Minutes of the
North Carolina Charter School Advisory Board
Education Building
301 N. Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
March 9, 2015
Attendance/NCCSAB Alan Hawkes
Joseph Maimone
Phyllis Gibbs
Helen Nance
Sherry Reeves
Mike McLaughlin
Attendance/SBE/DPI Office of Charter Schools
Joel Medley, Director
Lisa Swinson, Consultant
Deanna Townsend-Smith, Consultant
Robin Kendall, Consultant
Shannon Sellers, Consultant
Kebbler Williams, Consultant
Brian Smith, Consultant
Cande Honeycutt, Consultant
Alex Quigley
Eric Sanchez
Tammi Sutton
Becky Taylor
Cheryl Turner
Steven Walker
Attorney General’s Office
Laura Crumpler
SBE Attorney
Katie Cornetto
SBE
Martez Hill
CALL TO ORDER
The North Carolina Charter School Advisory Board (CSAB) meeting was called to order at 9:02 am by
the Chair, Ms. Helen Nance. Mr. Eric Sanchez led the Pledge of Allegiance. Ms. Nance read the Ethics
Statement and the CSAB Mission Statement.
Mr. Steven Walker made a motion to approve the February 2015, CSAB meeting minutes. Ms.
Sherry Reeves seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
UPDATES AND PRESENTATIONS
NC Charter School Performance Framework
 Ms. Robin Kendall provided information regarding the NC Charter Schools Performance
Framework. She explained it will go out to all schools annually and be posted on OCS website.
The framework aligns with the SBE goal and this school year data gathered will be baseline and
not used for high stakes decisions. There are three components of the Framework: Academic,
Operational, and Financial. The Operational has been finalized and the Finance and Business
Services department will be driving the financial piece. There are five components of the
Academic Framework: proficiency, federal and state measures, high school academic,


elementary and middle addition and growth. Ms. Kendall explained she would like any feedback
on the draft version of the Academic Framework prior to April 6.
Mr. Joe Maimone asked if there would be any flexibility since the state would be moving
towards a nationally normed accountability system. Ms. Kendall replied until we got more
information about what the state would be using we would use the data that was given. Dr. Joel
Medley replied as information is provided to our office we will make the necessary amendments
to the framework.
Dr. Medley explained Queen’s Grant withdrew their application from this round and would not
be interviewing today.
Haliwa-Saponi Tribal School
 Ms. Shannon Sellers shared Haliwa-Saponi Tribal School’s mission and explained that their
last SBE approved charter was for one year, July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.
 OCS has visited the school once per month in January, February and March.
 Ms. Carol Ann Hudgins explained the school had been diligent and responsive on their
corrective action with the EC department. There were ongoing concerns with licensure
issues, their EC teacher, and compensatory education. The EC teacher’s license has been
received and was made retroactive. Unannounced classroom visits will still need to occur to
ensure students are receiving the education that their IEP states.
 Ms. Rebecca Arroyo, staff member from Haliwa, requested a reconsideration from the CSAB
for a three year charter renewal. Initial findings from an EC Fiscal Audit found the school to
be 100 percent compliant.
 Ms. Michelle Varian, principal, explained the Academy of Math had been successful because
the students bought into the need of intervention. The purpose of the program was to build
the foundational skills. The results of the program would not be seen until next school year.
The intentions are to add the Academy of Reading next school year. Teachers are being
provided with professional development on how to use the data from the assessments they
are using. An Afterschool tutoring program has been implemented. The board and the
administration understand that the school is not currently performing in a way that is
reflective of the charter.
 Mr. Walker asked for a financial status update. Ms. Varian explained the school is projected
to end with $100,000 surplus. Ms. Sellers explained when the school came before the CSAB
in November, they had academic and EC concerns but finances were not a concern at that
time. Ms. Sellers added OCS would recommend they continue to have their one year
renewal because there are ongoing concerns, even though the school is making progress
toward addressing the concerns.
 Ms. Tammi Sutton asked how long the Academy of Math had been around. Ms. Arroyo
gave background information about the company and explained it was a fairly new program
that was created by a Native American.
 Dr. Medley explained they would be going through the renewal process in the fall of 2015.
The only thing that would change would be if they did not make growth or reach the
minimum composite scores on state testing.
 Ms. Sellers explained accountability would release the unofficial scores to schools in June.
The official scores would be provided in September. Mr. Quigley explained that by the time
the school came up for renewal there would be data.




The board chair, Mr. Richardson, stated they were grateful for the one year renewal but a
three year would assure the community and teachers.
Mr. Sanchez stated there were a number of things that needed to be applauded including the
EC compliances and the school leader coming up and taking responsibility for the school.
There were no excuses but the CSAB needs to see results before making changes.
Ms. Gibbs asked how a school could retain teachers if they are not assured of a job in a year.
She stated she had a problem with the one year charter. Ms. Nance replied that under this
plan they know they have a job for 2016, school year.
Mr. Hawkes made a motion to recommend a two year renewal for Haliwa-Saponi
Tribal School. Ms. Gibbs seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-8 with Ms. Gibbs,
Mr. Walker and Mr. Hawkes dissenting.
PACE Academy (Partnership Achieving Community Education)
 Mr. Darrell Johnson provided an update on the SBE settlement stipulations for PACE. All but
three of the stipulations have been met. He explained the board minutes were not being
submitted within five days of each meeting and the board chair had not attended all meetings.
The school had not complied with federal and state laws related to Exceptional Children and they
continue to have extreme attendance issues.
 Mr. Walker asked how late the minutes were submitted. Mr. Johnson replied the minutes were
being submitted a month after the meeting. Mr. Walker replied he was okay with that because
the board is submitting approved minutes.
 Mr. Sanchez asked for contributing factors for one-third of the students not being present. Mr.
Johnson explained that when he has conducted site visits the school has specific reasons for the
lack of attendance. For example, on Halloween students left early or did not attend to prepare
their costumes.
 Ms. Alexis Schauss replied students’ records were deficient. Based on the projections provided
by administration, PACE was initially funded for 157 students in the first allotment. The school
received authority to draw $351,640 and requested $329,914 in cash. Based on DPI student
accounting visits, the school had a less than 70 average daily membership and $90,000 was taken
back from the school. PACE provided explanations that students attended evening classes.
PACE records show some student with perfect attendance who were never at the school.
 Mr. Maimone asked if there was an official attendance rate reported by the school. Ms. Schauss
replied that the school reported an attendance rate of over 95%. They certified a daily
attendance of 103 but the most that was ever seen was 75.
 Mr. Quigley inquired about the school’s financial status. Ms. Schauss responded the concern is
the negative trend in their financials. Based on the budget they are projecting a significant
deficit at the end of the school year.
 Ms. Hudgens explained the EC department conducted a site visit. There were several concerns
noted during the site visit. There were issues with the EC schedules, teacher licensure, and
student attendance records. There were no established routines for taking attendance.
Participation in professional development was not evident. Since the visit, EC licensure has been
produced and has been retroactive. On February 3, 2015, PACE provided an action plan. The
next steps are to assist them with writing the action plan. There is also a concern that the school
thinks they have completed their compensatory education requirements.
 Ms. Nance asked what percentage of their students were EC. Ms. Jane Miller, PACE EC
Coordinator, replied 52% of their students are identified as EC.











