7-11-2024 1:25pm

Charter School Hearing Hard Questions for Founders, Financials a Grave Concern

Chris Edwards Editor

The New Mexico Public Education Commission held a public input hearing in Alamogordo on Thursday to an audience hosted at the civic center. In attendance were the founding board of the Sacramento School of Engineering and Science. Seated as a panel were Cindy Stong as applicant chairwoman, Michelle Perry as the Curriculum expert, Lori Black as a board member in support, Dr. Klump as a board member and chair of Main Gate United.

In the audience were about 40 concerned citizens as well as the mayor who in an interview with KALHRadio.org had given a wishy washy statement of possible support for the process and also present was a state representative, who claims he was a product of a Charter School environment.

There were proponents and opponents on hand, each sharing thoughts and opinions amongst themselves and with others as the journey of the presentation, public input and the questions from the board went forward.

The event began with a 20 minute presentation led by Cindy Stong with limited input from Michelle Perry attempting to make a case to justify the needs for a STEM based charter school in Alamogordo and attempting to compel the board and the public that all I’s and T’s were crossed to move the vision into an executable plan that is worthy of taxpayer dollars.

The presentation of the vision was persuasive and aspirational as to wanting to create a system of excellence with a focus on STEM education. What was less clear and got murkier as the dialogue progressed was the means to get there, and was a fiscal plan solid enough with the application as submitted to move the project forward?

And that is the multimillion dollar question.

After the presentation by Mrs. Stong and the Charter School founders the room was then open to public comment.

Public comments began with a call in from Hope Morales as the New Mexico Executive Director at Teach Plus an advocacy group.

Next Caroline Atkinson spoke and said she saw no downside to trying this charter school.

John Davis then spoke and spoke to the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling and how separate is not equal and believes the money should stay with APS to enhance continued existing STEM programs with mentoring, internships and close working relationships that already exist between APS and Holloman. He was opposed to the new charter.

Rep John Block spoke of his charter experience claiming it helped build him into who he is today and education should be a choice of parents.

Joanne Vullo spoke on behalf of LULAC Council 8105 and questioned the lack of accountability for equity and inclusion in the process. She outlined a history of racial segregation and bias that has existed in Otero County schools since their founding, tied it to modern day bias which is seen in this founding board that had no representation of the Native American Community, Hispanic, Black nor LBGTQ communities from the beginning and does not represent nor has not conducted outreach to those communities that represent a majority of Alamogordos student base. She said she and her members stand opposed to the charter as submitted.

Ted Betinger a parent of several children who “will have kids in public education for 13 more years” spoke of the need for enhanced STEM education and is an advocate for a program like this, thus was for the charter.

Nolan Ojeda also a product of a charter school spoke of his experience as a student and then military and how a charter helped prepare him for life with confidence in public speaking.

Stan Hernandez was slotted to speak but had a situation resulting in him not being able to but his comments were submitted to the written record as opposed.

Dave Dooling a former space museum educator and administrator spoke of the need for a in depth STEM program but was concerned with outreach but endorsed the concept and content of curriculum.

After the public comments, which were less than expected, given the interest by the community, the agenda then flipped to questions from the commission members to the charter founders group.

A majority of the questions were directed to Cindy Stong and Michelle Perry. This part of the agenda was the most interesting and most impactful, as details were asked and the nuts and bolts of how this charter would operate were challenged.

There were concerns raised early on about in-discrepancies in several points with the application as filed from budgeting to teacher to student ratios.

Mrs. Perry was directed to respond as to why the teacher to student ratio in year one is 1 to 6 but then later in grade he budget jumps to 1 to 27.

Mrs. Perry provided what one audience member referred to as, “a very weak response,” claiming that students in the beginning phases would need significant remedial training to catch up to the curriculum but as the school evolved that need would be less.

A person in the audience speaking to us afterwards said, he was suspect of that response as “if the pool of students is from within APS now and they were weak why would they need less remedial work in the future? “

This audience member said he went into the meeting “gung ho” for the charter school but after hearing the questions from the commission he is now against this application.

He said he felt “the concept is super, but the founders have not put enough leg work into creating a sustainable financial plan, nor concrete curriculum development,” he felt they should do more leg work, withdrawn the application and resubmit next cycle when more details were ironed out.

Equity and inclusion was a major topic of much discussion and the board seemed concerned that the founders had not truly reached out to the larger community of various underserved constituencies and did not have a solid plan outlined in enough detail in the application.

Transportation was a hot button issue for a few of the commissioners and that concern tied directly to access and equity and inclusion concerns.

The financials were the most glaring weakness of the proposal that raised eyebrows of every commission member.

The budget was built based upon maximum enrollment, the commission chair expressed her concern with that approach as submitted, explaining that out of over 50 applicants in the past, only 2 actually opened with full enrollment

History shows enrollment will be less than expected year one and tough questions were posed as to what would happen in that event in Alamogordo.

Mrs. Perry took the hit on that answer stumbling and suggesting that pay cuts and possibly cutbacks would have to occur

The commissioners were visible in their facial expressions of their concerns, and discomfort with the responses to the financial questions.

To the point the board was concerned on the consequences of changing plans mid first year would put he new charter in their crosshairs of monthly financial oversight not a place the new school would want to be in during year one.

There was several more questions posed around outreach to families and how the board would drive enrollment. Much skepticism was witnessed in the expressions and comments by the commissioners.

The commissioners asked for a comment from Mescalero Apache and no representative was or present to comment leading members to question outreach

The commission asked for a statement from APS and no statement pro or con was offered leading to further questions on collaborations and outreach.

The meeting concluded with a statement of appreciation for the intent and the passion of the founding board but offered a cautionary statement that much work needs to be done, there were significant concerns over financials, from building to equipment to staffing and sustainability.

Questions around the building and equipment almost became uncomfortable with a deep dive into what was really funded by whom, and an almost naive belief by the founding board that funding, foundations and the state would fill funding voids. One commissioner went on to say, “the state funding pool is near empty when it comes to charter schools.”

The audience reaction to the meeting when it was over was mixed at best. Most want to see a strong performance from our education system, many went in believing this was a great step, several left believing the group has good intentions but the plan is not laid out solid enough. One mother told us if it is approved she would not try to enroll her child the first year for fear the “first year or two will be to bumpy.”

The next step is the commission will present more follow up questions to the applicant. The applicant then has a week to respond and then a vote will occur on August 15 to approve or reject the application that was previously submitted.

Public comment is accepted into 5 pm on the 16th and may be emailed to charter.schools@ped.nm.gov