RJY Application Report - ALSDE Information/ACE... · Web viewMeets the Standard The response reflects a thorough understanding of key issues. It addresses the topic with specific

Evaluation of the Rosa J. Young Educational Foundation

Application for Rosa J. Young Academy

For the Alabama Public Charter School Commission

February 4, 2019

Daniel Henry, Ph.D., Director, Auburn Center for Evaluation

Lisa Simmons, Ph.D., Auburn Center for Evaluation

Andrew Pendola, Ph.D., Auburn University Department of Educational Foundations,

Leadership and Technology

Review of RJYA Charter School Application, ACE 2

Introduction

Charter schools in the state of Alabama were authorized by the state legislature in 2015

as a result of the passage of Act 2015-3, the Alabama School Choice and Student Opportunity

Act. To realize the goal of high-quality charter schools, the Alabama Public Charter School

Commission instituted a process to review charter school applications. To date, a number of

charter school applications have been approved, and several applications have been found to not

meet the rigorous and demanding specifications set out in the legislation and by the Commission.

The current review is of an application by the Rosa J. Young Educational Foundation (RJYEF)

to establish the Rosa J. Young Academy (RJYA), a public charter school beginning in 2020.

History of RJYA Public Charter School Application

The Rosa J. Young Academy, the entity applying for the charter, is supported by the Rosa

J. Young Educational Foundation (RJYEF). Both the foundation and the academy are named to

honor Rosa J. Young, an educator, a visionary, and an advocate for rural schools affiliated with

the Lutheran church. The foundation developed the application to serve students in Selma, AL

and the surrounding counties. The application was submitted on December 21, 2018.

Current Application Review

In June of 2018, the ALSDE/Commission partnered with the Auburn Center for

Evaluation (ACE) to review charter school applications, including the present RJYA application.

Located within the College of Education on the Auburn University campus, ACE currently

provides evaluations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Science Foundation,

the U.S. Department of Education, the Department of Labor, and the Alabama State Department

of Education, McGraw- Hill Incorporated, and charter schools in the state. ACE also provides a

variety of evaluation and consulting services in partnerships throughout the Southeast. The

process of the present application review was as follows:


1. The scoring team met and reviewed the guidelines established by the ALSDE and

Alabama Public Charter School Commission for evaluating applications. A rubric was

distributed along with the application.

2. Individual raters used the rubric to review the proposal and submitted their rubrics,

along with descriptors and rationale to the director.

3. Questions about the application process and state laws governing startup charter

schools were answered by Logan Searcy, who is the public charter school education

administrator.

4. Questions about the content of the application and rubric guidelines were raised at a

capacity hearing held at the Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) offices. The

meeting was attending by RJYEF board members, consultants for the board, Logan Searcy, and

the ACE director. A question and answer session clarified details of the application.

5. Following the capacity hearing, final consensus among the reviewer ratings was

established. This report reflects that final consensus, which asked raters to examine whether each

point of the evaluation framework was met, and whether the application, both in individual

sections and in overall content, met or did not meet the standards established by the Alabama

Public Charter School Commission. Although this report contains a thorough examination of the

application and recommendations for approval or disapproval of the application, the final

decision about whether to grant the charter exists entirely with the Alabama Public Charter

School Commission.


Rating Scale

Application reviewers used the following scale (which reflects the criteria and scale in

the rubric provided by the Alabama Public Charter School Commission):

Meets the Standard

The response reflects a thorough understanding of key

issues. It addresses the topic with specific and accurate

information that shows thorough preparation; presents a

clear, realistic picture of how the school expects to operate;

and inspires confidence in the applicant’s capacity to carry

out the plan effectively.

Partially Meets the Standard

The response meets the criteria in some respects, but lacks

detail and/or requires additional information in one or

more areas.

Does Not Meet the Standard

The response is completely undeveloped or significantly

incomplete; demonstrates lack of preparation; is unsuited

to the mission of the authorizer or otherwise raises

substantial concerns about the viability of the plan or the

applicant’s ability to carry it out.


Executive Summary

This application represents the plan of the Rosa J. Young Educational Foundation (RJYEF) to

establish a public charter school, the Rosa J. Young Academy (RJYA) in Selma, Alabama.

