CHARTER SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE

DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

PIKE CREEK CHARTER MIDDLE SCHOOL NEW APPLICATION TO OPEN IN 2015 (First charter renewal September 2018) INITIAL REPORT
CSAC Initial Meeting: January 29, 2014 CSAC Initial Report Published: February 24, 2014

In July 2013, Governor Jack Markell signed H.B. 165 into law, bringing sweeping changes to Delawares existing charter school laws. This legislation included a number of provisions to strengthen the rigor of the application process for new charter schools, including additional requirements for the charter school application, an additional round of review, and heightened approval criteria. Per the charter school law, a charter school application must meet all of the criteria outlined in 14 Del. C. 512 to be approved. Per 14 Del. C. 511(e), the first Charter School Accountability Committee (CSAC) meeting provided each applicant whose application was deemed sufficient to receive a full review an opportunity in for an interview in support of the application, and provided the members of the Charter School Accountability Committee and the Delaware Department of Education with an opportunity to assess applicant capacity, allow the applicant to clarify information provided in the application, and gather additional information. This Initial Report is intended to provide each applicant receiving a full review with a summary of the areas of follow-up, and/or concerns identified by members of the CSAC during their individual reviews of the charter application against the approval criteria outlined in 14 Del. C. 512. Areas that are marked No concerns noted at this time mean that evidence provided in the application was sufficient and no follow-up questions were asked of the applicant around that particular question of the application. Each applicant shall have the opportunity to review and comment on the committees report. Comments are due to the Delaware Department of Educations Charter School Office no later than 11:59 p.m. on Tuesday, March 11. All materials must be combined into a single PDF document, and emailed to Jennifer.Nagourney@doe.k12.de.us. The following were in attendance at the Initial Meeting of the CSAC on January 29, 2014: Voting Committee Members of the Charter School Accountability Committee Tasha Cannon, Deputy Officer Talent Recruitment, Selection and Strategy, Teacher & Leader Effectiveness Unit (TLEU), DDOE Karen Field-Rogers, Associate Secretary, Financial Reform & Resource Management, DDOE (Chair to the Committee) Barbara Mazza, Education Associate, Exceptional Children Resources, DDOE April McCrae, Education Associate, Education Associate, Science Assessment and STEM, DDOE Staff to the Committee (Non-voting) Catherine Hickey, Deputy Attorney General, Counsel to the Committee Jennifer Nagourney, Executive Director, Charter School Office, DDOE John Carwell, Education Associate, Charter School Office, DDOE
2

Brook Hughes, Education Associate, Financial Reform Resources, DDOE Chantel Janiszewski, Education Associate, Charter School Office, DDOE Sheila Kay-Lawrence, Administrative Assistance, Charter School Office, DDOE

Ex-officio Members (Non-voting) Kendall Massett, Executive Director, Delaware Charter School Network Donna Johnson, Executive Director, Delaware State Board of Education Representatives of the Proposed Charter School Michael Smith, Founding Board Member Brook Balan, Founding Board Member Robin Sheehan, Founding Board Member 1.1 Executive Summary
14 Del. C. 512 (1), (2), (3), (5) and (6)

The purpose of the Executive Summary is to provide a high level overview of the application. The Executive Summary does not receive a rating.

1.2 Founding Group and School Leadership

14 Del. C. 512 (1)

Founding Group Membership The following concerns were noted:

The applicant is advised that criminal background and Child Protection Registry checks are sent to the Department of Education on an ongoing basis and will continue to be reviewed as they come in. For this reason, any concerns arising from these documents will be raised at a later point in the process.

Principal, Founding Group, School Leader and Leadership Team The following concerns were noted: The application does not provide details around the competencies being utilized for the schools recruitment and selection model (Attachment A). The application does not contain evidence of alignment of the recruitment/selection model with the schools vision/mission (page 10 and Attachment A).

1.3 Education Plan

14 Del. C. 512 (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (11)

Curriculum and Instructional Design The following concerns were noted: The applications ELA curriculum does not align with Delaware standards (see Exhibit A for details) The applicants science exit examination is misaligned to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (Attachement Q).The applicant is requested to realign this exit examination. The applicants plan does not mention or acknowledge adoption of Next Generation Science Standards as new State Science Standards. The applicants plan to utilize a pure algebra exam would do a disservice to students and teachers as an exit examination and would narrow the curricular and assessment focus (Attachment Q). The applicant is required to realign this exit examination.
4

The applicants approach to the Student Success Plan (page 19) needs to de-emphasize the either/or college or vocational programming track to illustrate the highly variable nature of career planning and student mentoring. The applications policy to monitor student progress at the end of each trimester does not align to the functionality of Delawares Pupil Accounting System (page 21). The applicant is requested to clarify how this approach aligns with its proposed marking periods, the school calendar, the release of report cards and Delawares Pupil Accounting System.

