001Good evening everybody and welcome to this work and regular work session and regular meeting of the Tiger Toalton School District Board of Directors. I call to order at 5:30 p.m. We begin tonight with our work session which is regarding the Arco Eris Charter School application and we have assistant superintendent Dr. McCall, Dr. Assistant Superintendent McCall. How do we do that? >> I don't know. Anyway, >> you had it first. >> Assistant Superintendent Dr. McCall to lead us through what the board's role in the process is. Thank you and good evening to all of you uh board chair, vice chair, board um directors and superintendent. So it is my pleasure to to present to you uh really just an outline of what the board's role is in the process of uh evaluating a charter uh proposal.
002So next slide. So on on August 11th, the board uh voted um that the ARCO 80s uh charter was complete. What that meant is that according to the Oregon revised statutes and that is um uh 338 uh 045 under sections two and three. completeness. This means that they uh applied with also our board policy and they completed the application. And now um the role for the board is that uh you must hold a public hearing within uh 60 days of completeness. And then uh what that means is um on the the date that we have selected was September uh the 22nd which will then give the ARCO uh charter team an opportunity to give a presentation outlining why they believe that this charter would serve uh the TTSD school community as well as the board
003will receive the district's assessment of the application, meaning that uh the superintendent um commissioned a team to review the application uh against the uh OS as well as the board's policy and to see if different sections of it was complete and if there were any questions that we wanted the team to review, then we would have communicated ated that with the ARCO um team. Next slide. And again um this slide really just outlines the evaluation criteria based on our policy LB, the AR and the uh OS38. Meaning that um in the evaluation process, of course, there needs to be an opportunity for a public hearing where um members of the community including educators, parents, students, and other community members have an opportunity to be heard regarding uh the charter proposal. And also part of that
004is uh looking at and seeing if the charter proposal uh is financially stable and has a good management system as well as uh their instructional capacity particularly uh uh for our um students who are on the margin as well as being in compliance with any special education or uh ELELLL services as well as the impact on any of our programs uh such as our two-way immersion programs and TTSD. What what would be the impact on those programs if we were to stand up uh a charter as well as staffing HR arrangement and if any past performances is applicable. Next slide. So I just wanted to just share a little bit about like what we did as a review team. Uh like I said before when we got the application back in May uh we did
005initial review of completeness. Uh and then what we um made sure that the proposal uh we looked at some of our our current programs and again you will receive uh our kind of a assessment of that and before the next board meeting. Next slide. So again by having data and when we say data that also includes the public hearing from any of our uh school communities within the 30 days of the public hearing the role of the board is really to consider uh just a district evaluation as well as the presentation from the AR code charter team and then make a decision. So based on those criteria, if the board uh determines that the charter meets all of the uh criteria based on the OS as well as the district's uh policy, then uh it
006would be approved by the board and then the we would create an agreement between the charter and the district. Uh if denied uh we the board would have to provide a written reason why the proposal was denied and even suggest um some remedies. Okay. I think that actually very brief um explanation and I want to open it up to any questions. Can I add on to that a little bit, Dr. McCall? First off, thank you so much for the presentation and the primary purpose of us having this work session is so that all of our our board members really understand one what the process is leading up to when you're doing an evaluation and making a decision on the um on the uh charter application. And the next big segment is or the next big
007milestone in this process is the 22nd. Um so we want to make sure that you kind of understood what the parameters were and what your role was because we um we know that we haven't had one of these for a long time. So, it serves as a really good refresher and want to use this time so that you could ask any questions about the process or um or just have any dialogue related to what that what we're going to anticipate seeing on the 22nd so we can have those kinks ironed out because time is of the essence and and we want to make sure that we're really focused during that time as a board. >> Yes. >> Does anybody have any questions? So, >> and and these may be things that we just stew on