At 10:09 am, Mr. Walker made a motion to go into closed session to discuss legal matters.
Mr. Maimone seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Walker made a motion to come out of closed session at 10:32 am. Ms. Reeves
seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Walker asked what was going on with the student records and asked if they disputed the
claims about the records. Ms. Rhonda Franklin, PACE’s principal, explained there were many
variations to student schedules. Someone would have to be there all day in order to capture full
student accounting.
Mr. Walker asked how many students were in attendance on Friday. Ms. Franklin replied she
did not know because there was a two hour delay. Mr. Walker asked when was the last time
there were 115 students in attendance at the school. Ms. Franklin replied it would have been at
the beginning of the school year but she was not sure. Teachers do attendance daily in the
classroom using Power School. Mr. Walker asked if the attendance policy the school uses was
best for the student population. Ms. Franklin responded it was not just the EC students that were
not in attendance but also other students who have behavioral patterns. There are several things
that have been done throughout the school year to encourage students to come to school such as
iPads and gift card incentives. The incentives worked for the hard-to-reach students initially and
then they blow it off.
Ms. Taylor noted the attendance information was bothersome. Ms. Taylor asked how long
students have to be in attendance. Ms. Franklin replied if they come the first period it is not
counted as a day. Ms. Taylor noted the system the school currently has in place is not effective.
Ms. Franklin replied the overall attendance was completed by individual teachers. She was not
aware student attendance had to be reported if a student did not attend school.
Mr. Maimone read from the stipulations and asked why a plan had not been submitted. Dr.
Medley replied they submitted a strategic plan in August. They have not submitted any
amendments to their charter.
Mr. Maimone asked how many students took exams last semester. Ms. Franklin replied that 6-8
students tested. The remainder the students would be tested in June. Mr. Maimone asked what
happens when a student is absent 10 consecutive days in a row. Ms. Franklin explained the
school has implemented a system that is according to age in which the information is reported to
authorities. Most of the time the students are not absent for 10 consecutive days.
Mr. Sanchez asked for clarification on the high attendance that was reported during the first 20
days at the beginning of the school year versus the low attendance now. Ms. Jane Miller, EC
Director, replied the count discounts the students who come in after attendance was audited. The
attendance is taken by class period with the students’ assigned teacher.
Ms. Nance replied Power School provides attendance reports. Ms. Miller explained she was
aware of the information that Power School could provide and OCS did not request the
information. Finance and Business did not fund them based on information provided regarding
student accounting.
Ms. Franklin explained the CSAB needed an out of the box mentality. The administrators have
made a lot of internal changes to try to get students to come to school. Ms. Sutton asked how
many students were enrolled in the school. Ms. Franklin and Ms. Miller did not answer the
question. Ms. Miller replied that she would have to look in Power School.
Ms. Taylor inquired about the cumulative absences of students. Ms. Franklin explained the
overall attendance policy is three unexcused absences equals an absence. Twelve cumulative
absences and the student fails the class. Ms. Taylor asked if there were any actions that have



been taken against parents. Ms. Franklin responded the students who are in violation are above
the age of 16 and no action has been taken toward parents. Ms. Laura Crumpler replied 10
absences for the school year, regardless of the child’s age, has to be reported. Ms. Franklin
asked if an 18 year old, who is an adult, is held under the same stipulations. Ms. Crumpler
replied the student’s age did not matter.
Ms. Taylor stated the school spent over $300,000 at the beginning of the year. She asked what
was purchased with the money. Ms. Franklin replied the money went towards the monthly
expenses such as salaries and rent. Last year was a difficult year with the nonrenewal of the
charter and then finding out in July that it would be renewed. Time and energy had to be put in
other places.
Ms. Turner noted last month a school with similar student demographics was before the CSAB
last month and did not have the same attendance issues that PACE had. Ms. Franklin added
attendance would have to be taken all day for you to capture the full student attendance.
Mr. Walker made motion to recommend to the SBE that PACE materially failed their
settlement agreement and following the period that is listed in the agreement they will turn
in their charter. Ms. Gibbs seconded the motion. Ms. Franklin noted the school had not
failed the settle agreement. The motion carried unanimously.
Crossroads Charter High
 Mr. Johnson read the mission of the school and discussed the school’s low academic
performance. He explained the school was currently noncompliant with Finance and Business
services.
 Ms. Hudgens explained there was a routine monitoring visit and there were some concerns. The
charter school is working with EC to get the completions done. After these are complete,
another visit will be done. EC does not have any additional concerns.
 Ms. Leigh Ann Kerr provided a report from Finance and Business Services and informed the
CSAB of serious concerns with the schools finances. There was potential misuse of the schools
credit card by members of the school administration. In May 2014, a letter was sent to the
school requesting documentation for the purchases made with the credit card. The
documentation was determined to be insufficient and another request was made in July 2014.
The school’s principal informed DPI that the school would repay the full amount of questionable
costs by June 2014. Crossroads was placed on Financial Probationary Status in September 2014,
after the monies were never paid. State auditors started an investigation. The LGC still has not
received a complete audit and they will not accept it until it is complete. Through a fiscal
monitoring Crossroads was found to be deficient in all five areas of the instrument.
 Mr. Maimone asked if all monies have been paid back. Ms. Kerr responded the money was paid
back in November.
 Mr. Quigley asked what the OCS recommendation was for Crossroads. Mr. Johnson replied the
OCS recommendation was that they become current in their finances.
 Crossroads attorney, Ms. Adana Lewis, approached the podium but was asked by Ms. Nance to
allow the board chair to address the CSAB.
 The board chair explained the current board has only been together for 90 days. He became the
board chair on July 1, 2014. He explained Ms. Campbell, principal, had been dealing with board
issues prior to the new board’s inception. The board has implemented a system for purchases in
which all purchases over $500 has to be approved by board. The board chair and one other
member approve the request.



