Board presses state rules, costs, and accountability for Schools of Hope colocation

Orange County Public Schools devoted a substantial portion of its Nov. 18 work session to the state's Schools of Hope program and the operational, financial and equity implications of charter colocation on district campuses.

Dr. Kia Scott, School Choice staff, outlined the statutory framework that allows a designated HOPE operator to submit a notice of intent and a performance-based agreement to a district; under that process the district has 60 days to execute a performance contract or risk a reduction in the administrative fee. She summarized definitions in current law and rule (including facility-notice timelines and shared facility/mutual management plans) and highlighted several ambiguities the district must manage.

Key concerns raised by the board included: how an "underused" facility is defined (staff noted the rule's definition is broad and could treat any unused student station as underused), who pays for additional custodial, food, nursing, transportation and school-safety costs when a HOPE operator colocates, and whether the district will be left subsidizing a charter that retains full FTE funding for enrolled students. "So a school that comes in and now there are 700 kids at that school. We now have to hire more custodial workers, more food service workers ... and that charter school gets to keep all of their FTE for all of their students," Member Bird said, summarizing the district's fiscal exposure.

General Counsel Mister Palmerini explained that statute and rule require the district to make underused, vacant or surplus facilities available in many cases and that the Department of Education has dispute-resolution mechanisms (special magistrate, State Board review). He cautioned that the rule's definition of "underused" is extremely broad and stressed that declining to enter a contract can trigger state-level enforcement and loss of the administrative fee if the district's denial is overturned.

Board members flagged two additional issues repeatedly: (1) Schools of Hope are not required by statute to employ certified teachers (Dr. Scott confirmed that HOPE operators do not have a certification requirement), which some members called a threat to accountability; and (2) colocation can shift calendars, staffing days, and facility burdens onto district employees who must serve students on the HOPE campus even when that charter is operating different schedules. Board members also asked for concrete cost estimates; staff agreed to analyze the financial exposure and compare projected district costs for services (custodial, transportation, nursing, food service) against the administrative fee reduction that would result if a contract is not executed.

Superintendent Dr. Maria Vasquez told the board the district had already denied several letters from prospective operators because they were not designated HOPE operators or because proposed enrollments would exceed the district's known FISH capacity, which staff said makes colocation materially impracticable. "We denied those as materially impracticable based upon exceeding the FISH capacity," Mister Palmerini said.

Board members asked staff to report back with firm projections of the fiscal impact of potential colocations, to gather clear legal guidance on liability and service obligations, and to continue pushing for legislative clarification where the statute is ambiguous. No formal action was taken at the work session; staff will include this topic in future board materials and recommend specific actions if appropriate.