A.A. Dixon is fighting back–their parents, teachers, the churches and the community aren’t going to go away quietly. Tomorrow night’s School Board meeting could be interesting. Too bad, the School District keeps its board meetings and workshops off the internet and cable television. You can watch on the District’s website podcasts of Superintendent Malcolm Thomas, but not the meetings.
The Governing Board of A.A. Dixon Charter School of Excellence sent the following letter today to the Thomas and the School Board:
September 19, 2011
Re: A.A. Dixon Charter School-CAP and Notice of Termination
Dear Superintendent Thomas:
This letter is written regarding concerns raised at the School Board Workshop this past Friday pertaining to the financial Corrective Action Plan (CAP) and overall operations of A.A. Dixon (“Schoolâ€). I was unable to attend the Workshop as I was at a funeral. I also decided not to have our legal counsel present as a cost-saving measure and also because I understood from my past conversations with you that you did not intend to recommend that the School Board issue a Notice of Termination. I understand that you have now changed your position. I want to address some of the concerns raised and provide some new information we learned this morning in an effort to persuade you not to recommend that a Notice of Termination be issued by the School Board at its meeting this Tuesday.
My understanding is that you have asked the School to provide a revised CAP on Monday. As explained below, it does not appear that the CAP needs to be changed at this particular time, particularly given our timeframe to submit the CAP to the Florida Department of Education (FDOE). Just as a reminder, Florida law requires that this CAP must be submitted jointly to the FDOE no later than 30 days following the School Board’s notice to the School. If the School and School Board are not able to agree on a CAP, then the School and School District must each submit their own proposed CAP’s to FDOE. By our calculation, the deadline to submit the CAP was this past Thursday. We had delayed submittal because the School Board meeting was scheduled so soon after the deadline. Therefore, regardless of the outcome of Tuesday’s meeting, the School will need to submit a CAP to the FDOE. The School’s Governing Board does not have a meeting scheduled prior to that time, and I do not have authority to authorize changes to it on my own. If further changes are needed to the CAP, the School’s Governing Board will certainly vote on them, but considering the CAP is already late, it is not feasible to do this before submittal to FDOE.
As to your stated intention to recommend that a Notice of Termination be issued on Tuesday, I respectfully request that you reconsider this position. Please remember that you and four of five School Board members stated last month that termination would not be sought this month if the School provided all financial CAP information requested by the District. While there were some issues raised on Friday with the current draft CAP, these issues are reflective of the School’s continual work toward improving its financials and services. I have addressed the comments more specifically below, but they are not significant enough to warrant a change prior to submittal to the FDOE. They also do not appear to be significant enough to throw away the good will that I thought was being developed between the School and District over the past 60-90 days.
The School has complied with your and the School Board’s request last month. It has also participated in numerous meetings and engaged in correspondences with District Staff on this matter. The result is a financially feasible CAP which is written for 140 students, and the School currently has 145 students enrolled. The School’s CAP shows it making up over $100,000 this year alone, and it will have more revenue coming in this year than shown in the current CAP due to additional enrollment.
Specifically, as to your concerns addressed at the Workshop, please consider the following:
Transportation: We are currently using Durham services and will continue to use them until we find a more economical and better solution. Using SL Jones is a solution that would decrease the cost of transportation, and if it can be done, we will pursue it immediately. If not, we will stay with Durham as described in the CAP. However, there is no new contract for transportation, so there is no change to reflect in the CAP. We are certainly looking to a lower cost option in the future as well as keeping the same or better service. Such a possibility, however, does not diminish our current plan, which is to use Durham.
Art teacher: A part-time art teacher is not in our CAP, which is based on 140 students. However, since we have 145 students, we chose to keep the art teacher who was already on staff. The cost for the art teacher is no more than $18,000 annually, and the revenue generated for five extra students is over $26,000, allowing us to remain fiscally sound. The bottom line in the CAP does not change, and this is what is relevant for purposes of the FDOE review.
Payments to EMO: Since we will not be remaining under contract with EdFutures, Inc., this issue is moot.
As described above, these concerns should not form the basis for a Notice of Termination. We are extremely concerned that the threat of final termination will have an adverse impact on the students at the School. We fear that issuing a Notice of Termination will be so detrimental that the School will have no chance to survive. We have also learned today from the FDOE that the School will not be able to utilize the $100,000 in its Start-Up Grant if it is under a Notice of Termination. You have mentioned that the Notice of Termination would be used to create a probationary period, and that it could be “withdrawn,†but we respectfully suggest the negative impact of a Notice of Termination makes it an improper tool for probation. There is also no legal standard for “withdrawing” a Notice of Termination. In addition, the School will have to request a formal hearing to protect its rights and as allowed by law. This hearing must be conducted before a 90-day period ends. The statutory termination provisions have been changed this year, so a formal evidentiary hearing would have to be conducted by the School Board or the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). This will result in a large, unnecessary expense for the School as well as the District.
There are other ways for the District to proceed that would protect the District’s interests but not result in such adverse impacts to the School. For example, the School could agree in writing to voluntarily close if it did not meet specific standards (financial, etc.) by a certain date.
Essentially, issuing a Notice of Termination means that we will be battling in administrative hearings and courts rather than working together to make sure that A.A. Dixon remains a viable resource for the community and its children. There is a better way that protects both parties than pursuing the termination process. For these reasons, I ask that you please reconsider your position.
Sincerely,
Reverend LuTimothy May
Chair, A.A. Dixon Charter School Governing Board