1.1 SCHOOL MISSION AND GOALS Characteristics of a ......Academic goals contribute to the stated...

Tennessee Charter School Application – Ratings and Scoring Criteria 1

MEMPHIS SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE NORTH HIGH (MSENH) OFFICIAL RUBRIC

SECTION 1 ACADEMIC PLAN DESIGN AND CAPACITY

1.1 SCHOOL MISSION AND GOALS

Characteristics of a strong response: The mission statement defines the purpose of the proposed charter school. The mission statement is clear, concise, compelling and measurable. The vision provides a coherent description of what the school will look like when it is achieving its mission. Goals are aligned to both the mission and vision and critical to the school’s success.

Initial Application Review

☐ Meets or Exceeds Standard ☐ Partially Meets Standard ☐ Does Not Meet Standard

Strengths Page

The charter defines its mission as preparing students for higher learning in a safe, caring, and collaborative atmosphere with a learner centered approach emphasizing STEM, while developing responsible citizens who are accountable to themselves and to others. (page 5) The mission and vision are emphasized throughout the academic portion of the application.

MSENH identifies seven specific elements necessary to accomplish their vision (page 6). The vision requires ongoing collaboration between the partners (school, community, parents, staff) which are outlined on pages 6-9.

5-9

Concerns/Questions Page

Applicant does not provide measurable terms through which to evaluate their mission – specifically, there are no clear goals articulated in the section...e.g., Numbers by which to evaluate whether their mission or goals are being accomplished.

5

Final Application Review


Strengths Page


The goals provided in the amended application were general (i.e. “The average ACT score will improve

every year or the scores will be higher than district’s average score.”) More importantly, the applicant

also did not provide a rationale as to why these goals are aligned with achieving the mission of the

school; nor did the goals have meaningful targets. The mission of the school is to have a “strong

emphasis” on science, technology, engineering and mathematics. (STEM). Given the successes of their

current schools, there were no goals tied to the academic achievement of their children in their STEM

program.

5



1.2 ENROLLMENT SUMMARY

Characteristics of a strong response: A clear description of the community where school intends to draw students including school zones and

academic performance of surrounding schools. Rationale for selecting the community where school will locate and description of how the school will serve as

a needed alternative. Completed enrollment summary and anticipated demographics charts with reasonable enrollment projections.



Strengths Page

The Charter plans to draw students from the Raleigh and Craigmont Region. The applicant provides a 2014-2015 TN Report Card as support for a need for an optional school and describes the Raleigh area as anticipating the addition of ASD schools. The document does not name the schools that the ASD might be taking.

Using the 2014-15 Tn Report card data, the application demonstrates math and reading proficiencies below state and SCS averages, sorted by race, ethnicity, economics, and disability in these area schools (page 10) as the rationale for selecting the community, and notes few private options and additional charters are also available for parents.

A completed enrollment summary and anticipated demographics chart is included on page 10 and 11.

10-11




Strengths Page




1.3 ACADEMIC FOCUS AND PLAN

Characteristics of a strong response: A clear and comprehensive explanation of the school’s academic focus that is aligned with the school’s mission

and vision. A framework for a rigorous research based academic plan that reflects the needs of the targeted student

population and is aligned with the school’s stated mission and vision. A robust and quality curriculum overview, supported by research, with a plan for implementation that includes

all grades the school will eventually include. Evidence the curriculum design is aligned with the Tennessee State Standards. Evidence the proposed academic plan will be appropriate and effective for growing all students while at the

same time closing achievement gaps. A description of effective methods for providing differentiated instruction to meet the needs of all students,

including a strong plan for Response to Instruction and Intervention (RTI²) that aligns with Tennessee guidelines.

If including blended learning, a clear explanation of the model the school will use and the role of teachers within the blended learning environment.



Strengths Page

A clear and comprehensive explanation is offered for the school’s STEM focus and emphasized though out the application as well as a focus on individually guided attention using differentiation, interventions, blended learning, intensive counseling, personalized goals as key to motivating students (page 14), and individual progress backed by data.

The framework for rigorous research based academic plan reflects the need of the targeted school population and is aligned with the school’s mission and vision. For example, the seven key components (page 14) of the academic performance plan are included with bibliographical denotations (page 14 and-16).

In order to address all learning and to close the achievement gap, the academic plan includes a proposal to “customize” each student’s day to include as needed, enrichment, re-learning, or remediation.

The plan for providing differentiated instruction includes using a variety of instructional methods such as a thematic approach, cooperative learning, individual goal-setting, individual instruction, and Gardner’s multi-sensory approach as well as role modeling, modular instruction, and integration of technology into the curriculum and constructivist learning. (page 16-17). Using a variety of data driven reading and math software the plan outlines RTI interventions by Tiers (page 38) and and includes a child find upon admission to the school to discover the particular learning style, academic strengths and weaknesses of each student. (page 38)

The charter plans to blend standards-based and project-based learning. (page 13). However, the role of teachers in blended learning was not clear.

The application states an alignment with Tennessee State Standards. (page 13).

13-17, 38



The applicant does not include specific academic benchmarks in the plan - A specific academic benchmark would clearly articulate the objective goals that the school is aiming to hit. Because of the changing standards, just ask may be challenging but a school could still do something like a percentile rank state wide as a proxy.

Please describe the role of the teacher in blended learning. Overall, the curriculum section is the substantially the same as the ES application; it does not

reflect a HS curriculum. Furthermore, the description of the academic focus and plan is substantially the same as that for the elementary school; it does not reflect a high school program. Have the founders considered the different developmental needs for students at these different age/grade levels? Have the founders updated this application for the high school program?

14-21



Strengths Page


The academic focus section of the amended application is identical to the application reviewed during

the initial application cycle. The above mentioned concerns that were noted above were not

addressed and are still unanswered. The application mirrors that of the middle school application.

High school academic programs must fit the needs of its’ students in order to not only meet course

graduation requirements but also to meet their unique academic and developmental needs.



1.4 ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Characteristics of a strong response: Academic achievement goals are rigorous, measurable, and realistic and set high standards and high

expectations for student learning. Academic goals contribute to the stated mission and vision of the school. Clear and compelling process for setting, monitoring, and / or revising academic achievement goals. Evidence of clear, rigorous promotion/retention and exit policies and standards. Appropriate, well-defined corrective action plan if school falls below state and/or district academic

achievement expectations. A clear description of the school’s approach to help remediate students’ academic underperformance based on

assessment and other data, and evidence the chosen approach will result in improved academic achievement.



Strengths Page

MSENH plans to have a locally developed goal using a norm-referenced test (partnering with Northwest Evaluation Association) and will use the assessments to measure student growth and student learning needs. A formula is presented for monitoring the achievement goals from fall, winter, and spring testing.

The charter plans to follow Tennessee State Board of Ed (3.300 Promotion and Retention). Students will be identified early for remediation. At least six weeks before EOY, parents will be notified at a conference. Promotion and retention will be considered on the basis of the best interest of the student with a 70 average required for advancement.

A corrective action plan, should one be necessary, includes a director or consultant to plan, monitor, and implement corrective action.

The school will approach remediation of student academic underperformance, based on assessment and other data using a variety of strategies including tutorial services, peer tutoring, reading specialist, parent communication and home visits, professional development and mentoring program for teachers, and individualized learning plans and blended learning strategies. Pull out, small groups within the classroom, before and after school tutoring, and Saturday school will be offered.

26-30


The applicant's specific goal is to be in the top half of the state when compared to schools with similar student demographics after two years; to be in the top quartile at the end of the fifth year and to stay in the top quartile. The term "similar demographics" is far too vague and does not set the foundation for accountability. The school must set forth specifics the authorizer can hold it accountable to. What, exactly, is a similar demographic? Why is the school using similar demographics as the standard when our students will complete with children from all demographics in the real world?

