Home News Education Education Headlines
Report: Irving charter school funds benefited superintendent, family
Comments () A Text Size

By HOLLY K. HACKER

Staff Writer



Published: 19 December 2012 11:30 PM
Related

Read the investigation report and Winfree school's response

At an Irving-based charter school, taxpayer dollars flowed freely to
benefit the superintendent and her family while needy students received
a subpar education, a state investigation alleges.

The Texas Education Agency found a wide range of problems at Winfree
Academy Charter School, whose six campuses cater to struggling high
school students. The problems included financial mismanagement,
preferential contracts with family members and some students getting too
little help from their teachers.

Winfree officials largely deny and disagree with the education agency’s
findings, which are detailed in a Dec. 4 report that The Dallas Morning
News obtained under the Texas Public Information Act. The agency is
referring its findings to the Dallas County district attorney’s office,
the State Auditor’s Office and the U.S. Department of Education,
spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe said. Texas Education Commissioner Michael
Williams could also recommend sanctions.

Winfree administrators referred questions about the state report to
Allyn Media, a Dallas public relations firm. Through an Allyn
representative, interim superintendent Brandy Schott said that after the
state agency issued preliminary findings, the school submitted a lengthy
response and thousands of records supporting its position.

“Winfree Academy was shocked and dismayed to see that the TEA’s final
report doesn’t acknowledge many of the facts and supporting
documentation presented in our response,” Schott said. “Therefore, much
of the inaccurate and unsupported information contained in the TEA’s
preliminary report reappears in the final report.” In its final report,
TEA rejected most of Winfree’s explanations and stood by most of its
findings.

Charter schools receive public dollars. But unlike traditional public
schools, they’re run by nonprofit groups and governed by nonelected
boards. They are free from some rules traditional school districts must
follow — such as hiring only certified teachers and not hiring relatives
— with the idea that charter schools can try new ideas and be more
innovative.

10 relatives employed

The education agency’s report determined that some of those freedoms
Winfree enjoyed led to abuse.

For instance, Winfree employed 10 relatives of Melody Chalkley, the
school’s founder, superintendent and board president. State law allows
charter schools to hire relatives, but they must still follow proper
hiring procedures.

State investigators saw no evidence at Winfree that such procedures were
followed.

One of Chalkley’s daughters, Jamie Deen, made more than $100,000 as
chief financial officer but had only a high school diploma, according to
the TEA report. Chalkley’s sister-in-law earned $78,000 as a principal
and later as a consultant. Chalkley’s father served on the board with
her and earned $28,000 as an educational aide.

Schott said Winfree hired all of Chalkley’s relatives legally. “Each of
the hires has proved to be a valuable asset to Winfree and its mission
to provide education to at-risk students,” she said.

The state report also found conduct that “may have violated” the Texas
penal code, such as Chalkley spending $617 of school funds on a
refrigerator for her condominium, and having school employees work at
her home to move furniture and carpet during a flood.

Winfree officials said Chalkley mistakenly bought the refrigerator with
the school’s bank card instead of her own and told an employee to
reverse the charges. Chalkley later donated the refrigerator to Winfree,
school officials said. The state report noted that the reimbursement
occurred only after auditors questioned the purchase.

As for having employees do personal work for their boss, Winfree
officials said they offered to do so willingly and on their own time.
Schott said it’s also impossible for the state agency to allege
wrongdoing because the law it cited — dealing with abuse of public
office — doesn’t apply to charter schools.

State investigators also found that the school had such an unusual way
of classifying students that Winfree had no 10th-graders one year — only
9th-, 11th- and 12th-graders. The state found no legal problem with that
— but the report raised questions of whether Winfree was trying to avoid
sanctions under the federal No Child Left Behind law.

Winfree’s 10th-graders had done poorly in math the past two years, with
as little as 30 percent passing the math TAKS test. With another
disappointing year, the school risked penalties, such as having its
leaders replaced.

Winfree also declined to apply for federal Title I funds that are meant
to help disadvantaged students, the report said. The school received
more than $200,000 of Title I funds in 2008-09, but stopped applying
after that.

School officials said they were not trying to avoid federal penalties.
The 2009-10 application for those federal dollars “outlined several
requirements and definitions that did not fit well with the school’s
unique program and population,” Winfree officials wrote in a January
report to the education agency.

Employee complained

The Texas Education Agency’s investigation into Winfree began after a
school maintenance supervisor named Kurt Ohnesorge filed a complaint. A
few months later, Winfree leaders fired him, saying he had performed his
job poorly and threatened other employees. Ohnesorge said he lost his
job for reporting potential fraud and mismanagement to the state.

