1. CALL TO ORDER
Subject
A. Roll Call (Including Action on Absences if Necessary)
Meeting
Nov 2, 2016 - Regular Board Agenda (#2192)
Category
1. CALL TO ORDER
Type
Information
Subject
B. Adoption of Agenda
Meeting
Nov 2, 2016 - Regular Board Agenda (#2192)
Category
1. CALL TO ORDER
Type
Action

 

 

Subject
C. Pledge of Allegiance
Meeting
Nov 2, 2016 - Regular Board Agenda (#2192)
Category
1. CALL TO ORDER
Type
Procedural

 

 

2. SPECIAL RECOGNITION
Subject
A. Civic Engagement Video Contest
Meeting
Nov 2, 2016 - Regular Board Agenda (#2192)
Category
2. SPECIAL RECOGNITION
Type
Recognition
Goals
Santa Clara County Office of Education Goal #1
Santa Clara County Office of Education Goal #2

Administrator

Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools

Peter Daniels, Chief Public Affairs Officer

 

Background

As part of its commitment to support civic education and engagement, the Santa Clara County Office of Education is partnering with key community stakeholders to help students “learn, engage, and take action” to increase civic literacy through a committee of local stakeholders who have been meeting regularly for several months.

 

One of the goals of the committee is to provide hands-on learning opportunities for students and one way the committee has done that is through a Civic Engagement PSA Video Contest, which was open to all students in Santa Clara County. Students could participate in groups or individually in one of three grade-level categories: K-5, 6-8, and 9-12.

 

The objectives were for students to be able to develop confidence in participating in civic life; to be engaged in the political processes; to assume the roles, rights and responsibilities usually associated with citizenship in democratic systems; and to be open, tolerant, and responsible in exercising their rights and responsibilities.

 

Students/teams created a Public Service Announcement (PSA) video based on one of these two prompts:

  1. What is Civic Engagement, and why is it important?
  2. Create a PSA video that will motivate your peers, family and community members to take action

The top three winners in each category (nine total) will be recognized at tonight's Board meeting.

 

The video contest winners are listed at: http://civiced.sccoe.org/videocontest.aspx along with links to the four first-place videos.

 

Fiscal Implications

There are no fiscal implications.

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS OF PERSONS DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD
Subject
A. Members of the public may address the Board on any issue within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board that is not listed on this agenda. Members of the public may also address the Board on an agenda item before or during the Board's consideration of the item.
Meeting
Nov 2, 2016 - Regular Board Agenda (#2192)
Category
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS OF PERSONS DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD
Type
Procedural

At this time, members of the public may address the Board on any issue within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board that is not listed on this agenda.  Members of the public may also address the Board on an agenda item before or during the Board's consideration of the item.  No action can be taken on an item not on the agenda at this time, but may be referred to the administration or put on a future agenda.  In accordance with Board Bylaw 9323, individual remarks will be limited to 3 minutes each, unless otherwise stipulated.

4. SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT
Subject
A. The superintendent may give a report on any activities related to his duties.
Meeting
Nov 2, 2016 - Regular Board Agenda (#2192)
Category
4. SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT
Type
Information

The superintendent may give a report on any activities related to his duties.

5. COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBER REPORTS
Subject
A. The members of the Board may give reports on any activities related to their duties as members of the Santa Clara County Board of Education.
Meeting
Nov 2, 2016 - Regular Board Agenda (#2192)
Category
5. COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBER REPORTS
Type
Information, Reports

The members of the Board may give reports on any activities related to their duties as members of the Santa Clara County Board of Education.

6. PUBLIC HEARING
Subject
A. Public Hearing on the Alpha Jose Hernandez Charter Renewal Petition
Meeting
Nov 2, 2016 - Regular Board Agenda (#2192)
Category
6. PUBLIC HEARING
Type
Procedural
Goals
Santa Clara County Office of Education Goal #1
Santa Clara County Office of Education Goal #2

Administrator

Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent

 

Background

On October 14, 2016 the Charter Schools Department of the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE) received a charter petition renewal request from Alpha Jose Hernandez. Alpha Jose Hernandez is seeking approval to renew a district appeal public charter which is currently serving students in grades 5-8 for a continuing charter term of five years beginning in July 2017. Alpha Middle School 2 was initially approved on appeal from Alum Rock Union School District as a grade 6-8 charter school in October 2013 for a three-year term; Alpha Middle School 2 / Alpha Jose Hernandez’s material revision to a grade 5-8 charter school was approved by the SCCOE  Board of Education in October 2015. Alpha Jose Hernandez’s current renewal seeks to increase the grades served from grades 5-8 to TK-8. Current enrollment is 476 students (grades 5-8) with capacity at 572 students (grades TK-8) by 2021. Their mission is to provide children from high poverty communities an education that effectively develops the academic skills and competencies of character to overcome the achievement gap, graduate from college, and become self-reliant and productive leaders. 