The AMOs provided in this section are for elementary grades. The promotion/retention information included in this section do not seem to apply to high school

students.

24, 27




Strengths Page


Other than very minor changes, the amended application submitted was identical to the original

application submitted in the initial application review. The same concerns noted above still exist.



1.5 PHASE-IN/TURNAROUND – IF APPLICABLE

Characteristics of a strong response: Inclusion of strong prior experience in turning around or converting an underperforming school or plan for

doing so if the organization does not have prior experience. A clear explanation for how the organization will engage with the neighborhood, community, and student

population prior to conversion. Specific ways to engage and transform the existing school culture and how the organization will determine

what aspects of school culture to keep, modify, or add. If proposing a phase-in approach, the organization clearly describes how transition to a shared campus will

occur with regard to campus collaboration and building-wide issues. If proposing a full school take-over approach, the organization has a clear plan for communicating with existing

staff and a comprehensive plan for needed additional support to ensure student success.



Strengths Page

NA




Strengths Page




1.6 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION STANDARDS – IF APPLICABLE

Characteristics of a strong response: Plan for meeting the Tennessee Graduation Requirements (including credits, transcripts, electives, GPA

calculation) and compelling explanation of any additional requirements beyond the State’s requirements. Clear, persuasive explanation of how the school’s graduation requirements will ensure student readiness for

college or other postsecondary opportunities, including trade school, military service, or entering the workforce).

Effective systems and structures for students at risk of dropping out or not meeting graduation requirements.



Strengths Page


The applicant explains how the school will meet Tennessee graduation requirements with respect to math and language arts but fails to fully articulate how it will ensure that students meets all requirements; for example, by describing a year-by-year schedule for which the students will be checked. To meet expectations in this component of the state's rubric, the school must fully explain how each student will be monitored to ensure they are taking the proper coursework and are on track to graduate. Simply saying that monitors will be assigned is not sufficient.

30-32



Strengths Page

The applicant included a transcript review form that will be used for credit tracking. The counselor will

manage and provide oversight to ensure that students are appropriately scheduled and on track for

graduation. In the event a student fails a class, the school will create an adapted schedule or in some

cases will take summer school classes to make up missed credits. Transcripts will be reviewed at the

beginning and end of the year.




1.7 ASSESSMENTS

Characteristics of a strong response: Assessment selection will provide sufficiently rich data for evaluation of the academic program and align with

state standards. Assessment plan details the collection and analysis of individual students, student cohorts, and school level

performance throughout the school year, at the end of the academic year and for the term of the charter. A process for using data to support instruction is clearly articulated, with detailed plans presented to provide

adequate training for teachers and school leaders. An explanation of how the organization will use data to inform instruction and evaluate academic progress for

at-risk students, students with disabilities and English Language Learners. Demonstrates an understating of the obligation under state law to participate in the statewide system of

assessments and accountability.



Strengths Page

MSENH plans to partner with Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) for student achievement testing to be conducted Fall, Winter and Spring. The tests are used with 10 million students nationwide. Interventions from NWEA MAP reading data will be addressed with various reading strategies outlined in the proposal.

The assessment plan includes analysis of students and student cohorts. The team is led by the principal or consultant. A testing coordinator will have weekly meetings to discuss state and school testing. Test data will be analyzed using the Database Test Center program. Data will be available on line for parents.

The process for using data to support instruction is clearly articulated and periodically reviewed after each benchmark assessment. Teachers will work collaboratively in groups to discuss data.

To use data to inform instruction and evaluate academic progress for at-risk students, students with disabilities and ELL, the charter will employ the universal screener, RTI initiative, software programs.

The charter states that students will take the same State mandated assessments as students in other public schools.

23-35




Strengths Page




1.8 SCHOOL CALENDAR AND SCHEDULE

Characteristics of a strong response: School calendar (Attachment A) and student schedules meet Tennessee minimum requirements of the

equivalent of 180 days of instruction. Calendar and schedule support implementation of the academic plan and align with stated mission and vision. Attendance goals are clearly outlined. Description of a typical day for teachers and students align with key priorities of the academic plan and the

overall mission and vision for the school. If proposing Saturday School, summer school, or after school programing, a description of programing is

included



Strengths Page

School calendar and student schedules meet minimum requirements. The typical day for teachers and students and teachers aligns with key priorities of the academic

plan and overall mission. No summer school is offered. Before and after school programs, and some optional Saturday

tutoring is encouraged for struggling students. Saturday school will be a tutoring program geared to struggling learners, covering chapter test material.

35-37


This section is does not clearly reflect the high school approach and does not outline how the nature of a student’s day. Again, it is basically a copy of the Elementary school application.

34-36



Strengths Page


Although the amended application has reflected instructional minutes, this section is identical to the

application submitted in the initial application. The schedule as presented does not provide enough

evidence of a high school schedule.

P35-36



1.9 SPECIAL POPULATIONS AND AT-RISK STUDENTS

Characteristics of a strong response: An identified founding school team member with experience working with special populations. Clear process for identifying students with disabilities, English Language Learners, and at-risk students, and

gifted students. Clear description of RTI² procedures, including a plan for how data will be collected, progress will be

monitored, and instructional decisions made related to student performance A viable plan to provide students with special needs with instructional programs, practices, and strategies that

ensure access to the general education curriculum and academic success. Requirements and processes for monitoring services to students in need and plans to exit students that attain

sufficient progress. An understanding of, and capacity to fulfill, State and federal obligations and requirements pertaining to

students with disabilities and English Language Learners. A realistic plan for hiring licensed and highly qualified personnel including service providers, nursing, and

educational assistants. Evidence of adequate resources and staff to meet the needs of all students, including professional

development for teachers.



Strengths Page

The charter identifies a “campus leader” with more than 10 years of experience working with special populations (5 as a teacher, 7 as an administrator) and states “100% compliance over the last 7 years”.

There is a clear process for identifying students with disabilities beginning with admission screens, recruitment of the previous school records, RTI, and benchmark testing along with continual data monitoring,

The plan outlines a clear description of RTI procedures. (Shelby County Schools has an online RTI up to date manual that should be read.)

The plan states students who are determined to no longer need special education due to adequate academic progress will be made ineligible for special education services. This will be considered annually.

The plan seems to reasonably state a basic understanding of, and capacity to fulfill State and federal obligations for ELL students, as evident in the approaches (Sheltered English, ELL class period, ELL resource center) and with some clarification should be able to meet this for students with disabilities (see questions below)

The charter plans to hire a part time special education teacher initially who will also serve as the section 504 and special education coordinator. The charter plans to hire a part time or full time nurse and plans to attend job fairs to attract an endorsed ESL teacher.

The school proposes to have adequate staffing and plans to include professional development directed toward the needs of students. (repeated several times in the proposal). Additionally first year teachers will have mentors.

37-46



Evaluation process for special education, item #3and #4 are out of compliance with State requirements of 60 calendar day for evaluation and meeting to occur.

The description of Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy services misses the most important piece of the service…. To mitigate barriers to access and participation. Much of this is accomplished working in the natural school setting where ongoing collaboration with teachers occurs. The therapist develops strategies/ adapted tools which are implemented in the class setting.

What kind of assessment tools will be utilized to determine a student no longer meets eligibility for Special Education services?

The special education section mixes up the terms direct and related services. Does the MSENH understand what is a direct service and what is a related service under IDEA? Which services is MSENH planning to provide? Which services is MSENH planning to obtain from Shelby County Schools?

What specific professional development do you anticipate teachers will most immediately need? Do teachers receive compensation to attend professional development? Is attendance required? Is professional development planned for summer, before school, after school, or weekends?



