Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 216

BACKUP FOR AGENDA ITEM IV.B.4.

BOARD
of
ELEMENTARY
and
SECONDARY
EDUCATION

RECOVERY SCHOOL DISTRICT


COMMITIEE
Claiborne Bui’ding
Room 1-100, The Louisiana Purchase Room
1201 N. 3 Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
1:00 p.m.
(NOTiCE: This meeting may be convened up to 30 minutes prior to the
posted schedule to facilitate the orderly conduct of business.)
I. STANDING ITEMS

B. Management issues of the Recovery School District

4. Consideration of Type 5 charter school proposals.

pg. 1 a. Fannie C. Williams Charter School — Community Leaders Advocating


Student Success

pg. 13 b. Crescent City School — Crescent City Schools

pg. 25 c. The NET Charter High School — Educators for Quality Alternatives
(EQA)

pg. 37 d. Joseph A. Craig — The Friends of King School

pg. 47 e. George Washington Carver Charter School — Dr. George Washington


Carver Charter School Association

pg. 57 f. James Weldon Johnson Academy — James Weldon Johnson


Academy

pg. 67 g. John T. Scott Middle School — John T. Scott Middle School

pg. 77 h. Lord Beacorisfield Landry College Preparatory and Career Focused


Charter High School Lord Beaconsfield Charter Association

pg. 87 i. Collegiate Academy Charter School — New Orleans Charter Science


and Math Academy

pg. 99 j. Sarah T. Reed Charter Elementary School - New Orleans East


Charter Academies, Inc.

pg. 109 k. Sarah T. Reed Charter Middle School New Orleans East Charter
-

Academies, Inc.

pg. 119 I. Sarah T. Reed Charter High School - New Orleans East Charter
Academies, Inc.

pg. 129 m. ReNEW K-8 Charter School (‘ReNEW Three”) — ReNEW-Reinventing


Education Inc.

pg. 141 n. ReNEW Alternative High School 1 — ReNEW-Reinventing Education


Inc.

pg. 153 0. ReNEW Alternative High School 2 - ReNEW-Reinventing Education


Inc.

pg. 165 p. Benjamin Banneker Academy — Total Learning Community, Inc.

pg. 175 q. Walter L. Cohen High School — Walter L. Cohen Alumni Association
Charter Division

pg. 185 r, Joseph A. Craig Community School — Young Audiences of Louisiana,


Inc.

pg. 195 s. Linear SABIS Academy — Shreveport Charter School Association, Inc.

pg. 205 t. Aurora Academy of Performing & Communication Arts — Wilson


Community Development Corporation
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_______
_

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS


December / 2010 (MO/YR)
(updated_10/10)

Receive & Refer Contact Person: Erin Bendilv


X Action Phone Number: 533649_
Information Office: Parental Options

Recovery School District Committee AGENDA

Item #IV.B.4.a, Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


Fannie C. Williams Charter School Community Leaders Advocating

Student
Success

RECOMMENDATION: Approve

Background on application and evaluation process:


A Request for Applications to operate Type 2, 4. and 5 charter
schools was released in April. 2010.
Information sessions and a series of workshops for applicants were
held in June in Baton Rouge, New
Orleans, and Shreveport. Applicants were informed of the following
Type 5 Recovery School District
(RSD) priorities: takeover or conversion of RSD high schools, alterna
tive schools, schools specializing in
serving special needs students, and takeover of low-performi
ng RSD K-8 schools. A total of 14
organizations applied to operate 18 Type 5 schools.

On behalf of the Board and Department. the National Association


of Charter School Authorizers
NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compliance
with the Principals and Standards
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written applica
tion evaluation, applicant interviews.
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local
and national evaluators who brought
expertise in areas of curriculum, management, finance, and the manag
ement of urban charter schools.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process.
conducted completeness checks, and
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators in reviewing
the applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1, 2010.

Applicant information:
Community Leaders Advocating Student Success submitted a Type
5 charter application to operate Fannie
C. Williams Charter School in Orleans Parish. The proposed school will
serve approximately 464 students
in its first year in grades PK-8 and approximately 464 students in
grades PK-8 at full capacity. The
organization does not propose to contract with an education service provid
er.
Community Leaders Advocating Student Success does not currently operate
any charter schools in Louisiana.
Summary of recommendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only those
Type 5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. NACSA’s
evaluation team has recommended
approval of the Type 5 charter application submitted by Community
Leaders Advocating Student Success
to operate Fannie C. Williams Charter School. A copy of the Evaluation
and Recommendation Summary
is attached. Department staff has reviewed the evaluators’ finding and
s agrees that they are sound.
Superintendent Vallas has also reviewed the recommendations and
believes the school will complement
and support the mission of the Recovery School District.

The Department therefore recommends approval of the nnlication for


the proposed charter school to open
during the 2011-12 school year, contingent upon the uirements and
special considerations set forth
_______Aut
______Code
_Admhority
inistrative

below:
• Completion of a pre-opening checklist (attached);
• Addressing any special considerations set forth in the Evalua
tion and Recommendation Summary
recommendations;
• Assignment of an existing RSD-operated school b’ the Superi
ntendent of the RSD not later than
March 2011, If an assignment is not made. the authority to open
this school may be deferred until
2012-13 or may he rescinded based on a recommendation by
the Superintendent of the RSD.
Department staff will report on the status of applicants and their
school assignments during the March
2011 RSD Committee meeting; and
• Execution of the charter contract no later than April 29, 2011.

It is recommended that charter application final approval shall


be not be effective until the above
referenced contingencies. including approval of the Department
and execution (signed by president of the
non-profit corporation and the BESE President) of the charter contrac
t, are met.

Implications of proposed recommendation -- benefits and problematic areas:

No problematic areas are foreseen as a result of this proposed recomm


endation.

of Intent
Code
Emergency Adoption Reason:
--

Reference:
Item Bulletin:
--

Note:
/

Ditector / Assisttnr( uperinte dent


7/ Chief

Deputy Superintend t Stt Superintendent

P.2
Charter School Application
External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Provided to the
LoL4isiaIlo Deportment of Education

DATE

October 28, 2010


SCF )O JAE

Fannie C. Williams Charter School

CHARTER SCHOO TYPE

Independent Review Team Members


REVIEW TE M LEAD

Justin Testerman
EVALIJAT OPS

Jane Dye

Danny Hollinger

Shenita Johnson Girard

William Miller

DEVLLOP-L) BTHE A HONAL ASSOC A11ON


or:HE:iER SCf-CO ALTHCOERS

•a nacsa EDUCAJION

P.3
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

Fannie C. Williams Charter School

Cf ‘rcr.

Community Leaders Advocating Student Success

GRADE I
PK-8 PK-8

0, C’ ED E\POLLME’,
465 465

M SS ICN

The mission of Fannie C. Williams Charter School is to vigorously identify,


understand, and address the specific and particular educational needs of the
boys and girls of our community in a school environment that is academically
rigorous, results oriented, and defined by a culture of high expectations.

CI-i0NL ADF RSIHP

Kelly Baptiste

CO V F R N A N CE

Debra Dean, Candice Richards-Forest, Joseph St. Martin, Duane Stelly, Kendall
Turner

::If.L ‘.CE

This application is being put forth by the current leadership of Fannie C. Williams
and a board of community members.

[1c Sd
P.4
School arrc F-nr iaws Char trr ccl c’

PART 2: RECOMMENDATIOr

The Evaluation Team recommendc th t the applicatin be anproved.

of Fannie C.
The applicants made a strona case that they are poised to assume full control
appicatian is being put forth by the current leadership of tne school and a board
Williams. The
growth last year frcm 17.6 to
of communit membcrs. This le?dersip garnerc impre:1VE. SPS
duc’ion program that is in place, with minor
63 and plans on largely ontinuing the
To Intervention
adjustments. The education program is based on a well-developed Response
and
program that helps meet the needs of al students through individualized instruction
behavior. The applicants recognize the critical importance of
interventions in reading, math, and
school cLilture and hdve developed staffina, profcssronal development , and discipline
a strong
plans in its support.

including legal,
The board of the school is comprised of a group of individuals with varied skills,
development . Board members have a
accounting, business, facilities, education, and youth
track record of community service and are heavily invested in the New Orleans East area as
area depends
residents and business owners. They understand that the continued revival of the
residents.
on having quality public school options available for the children of returning and new
high performance standards for both teachers and students and the
The board articulated
school
intention to hold the school leader accountable for results. The team includes current
individuals
leadership, both Principal Kelly Baptiste and Assistant Principal Tern Williams. Both
all
exhibited strong leadership skills and inspired confidence with their deep knowledge of
aspects of the education grogram and opnrations.

budgets
The financial plan presented in the application meets the standard in all aspects. The
were balanced and supported the proposed education plan. The budgets also included clear and
is detailed
reasonable assumptions for both revenue and expenditures. The cash flow projection
cash
and realistic and the board articulated plans to pursue a line of credit to cover short term
shortages caused by revenue timing.

OVESA, rc:r.iMr\cATi’nN

-- DC\

• ,-P.-Pfl’.E

na ca,
P. 5
I N ann WiNam hart r 00

PART3:EVALUATION DETAIL

AEducation PhUosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

RECOML1\DA IC’J

Ti Lao ‘o 1’ p, C r o’t’o Ii Po

• MEETSTHESTANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOTMEET HE STANDARD

STR NGTHS (000 ha r ox) Include tef rence fi I o of

The proposed curricular components are well researched and demonstrate a clear
understanding of how students earn. The application describes a fully developed Response
To Intervention program that will meet the needs of all students. The education program
utilizes multiple and varied assessments that drive instruction (criterion referenced, norm
referenced, and value added). The applicants are proposing to largely continue the education
program that is currently in place, which has shown impressive SPS growth growth from 47.6
to 63, with minor adjustments. The application clearly outlines job embedded’, individualized
professional development that is tied to the needs of students and the developmental level of
the teacher. The discipline policy is well articulated, clearly defining expectations and
consequences for student behavior. The application included letters of support from key
community stakeholders.

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (i o char coax) In lode ef r n e feI vant.

The Evaluation Team has no concerns in this area

nacsa
P.6
hool 1 Fa Wi Ii Chart r 001

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

B.Governance, Leadership and


Management

ECOMME DAna

Th o’ , e I p ‘ M ru vu

MEETS HE STAND,-RD

— IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS ( C Pa Y)’IOA) I, ,ude uej royce, [u Iei i

Board members represent multiple areas of expertise including legal, financial, business,
facilities, and education. Members are heavily invested in the New Orleans East area,
including residents and business owners. The board demonstrated a commanding knowledge
of New Orleans East and deep passion for helping to rebuild it by continuing the development
of a high quality school for returning residents. The board also demonstrated a clear and
appropriate understanding of the difference between governance and manaciement and
articulated high standards for both teachers and students. The organizational chart clearly
identifies lines of responsibility and authority and the board intends to hold the school leader
accountable for results. The identified school leadership, Kelly Baptiste and Terry Williams,
have helped lead the current school to an impressive SPS growth from 47.6 to 63. Both
leaders inspired confidence with their deep knowledge of the learning program and school
operations.

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (7000 liar. mix) Include i’ferencc, fieIeuant.

Sections on Health Services and Security appear to have been unintentionally deleted. If
BESE approves the proposal, the DOE should confirm that these areas have been addressed
adequately prior to the beginning of the charter term.

P.7
C Nam Fanni C. With s h rt r Sch

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAiL

C. Financial Plan

RECOMMENDATI N
,‘, J

MEETSTHESTANDARD

(S APP OACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (i000 c a,’ ria) In Jude i ftrcric LIr,eI,’i,ai

All of the budgets presented in the proposal were balanced and included clear and reasonable
assumptions for both revenue and expenses. Cash flow projections were realistic and the
board already has p’ans to pursue a lIne of credit to cover expected short term cash deficits
The proposal puts a strong focus on establishing good segregation of’ duties and the board of
directors includes a Certified Public Accountant. The staffing structures and expenditures
support the education program described in the proposal and reflect the priorities of
increasing student achievement and building a ctrong and positive school culture

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ( 0 n I r ia ) I p r f rince, [,eiei’a,

If the proposal is approved, the applicants should revise the budgets during the “pre-opening”
phase to account for actual student numbers, PCSP awards, and LA4 money for the
pre-school program

nacsa
At
Ff5 4
CI’WO
It 155

P.8
School Name: Fannie C. Williams Charter School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

D.Facilities Plan

NOT APPLICABLE

RECOMMENDATION
The Facilities Plan:

MEETS THE STANDARD


IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD
Q
DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (sooo chat mar) Include reference. (frelevarn.


façlI
Not*IIabI! becaUse the appljcanks aIreØQcupt the

:
CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (woo char. mar) include reference. ifrelevant

IS

: ...3e.—,

4.

7 LOt•ISIt.IJA CHAR•LR SCHOOL APPUCAIICN


bI:pNAL :.VttLLJPIION
P.9
a nacsa
School Name: Fannie C. Williams Charter School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

E. Louisiana Charter Operator


Contract Compliance
fjJ NOT APPLICABLE

RECOMMENDATION
The Louisiana Charter Operator Contract Compliance:

o
IS APPROACH INC THE STANDARD
Q
DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD
Q
STRENGTHS (1000 chat: mar) include reference. f relevant
-
WA... IC ‘t.

3.
c

: S

s LO’Jfl.IANA ‘HAKILH $CHUOL Al’PLK.AII’Pa LMLIiNAL LVf.LUAIION


P.10
a nacsa
dar for Types 2 & 5
Pre-Opening Checklist & Calen
2011-12 School Year
Charter Schools Opening in the

Fe bru a rv
ore February
g che ckli st item s are due in Feb ruary must be submitted on or bef
The following pre-openin
.28. 201:
not specified in charter
boa rd mem ber s (mi nim um of 7) and board officer appointments, if
1. List of all
school application Office of Parental
mem ber , the foll owi ng info rmation must be on file with the
2. For each boa rd provided
rter sch ool elig ibil ity doc um ents , the charter school application, or
Options, either in the cha
on or before February 28, 2011:
a. Resume
tement
b. Disclosure of Financial Interest Sta
c. Affirmation of Eligibility to Serve
ound check
d. Confirmation of completed backgr verify residency and board com
position
ce/p hys ical hom e add ress (to
e. Legal residen
requirements) dates that
eac h boa rd mem ber has rece ived boa rd orientation and training (include
3. Confirmation that
conducted, and topics addressed)
orientation and/or training were held, who provided in the
man age men t con trac t or serv ice agreement, if applicable and if not
4. A copy of the
charter school application Reporting and
Enrollm ent For m (see Div isio n of Administration Office of Statewide
5. W-9 and EFT
Accounting Policy at

April
nt and the BESE
ool con trac t mu st be sign ed by the non-profit corporation board preside
The charter sch
1.
president on or no later than April-29, 201
one-year
* * *please ii ote that failure to complete this item
by April 29, 2011 may result in a
rter approval.
deferment or action to rescind the cha

May
in
s due in May mu st be sub mit ted on or before May 20. 201 1. The items due
Pre-opening checklist item
May include:
ool year
Final student handbook for 201 1-2012 sch
for independent financial audit
2. Documentation of engagement of a CPA
2 school year
3. Final school calendar for the 2011-1
(budget Jorms available at
4. Final budget/financial documents
uds/83S3._us):
jjp1wndoe s1a/c1. ,/de
i
operation
with detailed assu mp tion s for all rev enues and expenditures for the first year of
a. Budget
P. 1 1,
first year of operation
b. Monthly cash flow projection for
c. Five-year budget
location address
5. Updated facility plan and school reporting data to the LDOE and RSD,
if applicable
com pliance and accu racy with
6. Plan for ensuring e, indentify, evaluate,
and procedur e man ual that inclu des all components necessary to locat
7. Policy education
susp ected of bein g disab led and to provide a free appropriate public
and serve students
(FAPE) to students with disabilities

June
2011 and include:
must be submitted on or before June 30,
Pre-opening checklist items due in June

Proof of insurance
RSD facility
-

2. Signed lease or use agreement for any for any non


facil ity insp ectio n reports and zoni ng, lease or land and building use permits
3. Scho ol
RSD facility to be used
ation designee
4. Designation of the school’s special educ the charter
idual hired to provide business services for
5. Resume and qualifications for the indiv
school, including a detailed job description
oval
pleted by June 30 in order to receive appr
***please note that all of the above items must be com
.
to open school/or the 2011-12 school year

July
and include:
t be submitted on or before July 29, 2011
Pre-opening checklist items due in July mus

ry, if applicable
1. Date of application period and admissions lotte
waiting list, if applicable
2. Roster of enrolled students and students on
3. Roster of charter school staff
4. Principal and emergency contact information
ks for staff have been completed
5. Confirmation that criminal background chec
6. Safety and emergency plans
7. Documentation of food and nutrition services
8. Transportation plan

uired items, charter school leaders and


Other Requirements: In addition to the above req ning events hosted by
appropriate staff arerequired to attend any informational or trai
uding but not limited to those pertaining
the LDOE and/or RSD (for Tpe 5 charters,), incl
edu cati onal/ac ade mic progra ms, stat e or federal rules or regulations, special
to ting.
educa lion, grants mana 1, accountability, and finance/budge

P.1 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS December / 2010 (MOIYR)
(updated 10/10)
Receive & Refer Contact Person: Em Bendil
X Action Phone Number: 25jj2-364__
Information [Office: çptajtion_

Recovery School District Committee AGENDA

Item # IV.B.4.b, Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


Crescent City School Crescent City Schools

RECOMMENDATION: Approve

Background on application and evaluation process:


A Request for Applications to operate Type 2, 4, and 5 charter schools was released in April, 2010.
Information sessions and a series of workshops for applicants were held in June in Baton Rouge, New
Orleans, and Shreveport. Applicants were informed of the following Type 5 Recovery School District
(RSD) priorities: takeover or conversion of RSD high schools. alternative schools, schools specializing in
serving special needs students, and takeover of low-performing RSD K-8 schools. A total of 14
organizations applied to operate 18 Type 5 schools.

On behalf of the Board and Department, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
(NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compliance with the Principals and Standards
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written application evaluation, applicant interviews,
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local and national evaluators who brought
expertise in areas of curriculum, management, finance, and the management of urban charter schools.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process, conducted completeness checks, and
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators in reviewing the applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1, 2010.

Applicant information:
Crescent City Schools submitted a Type 5 charter application to operate Crescent City Schools in Orleans
Parish. The proposed school will serve approximately 550 students in its first year in grades K-8 and
approximately 550 students in grades K-8 at full capacity. The organization does not propose to contract
with and education service provider.

Crescent City Schools does not currently operate any charter schools in Louisiana.

Summary of recommendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only those Type 5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. NACSA’s evaluation team has recommended
approval of the Type 5 charter application submitted by Crescent City Schools to operate Crescent City
Schools. A copy of the Evaluation and Recommendation Summary is attached. Department staff has
reviewed the evaluators’ findings and agrees that they are sound. Superintendent Vallas has also reviewed
the recommendations and believes the school will complement and support the mission of the Recovery
School District.

The Department therefore recommends approval of the application for the proposed charter school to open
during the 2011-12 school year, contingent upon tl 3 4uirements and special considerations set forth
below:
___________ ______Administrative
______Code
______Authority
____ ___________
___

• Completion of a pre-opening checklist (attached);


• Addressing any special considerations set forth in the Evaluation and Recommendation Summary
recommendations:
• Assignment of an existing RSD-operated school by the Superintendent of the RSD not later than
March 2011. If an assignment is not made, the authority to open this school may be deferred until
2012-13 or may be rescinded based on a recommendation b the Superintendent of the RSD.
Department staff will report on the status of applicants and their school assignments during the March
2011 RSD Committee meeting; and
• Execution of the charter contract no later than April 29. 2011.

It is recommended that charter application final approval shall be not be effective until the above
referenced contingencies. including approval of the Department and execution (signed by president of the
non-profit corporation and the BESE President) of the charter contract, are met.