 

California Education Code Section 47605 requires that “no later than 30 days after receiving a petition” the County Board of Education “shall hold a public hearing on the provisions of the charter, at which time the County Board of Education shall consider the level of support for the petition by teachers, parents or guardians, and the school districts where the charter school petitioner proposes to place school facilities.”

 

The Education Code further stipulates that the County Board of Education “shall either grant or deny the charter within 60 days of receipt of the petition. However, this date may be extended by an additional 30 days if both parties agree to the extension.” With agreement from Alpha Jose Hernandez this item will be placed on the December 14, 2016 board agenda for a decision.

 

The complete petition is attached to this agenda and is also available for review at: Alpha: Jose Hernandez School

 

 

7. CONSENT ACTION ITEMS
Subject
A. Request Approval of Minutes of Regular Board Meeting of October 19, 2016 (#2191)
Meeting
Nov 2, 2016 - Regular Board Agenda (#2192)
Category
7. CONSENT ACTION ITEMS
Type
Action (Consent)

Request Approval of Minutes of Regular Board Meeting of October 19, 2016 (#2191)

8. ACTION ITEMS
Subject
A. Decision on the Independent, Countywide Legacy Academy Charter Petition for the term of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2021
Meeting
Nov 2, 2016 - Regular Board Agenda (#2192)
Category
8. ACTION ITEMS
Type
Action
Goals
Santa Clara County Office of Education Goal #1
Santa Clara County Office of Education Goal #2

Administrator

Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent

 

Background

On September 24, 2016 the Charter Schools Department of the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE) received a petition for an SCCOE authorized independent countywide charter school from the Legacy Academy (Legacy) charter team. Legacy is seeking approval to establish and operate a public charter high school for countywide benefit serving students in grades 6-8 for a proposed charter term of five years beginning in July 2017. Legacy plans to begin operation with sixty 6th grade students in 2017-18 adding a new grade level each year until capacity is reached at 180 students in 2019-20. The petitioners plan on locating their site in the San Jose Unified School District (SJUSD) during 2017-2018 and relocating to a permanent site within the Franklin-McKinley School District (FMSD) during the 2018-19 school year. Legacy had previously submitted a petition for a countywide charter middle school on November 20, 2015. The public hearing for that petition was held on January 13, 2016 with the decision hearing held on March 2, 2016. Legacy's founding team members withdrew that petition at the March 2, 2016 decision hearing.

 

On October 5, 2016 the County Board of Education held a public hearing on the new Legacy Academy Charter Petition.

 

The Education Code requires that the County Board of Education “shall either grant or deny the charter within 90 days of receipt of the petition. However, this date may be extended by an additional 30 days if both parties agree to the extension.” 

 

Legal Standards for Countywide Charters

Per Education Code Section 47605.6 (b) (1) (5), a county board of education may grant a charter for the operation of a school under this part only if the board is satisfied that granting the charter is consistent with sound educational practice and that the charter school has reasonable justification for why it could not be established by petition to a school district pursuant to Section 47605. Additionally, a county board may approve a county‐wide charter pursuant to this part only if it finds that the educational services to be provided by the school will offer services to a pupil population that will benefit from those services and that cannot be served as well by a charter school that operates in only one school district in the county. The county board of education shall deny a petition for the establishment of a charter school if the board finds one or more of the following:

 

  1. The charter school presents an unsound educational program for the pupils to be enrolled in the charter school.
  2. The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition.
  3. The petition does not contain the number of signatures required by subdivision (a).
  4. The petition does not contain an affirmation of each of the conditions described in subdivision (d).
  5. The petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of all of the charter elements.
  6. The petition does not include a declaration of whether the charter school shall be the exclusive public school employer of employees of the charter school for purposes of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA).
  7. Any other basis that the County Board finds justifies the denial of the petition.