Ms. Nance asked if the board had a process for internal controls. The board chair responded a
member of the office staff has that responsibility. Ms. Taylor asked who was in charge of the
credit card. The board chair responded the same office staff member was in charge. A monthly
financial compilation is provided to the board. All of the credit card requests are documented.
No money is spent prior to approval.
Mr. Quigley noted OCS has asked that they become fiscally up to date. They are up for renewal
next year. There is a lot of growth that needs to be made in academics. Mr. Quigley made a
recommendation that they continue to work their plan since they will be before the CSAB during
renewals in the Fall. Ms. Nance stated the CSAB would take no action regarding Crossroads
school.
Mr. Maimone made a motion to amend the agenda to go into subcommittees. Mr. Quigley
seconded. The motion was withdrawn.
The CSAB adjourned into subcommittees to complete application reviews.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Policy Subcommittee
 Mr. Quigley made a motion to forward Cape Fear Preparatory Academy for an interview.
Mr. Walker seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
 Mr. Quigley made a motion to forward Addie C. Morris Children’s School for an
interview. Mr. Walker seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mr.
Walker made a motion for the applicants of Addie C. Morris to submit a statewide
criminal background check on all board members. Ms. Gibbs seconded. The motion
carried unanimously.
 Mr. Quigley made a motion not to forward Lionheart Charter Academy for an interview.
Mr. Walker seconded. Ms. Reeves asked for additional information about the school. Mr.
Quigley noted the school would have students that were on the autism spectrum. There were
some budgetary questions and they are only looking at grades 6-10. There were a lot of
unanswered questions. The motion carried 10-2 with Ms. Gibbs and Mr. Hawkes dissenting.
Performance Subcommittee
 Ms. Nance made a motion to forward Kannapolis Charter Academy for an interview. Ms.
Reeves seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
 Ms. Nance made a motion to forward Mooresville Charter Academy for an interview. Ms.
Reeves seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
 Ms. Nance made a motion to forward Union Preparatory for an interview. Ms. Reeves
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
 Ms. Nance made a motion to forward Cardinal Charter Academy in Knightdale for an
interview. Ms. Reeves seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
CHARTER APPLICATION INTERVIEWS
Pine Springs Preparatory Academy
 Mr. Quigley inquired about the proposed location of the school. The board chair replied they
would like to be located in Holly Springs. Mr. Quigley inquired about why the board chose to
work with management companies- Ignite and New Point. First of all, we only work with New
Point. New Point works with Ignite. The board chair replied that they were not experts and they
needed assistance.
 Mr. Quigley asked whose idea it was to start the school. It was not the board’s idea to start the
school. The board chair replied that he received a call and several members from the community
also attended with Ignite. At the meeting they were introduced to New Point. The board toured
Windsor School in Florida. Mr. Quigley noted Windsor was rated an “F” school. A board
member replied they were aware of school’s grade. Another board member replied in first year
of operations most of the schools were “F” schools because they were located in low poverty
areas. New Point has not had an “F” past the first year. Mr. Quigley read information from the
New Point statistics. The board replied they spent a considerable amount of time with the
company. They discussed highlights and challenges of the schools. Another board member
explained no New Point school has been closed because of Academics and they have added
academic support. The staff that will be assisting the school will be focused on NC.
 Mr. Walker noted the board seemed to be strong. He asked how they came to the decision to
have New Point and what they would do to make sure the EMO was successful. The board did a
lot of background and researched the EMO. The board is vested and is committed to holding
them accountable. The board negotiated its contract so that they would not be tied into certain
things like their curriculum and the term of the contract is five years.
 Ms. Turner asked if they interviewed any additional EMOs. The board replied that they did not
but they researched other models. New Point gave them the best opportunity for their
community.
 Mr. Quigley replied that the model has no data to outline its success and the model school has a
score of an “F”. The EMO fee is not inclusive and he would like to know what the management
company was providing to the board. A board member explained they would be given $150,000
startup costs that would have to be paid back. They will pay 12% for the services that they will
need.
 Ms. Turner asked if there was a relationship with Ignite. A board member replied there was no
relationship with Ignite.
 Mr. Maimone noted in the by-laws board members can vote by proxy electronically. The board
members replied that they were not aware of that and would be following the state law related to
open meetings.
 Ms. Taylor noted there were some schools in Florida that closed. A board member explained
there were a couple of schools that have closed in Florida and the board chose to close one of the
schools. There was another one that never opened.
 Mr. Quigley asked if the board gave pause to the board because that is a task for the management
company. A board member explained the management company replied earlier and it was a
construction issue. One school is not a good picture of what New Point does.
 Mr. Walker noted that section 6 of the by-laws is in conflict of section 7. It needed to be deleted.
 Mr. Quigley inquired about assessments. A board member replied formative assessments would
be the Discovery Educational Assessments that are being used in several systems in North







