June 2026 Board of Ed; Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School

 the report is here

completed the tasks described in the three conditions, around governance of their board
different than demonstrating sustained improvement
will have additional governance requirement; expected that they will apply for renewal next year
now having some conversation around the transportation item
condition was for them to develop a plan; they haven't fully implemented a plan

Smidy: condition was that they develop a plan; board delegated completion of the plan to the chair, but then never discussed the plan after it was developed
response: written plan was not discussed at the December meeting; were earlier meetings that had a presentation on transportation
written plan was not submitted to the board at the December meeting
Martinez: conditions can get very granular
"can hear the concern that the Board had when they put that on there"
"still more work to do"
"further conditions at my level" and have to report back
Grant: if the intent was to provide access, how did they provide access to the school?
if they appointed people after the deadline, did they have access to the training as well?
if there is additional evidence, I'd like to see it
Hills: has the condition technically been met, but in retrospect, but in retrospect, should the condition have been more than 'develop a plan'?
If that is the answer, does it make senses to have them develop for Department approval and implement?
if it's a condition, presumably you didn't just want them to develop a plan and not to do it?
response: yes, there is always a certain degree of hindsight with the word choice
condition talks about creation of plan with no expectation of implementation
it is different for the Commissioner to require implementation of transportation without access to budgetary implication
though if you will allow me: we don't get such consideration when a district has to suddenly implementation transportation of a new charter school
plan is submitted, as required; Commissioner and board could consider implementation at a future date
West: does the school have a transportation strategy, but one that does not meet universal access?
Response: they do
West: they seem to have met the letter of the law, I think we're having a conversation of if they have met the spirit of the law
new condition is an attempt to meet the spirit of the law
have somewhat mixed feelings about it, somewhat mixed feelings, as I wonder why we're doing this rather than at renewal
Smidy: concern about how it is written; if the Board didn't approve the plan, it isn't the Board's plan, so they didn't submit it
response: voted to delegate authority to the board chair 
"we consider that approval" they shouldn't, because that isn't
Hills: having this conversation is ridiculous
"this type of discussion has never taken place" previously
"we might think about if we could avoid problems"
"you gotta look at this and say why are we even having this conversation"
"fortunately, there is a renewal coming up"
Martinez: concludes "and by the way, you have a renewal coming up and all of this is going to be considered"

it is telling to me that the Board chair did not stay for this conversation. The parent who spoke earlier did. 

vote is 7-3, motion passes