Svetlana Gnesina from CSBM reviewed the TNAACS monthly Financials from March. She shared that we have a $5,000 cash surplus for the month of March. While we currently have a deficit with depreciation, this is not a concern becauseTNAACS has not dipped into their cash reserves. 

Revenue is currently under budget due to lower than budgeted enrollment, but we are higher in SPED revenue, Svetlana shared the 20 to 60 percent SPED category funding has increased by approximately $1,000 per child, and our SPED student payments will be adjusted as a result at the end of July during reconciliation.

Svetlana shared we have been collecting a nice amount of interest income. In March we accrued $4,000 in interest income from the CD. Our previous CD matured in March and we re-entered into another two month CD.

Svetlana reported there were no changes to personnel. She also reported that we currently have 2.9 million in cash. 

Jenny shared an enrollment update. Starting with Intent to Returns, TNAACS currently has 152 students who have stated they are returning, 3 that are not returning and 52 currently unknown. We are projecting that 205 students will return. We currently have 86 viable applicants, 26 registrations in progress, 21 of which are K students, and one completed application. As a result we are currently projecting an enrollment of 232.

 Jenny then reviewed data from our math tutoring program. This programs runs for 16 weeks and ends in May. The ratio is one teacher to four students, with two students being tutored at a time while the other two focus on iReady. Students are seen three times per week, with need determined from the student's second iReady diagnostic. The goal is to see expedited growth by the last iReady assessment. Jenny shared the tutoring data tracker, which shows the standards taught and the students performance on the standards mastery assessments provided by iReady. The goal will be to do an end of year iReady data reflection to see how the tutoring students perform on their last assessment. 

Jenny then shared K to 5 math data looking for instructional needs and targeted development. The data showed TNAACS students perform lower in Geometry and Measurement and Data. The data showed lower loop improved their Interim Assessment performance year over year, but the upper loop's performance decreased. 

Teacher Feedback included:

• Transference continues to be an issue
• Student work habits need to improve
• Students are less engaged with teacher assigned lessons
• Some students continue not to meet their usage goal

Observations from Paloma Saez included:

• There is a need to improve fact fluency
• There is a need to improve how students articulate their thinking
• There should be an increase in spiral review and the use of minute math

Lisa shared information from the most recent Finance Committee Meeting. The Finance Committee shared a Short Term and Long Term goal for compensation at TNAACS: 

Short Term Proposal: 6% raise across the board for 2026/2027, non-negotiable. Why:

• 5-year renewal
• Strong test scores for Gen Ed and SPED
• NYSED is exploring us as mentors for collaborative partnerships with district schools
• Staff retention
• Make TNAACS competitive 
• Can work with the current budget (could be a stretch)

Long Term Proposal: The TNAACS Board works to revise the salary scale by December 2026, aligned to the revised career ladder

Currently the average salary in. Charter Schools ranges from 63,000 to 80,000. Average salary at TNAACS is currently 81,000. Lisa shared that Average percentage raises for NYC charter school teachers typically range from 2% to 4% annually, often aligning with or slightly exceeding inflation to maintain competitiveness. Last year the average percentage increase at TNAACS was 4%.

Lisa shared that this short term goal of a generous percentage raise comes a an appropriate time and celebrates TNAACS recent achievements.  It also provide time to revamp the existing salary scale , which hasn't changed for many years. 

Lisa also advocated for having a scale or flat percentage, and share research on the potential negative impact salary negotiation have on particularly schools cultures including:

When salaries are negotiated individually:

• Teachers with stronger skills (not necessarily better teaching skills) may earn more
• Bias—conscious or unconscious—can influence offers (gender, race, personality)
• This can lead to unfairness fairness and can expose schools to legal and ethical concerns.
• Pay differences can create resentment and competition
• Negotiated salaries are often private and employees don’t know if they’re being paid fairly
• Distrust grows within the staff - Transparent salary schedules (like DOE) avoid this issue.
• A structured salary schedule helps standardize hiring and budgeting.
•  Individual negotiation mirrors corporate models, which don’t always translate well to education systems.

The flat percentage will celebrate the strong year TNAACS had, and allow time to create a robust structured salary scale for staff. 

Some board members expressed concerns around a flat raise for everyone. Lisa shared that long term, the salary scale would have percentage steps as well as different increases for promotion. Need to ensure that the flat percentage is doable. We will be looking at the budget and numbers- could be 5% or 6% depending on budget.

Short term goal provides time to create new systems and structures for salary moving forward. 

Cristy Cuellar shared that the Academic Excellence Committee Reviewed ELA data during their last meeting. They discussed the misalignment between what teachers see students doing in class versus their iReady assessment results. 

L. Silva shared professional development resources for board members provided by Board On Track