Board denies renewal petition for Thomas Edison Charter Academy

The San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education voted unanimously on Feb. 11, 2011, to deny the renewal petition for Thomas Edison Charter Academy after district staff presented written findings that the petition “contains deficiencies” and is “not reasonably comprehensive” in required program and operations descriptions.

Mary Richards, Executive Director in the Lead Division, read the superintendent’s amended resolution into the record, citing the Education Code as the governing authority and noting staff’s analysis and written findings that underlay the recommendation for denial. "Based on the analysis by District staff, the superintendent has recommended denial of the petition," Richards said as she described the amended language the board received in a pink packet.

Representatives of the petitioning school spoke to the board. Bonnie Santino said the petition was a community effort written by teachers, parents and local administrators and that the school has expanded services since separating from its prior management company. "We did take everything that you said into consideration as we move forward," Santino said, asking commissioners to visit the campus. Adrienne Morrell, the charter’s executive director, highlighted academic results and staff stability: "We have a 98% teacher retention rate," she told the board and invited members to visit.

Commissioners pressed staff and petitioners on specific concerns raised in the staff findings, including clarity about facilities use (the board referenced Mercy Alley and Prop 39 requests) and the sufficiency of the fiscal and operational documentation submitted by the December 15 petition. Several commissioners noted that committee recommendations had differed: the curriculum committee gave a positive recommendation while the business and budget committee issued a negative recommendation by consensus.

Board members discussed procedural options; staff and legal counsel said the charterers may resubmit at the local level or appeal a denial to the California State Board of Education. Deputy counsel clarified that the Prop 39 facilities process and any facility‑use agreement are separate matters that would be addressed in a public Buildings and Grounds committee hearing if necessary.

After discussion, the board took a roll‑call vote and denied the renewal. The board’s denial was unanimous.

What happens next: petitioners were informed they may challenge the decision at the state level or resubmit a revised petition to the district. Staff noted they had circulated amended factual findings to the petitioner group, district staff and the superintendent prior to the hearing.

The board moved on to other agenda items following the vote.