Strengths Page


While the applicant did clarify concerns related to timing of testing as well as descriptions of

occupational and physical therapy services there are still remaining concerns that were not addressed.

The amended application needs to be more explicit regarding the dismissal of services. The amount of

information and level of assessment could vary depending on the student’s disability. The amended

application did not address anticipated professional development needs that the school would

anticipate in order to ensure teachers and staff are equipped to serve these students’ needs.

P37-47



1.10 SCHOOL CULTURE AND DISCIPLINE

Characteristics of a strong response: A clear vision for school culture or ethos that will promote a positive academic environment and will reflect

high levels of academic expectation and support. Coherent plan for creating and sustaining the intended culture for students, teachers, administrators, and

parents from the school’s inception, and for integrating new students and families as they arrive. Plan for how school culture will embrace students with special needs. Student discipline policy (Attachment B) that provides for effective strategies to support a safe, orderly school

climate and strong school culture while respecting student rights. Evidence of legally sound discipline policies that outline discipline procedures, suspension, and expulsion

procedures and appeals processes. If not included as part of school handbook (Attachment B), inclusion of student discipline policy (Attachment

C) Thoughtful consideration of how the discipline policies protect the rights of students with disabilities..



Strengths Page

The charter envisions a culture fostering preparation of students” for secondary school learning in a safe, caring, and collaborative atmosphere through a quality learner centered educational program with a strong emphasis on STEM.”

The charter’s plan for training all stakeholders in the cultural climate and welcoming new families includes hiring a bilingual secretary, a website capable of 100 language translations, and professional development prior to start of school and in the initial start of school to review rules and policies.

The school has outlined its plan for embracing students with special needs and demonstrates awareness of special discipline rules regarding students with disabilities.

The school discipline policy (Attachment B) provides effective strategies to support a safe, orderly school climate while respecting student rights.

The school discipline plan appears reasonable and strives to keep students in school while learning self-discipline and respectful behavior. Behaviors are tracked. Parents are included in the process. Appeals are considered by a team. The school uses a point system for small infractions which is viewable by students, parents, and teachers, with weekly accounting to parents.

46-48


How does the applicant plan discipline (suspension) for a student with a suspected disability? How does the charter consider discipline for a student with a disability or suspected disability? Is

the behavior plan written for students who demonstrate infractions of rules sufficient for a student with a disability? Is there a thoughtful consideration of how discipline policies protect the rights of students with disabilities? Is the charter aware of the TCA 49-10-1301; State Board of Education Rule 05-20-01-09.23 Isolation and Restraint Guideline: Special Education Behavioral Supports Act which protect students with disabilities?

The school handbook recommends that students bring social security card to registration. Is this required? What about undocumented students?

Spanish translation of the student handbook is outdated, referring to NCLB, while the English

46-48, 105, 120


portion refers to ESSA.



Strengths Page


This section of the amended application was identical to the application submitted in the initial application review. The concerns related to student discipline for students with suspected disabilities as well as their rights concerning student discipline policies were not addressed in the amended application



1.11 MARKETING, RECRUITMENT, AND ENROLLMENT

Characteristics of a strong response: Articulated student recruitment and marketing plan, timeline, and enrollment policy that will provide equal

access to all interested students and families, including those in poverty, academically low-achieving students, students with disabilities, and English Language Learners.

Enrollment policy (Attachment D) that complies with state law and district policies. Compelling student outreach plan that includes community, family, and student involvement, and that is

realistic and likely to foster student retention and community support.



Strengths Page

MSENH plans an intensive recruitment with open houses, school tours, public notice advertisements, direct mail, community information sessions and announcements in local newsletters as well as on the school’s website.

The enrollment policy appears to comply with state law and district policies The student outreach plan includes community, family, and student involvement, includes

promotional materials and materials to reach ELL families. The charter plans to utilize community groups and agencies that serve a broad diverse population. The charter plans to repeat the recruitment in its second year.

48-49, Attachment D


The applicant sets forth a goal that 10% of its students will be students with disabilities but in their current school, the applicant only enrolls 1% and is far below charter school and regional averages – we need to know what they are going to do different in this school to reach a different outcome.

Overall, the marketing, recruitment and outreach plan is not compelling. While it includes multiple and varied outreach approaches, there is no timeline or clear engagement strategy provided, and it is not clear how this plan will lead to a high level of community support.

Is the MS a feeder for the HS? If so, should that be a central part of the plan?

47-48



Strengths Page


This section of amended application almost identical to the original application submitted during the

initial application review. The previously noted concerns around students with disabilities,

marketing, recruitment and outreach plan still exists. The timeline, engagement strategy and plan

for community engagement were very general, without a high level of detail.

P49-50



1.12 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND PARENT ENGAGEMENT

Characteristics of a strong response: Effective strategies for informing parents and the community about the school’s development both pre- and

post-authorization. Clear plan for informing and educating parents on school policies. A sound and compelling plan for engaging parents and community partners in the design and life of the school. Description of existing community resources and partnerships already formed that will benefit students and

parents and that include a description of the nature, purposes, terms, and scope of services of any such partnerships; and evidence of commitment from identified community partners including documentation of pledged support (Attachment E), if available.

Letters of support, MOUs, or contracts (Attachment E) to show proposed school is welcomed by the community.

Application Review


Strengths Page

The application reflects strong strategies for informing parents and community about the school’s development both pre and post authorization as evidenced by Action Teams/Working Groups to plan activities, forming a Parent Teacher Organization, MSENH Parent Mobile App, conferences, home visits, and database access.

The charter proposes a clear plan for informing and educating parents on school policies which includes parent / student orientation, PTO, MSENH Parent Mobile App, conferences, etc.

Parent engagement is evident in the strategies in the life and plan of the school through community public informative meetings conducted annually to discuss school progress, student progress, program plans, fiscal program information and effectiveness of the school program.

Attachment E demonstrates acceptance by the community for the charter.

50-52, 145-148


The school includes a plan to use bilingual students to help translate. This can lead to mis-information, particularly. How will the school ensure that this does not happen?

Overall this section is the same as that for the ES and MS, but it warrants a somewhat different approach for the HS.

51,



Strengths

Concerns/Questions

The community involvement and parent engagement section amended application did not address the stated

concern during the initial read around differentiation for the high school program. The proposed school could

provide various meetings throughout the year, by grade level, to discuss the academic challenges their students

face. The school could also provide guidance for parents regarding the college application process and how the

parent-school connection can be important during this time. Engaging parents into a high school program has to


be relevant to their students to increase buy in and support.



1.13 EXISTING ACADEMIC PLAN (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS)

Characteristics of a strong response: Provides a clear description of the existing academic plan. Key features of the existing academic plan that will significantly differ from the operator’s existing schools (if

any). Clear, concise rationale for any academic program variance that includes implementation strategies, resources

needed, and expected outcomes.



Strengths Page

The application provides a clear description of the existing academic plan of which relies on scaffolding, academic coordinator, subject coaches, a yearly teaching plan that covers standards, weekly teaching plans reviewed by the subject coaches, and observations of teachers bi monthly.

The charter plans to replicate this existing plan for the new school.

59-60




Strengths Page




1.14 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS)

Characteristics of a strong response: Clear description of any mission-specific goals and targets the organization will have, with measures and/or

assessments fully described and a rationale for their choices. Clear and compelling explanation of how the organization will measure its academic progress – individual

students, student cohorts, all grade levels within a school and across the network of schools. Appropriate, well-defined corrective action plan if one school, student cohort, or entire network of schools falls

below state and/or district academic achievement expectations. Clear and concise contingency plans that describe in great detail how the organization will react in the event

academic targets are not met, and how the organization will react to adversity through delayed or modified growth.



Strengths Page

The charter plans to measure its progress of individual students, cohorts, grade levels, and across schools using bi-weekly benchmark testing, TVAAS reports, teacher observation scores, attendance rate.