Carolina. The school would be based on Project Based Curriculum. The assessments would be
aligned to this curriculum using portfolios and rubrics.
Mr. Sanchez asked for elaboration on how transportation and food would not be a problem. The
board chair replied that they would be providing transportation and that most people would be
providing their own lunch. They would be providing transportation with students who live more
than one and half miles away from the school if they were EC. The board would be contracting
with Wake County Schools for transportation and food. Another board member replied that the
contracts were not in place. Transportation would be provided for students who need it. After
the lottery, the number of students that would need transportation would be determined. Mr.
Quigley asked if there was any other transportation that will be provided. The school will try to
help parents car pool and there will be no transportation provided.
Ms. Taylor asked about partnering with Wake County Schools for transportation. A board
member explained that there was some discussion about possibly partnering with Wake County
but it is not budgeted in the application. Mr. Quigley asked if the school would be providing a
lunch program. The board member replied that they will provide lunch but it has not been
decided through which company.
Mr. Walker commented that he had some questions about the EMO and this board seems strong
and they will hold the EMO to the fire. Of all of the applications that New Point submitted this
was the strongest. Mr. Quigley noted that he felt strong about the board and their expertise.
Mr. Quigley asked if there were concerns with the school’s academic standards. A board
member explained that the school in Florida had a first grade class in math with technology.
Students were encouraged to dig deeper. Mr. Quigley asked what was not working well at the
school. The scheduling and access to resources were challenges.
Mr. Sanchez noted that 4 out of 5 schools have a “D” or below. What in the data assured the
board the management company would do its due diligence. A board member explained she had
confidence in the board members who visited and interviewed the schools in Florida.
Ms. Taylor asked if the board was aware of how they could get out of the five year contract. The
contract states there are five components that the EMO has to achieve.
Mr. Walker made a motion to forward Pine Springs Preparatory Academy to the Ready to
Open Process. Mr. Sanchez added he had concerns with the transportation, track record of the
Florida schools and the lunch program. Mr. Quigley concurred and explained the need and the
demand was going to drive students to the school. Ms. Turner noted there were criteria for a way
out with the EMO. Ms. Taylor noted there is a lot of negative publicity for New Point. The
motion carried 10-1 with Mr. Sanchez dissenting.
Peak Charter Academy
 Ms. Nance noted the school would be partnering with National Heritage Academies. She asked
why there was a need for the charter school in the area. A board member replied there was lots
of growth in the area and several schools are capped. Over 1/3 of students are in mobile units
and this school will help everyone in the area.
 Mr. Maimone noted that the application was written as a replication for Greensboro Academy.
The board replied after visiting Greensboro Academy it was similar to our area and they have
been successful. One of the goals of the board is to have one of the best performing schools in
the state. The board is not aware of what the student population would look like.
 He asked if the board was aware the board could not build its own reserves. The board replied
NHA does not have a right to operate a school but the board does. One of the main reasons they




were partnering with them is because they have millions of dollars of resources that the board
would have access to. The service agreement could be terminated within 30 days with cause or
90 days without cause. NHA would still be on board to operate the school for the remainder of
the school year. The board would have the option of purchasing the school at the same rate.
Mr. Alan Hawkes asked how the board was created. The board came together after the board
chair expressed a need and they spoke with NHA. Each board member explained how they
became a member of the board.
Mr. Hawkes asked how much of the money would be going to NHA. The board replied 98% of
revenues would be forwarded to NHA.
Mr. Quigley asked how the school will be different from Wake County Schools. A board
member explained that she visited Wake Forest. She observed students in small group
instruction and was impressed with classroom management and technology.
Ms. Reeves made a motion to forward Peak Charter Academy for the Ready to Open
Process. Ms. Taylor seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Dynamic Community Charter School
 Ms. Sellers read the mission for Dynamic Charter School. She provided a summary of the
updated information the Dynamic board submitted to OCS. On March 5, 2015, the SBE voted to
initiate revocation.
 Mr. Walker asked if $200,935.46 was the latest information that was submitted to OCS. Mr.
McLaughlin noted the media was communicating the school would end with a deficit of $75,000.
Dr. Medley explained there would be some special reserves funds the school may be able to
incur.
 Mr. Walker said there was $80,000 that Mr. Philip Price would be able to allocate to the school.
Dr. Medley replied if a school is not following IDEA the school is jeopardizing federal funds.
 Mr. Quigley noted there were other schools. Dr. Medley informed SBE one of the schools had
submitted an appeal letter and the other two have not sent any communication. There are some
boards that have talked about the possibility of assumption but nothing has occurred.
 Mr. Walker made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Quigley seconded the motion. The meeting
adjourned at 3:30 pm.
Minutes of the
North Carolina Charter School Advisory Board
Education Building
301 N. Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
March 10, 2015
Attendance/NCCSAB Alan Hawkes
Joseph Maimone
Phyllis Gibbs
Helen Nance
Sherry Reeves
Mike McLaughlin
Attendance/SBE/DPI Office of Charter Schools
Joel Medley, Director
Lisa Swinson, Consultant
Deanna Townsend-Smith, Consultant
Robin Kendall, Consultant
Brian Smith, Consultant
Cande Honeycutt, Consultant
Alex Quigley
Eric Sanchez
Tammi Sutton
Becky Taylor
Cheryl Turner
Steven Walker
Attorney General’s Office
Laura Crumpler
SBE Attorney
Katie Cornetto
CALL TO ORDER
The North Carolina Charter School Advisory Board (CSAB) was called to order at 8:06 am by the
Chair, Ms. Helen Nance. Mr. Eric Sanchez led the Pledge of Allegiance. Ms. Nance read the Ethics
Statement and the CSAB Mission Statement.
Ms. Nance informed the CSAB that Queen’s Grant Charter withdrew their application from this year’s
cycle and they would not be interviewing.
Dr. Townsend-Smith informed the CSAB there have been 7 schools that have been forwarded to the
Ready to Open process and one with a delayed decision. Four of the schools are slated to open in Wake
County, one in Gaston County, one in Pasquotank County, one in New Hanover County and one in
Union County. There have been two boards that have interviewed but were not sent to the Ready to
Open process.
CHARTER APPLICATION INTERVIEWS
Charlotte Classical School
 Mr. Quigley explained Charlotte Classical School proposed location would be CharlotteMecklenburg and would serve grades K-8. Each board member introduced themselves. The
members distributed a packet of information. There was one board member who participated
through Skype. A member of the board explained the school’s proposed location would be in a