Implications of proposed recommendation -- benefits and problematic areas:

No problematic areas are foreseen as a result of this proposed recommendation.

of Intent Code
Emergency Adoption Reason:
-- Reference:
Item Bulletin:
--
Note:
fl
/ 1

‘ Direétor 77 Assistan4uperintendent Chief

A A

Deputy Superiend4t
\ \ StaSuperinten1’ei

P.14
AlL.
LYId1LF L11OOt MppHLdLIOfl

External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Pro tided to the
Louisiana Department of Education

PAlE

October 28, 2010


SC1cOL

Crescent City Schools

CHARTER SCHOOL TYPE

Type 5

Independent Review Team Members


RE’I[W Ft •.i i rtn

Justin Testerman

EvN’AiOrS

Jane Dye

Danny Hollinger

Shenita Johnson Girard

William Miller

• fldCSd EDUcATION
P.1 5
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

Sd- LL ,..1E

Crescent City Schools

PPIIC NT PG I 11

Crescent City Schools

YEAR 1 YEAR 5
PAD
K-8 K 8
0 OJECTEC ENPCLLMENT
550 550

MISSION

Students at Crescent City Schools build the academic skills, personal values, and
intellectual habits of mind to succeed in high school, college, and beyond. With
integrity and pride, students and teachers focus on results and develop personal
and social responsibility to build a better New Orleans for themselves and us all.

SCHOOl lEADERSHIP

Kate Mehok, CEO; Julie Lause, Principal

GOVERNANCE

Walter Stern, Ami Eubanks-Davis, Paul Pichon, Agnieszka McPeak, Deidre


Johnson-Bure

SPECIAL OTES

P. 16
‘ nacsa
S h I escent City School

PART 2: RECOMMENDATION

NALYSIS ( t ‘i

H — S --

The valu hon t am r commends that thi apphca on approv d.

The applicants present a very welt developed education plan based on the best practices of high
performing charter schools around the country The applicants have a strong leadership team
exp rienced in teaching, leading, and starting high performing chart r schools in New Orleans
and elsewhere The school leadership receiv d an incubation grant from New Schools for New
Orleans and is committed to turning around a persistently failing school. The eduction plan
includes a detailed Response to Intervention system that allows staff to provide individualized
supports for students to meet the needs of all learners. The applicants incorporated research on
school turnaround strategies and visited Mastery Schools in Philadelphia, a successful
turnaround CMO.

The board is comprised of individuals with varied experiences and skill sets, including education
reform, accounting, legal, and school administration. The board clearly understands the role of a
governing board and is committed to holding the school leader accountable for results.
Notwithstanding the strong board, the Evaluation Team identified concerns about the proposed
organizational structure that require clarification. The applicants identified themselves as a CMO
at various places in the application, but did not provide answers on questions related to an ESP
and were noncommittal on plans for operating more than one school. The budget includes a
CMO management ‘fee” of 8°k of revenues that did not lacked detail. If BESE approves the
application, the applicants should amend the budgets as part of the pre opening process The
applicants need to define the organizational structure more clearly and provide additional
transparency on their budget. Despite these concerns, the Evaluation Team recommends
approval based on the strength of the education plan and the demonstrated willingness and
capacity of the board to address the aforementioned concerns.

The financial plan includes balanced budgets and demonstrates a clear understanding of school
financial management. With the exceptions of the need to clarify CMO management fees, the
assumptions are clear and reasonable. The school leadership team includes a seasoned charter
school business manager. The board has already begun discussions with local banks to secure a
line of credit to cover short term cash deficits caused by the timing of state aid disbursement.

OVERALL E(OMME iDATiON

‘ .t I I I -

In I I
f
1 l l-’C

DENY

• APPPOV

P. 1 7
School Name: Crescent City Schools

PART 3 : E’/ALUATION DETAIL

A. Education Philosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

• L •.

I I 1 c 1 [ S AS D

iSApISOCC-iI:. F-,r ‘T.\DA5D

DPI NeT rr Ii ]ANDAF,n

STPFIJGTI,S C .. t HI re

The applicants presented a strong education plan that mirrors the best practices of many high
performing charter schools based on research gathered during a year-long incubation
fellowship with New Schools for New Orleans. The plan includes a well developed Response to
Intervention system that will allow staff to offer individualized supports to students. The
deliberate approach to lesson planning shows attention to detail and a clear vision of what
goes into quality instruction. The school has an intense focus on mastery learniritj with
clearly identified learning standards, interim assessments and interventions for stLidcnts who
are not meeting the standards. The application provides a robust description of the education
philosophy and plan that is aligned with the schools mission. The plan includes exceptional
professional development and support for teachers to he successful in implementing the
miss ion.

CJJNCFPDS /NDrL:irpor..,L QUESTiONS H_c:

The applicants have not yet identified universal screens for Math and Behavior for the
Response to Intervention system. If BESE approves the application, these should be
addressed as part of the schools pre-opening preparations.
:nrì’c Cusccnt Cit.,’ Schcc’is

PART 3: EVALUATION DETML

B.Governance, Leadership and


Management

CO1.1FNDAiON

— !_‘:, •ii’i_ .

MEE iS ‘HE s—AN’); iD

IS APP0ACi-iiNC THE STA N DAP

OCES Nfl MEET hit STANDARD

SIPENCrHS (:.:;‘t) j’: ,i, ;, ..‘ 7

The board consists of individuals with varred experience, including legal, accounting,
education, and business. Board members have strong track records in education reform in
New Orleans and are deeply committed to turning around a failing school. The identified
leadership of the school, including the CEO, Principal, and COO, all have experience Starting
or working in high performing schools. Because they developed the plan through an
incubation grant from New Schools for New Orleans, the applicants have been able to study
and visit the most successful schools in the country, including Mastery Schools, one of the
few CMOs focusing on turnaround efforts.

CDNCERNE AND ADDiTiONAL QLESiONS


rr,’.., ,‘,;.. j. .7

The organizational structure requires clarification. There is still confusion over whether the
applicants intend to operate stand alone school or a charter management organization
(CMO). The application frequently references a CMO, and the budget includes an S%
“management fee.” However, the applicants did not respond to application questions related
to ESPs. During the interview, the applcants were noncommittal regarding whether they
intend to expand beyond this school and seemed to be establishing a CMO in crdei to keep
that option open.

If BESE approves the application, the pre-opening requirements should include a revised
budget with detail on the CMO fee ($423k). The organizational chart shOLid more cleary
delineate lines of authorrty. The CEO appears to have pn overly expancive role in etting
prospective board members -- a respons bility that should rcside pbmarily with the board.
The board should consider adding community members once the oration has has been set.

ri,c.s a
School ii:nc: Crescent City Schools

PART3:EVALUATION DETML

C.Financial Plan

RE OMMEI DATIO I

w MEETSTHESTA RD

IS APPROACHING HE STANDARD

DO S NOT MCET THE STANDARD

STREN HS (I uG I m)IncIudef e ct-I t’t

The budget assumptions are generally reasonable and clear. The financial plan is viable, but if
revenues are lower than expected the school may need to reduce non-teaching leadership
positIons. The applicants demonstrated a strong understanding of the resources necessar’ to
turnaround a failing school and the expenditures reflect the pnorities of teacher support and
student achievement.

CONCERNS AND ADDI ONAL QUESTIONS ( 0 ci or. a) 1n-Ijde ftr ccc,

The budget wraps 8% of expenses into the CMO fee, a single line item, without adequate
detail regarding the assumptions or services included in that fee. The only positions not
covered explicitly in the budget are for the CEO and COO. The Evaluation Team inferred that
the management fee incorporates these salaries, but the detail was not adequate to ascertain
what else the fee covers. The applicants indicated in the Interview that they have a budget
for this line item but it was not provided in materials.

If BESE approves the application, LA DOE should review an amended budget for
appropriateness as p rt of the pre-op ning phase. In addition, the revenue projection for a
federal PCSP grant wa on the high end of th LA DOE proec ed range and should be
updated durng pre-opening

ucsa
P. 20
Scboo Narne Crescent City Schools

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

D.Facilities Plan

\iQT APPLICAbLE

RECOMMET’.DATION

1 tics Pan
T,c Fac

MEETS THESTANDARD

ISAPPPOACHINGTHESTANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (1000 char ma,’) lacuje .efrtcce f eieuo’


this
The applicants propose to take over the operation of an existing school; therefore,

section is not applicable.

CON CE RN S AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (‘0cc char max) 1


Ic
u dc efcrc,lcc, 1, e!o’ant

nacsa
P.2 1
School ham : Crescent Cty Schools

PART3:EVALUATJON DETAIL

E.Louisiana Charter Operator


Contract Compliance
T P-’CBLE

RECOMM NDATION

I I e LCL5tG OL e,ol r

MEETS THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (7000 chor niax) Imlude rejt rer’re fielepont


N/A

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (7000 char max) Include Iccr. rice, J?eieoat7
N/A

P.22
Types 2 & 5
Pre-Opening Checklist & Calendar for
2 School Year
Charter Schools Opening in the 2011-1

Feb r ua ry
before February
due in February must be submitted on or
The following pre-opening checklist items are
. 20
ified in charter
and board officer appointments, if not spec
1. List of all board members (minimum of 7)
school application of Parental
each board mem ber, the follo wing infor mation must be on file with the Office
2. For provided
documents, the charter school application, or
Options, either in the charter school eligibility
on or before February 28, 2011:
a. Resume
t
b. Disclosure of Financial Interest Statemen
c. Affirmation of Eligibility to Serve
k
d. Confirnation of completed background chec
ess (to verify residency and board composition
e. Legal residence/physical home addr
requirements) that
3. Confirmation that each board member has
received board orientation and training (include dates
, and topics addressed)
orientation and/or training were held, who conducted
ement. if applicable and if not provided in the
4. A copy of the management contract or service agre
charter school application and
5. W-9 and EFT Enrollment Form (see Divi
sion of Administration Office of Statewide Reporting
Accounting Policy at http://doaiouisiana.gov/OSRAP)

April
profit corporation board president and the BESE
The charter school contract must be signed by the non-
president on or no later than April 29, 2011.
nay result in a one-year
***please note that failure to complete this item &v April 29, 2011
ovaL ***
deferment or action to rescind the charter appr

May
on or before \L’. LZH L The items due in
Pre-opening checklist items due in May must be submitted
May include:

L Final student handbook for 2011-2012 school year


ent financial audit
2. Documentation of engagement of a CPA for independ
3. Final school calendar for the 201 1-12 school year
at
4. Final budget/financial documents (budget Jrms available
1LL1JL
and expenditures for the first year of operation
a. Budget with detailed assumptions for all revenues
P.23
Page i of2
on
jection for first year of operati
b. Monthly cash flow pro
c, Five-year budget
school location address , if applicable
5. Updated facility plan and ura cy wit h rep orti ng data to the LDOE and RSD
and acc luate.
6. Plan for ensuring complia
nce
ude s all com pon ents nec essary to locate, indentify, eva
ual that incl public education
7. Policy and procedure man disa bled and to provide a free appropriate
of bein g
and serve students suspected
bilities
(FAPE) to students with disa

June
include:
June mu st he sub mit ted on or before June 30. 201 1 and
due in
Pre-opening checklist items

I. Proof of insurance
ent for any RSD facility
2. Signed lease or use agreem mits for any non
on rep orts and zon ing , leas e or land and building use per
3. School facility inspecti
RSD facility to be used
special education designee
4. Designation of the school’s ual hired to provide business
services for the charter
qua lific atio ns for the ind ivid
5. Resume and
description
school, incluthng a detailed job
to receive approval
of the abo ve item s mu st be completed by June 30 in order
***please note that all
2 school year.
to open school for the 2011-1

July
y 29, 2011 and include:
ist item s due in July mu st be submitted on or before Jul
Pre-opening checkl

issions lottery, if applicable


I. Date of application period and adm
ents on waiting list, if applicable
2. Roster of enrolled students and stud
3. Roster of charter school staff
information
4. Principal and emergency contact pleted
atio n that crim inal bac kgr oun d checks for staff have been com
5. Confirm
6. Safety and emergency plans
n services
7. Documentation of food and nutritio
8. Transportation plan

ders and
ent s: In add itio n to the abo ve required items, charter school lea
Other Requirem hosted by
ff are req uir ed to atte nd any informational or training events
appropriate sta pertaining
RS D for Trp e 5 cha rte rs) , including but not limited to those
the LDOE and/or federal rules or regulations,
special
em ic pro gra ms , sta te or
to educational/acad ance/budgeting.
education, grants ma
nagement, acco un tab ility, and fin

P.24
P. of 2
_____
_____
_

EXECUTiVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS


(updated 10/10) b / 2010 (MO/YR)

Receive & Refer Contact Person: ErinBendilv


X Action Phone Number:
Information Office: Parental Options

Recovery School District Committee AGENDA

Item # IV.B.4.c. Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


The NET Charter High School Educators for Quality Alternatives

RECOMMENDATiON: Approve

Background on application and evaluation process:


A Request for Applications to operate Type 2. 4, and 5 charter
schools was released in April. 2010.
Information sessions and a series of workshops for applicants
were held in June in Baton Rouge. New
Orleans, and Shreveport. Applicants were informed of the follow
ing Type 5 Recovery School District
(RSD) priorities: takeover or conversion of RSD high schools, alterna
tive schools, schools specializing in
serving special needs students, and takeover of low-performi
ng RSD K-8 schools. A total of 14
organizations applied to operate 18 Type 5 schools.

On behalf of the Board and Department, the National Associ


ation of Charter School Authorizers
(NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compl
iance with the Principals and Standards
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written applica
tion evaluation, applicant interviews.
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local
and national evaluators who brought
expertise in areas of curriculum, management, finance, and the
management of urban charter schools.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process,
conducted completeness checks, and
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators in review
ing the applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1, 2010.

Applicant information:
Educators for Quality Alternatives submitted a Type 5 charter
application to operate The NET Charter
High School in Orleans Parish. The proposed school will serve approx
imately 1 00 students in its first year
in grades 9-12 and approximately 11 5 students in grades 9-12 at full
capacity. The organization does not
propose to contract with an education service provider.

Educators for Quality Alternatives does not currently operate any


charter schools in Louisiana.
Summary of recommendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only
those Type 5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. NACSA’s
evaluation team has recommended
approval of the Type 5 charter application submitted by Educat
ors for Quality Alternatives to operate The
NET Charter High School. A copy of the Evaluation and Recom
mendation Summary is attached.
Department staff has reviewed the evaluators’ findings and agrees
that they are sound. Superintendent
Vallas has also reviewed the recommendations and believes the school
will complement and support the
mission of the Recovery School District.

The Department therefore recommends approval of the application


for the proposed charter school to open
during the 2011 -12 school year, contingent upon the requirements
and special considerations set forth
below: P.25
__
__
____
________A
__
__
__Aut
__C hority
ode
dministrative

• Completion of a pre-opening checklist (attached);


• Addressing any special considerations set forth in the
Evaluation and Recommendation Summar
recommendations;
• Assignment of an existing RSD-operated school by
the Superintendent of the RSD not later than
March 2011. If an assignment is not made, the auth
ority to open this school may be deferred until
2012-13 or may be rescinded based on a recomme
ndation by the Superintendent of the RSD.
Department staff will report on the status of applicants and
their school assignments during the March
2011 RSD Committee meeting; and
• Execution of the charter contract no later than April 29. 2011.

It is recommended that charter application final approv


al shall be not be effective until the above
referenced contingencies, including approval of the Departme
nt and execution (signed by president of the
non-proiit corporation and the BESE President) of the char
ter contract, are met.

Implications of proposed recommendation -- benefits and problematic areas:


No problematic areas are foreseen as a result of this prop
osed recommendation.

of Intent
Emergency Adoption -- Reason: Code
Reference:
Item -- Bulletin:
Note:

AsistanSuperintendent Chief
j ,/

/) / A
C-

-J
K c2
/7

\—

\ /
f/
\
Deputy Superinnden Sta\\Superintenan
4 ‘

P.26
Charter School Application
External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Provided to the
Louisiana Departn’ient of Education

L Al E

October28, 2010
SCI-iCOL

The NET Charter High School

CHArE ‘SC HLOLTYPE

Type 5

Independent Review Team Members


REVIE\V TEtM [AD

Anna Bernard
EVAL AIOPS

Brian Beabout

Andre Perry

Katie Piehi

Paul ONeill

DE.EoPEo H- T ;-J ,ssc::


OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHOCOZEPS

g nacsa - .

EDUCATION

P. 27
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

The NET Charter High School

Educators for Quality Alternatives (EQA)

GRADE hELS
9-12 9-12

PROJ Efl E .JRULLM, N r


100 115

M S S 10 N

The mission of The NET Charter High School is to provide struggling high school
students with the skills, confidence, and experiences necessary to succeed in the
educational and career paths of their choice.

SCHCCL I FALL NSF—IF

Principal - Elizabeth Ostberg

GO V E N r JAN C [

G.Howarth; D.Durand,]r; M.Fitz,B.MacPhee ;G .Rattler,Jr;J.Solet; M .Tidwell;


G.Bohlke

SPEd L

This school is to be an ungraded alternative high school serving students aged


16-21 through a year-round program.
Sch c Ume The NET Charter High Scho

PART 2: RECOMMENDATION

A -L Sic

F I

The NET Charter School proposal makes a strong and compelling case for the need of an
alt rnative hool in the New Orleans ar a for those stud nts who have dropped out of school
This alt rnative school proposal offers students the opportunity to complete an educational
program and receive a diploma or GED while building the necessary skill and social base to
enter the workforce prepared for success. Extensive evaluation of student needs, supportive
ad Its a d business mentors are key components of the plan. Students will complete
comprehensive course content through “regular’ classes, Project-based activities and
internships. The requirements of the LCC will be followed.

The Board members are especially strong in educational pedagogy and knowledge of working
with young people that fall into the targeted category. Board members have done extensive
research on Best Practices of Alternative Schools and have incorporated these practices into
their plan

The written application presented and the applicants’ commentary during the interview made a
compelling case for the need of such an alternative school in New Orleans and this Board’s
ability to oversee such a school Strong Board members, a strong chosen school leader, a well
written proposal, and a comprehensive interview lead to a recommendation this proposal for
approval

OVERALL RECQMkFNDATioN

I E rq( - e i dc t i- on
C 1 I 9
i I t iLiV

D NY

• OP E

P.29
r.ca
School Name: The NET Charter High School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

A. Education Philosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

RE CO M M END AT ON

The EdacoHon Phiosophy, Cornea/am arid /nstctori P/ac:

MEETSTHE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

fl DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (ooo I a max) icc! i fe-I’ ,nt

The proposed alternative school is designed to offer the targeted students an opportunity to
gain a diploma or GED through a standards based curriculum and career-focused internships.
Individual learning plans, caring adults and teacher advisors, behavioral and academic
supports, and rigorous assessments are hallmarks of the plan.

The applicants demonstrated, through the written application and the nterview, a thorough
understanding of research and best practices of surcecsful alternatives schools and have
applied those to their school plan

The school will offer support through numerous New Orleans businesses and universities.
Students will he in a position to secure a career position upon completion of The NET
program. The applicants have given considerable attention to meeting the identified needs of
the students, and to the assessments needed to measure completion of the program by each
student.

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS Dcl ‘ ax/ i’ oe ‘ri e

Alignment of the proposed program with state requirements for course time, teacher
certification and course content is likely to require additional attention as the plan is
implemented. The Evaluation Team recommends that, if BESE approves the proposal., the
Department of Education include these alignment issues in its monitoring of the pre-opening
process.

rn’-
‘nacsa
r4*IIQNAt ASOCflKN OF
CI ARTCR SCI-lOOt *UT,IORIZIRt
School Name: The NET Charter High School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

B.Governance, Leadership and


Management

RECOM MFN DATION


Tee Geeoee, Leodrsiep i:d !V!Qr7ageet.

MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (o:,’’. .‘ I i’dLd ?ji’ l. i

The Board is composed of eight members with varied backgrounds and experiences, including
excmplary strength in the education field. The collaborative decision-making efforts and
depth of knowledge of the alternative school possibilties and best practices shown by the
Board members during the interview were outstanding. In addition, the Board includes
individuals with financial backgrounds and expertise.

The chosen principal demonstrated knowledge of educational pedagogy and targeted


students burial needs and behavior during the interview. The Board has ueorked with
Leuisiana Resource Center for Educators(LRCE) and Hey: Schools for Ne Orleans to build
capacity to ope atethe school. Specific plans are in place for operations and management of
the school.