The charter states its present school (grades 6-12) improved student performance, with a 56% success rate in 2015.

MSENH has identified attendance and benchmark scores as key for close monitoring and will create action plans to address these identifiers with a plan. They list some sample actions used in the past that yielded positive results

60-61


The goals and targets articulated in this section are different than what is articulated in the Academic performance standard section – the applicant must explain this or the authorizer will be left to question what the actual goals are.

The applicant does not fully explain how the organization will approach under-performance for schools that fall short of goals at the school, classroom, or individual level. In the application it simply states, "if some or all schools failed to meet the goals, administration will take further action." A strong response would articulate the process improvement steps the school would take, including what an ideal action plan would look like (at one point, the applicant simply writes action plans would be submitted). Given that the network is seeking to expand from one school to five, a much more thorough articulation of performance management is necessary.

The applicant does not discuss how the organization assesses its readiness to grow and under what circumstances the organization will delay its growth plan (except to note that if buildings are not ready, the school will not open). How has the organization decided it is ready to grow from one school to five? Further, much more clarity is needed on the set of actions the school will take if the portfolio as a whole begins to under-perform.



Strengths Page



The amended application still does not address all noted questions/concerns from the initial review.

The applicant acknowledges that they must approach under performance but the steps were not

included. The applicant has provided data regarding its current success with the schools that are

authorized by Shelby County Schools (TVAAS and achievement pass rates). However, the applicant did

not provide a compelling rationale or other data (need for additional schools in target area, enrollment

data, academic program) to support an expansion of the network, especially an addition of potentially

two charters at once. Performance management becomes a challenge when an operator moves from

one site to four schools. The applicant has not outlined a specific plan for how they will not only

manage performance but the actions they will take if the portfolio underperforms as whole.



SUMMARY COMMENTS Each part of your summary comments should, in a few sentences, provide a clear understanding of your overall evaluation of the proposal as well as the most significant strengths and/or weaknesses. The summary comments for each section should support your rating for the section, and should not be simply cut and pasted from your subsection analysis.

Summary Rating for Entire Academic Plan Design and Capacity



Strengths: Overall the application provides a comprehensive academic plan that aligns to the mission of the school, includes a robust plan for assessment and use of data to inform instruction focused on student achievement, and describes strategies for supporting students who are not meeting academic expectations. The applicant demonstrates a strong understanding of serving students with disabilities as well as English learners. Additionally, includes a compelling case for the need for higher quality options in the target community and provides some meaningful strategies for marketing, student outreach and parent engagement. Weaknesses/Questions: The applicant has contradictory information related to goals and no clarity on how the authorizer is to evaluate its performance. Moreover, the applicant’s current performance enrolling students with disabilities is substandard and they offer no information on how they will ensure a different outcome with this school. Moreover, the academic plan for this school is substantially similar to that provided for the elementary school and middle school. In fact, the application for these three schools is basically a cut and paste. How has the applicant considered the developmental differences among these different age/grade levels? How is the curriculum and instructional approach tailored to the needs of high school students? This application in particular does not reflect a curricular and programmatic approach for high school.




Strengths: (If Any) Weaknesses:

While the amended application did clarify a small number of questions and concerns raised

during the initial review; however, the amended application was very similar. The applicant

still did not have robust goals to evaluate the overall performance of the proposed school.

While the operator currently manages a strong program, the application did not strongly

address programmatic or curricular needs of a high school program.


SECTION 2 – OPERATIONS PLAN AND CAPACITY

2.1 GOVERNANCE

Characteristics of a strong response: Strong understanding of the roles and responsibilities of a governing board including structure, size, powers,

duties, and expertise that aligns with the school’s mission and vision. Proposed structure is likely to ensure effective governance and meaningful oversight of school performance,

operations, and financials. Evidence the proposed board members will contribute the wide range of knowledge, skills, and commitment

needed to oversee a successful charter school, including but not limited to educational, financial, legal, and community experience and expertise.

Plans for meaningful board training as required by law. If applicable, a timely plan for creating or transitioning from a founding board to a school governing board. Clear, compelling plans to ensure parents have access to the governing board, including a process for

complaints that is fair, transparent and a plan for communicating the process. Sound plan and timeline for board recruitment, expansion and orientation of new members. Governance documents (Attachments F1-F7) are complete and align with state laws and district policies.



Strengths Page

Current board members have appropriate backgrounds and expertise consistent with the school’s mission.

The board will engage in annual training. The board will add a parent from the school to the board within the first six months. The application outlines the roles and responsibilities of the board and demonstrates an

understanding of the difference between governance and management, which will be delegated to the school principal.

60-64

Concerns/ Questions Page

The applicant does not describe how the board will evaluate the success of the school, the school leader, and its own performance. This clarity is especially important given that the sponsor is seeking to expand from one school to five schools – like in the performance management section, the applicant does not fully articulate what the board will do to evaluate success.

How does the board understand the evolution of its role in oversight of multiple schools should more schools be approved?

60-64



Strengths Page


The amended application did not fully address the noted concerns provided during the initial review. While

the applicant provided a list of metrics that the school leader will be evaluated, the application did not

provide a detailed description with targets nor what are next steps if the leader falls below 1 or more of

those areas. The applicant has not clearly defined what success looks like for a school in the growing


network. The applicant never addresses their role when they have oversight over multiple schools.



2.2 START-UP PLAN

Characteristics of a strong response: Compelling plan for leading the development of the school from post-approval to opening, including

identification of a capable individual or team to lead the planning and start-up, as well as a viable plan for compensating this individual or team during the planning year.

Adequately addresses potential challenges. Detailed start-up plan specifying tasks and timelines which are aligned with a sound start-up budget.



Strengths Page


The applicant seems to be underestimating the challenge of starting a new school especially in the realm of human resources where hiring teachers for three additional schools, hiring three principals, and other support staff will require significant time and energy from the organization. As a result, no plan to address those challenges has been submitted. The applicant must address how they intend to deal with scaling up three school simultaneously in their submission.

The start-up plan does not identify individuals responsible for carrying out any of these activities. The timing of hiring the principal on the start-up plan doesn’t make sense in the context of other

key activities, including hiring of key officers by principal. Hiring of some key officers will not be completed until January 2019?

It is unclear who will be carrying out all these activities prior to the hiring of key school leadership. The budget presented is wholly insufficient to carry out the start-up activities. The timeline

indicates that the principal and other key officers will be hiring by Spring 2018, however, there are next to no expenses for staffing in Year 0.

Nothing related to marketing and outreach to students and families is included in the start-up plan beyond “student recruitment”.

Is the Read Foundation responsible for start-up activities, and will the Read Foundation fund these activities?

63-66, 236-240



Strengths Page

The applicant has identified members of the network team who will be responsible for the various tasks in the timeline.


The amended application still did not address many of the questions and concerns noted during the

initial review. Although the dates were adjusted for the hiring of the Principal, there are other key

staff positions for which the search will be later in the startup year. Given the number of schools

currently being managed by the applicant and the potential number of staff members and training of

those staff, the timelines seem late. The applicant did not address any plan should any challenges arise


with trying to secure talent.

The startup budget includes unsecured grants monies that the applicant believes the proposed school

will receive because the other schools they manage have been recipients. The proposed start up

budget is $865K, with pre-opening budgeted expenses listed at 505k, without a contingency plan for

funds not received or received after fund are needed.



2.3 FACILITIES

Characteristics of a strong response: Facility plans are reasonable and adequately meet the requirements of the educational program and

anticipated student population. A sound plan and timeline for identifying, financing, renovating, and ensuring code compliance for a facility.



Strengths Page


The applicant cites that the building with which they have a contingency agreement is already ADA compliant as is a back-up building. Please share those options in the application.

