Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Charter Schools topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board hears Coastal Shores Academy pitch; trustees later vote to deny application

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Coastal Shores Academy, a proposed charter school focused on students with neurodevelopmental disorders and multilingual learners, presented detailed curriculum and staffing plans to the Charleston County School District Board of Trustees on March 24; after trustees’ questions and an executive-session review, the board voted to deny the application.

Coastal Shores Academy, a proposed charter school designed to serve students with neurodevelopmental disorders and multilingual learners, presented its application to the Charleston County School District Board of Trustees on March 24 and answered trustees’ questions about staffing, facilities and funding. After public discussion and an executive-session review, trustees voted to deny the charter application.

Coastal Shores’ presenters said the school would open K–8 in year one with 196 students and expand to K–12 by year four with a projected 492 students. The founders said the program would use state-adopted curriculum supplements (Beacon, RethinkEd), PowerSchool Naviance for career readiness and Rosetta Stone for foreign-language support. The delivery model emphasizes small class sizes — presenters described general-education classes at 10:1 with a paraprofessional to produce an effective 10:2 ratio and specialized Beacon classrooms at an 8:2 ratio — daily social-emotional learning and embedded professional development for staff.

Trustees pressed presenters on several points. Trustee Bailey asked how the school planned to prevent teacher burnout; presenters said the school will center staff wellness programming, embed paraprofessionals and behavioral supports (including a certified ABA therapist in-classroom coaching) and provide regular observation and data-driven coaching. Trustee Roberson asked for two concrete differences between Coastal Shores and district offerings; presenters pointed to specialized rooms (OT, sensory/mindfulness space), a school-wide plan for individualized education plans (IEPs) and a higher proportion of students receiving IEP services (presenters estimated 75% of enrollment would need IEP support). Trustees also asked about current interest and facility searches; presenters said roughly 20 families had completed intake surveys to date and that finding an appropriate building was ongoing. The presenters projected an initial opening in August 2026.

During board deliberations after executive session, a trustee moved to deny the Coastal Shores application. The motion was seconded and passed. The motion text was recorded in the public minutes; the transcript records that the motion passed but does not include a roll-call tally or the names of the motion maker and seconder.

Why it matters: a district charter authorization is a major decision that affects capacity, special-education services and local resources. Trustees’ questions focused on enrollment certainty, facility readiness and sustainable funding — common concerns when small specialized schools propose to open within a district.

What was not decided: the record contains no formal follow-up direction for staff to provide additional information or to negotiate conditions for future resubmission. The application was denied at this meeting.

Speakers quoted or cited in this article are drawn from the March 24 public record: Kewani Primus and Natasha Chisholm (Coastal Shores presenters), Trustee Bailey, Trustee Roberson, Trustee Hollingstad, Trustee McKinney, Trustee Jewett, Trustee Lieber, Dr. Temple, Chair Grabowski and Superintendent Huggins.

The board’s written minutes will record the formal motion and the vote tally; the transcript shows only that a motion to deny was made, seconded and carried.