A’.D ADDiTIONAl QI..FSHOr’S fe ;. -, . . ‘: i

The Board would benefit from additional governance training at the time of start-up to
devclop a deeper understanding of applicable education law and policy, governance
requirements such as appropriate procedures for conducting meetings, and mechanisms
open

for leadership performance evaluation and assessment. The Evaluation Team recommends
that, if BESE approves the proposal, the Department of Education monitor the board’s
prDcrecs in these areas as of the pre-openina process.
rart

g
P.31
Scnool Nanc Ihe NFT Charter High School

PART 3: EVALUATiON DETAIL

C. Financial Plan

P CM M E N C AT 0 N

a MEETSTHETANDAPD

IS APPROACHING HE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (loc’n ci a max i C!dE cf reacc, jpl i at

This proposal was deemed financially viable. The Start up plan and budgets with assumptions
were reasonable and in alignment with the written plan. Some assumptions were made
regarding grants prior to approval of this proposal, although no assurances could be given.

CONCERNS AND ADDiTINAL QU ESTIONS I1’1 HU) Jr c’uce TON U IFeittOi,t

None.

naCsa
P. 3 2
Sr’ool Nare ihe NET Charter High Schoci

PART3:EVALUATION DETAIL

D.Facilities Plan

P EGO M E DIG N

• MEETSTHESTANDARD

iSAPPOACHiNGTHETANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS 00 ci r nioy) Indude icf rnce,

No facility has been ‘ecured at this time. The Board will work with the RSD to find a suitable
location. The Boards priority is to identify a location near businesses that will support the
internship program.

ONCERNS AND ADDiTONAL QUESTiONS (ür cir nnx) inidc efi rncc, eio’nnt

None

;nacsa
I
P.33
_
L.
0
I
-
o __
0
0 U
-
I —
I 2
0
2
0 > ZI —
0
I
w — ) 0 0
0

z
--
Ho
LJU -;( 8
Pre-Opening Checklist & Calendar for Types 2 & 5
Charter Schools Opening in the 2011-12 School Year

February
before Feb ruy
The following pre-opening checklist items are due in February must be submitted on or
2. 2011:
in charter
List of all board members (minimum of 7) and board officer appointments, if not specified
school application
of Parental
2. For each board member, the following information must be on tile with the Office
Options. either in the charter school eligibility documents, the charter school application, or provided
on or before February 28, 2011:
a. Resume
b. Disclosure of Financial Interest Statement
c. Affirmation of Eligibility to Serve
d. Confirmation of completed background check
e. Legal residence/physical home address (to verify residency and board composition
requirements)
3. Confirmation that each board member has received board orientation and training (include dates that
orientation and/or training were held, who conducted, and topics addressed)
4. A copy of the management contract or service agreement, if applicable and if not provided in the
charter school application
5. W-9 and EFT Enrollment Form (see Division of Administration Office of Statewide Reporting and
Accounting Policy at http://doa.louisiana.gov/OSRAP)

April
The charter school contract must be signed by the non-profit corporation board president and the BESE
president on or no later than April 29, 2011.

***please note that failure to complete this item by April 29, 2011 may result in a one—year
deferment or action to rescind the charter approval.

May
Pre-opening checklist items due in May must be submitted on or before F’ 2u 1W . The items due in
May include:

Final student handbook for 2011-2012 school year


2. Documentation of engagement of a CPA for independent financial audit
3. Final school calendar for the 2011-12 school year
4. Final budget/financial documents ‘budgei forms available a!
does/ate. hi.
a. Budget with detailed assumptions for all revenues and expenditures for the first year of operation
P.35
Page i of 2
b. Monthly cash flow projection for first year of operation
c. Five-year budget
5. Updated facility plan and school location address
6. Plan for ensuring compliance and accuracy with reporting data to the LDOE and RSD. f applicable
7. Policy’ and procedure manual that includes all components necessary to locate, indentify. evaluate.
and serve students suspected of being disabled and to provide a free appropriate public education
(FAPE) to students with disabilities

June

Pre-opening checklist items due in June must be submitted on or before June 30, 2011 and include

1. Proof of insurance
2. Signed lease or use agreement for any RSD facility
3. School facility inspection reports and zoning. lease or land and building use permits for any non
RSD facility to be used
4. Designation of the school’s special education designee
5. Resume and qualifications for the individual hired to provide business services for the charter
school, including a detailed job description

***please note that all of the above items must be completed by June 30 in order to receive approval
to open school for the 2011-12 school year.
“A’’

July

Pre-opening checklist items due in July must be submitted on or before July 29, 2011 and include:

1. Date of application period and admissions lottery, if applicable


2. Roster of enrolled students and students on waiting list, if applicable
3. Roster of charter school staff
4. Principal and emergency contact information
5. Confirmation that criminal background checks for staff have been completed
6. Safety and emergency plans
7. Documentation of food and nutrition services
8. Transportation plan

Other Requirements: In addition to the above required items, charter school leaders and
appropriate staff are required to attend any informational or training events hosted by
the LDOE and/or RSD (for Type 5 charters,), including but not limited to those pertaining
to educational/academic programs, state or federal rules or regulations, special
education, grants management, accountability, andfinance/budgeting.

Page nf 2
P.36
_____
_____
__

EXECuTiVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMEND


ATIONS December / 2010 (MO/VR)
(updated 10/10)

Receive & Refer Contact Person: Erin Bendilv


X Action Phone Number: (225) 342-3640
Information Office: ParentaLQpjops

Recovery School District Committee AGENDA

Item # IV.B.4.d. Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


Joseph A. Craig The Friends of King School

RECOMMENDATION: Approve

Background on application and evaluation process:


A Request for Applications to operate Type 2, 4, and
5 charter schools was released in April, 2010.
Information sessions and a series of workshops for appl
icants were held in June in Baton Rouge, New
Orleans. and Shreveport Applicants were informed of
.
the following Type 5 Recovery School District
(RSD) priorities: takeover or conversion of RSD high school
s, alternative schools, schools specializing in
serving special needs students, and takeover of low-
performing RSD K-S schools. A total of 14
organizations applied to operate 18 Type 5 schools.

On behalf of the Board and Department, the National


Association of Charter School Authorizers
(NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process
in compliance with the Principals and Standards
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written
application evaluation, applicant interviews,
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified
local and national evaluators who brought
expertise in areas of curriculum, management, finance,
and the management of urban charter schools.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification
process, conducted completeness checks, and
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators
in reviewing the applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday. Decembe
r 1, 2010.
Applicant information:
The Friends of King School submitted a Type 5 charter appl
ication to operate Joseph A. Craig School in
Orleans Parish. The proposed school will serve approxim
ately 640 students in its first year in grades PK-8
and approximately 640 students in grades PK-8 at full capaci
ty. The organization does not propose to
contract with an education service provider.

The Friends of King School currently operates MLK Scienc


e and Technology Charter School, a Type 5
charter school in Orleans Parish.

Summary of recommendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers
only those Type 5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education
. NACSA’s evaluation team noted significant
deficiencies in the Type 5 charter application submitted
by The Friends of King School to operate Joseph
A. Craig School. but observed strong leadership capacity by
the charter operator. A copy of the Evaluation
and Recommendation Summary is attached. NACSA’s
due diligence review also noted consistent
academic improvement at the operator’s existing school. MLK
Science and Technology Charter School.
Because of the operators demonstrated performance, and
considering the proposed school’s alignment
with stated RSD priorities and strong community supp
ort for the proposed school. the Department
recommends approval of the application for the propop
chool to open during the 201 1-12 school year,
7
______Auth
_Admority
inistrative
contingent upon the requirements and special considerations set
forth below:
• Completion of a pre-opening checklist (attached);
• No later than February Ii. 2011. the applicant must submit satisfa
a ctory written plan. as determined
by the State Superintendent of Education, for addressing each deficiency
described in the Evaluation
and Recommendation Summary recommendations. and must meet
with the State Superintendent of
Education and the Superintendent of the Recovery School District
to discuss such plan. If the plan is
determined to be unsatisfactory. the authority to open the proposed
charter school will be rescinded
based on a recommendation by the State Superintendent of Education;
• Assignment of an existing RSD-operated school by the Superi
ntendent of the RSD not later than
March 2011. If an assignment is not made, the authority to open
this school may be deferred until
2012-13 or may be rescinded based on a recommendation by
the Superintendent of the RSD.
Department staff will report on the status of applicants and their
school assignments during the March
2011 RSD Committee meeting; and
• Execution of the charter contract no later than April 29. 2011.

It is recommended that charter application final approval shall


be not be effective until the above
referenced contingencies. including approval of the Department
and execution (signed by president of the
non-profit corporation and the BESE President) of the charter contrac
t, are met.

Implications of proposed recommendation -- benefits and problematic areas:

No problematic areas are foreseen as a result of this proposed recomm


endation.

of Intent
Code
Emergency Adoption Reason:
--

Code Reference:
Item Bulletin:
--

Note:

‘i
L Diiior As nt Superintendent Chief

Deputy Superin nde Ste Superintendent

P.38
Charter School Application
External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Provided to the
Louisiana Department ofEducation

DATE

OcoIç8Q1Q
SCHOOL NAME

JosephA. Calg
• ‘, .r ‘..
;.
1’

sct r3
4’., h
3’‘ II
p

CHARTER SCHOOL TYPE

Type 5 :.•.

Independent Review Team Members


REVIEW TEAM LEAD

Anna ematd
EVALUATORS

Brian Beabout

Andre Pert:.,

Katie Piehi .: .
Paul o’eii

DEVELOPED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCiAT1OIi


OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS

(jnacsa
P.39
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

SCHOOL NAME

Joseph A. Craig

APPLICANT ORGANIZATION

The Friends of King School

YEAR 1 YEAR 5
GRADE LEVEES
PK-8 PK-8
PROjECTED ENROLLMENT
640 640

MISSION

The mission is to create and maintain an orderly, trustin


g environment where
teaching and learning are innovative and exciting; where
students are taught to
read, write, compute and think culturally, according to
their fullest potential.

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Dr Doris R Hicks, Principal

GOVERNANCE

H Young, C Charles, E Johnson, S Monroe, G Rabb,


K Rounds, T Ruth

SPECIAL NOTES

This Board currently operates the King Charter School


. Dr. Hicks is the principal
of that school.

I
nacsa
P4AtK)[iAt ASO(iAflON OF

P.40
School Name: Joseph A. Craig

PART 2: RECOMMENDATION

The Evaluation Team recommends that the application be denied; however, we also recommend
that the applicants be encouraged to revise and develop their plan with an aim to satisfy the
criteria for approval.

The educational program and process were generally undefined. The proposal lacked the
followi’-a: essential evidence of planning n all material aspects of the proposed progrem (such
as seci;c instructioial techniques used for grade levels and all prpulations), use of rcquired
LCC, mLasurable goals, cefined school boundaries and the targeted population, student policies,
professi nal development, student asscssment, collection and use of data, and plans for
comrnunity involvement.

The application did not adequately address the plans for transition from governance and
management of a single school to responsibility for multiple schools. For example, the
applicants stated that Dr. Hicks would assume responsibility of CEO/principal for Craig but did
not explain whether she would assume this role full time or would attempt to fulfill these
responsibilities at both schools or how either of those would happen successfully. The board
has not demonstrated adequate preparation to govern two schools.

The financial plan also has fundamental weaknesses The applicants submitted budget
documents that did not include assumptions for start up expenditures such as supplies and
equipment The 5 year budget was also unsatisfactory because it projected a negative balance
despite assuming revenues from grant funds for which the applicants have not yet applied
much less secured.

The Evaluation Team observed considerable strengths in the experience and commitment of the
founding group based on their success with the King school. The proposed Craig board
members asserted the confidence and capacity to take On the responsibility for Craig; however
the application, as submitted, falls far short of meeting the criteria for approval. Nevertheless,
the Evaluation Team observed significant potential in the applicant group. If denied, the
applicants should be encouraged to develop their replication plan more fully and to address the
gaps identified here and in the individual evaluations.

OVERALL RECOMMENDATiON

The [hilowieg reco 7mecdation is made based upon the independent app/motion
evoluotion and capacity interuiew:

B DENY

APPROVE

nacsa
NAHONAt Nssoc;.nc.M OF
OORFF SOFOO OFHORIZtRS

P.4 1
School Name: Joseph A. Craig

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

A. Education Philosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

RECOM MENDAT1ON

MEETS THE STANDARD

iS APPROACHiNG THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS h000 cliac mm) include reJhrence, ,Tlecm7t

The applicants propose to create a learner-centered educational program that implements the
Louisiana Core Curriculum (ICC) through cooperative and collaborative instructional methods,
discovery and inquiry based learning and hands on learning strategies The applicants
propose to enhance educational content and learning through technology. During the
interview, the applicants stated that they intend to model the educational program on their
success with the King School.

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QuESTIONS (1000 char. max) Include reference, fieleuant,
The educational program and process were generally undefined. The proposal lacked essential
evidence of planning in all material aspects of the proposed program including specific instructional
techniques used for grade levels and all populations use of required LCC measurable goals defined
school boundaries and the targeted population student policies professional development student
assessment, collection and use of data, and plans for community involvement. For example, the
applicants intend to use cooperative and collaborative instruction but there was no information about
how the daily schedule or the annual calendar or professional development would support collaborative
planning among teachers Similarly the applicants stated that they will enhance content through
the
use of technology but there was no information about the types or amounts of technology needed or
how, specifically, they plan to incorporate it into the educational program.

During the interview applicants indicated that they intend to replicate programs used at King Charter.
The fact that the lead applicants already run a school means that they should have been able to
provide the specific plans needed to meet the criteria for approval yet such specificity was entirely
lacking in the proposal as submitted.

nacsa
.qAUflNAL ASSOGAI ON O
SCHOOL A.UTHONZOS

P.42
School r\iame: Joseph A. Craig

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

B.Governance, Leadership and


Management

RECOM MEN DATIGN

The Coyernace. LcodrShip and e’nagernent:

MEETS THE STANDARD

•, IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTH S 1?cCC cilan niax) induce Ic[efence, feIoiant.

The Board is made up of seven members with varied backgrounds; educational experience is
well represented. The Board currently serves the King Charter School and would assume the
same responsibilities for the Craig School Leadership and daily management would be under
Dr Doris Hicks who is an established and effective school principal and CEO of the King
School.

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTiONS (1000 char. rrlax) Include reference, upeleiiant.
The application did not adequately address the plans for transition from governance and management of a single
school to responsibility for multiple schools For example the applicants stated that Dr Hicks would assume
responsibility of CEO/principal for Craig but did not explain whether she would assume this role full time -- which
would require identification of new leadership at King or would attempt to fulfill these responsibilities at both
--

schools which, in turn, would require substantial planning of the underlying management structure that would be
needed to make this dual role feasible. In addition, there was no information or plan for how administrative and
back office responsibilities would or would not be shared between the schools.

Nor has the board demonstrated adequate preparation to govern two schools. Board policies and procedures
submitted with the application did not reflect any consideration of the fact that the board would be governing two
rather than one school The board has not addressed whether and how it will ensure engagement from the Treme
community in which Craig is located through expanded board composition or other means During the interview
the applicants reported that they had support for the proposal from key leaders in the Craig community but they
have not provided evidence from which to verify this support

Finally the applicants have not addressed how they might need to adapt their success in starting what was
effectively a new school after Hurricane Katrina to the transformation of a school with preexisting teacher, parent
and student populations. Thus, the Evaluation Team concluded that the founding group’s strengths and
demonstrated success in governing a single school are outweighed- by the lack of evidence of adequate preparation
for taking on this new and substantial responsibility.

nacsa
-4A1i01SAt ASSOC i.’,i ON OF
(ilARIFF S(i-iOOS AUIHORiXRS

P.43
School Name: Joseph A. Craig

PART 3: EVALUATiON DETAIL

C. Financial Plan

RECOMMENDATION

F norm! Pa::

MEETS THE STANDARD

- IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (1000 char max) include refrxnce, (freie:’ant.


The applicants submitted the required budget documents, and they have hired a CFO to work
with both Craig and King Charter schools.

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (7000 char. max) include :cfrrence, fmieiiant.
The applicants submitted budget documents that did not include assumptions for start up
expenditures such as supplies and equipment. The 5-year budget was also unsatisfactory
because it projected a negative balance despite assuming revenues from grant funds for
which the applicants have nOt yet applied, much less secured.

Several weaknesses of the management plan extend to the budget. Designated salaries for
several positions (including clerical and finance manager) were unclear The budget does not
make clear the assumptions about organizational structure and leadership In addition the
applicants lack a comprehensive financial plan that outlines back office procedures such as
the treatment of expenditures, audits contributions donations etc and how these will be
managed between the two schools.

nacsa

P.44
School Name: Joseph A. Craig

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

D.Facilities Plan

RECOMMENDATiON

MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS /1000 char YDOX) lnCld eference, lfree[’nt.

The Board will take over the current Craig school

CONCERNS AND ADDiTIONAL QUESTIONS (ooo char. ma;) Include iefcrence, freiet’u17t.
The applicants have not developed a plan detailing the use of classrooms, administrativ
e
areas, common areas, athletic facilities, etc.

nacsa
P.45
School Name: Joseph A. Craig

PART3:EVALUAflON DETAIL

ELouisiana Charter Operator


Contract Compliance

RECO M MEN CATION

The Loeo Chmer Oeeioicr Cc c;c:hc

MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

j DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (ooe ehac mcx) Inc/ode iejeince,;fieienm:t.

The applicants provided information about their current school, King Charter School, during
the interview. Local evaluators were aware of successes of the current King Charter School
however no formal documentation, as required, was submitted.

coNcERNs A.J 0 ADDiTIONAL FS1 JON - - -

The applicant currently operates the ML. King Charter School, but did not present the
required documentation to support the academic viability or financial soundness of that
school.

g fldCSd
P.46
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS December! 2010 (M0IYR)
(updated 10/10)
Receive & Refer Contact Person: jpdijy_______
Action Phone Number:
Information Office: Parental Options

overy School District Committee AGENDA

Item # IV.B.4.e. Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


George Washington Carver Charter School Dr. George Washington Carver

Charter School Association

RECOMMENDATION: Receive

Background on application and evaluation process:


A Request for Applications to operate Type 2, 4, and 5 charter schools was released in April, 2010.
Information sessions and a series of workshops for applicants were held in June in Baton Rouge, New
Orleans, and Shreveport. Applicants were informed of the following Type 5 Recovery School District
(RSD) priorities: takeover or conversion of RSD high schools, alternative schools, schools specializing in
serving special needs students, and takeover of low-performing RSD K-8 schools. A total of 14
organizations applied to operate 18 Type 5 schools.

On behalf of the Board and Department, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
(NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compliance with the Principals and Standards
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written application evaluation, applicant interviews,
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local and national evaluators who brought
expertise in areas of curriculum, management, finance, and the management of urban charter schools.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process, conducted completeness checks, and
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators in reviewing the applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1, 2010.

Applicant information:
Dr. George Washington Carver Charter School Association submitted a Type 5 charter application to
operate George Washington Carver Charter School in Orleans Parish. The proposed school will serve
approximately 500 students in its first year in grades 9-12 and approximately 900 students in grades 9-12
at full capacity. The organization does not propose to contract with an education service provider.

Dr. George Washington Carver Charter School Association does not currently operate any charter schools in
Louisiana.

Summary of recommendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only those Type 5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. NACSA’s evaluation team has recommended
denial of the Type 5 charter application submitted by Dr. George Washington Carver Charter School to
operate George Washington Carver Charter School. A copy of the Evaluation and Recommendation
Summary is attached. Department staff has reviewed the evaluators’ findings and agrees that they are
sound. Therefore, the Department is not recommending approval of this application.

P.47
j

o
I2I cc
0
0
cf
C
I C -
C
o C
C
C,)
Q
C
CC
p
0
z
Charter School Application
External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Pro tiided to the
Louisiana Departn’ient of Education

A IC

October 28, 2010


SCHOOL AMF

George Washington Carver Charter School

CI AITER SCHOOL ‘‘P

Type 5

Independent Review Team Members


REVIEW TEAM LEAD

Anna Bernard
EVALUATORS

Brian Beabout

Andre Perry

Katie Piehi

Paul 0 Neill

DEVLLQPED EIY 0-i AL

C. 2:3
W I D
EDUCATION

P.49
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

George Washington Carver Charter School

Dr. George Washington Carver Charter School Association

L.’f S
9—12 9—12
PkCr(.TED.RQLL1.1E1
500 900

MISSIC

The GW Carver School of Creative Arts mission is to inspire and challenge


students to learn and prepare to proceed and excel in higher education and/or
the work force.

