscape as the father of my
son and experience what it felt like for him to be overlooked and not seen
for who he was, and it became my conviction, working alongside with Joanna
to build a school that, as she said, nurtures and celebrates the inner
brilliance of every child. Before diving in further, we also want to take
a moment to give a huge thanks to all of the supporters that came out
today. After hearing some of the general concerns yesterday, they rallied
together and came out with short notice to show their support and enthusiasm.
And so, from the bottom of our hearts, thank you so much for being here.
Joanna Klekowicz: And there is a growing narrative that it is a district vs charter
ecosystem, but we don't think that's how it has to be. We fully resonate with
Dr. Robinson's reminder yesterday about the original intent of charter schools:
to provide a unique and innovative school that then contributes to the overall
educational ecosystem. As we shared, we had built a PBL curriculum for four charter
schools that we then shared widely. We partnered with our local district to provide
our curriculum for free. And today, every single district middle school in Nashville
is using our curriculum, and we're continuing that spirit of collaboration
today. We're hosting a yearlong residency in San Antonio, that is open to any public
school teacher in our county, to train them on PBL. We’re even offering a $600
stipend for every teacher, and to date, we've had 57 teachers apply. Think about
the impact. Each selected Teacher will go back to their home schools with the
new skills to support their children's learning. Lastly, we’re also volunteering
with SA Rise, a local advocacy organization, to help bring restorative practices
and SEL to our local districts in San Antonio. And recently, in part as a result
of that work, San Antonio ISD has committed to strengthening their SEL program.
Ryan York: Our innovative model is built around three design
principals: the Freedom to Be, through social and emotional
learning; the Freedom of Expression, through daily creative
arts; and the Freedom to Explore your own curiosities
and passion through project-based learning. Our SEL program
is supported by a robust team including a Director of
Social-Emotional learning, a social worker designed to help
connect parents and families with the services and resources
they need, and a robust team of mental health counselors
that are there to provide support for students, one-on-one
and in groups. Our arts program is also designed to point
where students have daily creative arts, including dance,
visual art, theater and music. And lastly, our project-based
model is about students engaging authentic problems with
learning experiences aligned with the TEKS to help them
navigate through meaningful and relevant learning experiences.
not just created by us. We went to great lengths to co designer school with our community.
Joanna Klekowicz: We started by hosting over 300 empathy meetings with
families and community leaders in San Antonio. We then pulled their
stories together to form the prototype of a school model through a
free summer camp called the Great Food Truck Summer Camp. Our children
learned, through a project-based model, how to create their own
food truck businesses, and as a result, we ended with a Showcase of
Learning where there was over 600 tacos made, over 100 community members,
and enough flour and lard to cover the walls for generations. We
then knocked on 915 doors and held to school code design sessions with
local high school students and local college students to get feedback
and input on our evolving model. And in closing, we stand here as
the proposed leaders of The Gathering Place, ready and excited for
any questions that you may have. But we want to be clear that The
Gathering Place does not belong to us. It belongs to the voices and the
people that have shaped and designed it. And we are honored and humbled.
To be standing here today as the stewards of that shared vision.
Thank you.
Chair Boharich: Any questions of The Gathering Place? Alright, thank you so much.
Members, did you make the motion? (inaudible) oh, you had a question?
Member Hardy: Two questions. One, I was looking at the daily plan,
and so forth, and I'm wondering, where do they get in their English
and Social Studies and Reading and all that sort of stuff. Is this
just like a snapshot? Or just what is that? And the other thing is, I
understand that the PBL, the project-based learning, one of the concerns
that a lot of people in the community have is the project based
learning becoming a student activist type thing with biases that are the
biases of the adults in charge sort of thing. Can you address that?
Ryan York: Yeah, absolutely. S, first of all, our instructional
model, we've had the chance to work with project-based schools that
are doing really well here in Texas. So, for example, Meridian School
in Round Rock is a project-based school. It's an A-rated school.
And their students perform really well on the STAAR. They do well
in Math and Reading, but they also do really well on subjects that
oftentimes don't get as much attention like Science and Social
Studies. Their students perform 73% Meeting or Exceeding Standard in
Science, which outperforms their district. And so we've gotten to see
what it looks like to do PBL in a way that also does really well
on the STAAR. We do have dedicated time in our instructional model for
literacy every single day. And so that means students are getting
a balanced literacy approach, which includes a direct phonics instruction,
learning fluency and decoding. It also includes guided reading
and writer's workshops. During the project-based model, the teachers
are integrating those learning standards in every single day.
And so when students are working on projects, the teacher has
aligned it to all of the different TEKS, and we're using a learning
management system called Project Foundry that's been used across the
country, including in Texas, that gives you a view of, here's what our
kids are working on, here's the standards that they've covered and
how they performed on it. So any given day, we have that formative
data to know how our students are doing across all of the different
TEKSthat they're being assessed against. Specific to the question
on biases of the instructor and what that looks like, in any setting
where you have adults leading students to learning experiences,
it's the responsibility of the adults to make sure that the way that
they're instructing is authentically rooted in the standards and
not their own personal beliefs and biases. That's no different in
project-based learning. The point of project-based learning is to
look at the different standards and say, where did they come from?
Why were these important? And let's learn through those experiences.
Chair Boharich: Ms. Davis? Member Davis: I have a question. Is your program currently found anywhere in San Antonio ISD?
Like the PBL and all of the extra recess.
Is there any school right now that currently offers that in San Antonio?
Joanna Klekowicz: So there is no school that is exactly like our
model. So, for example, we're going to be offering daily creative
arts for all students. There is no school in all of Bexar County,
either ISD or charter, that offers daily creative arts for students.
Chair Boharich: Miss Perez?
Member Perez: So I just heard you speak about the reading and
writing and specifically to phonics, and I'm wondering your
plan for English learners and your teacher certifications as
it pertains to bilingual education and your ESL programs.
Ryan York: Absolutely. So we anticipate our student
population being 24% English learners, and that
means that we have, built into our models, certified
bilingual instructors that will be working with
those students from Kindergarten on. And so, I mean,
we have the certified bilingual instructors. And
so that is a part of our model that we built in and
budgeted for. They will be working with students
in an early transitional model that's a bilingual
instructional model. And so, with those 24% of students,
that means that we anticipate roughly two cohorts
of students that are in that bilingual program.
The instructional model they'll be using is based
off the Learning A through Z Reading curriculum,
which is research-based in supporting students,
specifically, who are English language learners.
Member Perez: I'm sorry. You said 24%? Ryan York: Yes.
Member Perez: And that's your projected enrollment estimate?
Ryan York: Of English learners, yes. Member Perez: Of English learners?
Ryan York: Yes. And that number was aggregated by looking at
numbers based on schools nearby our proposed geographic range.
Chair Boharich: Any other questions? Yes, Miss Cargill?
Member Cargill: No. I just wanted to thank you
for all of your hard work. And I see you brought
some of the troops in from San Antonio. I didn't
want them to think that we had not noticed
their purple shirts? Mauve? Beautiful. Very unique
color shirts. But thank you so much. I know
this represents a lot of hard work and diligence,
and your heart for kids is commendable.
Ryan York: Thank you
Chair Boharich: So I think we can do just the motion, yeah. Member Cargill: You ready for the motion? Oh, well.
Chair Boharich: Yes, Mr. Cortez?
Member Cortez: So I have some comments, not questions, for the school, I mean, the
proposed school. So do we deal with that during the motion? Do we deal with that now?
Chair Boharich: Yeah, I think, so you don't have
any questions for them? They can sit down? Okay.
Member Cortez: So I don't know if we deal with it during the
discussion portion of the motion or do you wanna deal with it now?
Member Cortez: Alright.
Chair Boharich: Yeah, why don't we do the motion first,
then we'll have discussion, then we'll have a vote.
Member Cargill: So, Members, this is on page seven
of your Committee on School Initiatives minutes.
The motion and vote at the bottom. So, it's
recommended that the State Board of Education take
no action on The Gathering Place San Antonio,
scheduled to open in the 2020-21 school year. You can
see the breakdown of the members voting aye and
the member voting no on the bottom of page seven.
Member Dr. Robinson: Second.
Member Cargill: We don't need them on Friday. Cause it's assumed the Committee...
Member Dr. Robinson: Learned something new. Robert's Rules of Order doesn't need it.
Chair Boharich: Mr. Cortez, if want to go ahead and have a...
Member Cortez: I do. You know. And while I appreciate the hard work and
effort that all of these charters have presented, and I have no doubt that
some of these people are probably smart, capable, we did hear a lot of
concerns yesterday with respect to some of some of the districts representing
that their surrounding communities were showing low performing ISDs within
the proposed charter zone. And what happened yesterday, Board, was,
I thought, unprecedented. We had more administrators from the neighboring
schools come to speak to us than we've ever had in the past, despite
the fact the Commissioner of Education put this out last minute for the
public to see, tells me that they're paying attention to what's going on.
One of the documents that we received yesterday, and I believe we received
this from Dr. Robinson, talks about the fiscal impact over a decade that
these charters, these new proposed charters, would have on the State of
Texas. It's over $350,000,000. Assuming that in that decade, they don't
ask for expansion amendments or student growth enrollments. Because, as
some of you may have already seen, we got that proposed expansion charter
amendment list from the Commissioner this week. 27,558 students is what
he's allowed the creation of new seeds in existing charters. And so when
Heather is up there talking about this need, I'm having a hard time
understanding what that need is if the Commissioner of Education, and these are
numbers I just added up from approved list that the Commissioner gave,
27,558 new seats are being created in Texas. A lot of these are in the San
Antonio area, where some of these charters want to go. They’re in these
urban settings like the Austins, the Houstons, the El Pasos, and some
in the Valley and different parts of the state of Texas. I think, at this
time, I just can't in good conscience support this or any of the charters,
and I would strongly encourage the board to just take a pause, especially
when you dive into this list that the Commissioner gave us this week,
there's over three, I believe, over three dozen new campuses on this list.
Outside of these five districts that we don't know what they're going
to do. And so I just want to share that with you guys because I don't
think this is a time for us to be adding any new charters to our roster.
Chair Boharich: Yes, Mr Ellis. Dr. Ellis.
Member Dr. Ellis: Can we bring staff up to, I have a question along the same lines?
Chair Boharich: Yeah, I think so. Heather, would
you mind coming and helping us with this discussion?
Member Dr. Ellis: Miss Mauze, would you mind addressing that
comment? When we when we look at the charges, have been approved in
the expansions, and I understand that there's individual lists
that each charter maintains of applicants, a waiting list per se.
And I also understand that there was some legislation that was
passed that might consolidate that. Can you speak to, maybe, how
the process has worked prior to what Mr Cortez was speaking to,
and how it might work different in the future and that question?
Heather Mauze: Certainly with any amendment process, we gather information
from the charter school. Currently, as Dr Ellis pointed out, we don't have
TA data on weightless information, but due to recent legislation going
forward, we will have. But what we do collect is impact statements. We collect
information from the applicants of their current enrollment current capacity
and use various data points to inform the growth decisions for expansion
amendments. The current legislation passage of that legislation is going to
give us additional data points that will be able to drill down and truly
when identify if I wait list numbers on report that to the public with transparency
Member Dr. Ellis: When administrators are getting their ability to do
an impact statement, are they also made aware of a new charter coming in?
And, also, at the same time, at what the expansions are looking like? Are
they able to have that information together to give their impact statement?
Heather Mauze: We request that the charter that is proposing to expand share that
information with the superintendents of the ISDs.
We also, particularly on campus expansions,
we notify the ISDs of when that facility has been identified after Commissioner's
approval. As I said, part of the tension is that prior to Commissioner's approval,
the proposed expansion, it would be premature for them to solidify any type of lease
or construction or facility. I'd also like to add, you know, for charter schools the
expansions, and particularly campus expansions, if not for the enrollment, and that
need demonstrated by the enrollment in those campuses, they would not be existing.
Member Dr. Ellis: I understand. I got one more follow up and then I'll yield. The
time frame. We're in the middle of the new charter application. We understand this
is a time frame, we're right here, right now. On the expansions, that's more of a
rolling process throughout, is it a five or six month process? Is that how that works?
Heather Mauze: So currently, there, in the entirety of the expansion
process, it could be up to 18 months. There is a definite expansion window.
That's February through April. There's statutory requirements that the
agency and Commissioner make decisions on those expansion amendments
within 60 days. Prior to the submission of the request to the Commissioner,
the superintendent's must submit the requisite paperwork, charter
superintendents must submit the charter impact statements, board resolutions,
applications, and then, we begin the vetting process on our end.
Member Dr. Ellis: Okay. Thank you.
Member Rowley: I have a question, I guess, of you,
Heather, or whoever, with regard to this fiscal
impact a table that we've been provided here. Mr.
Member Cortez referred to it that there would be a
$353,000,000 impact over 10 years of this generation
of charter schools. I guess, maybe, to the creator
of this document, it is that a reallocation of dollars
from public schools into charter schools, or is
that estimated or supposed impact on the state in terms
of that additional amount being spent on charter
schools that would not otherwise be spent. And
Doctor Robinson, I'm directing that towards you, but
then the other part of that is, I mean, in your
estimation here, did you calculate that it's gonna cost
a certain amount for public schools to educate these
kids if these charter schools are not created?
Member Dr. Robinson: It is my understanding that what that dollar amount represents
is the amount of money that those districts would lose over a period of ten years.
Member Rowley: So, when Member Cortez stated that
it would cost the state $353,000,000 over this period
of time, that's actually not an accurate statement.
It's a reallocation of dollars, perhaps from public
schools to charter schools, but it's not an additional cost.
(inaudible speech off-microphone) Member Rowley: I'm directing that to...