section of Charlotte that does not have an existing charter school. She directed them to the map
that was located the packet.
Mr. Quigley inquired about the marketing plan. The board replied the plan was to look at
different civic groups, creating new relationships with houses of faith, businesses, and taking
opportunities to educate parents. Many relationships had already been established.
Mr. Maimone stated he was impressed with the classical curriculum and wanted to know a more
specific plan for recruiting students. A member of the board explained that Saxon Math will be
used and they would make their case to the parents. Mr. Maimone responded that Saxon Math is
not enough information that will convince parents to come to the school. Another board member
replied they would also have a lot of parent involvement. The classical education, especially for
at-risk students, will fill in knowledge gaps.
Ms. Turner asked what instruction would look like. A board member explained when the
children arrive they would be engaged in Saxon Math and work on the calendar. They would be
engaged in grammar, reading/phonics lesson. Mr. Walker asked how the classical education
would be explained to parents. A board member explained that they would do Night of the
Notables in which they would invite parents to hear students present and ask questions.
Mr. Walker stated he wanted to know information about how parents would be initially
convinced. The board explained Classical Education would prepare students to be critical
thinkers. Our Classical School is going to have Spanish, Art, Music and Physical Education.
There is a real argument for a Classical School. The Classical Education covers everything. Mr.
Quigley stated at this point in the interview no one had explained the components of the classical
education and it was concerning. The board member explained that there were phases of core
knowledge. In the budget there was a curriculum advisor/coordinator.
Mr. Quigley stated he still had a sense that the board would be just putting a lot of programs in
place. The board explained that they were interviewed last year and the vote was close. They
took a different approach with their interview this year. They put two contingency budgets
together in case enrollment was not met.
Mr. Quigley asked the board to talk through the contingency budget. The board member
explained they just redid the budget and lowered the number of students. Ms. Turner asked
where the revenues were located and could not determine the financial liability. Pages three and
four were missing from the packet. He further added that the board did not have to provide the
contingency budgets.
Mr. Maimone asked them to explain what the marketing plan would be since it is slated at
$5,000. A board member replied the heft of the marketing would not be expensive. There would
be grass roots marketing to strengthen the ties already in the community. Mr. Maimone asked
for specifics for how the money would be spent. Online marketing like Facebook would be used.
We are marketing specialists and we do not have to hire someone.
Mr. Quigley noted the Board would pay a fee for transportation for students who could afford it
and those who could not would not have to pay. Once the student population is set they would
find out who would need assistance. Transportation would not be an option. The word fee does
show up in the application because the board originally thought it would be possible to use Eagle
Bus company in Charlotte. They noted they understood they could not charge a fee for
transportation. The board will not offer transportation. They will ask the parent to provide
transportation and then encourage them to participate in a car pool.
Mr. Maimone noted he was excited about the classical school and he felt comfortable with the
answers heard today. Ms. Taylor replied that she was confused the entire time and she had a lot

of concerns. Mr. Quigley asked Ms. Turner to give information about the proposed location in
Charlotte. Ms. Turner explained the proposed location is an affluent area. Mr. Quigley noted he
was also confused because information from the application was not presented during the
questioning. Mr. Walker noted if they followed the plan that is in the application the school
would do great. Ms. Nance noted she was concerned with the amount of money that was
allocated for free/reduced lunch.
Mr. Maimone made a motion to move Charlotte Classical to the Ready to Open status. He
added perhaps they did not do the best job in their presentation but the application is
strong. Ms. Gibbs seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-5 with Ms. Sutton, Ms.
Nance, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Reeves, and Mr. Sanchez dissenting.
Unity Classical Charter School
 Mr. Quigley explained the proposed location of the school was Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
and they were slated to open with grades K-2.
 The board introduced themselves and explained there were three board members that were not
able to be present for the meeting. Since the submission of the charter one person has resigned
and three have been added.
 Mr. Quigley asked what evidence was there that the classical education will reach all students.
The board explained schools with a diverse background, Nashville Classical School and Pinnacle
Classical, have done well. Classical programs offer support to all learners. If you offer them a
solid basis they begin to manipulate it.
 Ms. Turner asked if the board would be partnering with Hillsdale. The board chair replied they
would be using Hillside’s online materials but there would not be a formal partnership. Mr.
Quigley asked about the schools proposed location in Charlotte. The board responded the
proposed location would allow them to pull students from a five to ten mile (10) radius from the
Gaston side of Charlotte. The board will be using social media because it is more cost effective.
They are trying to use the social market because it is cost effective.
 Mr. Quigley asked what the pitch would be to the parents about why to select this school. The
board member asked if he could defer the question to someone else. Another board member
replied that a classical education is not being offered in the radius of the proposed location.
 Mr. Sanchez asked about the school’s at-risk plan. The board replied they were anticipating ten
percent of the children needing services. The classrooms will offer differentiated instruction.
 Mr. Maimone asked about the budget and where the services for outside services were located.
The board replied it was budgeted in the line item of “other services”.
 Mr. Maimone asked why they thought the budget received a failed with the external evaluators.
The board member explained that they have money in reserves. Mr. Quigley asked if the surplus
was based on the break even being 13 students. The board replied if they were to have fewer
students they would make cuts. Mr. McLaughlin inquired about Dr. Chuns relationship with the
board. The board replied he had no formal connection to the school except he was a board
member of the church who would offer land to the school.
 Mr. Maimone inquired about the Accelerator Program through Parents for Educational Freedom.
The board member explained they had been very supportive in preparing them for today’s
meeting.
 Mr. Maimone stated they have a strong board. Ms. Nance stated she was comfortable with the
group and was impressed. Mr. McLaughlin added he was also impressed with the difference in
the interview from this year and last year.