008and consider for the 22nd, but these are kind of my first thoughts and sort of and looking through um the application and the conversation that we had when we voted on this in August. I think my biggest wondering still is sort of the rationale of a location here. um and sort of the I typically there's an identified need and while I know they talked about that there's a lot of people from sort of the outskirts of Portland that have come to Beaverton that their first location and um there's kind of a lottery system they have a lot of interest we also have twe here and so I think it goes handinhand with my wondering slashconern on the impact of our twee schools um if that happens and generally we would hear like oh there's all
009these parents that are wishing they had blank kind of program and I feel like their main goal is bilingual education and a robust math curriculum and I feel like our tweet programs would do that. So I think that's my my biggest wondering kind of going through this process. I don't know if that's what we're supposed to say here but those are my words. Just again that's a question that our team also pose and in our in the summary that you give we'll also list some of that like you know a little bit of the history of our programs how they're doing as well as the location uh when um someone submits the charter uh they don't have to have identified uh a location in the initial application but that is one of the questions that
010uh they did inquire about and so we've already shared shared that information with them. Uh, and so that might be something that I want them to be prepared to be able to answer given the reality. If we don't have space and and TTSD, where would they u have their program? I think your line of thinking is spot on for the conversations to have on the 22nd, which is um what are some implications for approving or denying this? Um especially with existing programming um what kind of competing values are there? Um does it fill a need or a niche that doesn't exist for students? I mean, those are all questions that you all should be considering. And I think the context with with TWE is essential in in this group's decision. Director Miles. >> Um, so
011one of the things that I think that we should keep in mind as a board and I'm looking through our policy right now and I'm very very familiar with um OS 338 um is that in the end um we can only make a decision based on the criteria in OS 338. So um and the district's recommendation should be aligned to that criteria that should come to us aligned to the criteria and that's what should we should be basing our decision on. So um and all of these are good questions about like what is your rationale? Why do you want to be here? The closest criteria can't see what a long flight >> um that too. The closest criteria to the impact of the program on um TTSD is whether the value of the charter school
012is outweighed by any directly identifiable significant and adverse impact of the quality um on the quality of the public education of students residing in the district. So that is a criteria that can be considered. That one is super sticky. Um and and so that um that one would need to be like that one is super sticky. It's I I will just say this having worked in this area for a long time. Um but um so it's just it's really important that um that we keep the criteria in mind. Um it it is tempting to say or ask the question, does the district need this school? Does the district want this school? I'm not saying anybody's asking that. I'm just saying having worked in this realm for a long time and in the end that if
013the if the application meets criteria, we have to move forward with that. If it doesn't meet criteria, then there is an appeals process with that that would come next. Um I did look at our policy and there is no additional criteria that we have in our policy. We could if we wanted to, but we don't. Um so so I think that our job is just to really keep that in mind and um and I thank the district for including the um the application for us to look over. I think that's great. And then it's just important for us to remember as a board that our job is not to dive into the details and do the analysis. It's our job to receive the district's recommendation and to look at that as, you know, they're the
014experts in that piece. So, I'm not trying to chastise anybody or anything. It's just like I just um I think it's good for us to just keep reviewing our role in that um as we move forward because it gets into a realm where it's really tempting to to dive into the details. >> I think that's really important. That's the point of us meeting today is that we're really clear on what our role is. So, I appreciate that. >> Yeah. And it's it's beneficial to have somebody who has extensive experience in this world as well to make sure that we are we're lined up. >> And just to clarify, the policy you're referring to, Director Miles, is that LBE? >> Okay. >> Yes. >> So, I think that would be a useful thing for all the
015board members as sort of homework before next meeting to go back and reread that policy and make sure we understand it. and it's attached on the other uh board memo as well, but I can resend it if need be. >> Okay. Are there any other questions? >> So, one of my questions is I understand that our role is essentially to evaluate the district's evaluation. Um, so how much leeway do we have in terms of are we just evaluating this the the criteria that the district has evaluated and then we have degrees of agreement or disagreement with the district's recommendation. Is that how it works? We can't go in another direction because we can only use those criteria. Correct. We can't say, "Well, there's this other criteria that I like." We have to stay within those