Member Dr. Robinson: That's debatable. I mean, those are
redundant services. So I don't think that it's a simple
yes or no well Member Rowley: Well, redundant services, you get paid so much per student, and that state allocation
is either going to go to a public school or it's going to go to a charter school. And
with regard to your scenario. Correct? So
it's gonna be an amount one way or the other.
It's gonna be expended per student unless we run out of students, I suppose. But
it's a per student allocation, right? Yeah, it's the average daily allowance for each
student. So, yes. Member Dr. Robinson: I mean, I'll be honest, that information given to me. I didn't research
it much myself. Member Cortez: Member Rowley? If I could just add to that. Madam Chair, if you don't mind.
If I could just add to that comment because... Chair Boharich: Add to? Member Cortez: Yeah. So, yeah, a San Antonio area
district, and we had this conversation with
the Commissioner, I think, in April, when he
put it up on his presentation, showed a traditional
ISD student is funded, currently, under
this current biennium, 38% from state of Texas,
right, and the rest comes from local tax dollars
and the rest from federal funds. Well, that's different for any child in a charter
district in Texas. Tt's 100% from the state of
Texas, so the impact is different. Because right
now, if a student in in San Antonio ISD, they're getting 38% of their funds from
the State of Texas money, and that's going up with this increase that they just signed
in HB3. And then 50% comes from the local tax base. Charter schools don't
have a local tax base. So to say that there is an impact, there is an impact.
That's what I would respond to you. And still have questions of Miss Mauze in addition
to that. Chair Boharich: Ms. Davis?
Member Davis: Thank you. I had the opportunity to visit with the Initiatives
Committee yesterday, and I saw that there were several administrators who noted that
there was false data in several of the applications.
And so I would like to know about the vetting
process to understand how an application got that far with false data in it.
Chair Boharich: I want to make sure. Does this have to do with The Gathering Place? Heather Mauze: I do not believe it does. I think it.
it has to do with yesterday's committee meeting.
Chair Boharich: I kinda would like to just stick to The Gathering
Place. And then when we get to the one that you're talking about.
Member Davis: Well, it was several different
administrators and teachers from several different areas,
so it wasn't necessarily... Chair Boharich: For a particular, but I mean, you're referring to a particular
application, though, correct? So let's just
keep that just that particular discussion on
that application, so we'll revisit that. Yeah.
Member Cortez: So what I wanted to just follow up is, you
know, you talked about this need, when you opened up, Heather, in your statements
and I'm talking about this 27,558 additional seats
that have been approved by the Commissioner
from March 31st of this year through June 12th of this year. Yesterday, there was
somebody that testified from the San Antonio
area that said that some of the charters in
the San Antonio area and around the, I assume this is true statewide, but in the
San Antonio area, that they still have a lot
of empty seats. Do you have that information?
Because you talked about, you have impact statements
and you have all these other things, but do
we have the data that shows the charters that are in that San Antonio area and how many
of them still have empty seats?
Heather Mauze: So to answer your question about enrollment for charters
in general. We are excited about the current legislation because it will allow
us to drill down with more specificity. What
we do have right now is maximum enrollments, but
not down to the seat level. And so maximum
enrollment is currently what we're operating on.
Next year, we'll be able to drill down to a
student in seat level, as the statute specifies,
to the grade level. Member Cortez: And I only bring that up because it was testified by several
campus administrators that came before us, that there's a lot of empty seats in area
charter schools in San Antonio, and so to approve
an additional new charter in this market,
to me, going back to Dr Robinson's comment, seems redundant and it seems like overkill.
If we have vacant seats and if the Commissioner's
already approved an additional 27,558 new
seats, a lot of which will be in Bexar County.
And, so, you know, I just caution the Board
as, I mean, yeah, the Legislature might have been a little generous this year, but
that doesn't forgive some of their past transgressions. They continue to
give these unfunded mandates, and schools are doing more and more with less and less.
And we had one of them come yesterday, and I share this with your because this is in
Bexar County, that said they just drove up from
a budget meeting they had the night before,
drove up five in the morning, they came to talk to us, and said that even with the
new money, they're still facing deficits in their
area. And yet every one of the administrators
said that all of their campuses met standard or exceeded state standard. And yet you've
got schools that want open around these areas. And so I just think this is
harmful for us to be doing, and I would urge that you all reject not only this, but the
remaining four. For these and many other reasons.
Chair Boharich: Miss Perez-Diaz. I believe you're, did
you want to speak or are you good? Member Perez-Diaz: Mine was more a general question regarding the expansion
So I don't know that this is an appropriate time. I think there's time to have conversation.
Chair Boharich: Yeah. Let's stick with The Gathering Place
because that's the one we're working on right
now. Yes. I'm sorry. Miss Mauze? Heather Mauze: As far as the seats and the traditional ISD superintendents
having that data. I'm curious as to where they gleaned that data from when
the authorizing office gleans data, we try to have good relationships with
their charter schools and ask for that nuanced
information. Although it's not required in
statute, nor in rule currently. And we you
know, when we reach out, they are responsive.
So I am curious as to where a traditional ISD superintendents would get the charter
school enrollment data down to the student level. So that's my request of you, Mr Cortez. Chair Boharich: Dr. Ellis.
Member Dr. Ellis: This is a little bit of a general
question, not necessarily strictly to The Gathering
Place, but it does affect all of them, and it was about the conversation that enrolled,
that took place about school funding. And Von,
I think I'm gonna lead to you, a question to you
on this. To talk about the different, cause we talked about this in committee, about the
differences of how charters are funded versus
disctricts are funded. And that might be just
time for a good little overview of it's completely
state-share, as was brought up by charters.
But it's none on the local property taxpayers,
and there's a balance here between that, and Von,
is there something you want to add to the fact of the school finance of how charters
are funded and what method and maybe even on how HB3 will kind of...
Von Byers: I can provide you kind of a brief overview, as long as you don't ask
me to go into finite detail on a particular charter. So charters do not have a tax
base, so they're funded completely from the state. They're funding models on a per
student, excuse me, use statewide averages for things like small and mid size, CEI,
that thing. And by the way, this just applies
to this wrapped up school year, since House
Bill 3 has passed and the funding models have drastically changed.
What that effect has is that a student who was
previously at a school district that attends
the charter school will get now funded under the charter school. That ADA would not
be counted at the school district. So the local share, if you held everything equal,
would go up at the school district, reducing
the cost to the state and the state then sends
that money to the charter school. So if both entities were funded
exactly same, this is all a wash. Local share
goes up at the school district. State share
goes down. State cuts a check to the charter
school. Total funding has remained the same.
There are differences that will be unique for each charter since, in each school
district, since charters are funded on a statewide
average, and that also applies to Tier 2. They
get the statewide average of this Tier Two tax rate, which is not necessary reflective
of the school district that, within the boundaries
that they serve. So I don't know if I answered that.
Member Rowley: Just take that one step further
with regard to this handout that we received
on The Gathering Place. It says that the fiscal impact would be $70,520,000
over a 10 year period. And that's the same number, by the way, that's used to get the
353,000,000 that Member Cortez was talking
about. But actually, that's not the 38%, that's
taken 378, according to your own data, right
here. It's 378 students times $6386. So that's
the full amount of the allocation. So it's not
an additional cost to the state of $70,000,000.
It's not an additional cost of $353,000,000
because you're taking the full amount of the
enrollment and you're multiplying times the student allocation as Von just clarified.
That's, between the two of them, they're evenly weighted. It is a reallocation.
Perhaps. Maybe that's the point you want to
make. It's a reallocation from public schools
to a charter school, but it's not an additional
cost to the state. Member Dr. Robinson: Okay, I want to make sure
that, Marty, that you get the original question answered. From the state of Texas,
now, see, ISDs get money from three different
sources, right? From the state, the local and
the federal. The charter schools get overwhelming
majority from the state. So if you, in a
given district, if over a period of 10 years, there's a lot more of those kids that go
from ISD to the charter school, the state of Texas is gonna have to end up paying more
than if they were, than if all those kids stayed
at the ISD. Because there's other sources
of income. Matter of fact, it's 1600 per student more
than the state of Texas pays versus, because again,
of course, the ISDs get additional sources. So that costs the state more.
Member Rowley: May I respond since he directed to me? Yeah. So
then it needs to be 1600 times 378, not 6388
times 378 because you took... (inaudible speech from crowd) Well,
but yeah, but it's not gonna be 70 million as represented
on this document. Well, in any event, you're taking the total enrollment times
the total ADA, and you're coming up with $70,000,000.
Even with your numbers, at 1600, it should be
one-third of that. Actually, 20% of that. Member Cortez: Mister Rowley
Chair Boharich: Mister Maynard? Member Maynard: Madam Chair, I just want to just kind of make
an observation. It seems like that frequently, when people don't get their way at the
Legislature and this body has some sort of
rule making authority, then if they don't get
their way over over at the Capitol, they come
and try to get their way over here. And I think
what I'm hearing is that, you know, this is really a debate about charter
schools in general. Is that whether or not we
ought to be doing that, actually, but that
that question has already been decided by the Legislature. It's not within the purview
of this board to essentially to veto what the Legislature has already decided.
Whether or not we have charter schools and whether or not we fund charter schools
is not a question for this deliberative body. It only within the purview
of this body to to examine the
work of the Commissioner and to decide whether or not that that is, you
know, that that fits within the parameters of the statute and the purpose of that and
give it up or down vote. But what I'm hearing, I think, is something we've really
strayed off the reservation in terms of the purpose of this discussion, in my opinion.
And I think that we need to look at the merits of this in terms of the
sustainability and in terms of the overall educational environment of those
communities and make a decision based on that.
Not whether or not that we oughta have charter schools or not
Member Dr. Robinson: That's not what I was saying.
And I have never said that I oppose all charter
schools. We're talking about... Chair Boharich: Dr. Robinson, you need to go through the Chair. Thank you. Miss Perez-Diaz?
Member Perez-Diaz: Madam Chair, I going to try to do my best
to get us back on track. While I believe there're very,
very valid concerns regarding the expansion of
charters, and where that power lies, that's
a, I think, a separate discussion than what we're
having. But what I will say, in terms of the
current proposal in front of us, is that I think
and I'll speak generally first.
I think that the position of this board right
now because of the constraints that we find
ourselves in legislatively, it is our absolute highest level responsibility to provide
the best opportunities possible for our students when we have this responsibility that we
have to oversee, and I think that, based on this particular proposal's merits, the fact
that they're incredibly innovative, I think that that's where we need to bring the
conversation back to, and I say all that still very much committed to the idea that
there are huge gaps in how we approve charters
and that needs to be addressed definitely,
because I think expansion is, kind of, is out
of hand. But in terms of this conversation,
I think we need to need to focus on what we're trying to accomplish today.
Chair Boharich: Thank you, Miss Perez Diaz. I do think that, while
I do appreciate the philosophical discussion
about charters in general, I do think that the purpose before us today is to look at
these particular five charters that the Commissioner
has presented us as his approved group and
either support them on their merits or make
another decision with our votes. So is there
any other questions or discussion amongst the
members about The Gathering Place? Because
that's what we're talking about here today.
Mr Cortez? And this will be a different point than you've made?
No, I don't have any more questions or statements. I
just want to make a comment. And I think it's important
that the chair of the committee, when when we start each one and as we go into the next
ones, that would be important to mention this
one got approved out of committee, recommended
four-one, right, four of the committee members voted... Chair Boharich: Yeah, we'll get to the motion.
Member Cortez: I understand. But when we opened, the comment
was the votes were there. So I just want it to be known that
this one was the only one that was voted out
unfavorably, four-one, and the remainder were recommended
for veto. We will hear that, right? Yeah. We'll read each one of the recommendations.
Because they were voted on separately, we'll
read each one. Alright. Are you ready for
the vote on this one? So the motion before you is to take no action on The Gathering
Place in San Antonio, scheduled to open 2021
school year. All those in favor. Member Perez: I'd like a vocal vote please.
Chair Boharich: Okay, Von, can you help us with the vote, the various vote options, here? Von Byers: So you all have the
ability to veto a decision by the Commission. What you have before you is a vote to take
no action, which is really an affirmative stance for this board to say we're not going
to veto the action of the Commissioner. And then I think when we get to the other ones,
if you want to explain the alternative motion
because those will be those will be presented
to you in a slightly different manner. (inaudible speech from audience)
Yeah, and the reason why you do this
because this is very similar to how it operates when you get an SBEC rule. You
have a specified statutory timeframe in order
to take an action, and the only action you can
take is to disapprove an action of another
body. And so, in order for folks to have some
comfort that you have decided to not exercise
your authority within that time frame, we've
historically used this vote to take no action.
And and so that's what's before you.
Chair Boharich: Does that answer your question, Mr. Allen?
So a vote in the affirmative would would be a vote to
take no action. The charter will be approved if a vote of yes. And we had a roll call.
Did you say roll call? Okay. Debbie Ratcliffe: Miss Perez?
Chair Boharich: Miss Perez, your vote? No, she's doing the roll call. Member Perez: Yes, I know.
(inaudible speech from group) Member Perez: Thank you.
Chair Boharich: We're gonna skip, go ahead. Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Cortez? Member Cortez: No.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Miss Perez-Diaz? Member Perez-Diaz: Yes
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Allen? Debbie Ratcliffe: Yes.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Mercer's absent. Dr Robinson? Member Dr. Robinson: Yes
Debbie Ratcliffe: Miss Cargill? Member Cargill: Yes.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Doctor Ellis? Member Dr. Ellis: Yes.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Maynard? Member Maynard: Aye.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Miss Hardy? Member Hardy: Yes
Debbie Ratcliffe: Miss Little? Member Little: Yes.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Miss Davis? Member Davis: Yes.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Miss Melton-Malone? Member Melton-Malone: Yes
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mister Rowley? Member Rowley: Yes.
Debbie Ratcliffe: And Miss Bahorich? Chair Boharich: Yes.
