Tigard-Tualatin board reviews Arco Eris charter application, schedules public hearing

The Tigard-Tualatin School District Board of Directors on Thursday held a work session to review the district’s process for evaluating the Arco Eris Charter School application and to prepare for a public hearing set for Sept. 20.

Assistant Superintendent Dr. McCall briefed the board on the timeline and legal standard, saying the board previously found the application “complete” on Aug. 11 and that, under Oregon law, the board must hold a public hearing within 60 days of that finding and then decide within 30 days of the hearing whether the charter meets the statutory and district-policy criteria. Dr. McCall told directors the district’s review team will present its assessment at the hearing and, if the board approves the charter, the district would negotiate an agreement with the charter applicant and bring the contract back to the board for approval.

Why it matters: approval would allow a new publicly funded charter to operate in the district; denial would require written reasons and could be appealed to the State Board of Education. Board members pressed staff on how the district will apply the criteria in statute and board policy and how the board should evaluate the district’s recommendation.

Directors flagged two central issues the board expects to weigh at the hearing: whether the application shows sufficient community support and whether the charter would have a directly identifiable, significant and adverse impact on the quality of public education for students residing in the district, including the district’s two-way immersion programs. Director Miles emphasized that the board’s decision must be based on the statutory criteria, telling colleagues the board “can only make a decision based on the criterion” in the Oregon Revised Statutes and the district policy, and that staff’s recommendation should align with that standard. Several directors said they do not want to substitute their own judgment about whether the district “needs” or “wants” the school for the required statutory analysis.

Board members asked staff how the district will document and present community support. Directors were told applicants should provide evidence—surveys, letters, or other documentation—and that staff can request follow-up information before the Sept. 20 hearing. Vice Chair Urban and others said they had not seen much community input to date and asked staff to collect or request clear, documented evidence of support for the application.

To reduce subjectivity, the board asked staff to prepare a checklist or rubric tied directly to the statutory criteria and to board policy LBE so directors can see, line by line, whether each criterion is met, not met, or needs more information. Dr. McCall said staff had already developed a rubric aligned to the statute’s sections 2 and 3 and would provide that rubric and the district’s assessment in advance of the hearing.

Directors also discussed schedule mechanics: because the board marked the application complete on Aug. 11, the district must hold the public hearing within 60 days, and then has 30 calendar days after the hearing to make a determination. Staff said that timeline could place a decision on the board’s first or second October meeting, depending on the hearing date, and confirmed that if the board denies the application it must provide written reasons and suggest remedies; the applicant may appeal.

No formal action or vote on the application occurred during the work session. The next steps are the Sept. 20 public hearing, the district presentation of its review and evidence of community support, and a board decision within the statutorily required 30-day window following the hearing.