016criteria, and then we evaluate the district's response to those. >> So, you you're evaluating the district's response, but you're also evaluating the criteria that's in the the OS. >> Yes. >> Um >> Okay. >> And so, and then you all collectively have to to make a decision now to what degree you can deliberate or not. Like, that's something I can do more research on and make sure that you know exactly what the parameters are. >> Okay. Thank you. That's why you know there's a little time uh after the the public hearing after u the presentation and also our summary uh for the board to consider uh and that's when I say 30 that's 30 calendar days so there is some time um and again whether if it's um there is an appeal process if um
017if it's denied and uh the charter and they know all of you know I've been in close contact with the director and um letting them know here's any questions that we might have that's not clear so that they can be prepared uh to present and presumably we would be making this decision at our October 20th meeting or October 6th something like that. >> As long as it's within the 30 calendar days. >> So, yeah, you would you would do it um as soon as the 1st October meeting and as late as the second October meeting, so long as it's within 30 days of the 22nd. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then if we decide at that meeting to approve then the next step would be negotiating the contract >> um with with them and does
018the board have a role in that or is that something that again the district does and then the >> the contract comes to the board for approval? That would be something that the district could do then bring to the board and um the applicant would also submit u a copy of the approval to the state board of education as well. But that is something that we could help with >> and then the board approves the contract. >> Yes. One of the pieces that I'm most interested in actually is one that uh Vice Chair Urban alluded to is the public support, the community support for it. Um simply because I haven't heard anything from the community. So I'm wondering how do we know what is what constitutes support? How many people giving public comment? How many
019letters we emails we received? what's the what's the the the break point of oh this is a lot of support or this is a little support and I guess that's one where I just don't know how I would gauge it. So, I was wondering if you could give me any guidance on that. Like, >> it's been so long since we've done it charter. I don't know. I can't remember how many people we had. >> That is a um a great question actually and that is one where I'm wondering and I'm uh director Miles, have you had any experience with with that portion of the evaluation from the public comments? >> So, um one thing that could be done and and additional information can be asked for at any time during the process. um if they
020have done uh surveys or you know have had um community groups or something um we could ask the district could ask them for evidence of that um of the kind of support they've received. an applicant should be able to show evidence of the of some sort of documented support. Um, and theoretically they will also show support at the hearing, but between now and the hearing follow-up questions can be asked by, >> you know, information can be asked for at any time. >> Yes. And so that would be board members talking to the superintendent and then the superintendent we don't go directly to the applicant to ask them those questions. Correct. >> That is correct because there's already one. So we had some questions as well the review team which I put to them and gave
021them like a timeline to uh respond back and um as of yesterday they have responded to some of those questions. But if there's any additional things like how do you know about support for this program? We can ask that before the 22nd. >> Okay. >> I had another question and it's just gone out of my head. I hate this. Somebody else asked a question while I'm thinking about it. Um well well I look forward to hearing u staff's recommendation and application of the criteria and um hope hope it'll be a good process. Thank you for all your work. I remembered what it was and I actually want to ask Director Miles in your day job um what do you see as the biggest pitfalls that boards fall into in this process that we need to
022be mindful of >> getting into the details? >> Um I think that um I mean like I said reading the application is great. I think it's good to have context. Um I think it is well the other the other piece is not sticking with the statutory criteria, right? I mean like I mentioned um I think one of the biggest pitfalls is just saying do we need or want this charter school, right? Which is not part of the criteria. >> Yes. >> And um and so really sticking with the criteria and just and and you know read OS 338 as a okay don't just read the criteria. um because there are nine criteria and um and those are the ones that we that we must use, right? I mean there's a whole appeals process. Part of