SC H’jOL FA3[ RSHI F

To be selected

CC)’E RJSNCF

A.Jones, B.Brown, C.Webb., H.Evans, M.Evans, V.Nzinga, D.Sheppard, S.Jamison

E :IbL ‘QT

P. U
g .c
School ran Geurge Washirgton Carver Charter Schn

PART 2: RECOMMENDATIO

The Evalu on Team rec mmends hat the pphca ion be denied

The Board, the many alumni and community members are to be commended for their con
nued
support and interest in Carv r High School, and their intention to “bring back” the school.
However, the wntten proposal and the interview fa led to show sufficient ca acity, through
experience and expertise, to operate Carver High at this time.

While the written proposal gave the beginnings of an academic plan ba d on the Talent
Development High School model (TDHS) model, the interview failed to build on that base
so a
clear and comprehensive educational program could be visualized. A concern as to whether
the
Johns Hopkins group was an ESP as claimed by their representative was not satisfactorily
resolved.

There was no clear picture of how a “new” chartered Carver High would look beyond
the
restatement of the TDHS model; no full explanation was given of how this model would
be
extended to all grades. Critical parts of the total plan are insufficient to provide a compelling
and coherent educational program: professional development, organization and structure
of
most sections, focus areas of the arts and career development, assessments, evaluation,
teaching strategies, materials, technology, teacher and administration assessments, and
extra
curricula activities.

The school has a strong academic partner in JHTD, but does not appear
to have adequate
leadership, governance or financial capacity to demonstrate preparedness to operate
the school
The lack of clarity about the roles of the CEO and principal combined with a lack of
identified
candidates makes it difficult to have confidence in the leadership. The lack of educational
expertise on the board and the heavy reliance on JHTD as the comprehensive academic
resource is evidence of insufficient internal capacity

The decision to submit a cash flow budget with a negative fund balance raises
a concern of
financial stewardship.

The Board would benefit from intensive training on the roles and responsibiliti
es of its members,
the addition of some educational experts on the Board, some financial advisory
expertise, and
the development of a comprehensive high school educational program.

We commend the applicants for their interest in Carver High School and hope that
the support
and interest continues.

OVERA L RECJMMEN Ti “J

1
I
I,
CIi 1 I r,r -‘ I 3

• DrN,

p p v

g ncsa
P.51
School Name: George Washington Carver Charter School

PART3:EVALUATION DETAIL

A.Education Philosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

RECOMMENDATiON

The Fdaho’-i PiIcch C r ;mod tijt’c-e P!oe

MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

C DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

SiRENCTHr N tri’) I’’[.ie rfr’.CC. I’:’it’I’itr

The school will partner with Johns Hopkins University to implement the Talent Development
High School model. The educational program at the new Carver High will consist of four
interdisciplinary teams of teachers working collaboratively to develop units of work and
implement data-driven decision making and curriculum mapping. Block scheduling will be
used. Professional Development will be offered. Specific instructional strategies include RU,
the Making Standards Work and Leadership and Learning Center models. DI, and
career/technical skills development through the base of the LCC. A Ninth Grade Academy a -

bridge for students just entering high school, internships for career and technical skills’
develciprrient and experience, credit recovery and AP classes, and summer school are
included in the proposed plan.

CONCERNS AND ADDiTiONAL Qi::STiONS (700c ‘ ‘•- -“


‘-‘‘ : -

The proposed plan does not clearly describe how the “regular” high school course
requirements will be implemented along with the Career and Technical components so that all
BESE requirements are met. The plan does not address the current Carver High program or
the specIc challenges of its low school performance. Clarity and depth are needed in all
areas of trio Educational Program so that a viable comprehensive high school program can be
visualized. The TDHS model is not adequately developed or described to determine how it
fits nto the total program in all grades. Another serious concern is the lack of capacity of the
Board to evaluate a comprehensive academic program. Many ideas are included in the
instructional elan, but none are thoroughly developed or adequately explained making it
imoossble to assess whether or how they would all fit together. During the interview the
applicJnts dd not add adequately address this concern.

:;--:

- --- - - -

-
-- (IIATEFSCCOtif4OPZ[fiS
I •ccrL,: ‘‘Jai irqten L :rv.- r hr t r ScluOl

PART 3: EVALUATION DETML

B.Governance, Leadership and


Management

1.1 ‘. I . J

£ 11 E SA I),. PL

ii APPI.C CI-’ING 1HE SAJD,RD

• DC’CS ‘1 MIET THE cTA’E RD

sr CTI-.S

The Board liembeis represent varied backgrounds and experiences, including


education. The
school will be managed by a principal who will report to a CEO. Board members
represent
alumni of the Carver High School and are passionate supporters of the school,
as shown by
their work with the Field of Dreams Foundation an organization dedicated to the Carver

community.

COrFps NDADDI1lCNt.LQUESTIO” (fl


r ‘‘1 -‘ ‘lu’

Not all required information regarding Board Members, the service operations,
and the roles
and responsibilities of personnel in school operations and management were
included. Many
areas of the governance of the school are unclear and lack sufficient details
to determine the
capacity of this Board to operate the school. The role of Johns Hopkins University
is not
adequately address. The policies for transitioing from the current Carver High
School to a
new Carver Charter School arc not included. Personnel and Board polices
ere inadequate as
presented. Some questiors wre dar,fled during the interview, but substantial
concerns still
exist as to the capacity of the Board to oersee and evaluate the operation
cf a
comprehensive high school.

nacsa
P. 5 3
i;—. \‘j,, fl fl:’’ I ( ‘‘ us” Sc’”

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

C. Financial Plan

E1’ ruE ‘

PrL,!..c iiINC, iiE

r S NCT ii[[ T ‘‘ii SIA ‘5,

,, r c,. : . :
Budgets were presented.

CONE5NS f’’D ADDIUON,L c’uEsiio’fls . ‘ . ‘fl ,‘y’’iifl, fl’

A specihc and well-structured financial Plan showing assumptions that match the content of
the proposal needs to be developed and understood by all Board members. Some of the
months of the First Year Assumptions were “in the red” presenting cash-flow problems.
Board members mentioned the possiblity of securing a bank loan to ensure financial
solvency, if neccssary. They did not show evidence of a specific plan or strategy for securing
a loan.

The :nterview raised additional concerns about the firancirl plan. Third year budget changes
are based on the belief that a row school facilty will significantly increase enrollment. The
appIiar:tc id nct present research or other evidence to sugport this dssumption.

iia.csa
P. 4
School Name George Wahington Carver Charter School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

D.Facilities Plan

\T APLi’AF’ E

RECOMMENDAT1GI’J

he /t

MEETS THE STANDARD

• ISAPPROACHINGTHESTANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (1000 char r,1Dy) Incde rejereece, i1i’a’t

The Board will assume the current Carver High School facility. A new Carver High School
building is to be opened in 2013.

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (oon Iir max) ItcJe I o’rice, fielcaant
No mention was made of facility needs before a new school building is available. There was
no needs assessment done of the current school building.

• nacsa
RSO
P. 5 5
‘-o rJa’nc George SVashlngton Carver Charter Schoo’

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

E.Louisiana Charter Operator


Contract Compliance

RECOMMENDATION
Cr LtCCOL!GC

MEETS THE STANDARD

SAPP0ACHINCTHE TANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (ooc chw ‘oj Ii lode iefrieoce, 1


fieli’ont

N/A

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ( Don char oax) lnlade rrfrrnce, JIEJH)017t

w
nacsa
P. 56
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS December / 2010 (MO/YR)

(updated 10/10)
Receive & Refer Contact Person: ErinBendilv
Action Phone Number: (225) 342-3640
X Information Office:irerta1Otion_________

Recovery School District Committee AGENDA

Iteni #_IV.BA.f. Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


James Weldon Johnson Academy James Weldon Johnson Academy
--

RECOMMENDATION: Receive

Background on application and evaluation process:


A Request for Applications to operate Type 2. 4, and 5 charter schools was released in April,
2010.
, New
Information sessions and a series of workshops for applicants were held in June in Baton Rouge
Recov ery Schoo l Distric t
Orleans. and Shreveport. Applicants were informed of the following Type 5
in
(RSD) priorities: takeover or conversion of RSD high schools, alternative schools, schools specializing
serving special needs students, and takeover of low-performing RSD K-8 schools. A total of 14
organizations applied to operate 18 Type 5 schools.

On behalf of the Board and Department, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
(NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compliance with the Principals and Standards
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written application evaluation, applicant interviews,
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local and national evaluators who brought
expertise in areas of curriculum, management, finance, and the management of urban charter schools.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process, conducted completeness checks, and
provided information to I’ACSA for use by its evaluators in reviewing the applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1, 2010.

Applicant information:
James Weldon Johnson Academy submitted a Type 5 charter application to operate James Weldon
Johnson Academy in Orleans Parish. The proposed school will serve approximately 325 students in its
first year in grades K-8 and approximately 350 students in grades K—8 at full capacity. The organization
does not propose to contract with an education service provider.

James Weldon Johnson Academy does not currently operate any charter schools in Louisiana.

Summary of recommendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only those Type 5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. NACSA’s evaluation team has recommended
denial of the Type 5 charter application submitted by James Weldon Johnson Academy to operate James
Weldon Johnson Academy. A copy of the Evaluation and Recommendation Summary is attached.
Department staff has reviewed the evaluators’ findings and agrees that they are sound. TherefOre, the
Department is not recommending approval of this application.

Implications of proposed recommendation -- benefits and problematic areas:

No problematic areas are foreseen as a result of this R


1 sed
57 recommendation.
Charter School Application
External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Pro iiicfed to the
Louisiana Department of Education

DATE

October 28, 2010


SCHOOL NAM

James Weldon Johnson Academy

CHAi ER SCHOOL TYPE

Type S

Independent Review Team Members

REVEWTEAF4 LEAD

Anna Bernard
EVA ELlA’ 0 RS

Brian Beabout

Andre Perry

Katie Piehl

Paul O’Neill

C HARI ER SC HOOL 4UiHOVZERS

r:.
I EDUCATION
P.59
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

James Weldon Johnscn Academy

‘.-.

James Weldon Johnson Academy

P-i F
K-S K-8

PC, E TE ENPOLI MENT


325 350

I S SIC N

The mission of the JW Johnson Academy is centered on the coHective belief that
the school can create an educational environment that challenges, nurtures and
develops the academic success of students through environmental project-based
learning.

SCIICCI IIADERsHIP

Principal - Wanda D. Brooks

VF - r Jf \ C F

Jerry Speir, Jean Fisher, Donald Smith, Sr., Steve Martin, April Baptiste

g [ca
I - .‘. 1 - hn:nn Readem

PART 2: RECOMMENDATION

The E’aljatin Team recommends that the application be dened.

The written proposal to restructure the 3W. Johnson schcol into a charter schcol lacked clarity
ord depth In all areas. ‘.hile the interview hclped with some issues, a clear ar:d compelling
educational proGram and a well-designed educational plan were not evident. There was no
clear operatIonal and management plan, nor oversight of all aspects of the proposal.

There is a strong, and seemingly successful, principal at the current Johnson school. She will
b comt the CEO of the proposed charter school. A new principal will be named. There is a
desire to be under a charter organization, especially for the benefits of more autonomy and
flexibility. Plans were expressed for bringing back the TAP program that was discontinued by
RSD. However, the specifics of the desired flexibility and autonomy were not fully developed or
shc ‘n beyond the reinstatement of TAP.

The capacity of the Board is a concern. The proposed board did not demonstrate adequate
educational expertise and educational background. There is need for leadership development
and financial expertise. The board did not demonstrate capacity to evaluate personnel,
programs and procedures.

The expectation of lower teacher salaries is a concern as is the low expectations for teacher
retention.

Financiai management is somewhat questionable due to negative balances in the first-year cash
flow, improper budgeting of the PCSP grant, and the possibility of having to borrow funds to be
solvent.

Overall, this proposal, as presented in the written document and in the interview, does not
indicate sufficient capacity to operate an effective school.

The Evaluation Team coniiiiends the current Johnson school and its leadership for the gains
made and the Johnson Circle of Friends for their support of the school, but do not find
adecuate preparation in the proposal for charter status.

vi /- . I I .li PAl I
. ‘.‘
: -- -- :
- - .

.i . ‘.. i-c.-’ .-P .‘ --

• L:-.

. pacsa
School Name: James Weldon Johnson Academy

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

AEducation Philosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

(: ‘i.ir; TIC J

-c 1FF S’MJIJ,\FTD

IS APPc’ACHING E STATJDAkD

• lOIS \1 MEET TOL SfANCARP

ii ‘
i..-- ‘;.

The Board proposes to take over the current PK-8th grade JW Johnson school from the RSD
and from tile James Weldon Johnson Academy (chaiter school). The school will stress high
achievement and attendance, an orderly and supportive environment, parental and
community involvement and supportive PD for teachers and rtaff. Instructional
decision-making will be data-driven and the LCC will be mplemenRd through a variety of
strategies, materials and technology. Character building will be emphasized. There wIll be a
“oreen” focus.

CQ\FPT-,SAN 0ADDI1IONALQOrSTINc

There is little detailed information given on the “green focus” and it is riot clear what this
focus includes or how it will be implemented across the grades. Extra-curricular activities as
well as before- and after-school actvIties are not explained. The discipline plan is not specific
to this school. Tile current Johnson school includes Pre-K, but hs take-over proposal does
not. The educational section did nut complete the outline presented in the Executive
Summary. Saldry adjustments and the a’Tttcipdtic•n of lower salaries were given as the
reason fc’- a low teacher retortion rate. No plans addressed this. Many sections and
components of tile proposal need clarity, cpecifcity and depth: assessments,
data-collections, evaluations, profeccicnai development, teaching strateg:es and materials,
r:d orgarazational and operational mrragemerit prn’edures. The plan showed little change
from the current Johnson Scboo educational proQram, as descr;bed Ly its princpai.

ndcsa
P.62
School Name: James Weldon Johnson Academy

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

B.Governance, Leadership and


Management

RECOMMENDATION

MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD -


DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

S1EL.THS i’’. ‘.,..;

The small JWJA Board is made up of live individuals with varied backgrounds and experiences
outside the field of education. One parent serves on the Board. The Board also goes by the
name Johnson Circle of Friends, even though the applicants represented that organization as
a separate “support group.” The board will have full responsibility for determining policy and
maintaining fiscal oversight. Leadership and management oversight of the school will be the
responsibility of the CEO, Wanda Brooks. The CEO will act as liaison between the school, the
community and the JWJA Board, and will be responsible for the day-to-day monitoring of
state and federal policies and procedures, the handling of grievances and/or complaints, and
evaluating the principal. A principal will be hired to handle the daily school operations.

CONCERNS AND ADD1HC AL QUESTIONS - .‘ “.O, :-. ‘in

Several required parts of the proposal narrative were omitted, primarily the operational
management sections. There is no educational expertise on the JWJA Board. Personnel
policies are from the RSD and not specific to the school. The projected first-year teacher
retention is only 40’SS and only 60% for the second yedr due to rlatively ow salaries, yet the
applicants r:ave not made r!aris to address this large turn-over of staff.

There is a sgnificant lack of information the oraan’7ational structure of leadership and


on

management and the assessment and evaluation of the principal and the CEO. The current
school principal assumed he lead in most area cf the interview. Lack of educational
expertise and background kncwlenqe mnng Board members was apparent and is a
substantal concern.

cflp SC,iOOt ,tJ14OZfRS

P.63
i .‘L i,i c’. .,dc: y

PART 3: EVALUATION DETML

C. Financial Plan

E:CMMENrATiz\J

1Eh1S THE 5TNDAPD

IS App;cAcHirJc IHE ST...’4E’AL.

• i)S [

RFrc,THS (?‘7 .ii;,

Budgets were presented.

CONCERNS AND ADDITiO-Aj QIJFS’IO’JS


‘“iC’ u’ . 1
r ;

The budget raised many questions about the underlying assumptions


which were not
addressed satisfactorily in the interview. These include budget assumptions
for marketing,
conferences, legal fees, employees for group health, and dues and
fees. There are insufficient
funds for some months in the First Year cash flow projection and
the 5-year balances are
inadequate.

The proposal lacks a strord financial structure. Accountability and


weIl-defried procec
ures
4
need to be ir, plcce to ensure a viable financial plan.

The CFO provided a reascnable explanation for managing cash


flow during the first year, but
it was unclear hy thR CEO submitted a budget
with nigative halnces. The CFO did not
appear to have a full understanding of the PCSP gran: procesc or the
tming of MFP payments
and how that would impact budgeting and planning.

g
School Narn J mes W don Johnson Academy

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAtL

D.Facilities Plan

NCT ‘SrLC 5
4 L5

RECOMM NOATION

e P.c/icc Pan

•, MEETS THE ST,.NDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (onQ chr max) Iniude eefrrcnce, fielenane.


The Board plans to take over the JW Johnson Elementary School from the RSD. No mention
was made of needed changes to the facility. It is hoped that a remodeled facility will become
available in the near future.

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS i-noo hr max) IncJe ejc r.’nce, [icivant
None

F. 6 5
nacsa
“.
School Name James Weldon Johnson Academy

PART 3: EVALUATION DETML

E.Louisiana Charter Operator


Contract Compliance
T’ CC

R E CO M M E N DAT ON

MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (ooo cJn may) /nc/Due mfrnce, ,


e
1 Iticaet
N/A

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (con char max) In ?ude itIvr vice, lie/mat

nacsa
J,
P 66
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS December / 2010 (Mo/YR)
(updated 10/10)
Receive & Refer Contact Person: Erin Bendily
— Action Phone Number: (225) 342-3640
N Information Office:Parental Options

Recover School District Committee AGENDA

Item Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


John T. Scott Middle School John T. Scott Middle School

RECOMMENDATION: Receive

Background on application and evaluation process:


A Request for Applications to operate Type 2, 4, and 5 charterschools was released in April, 2010.
Information sessions and a series of workshops for applicants were held in June in Baton Rouge, New
Orleans, and Shreveport. Applicants were informed of the following Type 5 Recovery School District
(RSD) priorities: takeover or conversion of RSD high schools, alternative schools, schools specializing in
serving special needs students, and takeover of low-performing RSD K-8 schools. A total of 14
organizations applied to operate I S Type 5 schools.

On behalf of the Board and Department, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
(NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compliance with the Principals and Standards
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written application evaluation, applicant interviews,
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local and national evaluators who brought
expertise in areas of curriculum, management. finance, and the management of urban charter schools.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process, conducted completeness checks, and
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators in reviewing the applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1, 2010.

Applicant information:
John T. Scott Middle School submitted a Type 5 charter application to operate John T. Scott Middle
School in Orleans Parish. The proposed school will serve approximately 60 students in its first year in
grade 5 and approximately 330 students in grades 5—8 at full capacity. The organization does not propose
to contract with an education service provider.

John T. Scott Middle School does not currently operate any charter schools in Louisiana.

Summary of recommendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only those Type 5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. NACSA’s evaluation team has recommended
denial of the Type 5 charter application submitted by John T. Scott viiddle School to operate John T.
Scott Middle School. A copy of the Evaluation and Recommendation Summary is attached. Department
staff has reviewed the evaluators’ findings and agrees that they are sound. Therefore, the Department is
not recommending approval of this application.

Implications of proposed recommendation -- benefits and problematic areas:

No problematic areas are foreseen as a result of this pP.6?sed recommendation.


Charter School Application
External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Provided to the
Louis/aria Department of Education

DATE

November 8, 2010
SCHOOL NAME

John T. Scott Middle School

CHARTER SCHOOL TYPE

Type 5

Independent Review Team Members


REVIEW TEAM LEAD

Jenrnfer G. Sneed
EVA LUATO PS

Cheri Shannon

Mark Comanducci

Judy Foil

Adrian Morgan

aE1LLOED 3Y I HE NATO-AL ASSOCfr


OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORCERS

. na
0
-;
‘ Sa Dprn
EDUCATION

P. 69
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

John T. Scott Middle School

liON

John T. Scott Middle School

l. 1 E-.R5
-

5th 5th - 8th

.JENT
60 300

M IS L N

To provide an edUcation that prepared students to thrive at the high school level
and to make choices that impact their local and global communities as they
pursue opportunities in post-secondary education, in life, and in the world of
work.