Debbie Ratcliffe: And did? Member Perez: No.
Chair Boharich: Alright, so those charters are approved. Right?
(applause)
Chair Boharich: Okay, members, I'm gonna take about a 15 minute break, and before
I do that, I'm gonna introduce my family. So I have my standing right back here.
That's my husband, Mike Bahorich. And next to him is Madeline, and then Abigail,
and then Kate, and then my mother, who I'm gonna tell your age, Mom. She's 92, and she's
here today. Okay, so we'll break for 15 minutes for a necessary break. We'll be back together. Thank you.
Alright, members, I so appreciate you indulging me a little bit. My family hadn't
been here before, so this is kind of fun for me. Fun for Nana. So, alright,
Miss Cargill, I think we're back to your report. Member Cargill: Okay, Members, I think the second one that we're
going to, according to the staff, do you want
to introduce like you did last time? I know you
said no particular order. So what's the next? Heather Mauze: Next we have Elevate Collegiate, which is a highly
qualified board with deep personal and professional
roots in the Third Ward. Their school focus
intently on early grade literacy and offer enrichment options for Spanish and
digital literacy for students in grades pre-K through five in the Houston area. And today
we have the proposed superintendent, Rebecca Francis, and Board Member Doctor Zenaida Aguirre-Munoz.
I hope I didn't butcher that too badly. Chair Boharich: So for any of the successive ones that
we have, if the school leaders will just go ahead and stand up there next to Heather,
then we could just immediately transfer, we don't
have have to wait for you to walk up. So welcome.
Let's actually get a motion on the floor, Ms. Cargill. Okay, so we're at
the bottom of page 5 in your minutes, the Committee on School Initiatives.
It was recommended by the committee that the State Board of Education veto Elevate Collegiate
Charter School in Houston, scheduled to open in 2020/21. You can see that three members
voted yes, and Cortez, Perez-Diaz, Robinson, and
two voted no, Cargill and Ellis, on the bottom
of page five. But the committee did recommend to veto.
(inaudible speech from off-microphone) Rebecca Francis: I first just want to express gratitude
to the state board, to TEA, to the reviewers, for an extremely rigorous application cycle.
We are honored to be here today. My name is Rebecca Francis. I am the proposed head of
school for Elevate Collegiate Charter School. The mission of Elevate Collegiate Charter
School is to equip our pre-K through fifth grade students with the academic knowledge
and the character development that we know it's so necessary to set forth confidently
on the path to college. This work is deeply personal to us. We see our sons and daughters,
our nieces and nephews, and ourselves in our students in southeast Houston. I didn't grow
up in a great neighborhood. I traveled very long distances to go to high quality schools
because my family knew that a high quality education would award me a life filled with
opportunity. I come to this work with 10 years of experience in education, working in traditional
public schools, a high-performing charter school and internationally as well. I've had
a variety of roles, but primarily, in the realms of
instructional leadership and teacher development.
We believe that a child needs to attend a high quality elementary school in order to
set them up for success in middle school, high school, college and beyond. In elementary
school, they are building the academic foundation that they will continue to build upon for
the entirety of their educational careers. Our board is deeply rooted in the community.
We live here. We work here. We volunteer here. As we began our work as founding team,
the first question we asked ourselves was Is there in need? And we saw that in the spring
of 2018. Three out of 10 students scored a meets or exceeds on the ELA portion of the
STAAR in this area. We believe that meets or exceeds is absolutely necessary to ensure
that students are gaining the academic mastery
they need for each grade level, and the community
has voiced that three out of 10 wasn't good enough. We also saw that in certain areas
of Southeast Houston, up to 90% of students qualify for free and reduced lunch. We're
well aware of the additional challenges that
growing up in poverty places upon our students.
We have a board member who was a social worker in the area as well. And she voiced how year
after year, as parents were deciding where their
pre-K students were going to matriculate into
kindergarten, they were tasked with a very difficult decision of which option to choose.
And currently, in this area, there are the highest number of students sitting on waitlists
for charter schools. The vision that we have our students is that they are prepared to
be competitive for the Baylor College of Medicine at Ryan, the Lanier
School and the other high performing options that HISD has to offer. Knowing this
we designed to school with a full day pre-K, so that we can take our students
in as early as possible and address any gaps that may persist, particularly in language
development. We are going to have an emphasis
on literacy. We're gonna double literacy blocks
and we're going to infuse our culture with love of literacy throughout our school building.
We believe that readers are leaders, and we cannot wait to see our students engrossed
in novels of various genres. We're also going to have a character education program that
is rooted in our PRIDE values: perseverance,
respect, integrity, determination and excellence.
We believe in developing students as entire human beings. We spoke with over 400 families
at tabling events, info sessions. Our social media outreach has reached over 2500 families.
Through our volunteer work, we have you been able to very organically engage with parents,
teachers, staff members and also children. We have over 200 people signed up to receive
our newsletter as well. The community expressed certain wants in a new charter school that
informed some of our innovative components. I'm going to turn it over to Dr Aguirre-Munoz
to tell us a little bit about those.
Dr. Aguirre-Munoz: Any educational options should have an eye for the skills
of the future. When we consider 21st century schools, STEM, of course, comes immediately
to mind. I will speak to our STEM innovations in a minute. But I wanted to spend some time
to discuss our emphasis on the need for futrue students to have the communications
skills of tomorrow as well. This includes having a mindset to understand other peoples
and cultures. Our Spanish language development component inculcates a sense of global
community and open mindedness that supports our school's cultural and PRIDE values. As
Miss Francis mentioned, the two hour literacy
blocks also provides us with the instructional
flexibility to integrate computational thinking into the literacy component of the day. And
we do this with a very innovative way to integrate
academic language in the shared reading approach
to interactive reading. So we bridge. We emphasize academic language and will bring
thinking skills relevant for computational thinking, which is a central component to
the computer science while also addressing critical literacy skills. Science and technology
will be integrated into literacy instruction in this way. The science and computer time
of the day will actively engage in concrete activities that involve labs and hands on
activity that scaffold the application of the knowledge that their needing in order to
be computer science thinkers. These elements corresponds squarely with the STEM education
and language learning development research that I have engaged in the last 15 years.
The research, not only the one that I have engaged in but that of my scholars,
shows that these components increases engagement,
persistence and deep learning of core content.
All of which will help us meet our mission of equipping all of our students with the
academic language and character development that we know they need in order to go on that
path to a successful college and career beyond. Most importantly, it's what the community
also expects of educational options and which they were very vocal about. So my time is up. Thank you.
Chair Boharich: Thank you.
Any questions for this team with Elevate? Yes, Miss Perez?
Member Perez: Good morning, I heard you speak first,
I think I have three questions. So the first thing I heard you say was full day pre-K.
So I'm wondering how you're funding this, your projected enrollment? Because, as you know,
many ISDs don't have sufficient funding to do this. So I'm wondering what innovative
plan you have to to fund a full day universal pre-K for your projected enrollment? The next
question is, if both of you would please answer,
your credentials, and I'm talking about SBEC
specific, as far as your teacher credentials and
what subjects, principal credentials, superintendent
credentials. And the last one is because one of the last things that you said is pertaining
to reading and dual language, if you have, the two of you as individuals, have
the bilingual certifications. And if you will address your dual language program and
your commitment to SBEC credentials of your
faculty. I know that was a lot, but I don't know
how many times I'm gonna get the microphone, so I'm putting it all out there. Okay.
Chair Boharich: Hopefully, you had a pen to write that down.
Member Perez: I have it written down. In case you missed anything.
Rebecca Francis: We know that it was ambitious to propose
with full day pre-K. It was something that the community
voiced a want for and we see the extreme value in bringing in our students that young. We
know it's half-funded. We are starting in year one with 200 students. It is working
in our budget, so far. I do completely understand
why it would pose a challenge for other campuses.
But even with the bare bones budget that we submitted with the application, we are fully
committed to exploring all grant opportunities. Our board is fully committed to fundraising
as well, and we are confident that we're going to be operating on a more fluid budget. But
even with the the bare bones budget that we proposed with, the numbers are working
for a full day pre-k. Dr. Aguirre-Munoz: In terms of, we're not proposing dual language as we anticipated only about
10% of our students having an English Language Learner background Chair Boharich: Is your mic on?
Dr. Aguirre-Munoz: It turns off. Sorry.
In terms of, we're not proposing a dual language component.
We don't believe that the community in which
we will be moving into will have enough of the language learners to constitute that kind
of model, although that is absolutely my preferred model, if we ever do have enough of a
cohort within a grade level. But in the geographic area that we were looking at, between
seven and 10% of the population across the
multiple grade levels is what we're anticipating.
And so we realized that we will need to have
somebody certified in at least English Language,
an ELL certification, but until we have enough of a cohort of students to be able to have
a dual language program, that's absolutely going to be something that will be taking
up in the future. We do have in the budget some funds to be able to hire on a needs
basis, once we have the actual numbers of language learners that will be enrolled
in school. Chair Boharich: And then, I think it was your certifications or your qualifications.
(inaudible speech from off-microphone) I am not certified as a bilingual teacher, I...
(inaudible speech from off-microphone) Member Perez: ...your certifications from SBEC as teachers, principals or...
I do not have any of those certifications. Member Perez: You have no SBEC credentials? Dr. Aguirre-Munoz: No. As a board member,
I do not have those. But we are aware of the training
that board members need to receive by the state.
Member Perez: And the commitment of your faculty. Your commitment about your faculty's SBEC credentials. Dr. Aguirre-Munoz: Absolutely. We're gonna have the
highest quality teachers that we can. She could speak to the recruitment efforts, but
we have a number of people on our board who have really close ties with colleges of education,
who will use those relationships to have the highest quality teachers that we can for our
students. And that meet state regulation, in terms of the different populations.
Rebecca Francis: So will absolutely have on staff a special
education certified teacher and an ESL certified teacher as well.
(inaudible speech from off-microphone) If we meet the 20 rule, if we meet the 20 rule, of course, we'll abide by all
compliance. Taking into account our locally available data, it doesn't appear we will.
If we do, of course, we will full steam ahead. Member Perez: Just for clarification, please. Because I
want to make sure I took notes correctly. In Houston ISD, your projected enrollment
is fewer than 20% English learner, right? Neither one of you have SBEC credentials.
But you're you're committing that your faculty will have SBEC credentials. Did
I get that right? Dr. Aguirre-Munoz: That is correct. I have worked in teacher development for the last
15 years, so I'm very aware of what the requirements
are, and even beyond that, what it means in
the classroom. I trained them to make sure that they offer both excellent dual language
instruction and English as a Second Language. Member Perez: And so the last one is that the commitment
that you just gave that all of your faculty will be state credentialed, is it part of
your application? Is it part of your contract? Rebecca Francis: We are not saying that all of our faculty
will be credentialed. We will, of course, be looking for the highest quality applicants
and we will have a very robust teacher recruitment
initiative to cast a wide net within the local
area. It is very important to us that our staff and our teachers understand our students
and where they're coming from and have ties to the community as well. And that is what
we're committed to. Chair Boharich: Any other questions of members? Yes, Dr Ellis And then Dr Robinson
Can I clarify, are you planning on having a full
day pre-k for all eligible students or universal
full day pre-K? Rebecca Francis: Universal.
Member Dr. Ellis: The comment was made about it being half-day funding. Now, with
HB3 including charters, there will be full day funding for all eligible students. Not
for every student but for all eligible students.
Will now be moving forward, fully funded for a full day.
Chair Boharich: Dr. Robinson?
Member Dr. Robinson: I just want to first, thank y'all for coming in from Houston.
And I really appreciate your passion for kids. That's very commendable. Really, really,
really shows. But I mean, I'll just have to, I guess my first point is, and this is
not against y'all specificall. You know, I have a concern with taking basically
a gamble with taxpayer dollars on something that might or might not work. You've got,
you know, in the in the Houston area, okay, you've got quite a few high performing
charters, but let me back up. Back in the nineties.
I'll be quick about this. Back in the nineties,
the Legislature and the State Board of Education, they had to take a gamble on Mike
Feinberg and Kip. Okay, because there was nothing else. Now, fast forward
25 years. We don't have to take those kind of gambles. We've already got in the Houston
area, there are 31 Kip campuses, there are 19 Yes Prep campuses. Idea is going to be coming
in with four campuses in about a year. Harmony has several in the Houston area, so I mean,
we no longer have to take this gamble. Again, I appreciate your passion for kids
and education. I really do. The other thing that surprised me on your numbers is
the projected 10% ELL. I mean, I don't know where in the Houston area. It's kind
of a broad area that you're saying you're gonna put your campus in. You know, if
it was in River Oaks or West, you may be only be 10% ELL. But if it's on the east side,
I can tell you the HISD campuses will have much higher ELL percent than that, and same
with special ed, they would be higher than that. I'm not sure how, I mean, especially
if you're gonna be, the whole competition idea comes up. But if you're competing
with the neighborhood school and their ELL and special ed is double what yours is.
And then, the last question I had was, if you could be any more specific about where
your campus would be, kind of include most of the city of Houston in there.
(inaudible speech from off-microphone)
Rebecca Francis: We we are committed to southeast
Houston, and the numbers might look lower than you
would expect. I don't know if you're too familiar with that side of town, but it is...
Member Dr. Robinson: I'm very familiar. Mall area? Rebecca Francis: More like Sunnyside, and it's historically, predominantly
African American, and so their percentages are different than the district norm. But
if we did, of course, have a higher percentage
of ELL or sped students, we would immediately
go to the budget and ensure that we have the
appropriate staffing, the appropriate materials,
the appropriate everything for those students. We are committed to serving all of our students.
Chair Boharich: Any other quest--yes, Ms. Davis?
Member Davis: Miss Frances, you're the head of school?
