|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December
4, 2002
State Board Upholds Champaign District's
Denial of Charter School
Appeal Panel finds proposal not in compliance with State's
Charter Schools Law
A state appeal panel has upheld the Champaign School District
4 decision to deny the charter school proposed by the Champaign-Urbana
Charter School Initiative (CUCSI).
The Champaign School District voted in April to deny the
charter. CUCSI subsequently requested an appeal through the
State Board of Education. Illinois' Charter Schools Law provides
that organizations may seek reversal by the State Board of
local board decisions to deny charters. The State Board may
reverse those local decisions if the proposals are found to
be in compliance with the State's Charter School Law
CUCSI proposed to establish a charter school to serve grades
kindergarten through eight open to students in Champaign School
District 4 and Urbana School District 116. The Urbana district
had previously approved the charter proposal.
The Champaign district's denial claimed that the CUCSI could
not fulfill contingencies set forth in the proposal and that
it did not conform to the Charter Schools Law in the following
ways:
- The proposal would lead to a racially identifiable school,
inconsistent with the provisions of the law and the intent
of the proposed consent decree,
- The district is not in a position to absorb a diversion
of $1.2 million to the charter school over five years, and
- The proposal's transportation plan is inadequate.
The three-member appeal panel conducted a hearing in October
to give both parties the opportunity to outline their views.
Based on that hearing and the written material submitted by
the Champaign district and CUCSI, the panel based its final
recommendation on the following points:
- The State Board does not have the authority to determine
whether the charter school would violate the recently established
Consent Decree, but "it would not appear that there
would be such a violation." The CUCSI proposal states
that the charter school would be open to all students in
the Champaign and Urbana school districts and "neither
the school district nor CUCSI can accurately predict the
racial pool of student enrollment..."
- Budget -- No evidence was presented to indicate that
the reallocation of funds would negatively impact the district
financially. The total cost of the charter proposal would
amount to less than 1 percent of the total instructional
costs and less than ½ of one percent of the operating
budgets for the district over the five years.
The panel did conclude that the economic soundness of
the proposed charter school is questionable. The proposed
budget depends heavily on grants and loans and the scope
of the program would need to be altered significantly
if those loans and grants are not received. "The
budget (also) fails to include several likely costs or
expenses and in some areas does not appear realistic in
assessing costs," the panel noted. The budget does
not include a contingency plan for meeting expenses, it
fails to show how the requested planning year would be
funded, it includes no funds to provide special education
programming, and the cost of building renovations is "not
readily apparent in the budget.” Consequently, the
panel found that the proposal is not in compliance with
Section 27A-7(a)(9) of the Charter Schools Law.
- Curriculum and assessments - The charter proposal lacks
sufficient detail in describing the curriculum and measures
of student assessment and includes conflicting information
on how some subjects would be presented. The curriculum
would be based on the Illinois Learning Standards, according
to the proposal but it would not be developed until after
the school was chartered. A general outline of assessments
was included in the proposal, but performance expectations
were included only in mathematics and reading. Goals and
objectives in other subject areas were proposed to be developed
only after the charter is granted, but the Charter Schools
Law requires a full description of the proposed curriculum
and assessments. The Law also requires a timeline for student
achievement of performance standards and procedures for
taking corrective action if student performance falls below
those standards, yet the panel found that the CUCSI proposal
did not describe the timeline for intervention if students
fail to make progress. In the areas of curriculum and assessment,
the panel found the CUCSI proposal does not appear to be
in compliance with the Charter Schools Law.
- Special Education - Under the law, if chartered by the
State Board, the charter school would become solely responsible
for special education services for enrolled students, yet
the panel concluded that the proposal contained no plan
for such services other than the citation "District
will provide." "The charter school proposal does
not address how such special education services would be
provided, nor was such a description provided in response
to questions at the appeal hearing," the panel noted
in citing failure to comply with the Charter Schools Law
with regard to special education services.
- Enrollment criteria - When more students apply than can
be accommodated, the Charter Schools Law specifies that
"priority shall be given to siblings of pupils enrolled
in the charter school..." The charter proposal states
that priority will also be given for housemates. The panel
noted that this may be an attempt to reflect a diverse household,
but the law does not give a charter school discretion in
establishing such a priority. The proposal also states that
parents would be required to sign a "covenant",
but the panel said it was unclear what the impact is on
admission if a parent refuses to sign the covenant. Since
the law requires charter schools to be open to any pupil
who resides in the geographic boundaries, such a covenant
may not be used as a mechanism to screen out students. Enrollment
criteria stated in the proposal do not comply with the provisions
of the Charter Schools Law, the panel concluded.
- Transportation -- The required description of how the
charter school will meet the transportation needs of students
is not clear and therefore not in compliance with that requirement
of the law, the panel stated. The charter school proposal
indicated use of MTD tokens, but the oral presentation indicated
these would be for field trips. Other testimony indicated
that CUCSI would contract with the bus company for regular
transportation as well as field trips. Still another section
of the proposal indicated that vans would be used to transport
students to and from after school programs.
The Appeal Panel concluded that the charter proposal submitted
by CUCSI does not comply with the statutory provisions of
the Charter Schools Law, citing specifically:
- The charter school proposal is not economically sound
for the charter school;
- The curriculum and assessment plans are inadequate;
- The needs for special education students are not provided
for;
- The transportation plan is inadequate; and
- The enrollment criteria are not in compliance with the
Charter Schools Law.
The Appeal Panel therefore recommended that the State Superintendent
deny the request by CUCSI to overrule the Champaign School
District 4 decision to deny the charter. State Superintendent
of Education Robert E. Schiller reviewed the record and the
Panel's report and notified CUCSI and Champaign district officials
that he had signed an administrative order adopting the Panel's
findings and recommendation.
|