The plan indicates that leasing will be the first option, but then goes on to say that MSENH will purchase a facility which is it?

The narrative indicates that details on the plan to identify, finance, and prepare a building to be ready by August 1 are provided in a table; however, no such details are provided.

Application includes narrative from the elementary application – it is not updated to reflect high school even though the HS will have 30% more students.

68



Strengths Page


This section of the amended application is very similar to the initial application submitted. The applicant gave a very high level narrative describing the facilities plan. While the applicant states that there are four possible buildings that could be purchased, a “contingency agreement” was mentioned. It is unclear whether this agreement is still active and if the agreement is based on the approval of the application. Or, if the building option is available if one of the four buildings that could be used as a school building? The applicant still did not share the options in the application. It is unclear what is available and if the applicant as a contingency plan (back up) in the event their primary option is unavailable. The narrative did not provide a timeline for when the final facility would be selected as well as the terms for how the building would be financed. The narrative did not reflect any modifications based on the increased number of students in the high school program.



2.4 PERSONNEL/ HUMAN CAPITAL

Characteristics of a strong response: The schools organizational charts (Attachment G) clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of – and lines

of authority and reporting among – the Board, staff, any related bodies (such as advisory bodies or parent/educator councils), and any external organizations that will play a role in managing the school.

If leader is identified, chosen leaders have necessary qualifications, competencies, and capacity for their assigned roles and resumes for school leadership are included (Attachment H). If available, includes previous student achievement data for school leadership (Attachment H). NOTE: If school leader has not been chosen, a clear description of qualifications, expectations, responsibilities and timeline for hiring is included.

Identifies strategies for supporting school leadership. Recruitment and hiring strategy, criteria, timeline, and procedures are likely to result in a strong staff and are

well suited to the school. Compensation packages are likely to attract and retain strong staff are clearly defined. Provides a strong plan for supporting, developing, and annually evaluating school leadership and teachers that

aligns statewide evaluation requirements. Effective planning for unsatisfactory leadership/teacher performance and turnover. Employee manual and personnel policies (Attachment I) are complete and effective. Staffing projections for each year are robust and aligned with the educational program and conducive to the

school’s success.



Strengths Page

Starting teaching salary ($47,500) is competitive. Principal evaluation by the board of directors includes multiple domains including student

performance. Staffing projections for teaching staff are reasonable and appear aligned to the program. Staff handbook is comprehensive and clear.

68-71, 189-223


As noted in the section about start up plans, the applicant seems to be significantly underestimating the challenge in opening three schools simultaneously while continuing to operate two other schools. As a result, the strategy, plans, and timeline for hiring need to be described in more detail. At present, the strategy for recruitment is simply one paragraph that describes how they will advertise. Moreover, there does not appear to be any articulation of specialized recruitment for non-teacher positions (outside of the principal role); that the applicant does not differentiate their strategy for hiring teachers versus operational staff for the reflects they are under-thinking this particular aspect of scaling up a network.

No school operations support staff in years 1 and 2 and only 1 in years 3 and after. The staffing charts are inconsistent. One indicates no assistant principal and one includes an

assistant principal. Application indicates the school will meet highly qualified staff requirements per NCLB. This is

dated. No clear process for hiring a principal is included. Salary of $70,000 for school principal is not competitive – how will the school attract strong

69-71, 186, 247


candidates when the district can pay at a far higher rate? The (General Information section, page 3) list Muhammet Turkay as the Executive Director. Alise

Keel-Pruitt is listed at the Principal. The School Leadership resume (Attachment H, page 186) listed Muhammet Turkay as the school leader and his resume also listed him as the current principal – this needs to be clarified.

Evaluation practices are not clearly defined to determine if they align with the state wide evaluation models. There is no clear plan of action for when the school’s leadership or staff are underperforming.

Number of teachers is not as expected given increase in student numbers from year 2 to 3 and 3 to 4. (240 to 360 and 360 to 480). What is thinking? Also, the HS has the same number of ELL, foreign language and SpEd staff (2) as for the MS and ES though enrollment is 120 more students? Number of counseling/SW staff seems low for HS. It is the same as for ES and MS. Aren't more counselors needed to support post-secondary planning for students?



Strengths Page


There were some additions made to address some of the concerns raised during the initial application

review. However, there are still some questions and concerns that need to be addressed. The teacher

hiring strategy was still very vague without any discussion regarding any specialized recruitment for non-

teacher positions. This would be necessary given the increase of non-teaching staff positions in the

staffing projections included in the amended application. The amended lacked evidence that the operator

is positioned and planned for the significant number of staff positions that would be needed for the

proposed schools. Although the amended application addressed staffing concerns related to support staff,

how are you determining classroom teacher increases in the high school program? The application did not

provide a strong response or plan in the event that an administrator is falling short of their responsibilities

and duties managing their building.

P73-75



2.5 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Characteristics of a strong response: Professional development standards, opportunities, leadership, and calendar/scheduling effectively support

the education program and are likely to maximize success in improving student achievement. Thoughtful plan for professional development in the areas of special education and English Language Learners,

including implementation of IEP’s, discipline of students with disabilities and communication with ELL families. Professional development plan supports professional growth, generates collaboration, and cultivates future

leadership.



Strengths Page

The school PD is multi-pronged and includes high expectations for all teachers and school leadership.

Staff has continual access to PD360 online. The Mentoring Program is robust and is likely to provide strong support for newer or struggling

teachers. Plans include specific training in the areas of special education, ELL, and discipline for students with

disabilities (though PD for ELL refers to IEP’s which falls under special education, no ELL). The “Grow your own Administrator” model is likely to develop future leadership successfully. Common planning time will facilitate collaboration, as will the mentoring program.

73-79


While the plan outlined in this section is strong, again, it is the same as that for the ES and MS. The approach requires tailoring for the high school students

73-79



Strengths Page


The amended application did not address the concerns noted in the initial review. While there are many strengths for the professional plan, the applicant has not provided any differentiation for the specific needs of high school staff.



2.6 INSURANCE

Characteristics of a strong response: Plan to secure comprehensive and adequate insurance coverage, including worker’s compensation, liability,

property, indemnity, directors and officers, automobile, sexual abuse and any other required coverage. If applicable, additional liability for such activities as sports teams. Insurance company letter (Attachment J) states required coverage will be provided upon approval of the

charter school application.



Strengths Page


The letter from the insurance company does not state that they will provide the coverage upon approval of the charter application; it is simply an estimate of the charges. Moreover the letter from the insurance company does not include provisions for sharing how the insurance provider will notify the department of education within 10 days of the cancellation of any Insurance it carries on the charter school.

The letter from the insurance company does not appear to cover the facility (although it appears as if some items housed in the facility – e.g. school contents – are covered)

Attachment J



Strengths Page

The applicant provided the appropriate letter with required coverage. Attachment J




2.7 TRANSPORTATION – IF APPLICABLE

Characteristics of a strong response: Clear description of transportation plan that includes anticipated routes, extracurricular activities, and

Saturday school where applicable. A comprehensive oversight plan that identifies school staff responsible for this oversight. Description of how the school will arrange transportation for special needs students where necessary. Demonstrated familiarity with state and federal regulations relating to provision of transportation services to

students.



Strengths Page

NA




Strengths Page




2.8 FOOD SERVICE

Characteristics of a strong response: A clear description of how the school will offer food service to all students, adhering to all nutritional

guidelines. A plan to collect free and reduced price lunch information, including procedures to receive reimbursement. A plan to ensure compliance with applicable state and federal regulations.



Strengths Page

The applicant fully responds to this section & meets the criteria of the state's rubric.




