June Board of Education :Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter appeal

backup is here
Chuang: calls up school to present
school: submitted on May 17 a letter to add 368 places
handout to provide a framework for appeal
legal counsel is now reading MGL of charter schools
nowhere does Commissioner mention unique program in his letter
not actually relevant
ongoing argument here is this is a unique school...
argues that waitlist at kindergarten level
DESE says this: 

This type of enrollment plan, with assumed attrition, is no longer a viable choice under the current charter school statute. In 2010, the charter school statute was amended, adding new statutory requirements to backfill vacancies, to create and augment recruitment and retention plans, and to retain students.The changed statute made impermissible significant planned attrition in the first half of the school's grade span.

School argues that it is one of the more diverse school communities in the area
but don't mention English learners or special education
"Pioneer Valley is entitled" to that increase in seats
"Massachusetts has made a choice on charter schools"
yeah more than one

Craven asks Riley to speak
regulations allow this appeal
this is the schools fourth request for a Board review
school is in an area that has declining school-age population
does not reflect a decision on the quality of the school
this Board has four option: can deny based on evidence; can vote to approve school's request; can vote to approve lower number; take no option (denial would stand)
legal argues that immersion can't be compared to other schools
Morton: only having a waiting list of 82?
legal: twice the number of spots available and then need a place to go after kindergarten
Morton: it would seem to me that the number would be larger, based on increase requested
legal: will only admit 44 additional students in K, then go through grades

Chuang: it is not a simple number on a waitlist
a student on a waitlist doesn't mean student will come
more importantly is the issue of attrition over school's history
school has not been able to maintain students over middle and high school
school has eliminated retention in request for appeal
have had multiple conversations with school over size in entry plan
School argues that high school attrition isn't relevant
oh heck yes it is
"that's not our model"
see above
Moriarty: have been supportive in the past
I've been to the school, I know families who attend, supportive of school, will continue to be so
"this is a dialogue...that I hope can take a better turn...that at some point can produce at recommendation"
"my belief is also that it is extremely unlikely that Commissioner Riley is going to be countermanded in any way"
Peyser: echo Moriarty's comments
feel the intergrity of the process has been essential to actually moving the charter school movement forward
don't think we're well served to revote recommendations that don't come to us
Craven: would also like to echo Moriarty's plea for school and Department to get on the same page
Morton: motion deny request
West asks why motion
Morton: to affirm Commissioner's denial
denial of appeal passes