Mr. Quigley made a motion to hear from all board members that were present. Mr.
Walker seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Sanchez commented that the nearby schools had a higher percentage of at-risk students than
what was reflected in the application. The board replied they would be looking at a higher
number than ten percent.
Ms. Turner stated she would like to see a classical school that had a student population of 7080% of at-risk. Ms. Nance noted that they have good problem solving skills. Mr. Sanchez
commented they will be appealing to a certain group. One of the biggest areas of weakness was
how they were going to support at risk students. Ms. Reeves stated she felt comfortable with this
board and suggested they tweak some things before they open. Ms. Turner noted if they market
to the neighborhood they can easily get 200 students but the application is not written for the
students in that neighborhood. Mr. Maimone noted he was bothered by the idea that certain
people would not choose a classical education. Ms. Turner replied that parents would not choose
this school if they had to provide transportation or meals. Ms. Sutton replied if a parent cannot
pack a lunch and had to provide transportation they would not choose the school. It had nothing
to do with their strong desire for their child to get a good education.
Ms. Reeves made a motion to forward Unity Classical to the Ready to Open process. Mr.
Maimone seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1 with Ms. Taylor dissenting. Ms.
Sutton, Mr. Sanchez and Ms. Turner recusing. Ms. Sutton and Mr. Sanchez recused
because there was no enough information for them to make a decision. Ms. Turner recused
because a decision had already been made.
Forsyth Preparatory Academy
 The members of the board introduced themselves. The board chair explained they had two
applications in this round and they would like to remove Piedmont Preparatory Academy from
this year’s interview cycle. Mr. Quigley asked if they had the opportunity visit any schools that
the management group managed. A board member replied he had visited three schools in
Windsor. Mr. Quigley asked if he was aware that Windsor received an “F” rating. The board
member replied the information was cause for thought but the board researched it. The
information made the school look worse than it was.
 Mr. Quigley asked what was observed at the school. A board member replied his children
currently attended a school that is rated an “A” and he would not be moving them. He observed
a math class in which students were engaged. Mr. Quigley inquired about the school’s projectbased learning component. The board member explained that it would be implemented after
students were assessed. The whole student would be engaged and would not be doing rote work.
The teacher would guide them.
 Ms. Turner asked how students would gain basic information. The board member explained in
Windsor, there was a learning plan and learning lessons. Mr. Sanchez inquired about the scope
and sequence. The board member asked if he was referring to the curriculum. She then
explained it came from New Point.
 Mr. Walker asked what New Point’s role would be and how they would be held accountable.
The board member explained they would be arranging things such as buses, construction and
food. They would be like general contractors and would receive 12%. If there was an issue, the
board would contact the attorney.







Ms. Turner asked who the education experts were on the board. The board replied there was no
one on the board with education expertise. They would be adding that person. Ms. Turner asked
who wrote the application. A board member replied New Point wrote the application.
Ms. Turner noted the teacher evaluation plan was out dated. The board member replied he did
not have an education background and thought the plan looked good. He explained the board
would look at it again and change it when the time was right.
Mr. Walker noted he was looking for a break-even point in the budget. The board replied it
would be 323 and the first year they would be projecting 396 students.
Mr. Quigley inquired about the targeted population and 56% of them would qualify for free and
reduced lunch. The board member replied the free and reduced lunch program was near and dear
to him. The school would break even with those costs. The students would be bringing their
lunch and the government would repay them. Mr. Sanchez read from the application and asked
if the school would be participating in the Federal Lunch Program. The board member replied
there was no way way around offering the lunch program.
Mr. Quigley noted Ashley was listed as the board chair in the application. The board chair
replied it was a typo in the application.
Mr. Sanchez asked for the rationale for offering project-based learning for at-risk students and
how it would meet their needs. The board replied there would be a tier structure based on the
student assessment.
Mr. Maimone noted the board was not well versed and he would not feel comfortable granting
them a charter. Mr. Quigley agreed and added they had strong, impressive backgrounds. Ms.
Turner added they needed an educator on their board. Mr. Walker commented they needed to
complete their board and apply again next year. Mr. Sanchez made a motion not to forward
Forsyth Preparatory Academy to the Ready to Open process. Ms. Taylor seconded. The
motion passed unanimously.
Fern Leaf Community Charter School
 Mr. Quigley stated the school would start with K-6 and grow to K-8 in Henderson County. Each
member of the board introduced themselves. Two members were not present and there were four
new board members added that were not listed in the application. The board applied during the
previous round and kept all of the offices intact.
 Mr. Quigley inquired about the school calendar. The board chair responded they would have
approximately 175 school days and over 1,025 hours. There were early release work days every
Monday in the calendar. Mr. Quigley noted he was concerned about that.
 Mr. Quigley noted there were several programs the school would be trying to implement. The
board chair explained the project-based learning, mastery learning and blended learning were the
three programs. The project-based learning would require a lot of teacher time and that was the
rationale for having the teacher work days. Project-based learning would be the overall
umbrella. Mr. Quigley asked how the blended learning would fit into the curriculum. The board
chair replied the blended learning would be integrating technology as much as possible. The
mastery check list is more of an assessment and would be interactive between teachers and
parents.
 Ms. Sutton inquired about the academic goals and why 80% would be held accountable for
growth. The board member explained the term growth throughout the entire application is
children learning in small incremental steps. Eighty percent was chosen because it was a
practical, attainable goal. Ms. Sutton asked what about the academic bar. The board member








explained goals one and two were based on MAP testing and it was based on growth. This was
a measure to determine if 100% of the students were growing. Ms. Sutton asked if 80% of
students making growth were considered a good measure of growth for the school. The board
member replied it was a baseline and did not mean that there would be success because success
is a complex issue. The board wants 100% of the students to have growth and 80% is a
comparable success. It is ambitious and attainable. The school is expected to enroll a diverse
population from the county. There was not a target of a specific group of students. The board is
confident that the school is going to be rigorous. The county is 71% Caucasian, 14% Hispanic
and 4% African American. There is a gap between the economically disadvantage and nondisadvantage.
Mr. Quigley noted finances was a barrier for not moving the group forward last year and asked
what had changed from last year’s application. The board responded they partnered with the
Accelerator Program and they were put into contact with various resources. More specifically
there was an exact definition for how the budget was devised. Areas that needed to be
strengthened were looked at and another key area was the three tier contingency plan.
Mr. Quigley inquired about the facility budget. The board member explained the price per
square foot was based on the market. The smallest number the school could open would 52. Mr.
Quigley asked if the schools in Henderson County were over enrolled. The average class size in
middle school is 30. The transportation plan includes gas, bus, and maintenance. There would
be targeted areas the bus would utilize. Teachers and staff would drive the bus. The board is
expecting 50 children to participate in the school’s transportation program.
Mr. Quigley inquired about the lunch program. A board member noted there was $6,000 allotted
for nutrition and they would not be using school lunch program. Students would be asked to
bring their lunch. Students will be able to receive assistance. Based on the county average, 19
students will need this.
Mr. Quigley asked what were the three biggest things that had changed in the application. The
main things were the budget, the education plan was clarified and the board numbers have
doubled and diversified. Board members have had training. The class sizes were revised to go
down and the grades served the first year were reduced.
Mr. Maimone asked about the marketing plan for the first year. The board replied there was
$7,000 for marketing. There would be billboard and printing. The one-to-one outreach would be
the most effective.
Mr. Sanchez asked about the plan to educate the ELL students. The board responded out of 176,
three of those students would attend the school. The plan is they would have a personalized
learning plan. The small class size and problem-based learning would give them a framework to
thrive.
Ms. Nance asked if the board had thought about who the administrator would be. The person
would be the current board chair because he has the skills, knowledge and background. The
board anticipates that he would be the principal. He will step down and be a nonvoting member.
Mr. Walker noted the Hispanic population would be on the other side of the county. There is a
need in the area and they have done a better job and had grown as a board. They have made
changes to the budget and the changes are reasonable. Mr. Maimone stated he was thrilled they
returned and had community interest. Mr. Quigley explained he was excited to see the
executive committee had stayed the same. He would have liked to see more clarity on the
education plan. Mr. Sanchez noted the school was going to start small but he was concerned
with the ability of the board to articulate the must haves of the school. Ms. Turner noted she was