It says in here the head of school will be required
to have experience coaching and developing
teachers to drive that student performance because I guess you will be doing all of the
professional development in your one. So can you talk about your expertise and your
qualifications that would allow you to be the sole person to train every teacher in
your whole building to be successful? Rebecca Francis: Sure. In year one, we will have approximately
14 staff members. We do, of course, realize that as the school grows, we will need to
introduce other people onto the leadership team to help lead that charge. Myself,
I do have experience coaching teachers. I have experience leading professional development.
I was the ELA lead teacher, and the professional development lead as well
for the summer PD at a high performing charter school in the Bay Area. I have led
teachers and coach teachers on like a cyclical basis of a biweekly observation and feedback
cycle where we give, like, very bite size growth marks. And we really hone in on, like,
the highest leverage of how we can improve not just their instruction but their
culture as well. At Elevate Collegiate, we firmly
believe that without a strong school culture,
everything collapses. So as we do walkthroughs, and
we will be doing daily walkthroughs, especially
in year one when there's eight classrooms. That's extremely doable. We're
not just looking for high quality teaching.
We're also looking for teachers that are affirming
our students, that are affirming their identities
and that are putting materials in front of
them that celebrate who they are in the cultures that they come from. And that is something
that I have done at all of the schools that I've... Member Davis: I appreciate that I'm more concerned
with the content development of your teachers and their ability to be able to teach content
to kids, so that training on content development, not necessarily just the social-emotional
part. I want to know who's gonna be able to ensure these teachers have that content down
so that they can deliver that to kids. Dr. Aguirre-Munoz: That happens to be my area of research. So
I have a lot of resources and knowledge and experience, and will be supporting Miss
Francis as much as I can. And so, yeah, the teachers will be trained, I would argue,
very uniquely and innovatively, because that's
my area research. If Miss Frances agrees that
the resources that I can provide are are gonna work for her student, teachers. Chair Boharich: Mr. Allen?
Member Allen: Again, thank you ladies for coming. But I
have some serious concerns as we talk about the impact
and looking at the impact statements, all the other other voice on the establishment
of this particular school as we talk more about conceptually Third Ward that. So I think
I asked you in the interview, what are you calling
Third Ward? And when we quote data, we quote
data primarily out of two campuses which was Blackshear middle school and probably
Lockhart. Maybe 10 years ago, we had six or seven or eight elementary schools in what
was classified as Third Ward. And we're down to two because we don't have large numbers
of children in the Third Ward area. So my concern again is how do you actually plan
to meet your numbers if you're going to be located in Third Ward and would your success
be the detriment of Blackshear. And one of the
things that, and how do you see your children
matriculating to Jack Yates High School? You talked about them going to Lanier, and you
talked about them going to Baylor College of Medicine. But if you live in Third Ward and
you really polled the people in Third Ward, they want to know how they're gonna get to
Jack Yates High School, not the energy school. How do you plan to lead them towards Jack
Yates High School? Rebecca Francis: We, as a founding team, have spoken about this deeply since the capacity
interview. It is never our intent to negatively
impact any of the traditional public schools.
I'm a product of traditional public schools. My mom is a traditional public school
teacher. That is never our intent. And after the
capacity interview and hearing your remarks
about that, we reflected deeply on where was the need that we could spiral enrollment
outside of not just Third Ward but other communities
adjacent that are also in need. So I assure
you, we have already started to recalibrate staying in that general area, but not like
honing in specifically on Third Ward. We started looking further southeast. We started
and we heard your concerns, and we shared them as well. Dr. Aguirre-Munoz: I also want to reiterate that
I'm a part of the Aces Institute that has a strong commitment to the schools in
that area. And I have a number of projects with the director of the Aces Institute and
given our changes, I might be become a more permanent fixture of the Institute, and
I would not want anything to curtail the work
that has been done there and their success.
And I think the success of those schools in
there is in large part with that
close collaboration between UH College of Education and HISD.
Member Allen: If you take a look at the numbers of students
that attend those two middle schools, and they
have Third Ward addresses. Children who actually go to Lanier with Third Ward addresses
is probably less than 4%. Children who actually
attend the campus in Third Ward, Ryan Baylor
College, Ryan is probably less than 4% the African
American population, and Ryan is probably
less than 10% and the community is probably 90% African American. And so I feel better
that you're looking broader. But I don't have
a comfort of where you actually, what you're
actually going to do once you get started, because I believe your success is the death
knell to Third Ward, and I think you could be successful with the model you put out.
But the impact is gonna be devastating to
that community. Chair Boharich: Any other questions, Members?
Member Cortez: It's a question, because I'm gonna
let them go ahead and sit down if it's not question.
I just wanted to thank them for their application, and I've said this to previous
applicants in the past. Regardless of how I feel, and y'all heard some of my earlier
statements, I assume. There's no doubt that you and the other applicants have a passion
for what you want to do. But we have a decision
to make, and in light of information that I've
seen with, you know, over 27,000 new seats being allowed to be created, listening
to additional data from some of our our colleagues.
You know, I'm not in a position where I feel
comfortable supporting your application, but what I will tell you is that if this
board decide to overrule the veto and they allow you to open a charter, the minute you
have Texas kids in your classrooms, I'm sure you
can count on the support of everybody, even
those that didn't support you out of out of this
body. So, I'll just leave it at that, Madam Chair.
Chair Boharich: Actually, appreciate those sentiments,
Mr Cortez, because it is very important charter schools
that would be approved here today are our public schools as well. Yes, Miss Cargill? Member Cargill: Well, I just I wanted
to, I am in favor of the charter school, and I
appreciate your willingness to address Member
Allen's concerns in looking at maybe some other
areas. And I was, I just remember, at the
interview, I was so impressed that you spoken
about over 450 households and you're willing
to have a washer and dryer at your school And, you know, just the association with tiny
treasures. The preschool that just got the HEB Award. I love all
of that. So I thank you for being innovative and for your commitment and what you want
to do for kids. So thank you.
Any questions of the two of them? Because I'll let them sit. left unsaid. Okay. You
had a question. Yeah. Okay, Doctor Robinson.
I thought, and correct me, I'm not sure, I wasn't
here for interviews, but I listen to 'em on the tape. In terms of transportation, did I
hear right that y'all would possibly have elementary school kids taking either light
rail or the or the metro bus to the school?
Rebecca Francis: You heard correct that we have a board member
who is very familiar with the metro system and the
public transportation system within southeast
Houston. And he has just brought to our attention all of the different programs for
them to ride those services for free and their families. So we do not expect young
children to be on the metro, on the bus alone.
It was an understanding that families would
be taking them to school. Chair Boharich: Any other questions of
this team? Thank you so much. Again, appreciate
your diligence. And working through this is a
pretty gauntlet filled process. And we appreciate
your application. Alright, members, any further discussion? Alright, the motion
before you is to to veto the proposed recommendation
by the Commissioner. So, Von if you could
explain to us on these because the rest of them say the proposal is to veto. So explain
the various votes. Von Byers: Well, so this vote is to veto, so this would exercise your statutory
authority to disapprove or stop the train that the Commissioner has initiated.
So as the motion stands now, an affirmative vote means that the charter will
not be approved and will move forward. Chair Boharich: And so you have options. Yes. No.
Well, you can change the motion by an amendment to
the motion. The statute does say, the chair's asked
me to explain the vote and the vote count. The statute does say it is a vote of members
present. Present and voting. So that means only
votes that are yes and no count. And you have
to have a majority to you adopt this motion. Unknown Speaker: And if they don't adopt. Von Byers: Okay. Yeah. And
then the failure to adopt means the train keeps moving. You have to take an affirmative
vote to veto it to stop this action. So a tie vote means the motion fails. And
obviously, if you don't get the majority vote, the motion fails for that. Member Rowley: So are we voting
on the committee's recommendation to veto?
That's what's in front of us right now. Okay.
And so if you're in favor of veto, you vote
yes. If your in favor approval, you vote no.
Chair Boharich: And that's a very key point. I want
to make sure, that's very different than the last vote,
because that was a motion to approve. This is a motion to veto. So, yes, in this case,
means you are agreeing on the veto. A no vote
means, no, you do not agree on the veto of
Elevate Charter School. Yes, Miss Cargill?
But if we wanted to used the take no language
or take no action language, when will we make
that motion to, you know, because the 90-day thing
you know, to let the agency kind of like we're not gonna
come back in 90 days and all that. Chair Boharich: You have to amend the Committee, I'm gonna let MissKay speak to that.
Miss Kay: Thank you so much. The motion to
amend would be in order at this time. You could,
make a motion. The only motion, as I understand it, that is available to you
would be to strike out the words veto and insert the words take no action on. So that
would be an amendment that you could take. If that amendment is successfully
adopted than the position of the state board
would be taken on the vote to take no action,
it would be more like the one for the Gathering Place that you did a few minutes ago.
Chair Boharich: But, right now, the motion, as it is, is to veto. Miss Kay: That is correct.
Chair Boharich: Okay. Okay. Any other discussion? (inaudible question) Yes, is a
veto. Okay. Just making sure everybody gets, we don't want to mess up,
And sorry, Mr Maynard. And then, Mr Mercer. Member Maynard: I move to amend the motion
by striking the word veto and inserting the word take no
action. Okay. (inaudible speech from crowd) We just learned
it. So now we have to reverse and go back to what was done on the first one. If
it gets moved and we have a second, and so okay, so we're gonna vote on that motion
to amend to take no action. (inaudible speech from crowd) Right. (crosstalk from multiple inaudible speakers in audience)
Member Mercer: I had a parliamentary inquiry? Chair Boharich: Yes, Mr. Mercer? Member Mercer: My inquiry was
on the, if committee voted to veto and the board votes no. Isn't the result take no
action? So we don't really need to take no
action amendment, right? If it we... (inaudible speech from crowd)
I guessI would suggest, obviously, we've had amendment
and a second. I would suggest that we just kind of keep this consistent, cause we're
gonna have to do this same conversation on all the other three. If we just Yes, Mr Rahman.
Von Byers: So, there is a slightly subtle difference
between the board just not adopting the recommendation
and the board adopting an affirmative stance of
take no action. And that is under the statute,
you have 90 days from the date you receive
notice to take an action to veto. So in order
to resolve this, historically, your practice
has been, if you take an affirmative vote to
take no action, everybody else in the world
can move forward, thinking you are not going
to reconvene within that 90 days and change
your position. If you do not adopt that, the
train keeps moving. You still, but you're 90 day windows open, and people will not know
whether or not you will convene within that 90 days and change your position so that
is the difference between voting just not adopting versus an affirmative stance of take
no action. And by the way, you will not, your regular scheduled meeting will not
conclude within that 90 day period. So you would have to...(inaudibe from crowd) Yep. Chair Boharich: Thank you for clarifying that.
So there is a substantial difference, actually, between those two. Yes, Miss Perez-Diaz.
Member Perez-Diaz: So just so that I understand this very clearly, then the idea, and actually
maybe this is for the maker of the motion, ma'am, is this than the idea that we leave
this open ended that way in the event we change
our minds within the 90 days, we're able, we're
basically leaving a window open for us to go back and change our minds. Is that what
that means by changing the language? Miss Kay: No, ma'am, I believe that that's backwards. I believe
that if you adopt the language of the proposed
amendment, which is the motion that's now
on the floor to take no action than that would say we have no intention of coming
back and changing it. If you leave the motion
for veto and you defeat the motion to veto,
you could conceivably come back under what you
have told the world is just that, we aren't
vetoing it right now that we could come back later and veto it the. Member Perez-Diaz: Got it. So just
very plainly stated then, if we go back to the
original language, then that makes a clear
delineation that this is our final decision. Chair Boharich: No, we have to adopt this amendment.
Miss Kay: Correct. You would have to adopt both
the amendment and the main motion as amended.
Chair Boharich: So for clarity about this decision,
the amendment should be done. To leave it open ended, we
would leave it as it is without amending.
Is that clear to everybody Okay, so this first
vote is going to be on whether to amend to say take no action. That is not a vote. That
is a vote on the amendment. It is not a vote on taking no action yet. We're just doing
a vote on the amendment of the motion to say take no action. Yes. Member Rowley: If we vote in favor of
this amendment, we're lending finality to our
next vote. So everybody kinda understands. That's
what this amendment does. Regardless of how you feel on the next vote,
to veto or not veto, this would at least lend
a final say to our decision on the next vote.
Chair Boharich: Would it, if this one passes, could
we also say we would do that for, so we wouldn't
have to have this discussion on all the rest. I mean that if there's no objection, I'll
just do the same thing for all of these. If this passes. Can we do it or no?
Von Byers: The original motion that you're trying to amend is to veto. That's
a final action. Right? The substitute or the amendment fundamentally changes
that in two ways. It says, a, we're not gonna veto it. And b, we won't veto it in
the future, right? So if... Member Rowley: No, that's only if the next motion is defeated.
That's right, but what I'm saying
is to take no action,I mean, that is still a fundamental question here regarding
whether to veto or not veto right? Because (inaudible crosstalk from multiple speakers in crowd)
Member Rowley: Madam Chair, I would just say that
that the next vote is is a final vote. If it is
defeated or if it passes. But if it's defeated, there's still 90 days. Von Byers: That's right
Member Rowley: If we don't pass this amendment,
then there's still a 90 day window within which
we can reconvene and reconsider the decision.
If we don't pass, this amendment. Member Perez: But we don't reconvene. That's very misleading.
Member Rowley: But they can't take action on it until that time has passed.
That's the point of the amendment, because it's not
a final action (inaudible response from off-mic)
No, they can't take action on it, though, for 90 days. Unless we
take a final vote today because then it's about operation of law. That's the point. (inaudible speech from off-mic)
Member Maynard: No, I was just gonna add some
clarity to the discussion, but I think
I think everybody understands now. Chair Boharich: The passing of this amendment provides clarity for the
next vote as to the intentions of the board to either support or defeat the motion
to approve that charter. Okay? Alright.