 

Analysis

Legacy’s Charter Petition was submitted seeking approval as a countywide charter pursuant to the standards and requirements set forth in Education Code Section 47605.6. However, the written petition submitted by Legacy mistakenly makes references to the requirements of Education Code Section 47605 (which governs standard charters submitted initially to an individual school district) rather than Section 47605.6 throughout the document. For purposes of Charter Schools Department staff’s analysis and recommendation and the Board’s action on the request for renewal, all references in the charter petition to Education Code Section 47605 shall be understood to be intended and interpreted as references to Section 47605.6, including revisions to reflect the appropriate subdivisions of that section, and the charter has been considered pursuant to the standards and requirements of the correct code section. If the Board were to approve the charter, such approval should be subject to a condition that any and all references to Education Code Section 47605 in the approved charter are mutually understood and agreed to be intended and interpreted as references to Education Code Section 47605.6, including the appropriate renumbering of references to the correct subdivisions of Section 47605.6.

 

Staff reviewed the petition using the criteria established in California Education Code 47605.6 (b) and County Board Policy 0420.4 (c) and found:

 

1. Required signatures: The signature requirement set forth in Education Code Section 47605.6 (b) (3).

 

Staff found that the petition included the appropriate number of signatures.

 

2. Affirmation that the charter school shall be nonsectarian

  

Staff found that the petition contains the required affirmation.

 

3. Affirmation that the charter school shall not discriminate against pupils

 

Staff found that the petition contains the required affirmation.

 

4. Affirmation that the charter school shall not charge tuition

 

Staff found that the petition contains the required affirmation.

 

5. Reasonably comprehensive description of the required elements

 

While Charter School Department staff found that the petition provided a relatively comprehensive description of the required educational elements (with missing details or specificity), there were significant inconsistencies and questions regarding other required elements including, but not limited to, the connection with Seneca Family of Agencies (Seneca), its revenues and expenditures, transportation issues, and the educational program. Some of the key elements and issues are summarized below with greater detail in the Staff Analysis and Proposed Findings of Fact dated November 2, 2016.

 

Educational Program:

Legacy describes a target population that may demonstrate significant academic gaps and lack of academic success. It provides a reasonably comprehensive program which would need additional clarity regarding supports for Special Education. The petition describes significant support staff and wrap around services provided through Seneca but fails to include a contingency in the budget should the anticipated funding provisions not be realized. Seneca utilizes their Unconditional Education Model (UE) to provide structured supports in connection with Legacy's Response to Intervention (RTI) program. Further, the program is relying upon non-instructional staff to provide instructional supports, i.e., volunteers to teach life skills classes, etc. Also, Legacy proposes having all special education services provided by Seneca, but Seneca does not require its employees to be credentialed. Essentially, staff found that Legacy's program was a rich, wrap-around support system with an educational component, rather than an educational program with wrap-around support services integrated into the system.

 

Facility Location:

The petition describes an initial site, located in SJUSD, which will serve students spread across Santa Clara County for the first year. Legacy will then transition to its permanent site located in FMSD for year two. While these locations are centrally located in Santa Clara County, there is no provision for transportation for the students. These locations will provide a hardship on any students wishing to attend the program from other communities. Further, during the public hearing, Legacy admitted that they are focusing on a small area of Santa Clara County in the southeast corridor. Based on the location choices, lack of transportation, and focus on a specified geographic area, students may be better served by a district rather than a countywide charter.

 

Revenue and Expenditures:

Many questions arose about the fiscal viability of the petition, most specifically regarding the anticipated $1.9M in local fundraising revenues included in the budget. Should these funds not be realized the program will not be able to be fiscally viable.

 

Racial and Ethnic Balance: 

The petition describes an admission and random lottery process that meets countywide requirements. Due to the unique target population Legacy’s student population will not likely reflect the ethnic balance of the county’s general student population as described in Education Code. However, it will meet the countywide racial and ethnic balance among its pupils in the targeted student population.

 

Admission Requirements:

The preferences as stated in the public random drawing in the Legacy Charter Petition do not reflect the same target school population in the charter. The entire Legacy program, including its proposed justification as a countywide charter school, is premised on serving a specific student population, but the admission process and charter as a whole do not include a viable means to recruit those target students, and those students are not given admission preference, thereby undermining the potential success of the entire proposal.

