Nevada County Grand Jury
• 2003-2004
To Charter or Not to Charter Reason for the Investigation Newspaper articles this past year in both The Union and The
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 12 findings
F1
In 1998, the TTUSD granted a K-12 charter to the PCCS. PCCS was a nonprofit public benefit corporation that was organized to operate and manage the charter school.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The initial enrollment was projected to be 125 students. By the end of June 1999, enrollment had grown to approximately 300 students. Based upon the FCMAT report, 2001-02 site based enrollment was 306 and Independent Study enrollment was 962 for a total PCCS enrollment of 1,268. The charter school operated both within and outside the boundaries of the TTUSD in accordance with existing state law.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
When revenue and expenditure projection errors of $1.5 million were discovered in the fiscal year 2001-02, the TTUSD and the PCOE became concerned with the PCCS financial viability. During this same period, the charter school became indebted for approximately $4 million.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
In April 2002, the Placer County Superintendent of Schools requested FCMAT to review PCCS and the fiscal impact PCCS had on TTUSD, its sponsoring agency.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The charter for PCCS states, “The Advisory Council shall consist of 1 student, 1 parent, 1 teacher, 1 local community representative, and a School District representative.” Duties of the Advisory Council include budget review and approval as well as approving budget changes greater than 5% of the total Average Daily Attendance. The TTUSD left its position on the Advisory Council vacant on or before the fall of 2001.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
FCMAT determined that PCOE and TTUSD had difficulty interpreting the charter’s financial statements because the PCCS reports lacked clarity and accuracy and were not prepared using the same account and code structure as the district. In addition, PCCS did not always file financial reports and interpretations in a timely manner to the TTUSD or the PCOE. PCCS had a pattern of upward spiraling debt in 2001-02.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The TTUSD should require any future charter to: • enter into a detailed agreement with the district regarding the financial accountability standards and systems that will be used by the charter school and the financial information that the district wants to review, • have the same fiscal reporting system as the district and the County Office of Education, • identify the geographical area in which students will be served as well as identifying either the maximum number of students that will be enrolled or the maximum annual increase in enrollment, • establish the format, frequency, and scope of district oversight activities, and • identify which entity (the district or the charter school) is responsible for providing student services should the charter school cease to operate. Services should include notification to the school district that may be responsible for providing education services to the former charter school student, transferring student records, and ensuring that compulsory education laws are met.
F7
In April 2003, the Governing Board of TTUSD renewed the PCCS’s charter. However, due to the district’s concerns in areas in which PCCS had encountered operational difficulties, TTUSD added a list of issues to be addressed. These items included out-of- district students, facilities, growth, liability, student performance, conflict resolution and communications, business services, audits, administrative costs, oversight, and the fiscal viability of PCCS.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Between the charter renewal in April 2003 and the charter revocation in August 2003, numerous meetings and communications took place in an attempt to agree upon a Memorandum of Understanding between PCCS and TTUSD to resolve the identified areas of concern.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
In August 2003, the TTUSD Governing Board revoked the PCCS charter due to continuing fiscal mismanagement and failure to follow generally accepted accounting principles.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Upon revocation of the PCCS charter, the TTUSD temporarily supported an employee of PCCS to process student records that were requested from receiving districts. Student records were transported from PCCS to TTUSD in November 2003.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
No education entity interviewed by the Grand Jury has been able to state that all Nevada County students previously enrolled in the PCCS are meeting California compulsory education laws.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The TTUSD should proactively assume responsibility for ensuring that the former PCCS students residing in Nevada County are meeting compulsory education laws.
F12
As of February 2004, the TTUSD did not have a board policy or any criteria in place should they be approached to authorize a request for a new charter school. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
TTUSD should have in place board policy that defines the relationship between the district and any new charter school. The criteria should include the 16 elements [Ref. Education Code §47605(b)(5)(A-P)] required to be addressed in the petition, as well as information regarding the proposed operation and potential effects of the charter school, including, but not limited to: • the facilities to be used by the charter school, • the manners in which administrative services are to be provided, • potential civil liability effects, if any, upon the charter school and the school district, and • financial statements that include a proposed first-year operational budget, including start-up costs and cash flow and financial projections for the first three years of operation.
Conclusions 5
-
CL1 Page 3There was lack of agreement between TTUSD and PCCS on the financial information, accountability standards, timelines and systems that were to be used by the charter school. This lack of agreement led to TTUSD’s inability to fulfill its oversight function in a timely and effective manner.
-
CL2 Page 3Part of the financial difficulty experienced by the PCCS was the result of excessive program growth.
-
CL3 Page 3Had the TTUSD continued a presence on the PCCS Advisory Council, one possible means of communication between TTUSD and PCCS would have been available. While this may not have prevented the revocation of the charter, TTUSD per the charter, had an obligation to participate in Advisory Council meetings.
-
CL4 Page 4The TTUSD was responsible for making the decision to renew or revoke the PCCS charter. The failure of PCCS to abide by the provisions of the April 2003 charter renewal led to the decision of the TTUSD to revoke the charter.
-
CL5 Page 4The TTUSD was unable to verify that all students that resided in Nevada County and attended PCCS are meeting compulsory school attendance laws.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Nevada County County Superintendent of Schools
Elected County Office