So all those in favor of the motioned amendment
to strike veto and make it take no action. And insert take
no action. (inaudible from audience) You wanna do a roll
call on that one as well? Okay, okay. Debbie Ratcliffe: Miss Perez. Member Perez: No.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Cortez. Member Cortez: No. Debbie Ratcliffe: Miss Perez-Diaz.
Member Perez-Diaz: I am so sorry. So this means that we, I just want to be very
clear. This means that this, that whatever decision we make in the next vote cannot be
reversed. Okay, then, yes. Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Allen. Member Allen: Yes.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Mercer? Member Mercer: (inaudible speech from off-mic)Yes.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Dr. Robinson. Member Dr. Robinson: No. Debbie Ratcliffe: Ms. Cargill.
Member Cargill: Yes. Debbie Ratcliffe: Doctor Ellis? Member Dr. Ellis: Yes.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Maynard Member Maynard: Aye. Debbie Ratcliffe: Miss Hardy.
Member Hardy: Yes. Debbie Ratcliffe: Miss Little Yes. Debbie Ratcliffe: Ms Davis?
Member Davis: Yes. Debbie Ratcliffe: Mrs Melton Malone. Member Melton-Malone: Yes.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Rowley. Yes. Debbie Ratcliffe: Miss Boharich. Chair Boharich: Yes. okay, so that amendment
so now we are at, the motion before us is now to take no
action to approve, take, wait a minute, take no actionto approve? Is that the word?
(inaudible from audience) Okay, take no action on
Elevate Collegiate Charter School scheduled to open
in 2020-2021 school year. That's the motion before to take no action. So we're back to
what we did before on the previous vote, which
is a yes is allowing this charter school
to go forward per the recommendation of the Commissioner of Education. Is that clear?
Yes is to allow this charter school to go forward. Eleveate. Yes, means
move forward. No means defeated. A veto. And its final. Von Byers: I need to
interject there. A no here does not veto this. A no here does not veto this.
You just stripped out veto in the amendment that was adopted. Right now, what's before
you is whether to take no action or not take
no action. So the only two outcomes here
are you tell the world you're not going to take any action or you say I'm not going to
tell you whether I'm gonna take action or not. So
right now this charter is going to move forward.
Member Davis: That's not what was just explained. (inaudible crosstalk from off-mic audience) Chair Boharich: I'm sorry. What did you say?
(inaudible response from off-mic) Member Davis: Yeah. I feel like that whole explanation that you just gave is totally different from
the explanation that was before. So now you're saying that we have no veto power at all at
this moment because of the previous vote, but
Von Byers: What I'm saying is that the motion
before you is not to veto. Right? The veto question was removed from the motion with
your amendment. Chair Boharich: So the effect, here's what I want to know. If the effect of, let's
say, that the take no action, you get more, yeah fails. What? What is this result then?
Von Byers: Nothing has happened. You have done nothing. And doing nothing (off-mic crosstalk)
Member Perez-Diaz: Madam Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry. So
Von Byers: I believe it was. Your motion,
your motion to, the original motion was to veto.
The amendment was to strike the veto. We've taken
that out and made an affirmative statement
of we will take no action. That's what was
voted on on. This is why I tried to interject
and say that this removes the veto authority.
So if this fails, it just means you haven't
done anything. So you would need another motion
if you wanted to veto it. (inaudible crosstalk from off-microphone) Member Dr. Ellis: Parliamentary inquiry,
Parliamentary inquiry. Chair Boharich: Okay, So you're saying if we defeat this, we could
actually still call another meeting, a special meeting.
Von Byers: You could or you at this meeting, someone could make
another motion. (inaudible crosstalk from off-mic)
Member Perez-Diaz: As a member of the previous prevailing motion,
may I make a new motion to reconsider? Chair Boharich: Let's make sure we do it worded correctly this time.
Member Perez-Diaz: So I need some assistance in
essentially, what I am trying to accomplish is that this
board doesn't relinquish our veto power. How do
I do that? I need to accomplish that.
Miss Kay: Excellent parliamentary inquiry
worded just perfectly. And you were very close
a moment ago. What you want to do is move to reconsider the previous vote on the motion
to amend, and you stated that you voted on the prevailing side, which I believe that
you did. And so now that motion takes a second
and requires a majority vote for adoption.
When that vote is adopted, if that vote is adopted, the motion to reconsider, then you
are standing just where you were immediately
before we, maybe me and voting on the motion
to veto. You could re vote to take a different
action on that motion if you chose to. Chair Boharich: And what
would the correct amendment be at that point for what we're trying to get done?
Iif I could just, like, there's no we here, right? You all have different views
on what you want to accomplish here. So if you want to veto the charter, you want the
motion to state veto the charter, right? And
the amendment to the motion removed the veto. (inaudible response from off-mic)
Member Rowley: So, von what if what if we took
this vote which is to take no action and that vote
fails, right? Which means more members want to veto than want to approve. Okay, then
could a motion be made immediately after that
to veto? Von Byers: Correct. Member Rowley: Okay, so there you go. That's
the way to do it. So here's what I'm understanding
and check me on this. In light of the amendment,
if we vote right now and the take no action loses. So there are more members that want
to veto than approve. Then immediately after
that, someone who wants to veto needs to make
a motion to veto. And then you turn around,
have that same vote, and it will veto.
Member Perez-Diaz: But I think to make to make the process
just crystal clear and consistent, I'd like to make the
motion to reconsider that Kay just help me walk through and then
just remind this board that, you know, we have
a statutory responsibility to make decisions,
to make definitive decisions on veto or not,
and so I think that's very important. So I'd
like to go back to the original veto language.
So however, Miss Kay just helped us walk through
that, if you can help me walk right through
that, and that's gonna be my motion. Miss Kay: So your
motion would be to move to reconsider the vote on the amendment to strike out veto and
insert, take no action on, and it needs to be seconded. But any member can second it,
they do not have to have voted on the prevailing side. (inaudible speech from audience)
(all microphones off, no audio) Chair Boharich: Yeah. I mean, I thought the first one
we did was take no action, right? (inaudible crosstalk)
Von Byers: The original motion was to veto. The amendment
struck veto and said, take no action. The reconsideration takes that back and restores
it to a veto. So a yes on the motion to reconsider returns the language to veto.
Member Maynard: Madam Chair? Madam Chair? (inaudible crosstalk from off-mic) Madam Chair? So, just
just my way of clarification. So the motion
is to reconsider a vote. And so if the motion
to reconsider passes, then we would be back, right? As if we had not
taken the vote on the amendment. Okay. And
then if the motion to reconsider passes, then
we would take another vote on the amendment, right?
(audience chatter) Right? No, on on my amendment. Okay. Right.
So all this thing does, so what this does is it allows the board to take another
vote. So, in other words, what that does, is if, so if somebody wants to change their
vote, what that does is it allows the board
to reconsider the vote taken on that motion.
All it does is it backs us up and allows us
to re vote on the amendment that I proposed.
It does not negate. We just take another vote. And it is a debatable motion,
so Madam Chair is that I would just strongly encourage my colleagues to not support the
motion to reconsider. Chair Boharich: Yes, Mr. Cortez? Member Cortez: So that
seems illogical. And maybe Kay can enlighten us.
But it seems that if a member of the prevailing side of the previous vote
is asking to bring back the original language,
then it's basically negate, its gonna negate
Chair Boharich: Yeah, that's not what she's asking. She's asking
for a reconsideration of the vote we just had onthe amendment.
Miss Kay: That is correct. That is correct. Otherwise,
if you allowed someone who did not vote on the prevailing side to come
back and say, I changed my mind and have that change the decision, then it would be an
impetus for no one to ever vote the way that they wish to because they
could get an automatic do over. And in fact, you see that in certain legislative bodies
where the majority leader of the minority leader
will vote with the opposing side strictly
for the purpose of being able to come back and
reconsider, but it does not change
the decision. It just allows you to take another
vote on the decision. Member Cortez: Okay, then why would you
have suggested that language if the majority of the committee recommendation was veto.
And if we're having this complicated conversation,
you're supposed to navigate us through it, and I'm
feeling like you're complicating the scenario more. So if the intent of what she's
trying to accomplish isn't to get us back to
where we can have the veto question then what
is what is the effect of her motion? Miss Kay: Her vote would take you back to where you could
vote again on whether or not to strike the
word veto and insert the words take no action
Member Cortez: We'd have a vote to go back and vote against his original motion. OK,
then. That's fine. It's just it's just a lot of layers to get back to that. But that's
where I agree. And I'd want to get back to that so we can strike that to get back
to the beginning. So there's one more layer
beyond this vote to remove the Maynard motion.
Okay, I got it. Thank you. Member Perez-Diaz: Thank you for the clarity. And so, before we take, before
we take the vote again, I just want to reiterate
that this body has a statutory authority
to take positions on these decisions and by going back to the take no action, we're
being lukewarm. So we need to be able to make decisions on
these. (inaudible speech from audience) So I understand
that I wasn't here, so I'd like to call the question
at this point. Chair Boharich: Members, let's, Doctor Ellis?
Yeah, and I'd address what Ms Member Perez said.
We're getting to the point where we will
in my mind, what I'm gonna vote for is to take no action to be concrete in that not
to leave it up to a 90 day who knows what. Maybe we come back. I'm working to a point
where we actually take a concrete step. We're
not there yet on this vote, but that's what
we're working towards. Chair Boharich: And so you are voting
for the reconsideration? Unknown Speaker: No. Chair Boharich: Okay. Okay.
Alright. Members, I think I've heard a call the vote. Didn't I hear? Member Perez-Diaz: Yes, I'd like
to call the vote. Chair Boharich: Okay, so let's call the vote on this one. And this is to, a reconsideration.
We're just Unknown Speaker: Another vote now.
Member Perez: There's a motion on the floor. Chair Boharich: But I thought it was a
reconsideration vote is what we're doing right now.
Miss Kay: But the fact that someone just says I
want us to stop talking and vote now is something
that must be voted on.
Chair Boharich: Oh, you have to vote on that too? Miss Kay: You can ask if there's any objection to Chair Boharich: Okay. Okay. Is there any objection
to go ahead and and voting on the reconsideration?
Because that's all we're doing right now. Yes, Mr. Allen?
Member Allen: When we vote on a reconsideration,
and if it fails, it returns and that means
we're gonna move forward with no ability to veto anything at that point. That's all I
need to know. Is that the case? Chair Boharich: Yes, Mister Rowley? Member Rowley: If we vote, if the vote to take
no action fails. Okay? This isn't that we're
we're about to have. Member Allen: I'm talking about this piece.
Well, that piece is just to have another vote
on his amendment. So it just comes up again, (inaudible speech from crowd)
but, well, maybe you do. But if the vote to take no action fails, just so we know, then
anyone can make a motion to veto. And so it
would take two votes. Now, we're having four
votes, actually, to get to the same place. But if to take no action fails and
someone wants to veto, which a majority would if
no action fails, then obviously a majority wants
to veto. You can move to veto and veto. And
then it's final, which I suggest that's what
we do going forward. But we don't have to do that. Chair Boharich: Okay, Okay. So right before us now
is a reconsideration of the previous vote.
Whether to reconsider the previous vote. Okay.
All those in favor raise your hand if you would
like to reconsider the vote. Reconsider.
Did you get that? Keep your hands up just to make sure staff has that. Okay, All those
in favor of not reconsidering raise your hand.
No reconsideration. Keep your hands up. Let's
just make sure. What's the count? (inaudible, no
mic) Okay, so there will be no reconsideration.
So the vote before us is to take no action on
Elevate Collegiate Charter School, scheduled
to open 2020-2021 school year. Are you ready for the vote? Yes, Mr. Cortez? Member Cortez: Final clarification. So
I vote Yes means I don't support the charter.
I vote no. I support the approval of the charter.
Chair Boharich: No, opposite. Opposite. We want to make sure we understand that
was a very good question. Now that the motion
before us is to take no action, a vote in yes
says that the charter will go forward and be approved. A vote for no, charter will
not be approved. Is that understood? Understood? Unknown Speaker: No. That's not what that means. Chair Boharich: Well, yeah
Member Allen: So how does it get approval? Member Perez: (inaudible, off-mic) this charter's approved, that's
what you guys voted to give away. Either way, this charter's approved.
Member Cortez: At this point, can I make a motion to veto. I mean
now that we've dispelled with the motion and it's
been voted on right? Miss Kay: At this moment, no, because the board has already taken an action
on whether or not they want the word veto in the motion or not. You could, if you vote
to take no action and that vote is adopted, which is the motion before you now, to take
no action, then there's you have put some finality on your decision, and there is no
further action that you could normally take under your processes. If the motion to take
no action is defeated, then I believe that another motion would be in order. Member Cortez: That's the
only way it's in order. If it's (inaudible). Miss Kay: Correct.
Member Cortez: So a yes vote means I do not support the expansion
of this charter. The creation. Miss Kay: A yes vote means that the Commissioner's train, to use
Von's words, the Commissioner's train continues down
the track. A no vote means that the Commissioner's
train continues down the tracks, but you may take further action to delay that train or
to help that train at a at a later time within
that 90 days. Member Cortez: Thank you, can we get a roll call vote.
I understand. This is very akin to the, that Governor sign, doesn't, vetoes or
lets it go on. Commissioner's train, does that mean that in that framework that
Commissioner still has, its already gonna go through
or someone could still talk to Commissioner
to decide otherwise? Von Byers: No. If I understand the question, the Commissioner has already
approved this. And so it's going on. Y'all are
the last thing that can stop this. Besides
their own decision not to move forward.