pleased with the changes to the budget. There were some concerns with the education plan. Ms.
Taylor noted she was not one hundred percent confident with what was said today and she had
concerns and added just because there was a need in the area doesn’t mean the application
needed to go forward. The CSAB is supposed to be setting boards up for success. Ms. Nance
noted the year of planning would be important and the board needed to take advantage of it.
Mr. Walker made a motion to forward Fern Leaf Community Charter School for the
Ready to Open process. Mr. Maimone seconded. Ms. Sutton asked a board member what
areas the board needed to focus on the first year. A board member responded the ELL program
needed to be clarified, as well as the transportation budget and lunch plan. The motion carried
10-0 with Ms. Sutton recusing.
Ridgeview Charter School
 The members of the board introduced themselves. Ms. Nance asked what the relationship was
between Mr. and Mrs. Williams. Mrs. Williams replied they were married. She explained her
husband would step down if it were a requirement of the committee.
 Ms. Nance asked what the rationale was for a single gender school. The board chair replied
single gender schools were popular in other countries and in other states. Single gender would
occur in the middle school core classrooms. Students would be in co-ed classrooms in other
classes.
 Ms. Nance asked if this would effect enrollment. The board member replied the main challenge
would be making sure the numbers are reflective. If the teachers were trained, the teaching staff
could be modified. Ms. Nance asked if they would be partnering with other organizations. The
board chair replied they were partnering with The NC Charter Schools Association, Mr. Eddie
Goodall. Ms. Turner asked what services he would be providing. The board replied the services
would be pulling down funds, providing training to teachers, and providing resources for
procurement of services that needed to be leased out.
 Mr. Maimone asked for clarification on the education plan. A board member explained the
school would be using the IB curriculum but would not be called an IB school. The school
would have more project-based learning and then broken into smaller groups. There would be a
final project implemented for every grade and every subject.
 Mr. Sanchez asked if the curriculum was the same for each gender. The curriculum would be the
same but the resources may be different. Things for boys may not be interesting for girls. Mr.
Sanchez asked for clarification. There are some methodology differences and research shows
boys learn differently than girls. The goals of the lesson would be the same.
 Ms. Sutton asked how they would be recruiting families the first year since the single gender
grades would not begin until the following year. The board chair replied although classrooms
would not be single gendered there would be exercises in place to prepare them.
 Mr. Walker asked what process the board used to decide to use single-gendered school. A board
member explained that he did research and the research showed that middle school was the
optimal time to separate them. Mr. Walker asked what part of Gaston County the school would
be located in. The board member replied they would be closer to the Mecklenburg side.
 Mr. Sanchez asked how the board would know it was working. The board chair explained she
was a data person and she would track the success of the program with data. There would not be
comparison the first year but feedback from the teachers could be used.
 Mr. Sanchez asked what challenges would be expected. The board chair responded the biggest
challenge would be to get the numbers to balance. The board had already started communicating





about the school in the local community through pamphlets. The marketing process would be
going to local civics meetings. One of the board members explained he is a manager at a large
business in the area.
Ms. Nance asked if there was another family relationship on the board. The board explained
there were two married couples on the board and they understood the ethics involved. Ms.
Turner stated a quorum is three and a married couple could be a quorum. A board member
responded he was insulted when someone questioned his ethics because of his military
background. He added they were planning to add other members.
Mr. Walker asked how the board would follow regulations and policies for conflicts of interests.
The board is working with Eddie Goodall the NC Associations of Charter Schools. Board
training would occur through that organization. They added they were recruiting other members
but would not add them at this time.
Mr. Walker noted the board present may not be the board that would be running the school. A
board member replied the board members would not remove themselves until the others are
replaced. Mr. Walker replied the school could not be approved based on the faith that strong
board members would be recruited. Mr. Maimone noted he was concerned that the board was
here last year. The application was incomplete. The board informed Mr. Maimone their
application was incomplete the previous year and they never made it to the interview round.
Ms. Nance noted during the writing of the application, the board partnered with Prestige and now
they are partnering with Mr. Goodall. The board chair replied Prestige relocated their business
and it gave the Board a chance to rethink the amount of money they would be charging.
Ms. Turner made a motion not to forward Ridgeview Charter School to the Ready to open
process. Ms. Taylor seconded the motion. Mr. Walker asked Ms. Crumpler if it was material
revision that the board used Mr. Eddie Goodall instead of Prestige as it was listed in their
application. Ms. Crumpler replied that it was a material change. The motion carried
unanimously.
Gateway Charter
 The board members introduced themselves. Ms. Nance asked how partnering with NHA would
serve the children they want to target. The board chair explained NHA had success in areas that
were similar to the area they want to serve.
 Mr. Maimone asked them what was learned from last year to this year. The board chair
explained they did more researched and they visited the schools. The information that was
gained was internalized and the students would need more resources.
 Mr. Maimone asked if these changes could occur with the current budget. A board member
explained there was an internationalist added to the budget. Ms. Quigley asked what was learned
by visiting PreEminent. A board member explained there was an intensive learning program
with a separate dean and there would be five separate people who would just be working on
intervention.
 Mr. Sanchez asked for clarification on the curriculum. A member of the board explained the
standards were based on NC standards. NHA has a curriculum that they have developed and it
has been successful. At Summerfield charter there was a need for Spanish and NHA was open to
adding Spanish.
 Mr. Sanchez asked what would be seen at the school. A board member replied you will see a
back to basics for the students. There would be direct instruction, small groups, and