School Culture The following concerns were noted: The application does not provide a draft Code of Conduct (Attachment B). The applicant is requested to provide a draft. The schools Bullying Prevention Policy (Attachment B) does not align with 14 Del. C. 4123(a).

Special Populations and At-Risk Students The following concerns were noted: The applicants narrative regarding the difference in the role and function of an Instructional Support Team and an IEP team (pages 27 and 28) is unclear and additional information is requested. Refer to: http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title14/900/925.shtml and http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title14/900/923.shtml. The applications policies, practices, and procedures regarding evaluation of students for special education services including, but not limited to, timelines, who conducts the evaluation, parent participation, who determines eligibility, disability categories, and IEP team members/function on the team are unclear and additional information is requested (pages 27 and 28). Refer to: http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title14/900/925.shtml
5

The applications purpose of Prior Written Notice including, but not limited to, components, and when/why Prior Written Notice is given requires additional details (page 35). Refer to: http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title14/900/926.shtml The applications policies, practices and procedures regarding the determination of continuum of services, specifically relating to a students need for a more restrictive setting, is unclear and additional information is requested (page 33). Refer to: http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title14/900/925.shtml

1.4 Performance Management

14 Del. C. 512 (4), (5), (6) and (7)

The following concerns were noted: The applications assessment work and targets (pages 44-46) are focused on the Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System (DCAS and are not aligned to the Smarter Balanced assessment (SBAC).

1.5 Staffing
14 Del. C. 512 (6)

The following concerns were noted: The application identifies a total of 245 students and 3 school leaders in year 1 (Attachment 14), however not enough units would be generated for a Principal position and this would be taxing on the schools budget. The applications statement that All staff will be paid based off the Red Clay School District pay school with years of e xperience and education levels matching the Red Clay pay scale (page 5) may be high given the small number of students enrolled at a charter school.
6

1.6 Governance and Management. 14 Del. C. 512 (1), (2), (6) and (9) Legal Status and Governing Documents The following concerns were noted:

The application does not include a stamped copy of the certificate of incorporation, showing it has been filed with the State of Delaware. The schools by-laws need to be reviewed and revised to ensure compliance with the restrictions of 14 DE Admin C 275.4.1.3.2, particularly in Article I, Section 5 and perhaps Section 9, and to avoid any concerns about potential activities, such as religious activities, which raise constitutional questions for public schools. The applicants identification of Initial Directors and Founding Board members is not identical; clarification is requested as to whether this is intentional, especially given the preference for children of Founding Board members. All committees of the Board, such as those identified in Article IV, are subject to the Delaware Freedom of Information Act, including public notice, open meetings and minutes. The applicant may want to also reference Public Archives requirements for destruction of public records in Article VII. The applicant may want to consider adding a reference to compliance with any other applicable laws in Article IX, Section 1, to capture such things as 14 Del. C. 512(16). The plan to have both the Head of School and the Director of Finance and Operations report to the Board may cause a potential conflict (Attachment 8)
7

1.7 Parent and Community Involvement

14 Del. C. 512 (1) and (6)

The following concerns were noted:

The application does not include the consequences or other options for those parents who are unable to volunteer due to other commitments or challenges.

1.8 Start-up and Operations

14 Del. C. 512 (1), (8), (9), (10), (12) and (13)

The following concerns were noted: The applicants plan for bus transportation for students within the 5-mile radius (page 68) is not in compliance with Delaware regulations. The applicants plan to use February 2, 2015 as the deadline for school choice applications is not in alignment with Delaware Code (Attachment 7). The schools food and fitness tracking requirement (page 70) could potentially enable eating disorders in adolescents. The rationale for the applicants plan to obtain a food establishment permit is unclear (page 69). It is requested that the applicant provide this rationale as well as explain how obtaining a food establishment permit will benefit the school.

1.9 Facilities

14 Del. C. 512 (8) and (12) No concerns noted at this time.

1.10 Budget and Finance

14 Del. C. 512 (8) and (9)

The following concerns were noted: No revenue estimate worksheets were included in the application, and there are critical pieces that need to be reviewed, therefore making it difficult to validate the information presented in the budget worksheets. The amounts on the revenue estimates do not match the amounts listed on the budget worksheet (Attachment 17). It is unclear whether the school intends to pay teachers over the summer or if their contracts begin with the start of the school year (Attachment N). The application does not indicate how the Director of Finance and Operations will be paid. The amounts listed for both curriculum and textbooks is low. On Line 22 of the budget sheet, funds for textbooks reflect $0 and the applicant notes that this cost is captured under curriculum expenses On Line 23 of the budget sheet, curriculum budgets are identified as $36,248, $26,651, $23,286, and $22,765 in years 1-4 respectively. The applications vendor proposal is missing. The applicants contingency budget (based on 80% enrollment) shows a deficit in State and Local funds in Year 1. It is requested that the applicant provide additional details around the terms of the M&T Bank loan, payback timeframes, and any other relevant details around securing the loan (page 75). It is unclear if the computers listed in the budget will accommodate Smarter Balanced testing.
9

The relationship with a management company is unclear. It appears that the expenses listed as Management Company expenses are not actually related to a CMO. The applicant does not list a CMO in the application and the budget narrative suggests these expenses are actually Administrative/Operations Support and Operations and Maintenance of Facilities expenses.