Chair Boharich: So a yes vote is to take no action. Alright, and I believe there's
a roll call in each one of these votes, so
go ahead Debbie Ratcliffe: Miss Perez? No. Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Cortez? No.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mrs. Perez-Diaz? No. Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Allen? No.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Mercer. Yes. Member Dr. Robinson: Dr. Robinson. No.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mrs. Cargill. Yes. Debbie Ratcliffe: Dr. Ellis. Yes.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Maynard. Aye.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Miss Hardy. Yes.
Member Davis: No. Member Melton-Malone: Yes.
Yes Chair Boharich: Yes.
Okay, so we voted to take no action.
Member Perez: Is a motion to veto in order now? It is a later date.
So it has to be after the (inaudible, off-mic), right? (people speaking off-mic)
Boharich & Ratcliffe: 9 to 6. Debbie Ratcliffe: 9 were the
yes votes. Chair Boharich: Congratulations. So we all got a good parliamentary
lesson there. I don't know that we're any more
enlightened but we still had a parlimentary lesson.
Yeah, we do. Okay, so I think our next one is up. And, um uh, yeah, I'm
sorry. What? Heather Mauze: Do we want to state the motion? Or I can just invite them up.
Chair Boharich: Why don't we go ahead and say the motion while they're coming up. Member Cargill: Okay. Alright.
So, Members, what is the next? Heather Mauze: Our third proposal is going to be San Antonio Prep.
Member Cargill: Okay, so on page seven of the minutes. It was
recommended by the Committee on School Initiatives
to recommend that the State Board of education
veto San Antonio Preparatory Charter School
scheduled to open in 20-21 school year. As you can see, the motion carried with three
members voting, uh, yes to veto. And two members voting no. Page seven of the minutes.
Heather Mauze: And to provide a five minute presentation
to the board and answer questions on concerns of
the board, I've invited San Antonio prep representatives.
This team is a highly qualified in their respective
fields. It's led by Air Force veteran Stephanie
Hall Powell, who has passed leadership experience
at a successful charter school. This team is proposing a model that will take on the
task of educating secondary students in grades
5 to 12 in the San Antonio area. Our proposal
comes with the contingency that they develop
a plan to assess each incoming student early
in the year to ensure that they're given the requisite personalized attention necessary
to be successful. Here today is a proposed Superintendent Stephanie Hall Powell and board
member Deja Behnke. Chair Boharich: I need this sound room. Is there any way we can get the sound up in
here? There is so much construction noise.
It's really hard to hear in this room. Really?
Because it's been <v Deja Behnke>Does it help if we move
it closer. Is that loud enough? Chair Boharich: That actually is nice.
Deja Behnke: Yeah. I just had to move it up closer to the, and we'll project, so please let us know.
Stephanie Hall-Powell: Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Board
and TEA. Thank you for this opportunity this morning. Especially based on yesterday's
meeting. We are extremely grateful to be standing
before you today. I want to start by telling
you why I'm here. I am a college, I grew up, sorry, I'm nervous. I am a student
who graduated from high school and attended college and failed out my first year. So I
end up joining the United States Air Force as a second option. That was one of the best
decisions I ever made in my life. As a 10 year
military veteran with four years of military
experience, military educational experiences,
where I've learned to implement and execute
curriculum, and also where I fell in love with education. But it's also where I gained
three values from the United States Air Force
and those values are Integrity First, Service
Before Self and Excellence In All That We Do. I have used that to carry through my time
as a teacher and administrator at Idea Public
Schools in San Antonio, Texas, and I've also
used that to gain my master's degree and instructional leadership to Concordia
University here in Austin. But what I'm most
proud of and what I've used those values for
is that I'm a mother of three children of color, and as a mother of three children of
color, it is not new to me the unique and challenging learning needs of my own children
and what I have experienced here in Texas. My son's names are Dominic, Eric
and Isaac. Eric and Isaac attend Masters Elementary
School in Judson I S D. So I am a Judson
parent. Dominic attends Compass Rose Academy.
So I am a charter mom. I don't want what happened
to me to happen to my sons, nor do I want it to happen to the children in the community
of San Antonio. So I stand here today, fighting
on behalf of SA Prep for my own children
and for the children in the community of San Antonio so that they can attend the A&B
schools that Heather spoke of yesterday. The mission of San Antonio Prep is to provide
high quality instruction and rigorous curriculum in
a challenging and supportive learning environment.
And we plan to do that with our 12 unique approaches our educational model, but also
with our five innovative elements. As I mentioned in our interview, our elements
and our innovative approaches are not unique to education per se. But collectively, we
do believe that it sets us apart from other schools and makes us an attractive option
to families. I won't go through all of the list of the things that we're going to do,
but I will list our five innovative pieces.
One is our teacher model, which is our bread
and butter and which is the model that truly sets
us apart from other schools in the community.
Then we have our end of year capstone projects.
We have our unique class schedule, which allows
us to give students 150 minutes of literacy a
day, 125 minutes of math today without taking
out science, social studies, PE or fine arts
because of our extended school day, and then
lastly, the way that we're going to use data on our campus. We're not going to get
too much into our school model because based on yesterday's meeting, we recognize that
you all will have a lot of questions based on some concerns that were brought up. And
so we are prepared to answer those questions now.
Chair Boharich: And I believe Ms Davis, you had a question for them.
Member Davis: My question needs to be for staff on this one.
Chair Boharich: Okay. For this one. Okay, Miss Perez.
Member Perez: Good morning. please correct me
if I'm wrong. On your application, you stated
that there was zero charters within the occupied
district. Is that correct? Stephanie Hall-Powell: Correct.
Member Perez: There are seven charter campuses already
providing options within the ZIP code. Member Perez: Within Judson?
within 78244. There're seven charters. So is that a mistake on your application?
Chair Boharich: Judson ISD is what they Stephanie Hall-Powell: We listed within Judson ISD
Chair Boharich: Judson ISD. Not the zipcode. Member Perez: The zip code is in
Judson ISD Stephanie Hall-Powell: It falls within Judson ISD. East Central and also Northeast ISD.
Member Perez: I''m not asking that, me telling you
that that zip code is in the ISD is not a question.
My question is is that a mistake on your application? Stephanie Hall-Powell: I guess, I'm sorry,
I'm not clear on your question. Member Perez: Okay, so I'll make
it clearer. 1 of the charters is four miles
away. One of them is 4.7 miles away. One of
them is 5.9 miles away. One is 6.4 miles away.
One is 6.8 miles away. One is 8.3 miles away. One is 10.6 miles away. That seems like a
reasonable distance from your proposed location
that you have stated on your application.
There are zero campuses. Stephanie Hall-Powell: Located within the ISD, correct, is what we listed. Yes. Oh,
you're specifically asking about the zip code. Member Perez: Okay, I'm specifically asking why
you stated there zero campuses when there are
several very close to your proposed location.
Deja Behnke: But they're not within the same zip code.
So the addresses of the schools. Do you
have you have the zip codes of the schools? Member Perez: 78244. These seven charter campuses are
in that zip code that is in Judson ISD. (inaudible
response from crowd) Yes, yes. Okay, but that might help.
Unknown Speaker: We don't have a copy Chair Boharich: I believe what the application is. That is that there are no charters in
Judson ISD. That's the only statement you made. There wasn't a statement about the
zip code. There was a statement about Judson ISD only.
Stephanie Hall-Powell: So our understanding for is
there charters located within the geographic area was the ISD. The primary ISD that
we plan to occupy. And that's why we listed No, because there are, according to the TEA
charter map, we were not able to identify schools that were located within Judson ISD.
s They were all outside and East Central Northeast SAISD and the surrounding districts.
Member Perez: I just wanna make sure I'm understanding
what you're saying. Okay, so you weren't able to
identify other charter campuses. So you put there are no charter campuses based on the map?
Stephanie Hall-Powell: Correct. Chair Boharich: Okay, Doctor Ellis.
Member Dr. Ellis: Can I ask to clarify? Is it the scenario where
these other districts that Miss Perez or these
other campuses that Ms. Perez is mentioning
are within that zip code, But outside of Judson ISD?
Stephanie Hall-Powell: Yes. Member Perez: Four miles is is very close.
Deja Behnke: It is and I'll say, so I worked
previously for Idea Public Cchools. I currently work
for Great Hearts Public Schools, and I know Idea Carver Academy is not 78244. That's
78212 if I'm correct. So I don't think, I think,
I mean, it's within 10 miles and a couple
are within five. Yes, that's correct.
Chair Boharich: Any other questions of this team? Mr Cortez?
Chair Boharich: Yeah. So yesterday we had an incredibly
large number of Judson administration in the surrounding,
I guess, campuses that you guys are asking to be authorized to work within, and you
started off with, you want to do and be in what, uh, Heather Mauze is saying A&B
you want to be that A&B school. You want to create this setting. But every single
administrator in the campuses surrounding the
area that you want to come to said they're
already at Meets Standard. And if I recall there was information that
said, You all are going into these areas because
they're poor performing schools. Yet every
administrator from the schools, central office,
I mean, I've never seen a large team larger
than that ever come to one of our meetings to give us a different set of facts from
what you've presented. So I don't know if you can speak to that. Stephanie Hall-Powell: We sure can. I want
to start by talking about the what we've listed
in our application. So, on page six of our
application, we listed that there were two schools that were in improvement required
status in the student achievement domain. We never said that it was the entire campus.
And then we did target a specific community within Judson. But Judson is not our, it's
not the only ISD that we've put within our application. And that's also noted on
page five, I believe. And so there's the 11
schools that we did collect data on and those
11, all 11 schools, with the exception of one,
are in a C or D rating, which means that they
were either 60%, 50%. I'm sorry, 70% or 60% on these TEA accountability data that
we got off of texasschools.org, and (inaudible from crowd)
Yes, that's what's referenced in our application
as well. In charts. Member Cortez: Okay, well, that still doesn't give against the level of clarification
that I was hoping for, but you didn't mention something that was a little striking,
and I just kind of want to follow up on that. Are you suggesting because there was a
question about zip code and not servicing within the Judson district? But a charter
school system is not bound to a specific area. So are you you suggesting that
the list that was shared with the campuses that are 4.1, 4.7, there's another
5.4, 6,0, 5.9. And she only mentioned, you know, the distances from where you're
at. Are you suggesting that these charter systems
didn't ask for authorization to service
Judson ISD kids because I assume that they have authorisation to service that whole
region. I just saw, you know, our expansion amendments that they send and you've got a
school district that's literally asking for for
everything under the sun. You know, Arlington,
Carol, Carollton, Farmers Branch, Cedar Hills.
You see where I'm going with this? I mean,
so I assume and you can correct me if I'm
wrong, and Deja, you may know this, but I would
assume that all these that were listed by Miss Perez have authorization to service
Judson ISD. Would that be a correct statement?
Deja Behnke: Yeah, I believe that's correct.
It's gonna be all the districts. 17 in total that others are authorized to serve.
Member Cortez: So would it be fair then to say that while
they may not be within Judson ISD they can serve Judson ISD?
Deja Behnke: sure that that's fair to say that. And
I'll say I live 10 miles from Idea Carver, which
is where I drove my son 45 minutes one way every morning and 45 minutes home every day.
So while it's 10 miles, it seems like it's closer. It's truly not. That's an hour and
1/2 commute. So we're really trying to place
schools in areas where they're most accessible
to families who have limited to zero choices in their area. So I look at it
as within a five mile radius whenever we're looking at where we're gonna serve.
Member Cortez: And if I could just follow up again.
We've known each other for a number of years. I
think you're a tremendous leader. My problem that I'm having is when you have an entire
team of administrators coming and talking to us, that they just had a budget workshop
and are still saying that even with the new money
that's coming in, they're still experiencing
budget deficits and there is no evidence that they are failing their kids in the school
systems. It's very difficult for me to support
the approval of a new charter within this
geographic area, especially when the Commissioner
of Education's already granted in the last
couple of months 27,558 additional new seats from within the existing charters that we
already have that are servicing and filling the needs and offering the choice that some
parents may have within these communities. So I'm just having a very difficult time
wanting to move forward with this charter. And again, I will tell you what I told the
previous applicant, if it makes it through, you know, the minute you have Texas kids in
our schools and our goal is for you to make sure that you're successful. But if
we can have an opportunity to stop these before they're created, that would be
my preference. And so, for those reasons, I can't
support the expansion of this new charter.
Stephanie Hall-Powell: We agree with you that if
schools are not failing students, then why is there
a need for us to come into the community?
I want to also state that, like I said earlier,
Judson is one of our areas, and it does not
have to be our primary location, and what we
understand is we put in our application 16 ISD's attendance boundaries, and as we
look for facilities, it may not even be in the Judson ISD. That was initially the
area that we targeted. But if we're gonna go back to those 11 schools, you're saying
that they're not failing students. But according
to the texasschools.org, the TEA accountability
measures, 11 of those schools that we got that
we received data from or that we got data
from said that students are on average only 26%, 28%, I'm sorry 26 and 27% for two or
three of the schools, Kirby and Candlewood.
That's an IR4 student achievement domain.
But then overall, on average, the 11 schools
were at 35 37% on grade level, meeting grade
level standards for reading and for math. And so I don't see where that's not failing
students. If those students are not meeting grade level standards.
Member Cortez: I guess for clarification, I've been under the impression
and I saw the areas that you're targeting.
But it's been our understanding all this time
that the target location is Judson ISD. So are you telling me that even
though you're asking for all these other areas,
that is not going to be your central focus
anymore? Because we've... (inaudible response from off-mic) Deja Behnke: Are you asking the question?
Member Cortez: Yeah cause we've been under the impression
that this is gonna be in Judson ISD, and I know that you've listed other areas,
and I'm hearing what you're saying about the
others, but for us, it's been painted as if it's
gonna be in Judson, and I'm hearing you say something different, and so can you?
