“It seems reckless to me”: School board approves Reichert House Youth Academy charter school application despite reservations

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – At their May 21 meeting, the School Board of Alachua County voted to approve an application from the Reichert House Youth Academy Charter School despite reservations expressed by several board members about adjustments that need to be made to the charter school’s application and budget.

Reichert House Youth Academy

According to Manager of Special Projects Ginger Stanford, the proposed charter school will eventually serve students in grades six to eight. She said the district committee recommends approving the charter application; although applications cannot be changed once they are submitted, the committee had some recommendations for changes to be made in the charter’s contractual language. The committee’s concerns were in the areas of personnel hiring, budget, and supporting students with appropriate minutes of instructional time. Stanford said the contract will be presented to the board for final approval before the school opens.

Motion

Member Tina Certain made a motion to approve the application, and Member Sarah Rockwell seconded the motion.

Public comment

During public comment, Darry Lloyd, representing the charter school, said the organization had been “going through some growing pains since last year. A lot of things have changed, a lot of board members have changed, and a lot of new initiatives have come forward that we’re going to have the opportunity to do and bring forward to our young people in this community.”

Member Kay Abbitt had questions for Lloyd about the budget, saying, “If your budget is not set up so that it can meet all of your financial needs, you’re really going to be in a mess.” She was also concerned that the school’s projected revenues include large donations, including $500,000 from Palm Breeze Youth Services, the nonprofit that will operate the school. 

School is backed by Palm Breeze Youth Services and the Black on Black Crime Task Force

The charter school’s application reads, “Since its inception, The Reichert House has been at the heart of Palm Breeze Youth Services and The Black-on-Black Crime Task Force’s mission to transform the community. To that end, the leaders of these organizations have pledged a donation of $500,000 to use as a start-up seed. The school is not required to pay the donation back in any way.”

Lloyd said the funds are “secured by both of the MOUs (memoranda of understanding) signed by both Black on Black and Palm Breeze.” He said the money would offset the initial low enrollment of the school over the first few years. Lloyd also said that, contrary to the original goal of opening this fall, the school intends to begin operating in the 2025-26 school year because of delays in getting the application approved.

Budget questions

Abbitt asked about information in the budget that said the school would pay one dollar per month for both utilities and rent. Lloyd said that was because the school would be using “the entity’s own facilities… And right now, that’s gonna be done by Palm Breeze.” He said Palm Breeze would also pay the utilities. 

Abbitt said the dollar amounts for furniture and insurance were low, and Lloyd said they already have “a lot of stuff.” Abbitt said she was only pointing these things out because “your net amount will quickly disappear when all of these things turn out to be a lot more than you think they’re going to be.”

Abbitt also questioned the lack of an ESE teacher: “The Reichert House has kids coming who have trouble adjusting to society,… they’re kids with issues, but there are no counselors [in the budget].” She pointed out that if, for example, five of the 30 students qualified for ESE services, the extra payments from the state would not cover “even a part-time teacher.”

Lloyd responded,”We changed everything; the mission changed. So it’s not going after troubled kids, we’re going after all kids, and the goal is to bring the kids in and make the educational gains with the kids. If they have services that are needed, we have a mental health team, aligned with both [nonprofits], that’s coming in to address those needs, as well, with the family.”

Abbitt asked about the assertion that food services will be provided by UF, and LLoyd said, “Currently, that’s what one of the board members is working on, and then we will be able to outsource and deal with USDA as well.”

Abbitt said she was concerned that the application was “out of date, even the startup plan and everything, and a lot of those issues that you responded to probably should be in the application itself.”

“What I’m looking at in front of me is being asked to vote on something that doesn’t feel viable as it is right now… Why are we looking at an original application when so many things have changed?” – Member Sarah Rockwell

Rockwell agreed, saying she found the inaccurate application “really concerning.” She said she would be more comfortable if the application were updated and resubmitted; one issue that concerned her was a lack of ability for eighth-grade students to take high school math or science because the school’s schedule would not provide the required hours. She said, “It feels to me like like you have – I know, there’s like an intention to address some of these budgetary things, some of the mission things… but that’s not in what we’re looking at in front of us. And what I’m looking at in front of me is being asked to vote on something that doesn’t feel viable as it is right now… Why are we looking at an original application when so many things have changed?”

Stanford said only the budget had been adjusted; “nothing on the application has changed.”

