CHARTER

AUTHORIZATION

RECOMMENDATIONS

March 2020

APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS

2

Convened committees with internal and external experts, including community leaders.

Trained committee members.

Reviewed performance data for existing schools of applicants according to student

growth and School Performance Scorecard results.

Committees discussed bright spots and areas of concern for each application and

developed questions for applicant interviews.

Interviewed all applicants to assess their capacity and growth plans.

Public comments gathered through the Office of Charter Schools website.

APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS

3

Scored applications using the State of Tennessee Charter Application Rubric, which

includes three (3) main sections: Academic Plan Design & Capacity, Operations Plan &

Capacity, and Financial Plan & Capacity. A Past Performance section is included for

operators currently operating a school or schools in Tennessee.

Charter school applications were additionally evaluated taking into account SCS Board

Policy #1011, Section IX, B.2 (b) and Section VI, B. 5.

Recommendations made to the Shelby County School Board of Directors for board

resolution.

APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS

Appeals Process

State Board Policy 2.500: If the State Board becomes the chartering authority pursuant to

11(c)(iii) above, the LEA and the charter school may submit a charter agreement signed by

the LEA and the charter school to the State Board stating that the charter school shall be

overseen and monitored by the LEA. If such charter agreement is received by the State

Board within thirty (30) calendar days after the State Board become the charter authorizer,

then the authorization of the charter school shall be officially transferred to the LEA. Such

agreement can be submitted electronically.

4

NEEDS ANALYSIS AND FINANCIAL IMPACT

In addition to the State’s Application rubric, the application review team used information

from the District’s Regional Seats Analysis/Educational Priorities Document to determine

what areas are in need of schools based on enrollment and/or performance.

The Finance team used information from the charter school applications to draft a Financial

Impact Analyses for each proposed charter school. The analyses detail the potential loss of

students, loss of funds, amount of BEP funds to be transferred based on proposed

enrollment, and impact on District school building utilization.

5

6

Proposed Charter School

Neighborhood or Region for

Proposed School

% of schools <3.00 on

Scorecard in the Neighborhood/

Region

Seats Needed(based on program

capacity)Possible Student Loss

Possible Transfer of BEP Funds (without reducing

operational costs)

Bluff City Collegiate(6-8)

Central City East Region

46% less than 3.00

Central City E 6-8

539 seats neededCCE Region 6-8

120 to 360 students over a 5-year period

$1,150,022 to $3,734,464

Cornerstone Prep School (K-8)

Sherwood/Parkway Village

Multiple regions, multiple ranges

-212 (under enrolled)Sherwood/Parkway V

K-8

150 to 450 students over a 5-year period

$1,397,283 to $4,537,393

Luceo Collegiate School of the Arts (K-8)

Binghampton0.0% less than

3.00Binghampton K-8

489 seats neededBinghampton K-8

120 to 360 students over a 5-year period

$1,150,023 to $3,734,465

Memphis School of Excellence (6-12)

Cordova66.5% less than

3.00Cordova 6-12

-991 (under enrolled)Cordova 6-12

225 to 450 students over a 5-year period

$2,156,292 to $4,927,419

Financial Impact

7

Lead

Reviewers

Director of Charter Schools,

Brittany Monda

SCS CabinetSCS Board

Curriculum &

Instruction

Mental HealthIndependent Expert

Reviewers

Parent/Community

FinanceBusiness

Operations

Human

ResourcesExceptional

Children

CHARTER AUTHORIZATION RECOMMENDATION

DECISION FLOW CHART

Charter Leaders Professional

Development

Coordinated

School Health

Student Support

ELL

8

PROPOSED SCHOOL DETAILS

Proposed School

Proposed

Grade

Structure

Proposed

NeighborhoodFocus

Year 1

Enrollment

Projection

Capacity

Enrollment

Projection

Bluff City Collegiate 6-8Central City East

RegionCollege Prep 120 360

Cornerstone Prep School K-8Sherwood/Parkway

VillageCollege Prep 150 675

Luceo Collegiate School of the Arts K-8 BinghamptonCreative &

Performing Arts120 540

Memphis School of Excellence Cordova 6-12 Cordova STEM 225 450

Recommendations

10

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Please refer to recommendation summaries and rubrics for more detailed feedback for each application.

Proposed School/

Neighborhood Rationale

Bluff City CollegiateCentral City East Region

The academic performance of local schools does not include a comprehensive

overview of all schools in the proposed area/zip codes; which makes it unclear of

the proposed neighborhood and need for the applicant’s school.

There is insufficient evidence for supporting the ELL and SPED populations.

Neither of the populations were explicitly included in performance standards nor

goals

There is not clarity surrounding what curriculum will be used (and who will create

it) for both the character development program and leadership through service

program, which seem to be foundational to the overall school culture.

There is operational and financial information that needs to be addressed.

XTN Charter

Application Rubric

XSCS Board Policy

#1011

Deny

11

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Please refer to recommendation summaries and rubrics for more detailed feedback for each application.