The rationale for establishing the school is the poor performance of students in this region (i.e.,

the application states that “the Selma community currently has a disproportionate, yet significant

number of the lowest performing students in a county already underperforming”) as well as the

low socioeconomic status of the community (e.g., it was estimated that 80% of students are

receive free and reduced lunch and all elementary feeder schools for RJYA are Title I Schools).

The Foundation has not retained any educational service providers for the charter school

implementation.

The table below illustrates the plan’s projected timeline:


Rosa J. Young Academy Charter School Application

Recommendation toThe Alabama Public Charter School Commission: Do Not Approve

EDUCATION PROGRAM DESIGN & CAPACITY……………………………p.8Partially Meets the Standard

OPERATIONS PLAN & CAPACITY……………………………………………p.18Partially Meets the Standard

FINANCIAL PLAN & CAPACITY………………………………………………p.26Does Not Meet the Standard

Discussion:

The proposal by the Rosa J. Young Educational Foundation (RJYEF) for the Rosa J. Young

Academy (RJYA) does not meet the standard for approval based on the present application and

the subsequent capacity hearing.

The Rosa J. Young Educational Foundation presents a generally inadequate application for

approval by the Alabama Public Charter School Commission. While some components are

thoroughly discussed and were found to satisfy the standards on the rubric, the panel is of the

opinion that the application in aggregate fails to demonstrate a sufficient capacity to implement a

successful charter school at this time.

The educational curriculum is well-described and focuses on the individual needs of students.

There are plans for family and community involvement but there are not plans for supplemental

programming for parental outreach. There is not a clear policy for student discipline and the plan

for preventing student truancy and dropout is underdeveloped. The operations plan offers

compelling support for professional development and student and teacher evaluation and

assessment but the grievance/complaint process is insufficient. The proposed organizational

structure and leadership is a strength of the application, but the lack of a specific 5-10 year

growth plan is concerning in spite of the leadership capacity. Some elements of the school’s


financial plan are developed and satisfactory, especially the roles and responsibilities (and

qualifications) of the board members but the financial plans include an underdeveloped budget

(i.e., no consideration for food service permitting or facility renovation) for Year 1 only (i.e., no

planning year, no years 2, 3, 4, or 5, etc.). While there are notable areas of strength in this

application, the lack of clarity about, and in some cases the absence of, integral aspects of school

development overshadow the parts of the application that satisfy the standards.


Educational Program Design and Capacity

Overall Panel Consensus: Partially Meets Standard

Summary:

The educational plan presented by the RJYEF is a wide-ranging document. Plans covering

school climate, curricula, culturally responsive teaching and learning, as well as information

about the scope and sequence of the curricula are included. Specifically, RJYA will implement a

number of curricular components which are aligned with Alabama state standards including

content from the curriculums of America’s Choice, Ramp Up Literacy/Math, Literacy/Math

Navigator, Science Solutions, and the Paidiea Plan. In addition, programs aimed at addressing

school climate and culture along with addressing individual student needs are presented.

Specific information about how the application addresses (or doesn’t address) these and other

points of the application rubric is presented below.

Analysis:

The review panel found that in most cases the application from RJYEF addressed all areas of the

rubric for charter school applications approved by the Alabama Public Charter School

Commission, but in other cases the standards were only partially met or not at all met. In

particular, the panel found that the educational curriculum is well-described, the school calendar

and schedule is sufficiently presented, and the plan for addressing the needs of special

populations and at-risk students is thorough and a notable strength of the application. The plan

for family and community involvement is robust and the programing capacity is comprehensive

and compelling. However, the application is found to be lacking a pervasive research basis, and

the details on the day-to-day instruction and curriculum implementation are not discussed. A

distinct and clear strategy for preventing student dropout is not included, and any supplemental

programming for parent outreach is also not included. A notable weakness in the application is


the lack of a clearly delineated student discipline policy. Overall, RJYEF presents a modest plan

for teaching and learning in the proposed public charter school but many of the details of that

plan are underdeveloped and/or absent from the application.


Program Overview

Panel Consensus Educational Program Terms: Meets Standard

•The plan articulates the goals of improving attendance, scores, literacy, and self-image.

•The essential program elements of a school model are outlined.