Stephanie Hall-Powell: That's still our target area. But we also have to
be realistic that we are in search of a facility,
and so far we have not been able to find one within our target community. And so that's
been a struggle for us, one that we're fighting
to make sure that we stay within the target
community. But the reality may be that we're
not in the target community that we were, that
we gained all the data from. Member Davis: Thank you. You pointed out that they were
struggling in student achievement. Did you
speak with leadership at Candlewood Elementary
to better understand what was going on with that academic program to know why they had
some struggles in that area? Stephanie Hall-Powell: I did reach out to the local principals of the schools in
the geographic location, and also to the Judson ISD school board and also to the superintendent.
And the only person I was able to speak with was the superintendent.
Stephanie Hall-Powell: So you're you're saying that you called the
principal and they never responded to any of your communication?
Is that what you're saying? Stephanie Hall-Powell: We emailed the principals on multiple occasions, and we did
not get responses. Member Davis: So you're not quite sure what the cause of the improvement required,
why they're having struggles in that particular school?
Stephanie Hall-Powell: No, ma'am Member Davis: I highly
suggest that you understand that because it's
a little deeper than academics. They're doing
a fabulous job educating those kids, but they
have hurdles to learning outside of things
that are going on the school that affects that number. And if you're proposing to serve
these kids, it would affect your school as
wel,l so to not understand what's really going
on that makes it hard for me to think that you have a solution because you don't really
understand the problem. Deja Behnke: I appreciate that, Ms. Davis. I will also say the data is the
data, the low results are the low results. Member Davis: I understand, but our kids are more than
numbers, there are reasons behind those numbers. So
let's not just quantify our children. It's reasons
behind that and hurdles to learning. So let's
just not quantify our children and just put
a number on them and leave it at that. Let's
understand why this is happening and what's
going on. That's the important thing that an educator has to know if you're going to
create better outcomes for that kid. Stephanie Hall-Powell: And we agree. I agree with you 100% Ms Davis and
though we reached out to the principals and weren't able to get in contact with them.
No one wanted, I won't say no one wanted to meet me.
We weren't able to connect with all of the principals.
We do recognize that there is more than just academic needs within the community, which
is the reason why we have the 12 unique
approaches to our model and the innovative pieces
and the reason why we have the extended school day and the extra minutes. It's more than
just, it's more than just academics, there's
so many, or the things that we can that we can
build in the community within our school day. So even though I haven't taken that we,
no, I won't say I haven't taken it. I haven't had
the opportunity to speak with the principals.
As you have mentioned, that is true. But it
doesn't mean that we don't recognize the need,
which is a reason why that was one of the zip codes that we chose. Yes, ma'am?
Chair Boharich: Ms. Perez? Member Perez: Sorry again. I'm going back to your applications. So please correct me if
my numbers are wrong. The student mobility at
the targeted campuses listed on your application
and the targeted campuses are listed on the document that was shared with you by Member
Cargill. The student mobility at the targeted
campuses is over 21%. However, you're anticipating
a 7% enrollment rate of of highly mobile students,
is that correct? (inaudible response from off-mic) I'm on page four.
So, you see, on the top, it says student mobility
of the target camps is over 21%? Stephanie Hall-Powell: Yes. Member Perez: Okay. And so
I'm, and this is the number that I'm asking if I
have incorrect. Your application is targeting
7%. Although the targeted campuses are over 21%. Is that a mistake or did you
amend your application or can you explain why there's variance? Stephanie Hall-Powell: What page are you on?
(inaudible response from crowd) I'm on page for the handout. But what page, where was that found in our
application? Member Perez: You filled out the application, ma'am. Deja Behnke: We can take a moment and get
to find the page if you before you'd like to
wait on that. Member Perez: (inaudible, off-mic) I can go to my next question.
If you look at the second line, the second bullet on page 4,
the targeted campuses have 17.6% of students
with special needs. You're anticipating
11% at San Antonio Prep, right? There's a variance there again. Stephanie Hall-Powell: The data that we pulled
from texasschools.org, and I have it here on page 12 of our application, states that
Kirby is at 12.3%. Sorry. What are we looking for? Special education. Correct?
Yeah, yeah, we looked at the numbers. Deja Behnke: So what's the question?
Member Perez: If you can please explain the variance.
If the targeted campuses are a 17.6% how do you explain
your enrollment at 11%? It's the same question for high mobility. The variance in
your enrollment numbers. Stephanie Hall-Powell: I see the variance in
special education. I don't see the variance
in mobility in our application. I don't see that it's listed, but I do see the variance
in special education. And to be honest, I believe that it was just an oversight on
our part because if you look at the ELL column. I'm sorry you can't see my application.
On page 12, the ELL column is right next to the special education
column, and we list 12.3%, 10.9%, 10.9%. So we took the average of those, and I believe
that it's just an oversight because that's the exact column I went to when you
told me to look a special education.
Member Perez: so you would change your application. Stephanie Hall-Powell: Yes, ma'am.
Absolutely. Member Perez: Thank you. Next, I have your non-committal of certain disciplinary records
history. So if you would like, if there's an
update to that, please share it, or if there
is not an update to that, if you would please
explain your non-committal to students with
disciplinary history. Stephanie Hall-Powell: In our application, we state, and if you please, let me find the
page really quick, that students with, I have it memorized
somewhat. (inaudible response, off-mic) So we state, on page
84 of our application, that we reserve the right
to exclude the admission of a student with
a documented history of criminal offense, a juvenile court or discipline problems under
Texas Education Code, based on the type of students
we're seeking to recruit, special education
at risk, economically disadvantaged. We're not necessarily excluding students based on
documented history of criminal offense. We will use the following parameters
to evaluate if we will accept a student into our program. We
will be amending that. (inaudible response, off-mic) To not
excluding students. (inaudible response, off-mic) For any reason.
(inaudible response, off-mic) Member Perez: Just for clarification, Ms Mauze, would that then become contingency?
Member Cargill: What does statute say about
that? You read that to us yesterday, too, about
the disciplinary. Heather Mauze: So to answer your question,
Ms. Perez, there is one ability to
provide contingencies that the Commissioner outlines in a 60 day time period after the
approval of the charter. Statute, to Ms Cargill's
point does allow, and I want it on the record,
does allow for charter schools to create their own
discipline policy. So nothing in the application
was outside of the scope of the law. But if this is a contingency that is agreed upon
and met and executed on, then the contract will be executed on. Does that make sense?
We lay out the contingency 60 days to meet that contingency and and then contract. So
there would have to be an amendment to the
application to meet the contingency requirement,
and then a contract would be executed for charter. Member Perez: Okay, so I want to make sure I'm
understanding. The lady just said she would be amending it. So that is what we're, what
she said she will do is exactly what you're
addressing, correct? Heather Mauze: We would, we're capturing,
staff are capturing comments of both board members and applicants and putting those in
the contingencies, yes, ma'am.
Member Perez: Thank you. Member Cortez: Mr Cortez? Member Cortez: Heather, at this point is it
normal that we're asking for amendments at this late process? I mean, these come to us
as I guess, the best of the applicants that applied is, I guess, how you stated
it, yesterday, that made it through this rigorous
process. But we're here at the very end, we're at
that one yard line, and we're still making all kinds of changes. Just it doesn't. It
doesn't seem that, I don't know. It seems like
we need to take a time out and reset and maybe
come back next year with a better application.
Heather Mauze: I will say to you that every single
generation cycle that we have had, there have
been contingencies that have been outlined
by TEA staff, the Commissioner, and also we take into account the boards, comments and
concerns. And so to say, this is normal. To use your terminology. This is in the
scope of what has always occurred. We've never had
a generation cycle where we have not identified
some sort of contingency in either our application
review, our capacity interviews or comments
at the full board. Chair Boharich: Any other? (inaudible question, off-mic)
Heather Mauze: To answer your question. I tried to lay that out. We did
capture some of the concerns we discussed yesterday in committee. Member Cortez: I don't think the
rest of the board is aware. I don't know if.... Heather Mauze: So when I opened with the introduction of
Miss Hall-Powell, I mentioned that in their
PD, their Summer PD, One of the concerns was
that the students were going to, thank you, that
the Summer PD would allow for student review,
a review of student data and teachers to come
up with plans in order to be able to begin
the school year knowing those students, since
this is a secondary model, that was a concern
that was raised during the interview, capacity interviews, excuse me. Also yesterday,
there were some concerns about, the comment was
made by a board member about the application
outlining a 2 to 1 ratio for applications versus number of seats. What we do have in
rule that we, not just for SA Prep, for all
our charters, there is 100 student enrollment
that we expect in order to be both financially and
academically viable, academic accountability.
So we have that accountability data and it's not
masked financially, the ADA that's generated
off the students in order to be a financially
viable operation. So I hope that addresses
the major concerns that were outlined. Member Dr. Robinson: Yes, thank you all from coming up from San
Antonio. And again, I can appreciate y'all's passion
for kids and education. That shows. I really
commend you for that. But I don't, you know, as far as Judson ISD, and I know
you said that you might not be going there. That's all that we have to go with. And to
me, when I'm making decisions, need is an important factor that I look at because that
again that was the original intent of charter
schools is to meet need that's not there in
that immediate area. Um, Judson ISD is not a failing campus. They don't have
campuses. They're on IR. And in the Bexar county area, and so, you know, since
you're gonna be somewhere Bexar County area,
there's already approximately 40 charter campuses.
So there's a fair number and Member Perez pointed out within a few miles or
several. But one question I had in particular
and maybe you can addresses or correct it.
It seemed like it, I don't remember if this is the
application, 120 page application I read or in
the audio interview, it seemed like that your
curriculum was a little, what you're planned for
is a little overly geared toward and centered
around the STAAR test. Is that, can you address that?
Stephanie Hall-Powell: Can you be a little bit more specific?
Is it because of the supports that we provide?
Thee extra minutes in math, the extra minutes in literacy? Member Dr. Robinson: I don't remember. I didn't
write down an exact quote. I just wrote that
down from, I think I got that from the interview part.
Stephanie Hall-Powell: And that we would be using
resources from the State Board approved curriculum resources.
Member Dr. Robinson: I honestly can't remember the exact words you said. Deja Behnke: Well, also, the STAAR
test is an accountability measure that we're held well held to. Member Dr. Robinson: But we want to teach kids
obviously way beyond the STAAR test. Deja Behnke: Sure, yes, of course. No, we're not just going to
be a teach to the STAAR campus. We just know
that there's going to be considerable catching
up to do, growth for these students to make,
or that's what we anticipate. We anticipate
for them to come in to a grade level, two, possibly more behind, so we just know
there's gonna be that curve to help get them
over. So that's why there's a lot of attention
to that there. But we're going to be very intentional about not being a teach to the test school.
Stephanie Hall-Powell: Which is why we have
our end of your capstone projects and then
also in our unique classroom schedule, we have allotted that students
are still taking PE. They're still going to
fine arts, so we're not taking away from those
things. And even though students have 150 minutes of literacy and 125 minutes of math. It's
not in one class. It's broken up over 2 to 3 classes throughout a day,
and it's being instructed in different ways. So it's not necessarily
for it says it's really for catching students
up in the middle school grades. It's not a
high school model, it's just our middle school model.
(audience chatter) Member Rowley: Okay. Miss Cargill and then Miss Perez.
Member Cargill: Yes, I just wanted to take a moment, as
I have with all of the applicants, to thank
you for your time and effort and your heart
for kids. And I also would like to thank you
for your service in the military, ma'am. It's very
commendable. And I think you would be inspiration and
example to all of the students in the school Cargill. Member Rowley: Just a brief reminder. We don't allow
applause and outburst, not outburst, but shows of spontaneity. Sorry, I'm a little
addled. I'm trying to change my reservation for my flight, which is rapidly
closing the window. Miss Perez.
Member Perez: Okay, Going back to page four and I have several questions.
Member Rowley, Chair Raleigh. There are more than 2000 students enrolled in CTE
And your application does not list any CTE classes. The student-teacher
ratio that you have listed on your application
is higher than the student teacher ratio in
the targeted schools. And then after that, I
want to talk to you about your credentials.
If you would just answer those two variances
and then I'll ask you about your credentials.
Stephanie Hall-Powell: We do offer CTE classes.
It's listed in our budget on, in the budget that we submitted,
and it should have been listed in our application
towards the budget section. But if it's not,
that was simply an oversight. But it is in our budget that we've listed CTE classes.
Not for middle school but for high school, and
then your second question was on our student
teacher ratio. Yes, it is higher, but based on our teacher model, we have two teachers
that are assigned to two cohorts of students, and it's a modified two-teacher model.
How that the teacher model normally works is
that there's two teachers per one classroom.
But based on a Texas budget, we had to modify
that. So these two teachers are assigned to
two cohorts of students or two classrooms of students in fifth grade or sixth grade.
And these students don't rotate classes so they don't go to seven different teachers.
They have their two teachers or their two core content teachers, and then they leave
for PE and fine arts, and so, one teacher will
teach math and science. The other teacher
will teach ELA and history, and this is only for middle school grades, and we're still
flushing out the eighth grade model. But our
five through seven model is that our students
don't rotate so that their IEPs can be met
with fidelity and that the students can build
really strong relations or the teachers can be really build really strong relationships
with students and families to ensure that the needs of the student is being met and
not being passed around to different teachers.
And that's why our ratio is the way that it
Member Perez: is. So just for my understanding,
then that means your teacher ratio would not be
1-28 as it's listed, it would be 2 to 28? Stephanie Hall-Powell: No, it's 1 to 28. Based on that, we had
to modify, so our teachers, one teacher will be
in one classroom, the other would be another
classroom, and they would swap. Member Perez: So then the ratio is just higher. Thank you.
