Minutes of the
North Carolina Charter School Advisory Board
Education Building
301 N. Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
April 13, 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
Robin Kendall, Consultant
Shannon Sellers, Consultant
Kebbler Williams, Consultant
Brian Smith, Consultant
Alex Quigley
Eric Sanchez
Tammi Sutton (absent)
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. Ms. Nance led the Pledge of Allegiance and read the Ethics Statement and
the CSAB Mission Statement.
Mr. Maimone made a motion to approve the March 2015, CSAB meeting minutes. Ms. Sherry
Reeves seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.


Mr. Hawkes made a motion to amend the agenda to discuss a change to the CSAB by-laws
to amend 7.1 through 7.5 to change “may” to “shall”. Ms. Turner seconded. The motion
carried unanimously. Mr. Hawkes explained if there were no legitimate or plausible reasons to
abstain it was the CSAB obligation to vote. Ms. Turner stated sometimes she is not ready to
make a decision at the time of the vote and asked if there would be a provision to postpone the
vote. Ms. Laura Crumpler replied the vote could be tabled. The discussion of the amendment
will conclude during the next CSAB meeting.
Mr. Maimone explained that an email that was sent by Dr. Joel Medley on April 7, included
changes to policies that affected charter schools and it did not come through the Policy
Subcommittee. He added any policies that affect charter schools should come through the CSAB
before they go to the SBE. Mr. Walker added the CSAB was created for those purposes to adopt
rules for all operations of charter school operation. He added that the CSAB should have had an
opportunity to weigh in on the decision and situations like this were starting to become a pattern.



Ms. Nance directed Mr. Walker to continue the discussion in the Policy Subcommittee during the
next CSAB meeting.
Ms. Robin Kendall gave an overview of the Application Process.
Mr. Walker made a motion to go into closed session to discuss legal matters. Ms. Becky
Taylor seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Quigley joined the meeting at 10:02 am.
CHARTER APPLICATION INTERVIEWS
Cape Fear Preparatory Academy
 Ms. Nance explained that the school would be opening with grades K-5 in the proposed location
of New Hanover County. The board chair explained there was a board resignation in October
that had been replaced by another member. One board member would not be attending the
meeting due to a prior commitment. The five board members that were in attendance introduced
themselves.
 Mr. Quigley asked if any of the board members were on other school boards. The board
members replied none of them were on other boards.
 Mr. Quigley asked for an explanation of the Discovery Education Program and how it meshed
with Project Based Learning. A board member explained Discovery Education would be an
assessment for students and the frequency of the assessment would be based upon the grade level
and could be done one-on-one or whole class. The Project Based Learning approach would
allow the students to learn concepts with all five senses. The teacher would use the data to
determine what learning style the child has.
 Ms. Turner asked if the assessment would inform instructional modalities or skills. The board
member replied there would be individualized learning to get students where they needed to be.
Discovery Education would be a way to assess where they are with Project Based Learning.
 Mr. Quigley asked if there were other assessments that would be administered. A board member
explained the children would be using data software programs that would be tracking their
progress. There would also be chapter tests and quizzes. All the children would receive a rubric
for all of their projects.
 Ms. Turner asked how the textbooks would be used. The board member explained students
would be presented information and asked to gather information and finding the information
would be exploratory.
 Mr. Sanchez asked if the Project Based Learning would be utilized daily. The board member
explained every classroom would be using Project Based Learning. Students would come in and
have centers, complete technology, and small groups and have time to synthesize. There will be
direct instruction to help the students to be self-directed learners. The projects would be coming
from the teacher and students would rotate between technology, teacher instruction and hands-on
learning.
 Ms. Turner stated the goal listed in the application for the first year was 51% which is lower than
the local LEA. The board member explained they did not know who the students would be and
did not want to aim too high.
 Mr. Maimone noted there were only 80 survey responses but they want to have 300 students. He
asked for clarification on the marketing plan. A board member explained through word of mouth
there had been over 300 inquiries on Facebook. The board would continue to market through
social media.












