District/School Administration Administration
The Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education

Charter School Agenda Items - Possible Changes to the Board's Work Process

At the Board's special meeting on charter school policies on March 23, 2009, one of the topics we discussed was the Board's significant workload in carrying out its responsibilities as the only charter authorizing body in the state. You asked me to identify possible options for balancing the time spent on charter school matters with the Board's many other policy responsibilities. This matter will be particularly relevant during the upcoming year, when we will need to deal with a record nineteen charter renewal requests.

Here are three possible approaches to this problem:

1. A committee of the Board could be formed to review my recommendations on charter renewals and charter amendments. The committee, operating under the Open Meeting Law, would have a detailed discussion and make a recommendation to the full Board. This option assumes that the full Board would be prepared to give significant weight to the committee's findings, in order to reduce the discussion time required at the regular Board meeting.

2. The Board could, under its existing authority, delegate the following decisions to the Commissioner:

   • any charter renewals that are recommended without conditions or probation; and
   • all charter amendments other than those for changes in grade span, maximum enrollment, or districts served.

   The Commissioner would report all delegated decisions to the Board at the subsequent month's meeting. The Board would retain direct authority for:

   • the award of new charters;
   • charter renewal recommendations involving conditions or probation;
   • recommendations for non-renewal of a charter; and
   • all charter amendments involving changes in grade span, maximum enrollment, or districts served.

3. The Board could recommend to the Legislature that a totally separate and independent authorizing board be established, as is the case in many other states. Although this would provide the most significant reduction in the Board's workload, I believe there is great value in having a single board oversee all public schools in the state. Therefore, I consider this a less desirable option than either of the first two.

Finally, I would recommend that you revisit whether it is necessary to have each charter school decision discussed at two successive Board meetings. As you know, this practice is based on article II, section 7, of the Board's by-laws, which reads:

Except in an emergency, the Board shall take action on a matter of policy only when the matter has been discussed by the Board at a previous meeting. This provision may be waived by a two-thirds vote of the members present.

Actions involving specific schools, whether it be the award, the renewal, or the amendment of charters, are more operational than policy in nature, and it may not be a productive use of your time to assume that every one of these decisions requires two separate discussions. I would suggest that the norm should be discussing and voting on these items at a single meeting. For particular items requiring additional discussion or time for reflection, the Board always has the option of tabling a discussion to a future meeting.

I am presenting these proposals for your initial consideration this month. Since you will be discussing various aspects of Board operations at the retreat scheduled for August 13th, that might be an opportune time for the Board to decide whether and how to modify the current process for discussing and deciding on charter school matters.