SCHOOl AUF PSHI P

Not yet identified

VEi A CE

Mr. Everett Williams/President, Dr. Rosalind Hale/Vice President, Ms. Donna


Murrell/Secretary (finance), Mr. Jim LaPorte (CPA), Ms. Annette Hollowell (legal),
and Ms. Marie Clare Powell (education)

SPFC

1 I .

g C
1) —
I .1
)r’hn t. Scott Madle Scho_’

PART 2: RECOMMENDATION

The cat(’n S rot recr niinered o


1 r anprova’.

1 sinV,cant cues xoth th educatiunal ricoram iriciudino la, orals for achie ament
_

Ofl stute —ssessments, no formative or u mm ativ assessments idnt lied for student
evaiL’;on, ack of suffiuient strategies for prufessional development, and significant woaknosses
in the uevelopment of prograns to serve special population students.

There are ccncerns regard;ng board capacity and development. Boara training and development
are limited to three topics that do not include a focus on academic accountability. There were
several other significant operational issues including an unclear orçanizational chart, no school
start up plan, no insurance quote, no plan for student safety and security, and insufficient plans
for the school facility and its equipment. When interviewed, the applicant group did not appear
to possess the expertise or capacity to address critical aspects of the proposed charter school.

The applicant group did not present a clear plan regarding enrollment. When the group was
a:ked specifc questions about particular grade level expectations, enrollment was discussed in
terms of age and not grade, which was confusing. The applicant group described their desire to
create a replicable program for 1O-year-olds that would focus on the whole child in order to
build self-esteem, however minimal discussion was provided regarding academic expectations.

In addition, the application was not well written with poor word chuices making it very difficult
to understand and difficult to locate responses to questions. When discussing the policies and
procedures for adhering to the Public Records Law, the application refers to a different school,
the New Orleans Charter Elementary School.

UVt P ‘ r LIME N DATI ON


-

i--,-:;•- - - 1’-’--. . c: -
: ‘ .f’ • - -


-,

racsa
r
-I.’

-
hn T it K eS i

PART 3:EVALUATION DET/UL

A.EdLJcation Philosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

iF, E’A10’J

l.IEETS fl ES’ANDAR

IS ACH I NC TI 5’. 1 DAt’ fl

,)fl’-c \cI ‘.IEET THE S/.’L RV

‘iRE’JC1FS’,’CIL’’-) ,ii,C’

CONCERNS A -ID ADDITIONAL QU ESTIONS ‘ -c c”’ tr:1 = I ‘1,1 ‘

The educational philosophy, curriculum and instruction plan were insufficient. A number
of key areas were lacking in details, such as an assessment plan or professional
development. No information was provided regarding student evaluation. (Reference
p18)

Performance goals were not rigorous and appeared arbttrary, targeting 30% proficient
in the first year and increasing by 10% each year thereafter until reaching 90%.
(Reference p16)

Though programs were described as being research-based, the application did not
provide ample citations or evidence of success for the schools chosen methods. The
school’s plans for addressing the needs of special populations were insufficient and
unclear, and pointed to the applicants lack of expertise regarding students with
significant disabilities. (Reference pp.21, 25-27)

g
P 72
, I -.

PART 3 : EVALUATION DETML

B.Governance, Leadership and


Management

i’MMET.

TS TI-I’ STANDPD

APPOAC’IjJC. THE ST;.TT)Au

• S T’ILLT TTIr S/.rrSr

ST E’JcTHS (:c 7 ,T:) 1: Ti’’

The proposed board members’ ba kground knowledcje, skills and experiences included
education, law, and finance. (Reference pp.48-50)

CQNCPNS AND ADDITTCNAL Qu[sHc’cs Li’’. “‘,T , ..,D

There are concerns regarding board capacity and development. Details regarding board
training were insufficient; the plan only discussed timing, the process for selecting topics for
the first year, and a rationale for not including academic accountability as a focus, which is
unsettling. Recruitment and succession information spoke to the desired areas of expertise
for new members hut did not address the process to be used to identify or select new
members, or who would be responsible for recruitment. The organizational chart was unclear
regarding the relationships between/among positIons. (RefererTce pp54, 55, Att.H)

The plans for school lcadorshp were insuffcient, The pir:cpaI jch descrticn lacks the
appmpriate years of experience, educational leveT, and degree requiremcnt. Plans for
leadership evaluahon lacked detail.

Thc Dppiication alco lacked any information about a school start :ip parT, insurance qucte or
plan for safety and security of sti:dents, schccl raulty fld uuJipmaT;t. (Refc ence p.59)

I.)
I.’
I hi hIm T

PART 3 : EVALUATION DETAIL

C. Financial Plan

‘4i It iii

is ,pi-c’,’-c iirI S1tJDAR

. 1
P(mS’.CTIihT’IIFSTh’IFi

i.uDiTIoNALSTIO.S ;‘ ,m 1
:jiu

The budget was developed using the wrong budget forms resulting in certain expenses being
autornotically excluded. The applicant group indicated that they had used another school’s
budget as the model. The applicant did not provide sufficient detail regarding the budget
dssurnptions and the rationale for them. (Reference Budgets)

No ash flow hudact was included in the appiicdtion thus the evaluat:on team could not
determine how the school would address cash flow shortfalls. The applicant indicated that
they wocld ‘teaci” faculty how to wrIte grants in order to provide ‘extra cash.” No adequate
answer was provided.

There was corcern reoardng how low teacher salaries and other pay inequities would impact
thc1 sLhcnI, such as having paid and unpaid mentors performing the same tasks. The
pIicar;t group c:dS unable to adequotely respond to ths question.

P.74
ScIo N mc 3 hn T. cott Middi School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

D.Facilities Plan

NI AFP iC’E

RECOMMENDATION
TJ, p,

MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

• DOES NO1 MEET THE TANDAPD

STRENGTH S (7000 c/mr 0,1(G) lnlude ef r Oct’

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (7000 rhar. max) In lode cJrr’nce, if drool L.

The application lists two preferred sites The plan for acquiring a facility was unclear in light
of the information provided regarding a property located at 3230 Canal Street. Evaluators
could not determine whether this was the address for one of the two identified preferred
facilities or if it was a facility the applicant group had an Interest in. (Reference p.64)

P.75
School Name: John T. Scott Middle School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

E. Louisiana Charter Operator


Contract Compliance
NOT APPLICABLE

RECOMMENDATION
The Louisiana Charter Opesator Contract Compliance:

Q MEETS THE STANDARD


IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD
Q
o DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (iooo char. rna4 Include reference. ifrelevant


Notapplicable
7- ‘Sj et rjij

.4- ‘V . . :: r s

F ‘ ‘

r
,k ;- X%
t4 ,2 4: “

* :.•: .::
CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (1000
that mat) Include reference. jfselevant.
- 4
yt
% t
,tk
.1

)it t
V a
p S ‘, .

.2i..:
‘r .t
. -

_b. tf..j.tj. i.

;. .., . .
..
.t•?

:! i . .. ç.

‘I.
tbt..

tO .nt.1’\kI : . .. :f rtr.Ci. !C’J L


7
p 6 tV’tLUfl i31)
e nacsa
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS December! 2010 (MO/YR)
(updated 10/10)

Receive & Refer Contact Person: Erin Bendily


Action
X Information
I
Phone Number: (225) 342-3640
_J[9fice: Parental Options

Recovery School District Committee AGENDA

Item #IV.B.4.h. Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


Lord Beaconsfield Landry College Preparatory and Career Focused Charter
High School Lord Beaconsfield Charter Association

RECOMMENDATION: Receive

Background on application and evaluation process:


A Request for Applications to operate Type 2, 4. and 5 charter schools was released in April, 2010.
Information sessions and a series of workshops for applicants were held in June in Baton Rouge. New
Orleans. and Shreveport Applicants were informed of the following Type 5 Recovery School District
.

(RSD) priorities: takeover or conversion of RSD high schools, alternative schools, schools specializing in
serving special needs students, and takeover of low-performing RSD K-8 schools. A total of 14
organizations applied to operate 18 Type 5 schools.

On behalf of the Board and Department, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
(NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compliance with the Principals and Standards
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written application evaluation, applicant interviews.
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local and national evaluators who brought
expertise in areas of curriculum, management, finance, and the management of urban charter schools.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process, conducted completeness checks, and
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators in reviewing the applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1. 2010.

Applicant information:
Lord Beaconsfield Charter Association submitted a Type 5 charter application to operate Lord
Beaconsfield Landry College Preparatory and Career Focused Charter High School in Orleans Parish. The
proposed school will serve approximately 540 students in its first year in grades 7-10 and approximately
700 students in grades 7-12 at full capacity. The organization proposes to contract with Educated Change
Foundation.

Lord Beaconsfield Charter Association does not currently operate any charter schools in Louisiana.

Summary of recommendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only those Type 5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. NACSA’s evaluation team has recommended
denial of the Type 5 charter application submitted by Lord Beaconsfield Charter Association to operate
Lord Beaconsfield Landry College Preparatory and Career Focused Charter High School .A copy of the
Evaluation and Recommendation Summary is attached. Department staff has reviewed the evaluators’
findings and agrees that they are sound, Therefore. the Department is not recommending approval of this
application.
P.77
Lnarter cnoo Appltcat8on . e *

External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Pro ided to the
Louisiana Department of Education

D T I

November 8, 2010
c -:CL ME

Lord Beaconsñeld Landry College Preparatory and


Career Focused Charter High School

CHARTER S’II 3O FYFF

Type 5

Independent Rev ow Team Members


REVIEW LEAIJ

Jennifer G. Sneed
EVALU,’1 :Ps

Cheri Shannon

Mark Comanducci

Judy Foil

Adrian Morgan

i-- ( —‘i

EDUCATION

P_ 79
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

Lord Beaconsfield Landry College Preparatory and Career Focused Chdrter High
School

Lord Beaconsfield Charter Association

CI. I’E [E’[iS


7th - 10th 7th - 12th
i-C CTF D E.50LLI1E T
540 700

ic

To create a research based educational environment infused with technology


driven instruction for students who are at risk for educational failure. In
partnership with parents and community, the school will promote a culture of
achievement that maximizes the potential of all children empowering them to
become positive contributors of society and competitive in an evolving economy.

CHCOi L[AL RHi1

Not yet identified

ZC’J” A CF

Dr. Eric Jones/President (education), Mr. Anthony L. Fisher/Vice-President


(education), Mr. Derek LaMothe/Recording Secretary (football coach), Mrs. Carol
Edgar-Lang/Treasurer (education), Mr. Tyrone Casby (education), and Mr. Floyd
Griffin Jr. (management)

‘i. L

1) The interview team earned that a large number of students would be movrg from the Lord
Beaconsfield Landry school. The applicant group ‘s predictirg that there wil be large rumbers of
students in the upper grades. The school also ntends to backfill seats as/when students leave the
school. 2) The missing hour after lunch wou’d be used hr advisory. 3) The schools plan for
encouraging teAcher recntion is to nire the best teacher. 4) No details about extracurr euler
Octi’ ties.

P.8(1
SthLoI Lii turd P ori fid Londr, I, Pr’ r,,t, caici I — . ‘: Chorie’ F’ .h °chcul

PART 2: RECOMMENDATION

Tne ap lrcat’ estabi sh he Lord B ‘c JftId Laicir’,’ C_ iege Pr cpara’cr y and C roor
n to

uI “Beaconsf lct ) is not mrinmended fo pprcval.


Focusea Ciatcr High ScL
0

While the applicant offered potential the applrcstion is a:krng in numerous and significant
areas. One of the key areas of much concern is the intended management organization,
Educated Change Foundation (ECF). Eviuators question the efficacy of the relationship and the
capacity of ECF to fulfill its various roles and responsibilties, and continue to have significant
concerns about the relationship between the board, the school and the ESP. The board did not
conduct coy due diligence in identifying ECF as the management organization. Evaluators also
had financial concerns regarding ECF and its 15 ‘o fee. ECF has not worked with any other
schools before, but indicated it would provide human resource services, budget management
and grant services for the fee.
writing

The education plan did not meet the standaid. There were significant concerns regarding plans
to address the needs of students with disabilities. Specialized personnel are not included in the
budget, but the applicant indicated that the school would “fund raise’ to hire a special education
teacher. The application did not address how the school would assess, revise and implement the
IEP. Proposed goals are not rigorous; the applicant expects 60% of 7th-9th graders and all
returning 10th graders to score basic or above on the iLEAP, LEAP or Graduate Exit Exam.

In addition the acadermric concerns, evaluators had serious Governance, Leade ship and
to

Manaqernent concerns ocluding the misalicoment of the organizational chart with its narrc jive
and/or moor information in the application. A resur e ns missing for one of th proposed
trustees and the mechanics of hoard recruitment and succession wero absent from the
application. Air insurance quote was not included.

The proposed budgets were developed based on either unclear or misguided assumptions and
fell short of the standard in numerous ways. In addition, evaluators were unsatisfied with the
applicant group’s inability to articulate what the school would receive from the RSV for the 1
%
2
fee.

(J,’{Pf LI ‘ r.rmncAi

• :1.

g naç.a . :
P.I ‘ .
School Name: Lord Beaconsfield Landry College Preparatory and Career Focused Charter High School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETML

A. Education Philosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

P 5 CC tA M EN DAT IC N

Ed C?i/ü&phy CurrcJts mid I ri:tfcc P/cm

MEETSTHESTANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STAN DARO

DOSS NOT MEET THE STANOARD

STRENGTHS /ocm ‘7 .c/uc “C 7.

The applicant had some elements of education plan in place. The school plans to use the
Louisiana Comprehensive Curriculum (LCC) which is aligned to state standards, and provides
sample activities and assessments. The proposed professional development program would
be based on both the National Staff Development Framework and the System for Thacher and
Student Advancement. Both programs could serve to assist the school in the development
strong content, context and process for the professional development of instructional staff.
(Reference pp. 15, 41)

cONrFfrRS AND ADDiT1O..4 ,,tQUESTiON /n.’ ,‘ ‘‘•‘‘‘- 1Cm

Plans Icr addressing the needs of students with disabilities were unclear did not meet the
standard. Specialized personnel are not included in the budget; in the interview, the applicant
indicated that the school would be “fund raising’ in order to hire a special education teacher.
The application did not address how the school would assess, revise and implement the IEP. The
school intends to conduct a 30-day review of all IEPs in relation to setting up a life skills
program and transitional services but was unclear about the process for doing so.

Proposed goals are not rigorous. The applicant expects 60% of 7th-Sth graders and all returning
10th graders to score basic or above on tifle hEAP, LEAP or Graduate Exit Exam.

The daiy schedule appears insufficpnt to impiement the professicnai c1evengmentiin. The
1
apphm’ton ca:is for 30 mm/day for ‘job embedded des’elopment.” Schedule includes 30 minute
grade ieel planning time. Applicarts stated 30 minutc daily plarnng time.

(Reference p. 22, Capacity Interview, D’i. 23, 18, 52)

• Wroo
“(HArEP 50,001 UTWORIZII1S

P.82
—rh_cl ‘i-’. wi ,ccci c:’ :nd-, i:—r? Prcj i’it :.;1 r _, i’ncr l,h ci

PART 3 : EVALUAflON DETA L

B.Governance, Leadership and


Management

‘.lLttS HE si:ir

,PPOAC[1I.C 1-IE S14[.kD

• D(SN<DT.1it]HiESTArJUAii)

ST’.’.GJHS

The applicant did identify the following board comnmttees in the pi-oposed by-laws:
Grievance, Finance, Audit, Outcomes and Compensation. In addition, the board would receive
ongoing professional development/training through the Louisiana Association of Public
Charter Schools (although the type/number of sessions remains unclear). (Reference pp. 137,
70-77)

rONCFPNS A ND ADDITIC ‘AL Qi. [S QN .r’-•’.•j.J’- c c •uw

Evaluators had several concerns regarding the proposed management organization, Educated
Change Foundation (ECF). The hoard did not conduct any due diligence in identifying ECF to
manage the school. The members of FCF have no experience working as an ESP or working
together. [CF’s relationhip to the board and the school is not clecir. The proposed contract does
nat offer detailed informatcn regarding deliverables, i.e. hours devoted to the school or docunwnts
created for the scriool.

The organizat onal chart narrative was unclear. 1 here were numerous discrepancies between the
positions referenced in the application narrative and the orgenizational chart (i.e. superintendent,
assistant principal, curriculum and academic speciaists). Key resumes vore missing from the
application.

1 here were soveral other operatiunal issues as ccl, including the fpct that the rncchan.cc of bcard
recruitment and succession were absent ho-n the app:icaticn, end the insurance quote was illcgtble.

(Reference p.65, Capacity Jr tervies.’, pp.75 50, Appendices pp.120 132. 73-73, 92)

g
iooi Lord Beacon fi Id cjndr” Cc iege Preparator and Cart r Forusd Chartu ‘igh c rio P

PART 3:EVALUAHON DETML

C. Financial Plan

k’i T’ TI cf.ND,,Ij

Is spp:,,Nc TI-E Si.5i,

• ‘JD. riOT ‘.ifT THE ST.N._ -

SiR ‘-II- S :l,’,i c

CON’tRNS AND ADDlTINAL QUESTIONS ci;.;’ r;i) ‘c c’c ic,,

The proposeJ financial plan raised numerous concerns. Evalriators questioned both the rates
and services/products to be provided to the school by the proposed management company,
ECF, and the RSV. The team could not articulate the services the RSV would provide for the
10% fee above the typical 27o charged to other schools.

The budgets are based on unclear or misguided assumptions, but assumptions are not
provided. The applicant pans to carry a 2.0M line of credit in year one and $1.OM in
succeeding ears with a substantial surplus in year one, dod treats the loan as revenue each
year. It is not clear how the school wouid be prepared to deal with funds not being readily
available as a result of grant funds not being received in lump sums. Support personnel for
special education and studens who are limited English prof;cient are not budgeted. PLATE
plays a major role in the proposed schoci but supplies and personnel for the technology
procram were not buçeted.

çRecrcnce Capacity lntcrvie.;, Budgetc

g ‘a
P.84
Choni Name Lord B aconsfield Land y oil g Pr p rato y and C reer Focu ed Char er High S hod

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

D.Facilities Plan

A CI L

RE CO M M END AT 0 N

TJc F, t c

• MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APP OACHING THE STANDARD

DO S NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (iron cbo’ 00Y) iriJuj Ief;evice, j eIi’oot

The application identified the current Landry High School as the preferred facility. The
at its
application discussed how the budding would accommodate the proposed charter school
full enrollment and how the applicant envisioned using the space within the building.
(Reference Cover Sheet, p.102)

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (;oor d,o, mox) inclUde eJTrRn(e, relant

[I
ART C Ufl4 ‘FRS

P.85
School Name Lord Beaconsheld Landry College Preparatory and Career Focused Charter High School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

ELouisiana Charter Operator


Contract Compliance
\CT PPLIC4BLE

RECOMMENDATION

Tc Lr ‘scria Cboie Ocioor ‘

MEETSTHESTANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (1000 char maj lociude IcfrreacC L[,e/cla*7t

SECTION NOT APPLICABLE

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (ooo L,har rria) laciude ICjL’rcrlcc, j lelcuant

g I SCoo AUUICR

P.86
_____
_____

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS December .1 2010 (N1o/YR)


(updated 1 0/10)
Receive & Refer Contact Person: jnndi1y__
X Action Phone Number: 534264O
Information Office: Parental Options

Recovery School District Committee AGENIJA

Item # 1V.B.4.i. Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


Collegiate Academy Charter School New Orleans Charter Science
and Math Academy

RECOMMENDATION: Approve

Background on application and evaluation process:


A Request for Applications to operate Type 2, 4, and 5 charter schools was released in April, 2010.
Information sessions and a series of workshops for applicants were held in June in Baton Rouge. New
Orleans. and Shreveport. Applicants were informed of the following Type 5 Recovery School District
(RSD) priorities: takeover or conversion of RSD high schools, alternative schools, schools specializing
in
serving special needs students, and takeover of low-performing RSD K-8 schools. A total of 14
organizations applied to operate 18 Type 5 schools.

On behalf of the Board and Department, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
(NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compliance with the Principals and Standards
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written application evaluation, applicant interviews.
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local and national evaluators who brought
expertise in areas of curriculum, management, finance, and the management of urban charter schools.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process, conducted completeness checks, and
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators in reviewing the applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1,2010.

Applicant information:
New Orleans Charter Science and Math Academy submitted a Type 5 charter application to operate
Collegiate Academy Charter School in Orleans Parish. The proposed school will serve approximately 90
students in its first year in grade 9 and approximately 360 students in grades 9-12 at full capacity. The
organization proposes to contract with Collegiate Academies of New Orleans.