Proposed School/

Neighborhood Rationale

Cornerstone Prep

SchoolSherwood/Parkway Village

More information is needed to confirm that the operator has reached out to

community stakeholders within the Sherwood and Parkway Village

neighborhoods and rallied support from families and community partners in that

area. It’s unclear that the operator understands the full needs of the

neighborhoods and has done a full analysis of the schools in both areas, since

the comparative analyses doesn’t include all schools.

Lacks details around engaging students with disabilities and ELL students

The applicant relies on limited data (TVAAS and MAP) as evidence to support its

claim of creating a successful educational program for low income students who

find themselves below grade level.

XTN Charter

Application Rubric

XSCS Board Policy

#1011

Deny

12

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Please refer to recommendation summaries and rubrics for more detailed feedback for each application.

Proposed School/

Neighborhood Rationale

Luceo Collegiate

School of the ArtsBinghampton

What the application has in vision, it currently lacks in specifics and evidence of

ability to execute. The academic plan and capacity is described in broad strokes,

but the application becomes a contract upon approval and, consequently, needs

more fine print.

It does not include evidence of community partnerships that support the vision of

the school. It does not appear to understand the geography of the city or the

proposed neighborhood.

It is unclear if the program proposed is an arts integration program or a creative

and performing arts program due to the conflicting material within the application.

There is operational and financial information that needs to be addressed.

XTN Charter

Application Rubric

XSCS Board Policy

#1011

Deny

13

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Proposed School/

Neighborhood Rationale

Memphis School of

Excellence Cordova

(6-12)Cordova

Replication

The applicant does not provide a compelling rationale for a middle/high school in

the Cordova area. The description of the proposed academic program does not

adequately describe what the school will do significantly different than the

schools currently serving the neighborhood.

The data used to make comparative judgements were not reflective of current

data. The proposed “STEM” focus is not clearly defined beyond access to a daily

science and technology class. Student access to many STEM related activities

appear more extracurricular and voluntary.

The applicant struggles to identify negative trend data that may be symbolic of

system wide instructional and/or student support concerns. Further review of the

data may require an adjustment to the network’s instructional programming,

student support systems, and/or goals.

Deny

Please refer to recommendation summaries and rubrics for more detailed feedback for each application.

XTN Charter

Application Rubric

XSCS Board Policy

#1011

14

Questions?

APPENDIX

15

16

HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE DATA

* Climate Only

CMO/NetworkExisting Schools

w/test data2017-19

Overall SPS

2019 Composite

TVAAS

2018 Composite

TVAAS

2017Composite

TVAAS

2016 Composite

TVAAS

Cornerstone Prep

Cornerstone Prep – Lester Campus ASD 2 3 1

Cornerstone Prep – Lester Prep ASD 5 5 5

Cornerstone Prep – Denver Campus ASD 5 5 1

Memphis School of

Excellence

Memphis School of Excellence 3.95 3 3 5 4

Memphis School of Excellence Elementary 3.53 2

17

CORNERSTONE PREP SCHOOL (Network)TNReady/EOC

Percent of Students “On Track” or Mastered”

SchoolELA Math Social Studies

2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019

Lester Campus 9.2 12.6 8.9 15.8 21.1 11.5 7.3

Lester Prep 8.3 8.7 7.3 13.9 12.1 17.1 20.3 15.7

Denver Campus ** 9.4 11.3 9.1 18.1 27.9 5.2

18

MEMPHIS SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE (Network)

Percent of Students “On Track” or Mastered”

TNReady/EOC

SchoolELA Math Social Studies Science

2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019MSE 24.1 18.3 20.2 17.4 15.4 21.8 10.2 24.5 25.5 63.8 39.2

MSE Elem 20.3 39.7 *

19

CORNERSTONE PREP SCHOOL

Lester Campus Lester Prep Denver CampusOVERALL COMPOSITE TVAAS

2019 2 5 52018 3 5 52017 1 5 1

LITERACY COMPOSITE TVAAS2019 3 5 52018 3 5 52017 1 5 1

NUMERACY COMPOSITE TVAAS2019 1 4 42018 1 4 52017 4 5 2

SCIENCE COMPOSITE TVAAS20192018 5 3 52017 1 5 2

SOCIAL STUDIES COMPOSITE TVAAS2019 N/A 5 N/A2018 1 5 12017

TVAAS

20

MEMPHIS SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE

Memphis School of Excellence

Memphis School of Excellence Elementary

OVERALL COMPOSITE TVAAS2019 3 22018 3

2017 5LITERACY COMPOSITE TVAAS

2019 3 22018 32017 4

NUMERACY COMPOSITE TVAAS2019 3 32018 32017 2

SCIENCE COMPOSITE TVAAS20192018 12017 5

SOCIAL STUDIES COMPOSITE TVAAS2019 3 N/A2018 52017 3

TVAAS