Panel Consensus Research Driven Program: Partially Meets Standard

•The program seems to be based in “research,” but the application is lacking references or support for that research.

•Circular support models are well supported in the research but there is little direct evidence in the application.

Panel Consensus Culturally Responsive Program: Meets Standard

•Cultural responsiveness is defined as community engagement, mentoring, and support.

•Individualization appears to be a substantial component of the plan for cultural responsiveness.

Curriculum and Instructional Design

Panel Consensus Basic Learning Environment: Meets Standard

•There is an emphasis on accountability in a personalized learning environment.

•There is a focus on using a cross-disciplinary, multi-sensory, technology-enabled curriculum with remediation, enrichment, and electives.

Panel Consensus Curriculum Overview: Meets Standard

•An overview of the curricula to be employed is provided and it is clear that it is aligned with Alabama state standards.

•The proposed curricula include America’s Choice, Ramp Up Literacy/Math, Literacy/Math Navigator, Science Solutions and Adaptive Science, and the Paidiea Plan.

Panel Consensus Curriculum Development: Partially Meets Standard

•While the application states that the curriculum will be based on data from the AL DOE and will be individualized and standards-based, there is a notable lack of content on the process of curriculum development.


•There is evidence that planning time will be incorporated into the structure of the school but there is no specific layout for how that time will be utilized to ensure teacher support and curriculum alignment.

Panel Consensus Instructional Strategies: Partially Meets Standard

•There is evidence of supported differentiated instructional strategies on a curricular level.

•There is not sufficient evidence of the day-to-day instructional strategies.

Student Performance Standards

Panel Consensus Student Performance Standards: Meets Standard

•The standards set for each grade level (elementary/middle/high) are reasonable, clearly articulated, and aligned with state standards.

•These standards include clear metrics and outcomes.

Panel Consensus Academic Standards Beyond State Standards: N/A

•RJYA does not intend to adopt standards beyond the state standards.

Panel Consensus Grade Promotion: Meets Standard

•Grade promotion is aligned with state placement and promotion requirements.

•Promotion decisions will be based on mastery of standards in ELA, math, science, and social studies and those decisions will be made by a committee and the principal.

High School Graduation Requirements

Panel Consensus Exit Standards: Meets Standard

•There is a clear description of the school’s graduation requirements, which are in line with those of the State of Alabama.

•One credit per passing course is earned and passing is at least 65% average. The grading scale is included in the application.

Panel Consensus Career/College Readiness: Meets Standard

•There is considerable emphasis on aligning goals with outcomes and with postsecondary opportunities.


•Starting in 8th grade, students develop individualized graduation plans with their college and career counselors and the center coordinators.

Panel Consensus Dropout Prevention: Partially Meets Standard

•There are a number of strategies outlined that will indirectly affect dropout prevention, but there is a lack of explicit, research-based programming focused on preventing students from dropping out.

•The application includes information on planned tutorials, required home visits by teachers each academic year, a mentor-mentee/buddy system, and the Center for Student Retention and Success. There will be staff availability after school hours, too, and these features may indirectly affect dropout rates.

School Calendar and Schedule

Panel Consensus Annual Academic Schedule: Meets Standard

•The academic schedule includes 196 school days per year for students and 205 school days for teachers including professional development.

Panel Consensus Daily and Weekly Schedule: Meets Standard

•The application includes sufficient information on the daily and weekly schedules including the number of instructional hours and minutes as well as an explanation of the schedule.

•A strength of the application is the block scheduling approach with advisory/RTI built in.

School Culture

Panel Consensus Culture of the School: Partially Meets Standard

•While the application demonstrates the importance of establishing a culture and climate, it does not detail the specific and deliberate facets of the culture of the school.

Panel Consensus Establishing and Maintaining Culture: Meets Standard

•A plan for establishing the school culture is established with PBIS, community support, and role modeling, and the specific attention to SNS and ELL is strong.

•Several student activities will establish and facilitate the culture including the Teen Court, the meditation practices, and the SECME Chapters.


Panel Consensus Cultural Responsiveness: Meets Standard

•Elements of cultural responsiveness are incorporated in the application for all students regardless of gender, social, and/or disability status.

•There is little recognition of restorative practices.