2.5 Charter Management Company and Highly Successful Charter School Operator Supplement 14 Del. C. 512 (1), (6), (8), (9), (10) and (11)

Not applicable to this application. Conclusion: Ms. Field-Rogers gave the reviewers the opportunity to restate any concerns about the application information and to clarify the additional information requested. Ms. Field-Rogers articulated the next steps in the new application process as follows: The initial report of the CSAC will be released after the conclusion of the first set of public hearings on February 13, 2014. (The date was changed to February 24 because of weather delays.) The initial report will be based on information the CSAC has received through its meeting on January 29, 2014. The applicants response to the initial report is due no later than 11:59 p.m. on February 28, 2014. (The date was changed to March 11 because of weather delays.) The first public hearing is scheduled for February 13, 2014 beginning at 5:30 in the Carvel Building in Wilmington, 2nd floor auditorium. Final meetings of the CSAC will be held on March 6 and 7, 2014 at which time a final report with a recommendation will be issued pursuant to Title 14 Chapter 5 Section 512. (The dates were changed to March 19 and 24 because of weather delays.) Additional public hearings will be held on April 1 and April 2, 2014
10

The process will conclude with the State Board of Education meeting on Thursday, April 17, 2014 where Secretary Murphy will present his decision on each application.

Exhibit A

DDOE Charter School Office Checklist for Curriculum Approval New Applications
Pike Creek Charter School
Content Area Mathematics ELA Meets approval Does not meet approval (Notes from reviewer: Grade 6 Unit 2: Typo? Writing std. W.6.1 is argument not narrative. Unit 3: Argument vs. Persuasive please see APP A pp. 23-25; CCSS emphasis is argument not persuasive; typo? Speaking & Listening Standards are missing. Grade 6 Overall: Limited opportunities for students to work with evidence and multiple sources; i.e. Rl/RL CCSS 1, W CCSS 7-9. Neither the standards cited nor the I Can statements reflect the CCSS expectation that students work with multiple sources and text-based evidence. Difficult to tell if grade appropriate complex text is at the center of the units or if a range of text is being utilized no texts are listed. UbD document seems incomplete not all fields are being utilized; i.e. academic vocabulary blank after first entry, track/tell left blank. If all fields are not necessary, modify the template and/or explain why. See Engage NY Curriculum models: http://www.engageny.org/english-language-arts Assessment example is weakly aligned to CCSS rigor; i.e. multiple choice no opportunities for constructed responses or a performance task. Assessment was not for a particular unit; difficult to know if items aligned with instruction. See Delaware Comparison Docs for CCSS-aligned assessment examples: www.doe.k12.de.us/elaassessmenttools 11 Approval Status with Recommendations Date Received January 27, 2014 January 26, 2014

Grade 7: Unit 1 writing is weakly aligned to CCSS students are writing how-to documents and the focus of the writing in this unit is on transitions in writing. Students begin working on transitions and how-to writing in 3rd grade. Unit 2: I can determine a storys themestudents start learning to identify theme in 4th grade; by 7th grade, students need to be able to determine theme and analyze its development over the course of the text (RL.7.2). What is the purpose of the business letter in unit 2? Does the structure of this type of letter relate to something in the literature? Business letter again in Unit 5. Grade 7 Overall: Limited opportunities for students to work with evidence and multiple sources; i.e. Rl/RL CCSS 1, W CCSS 7-9. Neither the standards cited nor the I Can statements reflect the CCSS expectation that students work with multiple sources and text-based evidence. Difficult to tell if grade appropriate complex text is at the center of the units or if a range of text is being utilized no texts are listed. I can statements do not consistently reflect the rigor of CCSS for 7th grade. See Engage NY curriculum models: http://www.engageny.org/english-language-arts Grade 8 comments are the same for grade 8 (see Grades 6 and 7 above). Meets approval signed Science Coalition MOU provided Meets approval signed SS Coalition MOU provided N/A Meets approval Meets approval Meets approval January 27, 2014 January 17, 2014 January 23, 2014

Science Social Studies World Languages Visual and Performing Arts Health Physical Education

January 15, 2014 January 21, 2014

CTE (if applicable)

N/A

12

13