Ms. Nance asked Mr. Weatherington if he were still affiliated with a school that would be
opening in Greenville. She further stated that he included information in the application that he
was a board member on the Ignite charter school board. Mr. Weatherington responded he was a
former board member but resigned in September. The Cape Fear board would be partnering with
New Point and contracting with them to do the educational program. The board chose New
Point after conducting a tour of their schools and seeing their alignment. Ms. Nance stated there
was a New Point High School in Florida that had been accused of grade tampering. The board
replied there was an ongoing investigation and it had nothing to do with their relationship with
New Point.
Mr. Sanchez asked for clarification on the vertical alignment and how it was different from the
lowest grade to the highest grade. A board member replied project based learning would be done
during centers. The social and academic development of the child increases achievement and
project based learning would allow students to be grouped according to their ability and their
interest.
Mr. Sanchez stated the responses the board members were giving were generic and he wanted to
know how it would look through the different grades. The scope and sequence is a cut and paste
from a management company. The board member explained the school would teach the core
curriculum. All of the teachers will be trained in project based teaching.
Ms. Turner asked when the teacher would teach the core information to students. The board
member explained students would always be taught by the teacher in small group. There would
be teacher instruction all of the time.
Mr. Maimone asked how teachers would know if students had mastered information. The board
explained students would be assessed periodically.
Mr. Walker asked if there were delineation of duties between New Point and the board. The
board explained New Point had 53 things they would be doing for the Board. If the board were
to find that New Point did not follow through the board could sever the relationship.
Ms. Reeves stated the board would be using RTI and read from the application. Ms. Reeves
asked them to explain how they would be implementing RTI. The board member replied RTI
had three tiers and the teachers would be trained before the school began. Ms. Reeves stated
there was one EC teacher listed in the application. The board member explained there was
money in the budget for the flexibility.
Ms. Reeves asked who would retain the fund balance. The board member explained there was
an accounting company that would oversee the money. New Point had nothing to do with the
finances.
Ms. Turner stated the contract with New Point stated the application would be automatically
renewed if they met three out of five requirements. The board replied they could be dismissed
for any of the five reasons.
Ms. Taylor stated she wasn’t sure why the board was choosing New Point. The board replied
charter schools in Ohio could only be located in low performing schools. In Florida, the “F”
grade was given after the school’s first year of operation.
Ms. Taylor asked if a location had been established and if there was a principal. A general
location had been established in the eastern part of the county and there is no principal selected.
Ms. Taylor asked if New Point helped find the location. The board member replied that New
Point will help them find a contractor.
Mr. Quigley read from the budget and was curious about what the Board would be getting from
New Point for the massive fees. The board member replied there would not a superintendent


office and an EMO would get them going. New Point would give the board the best opportunity
to launch the school because of their expertise in launching nineteen schools.
Ms. Reeves stated the application noted they would be a replication. Mr. Walker replied it was
technical issue. Ms. Nance noted she has concerned with the Board partnering with New Point.
She added she was confused with one of the board members being on a board of a previous
board. Mr. Maimone stated he would be curious how the Ignite school would be. Mr. Walker
stated when looking at new EMOs for the state the CSAB should precede cautiously. He noted
he was impressed with the board and he felt they would hold New Point accountable. Mr.
Sanchez noted there were concerns with the EMO and not the board. Ms. Taylor stated this
board would have had a stronger case without the EMO. The EMO is hurting them with their
track record. There was a lack of transparency in the answers that were given today that was
reflective of the EMO. Ms. Turner added the EMO has no track record in NC and the board
knows what they are doing. Ms. Gibbs added she had confidence in the board and the county
supported them. Mr. Sanchez noted the board could not answer questions about the depth of the
curriculum and what the New Point fees would pay for. Mr. Quigley added he had confidence in
the board. Mr. Maimone suggested that the board consider not using New Point because they
were strong and could govern the school without them. He further noted the contract had not
been signed with New Point and he hoped they take his advice. Mr. Taylor replied if they vote
on this today it would be based on them working with New Point. Mr. Maimone noted contacts
change all of the time. Ms. Crumpler noted the CSAB could put conditions on the approval of
the application.