Panel Consensus Typical School Day (Student and Teacher): Partially Meets Standard

•The descriptions of student and teacher “typical days” are incomplete but do focus on some elements of the day like critical thinking.

•It is noted that the administration will be visible during the typical school day.

Supplemental Programming

Panel Consensus Summer School (if applicable): Meets Standard

•RJYA indicates that there is not a plan to offer summer school programming at that time of the application but notes that summer school may be offered only for failing students in the future.

Panel Consensus Extra or Co-Curricular Activities: Meets Standard

•A list of extra- and co-curricular activities is presented and includes leadership activities like honor society, Boy and Girl Scouts, Teen Court, Drug Free programming as well as clubs with focuses on Computers & Gaming, Science, and Arts.

•While the application lists athletic activities that will be available for students, it was clarified in the capacity hearing that the implementation of student athletics is contingent upon funding and the availability of facilities.

Panel Consensus Student Mental, Emotional, and Social Development and Health: Partially Meets Standard

•A clear and compelling description for why social-emotional learning is important is included in the application.

•However, the specific descriptions of supplemental programming to directly address the mental, emotional, and social developmental and other health issues of students is lacking in this application.

Panel Consensus Supplemental Programming Parent Outreach: Does Not Meet Standard

•While supplemental programming for parent outreach appears to be partially integrated into the operations of the school, there is no direct explanation for how parent outreach will be utilized.


Special Populations and At-Risk Students

Panel Consensus Special Populations Plan: Meets Standard

•There is a description of the overall plan that meets requirements to serve special populations that acknowledges factors like age, native language, literacy of parents, reason for immigrating, etc.

•The application indicates that all federal and state requirements to meet special populations will be met.

Panel Consensus Expected Special Populations: Meets Standard

•The application sufficiently explains its plans for meeting the needs of at-risk student groups, and the projection that this will encompass 10%-15% of the student population is reasonable.

•Several existing programs have been identified for use with these populations.

Panel Consensus Special Education: Meets Standard

•The application demonstrates a comprehensive process to identify and address the needs of students receiving special education services. Though it is not a requirement on the rubric, attention has also been paid to monitor disproportionality, which is a strength of the special education program.

Panel Consensus ELL: Meets Standard

•The application articulates how ELL students will be identified along with the procedures that will be followed from the identification process through program placement.

•Although several types of accommodations are discussed (e.g., differentiated instruction, visuals and graphic organizers, and alternate assessment), the instructional content is not discussed.

Panel Consensus At-Risk: Meets Standard

•RJYA will act in accordance with the federal and state directives to identify and evaluate students who have or are suspected of having disabilities and need special services.

•Curricula and other supports for at risk learners are included (e.g., RTI).

Panel Consensus HICAP: Meets Standard

•The application articulates how RJYA will identify accelerated learners and describes instructional offerings for this population.


•The ALSDE Gifted Eligibility Determination form will be used alongside the Enrichment Model Program for the HICAP program.

Student Recruitment and Enrollment

Panel Consensus Recruitment and Enrollment Plan: Meets Standard

•There is an adequate marketing plan discussed for both how and through which venues students will be recruited.

•The Recruitment and Enrollment plan would be strengthened through further discussion about the roles of the staff on the marketing team as well as the specific branding that will be used.

Panel Consensus Enrollment Policy: Meets Standard

•A description of the enrollment procedure and the staff positions that will be trained in answering questions and completing enrollment paperwork are listed.

•RJYA will adhere to the Alabama Charter School Law regarding enrollment.

Student Discipline Policy and Plan

Panel Consensus Discipline Policy: Does Not Meet Standard

•The applicant provides a standard overview of the discipline procedures but the details of that policy and plan are lacking.

•In the capacity hearing, the discipline policy was discussed so that clarification could be achieved. The elements that will make up the discipline policy were named but the specific actions and their consequences were not presented.

•The policy as it is developed would benefit from including a plan to deal with inequitable distribution of disciplinary actions as well as culturally responsive, restorative practices.

Panel Consensus Distribution Plan: Does Not Meet Standard

•There is no description regarding communication between parents and the school about the discipline policy.

Family and Community Involvement

Panel Consensus Family and Community Assessment and Engagement to Date: Meets Standard

•Two strengths of this application are the plans for community assessment and parental involvement.