 

6. Unsound Education Program

Staff finds that overall the petition provides information satisfying only some of the required elements for a sound educational program. Staff has significant concerns regarding the services for special education students and seeks further elaboration on support for English learners.

 

The petition describes all special education services provided by Seneca staff; all Seneca staff are not required to hold special education credentials. The provided Seneca Unconditional Education (UE) model does not specifically or explicitly describe how individual IEP goals will be addressed, nor how options for program settings will be implemented. 

 

The petition provides a master schedule with an alternating 8 week social studies and science block, along with “electives” at the end of the school day. The petition's described staffing requirement does not meet credentialing requirements.

 

7. Demonstrably unlikely to implement the Program

SCCOE Charter Schools Department staff noted the following serious concerns relating to the petitioner: Legacy Academy.

 

Enrollment:

The petition proposes to open the school with sixty 6th grade students. The petition anticipates an average daily attendance rate of 85%, stating that what is being offered will translate into attendance. The average ADA for comparable programs is at 70%.

 

Staffing:

The petition does not indicate credentialed staff providing special education services. The petition’s described educational program is incongruent to the described credentialing requirements of the four teaching staff.

 

Special Education:

The petition relies entirely on Seneca’s UE model of student intervention. The petition does not provide explicit details on how individual IEP goals will be addressed for identified students. The petitioners did not collaborate with SCCOE Special Education staff despite indicating they will be a school of SCCOE, and part of the Special Education Local Planning Agencies (SELPA).

 

Fiscal Concerns:

The petition describes $1.9M in local fundraising, donation/grants to be utilized as revenues over the first five years. Aside from two letters indicating “promissory” funds for $275K, there are no other defined sources to account for the remaining $1.9M. 

 

Legacy’s contractual relationship with Seneca ($2.9M annually) is categorized as $268K directly from Legacy, with the rest “offset” by the Santa Clara County Health and Hospital System (SCCHHS). There is no evidence indicating agreement from the SCCHHS to this offset. 

 

Legacy indicates its application for $575K start-up Public Charter School Grant Program (PCSGP) as year one revenue. There is no evidence of approval for the grant funds.

 

8. Requirements for Grade-Levels Served, Facility Location, and Students Served

Staff found that the Petition appears to meet the requirements for grade levels served and facility location, with reservations on the temporary first year location, and then the need to acquire permanent location by year two in another district. 

 

9. Any Other Criteria Set Forth in the Statute

Other statutory criteria that are specifically applicable to this countywide charter petition include:

 

(a) Inclusion of a statement regarding employment for purposes of the EERA.

 

The charter petition states that the Legacy will be the employer for all purposes of the EERA.

 

(b) Finding by the County Board that the educational services to be provided will offer services to a pupil population that will benefit from those services and that cannot be served as well by a charter school that operates in only one school district in the county.

 

The petition describes educational services that may benefit the target student population. However, the petition’s proposed location both in year one and thereafter are in central Santa Clara County, and there is no viable provision for transportation for the students. These proposed locations without the provision of transportation will present a hardship on students wishing to attend Legacy from other communities, particularly given the target population, and the likely limitations on their access to transportation to a distant school. Furthermore, during the public hearing Legacy admitted that it is focusing on a small area of Santa Clara County, in the southeast corridor. Based on this, the students may be better served by a district rather than a countywide charter school.

 

(c) The Charter School has a reasonable justification why it could not be established by petition to a school district pursuant to Education Code Section 47605.

 

The petitioner states that although there is a significant population of the targeted students in the county, there is not the concentrated population of these students within any one district to yield the student enrollment necessary for the program. This is the petitioner’s justification for seeking countywide approval instead of petitioning any one district. However, the petitioner admitted at the public hearing that it is actually concentrating on a small area in the southeast corridor of Santa Clara County.

 

(d) Any Other Basis the County Board Finds Justifies Denial

 

The petition describes a target student population that at least in part, is already being served by SCCOE mandated county alternative education programs, specifically the court school and community school programs. 

 

Members of the Santa Clara County Board of Education requested that the petitioner provide documentation explaining how the proposed program, which is premised on segregating the at-risk target population in a school primarily or entirely made up of at-risk pupils, is beneficial to students and better than a program which integrates the target student population with other groups of students. While the petitioner provided a list of segregated programs that Legacy indicated were working, it did not provide substantive information in answer to the Board members' inquiries.