Mr. Maimone made a motion to forward the Cape Fear Preparatory application to the
Ready to Open Status. Ms. Gibbs seconded. The motion carried 6-4 with Ms. Taylor, Ms.
Nance, Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Quigley dissenting.
Addie C. Morris Children’s School
 Mr. Quigley explained the school would open K-5 in Winston-Salem Forsyth Schools. Each of
the seven members introduced themselves. The board chair stated there were two board
members that were not present at the meeting. Mr. Maimone asked how long the board had
existed. Board members explained that some of them had been on the board since its inception
of four years ago.
 A member of the board explained the reasons why the board came together to create Addie C
Morris School. The number one reason was to prepare students for STEM which was a critical
choice for children in the neighborhood.
 Mr. Quigley asked for clarification on the schools growth goals. The board chair explained the
first three years would be a building of academic foundations. Students in K-2 would be
assessed through formative assessments to develop a baseline using DIBELS, NWEA, SAT10,
ITBS and the K-2 literacy and math. The results of that assessment would be used to develop an
individualized learning plan for students. The board had not decided which assessment they
would be using.
 Mr. Maimone asked for an explanation of the budget related to salaries. The board member
replied the teachers would be grown in the same way that the students would be grown.
Teachers in their first years would be hired based on who could connect and build relationships
with the parents and students. There would be bonuses to supplement the teachers’ salaries. Mr.
Maimone replied that bonuses were not in the budget. The board chair explained there would be
a sprinkling of seasoned teachers. Mr. Maimone asked where money would be moved from to







pay for the seasoned teachers. The board member projected contract for the building was for
$70,000 and the budge was for $90,000and the break-even would be 183 students in year one.
Ms. Turner asked what the plan was for beginning teacher support. The board chair replied there
would be an ongoing relationship with Plato Academy that would come from Florida to teach the
Socratic Method and Winston Salem State had agreed to partner with the school. The budget did
not include Title I or Title II funds.
Mr. Sanchez stated he was trying to get a feel for what the classroom would look like at Addie C.
Morris. The board chair replied the classrooms would have a three mode model. The teachers
would be a facilitator after direct instruction. Students will have real life studies that they will
implement.
Ms. Taylor noted she was concerned with how tight the budget was. The surplus for years four
and five were lower than years two and three. The board treasurer explained an accounting firm
would be keeping the school’s books. There would be an accounting firm that would be doing
those services and under the budget it was listed under professional contracts. Mr. Quigley
asked who would be doing the checks and budgeting. The school would have a business
manager who would be doing all of that in-house. The lead administrator could have that ability
Mr. Walker asked if every student would have a computer. A board member explained every
student would not have a computer in year one but the capacity would be built later on. The
accounting firm would not charge the board $35,000 for the services. The lead administrator
would sign checks and approve payroll. Mr. Quigley noted the concern was all of the items in
the budget seem really lean. The board member explained the auditor gave the price of $4,000.
Mr. Walker asked what the board would offer the teacher who would be making less than the
local salary. The board member explained the school would offer something different and the
staff would have more time to express themselves.
Mr. Walker stated he was concerned about the budget and he predicted they would have trouble
getting teachers at the proposed salary. The lead administrator would be asked to do a lot of
things that were difficult to do. Mr. Quigley noted there is money in the budget that can be
moved around but the board was not able to articulate it.
Mr. Maimone made a motion not to forward Addie C. Morris for the Ready to Open
Process. Ms. Taylor seconded. Mr. Sanchez noted in the past CSAB members have made
comments that boards would be able to figure it out but this was not the case with this board. He
noted he was concerned that there was not consistency. The motion passed unanimously.