•There were three town hall meetings before the application was submitted, and these town hall meetings will continue if and when the charter is approved. The meetings will take place in the community as well as in the school.

Panel Consensus Family Engagement and Cultural Inclusiveness (Ongoing): Meets Standard

•The plan for parental and family outreach is ongoing and the community engagement appears to be strong.

•The application includes structural elements to accommodate input on an ongoing basis as well.

Panel Consensus Community Resources/Contractual and Other Partnerships: Meets Standard

•There is a description of the roles that the established community organizations and partnerships will play in the school, including providing mentors for students as well as internship opportunities.

•The community partners include Rotary Club, 100 Black Men, Untied Way, Habitat for Humanity, Salvation Army, local hospitals and health care facilities, and other local businesses and organizations.

Educational Program Capacity:

Panel Consensus Leadership Panel Capacity: Meets Standard

•The application identifies qualified personnel for leadership and management roles, including a compelling group of board members.

Panel Consensus Community Relationship: Meets Standard

•The applicant provides convincing evidence of community support including town hall meetings and support from local businesses and organizations.

Panel Consensus Partnerships: Meets Standard

•The applicant has provided a compelling and diverse list of community partnerships, all of which would be assets for the proposed school.

Panel Consensus School Leader Capacity: Meets Standard

•No candidate has been hired and recruitment will not commence until and unless this application is approved.


Panel Consensus Leadership and Management Panel: Meets Standard

•No ESPs have been hired because the applicant declined to utilize the services of an Education Service Provider.

•The assembled board demonstrates diversity and a commitment to public education.


Operations Plan and Capacity

Overall Panel Consensus: Partially Meets Standard

Summary:

The operations plan presented by the RJYEF addresses professional development, potential

community partnerships, and student performance assessments. Plans for staffing schools are

presented, and the expertise of board members is outlined in the form of a table along with

individual resumes. The application contains information about strategies and performance

objectives to be applied to the school, and specific information about how the application

addresses (or doesn’t address) these and other points of the application rubric is presented below.

Analysis:

The review panel found that in some cases the application from the RJYEF sufficiently addresses

areas of the rubric for charter school applications that is approved by the Alabama Public Charter

School Commission. In particular, the panel found that the proposed organization structure and

leadership is strong: the governing board and advisory bodies are well-described and the

qualifications of that leadership is demonstrated through biographies and resumes. The plan for

hiring, managing, and evaluating staff is sufficient along with the related allocations for

professional development of staff. The plan for facilities is appropriately developed in the

application and the operations capacity is also generally sufficient. The areas of concern include

the absence of a specific 5-10 year growth plan in the application. It is notable that district

partnerships were generally excluded, and there was no transportation plan included in the

application either. Overall, RJYEF presents a modest plan for school startup and operations with

some notable limitations.


Legal Status and Governing Documents

Panel Consensus Legal Status: Meets Standard

•The application reports that the Rosa J. Young Educational Foundation has filed for status as a 501(c) 3 organization at the time of the application. This was confirmed at the capacity hearings at which time there was no update on the progress (likely due in part to the federal government shutdown).

Panel Consensus 5-10 Year Growth Plan: Does Not Meet Standard

•There is no specific 5-10 year growth plan included in either the application or the attachments.

Organization Structure and Partnerships

Panel Consensus Organizational Charts: Meets Standard

•The organization charts are included with clear delineation of authority among school and board leadership positions.

Panel Consensus Proposed Partnerships: Meets Standard

•Proposed partnerships and the terms of these partnerships are loosely outlined.

•A wide variety of partnerships provide several opportunities for synergy with the proposed charter school.

Governing Board

Panel Consensus Philosophy: Meets Standard

•The governance philosophy is described and it is inclusive of the nature and extent of key stakeholders.

•The philosophy is tied to both academic and cultural goals and it is integrated throughout the application.

Panel Consensus Structure: Meets Standard

•The structure and membership list of the board is included in the application. The roles are clearly defined.

Panel Consensus Membership: Meets Standard

•The membership of the board is articulated for the seven current board members, including the relevant policies for adding members up to 11 as well as caps for how long members may serve on the board.


