Queen Anne's County board upholds superintendent's recommendation to deny classical charter application

The Queen Anne's County Board of Education voted 3-2 on Sept. 10, 2025, to adopt Interim Superintendent Kibler's recommendation to deny the charter application submitted by the Queen Anne's Classical Charter School, saying the application showed significant deficiencies in academic planning, operational capacity and demonstrated need.

The vote came at a special meeting called to give the charter applicant an opportunity to respond to the superintendent's recommendation. The board's motion to adopt the recommendation to deny the application carried after a roll call that recorded three votes in favor and two against; the board president announced that the recommendation was upheld.

The denial followed a presentation from the applicant team, led by Ashley Maclay, who identified herself as president of the board of directors for Queen Anne's Classical Charter School. Maclay outlined the group's purpose, a proposed classical-education model, and a tentative timeline that would allow the school to open in 2026 or, if the board and applicant agree, in 2027.

"Maryland charter schools are public schools, which are operated by independent nonprofits," Maclay told the board, citing the Maryland State Department of Education definition to explain the applicant's status and the autonomy it seeks. She said the group had gathered petitions and letters of support, run a short survey showing early interest, and planned a countywide direct-mail effort funded in part by county commissioners to reach residents.

Interim Superintendent Kibler explained the basis for the recommendation to deny, saying the review was grounded in the application, the capacity interview and follow-up communications. "The denial was based on the deficiencies that the team found in the application," Kibler said, adding that the recommendation and the underlying letter had not changed since the committee's earlier review. Kibler encouraged the applicants to strengthen the application and consider returning in a year if the board sustained the denial.

During the discussion the board and applicants addressed several recurring topics raised during the capacity interview: waivers and buyback services, parental and community support, facility availability and the timeline for negotiating a charter agreement. Maclay said the applicant would remove a requested waiver on personal electronic devices after the capacity review found it unnecessary because it did not conflict with existing Queen Anne's County Public Schools policy. She also described buybacks as later-stage negotiated agreements by which the district and charter would share services such as technology, software or personnel.

Applicants said they had circulated petitions and conducted a March 2025 survey of early respondents. They reported 72% of early respondents said they would consider sending a child to the proposed school and that 96% of those early respondents indicated they lived in Queen Anne's County; the board was told the petition contained more than 200 signatures after the applicants removed out-of-county names. The applicants said they expected to start small — fewer than 100 students initially — and that they already had more than the six teachers needed to begin staffing the elementary grades.

Board members who opposed the application's approval raised concerns about the depth of the application in areas the committee evaluated. One board member who moved the motion to adopt the superintendent's recommendation cited "significant and substantiated deficiencies in academic planning, operational capacity, and demonstrated need." On the other side, several board members and the applicant team argued there is local interest and cited examples from other Maryland counties where charter openings produced long waiting lists.

Board members also discussed the statutory and procedural limits on contingencies and timelines. The board heard that state practice has required completion of a charter agreement within 30 days of approval in at least one state-board opinion, though parties sometimes ask whether that negotiation period can be extended by mutual agreement. The board heard that statute contemplates securing and approving a facility before final authorization.

After the vote the board president noted the recommendation was upheld. Several board members and administrators publicly thanked both the applicant team and staff for their work. Kibler and the application-review team told the applicant they could rework and resubmit an application and that certain waivers could be negotiated individually if the board had chosen to approve the application.

The board's next open meeting was announced as Oct. 1, 2025. The applicant team thanked board members for the time allotted to present and discuss the submission.

Votes at a glance Motion: Adopt the interim superintendent's recommendation to deny the charter school application submitted by Queen Anne's Classical Charter School. Outcome: Motion carried (recommendation upheld); application denied. Recorded roll call (as announced at the meeting): Miss Bent ' yes; Nyckler ' yes; Motherland ' yes; Miss Kate ' no; Mister Dreyer ' no. Tally: yes 3, no 2.

What happens next Interim Superintendent Kibler told applicants the denial letter explained the committee's findings and encouraged the group to build on the application and to consider reapplying in a year. If the board had approved the application, the parties would have had a charter-agreement negotiation period (the state-board practice cited at the meeting was 30 calendar days) to finalize buybacks, performance metrics and operational details; applicants said they would be open to extending timelines if necessary.