Strengths Page




2.9 ADDITIONAL OPERATIONS – IF APPLICABLE

Characteristics of a strong response: Detailed plans for use of technology within the classroom and for state assessments. Provides compelling data management plan that includes communication strategies for parents. Demonstrates understanding of health and safety requirements that includes a plan for hiring a registered

nurse for creating individual health plans as required by law. Detailed safety and security plans for students, staff, guests, and property. Provides detailed maintenance plan for school facilities. If school plans to contract with a CMO, describes rationale and process for selecting CMO and explanation of

why the CMO is a strong choice and good fit for the proposed school and community. Provides clear division of roles between the board and the service provider. If available, the CMO arrangement (Attachment K) is free of conflicts of interest and there is a viable plan for

identifying and managing potential conflicts.



Strengths Page


The plan indicates that the landlord will provide general maintenance, but earlier the plan indicated that the school will buy a building. This is not consistent.

No discussion of a CMO is provided, though the school is part of a greater network. How will this work?

Where fire drills and intruder drills are listed, there also needs to be tornado drills The committee was concerned that it was not clear whether the applicant will purchase the

building or not. Landlord or purchase of building. It seemed to go back and forth. If the purchase agreement goes through as mentioned in prior sections this wouldn’t be needed and the principal/school leader would need to be responsible for all services. Please clarify.

The application indicates that all staff will have training in first aid, it does not include a clear plan for nursing services for students.

The applicant's plan needs to include how it will ensure fidelity in uploading their student information into the district's student information system so that all relevant information gets uploaded to the state.



Strengths Page

The applicant clarified that the READ Foundation is not a CMO. P89


The amended application did not address any of the concerns and questions raised during the initial application review. The amended application was similar to the initial application submitted.

P82-83



2.10 WAIVERS

Characteristics of a strong response: Detailed description of waivers requested that includes compelling and thoughtful rationale describing how

the waivers will impact student achievement. A demonstrated understanding of the rules and statutes that cannot be waived under Tennessee law.



Strengths Page

Details of multiple waivers are outlined including a clear rationale of how the waivers support student achievement.

83-86




Strengths Page




2.11 NETWORK VISION, GROWTH PLAN, & CAPACITY (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS)

Characteristics of a strong response: Detailed strategic vision for the network that includes a robust five-year network growth plan. Growth plan

should include the following: proposed years of opening; number and types of schools; a clear, detailed outline of any pending applications (whether in the same LEA, Tennessee or another state); all current and/or targeted markets/communities and criteria for selecting them; and projected enrollments.

Strong, compelling evidence of organizational capacity to open and operate high quality schools in Tennessee and elsewhere including specific timelines for building organizational capacity.

Clear, detailed description of the results of past replication effort, challenges, and lessons learned, and how the organization has addressed any challenges.

Realistic presentation of anticipated challenges and risks over the next five years associated with opening additional schools, along with a plan to overcome them to achieve the organization’s stated outcomes.

Comprehensive and complete annual report (both network and individual schools) (Attachment L). If facility has been selected, facility plans are reasonable and adequately meet the requirements of the

educational program and anticipated student population. If facility has not been selected, or selected facility needs renovations/upgrades, a sound plan and timeline for

identifying, financing, renovating, and ensuring code compliance for a facility.



Strengths Page

From Annual Report: strong operations score – 4.83 out of 5 – gives indication that operations are strong at MSE campus; Graduation rate data is very strong; Exam Success rate is higher than that of the region or all SCS.

Enrollment at the current site is growing consistently year over year.

226


The network's strategic vision is insufficient. Simply describing that the school hopes to increase the success rate does not help the authorizer assess the long-term vision of the network or why this specific growth plan is being put into place.

Applicant does not fully respond to section C regarding specific timelines for building or deploying organizational capacity to support the proposed schools; again, it appears as if the applicant is underestimating the strain on organizational resources that opening three school simultaneously can have or, at best, has not articulated those challenges in the application and how they will surmount them. At one point, the applicant writes that the biggest challenge is facilities and, though that is a challenge, there are other significant challenges that the applicant does not appear to be accounting for. To fully meet the rubric, the applicant must respond fully to the section.

The applicant does not appear to respond at all to section F where the state asks the applicant to discuss the greatest anticipated risks and challenges to achieve in the organization's desired outcomes and how the organization will meet those challenge and mitigate risks.

The applicant does not respond to section H as the state's rubric asks for the organization's most recent annual report; the applicant simply provides data from the district's charter report. To meet

87


the criteria for this section, the applicant must submit its own, most recent, annual report. Contradictory information is provided again related to facilities.



Strengths Page


This section of the amended application is very similar to the initial application and has not addressed all of the questions and concerns presented during the initial evaluation of the application. The applicant did not provide a robust network strategic vision including a growth plan. The applicant addresses four challenges for charter operators but the responses were brief; the responses did not fully address how the organization will meet the challenges and mitigate risk. The applicant still did not provide a detailed response outlining timelines for building organizational capacity to accommodate the growth of the proposed school. The section did not provide enough detail to fully access the capacity of the operator to sustain significant growth through the addition of two new schools.

P89-90



2.12 NETWORK MANAGEMENT (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS)

Characteristics of a strong response: Leadership team identified and role and responsibilities listed. As Attachment M, organizational charts for Year 1, Year 3, and Year 5 clearly delineate roles and

responsibilities of the governing board, including lines of authority between the board, school leadership, and staff. If applicable, the chart should include other related bodies (advisory bodies or parent-teacher councils) and a charter management organization if school has contracted with one and it will play a role in managing the school.

Clear, compelling network strategy that includes any shared or centralized support services, along with their costs, across the network.

Strong description of relationship between schools and charter management organization, including presentation of a contract or MOU (if applicable).

Fees from member schools are clearly delineated, along with a rationale for their collection, use, and structure (if applicable).

Associated table provided in application is complete with explanations for school and organization-level decision-making responsibilities.



Strengths Page


The applicant does not fully respond to section B as it does not provide information that includes network management and schools within the network; rather, it states in the application that each school will be taken as a one off but then contradicts itself by saying the network will be managed by an executive director. The organizational charts submitted must reflect the overall management of the network. For example, if an executive director will be managing five schools, then the attachments need to reflect that so the authorizer has clarity on who exactly will be managing the five schools in the network.

Overall, this section is undeveloped. The applicant indicates that Read Foundation does not plan to work as a CMO yet it is clearly a network with plans for five schools. While a chart is provided that includes who is making decisions at the network and school levels, no discussion is provided on how this will function. For example, the application indicates that the Read Foundation will have 4 positions to oversee all schools; however, it is not clear if these are support positions or if they are part of the accountability structure. For example, does the Executive Director play a part in hiring and evaluating the principals?

Does the Read Foundation provide back office services to all the schools? How are the salaries of these 4 individuals paid for?

87-88



Strengths Page



There are still outstanding concerns and questions upon review of the amended application. The amended application did not provide a clear organizational chart that outlines overall management for all schools in the network. Although the applicant provided a school and organization -level decision making chart, the applicant still did not describe how the process will work. With potentially 4 different schools, what is the process for ensuring the executive director is looped into all concerns and decision making at the school and network level? The applicant does not appear to have thought through a reporting strategy.

P88-89



2.13 NETWORK GOVERNANCE (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS)

Characteristics of a strong response: 1) If there is a network board that operates as the main governing body with each school having an advisory

committee: Applicant provides a complete description of the governance structure at the network level and delineates

how that relates to each individual school within the network. Provides a robust plan for ensuring there is adequate local/Tennessee stakeholder representation. Roles and responsibilities of this board described clearly and concisely. Description of the current size and composition of the governing board, with a rationale of how the

current/proposed governance structure and composition will ensure the desired outcomes of a network of highly effective schools.

A clear and compelling plan to evaluate academic and operational success including the evaluation of the school and school leader (s).

