SFUSD Board votes to deny Aim High Community Charter petition after staff finds program and governance concerns

The San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education on Aug. 22 voted to deny the Aim High Community Charter Schools petition after district staff presented written factual findings that the petition was inconsistent with sound educational practice.

The denial followed a staff recommendation read into the record by the district's charter-office representative, who said the review—based on a petition submitted May 26, 2006, a revised petition on July 27 and staff analysis—concluded the petition should be denied pursuant to Education Code section 47605. Staff cited three primary bases: the petition ‘‘presents essentially the same elements’’ as the previously operated AIM HIGH Academy, declines in some standardized-test measures, and concerns about suspension/expulsion and dispute-resolution language in the petition that could undermine students’ due process rights.

Alec Lee, director of Aim High, and six other supporters spoke in favor of the charter, stressing the organization’s 20-year track record with summer programs and claiming local demand for a small, standards-based middle school. Lee told the board, “We do respectfully disagree with, the recommendation of the district,” and described test-score gains for English learners and community backing for the proposed 6–8 school.

Staff emphasized data showing academic weaknesses and behavioral concerns at the site that operated as AIM HIGH Academy. The staff presentation noted test-score trends on the California Standards Test and reported 179 recorded suspensions for the 2005–06 year at the site; staff said the data showed declines in some cohorts and gaps in the petition’s program descriptions for English learners. Staff also flagged petition language calling for an administrative panel composed of Aim High board members to handle suspensions and expulsions and a clause permitting binding arbitration in disputes with the district—both of which staff said could compromise impartial oversight and the board’s authority.

Board members debated the petition at length. Several members who voiced deep respect for Aim High’s summer programs nevertheless agreed with staff that the charter petition as written carried too much risk. Commissioner Kelly said she was “reluctant” but persuaded by the evidence that a conversion to an autonomous charter posed oversight and student-protection problems. Other members, while praising Aim High’s past service and community ties, said they could not support granting the petition in its current form.

During the roll call, the resolution to adopt staff’s recommendation to deny the petition carried with six ayes recorded.

What happens next: The district’s legal timeline requires a formal grant-or-deny action; board members noted that a majority “no” to the denial would not automatically grant the petition but would require a separate motion or amended resolution to do so. Aim High supporters said they would continue to work with the district and may pursue future proposals.

Authorities cited by staff included Education Code section 47605 (charter petition process) and California regulatory guidance cited in the findings. The board’s official denial was recorded in the minutes and will be reflected in the district’s public records for charter petitions.