Senate advances three Charter School Institute nominees amid questions about accountability and district relations

The Colorado Senate Education Committee on Thursday recommended three candidates for appointment to the Charter School Institute (CSI) board and spent significant time questioning nominees and CSI leadership about oversight of special education, English‑language learners and the relationship between CSI and local districts.

CSI background: Terry Lewis, executive director of the Charter School Institute, told the committee that CSI is the state’s only statewide charter authorizer. CSI was created by the legislature in 2004 and currently authorizes about 45 charter schools, serving roughly 20,000 students statewide. Lewis said CSI’s portfolio includes a range of school models and some very small rural schools.

Nominees and committee focus - Nicholas Thompson (gov. appointee to fill a vacancy): Thompson emphasized financial stewardship experience and said he brings business and stewardship skills to the CSI finance committee. He said he values local perspective from living on the Western Slope. The committee recommended Thompson to the full Senate by recorded vote. - Deborah Hendricks (reappointment): Hendricks highlighted experience on school district and charter school boards and her focus on accountability and parental choice. She has served on CSI performance management work. The committee recommended her reappointment. - Kenneth Smith (appointment): Smith recounted prior work with Denver Public Schools, the Colorado Department of Education and CSI; he emphasized financial stewardship and school sustainability. The committee recommended his appointment.

Key questions asked by senators - Serving students with disabilities and English‑language learners: Senators asked how CSI intervenes when authorizing schools under‑serve students who have Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) or are English‑language learners. Nominees and CSI staff said the authorizer’s main levers are accountability and renewal processes and that CSI visits schools and uses renewal and performance processes to probe enrollment, services and practices. - Concerns about segregation and selective enrollment: Committee members raised concerns about charter-driven segregation or selective enrollment; CSI nominees said renewal processes, monitoring and accountability levers are used to address discriminatory or exclusionary practices and that the authorizer will take action if patterns emerge. - Relationship with districts and authorizing authority: Senators discussed whether local districts should retain sole authority to deny a charter school. Nominees described CSI’s role: many schools seeking CSI authorization are released by districts or choose CSI; CSI representatives said the organization does not automatically “take” schools but evaluates whether schools meet foundational conditions for authorization. - Funding and sustainability: Vice Chair Marchman asked about financial sustainability tied to mill‑levy equalization and district bond backfills; witnesses discussed larger state funding dynamics and the need to balance portfolio growth and fiscal stewardship. One committee member said the state spends about $55 million a year in a related funding area and questioned long‑term sustainability; CSI nominees said decisions about growth and sustainability require careful balance.

Votes: For each nominee the committee recorded a favorable recommendation to the full Senate. The committee’s roll call for the three CSI nominees resulted in recorded yes/no votes; for each nominee the committee majority voted in favor and the chair announced the recommendations would move forward. (Committee roll calls were recorded in the transcript; the committee chair announced that each motion “passes” following the roll calls.)

Why it matters: CSI is the state’s only statewide authorizer. Committee members probed whether CSI’s portfolio and authorizing decisions properly protect students’ access to special education services and whether CSI works collaboratively with local districts. Nominees emphasized accountability, on‑the‑ground visits and a rigorous renewal process as principal levers.

Ending: The committee’s favorable recommendations send the three nominees to the full Senate. Senators said the committee will continue to watch authorizer performance, especially in districts and rural areas where authorizer decisions have distinct operational consequences.