SFUSD staff recommends denial of Thomas Edison Charter renewal; board postpones vote to May 3 for further budget review

San Francisco Unified School District staff told the Board of Education on April 26 that the renewal petition for Thomas Edison Charter Academy (petition no. 114‑12SP1) contains 'deficiencies' in its financial and operational sections and recommended denial.

Mary Richards, the district’s executive director who oversees charter schools, introduced staff findings and asked the board to hear a budget review from Nancy Womack, the district’s budget reviewer. Womack told the board that the petition included past audit information but lacked a clear policy for future audit timing and procedures, and that multi‑year budget worksheets appeared inconsistent with the narrative assumptions. She said those gaps made it difficult to confirm whether the petition’s projections reflected realistic assumptions about teacher pay, paraprofessional pay and benefits.

Womack highlighted a specific discrepancy in benefits assumptions: the petition lists total employee benefits for year 1 as $566,875, while her calculations from the petition’s assumptions produced $639,154, a difference she said raised concerns about the petition’s multi‑year arithmetic and the district’s ability to provide consistent oversight. She also noted an included pay scale dated 1978 and paraprofessional rates substantially below SFUSD averages.

Adrian Morel, executive director of Thomas Edison Charter Academy, and multiple teachers, parents and staff defended the school during public comment. Morel said the school has operated for about 10 years and submitted a revised petition incorporating earlier staff recommendations; she told the board the petitioners had "updated every section that we have been told in the initial matrix was deficient." Teachers and parents urged the board to consider student outcomes and local governance changes.

District staff reiterated that their review focuses on whether the petition presents a complete, forward‑looking plan that the school can implement over the next five years. Mary Richards said portions of the submission appear to document past practice rather than commit to how the school will operate going forward.

Board members debated options under an expedited timeline from the State Charter School Division, which had requested a local decision before May 10 so the state could agendize an appeal. Several commissioners said they were uncomfortable voting without additional budget committee review and opportunities for tighter dialogue with the petitioners.

Without objection, the board agreed to postpone a final decision and to schedule a special budget committee meeting to review the fiscal concerns; the full board will take up the item and vote on May 3. In the interim, staff will provide clarifying information on benefit calculations, FTE versus headcount assumptions and the audit scope described in the petition.

If the district ultimately denies renewal, the petitioners may appeal to the State Board of Education, which has its own process for reviewing contested charter decisions.