Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Schools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board begins 90-day review window for CityView Charter renewal; members seek clearer language on lottery and governance
Summary
The board reviewed a draft renewal for CityView Charter School, asked for clearer accountability language about the enrollment lottery and board governance, and agreed to a February 25 vote to either authorize a 90-day negotiation window or to decline renewal.
Hillsboro School District directors discussed a draft contract for renewal of the CityView Charter School on Tuesday and identified several items they want clarified before final approval, including how the school runs its equitable lottery and what accountability and governance measures will apply to CityView's board.
Brooke, the district staff lead on the contract presentation, outlined the renewal timeline and said CityView submitted its renewal letter in December 2024 and the district began a renewal process on Jan. 28. The board was told that on Feb. 25 it will either approve moving forward with the renewal process or state objections; if the board moves forward on Feb. 25, a 90-day period begins for the district and CityView to negotiate contract details and finalize the agreement.
Board members requested stronger language and clearer placement in the contract about an "equitable lottery." Board member Sheehan said she wanted the contract to describe what the district and CityView mean by an equitable lottery and to ensure practices that seek to exclude students with disciplinary histories would not be tolerated. CityView representatives said the school's lottery currently runs in an automated program when the administrator runs it; the school said it uses targeted outreach to Hispanic/Latino communities and runs two lotteries (a March run and a late-April/May run) as part of enrollment.
Board members also asked for explicit language or a place in the contract addressing board governance and onboarding to prevent future governance issues that had attracted attention in prior months. CityView and district staff said a governance committee has been formed to review board member onboarding, qualifications and ethics and that the district and charter are working on governance expectations; the work was described as "in process."
Other operational items discussed included a CityView request to be folded into the districtlunch program. District staff said nutrition services currently lack capacity to absorb CityView into the district meal program, but staff offered that CityView could purchase meals from district vendors as an interim option and that the issue could be revisited once a new nutrition-services director was settled into the role.
District staff summarized their responses to a list of eight requests from CityView and said those responses are embedded in the draft contract. Board members asked staff to produce a short briefing on which of CityView's eight items the district can and cannot meet.
Brooke told the board that if the board votes on Feb. 25 to proceed, the 90-day window will be used to refine contractual language and negotiate outstanding issues so a final contract can be signed thereafter. No formal contract was approved at Tuesday's meeting; the board set a follow-up step for Feb. 25.
Ending: Board members asked staff to add clearer lottery and governance language to the draft and to provide a short summary of the districtresponse to CityViewrequests prior to the next decision point on Feb. 25.