2) If there will be one governing board for all schools at the local level, or separate governing boards for each school:

If there will be one governing board for all schools: o A clear, detailed description of the governance structure at the network level and how it relates to the

individual school including any changes that will take place at the board level for it to be effective (if necessary).

o A copy of the by-laws and organizational chart is included. o A clear, thorough plan to transform the board’s membership, mission and by-laws to support the

expansion plan. Plan should include timeline for the transition and orientation of the board to its new responsibilities.

If there will be a separate governing board for each school: o A clear, detailed description of how the new governing board will be formed and the relationship

between the new and old boards described, along with any overlapping responsibilities. o Includes biographies of new board members, roles and responsibilities of the board described clearly

and concisely, an organizational chart and governing board structure. By-laws of the new board are included (if available) and there is a plan in place for board training as required

by Tennessee law.



Strengths Page

Bylaws and other key documents are included and a reasonable plan for governance included as part of section 2.1.

Current board members have strong local ties.


The applicant does not respond to section B in this section as the state's rubric asks for the applicant to explain how the proposed governance structure and composition will help ensure that there will be active and effective representation of key stakeholders.

The applicant does not respond to section D as the state's rubric asks how the board will evaluate the success of the school and the school leader.

The applicant does not respond to section E where the state's rubric asks the applicant to explain


how the interests of individual schools will be balanced with network interest and how key stakeholders will be represented.

The application indicates that the Read Foundation will be the governing board for all schools and that a parent will be added to the board. Is that a parent from each school or one parent in total? If it is one parent total, how will be it be determined which school the parent will be from?

The relationship among the board, Read Foundation staff (i.e. executive director) and school leadership is not clear.

The role of the advisory council is not clear



Strengths Page


There were still questions and concerns that were not addressed in the amended application. The proposed applicant described the current governance structure and provided a brief description of the area of expertise that each current board member provides to the school as well as the role of the board. However, the application did not address why this structure and composition appropriately reflect key stakeholders. While the applicant shares the tools that will be used to evaluate the school’s success, the applicant did not explicitly state what measures will be used to evaluate the leader. The applicant does not address how school and network needs will be balanced. The applicant simply states that the board “may adopt different policies for each individual school based on their needs.” What is the board’s rationale for having different policies for schools in the same network?

P92-93



2.14 CHARTER SCHOOL MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS (IF APPLICABLE; FOR EXISTING OPERATORS)

Characteristics of a strong response: As Attachment N, a detailed, strong rationale explaining the selection of the CMO, including descriptions of

proposed duration of the contract, roles and responsibilities of the governing board, school staff, and the service provider, scope of services provided, performance evaluation measures, financial controls, and terms of renewal.

Draft of proposed management contract. Detailed documentation of CMO’s non-profit status, including evidence it is authorized to do business in

Tennessee.



Strengths Page

NA




Strengths Page




2.15 PERSONNEL/HUMAN CAPITAL – NETWORK-WIDE STAFFING PROJECTIONS (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS)

Characteristics of a strong response: Network staffing projections for each year are robust and aligned with the educational program and are

conducive to the school’s success.



Strengths Page


The section must be clear – year one of the proposed school is 2018–19; in that year, the network will have a total of five schools: two elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and a 6–12 (which would be considered a high school). Therefore, in year one, the network will have a total of two elementary schools and two high schools yet in year one for network-wide staffing projections, the total number of schools is listed as three. Further, down through the spreadsheet, only one elementary school is listed for year one (even though there will be two elementary schools), two middle schools are slated for year two (even though, the network will only operate one middle school).

How can staffing stay the same for the network management positions even though the number of schools doubles?

90



Strengths Page


The applicant made the necessary modifications in the amended application. P93-94



2.16 PERSONNEL/HUMAN CAPITAL – STAFFING PLANS, HIRING, MANAGEMENT, AND EVALUATION (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS)

Characteristics of a strong response: Chosen leaders have necessary qualifications, competencies and capacity for their assigned roles. Identifies strategies for supporting school leadership. Recruitment and hiring strategy, criteria, timeline, and procedures are likely to result in a strong staff and meet

requirements for being “highly qualified” and are well suited to the school. Effective planning for unsatisfactory leadership/teacher performance and turnover. The organizational charts (Attachment G) provided clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of – and lines

of authority and reporting among – the Board, staff, any related bodies (such as advisory bodies or parent/educator councils), and any external organizations that will play a role in managing the school.



Strengths Page


The applicant does not respond to the section stating that its answers have been addressed in other places in the application but as has been noted throughout, the network has not submitted clear vision, strategic thinking, or tactics related to the challenges an organization faces when it's seeks to scale up its operations from one, to five schools in such a short period of time.



Strengths Page


The amended application does not address the concerns and questions raised during the initial application review. The applicant has not provided a clear vision and strategic plan for scaling up to five schools. The applicant does not provide enough evidence to support thought surrounding potential challenges and solutions due to rapid growth in a short time frame. Although the applicant defers to the Personnel/Human Capital section (2.4) for additional information, that section still did not address all concerns noted above.

P95


SECTION 2 OPERATIONS PLAN AND CAPACITY


Summary Rating for Entire Operations Plan and Capacity



Strengths: Current Read Foundation board members bring a diverse set of skills and experience for supporting a quality charter school, and the applicant demonstrates understanding of the role of governance vs. management. The application includes a robust plan for professional development of staff as well as training for board members. Weaknesses/Questions: The committee's deepest concern was that the network had not put enough attention and detail around its plans for scaling up the organization. Though Memphis School of Excellence has been a high performer with a single school, we did not see enough detail or thought given to how difficult it can be to scale from one school to five schools in a short period of time. Moreover, this section raises a number of questions regarding the relationship between the schools and the Read Foundation including the governing board. The application indicates that Read Foundation is not a CMO; however, it appears to be structured as such. It is not clear what services exactly will be provided by the network staff or how these individuals will be paid, including whether the schools must pay a fee to the Read Foundation. Because this application was submitted in conjunction with those of two other schools to be governed by the same board, more clarity is needed regarding who will be new individuals brought on to the board and what is the relationship between and among the board, network staff and school staff. There are a number of contradictions and inconsistent information provided in areas including facilities, network growth, and school and leadership positions and responsibilities. Additionally, staffing levels for high school do not have a clear rationale. Overall, much more clarity is needed regarding governance, the role of the network and who is responsible for what, and how the network will have the capacity to open four new schools in two-three years.



Strengths: (If Any) Weaknesses: The amended application still did not provide evidence that the network is prepared and planned for adding the addition school. As was noted previously, Memphis School of Excellence has been a strong single site school. The network would not only be charged with all of the new start up responsibilities (hiring, curriculum, facilities) but also balancing and ensuring that the current schools in operation are


not compromised. The amended application also did not address questions around governance with the addition of the proposed schools and the role of the network with the new addition of the schools.


SECTION 3 – FINANCIAL PLAN AND CAPACITY

3.1 & 3.2 CHARTER SCHOOL FINANCING

Characteristics of a strong response: Budget worksheet (Attachment O) contains assumptions and reasonable budget numbers that reflect rent,

utilities, maintenance, insurance and build-out costs.

Detailed budget assumptions that include the impact of the anticipated number of students who receive free or reduced price lunches.

Detailed financial procedures, policy, or other reasonable assurance that the proposed school will have sound systems and processes in place for accounting, payroll, and independent annual school-level and network-level (where applicable) financial and administrative audits.

Sound criteria and procedures in place for selecting contractors for any administrative services.

Complete, realistic, and viable start-up and five year operating budgets.

Detailed budget narrative (Attachment P) that clearly explains reasonable, well-supported revenue and cost assumptions, including grant/fundraising assumptions, identification of the amounts and sources of all anticipated funds, property, or other resources (noting which are secured vs. anticipated, and including evidence of firm commitments where applicable.