So thank you for going into teachers and what
they will be teaching. So if they're teaching
ELA, are they going to be dual language? Bilingual certifications? ESL credentials? Are they going
to have these? You're committing to them having
these SBEC credentials. Stephanie Hall-Powell: if we have the 20
rule. If we have the 20 students per grade
level, Yes, we will have the bilingual. But even
without having the 20 rule, we will at least
have one ESL certified teacher on campus, yes.
Member Perez: Okay, but you, so does that mean that you're
you're saying they would not have SBEC credentials
in reading, math, science and history? You're not committing to that.
Stephanie Hall-Powell: So I think what I hear you saying is
that the credentials of the teachers, of the staff that we will
hire, I know that we're not required to have
certified teachers on campus. But a part of
our model is having master level teachers on
our campus. So though we may have a sprinkle
of highly qualified teachers that don't hold
certifications, in every grade level, we will
have at least two master level teachers on our campus.
Member Perez: Okay, but specific to my question,
Are you committing that all of your teachers
will have SBEC credentials? Just yes or no?
Stephanie Hall-Powell: No, we're not committing to that.
Member Perez: Do you have SBEC credentials? Stephanie Hall-Powell: I do Member Perez: up to which level?
Teacher, Principal, Superintendent?
Stephanie Hall-Powell: Just teacher, four through eight, science, 7 to 12 Life
science. And that ESL, EC through 12. And then
my masters is in instructional leadership. I
took all of the courses, but I didn't take the certification. Member Perez: OK. And you're partner
in leadership. Deja Behnke: Yes. I have my bachelors in public policy. But I don't have a teaching
certification, is that what you're asking? Member Perez: Yes, your SBEC credentials. Deja Behnke: No, I do not have.
Member Perez: Okay, Thank you. Member Rowley: Any further questions
of the testifiers? Okay, Thank you all very much. You may
you may take a well deserved rest. Members, are we ready to move forward with regards
to the action item before us. You have a question for staff? Okay, Ms Davis. Member Davis: Okay. Thank you.
Yesterday, you know, it was a lot of staff
from Judson that did come and they pointed out
a lot of false information like I was asking
before. So I'm just wondering how this application
was able to go forward so long was with that
false information in it? Heather Mauze: Miss Davis, if you're
referring to the accountability information in terms of false information... Member Davis: they pointed
out some accountability data, but also as well like, she said, it's kind of like a play
on words, how they put in there that it was IR. But it had just got scored low
in one category and things like that. So there
wasn't a uniform policy to make sure that
the correct information, a uniform information was in there. Heather Mauze: So we are in the midst of some
transitions in terms of accountability labels
at both the campus and district level
and what I tried to provide for you with some information that reflected those scales.
Member Rowley: Heather, could you speak up a little bit?
Heather Mauze: I just must have a very soft voice. Member Rowley: Well, that's alright. There's
a lot of background noise. Heather Mauze: I can't compete with the dozers. Sorry. So as we transition in
the state accountability, I think there was some discussion about labels, Met Standard,
IR versus scale scores and the domains. And so the document I provided you, I tried to
capture maybe the more nuanced information.
So while a 60 maybe a Met Standard in a particular
domain. I don't think the applicant was trying to misrepresent, and we looked at
the totality of those scores for each of the ISDs that they put in their geo-boundary
in their application. Member Davis: I just wanted to say on record. It was several administrators who
came and they painted a very positive picture of Judson ISD. I didn't know much
about it before I listened to that testimony,
but I heard about blue ribbon schools. I heard
about students with all kind of learning needs
being extremely successful. And I think it
was sad that Judson had to come and defend themselves from negative, false information.
And if there's some kind of way that we can
make sure that our teachers and our principals
don't have to come and defend themselves, that there's a proactive way to make sure
that we have that factual information about
those ISDs that they're proposing to move into.
Heather Mauze: And I think, you know, we will have
uniform labels, certainly next year, when we're talking
about, like as I just referenced, the data that
was referenced, when you look at a 68, the
label of Met Standard that's associated with the
68 in a domain may not necessarily translate
to what a Met Standard is, but I think next year going forward, there won't
be any confusion in that area. And I certainly don't want any ISD, traditional ISD, to
feel like they're in a position they have to defend. I think one of the comments that
you've heard from the charter field is this
is, you know, this is not to detract from the
ISDs, but really focus on offering options for kids. Member Davis: I heard that. I've also
heard them say there was very little communication
with staff in the ISD. So other than the
one sheet that the ISDs get that they can check off boxes on how the charters would
affect them, is there some kind of way to make
sure that they can express how the charters
really would affect them? And these innovative
programs, if they already have those innovative
programs active in their school, is there some kind of way that we can have something
to say, Oh, they already have this?Heather Mauze: That is a a subject that was very interesting yesterday
in terms of what was put forth in the application
in the capacity interview about the applicant
reaching out to ISD personnel versus what was mentioned at the capacity interview by
folks. And I really could not gauge where the
accuracy was, if there was a miscommunication
that it's certainly something think about.
But barring participating in those conversations
at the early stages of an application, we'd
be open to suggestions. But I'm not sure what
that would look like. Operationally.
Member Rowley: Any further questions? Miss Perez? Member Perez: I think, Miss Mauze,
this will be for you as well. And of
course, I could have taken incorrect notes,
so please feel free to correct me.Tthe application for SA Prep will be amended to
accept all students, regardless of disciplinary
histories or records. And the SA Prep application
will be amended to offer C T E classes. Correct?
Heather Mauze: I believe Miss Hall-Powell mentioned that the
C T E classes are already in the applications.
Member Perez: It's listed in the budget, but not the application.
Member Perez: Does that mean is it equivalent or is it?
Heather Mauze: The application is taken in its entirety, so
yes. The discipline, we got clarification during the capacity interviews. Then again
today. That will be captured. Member Perez: So it will be amended, so that made it a contingency.
Heather Mauze: What we will do is we will place that
contingency upon the anticipation. And then there will
be 60 days for them to amend that. Member Perez: Thank you.
And so my last question, I hope, is the
the application lists that a campus is IR except that it wasn't actually IR, it
was just a percentage of students of a demographic
on that campus. So the application appears
to say that the campus in Judson ISD is IR,
when in fact it is not. And so I'm wondering,
how did that application get approved and get sent to us? If we're not
using the state's accountability rating, then what are we using? And is this an SA Prep
unique accountability rating? Heather Mauze: I think I've tried to articulate, maybe not really well,
the texasschools.gov has domains and scale scores. The information I provided
you, I tried to break that down for you numerically,
that may or may not match up exactly with
the Met Standard IR that we were currently and
in terms of accountability and the transition
that we are in at the campus level. Next year,
I think there will be a lot more clarity in
regards to, you know, Generation 25 applicants
who are looking at the accountability that
will be coming out, is coming out right now. And there will be more uniform labels
to look at. But I think there was a distinction
between the Met Standard IR labels and
then domain scores. Heather Mauze: Anything further, members, of the staff. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Mauze.
motion currently before us and we did make the motion. I believe. A motion was made.
Was to veto San Antonio Preparatory Charter School (San Antonio). And I think we've
already established is gonna be a roll call
vote. Any further discussion before we vote?
Member Dr. Robinson: I want to make a quick point that,
yeah, I mean, I had the same concern and that I think
this is a gamble with taxpayer dollars with people who are well intentioned, but
don't have any experience of running a school or
in particular starting something from scratch
in a tough demographic area.
Member Rowley: Okay, Any further discussion? Ms. Davis? Member Davis: I just again want to
say that I wish everybody could have been there to see those teachers from Judson and
those principals from Judson and the passion they have and the things they're trying to
do for their kids. It's amazing. And if you take away some of their resources, then
they're not gonna have that ability to be able to continue improving the way they are.
But they had some amazing stories of things they're doing for their kids. They also had
parents who came and testified in support.
So I would just really want to make sure that
everybody knows that Judson is a very strong
district. They have a very innovative program.
They're improving a lot of time, have blue ribbon schools, and the school is not needed
in that area. Member Rowley: Okay, Thank you. Any further
discussion? I think we've already established
a roll call vote on each of these. So this is a vote to veto. Okay, so vote to veto,
you vote yes, this is an easy one to understand, I think. You vote yes, then you're
voting to veto. Okay. Alright. We're ready for the vote.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Miss Perez. Yes. Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr Cortez? Yes. Debbie Ratcliffe: Ms. Perez-Diaz? Yes.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr Allen.Yes. Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Mercer. No. Debbie Ratcliffe: Dr. Robinson. Yes.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mrs. Cargill. No. Debbie Ratcliffe: Dr. Ellis. No. Member Maynard: Mr. Maynard. Nay.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Miss Hardy. No. Debbie Ratcliffe: Mrs Little No. Debbie Ratcliffe: Ms Davis? Yes.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Ms. Melton-Malone. No. Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Rowely. No. Debbie Ratcliffe: And Miss Boharich.
Member Rowley: 8 to 6? Debbie Ratcliffe: yes, that's correct. Member Rowley: 8 to 6. The motion fails
Or 6 to 8. The motion fails. Would that be right. Is that understood?
Member Maynard: Mr Chairman, given the outcome of
the vote. And I think that just to add clarity,
now, to the Board's action, I move that
the board take no action on this on this proposal.
Is there a second? Okay, Motion made and seconded
that the board take no action on this, on the Commissioner's recommendation. That means
is, the 90 day period, within which things could
could be reconsidered, closes, and there's
no longer in effect. Correct? Von Byers: So, technically,
if the chair were to call it, the question
could be come up. But that has been your historical
practice. And that is how we've operated.
Member Rowley: Okay, so we're taking that as a yes. Mrs. Perez-Diaz?
Member Perez-Diaz: Thank you, sir. May I ask everyone? May I ask the
maker of motion why this is necessary? I'm just trying to I'm trying to understand why
we're putting additional steps in place because
I don't want a convoluted conversation again.
Member Maynard: It's my understanding, Mr. Chairman, may I address the question?
Member Rowley: Absolutely. Member Maynard: It is my understanding that
if you defeat the veto, that means that nothing has happened. Things do move
ahead, but that it is possible, but not likely,
that in the next 90 days the board could reconvene
and could take action, and therefore, it does kind of leave that charter school in
somewhat of a limbo for 90 days. Granted, it's not likely. But I think that what we're
doing is we're taking definitive action that we're not gonna come back and take action.
And it gives them than the ability to move forward without looking over their shoulder
and thinking that something that the board may
reconvene and take some action. Member Rowley: Miss Perez.
Member Perez: This is a question for Von. Just so I understand what
you said is, regardless of how this vote comes
out, the chair could still call, and we could still reconvene. Von Byers: That's correct. The board
could meet, and then you'd have to go through a series of actions of whether or not you
would reconsider the adoption that you've just done. But historically this is
the approach that the boards have taken and
historically, the board chairs have recognized
the will of board that when they say they're
not going to reconvene, that they do not call
that action. Member Rowley: And wouldn't we have to go through
the parliamentary processes of reconsidering
action we've already taken? Miss Kay: You would have to rescind something. Reconsider
would be out of reach. To rescind would be in order. Yes.
Member Rowley: Okay. Any further questions or discussion?
Okay, so the motion currently before us is
that the board take no action on the San Antonio
Preparatory Charter School (San Antonio). Okay,
roll call. Vote again. I'm assuming. (inaudible speech from crowd)
Other way around from what it was a while ago. If you
vote yes on this motion, you're voting to take no action,
which is essentially approving the charter in
loose terms. If you vote no on this motion,
then you're essentially voting to veto the charter. (audience chatter)
Alright. Leave it hanging. Yeah. Okay. So a yes
vote means take no action. How about that? Let's
leave it at that. Yes vote means take no action. Okay.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Ms. Perez. No. Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Cortez. No. Debbie Ratcliffe: Ms. Perez-Diaz. No.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Allen. Yes. Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Mercer. (inaudible, off-mic)
Debbie Ratcliffe: Dr. Robinson. No. Debbie Ratcliffe: Mrs. Cargill. Yes. Debbie Ratcliffe: Dr Ellis. Yes.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Mr. Maynard. Aye. Debbie Ratcliffe: Miss Hardy. Yes. Debbie Ratcliffe: Mrs. Little. Yes.
Debbie Ratcliffe: Ms. Davis. No. Debbie Ratcliffe: Mrs Melton-Malone. Yes.
Member Rowley: Mr Rowley. Yes. Debbie Ratcliffe: And Miss Boharich.
Member Rowley: In that instance, the motion passed 9 to 4. Thank you.
To take no action. The motion passed to take
no action. 9 to 4. So San Antonio Prep. Okay. Members. What is your pleasure?
We have two more left. (inaudibe from crowd) Okay, very good. All
right. Who's next? (inaudible from crowd) Yeah, well, let's take
a 10 minute break.
Von Byers: Mr. Rowley, before we break, we'd just
like to correct the record. The vote was 9 to 5.
Member Rowley: 9 to 5. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. We'll be back
at quarter til.
Member Rowley: Meeting back to order. I don't have a gavel, I've
got kind of a little pen thing. I don't want
to be pretentious. Just put it right there? Yeah, I got that.
And you're out of order, young lady. (laughs) Okay. Members
calling the meeting back to order. We got
enough folks here? We do. So we had a proposal
by, I believe, Miss Perez and joined by Miss
Melton-Malone that we take about, say, 20 minutes
or so. Go down the cafeteria or wherever you
wanna go and get something and bring it back
and eat while we're working. While basically here at our desks. So what's the will
of majority on that? Because we're going to
be, I imagine we have another hour and a half
probably, of meeting because we haven't even got
to the the recommendations of the committee. (inaudible from crowd)
Peaches, pass out the peaches and go? Okay, I'm gonna make a executive decision, even
though I'm the vice executive. So that's what
we'll do. Let's come back, actually, let's
come back, but ready to start, right, at 15 after one. That's 25 minutes. And so
go get something, go get something to eat or
go get something and bring it back here and
then will commence whether we're still eating or not, Okay?