The Statewide Virtual Charter School Board recorded several formal actions during the meeting: approval of draft minutes from March 10, 2025; approval of a $1.2 million subsidy for the Horizon digitally enhanced campus consortium (covered in a separate article); approval of a two‑site reorganization for eSchool Virtual Charter Academy; approval of the draft charter contract for P3 Urban Montessori Incorporated; and rejection of the initial authorization application for ThrivePoint Oklahoma Inc., with the board identifying specific application weaknesses for correction and resubmission.

Minutes: The board voted to approve the minutes of the March 10, 2025 regular board meeting. One board member, Angie Thomas, recorded an abstention during the roll call; other members voted yes. The motion carried.

eSchool Virtual Charter Academy (site reorganization): The board considered a requested amendment to the eSchool Virtual Charter Academy charter contract to reorganize the school from three sites into two: grades K–8 as one site and grades 9–12 as the second site. Agency staff explained the change is primarily administrative for how the State Department of Education records sites and that the school would still operate from its current office. The board voted to approve the amendment; the motion carried.

P3 Urban Montessori Incorporated (initial contract): Staff presented a draft charter contract and noted the agency had worked with general counsel to align terms with statute and rules. The board moved and approved the contract as presented; the motion carried.

ThrivePoint Oklahoma Inc. (initial authorization): Agency staff reviewed strengths and weaknesses in the ThrivePoint initial authorization application. Strengths noted included prior EMO experience operating schools in other states, technology commitments and a plan for student success coaches. Weaknesses and concerns included (1) curriculum approval timing in the application package, (2) potential conflicts with state instructional‑hours requirements and sample daily schedules, (3) how class extensions interact with the proposed six‑week block schedule, (4) language in articles of incorporation and bylaws that needed correction, and (5) clauses in a proposed management contract. Staff reported ThrivePoint had addressed many items during the capacity interview and updated documents after the board’s review but recommended the board reject the current application so ThrivePoint could submit a revised application that reflects the corrected items. The board voted to reject the application and invited a corrected resubmission; the motion carried.

Procedural notes: For items that passed, board members generally moved and seconded motions; votes were recorded by roll call. When the board rejected ThrivePoint’s application staff noted statute gives the board 90 days to consider an application and allows an applicant 30 days to resubmit a revised application; a resubmission within that timeline could be placed on a near‑term agenda.