Kannapolis Charter Academy and Mooresville Charter Academy
 Ms. Nance explained the two schools would be governed by the same board. They agreed to be
interviewed at the same time and they currently govern Langtree and Cabarrus Schools. There
were four board members who were not able to attend the meeting. The principal at Langtree
Academy and a representative from Charter Schools, USA (CSUSA) were also in attendance.
 Ms. Nance noted the board would oversee four schools. She asked them to share the logistics of
how the board meetings would occur. The board member explained currently there would be an
agenda for each school and the board felt confident it could be done.
 Ms. Nance asked if the facility would have the same footprint as the current schools. The board
member replied the building would be the same. The average ratio for students would 1:18 but it
would vary per grade level.
 Mr. Maimone asked if Ms. Janine Edwards was still on the board. The board member explained
Ms. Edwards resigned because it may have been seen as a conflict of interest because she works






for NWEA. Mr. Maimone asked if the board members really feel they could handle four
separate schools. The board members responded that they felt confident and they would break
down the work through committees.
Ms. Turner stated Kannapolis is going to be different from the other schools but the academic
plan is not different from the other plans. The board replied there was a need for Kannapolis and
there were interventions in place to catch the children up. The plan meets the children’s needs
where they are.
Mr. Sanchez asked how the approach would address the needs of the specific student population.
The board member responded that there was a counselor in the building who could identify the
needs of the students. Extra-curricular supports could also be brought in during the day.
Ms. Turner asked if the curriculum would be culturally responsive. Mr. Walker made a motion
for the CSUSA representative to speak. Mr. Maimone seconded. The representative from
CSUSA replied there was a wide arrange of schools in the high urban areas and a lot of success
working with these types of populations. There was a lot of flexibility in the model.
Mr. Quigley inquired about the performance of students in lower socio-economic areas. The
board member explained the Louisiana schools were good examples because the schools had
heavy percentages of low socio-economic students. The higher performing schools have been
around longer. CSUSA has not been able to create national programs for social development.
Ms. Nance asked how the board would provide uniforms for those who could not afford them.
The board member replied the uniform company would set aside money for those who could not
afford them. This would be done individually with the schools.
Mr. Walker made a motion that Kannapolis and Mooresville Academies be moved to the
Ready to Open Process. Mr. Quigley noted he felt better about the board after the CSUSA
representative clarified information about other schools. Ms. Turner stated it would be very
easy to enroll students from the waiting list of the existing school and she hoped they reached out
to the families in the community. Ms. Nance noted she had reservations about running four
different schools in four different areas. Mr. Maimone added the quality of the board would be
able to do it. The motion carried 9-1 with Ms. Nance dissenting.
Mr. McLaughlin noted in the future schools be discussed separately. The CSAB did not hear
information about Mooresville.
Union Preparatory Academy at Union Trail
 Board members introduced themselves to the CSAB. Ms. Nance asked for clarification for the
need of the school. The board members explained the location of where the school would be
located has a huge waiting list from the existing school. The parents in the area have been
redistricting and would like stability and a solid choice for schooling.
 Ms. Nance asked what the board would do if CSUSA chose someone to run the school that they
did not agree with. The board member replied there was an agreement in the contract to have the
person removed from the office after a board vote.
 Mr. Maimone asked if the Board had discussed the name of the school. The board member
replied that they had discussed this and was open to modifying the name of the school if it were
needed. A board member replied Union Academy is in support of the school because there
would not be any competition.






Mr. Maimone asked where the school would be located in respect to Union Academy. A board
member replied it would be approximately 10 miles.
Mr. Sanchez asked how the classrooms would look at Union Preparatory. The board member
explained the students would be in a structured environment. There would be group work in
which the teachers oversaw the environment. Students will be benchmarked quarterly and the
data will be used to offer specific interventions.
Mr. Walker made a motion to allow the principal for Langtree to address the CSAB. Ms.
Reeves seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
The principal at Langtree explained how the school would use data from the different benchmark
assessments. There would be two curriculum teachers who would go into the classroom and
observe and provide data dives with the teachers. The specials teachers push in and provide
interventions, as well as co-teachers, to help students who need extra supports.
