Board reviews Forward Career and College Academy charter proposal; members seek clarity on location, enrollment and costs

Madison — The board reviewed the Forward Career and College Academy charter proposal and accompanying administrative feedback, with no vote taken during the workshop. District staff provided an application review, the applicant’s response to feedback and a summary of Madison’s current career and technical education (CTE) programming to inform the board’s Monday deliberation and potential vote.

Administrators said the applicant submitted materials on schedule and provided a written response to the district’s rubric-based feedback. Staff also prepared a CTE overview detailing existing district programs and regional partnerships. The overview was included to correct an older state data issue flagged in the application and to show that the district already provides a range of industry credentials and work-based learning experiences across its high schools.

Board members raised multiple questions and concerns about the proposal’s detail and likely impacts. Common themes included:

• Enrollment and location: Board members asked how many students would enroll, where the school would be physically located, whether the applicant intends to draw students from across the city, and what effects enrollment might have on existing high schools. Staff said these specifics were not clear in the applicant’s final submission and noted that financial impact depends on whether students are new to the district or transferring from MMSD schools.

• Academic and support services: Several board members said the proposal lacked detail on academic supports, services for students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and plans for social-emotional supports. Board members stressed that running a comprehensive high school for hundreds of students requires substantial staffing and student supports beyond curricular design.

• Financial implications: Staff explained state funding mechanics: if enrolled students are currently MMSD students, the district would receive no new revenue and would still need to cover the school’s full costs; if students are new to the district under open enrollment, the district could receive some additional revenue (subject to the state’s funding formulas and multi-year averaging). Staff said revenue-limit timing means the first-year revenue impact is typically a fraction of the per-pupil amount, making the cost-to-revenue match uneven in the early years.

• Equity and community context: Board members acknowledged public commenters who urged additional career pathways and noted concerns that a new charter could duplicate existing opportunities rather than expand access. Several members stressed the district must continue strengthening CTE pathways in existing schools and ensure equitable access for students of color and other historically underserved groups.

Members asked administration for additional analysis (e.g., enrollment scenarios, projected costs if students are existing MMSD enrollees vs. new students, and clarification of the facility plan) before the board’s vote. Staff also reiterated that the district had provided the applicant with written feedback on February 13 and had included a workbook mock-up to show how an instrumentality model could be staffed and funded.

No vote occurred at the workshop; the item was placed on the board’s regular meeting agenda for the upcoming Monday for formal action.