He sued the school in Dallas County district court. Winfree won there
and again on appeal. The school’s successful argument: Texas
whistle-blower laws don’t apply to charter schools. That meant the
allegations in Ohnesorge’s lawsuit never came up in court.

Ohnesorge said he went to the TEA because he believed money that was
supposed to help students instead went to charter operators. Winfree’s
students, for one reason or another, saw the school as their last shot,
he said.

State investigators also found that some of Winfree’s neediest students
weren’t getting a decent education. They observed some students, who
were learning English, working alone on computers most of the time, with
little one-on-one help from their teachers.

Again, Schott disputed the findings by state auditors. “What they
witnessed greatly differed from what was ultimately reported in the
auditors’ findings, which were not supported by facts,” she said. “We
have both certified teachers and technology helping all of our students.”

Chalkley resigned as superintendent and stepped down from the board in
July 2011, because she became eligible for state retirement benefits —
not because of the state investigation, a Winfree official said.
Chalkley had been making $194,346, records show. She now consults for
Winfree on a part-time basis, for $750 a day, according to school officials.

Winfree’s father still sits on the board and works for Winfree as a
part-time education aide. Chalkley’s stepmother, brother, son and
daughter Deen still work there, too.

A 2010 News investigation found numerous cases of nepotism in Texas
charter schools, with some charter superintendents earning six-figure
salaries to run charter schools the size of some traditional middle or
high schools. Winfree was among the charter schools profiled.

The News also mentioned Varnett Public School in Houston, where the
superintendent and her husband made more than $400,000 a year, plus $1.5
million for providing bus service and classroom space through companies
they owned. Varnett is currently under investigation by the state
education agency.

Some state legislators want to see even more charter schools approved.
But there’s debate over how much more oversight, if any, is needed.

Ohnesorge said his own children attended a charter school, and he
doesn’t want all charters portrayed as bad apples. “I can see how a
really good charter school performs a valuable service.” But he said he
also wants to see charter schools held responsible when they don’t do
their job.

TEA investigation’s findings and school’s responses

The Texas Education Agency issued a 315-page investigative report this
month on Winfree Academy Charter School, which serves about 1,500 high
school students at campuses in Irving, Richardson, Grand Prairie,
Lewisville, Denton and North Richland Hills.

Here’s an overview of some of the state’s findings, and the charter
school’s responses.

FINDING: The school hired several relatives of the superintendent
without following proper hiring procedures.

RESPONSE: All hires were made legally. Each person hired was qualified
to help Winfree in its mission to help at-risk students.

FINDING: The superintendent had school employees do work on her home
during school hours, a possible violation of state penal code.

RESPONSE: Employees volunteered their time willingly off the clock.
Plus, the penal code cited in the state report does not apply to charter
schools.

FINDING: The superintendent spent $617 of charter school funds on a
refrigerator for her condominium, and then reimbursed the school only
after state auditors questioned the purchase.

RESPONSE: The incident was an oversight that was corrected appropriately.

FINDING: The school failed to report hundreds of expelled students as
dropouts, which made their its dropout rate look lower than it really was.

RESPONSE: Students were expelled for violating the school’s code of
conduct and did not have to be counted as dropouts. The state’s student
coding system has not caught up with the laws that apply to charter schools.

FINDING: The school paid more than $700,000 over two years to a single
contractor but failed to show it had used competitive bidding, as required.

RESPONSE: The employee who awarded the contract did not follow
procedures correctly and no longer works for the school.

FINDING: Winfree’s governing board failed to provide proper oversight.

RESPONSE: TEA is required to interview board members before making
accusations against the board, but has not done so. The board takes its
duties to the school and its students seriously and with the highest
priority.

FINDING: Students in the English as a second language program spent 60
percent to 70 percent of the time working at their own pace on
computers, with little individual help from teachers.

RESPONSE: What state auditors witnessed during a campus visit greatly
differed from what they ultimately reported. Winfree has both certified
teachers and technology helping all students, including those learning
English and those with other special needs.

FINDING: The school spent nearly $30,000 renovating a house next to its
Lewisville campus and then rented it at a discount to Matthew Kenney,
the superintendent’s son who worked as a school courier. The school did
not consider other possible tenants. The superintendent and her father,
who served on the board, should have abstained from voting to approve
the lease because they’re related to Kenney.

RESPONSE: Kenney paid market rate on the rent and provided security
services at the house and school as part of the lease’s conditions.
Chalkley and her father did not have to abstain from voting, because
they gained no financial benefit. Having a tenant provided income to the
school and helped prevent vandalism.