The Albuquerque Public Schools Policy Committee on Oct. 6 opened a first read of proposed revisions to Board Policy KC, which governs APS-authorized charter schools, focusing on how the board should require evidence of student outcomes, equity and innovation.

The revision, presented by Chair Josefina Dominguez, policy committee chair, frames the board’s role as authorizer and seeks quarterly or regular governance-to-governance meetings so the board can better assess charter performance against board-approved goals and district guardrails. “Until APS and the authorizer, the board, have clarity regarding 1) the budgetary impact on at‑risk students and their academic outcomes, and 2) the role of instructional innovation … the district should refrain from expanding charter authorizations beyond the existing portfolio,” Dominguez said.

The proposed language draws on the Public Education Commission’s authorizer standards and the Authorizer’s Self Evaluation; staff recommended shifting operational detail to the superintendent and the charter school team so the board receives packaged reports rather than direct, frequent intervention in school operations. Policy analyst Jessica Martinez told the committee that recommended edits would reframe phrasing such as “APS may require charter schools to demonstrate…” to read that the board “directs the superintendent and the charter school team as agents of the board” to collect and present evidence.

Charter leaders who spoke in the public forum and during the committee cautioned that the policy must respect statutory limits and the contract-based relationship between authorizer and charter. Jamie Gonzalez of Public Charter Schools of New Mexico said, “Under New Mexico statute 20 two-eight b-nine the Charter contract negotiated between APS and each school is the sole operational agreement to finding accountability. State rule 6.80.4 also requires authorizers to maintain an arm’s length relationship and avoid involvement in daily management.” Todd Nous, head of school at New Mexico International School, urged the committee to “reject the proposed revisions to policy KC,” saying the draft risked “governance overreach” into operational autonomy.

Board members debated where to draw the line between high-level policy and procedural detail. Board member Courtney Jackson argued that much of the draft reads as contract or operational language that should be negotiated in charter contracts or handled by administration. Several board members said they would support more frequent reporting than the current annual packet—suggesting quarterly reports or presentations from the charter office—but asked that the superintendent and charter team perform site oversight and return synthesized findings to the board, rather than expecting the board to conduct routine site visits.

Staff and the charter office described existing oversight practices and offered to repackage information for the board. Dr. Joseph Escobedo, representing the charter team, said annual reviews already require charters to provide “evidence of equitable access and outcomes” and that the team can present additional short-cycle or mission‑specific assessment data in a quarterly format. Dr. Kurt Blakey, superintendent, reiterated that charters are funded per pupil and maintain operational autonomy, and that some resources (for example, shared information systems) are governed by state rollout plans.

Committee members concluded without a vote on the policy revisions and assigned next steps: committee members will draft and share strategy proposals for board oversight of charter authorization; staff will refine language to align governance, superintendent responsibilities, and procedural directives; and policy analyst Martinez will coordinate deadlines for subsequent drafts and legal review. The committee also requested clearer packaging of charter innovations and subgroup performance so the board can see contextual evidence behind standardized assessments.

The item remained a first-read discussion; no policy change or vote was taken.