•Resumes for the board members are included and they indicate a wide variety of skills and qualifications.

Panel Consensus Selection: Partially Meets Standard

•The applicant indicates that members will be elected and that members will be recruited based on seat availability and the needs of the board.

•The specific criteria for board membership is not detailed.

Panel Consensus Capacity: Meets Standard

•The application clearly outlines the authority, the practices, and the limitations of the board.

Panel Consensus Ethics: Meets Standard

•The application reports that the “governing board will receive professional development training regarding the expectations of public officials” as referenced by the Alabama State Ethics Law.

•The application notes that any conflict of interest must be reported and it briefly outlines by-laws for the board.

Panel Consensus Existing Relationships/Conflict: Meets Standard

•No existing conflicts of interest appear to exist.

•Clear policies are outlined regarding how to approach conflicts of interest and who is responsible for determining whether a situation is indeed a conflict of interest.

Panel Consensus Existing Nonprofits: N/A

•There are no existing nonprofits at the time the application was submitted beyond the Rosa J. Young Educational Foundation.

Advisory Bodies

Panel Consensus Advisory Bodies: Meets Standard

•The community advisory board and its composition are described in detail.


Grievance/Complaint Process

Panel Consensus Grievance/Complaint Process: Partially Meets Standard

•An incomplete discussion of how grievances will be handled appears in the document. The application says policies will be written in the future but there is no elaboration on what the content of those policies will allow.

District Partnerships

Panel Consensus District Partnerships: Does Not Meet Standard

•Throughout the application, the description of the district partnerships are inconsistent and/or excluded. It is noted that the proposed charter school will “aim to retain 80% of current teachers at the high school,” and it was clarified that the applicants have spoken with the Superintendent of Selma City Schools.

Education Service Providers (ESP) and Other Partnerships

Panel Consensus Evidence of Prior Success: N/A

•Because there are no named ESPs, the evidence of prior success of those ESPs is not applicable.

Panel Consensus Term Sheet: N/A

• This section is not applicable.

Staffing Plans, Hiring, Management, and Evaluation

Panel Consensus Employer/Employee Relationship: Meets Standard

•The application indicates that employees will be at will.

Panel Consensus Compensation: Meets Standard

•The application outlines average salaries for each of the key personnel positions that will be filled upon charter approval.

•Benefits are outlined in general terms, and the application indicates that teachers may earn bonuses, stipends, or other forms of compensation on top of stated mean salary figures.

•It was reported at the capacity hearings that RJYA will follow the state salary schedule.


Panel Consensus Recruitment: Meets Standard

•The school’s strategy for recruiting teachers is comprehensive and all selection criteria are clearly articulated.

Panel Consensus Hiring/Termination: Meets Standard

•The hiring process with adhere to the Alabama Labor Laws and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hires will be based on content certification.

•Since employees will be at will, they may be dismissed at any time with or without cause.

Panel Consensus Staffing Chart: Meets Standard

•A completed staffing chart is included in the application.

Panel Consensus Senior Administration and Staff Relationship: Meets Standard

•The application clearly describes the relationship between senior leadership and staff.

Panel Consensus School Leader Evaluation: Meets Standard

•The process of evaluation for school leaders has been comprehensively described in the application. This process will be implemented by the personnel committee.

Panel Consensus Teacher Evaluation: Meets Standard

•Teacher Evaluation has been comprehensively described in the application and is aligned with the stated goals of the school.

•Data for evaluations will be based on formal and informal observations, walk throughs, and reviews of artifacts related to student performance. Performance evaluations will be conducted by the Principal.

Professional Development

Panel Consensus Responsible Parties: Meets Standard

•The delineation of parties responsible for professional development is clear and is a strength of the present application.

Panel Consensus Core Components: Meets Standard

•The core components of professional development are outlined in the application and are linked to the stated goals of the school.


Panel Consensus Schedule: Meets Standard

•A schedule and description of the professional development that will take place prior to the school opening is included in the application along with a note that annual professional development is to occur throughout the year.

Panel Consensus Time Allotments: Meets Standard

•The application includes adequate time for staff development.

Performance Framework

Panel Consensus Academic and Organization Goals: Meets Standard

•Academic and performance goals are presented in accordance with state and local standards.

