Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Audit Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
APS describes charter-school audit oversight and corrective-action process
Summary
District officials outlined a process that requires charter schools with audit findings to submit corrective action plans; serious or repeat deficiencies can trigger a notice of unsatisfactory performance and revocation procedures under contract language.
Courtney Jackson, chair of the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education Audit Committee, heard a presentation Jan. 21 on how the district authorizes and monitors charter schools— fiscal compliance.
Dr. Joseph Escobedo, senior director of Charter Schools at APS, told the committee the district follows national best practices from the National Association of Charter School Authorizers and requires every charter school with an audit finding to prepare a corrective action plan. He said APS tests those corrective actions during site visits and that schools meeting statutory deficiency criteria receive a notice of unsatisfactory performance, which is the contract trigger that starts revocation procedures if schools do not implement fixes.
Roberta Velasquez, manager of Charter School Business, told the committee she compiles analysis of total findings, repeat findings and classification of deficiencies to determine which schools require closer oversight. Velasquez, who the presentation said has 30 years of finance experience and is a certified fraud examiner, said the charter team also trains governing council audit committees on their oversight responsibilities.
Dr. Escobedo said timeline and reporting steps are in progress: schools that received notices were notified the prior Friday and will meet with charter staff in February to submit corrective action plans for approval. He said the district will provide reports of findings by school and will include executive summaries when a school appears for amendment, renewal or new-application consideration.
Board members asked about timelines and the mechanics of monitoring; presenters said the process follows legal contract language and state statute requiring authorizers to monitor fiscal compliance. The committee did not take formal action; the presentation was informational and intended to provide context for a subsequent agenda item on a specific charter corrective action plan.