Sound contingency plan to meet financial needs if anticipated revenues are lower than estimated.

Individual and collective qualifications for implementing the financial plan successfully, including capacity in areas such as financial management, fundraising and development, and accounting.



Strengths Page


The school does not appear to have staff in place for 17–18 which means that any staff would start after July 1. Given that school begins in August, does the school have enough time to begin its program after only a month of staff being on the ground? If not, the numbers must be adjusted.

In section 2.4 (personnel/human capital) – the school states that it will have their principal in place during year zero as well as one special high school staff person but the budget reflects zero FTE. There cannot be contradictory information so one of the places must be adjusted.

Board is pledging $20,000. Is that the same for the middle and high school too, in other words the board members are pledging $60,000? p. 236

It is not clear how the school can accomplish needed tasks of start-up year with expenses of $25,000. p. 241

How will the school function with no operations staff in years 1 and 2? (What is the role of this operations staff?) p. 247

Where are the expenses for Read Foundation staff? Why do supplies and materials costs go down in years 3, 4 and 5? What are all the supplies

costs? Number of support staff is low for HS. For example, social workers/counselors is only 1.0 which

is the same for ES and MS. HS requires much more of this type of work to support students post-

236, 241, 247, 262, 264


secondary pursuits.



Strengths Page


While the proposed school has received startup funds in the past for schools they are currently operating, the amended application does not provide a contingency plan in the event the funds are not granted or disbursed later than expected. The applicant has a significant start up budget of 850K in the planning year. Fundraising efforts would have to be increased significantly to account for the short fall of funds that are not received through grants. The budget narrative indicates that the school would initiate asking for a loan from the bank and increasing fundraising by only 25k.

Attachment O, Attachment P



3.3 FINANCIAL PLAN (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS COMPLETING SECTIONS 3.1 AND 3.2)

Characteristics of a strong response: Detailed description of the fiscal health of other schools in the network (if applicable) including a

comprehensive description of any schools on fiscal probation or in bankruptcy. Complete, realistic, and viable budget for the network (Attachment Q). The budget includes reasonable, well-

support revenue and cost assumptions, including grant/fundraising assumptions, identification of the amounts and sources of all anticipated funds, property, or other resources (noting which are secured vs. anticipated) and including evidence of firm commitments where applicable.

Sound contingency funds to meet financial needs if anticipated revenues are lower than estimated.



Strengths Page


The applicant does not respond to section 3.3 B where the state's rubric asks the applicant to articulate how the school intends to reach its fundraising goals over the next five years.

The applicant does not provide a detailed budget for the network – it simply references information that is relevant but not sufficient. Moreover, it asks the authorizer to look at sections 3.1 and 3.2 for more information when the information provided in those sections deals only with the proposed elementary school, not the network as a whole. The state’s rubric outlines the nature of the detailed information to be provided (back office budget, total employee compensation for the network level, all anticipated funding sources at the network level, Etc.)

267



Strengths Page


The amended application still did not address the concerns and questions noted during the initial application review. A five-year fundraising goal and plan was not provided. The amended application did not include a network budget but references the school budget provided in sections 3.1 and 3.2.

P97



3.4 FINANCIAL PLAN (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS NOT COMPLETING SECTIONS 3.1 AND 3.2)

Characteristics of a strong response: Budget assumptions and reasonable budget numbers that reflect rent, utilities, maintenance, insurance and

build-out costs of facilities.

Detailed financial procedures, policy, or other reasonable assurance that the proposed school will have sound systems and processes in place for accounting, payroll, and independent annual school-level and network-level (where applicable) financial and administrative audits (both school level and network level).

Complete, realistic, and viable start-up and five year operating budgets for network and individual schools (Attachment Q) that align with the academic plan and operations plan included in the application. If applicable, clearly describes the fiscal health of any other schools in the network and any fiscal issues the schools have faced (bankruptcy, fiscal probation, etc.).

Detailed budget narrative (Attachment P) that clearly explains reasonable, well-supported revenue and cost assumptions, including grant/fundraising assumptions, identification of the amounts and sources of all anticipated funds, property, or other resources (noting which are secured vs. anticipated, and including evidence of firm commitments where applicable.

Sound contingency plan to meet financial needs if anticipated revenues are lower than estimated. Particularly important is Year 1 cash flow projections and contingency, as well as a 24-month cash-flow projection.

Individual and collective qualifications for implementing the financial plan successfully, including capacity in areas such as financial management, fundraising and development, and accounting.

Detailed budget is inclusive of both individual schools and network. All cost revenues and all major expenditures are accounted for and are realistic.



Strengths Page

NA




Strengths Page



SECTION 3 FINANCIAL PLAN AND CAPACITY


Summary Rating for Entire Financial Plan and Capacity Section



Strengths: Weaknesses/Questions: As has been noted, the applicant failed to respond to several components of the state’s rubric most concerning was the absence of a network-wide budget given that this organization proposes to run 5 schools simultaneously. While the budget provided leads to a healthy financial position for the school quickly, it is not clear that this budget is viable as it may be understating expenses in some areas such as facilities and accounting. Additionally, it does not include any information on how Read Foundation staff are paid.



Strengths: (If Any) Weaknesses: The amended application still did not fully address concerns noted during the initial review. The application did not include a contingency plan in the event that unsecured funds do not materialize for startup costs. Given the amount of startup funds the school has budgeted, it would be a significant burden on the other schools to assume those expenses and could compromise start up activities for the proposed school. It is unclear if the school has anticipated the potential strain that could occur with the current schools if the proposed school fell below budgeted revenues. The application also lacked a network budget, given the significant growth for the operator from 3 to potentially 5 schools. While the applicant has had a strong financial plan for the current schools they manage, there is not enough evidence to support an additional financial responsibility of two additional schools, for a total of 5 schools within the network.


SECTION 4 – PORTFOLIO REVIEW/PERFORMANCE RECORD

4.1 PAST PERFORMANCE (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS)

Characteristics of a strong response: Applicant provides clear, compelling evidence of successful student outcomes for each school in the network

(Portfolio Summary Template, Attachment S) and evidence that the operator’s schools are high performing and successful by meeting state standards and national standards (Attachment R).

Graduation rates are indicative of highly successful graduation strategies (if applicable, Attachment R). Applicant selects one or more of the organization’s consistently high-performing schools and provides a

detailed narrative outlining primary causation of high-quality, high-performing status, along with description of challenges met and overcome.

Applicant selects one or more of the organization’s low or unsatisfactorily performing schools and provides a detailed narrative outlining primary causation of low performing school(s) in the network and specific strategies outlined that corrected, or will correct, the deficiencies (if applicable).

Latest audit (Attachment U) shows no findings and is prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting and auditing principles as is outlined in Tennessee law.

Organization is in good standing wherever they have located schools, and there have been no revocations, litigation that has resulted in negative outcomes, non-renewals, or financial, organizational, or academic deficiencies (if applicable, Attachments T and V).

Application Review


Strengths Page

Test results at MSE show very strong improvement over the past 5 years and high rates at “proficient or advance” over the past 2 years.

Performance compares favorably to nearby schools.

TCAP results compare favorably to nearby schools.

EOC results compare favorably to nearby schools

MSE had the highest results on the operations score card for all SCS schools.

MSE had a very strong cash position and strong net position at FY16 YE.

The FY14, FY15 and FY16 audits had no findings.

268-270, 272, 284, 319, 369




Strengths Page


1.1 SCHOOL MISSION AND GOALS Characteristics of a ......Academic goals contribute to the stated...

Documents

Transcript of 1.1 SCHOOL MISSION AND GOALS Characteristics of a ......Academic goals contribute to the stated...