Panel Consensus Interim Assessments: Meets Standard

•The application indicates that the RJYA will “utilize ALEKS and alternate assessment method three times a year to determine student growth over time.”

Panel Consensus Student Growth and Proficiency: Meets Standard

•The school will measure and evaluate academic progress by comparing student growth in assessments including diagnostic, formative, and summative evaluations.

•Assessments will be individualized and focused on growth toward a proficiency standard.

Panel Consensus Academic Progress: Meets Standard

•Curriculum evaluation tools will be used to monitor student progress and to identify students in need of support.

Panel Consensus Data Analysis and Management: Meets Standard

•A clear plan to collect and analyze student achievement data is presented. A plan for using these data to refine instruction is described.

Panel Consensus Responsible Parties: Meets Standard

•The principal, a data team, and teachers will have access to input and/or review data through a common Dashboard system.


Facilities

Panel Consensus Requirements: Meets Standard

•The school outlines the necessary facilities and acreage requirements, and it was reported that three properties were under consideration during the capacity hearing.

•The locations being considered will comply with state, county, and local planning requirements.

Panel Consensus Specialty Classroom Needs: Meets Standard

•Specialty needs spaces are loosely outlined.

Panel Consensus Administrative Office Needs: Partially Meets Standard

•Aside from noting that 7,500 square feet of space will be used for administrative or office space and a storage facility, the administrative office needs are not specifically delineated.

Panel Consensus Athletic Program Needs: Meets Standard

•The application notes that existing facilities will be adequate for athletic programming.

•The capacity hearings clarified that a lease option for athletic facilities may be appropriate in the event that none are available on site if and when the charter is granted and space is secured.

Panel Consensus Other Needs: Meets Standard

•Other needs are articulated in the application and three potential facilities were under consideration at the time of the capacity hearing.

Panel Consensus Steps Already Taken: Meets Standard

•Potential locations have been identified along with a firm to provide financing if needed.

Start-Up and Ongoing Operations

Panel Consensus Start-Up Plan: Partially Meets Standard

•A startup budget plan and a rollout plan are presented but are incomplete. The scope and sequence are not clearly explained in the application.

Panel Consensus Transportation Plan: Does Not Meet Standard

•RJYA has not provided arrangements for transportation to and from the proposed facilities for enrolled students.


•During the capacity hearing, a possible joint venture or MOU for transpiration with the Selma school system or another independent contractor was discussed without a specific contingency plan.

Panel Consensus Safety and Security: Meets Standard

•The application reports that a facility security plan will be established to control access to the building(s) that complies with applicable state, local, and authorizer health, hazard/safety, and county planning requirements.

Panel Consensus Insurance Coverage: Meets Standard

•The applicant has provided a list of the types of insurance coverage that will be secured including minimum amounts for each.

Operations Capacity

Panel Consensus Applicant Team Capacity: Partially Meets Standard

•The capacity for operations is demonstrated through biographies of two board members. It is noted in the application that the board will receive training annually in order to satisfy financial requirements.


Financial Plan and Capacity

Overall Panel Consensus: Does Not Meet Standard

Summary:

The Board of Directors will create an annual operating budget for the school, will be responsible

for the financial oversight of the school, and will ensure that both short- and long-term plans for

sustainability and growth are developed and implemented. Accounting operations, including

management of purchase orders and annual audits, will be provided by third-party vendors when

possible.

Analysis:

The review panel found that the some of financials required by the rubric satisfy the related

standards. The systems, policies, and processes for financial planning, purchasing, payroll,

accounting, and annual audit plans are a strength of the application. The applicant team is

qualified and the roles and responsibilities of each board member is well established.

However, the proposed financial plans generally lack pertinent information. For example, only

an estimated budget for Year 1 of operations is included and that budget is incomplete (i.e., there

is no estimate for food service permitting or potential facility renovation in the budget). The

application does not include a budget for the proposed planning year or years 2 and beyond of

operations. In addition, major areas of expenditure (conversion of existing facilities, food service

provision, transportation costs) are either not included or not developed. The budget narrative,

the fundraising plan, and the financial plan workbook are also incomplete or do not functionally

exist in the document. Overall the panel found that this application does not present evidence

suggesting the proposed charter school maintains the financial capacity and expertise to manage

a successful charter school.


