HomeMy WebLinkAboutRollins comments Comments to School Board of Westlake Academy
by Rebecca Rollins
July 23, 2007
Hello. My name is Rebecca Rollins and I am a resident of 13239 Roanoke Road, Stage
Coach Hills,Westlake. Like others who moved to Westlake because of the unique
academic environment,we moved our family late last year from upstate New York
specifically because of the opportunities presented to our children by Westlake Academy.
I have a professional interest in education. I've worked for over twenty years as a
bilingual Speech Language Pathologist and was educated at Teachers College at
Columbia University. Prior to our decision to move I performed literally hundreds of
hours of research;reading school board minutes and any articles that I could find on the
Web about Westlake Academy as well as educating myself further about the IB
curriculum. Our decision to place our children here was deliberate and we consider it to
have been a good one.
My comments this afternoon are made in the spirit of wanting to help make things better
at the school. I absolutely respect what has come before and it is obvious to me that the
evolution of the Academy has been a labor of love from the very beginning.
One advantage of being relatively new is that I am not encumbered with the weight of
past difficult decisions. Therefore it is easy for me to step in,observe the current
situation and ask questions. I hope you will forgive me if my comments seem nayve or
may stir sensitive feelings. I am just trying to understand things better and maybe help
move Westlake Academy forward in some small way.
Today I would like to ask the Board about issues related to what I'll refer to as the
"Boundary Situation". This includes the actions taken regarding the students who did not
meet the geographic boundary guidelines as stated in the schools charter,and the question
of"initial primary boundary family"as mentioned in the Student Handbook's admission
policy.
First the boundary issue: To date the school has not formally disseminated any
information regarding the boundary issues affecting the students. The information
received by parents and the public seems to have come primarily from newspaper articles.
In an effort to better understand the situation,I went on the Texas Education Agency
website and reviewed the school's charter, all 326 pages,and then I read the
Commissioner's rules concerning making amendments to an original charter(Section
100.1033)of an Open Enrollment Charter School.
In speaking with the TEA I became aware that the State has already ruled and denied a
"substantive amendmenf",which the commissioner defines as a change to the geographic
boundaries and admission policy as stated in the original charter. This not only affects the
students enrolled from out of districts but also affects the change of definition of primary
geographic boundary and how students are admitted to the school.
When I initially spoke with Ms Mudd from TEA, I was informed that the TEA's directive
to the school was to have the students removed from the school. Instead the school has
opted to go against this directive and keep the students enrolled. I can understand the
school board's vote to keep the students enrolled was an attempt to ameliorate a difficult
situation.However, in keeping the students enrolled the school is in violation of Section
100.1207(f) of the commissioner's rules that states: "Students who reside outside of the
geographic boundaries stated in the open enrollment charter shall not be admitted in the
open enrollment charter school until all eligible applicants who reside within the
boundaries and have submitted a timely application has been enrolled."
My related questions to the Board are these and I would respectfully request a response in
the near future:
1. Can the Board offer assurance that the TEA will not look negatively on
our charter violation and take action under section 100.1023 of the
commissioner's rules or that the decision to keep the students enrolled will
not somehow be used against the Academy when TEA is assessing the
renewal of the charter or reviewing the amendment to the charter?
2. Can the Board offer assurance that the TEA will in fact approve the
boundary changes affecting these students next year and that this will not
become an annual cost that the to residents will have to incur until the
students either leave or graduate from the Academy?
3. Does the Board have a contingency plan if the State does not approve the
amendment to the charter for next year? The Board may be operating
under the asswnption that the State denied the amendment because it was
submitted late.However,when I spoke with TEA they informed me the
reason for denial was because it was not in the best interest of the student
body. If one reads Section 100.1033 (c)#3 of the commissioners rules it
states: "Best interest of students. The commissioner may approve a
substantive amendment only if the charter holder meets all applicable
requirements and only if the commissioner determines that the amendment
is in the best interest of the students enrolled in the charter school".
4. Are we adding insult to injury by allowing the students to stay and
denying admission to students who have legitimately been on the waiting
list and whose spots these students may have taken?
My second point relates to removing the words"initial primary boundary family"from
the admission policy and the student handbook when used to define admission to the
Academy. It seems that the inclusion of these words into the definition of primary
geographic boundary constitutes a substantive amendment to the initial charter as defined
by the commissioner's rules and one that has already been denied by TEA for this year.
Therefore,it would seem prudent to eliminate the phrase from the information pertaining
to admission and from the Student Handbook this year and hereafter.
Thank
,7you very mue"
Rebecca Rollins