New Orleans Charter Science and Math Academy currently operates New Orleans Charter Science and Math
Academy. a Type 5 charter school in Orleans Parish.

Summary of recommendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only those Type 5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. NACSA’s evaluation team has recommended
approval of the Type 5 charter application submitted by New Orleans Charter Science and Math Academy
to operate Collegiate Academy Charter School. A copy of the Evaluation and Recommendation Summary
is attached. Department staff has reviewed the evaluators’ findings and agrees that they are sound.
Superintendent Vallas has also reviewed the recommendations and believes the school will complement
and support the mission of the Recovery School District.

The Department therefore recommends approval of thiication for the proposed charter school to open
______Bulletin
______
______Administrative
______Code
______Authority
_________________________

during the 201 1-12 school year, contingent upon the requirements and special considerations set forth
below:
• Completion of a pre-opening checklist (attached);
• Addressing any special considerations set forth in the Evaluation and Recommendation Summary
recommendations;
• Assignment of an existing RSD-operated school by the Superintendent of the RSL) not later than
March 2011. If an assignment is not made. the authority to open this school rna’ be deferred until
2012-13 or may be rescinded based on a recommendation by the Superintendent of the RSD.
Department staff will report on the status of applicants and their school assignments during the March
201 1 RSD Committee meeting: and
• Execution of the charter contract no later than April 29. 2011.

It is recommended that charter application final approval shall be not be effective until the above
referenced contingencies. including approval of the Department and execution (signed by president of the
non-profit corporation and the BESE President) of the charter contract, are met.

Implications of proposed recommendation -- benefits and problematic areas:

No problematic areas are foreseen as a result of this proposed recommendation.

Notice of Intent Code


Emergency Adoption Reason: --
Reference:
Item Bulletin: Note:
7
/ 1
7’ _,7_
L
-.

,
I ) 4 /
/
1/.
‘I
f/J
I H /
7‘<,‘-L’I ‘ / /IZ/ / I fi I
.‘ k--Ur ,iAL’ .. /
/
Dictor ‘f Assitwnt\Superintendent
/
Chief
,‘
/ !—
/
K
Deputy 4ndei
Superi
e State iIjirintendent

P. 88
Charter School Application
External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Pro L’ided to the
Louisiana Department of Education

oi r

November 8, 2010
CCHCGL •JrE

Collegiate Academy Charter School

CI- AIT R LHOOI 1 YPI

Type5

Independent Review Team Members


REVIE’. LEAD

JenniferG. Sneed
EV LL’TCPS

Cheri Shannon

Mark Cornanducci

Judy Foil

Adrian rvlorgan

nacSd
P.89
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

Collegate Academy Charter School

L,L\..’rI N

New Orleans Charter Science and Math Academy

VEA E

L.LLS
9th 9th - 12th

RCJEC’ED rp’LLMENT
90 360

MSICN

To prepare all interested scholars for college success, equipped with the passion
and tools to begin innovative and world-changing pursuits.

SCHrflI I LACI P

Not yet identified

Susan Norwood/Chairperson (education), Diana Lewis/Vice Chairperson


(community rep), Michael Bruno/Treasurer (finance), Cala Boddie Colbert (legal),
Douglas Finegan (finance), Emily Klein Morris (education), and Ana Menezes
(education)

P.y()
f_hartr ‘h’

PART 2: RECOMMENDATION

- - -, -

Collegiate Academy Charter School is recommended for apprcva’.

The applicant seeks ‘o replicate the currently operating New Orleans Charter Science and Math
Academy (Sd Academy). Sci Academy has met or exceeded its applicable acederc
performance standards and has been in compliance with ts operational standards in the areas
of special education, English ianguage learners, stUdent enroilment, student dscipline, health
and safety, governance and facilities. Sci Academy has maintained a balanced budget since its
inception (two years), and has retained more than 80°k of its teaching staff.

The application fully met the standard in all areas. The appiication is well written and clearly
articulates the academic design, staffing, governing structure, and finances of the proposed
charter school. The proposed charter school is a ‘no excuses’ model with high expectations for
all students arid a commitment to providing students with the necessary resources/supports to
ensure that they can attain the highest academic expectations.

The curriculum is based on the Louisiana Comprehensive Curriculum and supplemented with
college-prep courses, multiple electives and other after school and summer learning
opportunities. The application reflects a clear awareness that Collegiate Academy’s target
population would primarily be at-risk students. The academic program is designed to include
additional rernediation such as double instructional blocks of mathematics and reading for 9th
and 10th grade students and an extended school day to provide one-on- one tutoring. In
addition, the school will provide 188 days of instruction which is well above the state
requirement of 177.

The applicant proposes to add members to the existing Sci Academy board to effectively govern
both schools. The applicant articulated clear roles and responsibilities for the board and its
committees (Hurrian Capital, Facilities, Finance, Marketing & Development, and School
Excellence). The board has identified opportunities for training and development to establish a
data-driven governance system.

Collegiate Academy will mirror the effective operational processes and practices used at Sci
Academy, that have been refined based on insights and lessons earned. Comprehensive Family
and Employee Handbooks were provided in the application, and it is clear that family support is
built into all aspects of the school.

i ‘ . I -i ( 5’. ?,‘tND’TiQN

‘.5

g :fldSd
I.U) j
• Cr I —. — •i _‘
, I.

PART 3 EVALUATION DETAiL

AEducation Philosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

. 11TS I -S’Pi,Pi)

IS f.F”CLF i’’ S

N’ rirr i’iF 51. 1.r’AIID

- i_ ,\, ..
•,,,_•,_•,, -

The applicant proposes to replicate an effective model, Sd Academy, using an


experienced school leader who has led a charter school with a similar student
population. The model includes the use of data-driven instruction, regular formative and
summative assessments, consistent instructional methods, and scheduled time and
multiple approaches for providing professional development to ALL teachers. The model
emphasizes high expectations and no excuses. Instruction is based on the Louisiana
Comprehensive Curriculum ([CC) and supplemented with college-prep courses, multiple
electives and other after-school/summer learning opportunities. The applicant clearly
understands that the target population would include 9 O/o at-risk student and has built
in strategies to include significant remediation. The applicant also clearly articulated a
process for identifying students who may be in need of special education
services/programs or in need of services for limited English proficient students.

(Reference pp. 1,9, 14-16, 12-13, 16-17, 19, 23, 28-30, 23, 43-44)

CO’Epr-.S A .0 ‘c Tic ccrsriC.5 -

The proposed charter schools complaint policy consists of one paragraph. If approved, it
would be helpful for the school to incorporate more specificity regarding the process, such as
who to speak with/write to, ste[ s in the process, who will resolve the issue, and how long it
might take to resolve the situDtion.

(Reference pp. 55/Att.B, 37, 47/Atti)

g ricsa
School Name: Collegiate Academy Charter School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETML

B.Governance, Leadership and


Management

RECOMMENDATION

Te Gc L dori p mc ,Var

MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPSOAcH1NG THE STANDARD

DOC NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (moo cia, vuax) include icf reuce, rei ‘net

The applicant proposes to add members to the existing Sci Academy board to effectively
govern both schools. The applicant articulated clear roles and responsibilities for the board
and its committees (Human Capital, Facilities, Finance, Marketing & Development, and School
Excellence) The board has identified opportunities for development; for example, they have
engaged the services of an outside vendor to provide training/coaching and to establish a
data-driven governance system. In addition, the CMO expressed an interest in opening
additiondi schools in the future

Collegiate Academy intends to mirror the effective operational processes and practices used
at Sci Academy, that have been refined based on insights and lessons learned.
Comprehensive Family and Employee Handbooks were provided in the application, and it is
clear that family support is built into all aspects of the school.

(Reference pp.61-68, 73-74, 71-72, 86, Att. B/Att. V, Capacity Interview)

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (coo iii max) Inc/u le icfrrnce Itdi”ml

nacsa
P.93
— 1 1— ..
.1—r —r

PART 3: EVALUAUON DETML

C. Financial Plan

• r.4 I F IS I I- c . ‘‘.k

pr_r-i .C I

i ‘ i i

STRrc1”S ‘C’ -

The financial plan clearly met the stendarci for the start- ip, tiist-year, cash flow and five-year
budgets. Budget assumptions were conscrvative and hased on the actual e<penditures at Sci
Academy. PCSP funds wore not included in the hudgot as they are competitive and uncertain.
If approved, the school intend to operate on funds from the RSD and private donations would
he used W purchase technology arid additional supplies needed for the school.

(Reference Budgets, Capacity Interview)

CPrcAkDf,DoITiOJAL IL5iION -- - .‘ ,‘,

g naz.sa
I’• ()4
Schol ari c ollegiate Academy Charter School

PART3:EVAL ATION DETAIL

D.Facilities Plan

-r r

RE OMMENDATION

• MEETETHESTANDARD
IS APPOACHINC THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (100 char pray) Includr icft icace, Ipe!eiaTt

The applicant is applying for an RSD conversion high school and a facility has not yet been
identified. The application, however, indicates the applicant’s willingness to inherit any
facility. The applicant has also budgeted funds for facility maintenance, and that budget
section will be re evaluated once an assessment of an assigned facility is complete.

(Reference p.107)

CON ERNS AND ADDiTIONAL QUESTIONS (ooc ch max) liqcide rejercace, fi


Scnool Name. Coil giate Academy Charter School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

E. Louisiana Charter Operator


Contract Compliance
‘.uT ,‘PPLcASLr

RECOM M ENDATION
Tip I ou’sO’ql ClolLet OtHoor Coil i Curr ,‘r e

• MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (1000 ciiai riioyj lncide iefererie, (


In terms of contract compliance for the currently operating Sci Academy, Sd Academy has
met or exceeded its applicable academic performance standards. The school has been in
compliance with its operational standards in the areas of special education, English language
learners, student enrollment, student discipline, health and safety, governance and facilities.
Sd Academy has maintained a balanced budget since its inception (two years), and has
retained more than 80% of its teaching staff

(Reference pp. 95-97, 104, 98-99, 100, 102)

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (70Cr CilOr oril Ioc’ode IrfOr’ rice, fieiri’wit

mnacsa
Np-rON LA OCt ON O
C- F I LI
-

P. 9 6
& 5
Pre-Opening Checklist & Calendar for Types 2
Charter Schools Opening in the 2011-12 School Year

Febriia ry
ry must be submitted on or before flry’
The following pre-opening checklist items are due in Februa
2011:

officer appointments, if not specified in charter


1. List of all board members (minimum of?) and board
school application
be on file with the Office of Parental
2. For each board member, the following information must
the charter school application, or provided
Options. either in the charter school eligibility documents,
on or before February 28, 2011:
a. Resume
b. Disclosure of Financial Interest Statement
c. Affirmation of Eligibility to Serve
d. Confirmation of completed background check
cy and board composition
e. Legal residence/physical home address (to verify residen
requirements)
tion and training (include dates that
3. Confirmation that each board member has received board orienta
sed)
orientation and/or training were held, who conducted, and topics addres
ble and if not provided in the
4. A copy of the management contract or service agreement, if applica
charter school application
n Office of Statewide Reporting and
5. W-9 and EFT Enrollment Form (see Division of Administratio
Accounting Policy at http://doa.louisiana.gov/OSRAP)

April
board president and the BESE
The charter school contract must be signed by the non-profit corporation
president on or no later than April 29, 2011.
ar
***please note that failure to complete this item by April 29, 201] may result in a one-ye
deferment or action to rescind the charter approvaL

Ma v
2).2W The due in
Pre-opening checklist items due in May must be submitted on or before
items

May include:

1. Final student handbook for 201 1-2012 school year


2. Documentation of engagement of a CPA for independent financial audit
3. Final school calendar for the 2011-12 school year
4. Final budget/financial documents (budget jorms available at
iii i doe s!a1 Ions !de/Lpjgd/ S
year of operation
a. Budget with detailed assumptions for all revenues and expenditures for the first

PagP.97f2
year of operation
b. Monthly cash flow projection for first
c, Five-year budget
address
5. Updated facility plan and school location applicable
for ensu ring com plian ce and accu racy with reporting data to the LDOE and RSD. if
6. Plan , evaluate.
all components necessary to locate, indentifv
7. Policy and procedure manual that includes ic education
led and to provide a free appropriate publ
and serve students suspected of being disab
(FAPE) to students with disabilities

June
de:
submitted on or before June 30, 2011 and inclu
Pre-opening checklist items due in June must be

I. Proof of insurance
ity
2. Signed lease or use agreement for any RSD facil
land and building use pennits for any non
3. School facility inspection reports and zoning, lease or
RSD facility to be used
nee
4. Designation of the school’s special education desig
5. Resume and qualifications for the individua
l hired to provide business services for the charter
school, including a detailed job description

***please note that all of the above items must be completed by


June 30 in order to receive approval
to open school for the 2011-12 school year.

July
submitted on or before July 29, 2011 and include:
Pre-opening checklist items due in July must be

icable
1. Date of application period and admissions lottery, if appl
ing list, if applicable
2. Roster of enrolled students and students on wait
3. Roster of charter school staff
4. Principal and emergency contact information
have been completed
5. Confirmation that criminal background checks for staff
6. Safety and emergency plans
7. Documentation of food and nutrition services
8. Transportation plan

s, charter school leaders and


Other Requirements: In addition to the above required item
onal or training events hosted by
appropriate staff are required to attend any informati
not limited to those pertaining
the LDOE and/or RS.D (for Type 5 charters), including but
or regulations, special
to educational/academic programs, state or frderal rules
e/budgeting.
education, grants management, accountability, andfinanc

P.98
___________
___________
___________
___________
________
___________ _______
__________

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS December / 2010 (Mo/YR)


(updated_1_0/10)
Receive & Refer Contact Person: Erin Bendilv
Action Phone Number:
X Information Office: entaLQpion_

Recovery School District Committee AGENDA

Item _1V.B.4j Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


Sarah T. Reed Charter Elementary School New Orleans East

Academies, Inc.

RECOMMENDATION: Receive

Background on application and evaluation process:


A Request for Applications to operate Type 2. 4. and 5 charter schools was released in April, 2010.
Information sessions and a series of workshops for applicants were held in June in Baton Rouge, New
Orleans. and Shreveport. Applicants were informed of the following Type 5 Recovery School District
(RSD) priorities: takeover or conversion of RSD high schools, alternative schools, schools specializing in
serving special needs students, and takeover of low-performing RSD K-8 schools .A total of 14
organizations applied to operate 18 Type 5 schools.

On behalf of the Board and Department, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
(NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compliance with the Principals and Standards
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written application evaluation, applicant interviews.
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local and national evaluators who brought
expertise in areas of curriculum, management, finance, and the management of urban charter schools.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process, conducted completeness checks, and
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators in reviewing the applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1,2010.

Applicant information:
New Orleans East Charter Academies. Inc. submitted a Type 5 charter application to operate Sarah T.
Reed Charter Elementary School in Orleans Parish. The proposed school will serve approximately 500
students in its first year in grades K-6 and approximately 500 students in grades K-6 at full capacity. The
organization proposes to contract with K’2 Inc.

New Orleans East Charter Academies. Inc., does not currently operate any charter schools in Louisiana.

Summary of recomniendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only those Type 5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. NACSA’s evaluation team has recommended
denial of the Type 5 charter application submitted by New Orleans East Charter Academies, Inc. to
operate Sarah T. Reed Charter Elementary School. A copy of the Evaluation and Recommendation
Summary is attached. Department staff has reviewed the evaluators’ findings and agrees that they are
sound, Therefore, the Department is not recommending approval of this application.

P.99
C
C
Charter School Application
External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Provided to the
Louisiana Department ofEducation

DATE

OctOber2,20&O
SCHOOL NAME

SØrah T

CHAPTER SCHOOL TYPE

.Fjve• .. ...
.. .‘:.

Independent R&ew Team Members


REVIEW TEAM LEAD
f(afl
h.
Gall LØrd
EVALUATORS

as: —

.‘
‘j:

DEVELOPED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS

•inacsa
P.101
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

Sarah T. Reed Elementary Charter School

I PPL r C iZT!N

New Orleans East Charter Academic:, Inc.

I
K,1,2,3,4,5,6 K,1,2,3,4,5,6

‘ED iJ1 L MENT


500 500

M I SS IC 1’.

Sarah T. Reed Elementary Schools mission is to provide integrated science and


technology, age appropriate activities throughout the curriculum where students
will be given the opportunity to investigate through hands on experiences to
come to an understanding of the nature of science, mathematics and technology;
developing strategies that students need to be scientifically literate, solve
problems and analyze scientific data...

ccH.)I.EAr)[RSHIP

Daphyne Burnett

CC”ERNI r( E

Board of Directors: Norman Whitley, Chair, Eric Pounds, Treasurer, Sabrina


Short, Secretary, Calvin Mackie, Cynthia Willard Lewis, Cam-Than Tran, Cyndi
N g ii y...

SPECEI.I DIES

The application presented for evaluation to the reviewers was poorly written;
thus many sections were rated unsatisfactory. The interview provided clarity in
some areas, but the application still did not meet the standard.

na csa
I’. I Ii 2
-ai ‘ I P i’d IE,riCr t, / Chai i r Shcai

PA?T 2: RECOMMENDATOi’J

New Orlears East Charter Academies, Inc. is proposing to partner with K12 to operate the
Sar’ T. Re_d Elementary, Middle and High School 9 an effort to crete a K12 continuum v’ith
the STEM curriculum and inquiry-based instruction as its foundation.

The applcant presented ? fairly strom’ rrission and vsion for the schools, ncluuing a strng
edccntioiiul modi cod philascphy th&t is rescach-based and aligned with the school mission,
curriculum, instructional strategies. That saic, there were significant concerns regarding start up
plans, the proposed Board’s EMO due diligence, the lack of supporting performance data, the
lack of any formal structures to ensure appropriate reporting and oversight, and the Board’s
ability to hod K12 accountable.

The Board did not provide a satisfactory explanation for how and why K12 was selected as the
ESP, nor did they consider or interview other ESP5. The written narrative and tl e interview
provided limited information to demonstrate how K12 has impacted the other brick and mortar
schools they operate across the country.

Reporting ctructures between the Boa’cl, K12, and the school leaders are unclear. Additionally,
K 12 has already recommended the hii ing of the principals for the three schools; however, there
is no suppoiting documentation articulating the hiring criteria or qualifications.

K12 is currently working with Reed High School; agreements between K12 and the Recovery
School District were not explained in the written application or in the interview. K12 led the
effort to create these charter schools and brought together a steering committee which has
evolved into the present Board. As such, the reviewers are concerned that the Board may not
be able to hold K12 accountable and/or replace 1<12 if it becomes necessary. Also troubling is
the fact that the applicant did not advance a plan of action which outlines how the Board will
hold 1<12 and the school prinuipals accountable for the success or failure of the three schools.

C,’, 1. ‘. ME I N

• rrr
r u ‘.

g çsa
P.1 Ll3
I Sarah F rd [Vritr C a rt

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

A. Education Philosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

C.’.C/Nf :ICC

‘S tF—E STA.DRD

• i ;. :.(cC HICCO i’E 5TAND kG

N’.i ai cr Tii srAui,rr

L5

The STEM educational model proposed for the school is fairly strong as are the instructional
components; both are supported by current research. The mission, vision and educational
philosophy are aligned. Clear and compelling explanations were advanced which delineated
how the inquiry based learning model and the STEM curriculum will be implemented to meet
the needs of diverse learners induding students who need significant reteaching and
rcrndiation. The assessment plan is sound ,nd will provide the faculty with the critical
nfoi matron that they will need to drive the instructional prugrain.

(Reference Section II, LDOE Evaluation Rubric)

CUNEPNS ANO/DDiTiQNAt QUES1iONS ‘Th .‘ r,, C’ ‘.

Of greatest concern, the applicant did not provide adequate detail regarding school start-up
activities, school safety and security, or school improvement/corrective action plans. The
applicant indicated not needing the start up plans as K12 is currently operating at Reed HS
and school leadership would not be changing. Even with minimal leadership change the
eva,uation team felt start up plans for an effective transformation of Reed ES was still critical.
These areas would need to be addressed cnd reworked before the educational plan could
ectw aly he implemented.