Financial Plan

Panel Consensus Systems, Policies, and Processes: Meets Standard

•A description of the systems, policies, and processes the school will use for financial planning, purchasing, payroll, and accounting is included in the application.

Panel Consensus Roles and Responsibilities: Meets Standard

•The roles of the board members in establishing financial policies and procedures is clearly stated in the application.

Panel Consensus Audit Plans: Meets Standard

•Annual audits will be completed by an independent auditor who is to be determined.

Panel Consensus Financial Plan Workbook: Partially Meets Standard

•A completed Financial Plan Workbook is not included.

•Although a limited budget is included in the application, there is no estimate for food service permitting and facilities and there is no estimate for renovating or converting potential facilities. This is a notable limitation of the present application.

Panel Consensus Budget Narrative: Partially Meets Standard

•The budget narrative provided is not specific and lacks pertinent information.

Panel Consensus Fund Raising Plan: Partially Meets Standard

•A viable fundraising plan is not included in the application beyond stating that an aggressive campaign will be organized if and when the application is approved.

•In the capacity hearing, a relationship with a potential donor, the Lutheran Church Extension Fund, was discussed as a potential resource for fundraising.

Financial Management Capacity

Panel Consensus Applicant Team Capacity: Meets Standard

•The application describes the individual and collective qualifications of the team.

Panel Consensus Internal Financial Statements: Meets Standard

•While there were no financial statements included in the application, it was noted that CPAs with experience in charter schools will provide internal audited financial statements if and when the charter is granted.


Panel Consensus Audits: Meets Standard

•The application indicates that annual audits will be conducted by an independent auditor who is to be determined.

•The oversight of the annual audits will be the responsibility of a named board member.


Biographies of Panel Members

Daniel Henry, Ph.D.

In his last 40 years as an educator, Daniel Henry has been a high-school English teacher, a community college writing teacher, and a professor of educational psychology at Indiana, Central Michigan, and Auburn Universities. He began his career in program evaluation at the Indiana University Center for Evaluation where he directed the Michigan Small Class Size Evaluation, the Ohio Local Report Card Project, The Learning Perspectives Initiative, and several other large educational evaluations. He also directed the Kelly School of Business’ evaluation of the Cisco Networking Academies. Dr. Henry has taught research and program evaluation at the graduate level, and serves as a grant reader for the US. Department of Education. He has conducted program evaluation for entities as diverse as the USDA and Stenden University in Port Alfred, South Africa. In 2014 he founded the Auburn Center for Evaluation which has since its inception has conducted large-scale evaluations for the ALSDE (Alabama Reading Initiative evaluation), the National Science Foundation, Murray State, and McGraw-Hill Incorporated.

Lisa Simmons, Ph.D.

Lisa Simmons is an Assistant Research Professor at the Auburn Center for Evaluation. She began her career in education working at a residential school for students with severe to profound developmental delays. After earning her Masters in Developmental Psychology from Teachers College, Columbia University, Lisa began teaching in an early intervention classroom while she earned her K12 Exceptional Education teaching credential from the University of West Florida. Lisa then earned her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from Auburn in 2017 where she worked as a graduate research assistant at the Auburn Center for Evaluation. Upon graduation, Lisa accepted a full- time position at the Auburn Center for Evaluation to continue her work there. During her tenure at the Auburn Center for Evaluation, Lisa has worked on 15 federal 21st Century Community Learning Center grants and she has also spent time collecting data in public charter schools in Alabama.

Andrew Pendola, Ph.D.

Andrew Pendola is an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership at Auburn University. He began his career as a Middle School Social Studies teacher. While earning a Masters in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Andrew was awarded the Norman Gill Fellowship to evaluate program equity and postsecondary matriculation in the Milwaukee Public Schools and coordinated city-wide educational goals with the Greater Milwaukee Foundation. Later Andrew worked as a researcher in educational philanthropy the Argosy Foundation, designing and evaluating STEM programs for historically disadvantaged student populations. While earning his Ph.D. in Educational Theory and Policy from the Pennsylvania State University, Andrew began work evaluating state-level teacher production and shortages and has written several articles and legislative briefs on educational labor markets.