Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Petition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies C5 International School charter petition citing gaps in discipline and program detail
Summary
After staff review and public comment, the Board of Education adopted staff findings and denied the C5 International School charter petition, citing an unsound educational program, insufficient discipline procedures and missing operational details. Board vote recorded as five ayes.
The San Francisco Board of Education on Dec. 14 adopted staff findings and denied the C5 International School charter petition (item SP1011‑NSP1), concluding the petition lacked sufficient detail to meet statutory requirements and raised constitutional due‑process concerns in its student discipline provisions.
Mary Richards, executive director with responsibilities for high‑school support and charter oversight, read staff's final factual findings and recommendation into the record. The staff report said the petition “does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of certain specific aspects of its program and operations as required by the educational code” and that the discipline proposal failed to provide notice mechanisms for families or a clear jurisdiction for conduct subject to discipline. The report added that an expulsion‑appeal process described in the petition lacked sufficient detail about the membership of an appeal panel and therefore left students with inadequate due‑process protections under state and federal constitutions.
Parents and researchers who had experience with the program's preschool element urged the board to allow the petitioners to revise and resubmit. Bill Penuel, a parent and educational researcher who had advised the charter team, said project‑based and emergent curriculum approaches can support deeper learning and urged the board to consider revisions rather than a final rejection.
Board members acknowledged positive elements observed during site visits but noted unresolved issues. Vice President Mendoza said she found the program "really well run" but still had concerns about ratios and other details that were not adequately described in the petition; she said she would not support the charter in its present form. After board discussion the board adopted the staff findings and denied the petition; roll call recorded five ayes.
The staff recommendation also noted timeline constraints tied to facilities offers and an urging from the petitioners that the board render a final decision by Jan. 1, 2011; staff concluded the petition could not be approved as submitted and recommended denial with an invitation to the petitioners to address the factual findings before returning to the board.