(Refereice Section H, [DOE Evaluation Ruhnc)

P.104
ii 1. lEJ’ i

PART3:EVALUAT!ON DETAiL

B.Governance, Leadership and


Management

Fir ill ANcR[:

Arp.,L,FiFc i-E F;I1Ar-r’

• L:(,rs’..] •FF’ Ti[ r.cs:

S I k N C S — — r —. ) ‘• —

N/A

F NprS/,c1Dniiic\t,1’jrSiu’S -

The applicant did not provide an adequate explanation or rationale for selecting K12 as the
proposed education service provider (ESP), nor did they provide sufficient data to
demonstrate how effective K12 has been with other brick and mortar schools that they run
ricross the country. The Board of Directors drd not conduct adequate due diligence or make
any effcrt to explore the services of other ESPs.

The Boerd hs given K12 the authority to hire school site pErsonnel, develop the school
budgets, etc. There is no direct relationship betv’ecn the school leader and the Board of
Directors; the prncpal wocid report to K12, and K12 would report to the Board. Additionally,
three prncipais hae been recorrrnended by K12, yet there is no supporting information
which clarifies their qualFfcdtons ror these positions. Finally, procedures for hovi the Board of
Directors wil hoij Ki 2 accountable for the success/falure of the charter schools have not
been fu1 deve!c pec.

(Reference Sectun 11, LDOE Ev3luat’on Ruhnc)

g ii.csa
P. 1 U 5
,
ci-’

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

C. Financial Plan

kLC( 1L1E’ ‘

ilL S’’J ..P[)

IS APP’c’ACHiNG ‘HE ST,O,-.PD

•‘ cors ‘CT MtT THE

SIR ‘.C’HS ii,)) j ‘jc -

(0.r_Rr.SA”D;DDI1IO’.jAi LES’iD’S S

Evaluation of financial materials resulted many questions; in several instances budget data
in

did not match the budget narrative (ie. staffing positions). A start up budget was not
included. The majority of the budget concerns were addressed satisfactoriy during the
interview including the additional staff in actuaHty employees of the EMO (1<12) however
several budget lne items contained funds for multiple types of expenses. For example, the
special education teacher line item ncluded ELL teachers.

(Refe ence Section IV, LDOE EvalLatlo i Ruhric

P. 1 U (,
g s
chool N me, rah T. R cci Elementary Charter School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

D.Facjfjtjes Plan

NT ‘rF-,j(p

RECOMM NOATIGN
Yj

MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (ccn char trloc) IaIud iefricrcce frelri’ai i

Not applicable. Final decisions regarding the assignment of school site facilities will be made
by the Recovery School District in New Orleans, LA.

(Reference Section V, LDOE Evaluation Rubric)

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (oOn,hr rnai) Include 1cnnce, fielciani

N/A

nacsa
P. 1 07
— _i i.’’ - - I E i :I,dr’ (_( I

PART3:E’/ALUATION DETAIL

E.Louisiana Charter Operator


Contract Compliance

IrC,M I)/IIC..

: - - -

MEE1S HE S, ‘.DJ-PD

IS /.PPDC’ iFC THE S3C’ P

- [‘DES CF MEET THE STNDR0

S E N’.ii-—S i : i i i ii—/.r

N/Ak

*1<12 does not operate any other schools in the state of Louisiana; howcver, the applicants
stated in the interview and in the written application that 1<12 is providing services to the
current Reed High school. No other normation. .student data, student achievement, Ltc. for.

Reed High School was given. In addition, compensation or other the formal arrangements
between 1<12 and the Recovery School District are unknown.

(Reference Section VI, LDOE Evaluation Rubric)

Ci’ I ‘,,
rCNCERNT AND ADDiTIONAL QUESIIONS ‘t ‘‘ . ‘C (

N/A

g nc
P.1U
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS December.! 2010 (Mo/VR)
(updated 10/10)

Receive & Refer Contact Person: jnBendily_


Action Phone Number: (225) 3423640
X Information Office:Parental Options

Recovery School District Committee AGENDA

Item # IV.B.4.k. Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


Sarah T. Reed Charter Middle School New Orleans East

Charter Academies, Inc.

RECOMMENDATION: Receive

Background on application and evaluation process:


A Request for Applications to operate Type 2, 4, and 5 charter schools was released in April, 2010.
Information sessions and a series of workshops for applicants were held in June in Baton Rouge, New
Orleans. and Shreveport. Applicants were informed of the following Type 5 Recovery School District
(RSD) priorities: takeover or conversion of RSD high schools, alternative schools. schools specializing in
serving special needs students, and takeover of low-performing RSD K-8 schools. A total of 14
organizations applied to operate 1 8 Type 5 schools.

On behalf of the Board and Department, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compliance with the Principals and Standards
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written application evaluation, applicant interviews,
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local and national evaluators who brought
expertise in areas of curriculum, management, finance, and the management of urban charter schools.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process, conducted completeness checks, and
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators in reviewing the applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1, 2010.

Applicant information:
New Orleans East Charter Academies, Inc., submitted a Type 5 charter application to operate Sarah T.
Reed Charter Middle School in Orleans Parish. The proposed school will serve approximately 150
students in its first year in grades 7-8 and approximately 150 students in grades 7-8 at full capacity. The
organization proposes to contract with KL Inc.

New Orleans East Charter Academies, Inc. does not currently operate any charter schools in Louisiana.

Summary of recommendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only those Type 5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. NACSA’s evaluation team has recommended
denial of the Type 5 charter application submitted by New Orleans East Charter Academies. Inc. to
operate Sarah T. Reed Charter Middle School. A copy of the Evaluation and Recommendation Summary
is attached. Department staff has reviewed the evaluators’ findings and agrees that they are sound.
Therefore, the Department is not recommending approval of this application.

P. 1 09
______Admi
____Code nistrative

Implications of proposed recommendation -- benefits and problematic areas:

No problematic areas are foreseen as a result of this proposed recommendation.

Notice of Intent
Emergency Adoption Reason:
--
Item Bulletin:
-- Reference:
Code

- Authority Note:

7
D ir Assisiperintedej iei

Deputy Superintendent
;— StateSuperintende1

P. 1 1 0
Charter School Application
External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Prcwided to the
Louisiana Department ofEducation

October 28, 2010


SC’ CL r,\r’

Sarah T. Reed Middle Charter School

C-t T f SCHOCJ_ •‘t r


Five

ndependent Review Team Members


RFVIW rFiM I F/sD

GaH Lazard
v Li A S

Matthew Shaw

James Barr

Sonia Park

Kathleen Padian

ønacsa EDUCATION

P. 1 1 1
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

- .ME

Sarah T. Reed Middle Charter School

New Orleans East Charter Academies, Inc.

YEAR 1 YEAR 5
GRADE LEVELS
7, 8 7, 8

PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
150 200

MISSION

Sarah T. Reed Middle Schools mission is to provide integrated science and


technology, age appropriate activities throughout the curriculum where students
will be given the opportunity to investigate through hands on experiences to
come to an understanding of the nature of science, mathematics and technology;
developing strategies that students need to be scientifically literate, solve
problems and analyze scientific data...

SCHOOl [[ADI-RSHIP

Daphyne Burnett

GO V E N A N CE

Board of Directors: Norman Whitley, Chair, Eric Pounds, Treasurer, Sabrina


Short, Secretary, Calvin Mackie, Cynthia Willard Lewis, Cam-Than Tran, Cyndi
Nguy...

SPECT’L OrES

The application presented for evaluation to the reviewers was poorly written;
thus many sections were rated unsatisfactory. The interview provided clarity in
some areas, but the application still did not meet the standard.

g
P. 1 1 2
School Name: Sarah T. Reed Middle Charter School

PART 2: RECOMMENDATION

ANALYSIS

New Orleans East Charter Academies, In. is pru posing to partner with K12 to operate the
Sarah T. Reed Elementary, M4dche a High Schoo
1 an effort to create a 1(12 continuum with
:..

the STEM curriculum and inquir -basec instr.ct 0 1 as its foundation.

The applicant presented j fairly strong fli’SSnn ‘d isicn for the schools, including a strong
educational model and ph’losophy that esarch baed and aligned with the school mission,
curriculum, instructional st.ateg’es. That saiu, there wcre significant concerns regarding start up
plans, the proposed Bords EMO due diligence, the lack of supporting performance data, the
lack of any formal struct res to ensure appropriate reporting and oversight, and the Boaro’s
ability to hold K12 accountable.

The Board did not provide a satisfactory exrlanation for how and why 1(12 was selected as the
ESP, nor did they consider or interview other ESPs. Tile written narrative and tne interview
provided limited information to demonstrate how 1(12 has impacted the other brick and mortar
schools they operate across the country.

Reporting structures between the Board, K12, and the school leaders are unclear. Additionally,
1(12 has already recommended the hiring of the principals for the three schools; however, there
is no supporting documentation articulating the hiring criteria or qualifications.

1(12 is currently working with Reed High School; agreements between 1(12 and the Recovery
School District were not explained in the written application or in the interview. 1(12 led the
effort to create these charter suhools and brought together a steering committee which has
evolved into the present Board. As such, the reviewers are concerned that the Board may not
be able to hold 1(12 accountable and/or replace K12 fit becomes necessary. Also troubling is
the fact that the applicant did not advance a plan of action which outlines how the Board will
hold 1(12 and the school principals accountable for the success or failure of the three schools.

OVERALL RECOMMENDATION

DENY

APPROVE

• nacsa NAiiC3JA! ASSOCAFON OF


CFR’R SCIOOF ‘FUTHORIZEFO

P.1 13
School Name: Sarah T. Reed Middle Charter School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

A.Education Philosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

RECOMMENDATION

The Educat.ion PhflcTouhy, C:.rrh:ulo mend I :sti ct/on Plan:

MEETS THE STANDARD

,
IS APPROACH INC THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (oco chan max Include e,ference, freIeva?t,

The STEM educational model proposed for the school is fairly strong as are the instructional
components; both are supported by current research. The mission, vision and educational
philosophy are aligned. Clear and compelling explanations were advanced which delineated
how the inquiry based learning model and the STEM curriculum will be implemented to meet
the needs of diverse learners including students vho need significant reteaching and
remediation. The assessment plan is sound and will provide the faculty with the critical
information that they will need to drive the instructional program.

(Reference Section II, LDOE Evaluation Rubric)

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (7000 char, max) Include reference, [relevant.

Of greatest concern the applicant did not provide adequate detail regarding school start up
activities, school safety and security, or school improvement/corrective action plans. The
applicant indicated not needing the start up plans as 1(12 is currently operating at Reed HS
and school leadership would not be changing. Even with minimal leadership change the
evaluation team felt start up plans for an effective transformation of Reed MS was still critical.
These areas would need to be addressed and reworked before the educational plan could
effectively be implemented.

(Reference Section II, LDOE Evaluation Rubric)

‘ cp
- -

- I CHARIEP 5C-OO{

P. 1 14
School Name: Sarah I. Reed Middle Charter School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

B.Governance, Leadership and


Management

RECOMMEND AT ON

The 6cerr:o cc, Leadeishic cod Maca geroecs:

MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

F DOES NOT MEETTHE STANDARD

STRENGTH S / 000 char. cccx) include reference, r,xleOi7t.

N/A

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS d000 chac cccx) Inedide reference, Lf!ele’Lio7l.
The applicant did not provide an adequate explanation or rationale for selecting 1<12 as the
proposed education service provider (ESP), nor did they provide sufficient data to
demonstrate how effective 1<12 has been with other brick and mortar schools that they run
across the country. The Board of Directors did not conduct adequate due diligence or make
any effort to explore the services of other ESPs.

The Board has given 1<12 the authority to hire school site personnel, develop the school
budgets, etc. There is no direct relationship between the school leader and the Board of
Directors; the principal would report to 1<12, and 1<12 would report to the Board. Additionally,
three principals have been recommended by K12, yet there is no supporting information
which clarifies their qualifications for these positions. Finally, procedures for how the Board of
Directors will hold K12 accountable for the success/failure of the charter schools have not
been fully developed.

(Reference Section III, LDOE Evaluation Rubric)

nacsa
SSO”JGN
S.Coor
or

P. 1 1 5
School Name: Sarah T. Reed Middle Charter School

PART 3: EVALUATtON DETA!L

C. Financial Plan

RECOMMENDATION

Thc Fiecim:iol P/ac:

MEETSTHESTANDAPD

is APPROACH INC THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (ooo cI7ar max) include ieference, :freio:t.

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (occs ciar max) Include reference, /fre/euant.

Evaluation of financial materials resulted in many questions, in several instances budget data
did not match the budget narrative (ie. staffing positions). A start up budget was not
included. The majority of the budget concerns were addressed satisfactorily during the
interview including the additional staff in actuality employees of the EMO (K12) however
several budget line items contained funds for multiple types of expenses. For example, the
special education teacher line item included ELL teachers.

(Reference Section IV, LDOE Evaluation Rubric)

- (-Aglip SQ-CC ,u’,cRQSPS

P.116
School Name. Sarah T. Reed Middle Charter School

PART3:EVALUAT1ON DETAIL

D.Facilites Plan

RE CO M H EN DATI ON

The Fecd!hes Plee:

MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (1000 chae max) Include lefrIence, Jreleeant.

Not applicable. Final decisions regarding the assignment o school site facilities will be made

by the Recovery School District in New Orleans, LA.

(Reference Section V, LDOE Evaluation Rubric)

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QU ESTIONS (70cc’ char. max) Include reference, eit’nan.

N/A

nacsa
CI

P. 11 7
School Name: Sarah T. Reed Middle Charter School

PART 3: EVALUAflON DETAIL

E. Louisiana Charter Operator


Contract Compliance

RECOMMENDATION

cc arC Chctc Ociac Cc:;c m:accc:

MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (ooo ciiac max) include iefrrence, Jrelevact.

N/A*

*K12 does not operate any other schools in the state of Louisiana; however, the applicants
stated in the interview and in the written application that K12 is providing services to the
current Reed High school. No other information...student data, student achievement, etc. for
Reed High School was given. tn addition, compensation or other the formal arrangements
between K12 and the Recovery School District are unknown.

(Reference Section VI, LDOE Evaluation Rubric)

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS eleuant.


(ooo char, max) Inc!ude reference, r1

N/A

nacsa
C’’E
SOC,O CW

P. 1 1 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
December / 2010 (MO/YR)
(updated 10/10)
— Receive & Refer Contact Person: ErinBendilv
Action Phone Number: 43649______
Information Office: Parental Options

Recovery School District Committee AG ENDA

Item # IV.B.4.l. Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


Sarah T. Reed Charter High School New Orleans East Charter Academies.

Inc.

OMMENDATION: Receive

Background on application and evaluation process:


A Request for Applications to operate Type 2, 4. and 5 charter school
s was released in April. 2010.
Information sessions and a series of workshops for applicants were held
in June in Baton Rouge, New
Orleans, and Shreveport. Applicants were informed of the following Type
5 Recovery School District
(RSD) priorities: takeover or conversion of RSD high schools, alternative
schools, schools specializing in
serving special needs students, and takeover of low-performing
RSD K-8 schools .A total of 14
organizations applied to operate 18 Type 5 schools.

On behalf of the Board and Department, the National Association


of Charter School Authorizers
(NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compliance with
the Principals and Standards
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written application
evaluation, applicant interviews.
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local and
national evaluators who brought
expertise in areas of curriculum, management. finance, and the manag
ement of urban charter schools.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process, conduc
ted completeness checks, and
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators in reviewing the
applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1,2010.

Applicant information:
New Orleans East Charter Academies, Inc., submitted a Type 5 charter applica
tion to operate Sarah T.
Reed Charter High School in Orleans Parish. The proposed school will serve
approximately 700 students
in its first year in grades 9-12 and approximately 900 students in grades
9-12 at full capacity. The
organization proposes to contract with K’
2 Inc.

New Orleans East Charter Academies, Inc., does not culTently operate any charter
schools in Louisiana.
Summary of recommendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only those Type
5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. NACSA’s evalua
tion team has recommended
denial of the Type 5 charter application submitted by New Orleans East
Charter Academies, Inc.. to
operate Sarah T. Reed Charter High School. A copy of the Evaluation and Recom
mendation Summary is
attached. Department staff has reviewed the evaluators’ findings and agrees
that they are sound.
Therefore, the Department is not recommending approval of this application.

Implications of proposed recommendation-- benefits and problematic areas:

No problematic areas are foreseen as a result of this proposed recommendation.


I. 1 1 9
______Code
_____
____

__Notice of intent Administrative Code


_Emergency Adoption Reason:--
Reference:
_BuI1etin Item Bulletin:
--
Authority Note:

V 1
/
/ 7
11
’ctor
4
Dir I Assipetend Chief

Deputy Superint nden State Superintendent

P. 120
Charter School Application
External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Proiiided to the
Louisiana Department ofEducation

DATE

October 28, 2010


SCH OL NAME

Sarah T. Reed Charter High School

CHA TER SCHOOL YPE

Five

Independent Review Team Members


REV!EW TEAM LEAD

Gail Lazard
EVALUATORS

Matthew Shaw

James Barr

Sonia Park

Kathleen Padian

DLVELOPED 131 HL NALIONAL ASSOCIATI


ON
Qr CHAPTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZ
ERS

— —
,— -.

W EDUCATION

P. 1 2 1
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

Sarah T. Reed Charter High School

LICAN CAN! IN

New Orleans East Charter Academies, Inc.

YEAR ] VEAP
5
GRADE LEVELS
9,10,11,12 9,10,11,12

PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
700 900

M 5510 N

The mission of the Sarah T. Reed High School is to provide students with the
academic, social and intellectual skills necessary in todays increasingly high-tech
world. Sarah T. Reed High Schools mission will be to offer a high quality
education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics that provides
students the opportunities to explore mathematics, science, information
technology careers, fully develop their talents and become globally competitive
graduates with the skills...

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Donald Jackson

GOVERNA CE

Board of Directors: Norman Whitley, Chair, Eric Pounds, Treasurer, Sabrina


Short, Secretary, Calvin Mackie, Cynthia Willard Lewis, Cam-Than Tran, Cyndi
Nguy...

5 ECIAL NOTES

The application presented for evaluation to the reviewers was poorly written;
thus many sections were rated unsatisfactory. The interview provided clarity to
some of these areas.

ndcsa
P 122
S h I Name: S r h T R ed Ch it High School

PART 2: RECOMMENDATION

c. Si I u
fri.’ 5! -.

New Orleans East Charter Academies, Inc. is proposing


to partner with K12 to operate the
Sarah T Reed Elemen ary Middle and High School in
an effort to cr ate a K12 continuum with
the STEM curriculum and inquiry-based instruction as its foundation.

The applicant presented a fairly strong mission and vision for the
schools, including a strong
educational model and philosophy that is research-based and aligned
with the school mission,
curriculum, in tructional strategies. That said, there were signifi
cant concerns regarding start up
plans, the proposed 8oards EMO due diligence, the lack of suppor
ting performance data, the
lack of any formal structures to ensure appropriate reporting and
oversight, and the Boards
ability to hold K12 accountable.

The Board did not provide a satisfactory explanation for how and
why K12 was selected as the
ESP, nor did they consider or interview other ESPs The written
narrative and the interview
provided limited information to demonstrate how K12 has impact
ed the other brick and mortar
schools they operate across the country.

Reporting structures between the Board, K12, and the school leaders
are unclear. Additionally,
K12 has already recommended the hiring of the principals for
the three schools; however, there
is no supporting documentation articulating the hiring criteria
or qualifications
K12 is currently working with Reed High School; agreements
between K12 and the Recovery
School District were not explained in the written application
or in the interview. K12 led the
effort to create these charter schools and brought togeth
er a steering committee which has
evolved into the present Board. As such, the review
ers are concerned that the Board may not
be able to hold K12 accountable and/or replace K12
if it becomes necessary. Also troubling is
the fact that the applicant did not advance a plan
of action which outlines how the Board will
hold K12 and the school principals accountable for
the success or failure of the three schools.

OV I EC ME DATi N
I-, c!I I I ii C ifr
3 ‘ 5 5 -,

I (2 IC SI ‘ I’

DE Y

APPROVE

macsd
‘I

P. 1 23
‘Jre Sarah T. Reed Charter h chc

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

A. Education Philosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

ME
1
1 5 iH’ STA’J Aro

• ,.ir-,, ‘‘it. i-

TS ‘fl’t i’f Ii TH ST [?ki

‘Thi Gil’S I ‘ ‘- i. rfl, ‘j..f. .,,


- •,
-fl..:

The STEM educational model proposed for the school is strong as are the instructional
components; both are supported by current research. The mission, vision and educational
jhilosophy are aligned. Clear and compelling explanations were advanced which delineated
how the inquiry based learning model and the STEM curriculum will be implemented
to meet
the needs of diverse learners including students who need significant reteaching
and
remediat ion. The assess nent plan is sound and wdl provide the faculty with the critical
information that they will need to drive the instructiocal program.

