Department of Education
Charter School Accountability Meeting
January 20, 2010
East Side Charter School
Attending Committee Members:
Mike Stetter, Jim Hertzog, Cliff Coleman, Mike Jackson
Ex-officio Members:
Jim Wilson
Dr. Stetter, as acting chair, called the meeting to order. The purpose of the meeting was to prepare the final report regarding the modification application from East Side Charter School. For the purpose of the record introductions were made:
Mike Stetter, Acting Chair, Director, Curriculum Development
Jim Hertzog, Education Associate, Student Assessment
Cliff Coleman, Member of Accountability Committee
Mike Jackson, Associate Secretary, Finances
John Hindman, Deputy Attorney General, counsel to the committee
Julia Webster, Education Associate, Charter Schools Office
Judi Coffield, Policy Analyst, State Board of Education
Jim Wilson, State Board of Education
Suzi Harris, Member of Accountability Committee
Charles McDowell, Board President, East Side Charter School
Rebecca Van Pelt, ISDC
Dr. Stetter reviewed the preliminary report. Because of the nature of the modification application the criteria affected were criteria 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14. The school submitted a response to the preliminary report in a letter dated January 6, 2010.
Criterion 4 was considered met with a condition in the preliminary report. Dr. Hertzog said based on the review of the preliminary report and the school’s response he recommended the criterion remain met with a condition.
Dr. Wilson asked if AYP was an acceptable achievement goal. Dr. Stetter said at the meeting to draft the preliminary report there was discussion about whether AYP was an acceptable achievement goal. Dr. Coffield said there is a concern that the school only needs to show 10% growth from where they are as opposed to meeting or exceeding the state averages. Dr. Stetter asked Dr. Hertzog if it was possible, given the population the school is serving, that a small contingence of highly able students could carry the school while every other student made little or no progress. Dr. Hertzog said it could be possible that 20% of the students could help the school make AYP. Mr. Coleman reviewed that at the meeting to draft the preliminary report the committee accepted the school’s definition of free and reduced lunch as the benchmark.
Mr. Coleman made a motion to keep criterion four as listed in the preliminary report as met with a condition. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion. A vote was taken. All ayes, none opposed. Motion carries.
Criterion 5 was considered met in the preliminary report. Dr. Hertzog recommended keeping the criterion as met. No further discussion. Dr. Hertzog made a motion to keep criterion five as listed in the preliminary report. Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. A vote was taken. All ayes, none opposed. Motion carries.
Criterion 6 was considered met in the preliminary report. Dr. Stetter said he reviewed the response from the school and Stetter made a motion to keep criterion six as listed in the preliminary report. Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. A vote was taken. All ayes, none opposed. Motion carries.
Criterion 7 was considered met in the preliminary report. Dr. Stetter said he reviewed the response from the school. Mr. Coleman made a motion to keep the criterion as met. Dr. Hertzog seconded the motion. A vote was taken. All ayes, none opposed. Motion carries.
Criterion 8 was considered met in the preliminary report. Mr. Jackson made a motion that the criterion remain the same. Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. A vote was taken. All ayes, none opposed. Motion carries.
Criterion 9 was considered met in the preliminary report. Mr. Jackson made a motion that the criterion remain the same. Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. A vote was taken. All ayes, none opposed. Motion carries.
Criterion 14 was considered met in the preliminary report. Mr. Coleman made a motion that the criterion remain the same. Dr. Stetter seconded the motion. A vote was taken. All ayes, none opposed. Motion carries.
Mr. Hindman suggested the committee consider the response from the school which indicated a typographical error in the report related to the amount of the increase in enrollment the school was seeking.
Mrs. Harris suggested that in the future if other schools apply for this waiver attention should be paid to question 6 regarding a provision for extra instructional time for at risk students and question 7 regarding an educational program for at risk students.
Dr. Stetter reviewed that criterion 4 was met with a condition, criteria 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14 were met. The final recommendation by the committee is that the modification be approved with the proposed condition.
No further discussion. Meeting was adjourned.
2