Member Leanetta McNealy said, “I’m excited for you. I really am… I am excited about the venture that you want to start with your team and having this charter – I have nothing against charters either, as long as you’re not taking our property. But I’m happy for this group.”

School facilities

McNealy asked about the school facilities, and Lloyd said the program currently has four buildings, including “some other expansion areas along University Avenue.” He said the classrooms already have robotics and other “technical things” and furniture. He continued, “It’s a campus that’s been underused.”

McNealy told Lloyd, “I expect great things because you are standing up for this program.”

Abbitt: “I think the budget just needs some more work on it.”

Abbitt reiterated that the reason she was scrutinizing the budget was because “running a charter school is like running a business… I think [some of those figures] are really, really, low… I think the budget just needs some more work on it.”

Chair Diyonne McGraw urged Lloyd to “continue to work with staff, because we do know there is a need to serve some kids with serious behaviors in our schools, and so we want whatever path is good for those children… I’m tired of losing kids to gun violence, and we have young parents who need some guidance; they were younger, and they had the babies, but now that they have them, and that is a reality, and so I want you all to make sure you continue to work on your application and work with the district so that we can get to that goal.”

Armanda Grundy-Gomes also spoke during public comment and said the two nonprofits “don’t have exactly the best record of stopping gun violence… Your budget is not exactly up to par, but you’re asking to approve a charter school.” He said the charter school’s presentation was “ill-prepared” and “lacking.” He asked the board to send the application “back to the drawing board.”

Superintendent Andrew suggests rescinding and resubmitting the application

Superintendent Shane Andrew said the Reichert House Youth Academy Charter School could rescind their application and work on the pieces that concerned board members: “So that way, it wouldn’t come to a vote this evening, if it was rescinded and we help them work on it, and then… I imagine, as soon as it is applied, we can bring it right back to the board as an action item for a board meeting… Now, there’s some other pieces that just need to be ironed out, but that’s not my call. That’s up to the charter school applicant and it’s up to the board, because it’s an action item.”

Lloyd said they would have no problem with rescinding the application and resubmitting it because “regardless, right now, we’re not open in August. So a little bit more time to get it back, to make sure we get it right, none of our board members have a problem with that.”

Friendly amendment made and rescinded

McNealy made a friendly amendment to Certain’s motion, adding a requirement that the board ask the school to make “the necessary corrections” to their application and bring it back to the board for a vote. McGraw asked Stanford for a potential date, and Stanford said that by statute, the district would have to go through the whole process from the beginning. 

Given that information, McNealy said she didn’t want to put the school “in a position that will create a problem” with opening for the 2025-26 school year. She continued, “I think we should agree that they must make the recommendations that have been given and give us some updates, but I’m not for them having to now go back to the State. No telling what the State is going to say at this point, and delay, delay delay. We need this school.”

Stanford said the application wouldn’t go to the State but would go to the review committee at the district level. 

Certain: “I think the adjustments and modifications to the document can be done as they move forward.”

Certain said she was “in favor of us going ahead and voting on this and letting them go, because they’ve had delays, and I think the adjustments and modifications to the document can be done as they move forward.”

McNeally concurred, saying, “I agree that this group should not be held up – make the necessary changes that we’ve stated, come back with those, but I think it could be done quickly.”

McGraw told Lloyd, “We’re going to hold your feet to the fire, that you’re going to get these changes done and move forward… I know you’re going to work on it.”

Abbitt: “It seems reckless to me.”

Abbitt objected, “We’re voting on something that – we’ve already said the budget is not where it should be. And we’re voting on something with the hope and dreams – and I know you will, but it’s just that it seems reckless. It seems reckless to me.”

McGraw asked how soon a revised application could be submitted, and Lloyd said they could do it in 30 days. 

Staff Attorney Seigle suggests tabling the motion

Staff Attorney Seigle said the board could table the motion and bring it back up at a future meeting; McGraw said the charter school could revise its budget and make the other changes before it’s brought back.

Rockwell: “[It feels like] we’re running in circles.”

Rockwell was concerned that “if we table this, what’s going to come back is going to be almost the same. Because it necessarily has to be almost the same, because what we have in front of us is what the [committee] already saw…. I support the the charter school, I just want to make sure that they’re successful… I understand the idea of tabling it, but I’m not sure what the purpose is of tabling it, if what comes back has to be the same unless they start the process over – [it feels like] we’re running in circles.”

Vote

McGraw decided the board would vote on the original motion, and they voted 4-1 to approve the charter school application, with Abbitt in dissent.