023the appeals process to to the state board of ed is did the district follow the criteria, right? And so it's really important and and staff will keep us on target, but it's really important that we stick with what were the criteria. And so getting off of the criteria and having I mean we can have all the philos philosophical conversations we want, but making decisions that are not based on statute, you know, will will be important and criticized eventually. So getting away from that at the global level is a problem. >> Okay. So when we have this other meeting um will there be like a uh a rubric with that criteria prepared for us? >> We can prepare that for you. >> Yes. Yes. >> Then that would be the easiest way to not get into
024that kind of trouble. Right. If we have a rubric, we follow that with the criteria outlined on the OS and then we just go based on like a a rating system of sorts. Yeah. So I already have a I've developed a rubric that outlines each of particularly under uh sections two and three each of the criteria and then their response to it which is aligned to their application and uh it could be a simple uh yes or no or um more information needed something to that effect. I was just going to say that we're almost at this point. We just need to be checking boxes to make sure the things are there um rather than the substance of what it is that is there. And I think that will be challenging for us because we
025care deeply and also it makes it very straightforward and clear what our goal is. >> Yeah. >> Actually I might find it more useful. I mean, I think some of them will be a yes, no, but I think on some of them it might be useful to have that rubric have some wiggle room, like how are they on public support? Is that a a one to a five? Maybe it's a four, maybe it's a two, rather than just yes, they have it or no, they don't. Um, similarly on the what was the other one that caught my eye on that? >> But the thing with that, if it's a rating system, I mean, it's still face it up to subjectivity, right? Like it's like it should be clear yes or no. And then that way
026>> if we have so many nos then we can say okay let's kick it back to them and then they can appeal or whatever. Right. >> So my question with the rubric is does that get back to us evaluating the proposal? Like what are we evaluating? I think it was just a way for us to see in the application and what's in statute. Have they hit all of those targets? >> Yes. >> Within their application. So we can like I was starting to go through because I of the RS like did they mention that and I'm scrolling through and I can like in my brain be like they did 2C, they did 2D. But then I think what uh director he was saying was would there be a way to just sort of have this
027for us just that sort of checklist or rubric prepared that just says here are the areas that have been identified as yes they have met all of these areas they're included in the application here's where there might need to be more information so that we can understand and like basically tie together everything in the OS with everything in their application. in a way that's easy for us to see visually. >> So just so my understand is that that staff would fill out and that we would see or that we are filling out. Okay. Okay. Cuz I'm like if we're filling that out then we're evaluating it. >> No, they would do that so that we can see it >> that we can see what the staff is doing better understand the nature of the >>
028right >> of the recommendation. Thank you for that question >> and we've already done a lot of that work for you all. >> Yeah. Director Weston hat. >> Director West. >> Thank you. Um, I feel like this is really similar to a land use planning application, um, which I've worked in that area previously. And I think if staff makes a recommendation and applies the criteria, then we're going to really need to have a high bar and articulate why we think um, a particular criteria um, does or doesn't meet or why why or why not a particular criteria is met. Like if we think that that's not what staff is recommending, we really need to be articulating why that would be. And um so I think um it's reasonably straightforward. Staff's going to make a recommendation.
029They're going to say if the criteria is met or not. And if we disagree, we're going to really have to articulate why, >> which is exactly why the rubric with it already outlined for us, >> then we can just see, okay, yes, this is, you know, we agree with this, right? And then like you're saying, if for some reason we disagree, I don't know why we would, but you know, if we did, then we could ask them to bring back more information. >> Yeah. So, what I what I what I do have for you is what I hear you some of y'all saying. It is here's the OS. Here's the uh LBE and it is yes or no and evidence align to. So, uh, to, uh, Director Miles's, uh, point is that you're not you
030you can go over what we've already done and you will be able to see where, uh, we went line by line to the uh, OS and the application. So, you'll be able to follow that. I think that is what you're asking >> because I think even though we aren't the evaluators of it, we do have a responsibility as the board to make sure that the district has proven its cases to its decision. Um, and so having that breakdown I think would be very useful to us to say yes, the district has done its due diligence in whatever decision it has made. Okay. Any other questions, comments, thoughts, wonderings? Okay. Well, then thank you so very much. That was a very informative um presentation and I will adjourn our work session at 5:50.