 

 

REQUESTED ACTION

Staff finds that the petition offers a program that may benefit the identified “At-Promise” students who have been disengaged from a traditional K-12 educational system. While the theoretical and described methods appear to provide said benefits, Charter School Department staff has concerns about the financial capacity of Legacy. 

 

Given the petition’s lack of evidence of guaranteed directed funding, assurances of agreement to the Seneca contractual offsets, and the other deficiencies and issues concerning finance and educational program described more fully above and in the Staff Analysis and Proposed Findings of Fact, dated November 2, 2016, it is the recommendation of the Charter Schools Department Staff to deny this petition by adoption of the proposed Resolution No. ________.

 

9. INFORMATION ITEMS
Subject
A. Charter Schools Update
Meeting
Nov 2, 2016 - Regular Board Agenda (#2192)
Category
9. INFORMATION ITEMS
Type
Information
Goals
Santa Clara County Office of Education Goal #1
Santa Clara County Office of Education Goal #2

Administrator

Jon R. Gundry, County Superintendent of Schools

Mary Ann Dewan, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent

 

Background

At a special meeting on December 14, 2015 the County Board of Education requested a standing item regarding charter schools on every regular board meeting agenda to provide the board with information about issues and follow up to questions that have been raised by members of the board.

 

Voices Morgan Hill / Voices Mt. Pleasant

Charter Schools Department staff visited Voices Morgan Hill and Voices Mt. Pleasant on October 3, 2016. Current enrollment for Voices Morgan Hill is 139/140 (99%) of enrollment projection. Voices Morgan Hill has added four additional staff members to its site. Current enrollment for Voices Mt. Pleasant is 163/168 (97%) of enrollment projections. Voices Mt. Pleasant has has added six additional staff members to its site.

 

Charter Schools Department Annual Visits

In collaboration with the Charter Leaders, Charter Schools Department staff has scheduled annual visits for all authorized sites. All visits will be a minimum of half day, with schools undergoing renewals receiving a full day visit. Annual visits will be completed by the end of December 2016. Individual reports and findings will be sent out to the authorized charter schools by end of January 2017. 

 

Opportunity Youth Academy (OYA)

Charter Schools Department staff visited three of the four OYA sites, and met with staff and students. OYA has submitted the requested documents as part of the Board Resolution to date. The fiscal reports are due October 31, 2016. 

 

 

 

10. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS
Subject
A. Committee members may provide or report on recent committee activities.
Meeting
Nov 2, 2016 - Regular Board Agenda (#2192)
Category
10. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS
Type
Information

 

  1. Budget Study Committee, next meeting: TBD  (Superintendent Gundry)
  2. Policy Subcommittee, Dec 14 (Trustee Chang,Chair)
  3. Joint Legislative Advisory Committee (JLAC), Nov 16 (Trustee Di Salvo, Chair)
  4. Head Start Policy Council, Nov 19 (Trustee Mah)
  5. Santa Clara County School Boards Association (SCCSBA), Nov 9 (Trustee Kamei)
  6. Joint Committee on Child Care (JCCC), Nov 22 (Trustees Song and Di Salvo)
  7. Warmenhoven Inclusion Collaborative, March 17, 2017 (Trustee Kamei)
  8. California School Boards Association (CSBA) Delegate, next meeting:  Nov 30-Dec 1 (Trustee Kamei)
  9. California County Boards of Education (CCBE) Board of Directors, TBD for 2017 (Trustee Kamei)
11. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Subject
A. Requested items by Board members may be addressed at this time.
Meeting
Nov 2, 2016 - Regular Board Agenda (#2192)
Category
11. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Type
Information

  1. Board Study Session on Charter Schools, Quarterly (Dec 14)
  2. Best Practices and Roles of School Resource Officers (SROs) in Schools and Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) -- Study in progress. (Trustee Chang)
  3. Equity for API students in higher education (Trustee Song)
  4. Iteration of National Education Technology Plan--Equity Issues (Trustee Di Salvo)
12. ADJOURNMENT
Subject
A. The next Santa Clara County Board of Education meeting is scheduled for November 16, 2016.
Meeting
Nov 2, 2016 - Regular Board Agenda (#2192)
Category
12. ADJOURNMENT
Type
Information

The next Santa Clara County Board of Education meeting is schedule for November 16, 2016.  For Board agendas and meeting minutes, please see our web site at www.sccoe.org under the County Board of Education page.