Mr. Hawkes asked the CSUSA representative to explain how principals are chosen. The
representative explained the rigorous process of recruiting administrators. The lead
administrator is actively involved in all of the faculty and staff. The board has to formally vote
on all of the positions. CSUSA does the vetting.
Mr. Maimone made a motion to forward Union Preparatory Academy forward to Ready to
Open Status. Mr. Walker seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
Cardinal Charter Academy at Knightdale
 Ms. Nance explained the board already governs Cardinal Charter Academy at Cary. The board
members introduced themselves. The board chair explained Lee Teague has been recently added
to the board.
 Mr. Hawkes asked if this was the same board for the charter school in Cary. The board replied
they would be replicating the model in Cary. In the application the board chose to replicate a
school in Florida but would have liked to note it would replicate the school in Cary. The
curriculum is very strong will be able to provide for the Knightdale area because they teach, test
and reinstruct. The model is project based and blended learning. In the Knightdale area it is
proposed there would be 70% minority which is different from the school in Cary.
 Ms. Nance asked if there was any data for the school that is currently opened. The board
explained there was some Northeast Evaluation Association (NWEA) testing data that was
available in hard copies. Mr. Walker made motion to be able to look at dashboard
information. Ms. Turner seconded. The motion carried unanimously. The principal of
Cardinal Charter Academy at Cary explained how the school uses NWEA and data from the
CSUSA Dashboard.
 Mr. Quigley asked if the board had plans of opening an additional school. The board chair
replied Knightdale did not have an option for school choice. The board would like to do things
at a pace that could be handled. The board has looked at other states and other models for a
board who manages multiple schools. The board has any interest of running several schools.
 Mr. Quigley asked what has worked well with CSUSA and what an area of growth is. The board
replied there was difficulty with the snow days and the dashboard was something the board
asked CSUSA to create.
 Mr. Sanchez noted there had been two leaders who have come forward from CSUSA. He noted
he still was not clear if it would work for the demographics that the school was targeting. The
board member replied that the model has worked in inner-city schools in Florida.


Mr. Quigley asked if the school would be offering transportation. The board member replied the
budget would be adjusted once enrollment was established.
Mr. Quigley commented he would like to give the board a chance to open. He stressed the need
for the school to be able to provide transportation for the population. Ms. Nance noted she had
reservations from this board opening another school because they had had experience with one
school. Mr. Sanchez commented he was reluctant to open schools that are based upon targeting
a specific demographic. Mr. Maimone commented the board had made a commitment to reach a
serve a certain population. Mr. Sanchez made a motion to forward Cardinal Charter of
Knightdale to the Ready to Open Process. Mr. Walker seconded. The motion carried 7-3
with Ms. Turner, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Nance dissenting.
Mr. Quigley requested OCS to gather data to find out if the demographics for schools are the same as
what is reflected in the application.
NEW BUSINESS
Dr. Kebbler Williams shared the following update concerning the current Ready to Open Process:
 There were four schools that were below 50% of their enrollment. Dr. Williams added the first
enrollment report was the number of applications they have been received and not actual student
enrollment.
 Ms. Nance asked if there was a way to tell in June if a school was going to have some difficulty.
Dr. Williams explained the Ready to Open Report was due on May 29. In the early days of June
OCS would be looking and expecting them to have 75% of their enrollment completed at that
time. Dr. Williams replied OCS would require schools to submit an amended budget if
enrollment is not met.
 Ms. Taylor asked if the schools would be giving information about their location. Dr. Williams
replied if the schools have not secured a location in June they have to have a back-up plan.
 Mr. Maimone made a suggestion that boards come to the June meeting if they have not met all of
the requirements of the Ready to Open Report.
Mr. Maimone made motion not to meet in May but to meet on June 16, 2015. Ms. Turner
seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
Dr. Medley thanked the CSAB for their work on the application process. Mr. Maimone commented the
money was not well spent on the external evaluators.
Mr. Maimone made a motion to adjourn at 3:32 pm. The motion carried unanimously.