Charter school taken off probation

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Frederick County’s lone charter school was taken off probation on March 22 after submitting internal audits requested by the school board.

On Feb. 1, the Board of Education sanctioned Monocacy Valley Montessori Public Charter School for not submitting financial information for fiscal 2003 and 2004.

State law requires the county school board to audit all schools in its system every year. Frederick officials interpreted that mandate to include the charter school, but Monocacy Montessori Communities, which operates the school, disagreed.

The debate, which dates back to last fall, included both groups consulting a representative from the state Department of Education’s audit office. After individual discussions, both sides claimed that the official took their side in the debate, however, causing a stalemate.

With the audits in hand, school board members reviewed the information at their planning session on March 22. The examination included three pages of questions by board member Barbara L. Craig on several aspects of the school’s operation.

Leslie Mansfield, a member of Monocacy Montessori Communities’ finance committee, highlighted some differences between the charter school and other centrally operated schools in the county.

For example, Mansfield noted that some funds for maintenance have to come out of fundraising dollars done by parents at the school, as do funds for legal fees. Other schools in the county have these services provided to them.

Mansfield noted that the charter school saved the county $12,000 in legal fees related in part to its relocation to Dill Avenue, including planning issues with the city. All of the legal work was provided at no charge to the charter school.

Hal Keller, fiscal services director for county schools, said it was his understanding that under the contract for the school, the nonprofit was responsible for its facility and everything related.

Mansfield wondered why the school system couldn’t provide the services like it does to other public education buildings.

‘‘How is this a ‘free’ school if parents have to contribute [through fund-raising]?” she asked.

With all of the school board’s questions answered, there was still some concern about the standoff that caused the charter school’s probationary status.

‘‘The state said we needed these audits, and we told you we needed them,” school board member Bonnie M. Borsa said. ‘‘I need to understand going to the point of probation, which is extremely serious ... and could lead the closing of the school, which would be awful.”

Mansfield said that there was no concrete evidence of the board needing the information. In addition, she asked how efficient it was to do an $8,000 audit for $3,000 in fund-raising generated by the group in fiscal 2003.

School board president Michael E. Schaden agreed that the audits were not ‘‘cost-effective,” but were needed.

In addition to voting unanimously to lift the charter school from probation, all members of the board also agreed to pick up half the cost of the audits, which totals a little over $7,700.

Mansfield said the discussion did bring to light some of the issues the school is dealing with, especially the disparity in their per-pupil allocation, given that they have to pay for things like legal fees and building maintenance.

The charter school is awaiting an opinion from the state Board of Education, stemming from a hearing last month in which it challenged the way money is allocated from the school system. For the current academic year, the charter school receives $6,838 per student as opposed to the $9,097 the county spends per student in other public schools.

While the charter school has completed an audit for fiscal 2005 and has one under way for fiscal 2006, Mansfield said the issue still needs clarification.