manipulatives for math. There would be weekly unit assessments that are incorporated. The
goals that are written in the application will be adjusted.
Mr. Quigley noted the opening enrollment would be 520 students and would like to know the
marketing strategies. The board replied the enrollment number could be amended. There have
been some survey responses and the grass roots and relationship building would be the focus.
The cost for marketing in the budget is $118,000. The board anticipates a waiting list.
Ms. Taylor asked if there was a minimum number of students that NHA required in order to
partner. A board member replied there was not a minimum number. The facility would be a big
marketing tool.
Mr. Walker made a motion to forward Gateway Charter Academy to the Ready to Open
process. Ms. Gibbs seconded. Mr. Sanchez noted the board was not able to speak about the
curriculum. Mr. Hawkes noted 83% of the schools that NHA works with are the at-risk
demographics. He asked if a representative from NHA could come forward to address Eric’s
concerns. Mr. Walker made a motion to allow the NHA representative to speak. Ms.
Turner seconded the motion. The NHA representative explained the teachers will teach the
NC standards and they are paced out for each quarter. There will be a workshop model. It is
important the students leave on the college bound track. At PreEminent short term fixes were
put in and it didn’t work. Now, long term fixes have been implemented and are working. The
motion carried unanimously.
Mallard Creek







The members of the board introduced themselves. Ms. Nance asked if the board would be
contracting with one of the board members for services. The board chair answered it was
possible.
Ms. Nance asked if the members who were apart of other boards could divide their time. A
member of the board responded being on a board is the highest form of learning. It is a way to
grow as an educator.
Ms. Nance stated there would be a partner with Discovery Place and it was not unique to all
schools. The representative from Discovery Place replied the business has the opportunity to
choose who they want to focus their efforts on. This partnership would be unique and there
would not be a fee. There is intent for a partnership and there are no specific details that have
been established.
Mr. Maimone asked if there was an underlying organization and if it was associated to the
Alliance. A board member explained the nonprofit organization was created specifically for the
school and has nothing to do with any other schools. The board chair and Jennifer are volunteer
board members with the Alliance.
Ms. Taylor asked how close the school would be to Queen City STEM. The board member
distributed a handout. The school would be located 15 miles from that school.
Ms. Taylor asked about the conflict of interest policy because some members of the board may
be getting paid for services. A board member explained there would have to be an open bid
process.
Mr. Sanchez asked for clarification on the education plan. A board member explained the goals
were written so that there would be stronger goals for math and science since it would be a
STEM school. Mr. Sanchez noted the data that was provided for Economically Disadvantaged
students. Half the students are ED and half the children would score below 50%. It does not



seem you will be able to reach the 70% goal. A board member replied if you pull out all of the
subgroups the goal is to make sure that they show growth.
Mr. Sanchez asked if all of the members were planning to stay on the board. The members
stated they were planning to continue to work with the school. Ms. Nance noted in the
application there was mention of other schools and business but names were not listed. Some of
the high schools are Vance High School and Mallard Creek and the letters are included in the
appendices.
Mr. Quigley asked for clarification on the lunch program. The board would work with DPI to set
up the program. Ms. Turner noted that 554 is a lot of students for the Charlotte area. A board
member replied the budget is built at 70% which is around 400. The marketing plan is really
designed to pick a program, do what you say and you will have a wait list.
Mr. Maimone made a motion to forward Mallard Creek to the Ready Open status. Ms.
Gibbs seconded the motion. Mr. Maimone noted this was strong board with experience. Ms.
Sutton added that this is the third school that would be approved in Charlotte. Ms. Turner added
she had concerns with the enrollment numbers and they needed to work on their goals. The
motion carried Nance, Taylor, Turner dissented.
Mr. Maimone left the meeting.
Matthews-Mint Hill








Ms. Nance stated Matthews-Mint Hill would be located in Charlotte Mecklenburg and serve
grades K-8. They would be partnering with NHA and this was the third time that they were
applying.
Ms. Nance asked about the proposed location. A member of the board replied the area is
growing and has shown at 25 % growth and there was a strong demand for school choice in the
area. Ms. Nance asked how many of the board members were original. The board replied they
were all original except for one person.
Ms. Turner asked if the board was anticipating pulling from Union County. A board member
replied they would be offering K-8 and the parents like the idea of stability.
Mr. Sanchez asked about the food plan. The board replied there was $107,000 allotted for food.
There would be a third party to offer food and they would be using the national food lunch
program.
Mr. Sanchez asked who the targeted population would be. A member of the board replied they
were targeting a population that wants to have school choice. Anyone who wants their child to
take advantage of school was who they were targeting. The budget was based on the Charlotte
Mecklenburg LEA.
Ms. Nance asked what the board was expecting from NHA. A board member replied they
would operate the school for the Board. The funds would be allocated to NHA.
Ms. Nance asked what would happen if the Board did not like the principal. A board member
stated the board would make a strong recommendation and it was in their best interest for them
to listen. The passion that the principal brings would keep the children in the building.
Mr. Sanchez asked who would create, monitor and revise the curriculum for the school. A board
member replied NHA would provide an excellent curriculum that is aligned to the state
standards. They provide lesson plans for every unit for the year. The curriculum had been
successful at Queens Grant and they have high performance. Teachers would have data to
quickly remediate students. The K-8 model is what will also be different for the area.

Ms. Gibbs made a motion for forward for the Ready to Open Process. Ms. Reeves
seconded the motion. Mr. Sanchez asked if representatives from third parties would be able to
participate in future interviews. Mr. Hawkes noted all schools are different and a strong board is
needed to lead the school. He encouraged the board to have a voice in hiring the lead
administrator. The motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Nance stated the next meeting date would not have a quorum and there would only be one day for
the meeting. The meeting would be held on April 13, 2015, instead of April 9 - 10, 2015. Mr. Hawkes
asked that the bylaws be amended to say that everyone votes. This is in section 7.1-7.5 we will meet on
April 13, 2015.
Mr. Walker made a motion at 3:21 to adjourn. Ms. Gibbs seconded.