The reviewed public record contradicts absolute claims that East Hills Academy and Spruce Community School offered no demand evidence, received no review, or prompted no Board discussion. The applicants submitted signatures, support letters, enrollment projections, and contingency plans. D11 administrative reviewers applied a stated 15:1 expression-of-interest-to-enrollment assumption, and the District Accountability Committee described its work as an independent review of each application.
The narrower source gap remains important: no separately labeled districtwide demand study, approval-specific capacity analysis, systematic comparable-program analysis, or quantified districtwide fiscal-impact study was located in this reviewed corpus. An independent application review is not the same document or analytical question as an independent systemwide needs study.
| Date | Stage | Directly supported fact | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-04-01 | proposal submitted | D11 received both applications | Submission does not prove demand or approval |
| 2025-05-21 to 2025-05-28 | review/discussion | DAC and district reviews were available; Board work-session material records discussion | Machine transcript cannot support exact quotations without recording review |
| 2025-06-04 | recorded action | Board conditionally approved both applications by separate 7-0 votes |
Approval authorized contract negotiation; it did not prove execution or operation |
| 2025-10-01 | recorded contract action | Board approved Resolutions 2026-08 and 2026-09 and the five-year contract awards by separate 7-0 votes |
Resolutions authorize an officer to enter contracts in substantially the presented form and allow pre-execution non-material changes; full signed copies remain absent |
| 2026-07-01 | stated future performance start | October minutes give this date for both contracts | A stated contract date is not proof the schools opened or performed |
600 signatures representing more than 300 students, including more than 100 ages three through six. The reviewer used the 15:1 assumption to estimate about 20 potential enrollments at review time.543 signatures, 141 parents with children expected to be K-2 age, and 27 support letters. The district review used the same 15:1 assumption to estimate about 36 potential enrollments.These are direct facts about what applicants submitted and reviewers calculated. They do not establish verified enrollment, a districtwide market need, or actual opening enrollment.
The October resolutions say D11 and each applicant successfully negotiated a charter contract and authorize the contracting officer to enter C2027-0001 and C2027-0002 in substantially the attached form. The minutes record separate 7-0 votes approving the contract awards. Because the retained source set does not include the complete signed contracts or exhibits, this cluster labels the action authorized, not independently verified executed or operating.
The East Hills portal summary heading displays C2026-0001, while the resolution body and minutes use C2027-0001. The body/minutes identifier is used here, and the discrepancy remains preserved in the source note.
| Proposed claim | Result | Final treatment |
|---|---|---|
| No demand evidence existed | contradicted | removed |
| DAC performed independent application reviews | verified | kept with exact application-review scope |
| DAC performed an independent systemwide needs study | contradicted by document scope | removed |
Both applications and both later contract awards passed 7-0 |
verified | kept as recorded Board action |
| Contract approval proves execution or operation | not established | removed |
| No systemwide analysis existed anywhere | not established | narrowed to the defined reviewed corpus |
Atlas Trace retains research captures and provenance records locally. Public
originals, when available, appear in the Original links section below;
internal archive paths and restricted materials are not public links. See
Sources, access, and local retention.