(Refurence Section 11, LDOE Evaluation Rubric)

oNcRrS Ai4LAD,lric,NALQuESiiOS -- ‘(,


.‘ F,.,.) ‘‘ Cr(jiGli Iic.

Of greatest concern, the applicant did not provide adequate detail regarding
school start-up
activties, school safety and security, or school improvement/corrective action
plans. The
applicant indicated not needing the start u plans as Ki? is currently operating
at Reed HS
and school leadership would net be changing. Even with minimal leadership
change the
evaluation team felt start up plans for an effectve transformation of Reed HS
ere still
critical as rio eviderce of current success v,ith K12 was presented. These areas
would need
to be addressed and reworked before the educational plan could effectively be
implemented.

(Reference Section II, [DOE Evaliiat’cr Ruhric)

P. 1 24
S n. ‘l Nani : rh I. Pe,d ih”ci (nod

PART 3 EVALUATION DETAIL

B.Governance, Leadership and


Management

Fl 1’

HE 51, ‘i•’iF1

• E)ES \CT MLET HE SANL’APD

, (r

N/A

(.)FrprjS A’.D ADDIJONAL Qi.tcic S ‘i’ ‘‘‘J’d’ ‘ti, ‘‘i’.1

The applicant did not provide an adequate explanation or rationale for selecting
K12 as the
proposed education service provider (ESP), nor did they provide sufficient data
to
demonstrate how effective K12 has been with other brick and mortar schools that they
run
across the country. The Board of Directers did not conduct adequate due diligence
or make
any effort to explore the services of other ESPs.

The Board has given K12 the authority to hire school site personnel, develop
the school
budgets, etc. There is no direct relationship between the school leader and the
Board of
Directors; the principal would report to 1<12, and 1<12 would report to the Board.
Additionally,
three principals have been recommended by K12, yet hre is no supportino inFormation
which clarifies their quali’ications for these positions. Finally, procedures for how
the Board cf
Directors viil hold K12 acccuntable for ft’s success/failure of the charter schools
have not
teen fully devetoed.

(Rferenc Section III, LDOE Evai.ation Rubric

flaCs
P. I 2 5
Hir

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

C. Finandal Plan

[‘t E [S TI, STL’DAPD

IS APTO/ HINC HE STANDt,RD

• DOE c NT MEET THE STAN OAR r

STEE.G [uS I (‘c,’ci ui:. irci:• [,‘./‘

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUES1ONS •Th(’ frj

Evaluation of financial materials resulted in many questions; in several instances budget data
did not match the budget narratise (ie. staffing positions). A start up budget was not
included. The majority of the budget concerns were addressed satisfactorily during the
interview including the dditionaI staff in actuality employees of the EMO (K12) however
several budget line items contained funds for multiple types of expenses. For example, the
special education teacher line item included ELL teachers.

P.12b
• fl. .‘..
School arn Sarah T. Reed Chaer High School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

D.Facjljtjes Plan

NOT OP

RE Co M ME N DO Ti ON
:i’ Frc,hoe

MEETS THE STANDA

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (70cr d7ar max) /ncIde ‘friencc, fie/mm,t

decision regaEdjng the assign of schooi site facilities will be made by the Recove
Final 5
School District in New Orleans, LA.

(Reference Section V, [DOE Evaluation Rubric)

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (lCoc Iio, max) Icc/ode Icfcr’r7ce 0


d1 1
7/;
’e
N/A

‘nacsa
P. 1 27

— — :, ‘t i1 a t_ r l’

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

E. Louisiana Charter Operator


Contract Compliance
- -

1- s;

IS - -CI-i’ HE T ,JD. RZ

ES ‘ T Af I ‘HE Sr4 .L?PC

STIIE\G1HS (0’- ,-j’ LIFt --

N/A

*K12 does not operate any other schools in the state of Louisidna; however,
the policants
stated in the interview and in the written application that K12 is providing services to the
current Reed High school. No othcr information.. .student data, student achievement, etc. for
Reed High School was gven. In addition, compensation or other the formal arrangements
between 1<12 and the Recnvery School District are unknown.

(Reference Section VI, LDOE Evaluation Rubric)

CONCEPS\Dr’Ei1iCNALQLES fl,ScC’t’0 i:’,’’(C. i .2

N/A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS December / 2010 (NIO/YR)
(updated 1 0/10)

Receive & Refer Contact Person: Erin Bendilv


X Action Phone Number: 52-3 640
information Office: Parental Options

Recovery School District Committee AGENDA

item # IV.B.4.m. Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


ReNEW K-S Charter School (“ReNEW Three”) ReNEW-Reinventing

Education Inc.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve

Background on application and evaluation process:


A Request for Applications to operate Type 2, 4, and 5 charter schools was released in April. 2010.
Information sessions and a series of workshops for applicants were held in June in Baton Rouge, New
Orleans, and Shreveport. Applicants were informed of the following Type 5 Recovery School District
(RSD) priorities: takeover or conversion of RSD high schools, alternative schools, schools specializing in
serving special needs students, and takeover of low-performing RSD K-8 schools. A total of 14
organizations applied to operate 18 Type 5 schools.

On behalf of the Board and Department, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
(NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compliance with the Principals and Standards
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written application evaluation, applicant interviews,
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local and national evaluators who brought
expertise in areas of curriculum, management, finance, and the management of urban charter schools.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process, conducted completeness checks, and
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators in reviewing the applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1, 2010.

Applicant information:
Community Leaders Advocating Student Success submitted a Type 5 charter application to operate
ReNEW K-8 Charter School (“ReNEW Three”) in Orleans Parish. The proposed school will serve
approximately 550 students in its first year in grades K-8 and approximately 550 students in grades K-8 at
full capacity.

ReNEW-Reinventing Education Inc. currently operates Laurel Elementary and Live Oak Elementary Type 5
charter schools in Orleans Parish.

Summary of recommendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only those Type 5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. NACSA’s evaluation team has recommended
approval of the Type S charter application submitted by Community Leaders Advocating Student Success
to operate ReNEW K-8 Charter School (“ReNEW Three”). A copy of the Evaluation and
Recommendation Summary is attached. Department staff has reviewed the evaluators’ findings and agrees
that they are sound. Superintendent Vallas has also reviewed the recommendations and believes the school
will complement and support the mission of the Recovery School District.

The Department therefore recommends approval of tl i2


cation for the proposed charter school to open
_______Notice
_______Bulletin
__________ ______Code
______Authority
______Administrative

during the 2011-12 school year. contingent upon the requirements and special considerations set forth
below:
• Completion of a pre-opening checklist (attached):
• Addressing any special considerations set forth in the Evaluation and Recommendation Summary
recommendations;
• Assignment of an existing RSD-operated school by the Superintendent of the RSD not later than
March 201 1. If an assignment is not made, the authority to open this school maY be deferred until
2012-13 or may he rescinded based on a recommendation by the Superintendent of the RSD.
Department staff will report on the status of applicants and their school assignments during the March
2011 RSD Committee meeting; and
• Execution of the charter contract no later than April 29, 2011.

It is recommended that charter application final approval shall be not be effective until the above
referenced contingencies, including approval of the Department and execution (signed by president of the
non-profit corporation and the BESE President) of the charter contract, are met,

Implications of proposed recommendation -- benefits and problematic areas:

No problematic areas are foreseen as a result of this proposed recommendation.

of Intent Code
Emergency Adoption Reason:
-- Reference:
Item Bulletin:
- Note:

/ZZ_
t 7 IE

Dii/ector slstaiit SupernThident Chief

Deputy Superint ndenl”


i’\ L Stat Superintenden’

P. 130
tI I I A I’
narter cnooi ppcauon
External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Provided to the
Lot.’isiww Deportrient olEduco.tion

nt,i c

November 10, 2010


SCI C C [ NAME

ReNEW Three Charter Schoo!

CHARTER SCHOOl 1Y

ndependent Review Team Members


REVIFW rEAM I LAD

Parker Baxter
EVALUAIORS

Carolyn Bridges

Jill Dunchick

Dana Hunter

Ting-ting Liang

gnacsa
P. 1 3 1
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

ReNEW Three Charter School

‘_ N

ReNEW Schools Charter Management Organization

‘E, 1 EA5

K-8 K-8

JrT[PE.FLL4E
550 550

M S C N

ReNEW Three Charter School will transform an academically unacceptable K-8


school into a rigorous, college preparatory school through high expectations for
all students, exceptional teaching and leadership, and a rigorous academic
program that is research-based and data-driven. This mission is consistent with
each school within the ReNEW Schools Charter Management Organization.

Ci LIAJE RH

Gary Robichaux, Chief Executive Officer

‘‘C Nit

Carol Asher. Boaid President

The applicant is currently operating two schools using the same model, with
similar students, in the same city both of which opened in 2010. If approved
-

this wculd be ReNEW Schools’ third K-8 Type 5 charter school. The applicant also
submitted two identical applications for alternative high school programs, both of
which are recommended for approval.

P.12
g
Ifirce hrtr -hcH

PART 2: RECOMMENDATION

ReNEW Ill Charter Sc’ool mets dl appl’cabe qucliy standards and is unanimcusy
recommendud for approvaL The applcant, ReNEW Schcls Charter Management Organization,
m;ttC an en ipiary appl;cation, and provided substantial addrticnal information in the
capacty ntc’rview.

Inc mission and ‘rsion are coherent, compelling, and well-aligned to the needs of the intended
service popnlation. The education philosophy, curriculum and instruction were clearly
aiticulated, alianed to the mission and vision, grounded in research and practice, and
appropriate for and likely o result in unproved educational performance for the intended service
POP Lila ti on

The organizational and governance plan met the applicable requirements and demonstrated
stiong capacity and both broad and deep expertise and experience. The Financial Plan presents
a clear picture of how the school’s finances would be managed and how central economies of
scale would be leveraged. The budget is aligned with and would support effective
implementation of the educational program. Lastly, the Facilities Plan met the applicable
standard and was grounded in applicable local experience.

0,1 ‘ t. ‘ , :: .

g
P.133
School Name: ReNEW Three Charter School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

A.Education Philosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

RECOMMENDATION
T Ed tc1 PIflosopry, Currici,’im ii i

i MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRE JCTHS I her 0:; ‘


Ic! c cJience, fre/oeiit.

The educational model is thoroughly coherent, thoughtful, detailed and threaded throughout
the application. The model is data-driven with frequent assessments and targeted
Intervention. Differentiation is robust and Includes numerous opportunities for students to
obtain access to learning opportunities. The small setting and school within a school will
foster positive relationships among students and staff and allow for immediate, personal
feedhack for students.

The mociel includes clear and concise goals which provide a strung framework for the
curriculum and instruction and reflects high expectations and rigorous instruction for all
students

Staffing for the educational program appears well developed including a dedicated director of
special education for the CMO and comprehensive program descriptions for each population.

(Reference pp. 2-6, 6-14, 17, .8, p. 23-24/1 H)

CO JSAmsDADOIUO’&LQUES iONS CC - 1

4th and 8th grade students must gain proficiency cii LEAP to pass the grade. If approved, the
applicant may need to consider how this will this impact students who may be repeating 4th
and 8th grade already and may not pass the LEAP for a 2nd time.

(Reference p. p. 50/111)

P.134
School Name: ReNEW Three Charter School

PART3:EVALUAHON DETAiL

B.Governance, Leadership and


Management

RECOM MENDAT1ON

Te Covernonce, LeadeSp ::J Moncrit:

•: MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STRNDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STE EN 0TH S (?000 chor mcx) n iuu ,sf r eke, f, dr eCef,

The board has significant experience and capacity both individually and as an existing board.
Board members bring professional expertise in the key components of charter school
governance and show a wide array of professional success and dedication to educational
endeavors. Board members exhibit strong understanding of the difference in the models that the
organization would be operating if approved (K-a and ‘alt” HS) and also demonstrate strong
alignment with school leadership on transferability of model and urgency of need.

The applicant presented a comprehensive governance plan with clear structures and extensive
professional development. The board has a clear rationale for its current size (13 members) and
planned expansion; the size broadens/deepens board capacity/expertise and allows for robust
sub-committees with strong leadership. The application contains the necessary components such
as bylaws, statement of compliance with the LA Code of Ethics and LA Public Records Act.

(Reference Governance, Leadership, and Management, Board Member Resumes, governing


documents.)

CONCERNS AND ADDiTiONAL QUESTIONS (eon char mox) Inclede icfrrn e, fteleeont.

nacsa
NFTIOtiAL

P. 1 3
cchool Name: ReNEW Three Charter School

PART3:EVALUAT1ON DETAIL

C. Financial Plan

RECOMMENDATION

e r a’(71 Pan

MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOESNOTMCETTHESTANDARD

STRENGTHS (7cc’o char maY) Inc/ade ref rence, feIemnt

The financial plan included conservative budget estimates All budget forms were provided
and reasonable assumptions were made. As a CMO, the applicant has the ability to leverage
central office resources and economies of scale.

(Reference LADOE Budget review)

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (1000 char. mo) Include ifrrencc, Lf?eicL’ant.



macsd
P. 1 36
-, I’.-- .r ‘ 1hm’ Ch tcr _.cl Di

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

D.Facilities Plan

• F,’tiT :-r.
/1 ii, C iT DC ii

:s -

SiRiCiF S ,

The facilities plan includes the utilization of an existing Orleans Parish school facility. The
applicant hcs set aside $50,000.00 to update the facility as needed to foster a culture of
success. The applicant has experience renovating school facilities similar to those included in
the proposal and can also rely on central office capacity for facilities management.

(Reference Facilitics Plan)

C_N:FPuS A,DAr-nITiCLcL ESHONS ( C ‘ ri

The applicant budgeted for facility renovations based on previous experience but may have to
tap other resourcs if conditions in a particular school require more investment.

(Reference Year I Budget)

g
P. 137
chool N me ReNEW Three Charter School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

E.Louisiana Charter Operator


Contract Compliance
NT APPJCABE

RECOMMENDATION
h Lrw;ana Lar Opiat r C HHact Lfl

• MEETSTHESTANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENG1 HS (ooo char. max) Include iefeience, feCia;

The applicant is currently operating two schools using a very similar model, with similar
students, in the same city. Both schools opened under the applicant’s leadership in 2010 thus
no early indicators of success have been identified. However, the applicant has demonstrated
its capacity to successfully open two Type 5 K-8 charter schools in a single year with no
identified pre-opening issues.

CONCERN AND ADDITiONAL QUESTIONS (woc char a aJ !nadr eCrncc. /ieiELa

The two schools currently operated by the applicant have only been open since fall of 2010
and so there is limited data to assess current operator contract compliance.

P. 1 38
Pre-Opening Checklist & Calendar for Types 2 & 5
Charter Schools Opening in the 2011-12 School Year

February
on or before February
The following pre-opening checklist items are due in February must be submitted
2S’. 0I

specified in charter
1. List of all board members (minimum of 7) and board officer appointments, if not
school application
of Parental
2. For each board member, the following information must be on file with the Office
or provided
Options, either in the charter school eligibility documents, the charter school application,
on or before February 28, 2011:
a. Resume
b. Disclosure of Financial Interest Statement
c. Affirmation of Eligibility to Serve
d. Confirmation of completed background check
e. Legal residence/physical home address (to verify residency and board composition
requirements)
3. Confirmation that each board member has received board orientation and training (include dates that
orientation and/or training were held, who conducted, and topics addressed)
4. A copy of the management contract or service agreement, if applicable and if not provided in the
charter school application
5. W-9 and EFT Enrollment Form (see Division of Administration Office of Statewide Reporting and
Accounting Policy at littp://doalouisiana.gov/OSRAP)

April
The charter school contract must be signed by the non-profit corporation board president and the BESE
president on or no later than April 29, 2011.

** *please ii ole that failure to complete this item by April 29, 2011 in ay result in a one-year
deferment or action to rescind the charter approvaL

Ma
Pre-opening checklist items due in May must be submitted on or before \4’d’ 202bH. The items due in
May include:

Final student handbook for 2011-2012 school year


2. Documentation of engagement of a CPA for independent financial audit
3. Final school calendar for the 2011-12 school year
4. Final budget/financial documents (budget forms available at
Ji’flt/fltJos:laie. Ia. HsJdc/up7oacIs:N83 .Js):
a. Budget with detailed assumptions for all revenues and expenditures for the first year of operation
.P. 1 39
b. Monthly cash flow projection for first year of operation
c. Five-year budget
5. Updated facility plan and school location address
the LDOE and RSD, if applicable
6. Plan for ensuring compliance and accuracy with reporting data to
to locate, indentify. evaluate,
7. Policy and procedure manual that includes all components necessary
free appropriate public education
and serve students suspected of being disabled and to provide a
(FAPE) to students with disabilities

June
30, 2011 and include:
Pre-opening checklist items due in June must be submitted on or before June

1. Proof of insurance
2. Signed lease or use agreement for any RSD facility
3. School facility inspection reports and zoning, lease or land and building use permits for any non
RSD facility to be used
4. Designation of the school’s special education designee
5. Resume and qualifications for the individual hired to provide business services for
the charter
school, including a detailed job description

***please note that all of the above items must be completed by June 30 in order to receive approval
to open school for the 2011-12 school year.

Jul
include:
Pre-opening checklist items due in July must be submitted on or before July 29, 2011 and

1. Date of application period and admissions lottery, if applicable


2. Roster of enrolled students and students on waiting list, if applicable
3. Roster of charter school staff
4. Principal and emergency contact information
5. Confirmation that criminal background checks for staff have been completed
6. Safety and emergency plans
7. Documentation of food and nutrition services
8. Transportation plan

Other Requirements: In addition to the above required items, charter school leaders and
appropriate staff are required to attend any informational or training events hosted by
the LDOE and/or RSD (for Type 5 charters), including but not limited to those pertaining
to educational/academic programs, state or federal rules or regulations, special
education, grants management, accountability, and fInance/budgeting.

.,P.140
December / 2010 (Mo/YR)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(updated 10/10)
Receive & Refer Tontact Person:
X Action Phone Number: 5) 342-3640
Information

Recovery School District Committee AGENDA

Item # IV.B.4.n. Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


Inc.
ReNEW Alternative High School 1 ReNEW-Reinventing Education

RECOMMENDATION: Approve

Background on application and evaluation process:


released in April, 2010.
A Request for Applications to operate Type 2, 4, and 5 charter schools was
in Baton Rouge, New
Information sessions and a series of workshops for applicants were held in June
Recovery School District
Orleans, and Shreveport. Applicants were informed of the following Type 5
schools specializing in
(RSD) priorities: takeover or conversion of RSD high schools, alternative schools,
s. A total of 14
serving special needs students, and takeover of low-performing RSD K-8 school
organizations applied to operate 1 8 Type 5 schools.
School Authorizers
On behalf of the Board and Department, the National Association of Charter
als and Standards
(NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compliance with the Princip
nt interviews,
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written application evaluation, applica
tors who brought
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local and national evalua
urban charter schools.
expertise in areas of curriculum, management, finance, and the management of
checks, and
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process, conducted completeness
tions. Final evaluations
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators in reviewing the applica
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1,2010.

Applicant information:
ReNEW
ReNEW-Reinventing Education Inc. submitted a Type 5 charter application to operate
students
Alternative High School 1 in Orleans Parish. The proposed school will serve approximately 150
ty.
in its first year in grades 6-12 and approximately I 50 students in grades 6- 12 at full capaci
ntary Type 5
ReNEW-Reinventing Education Inc. currently operates Laurel Elementary and Live Oak Eleme
charter schools in Orleans Parish.

Summary of recommendation:
that are
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only those Type 5 charter applications
ended
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. NACSA’s evaluation team has recomm
operate
approval of the Type 5 charter application submitted by ReNEW-Reinventing Education Inc. to
attache d.
ReNEW Alternative Nigh School I. A copy of the Evaluation and Recommendation Summary is
nt
Department staff has reviewed the evaluators’ findings and agrees that they are sound. Superintende
\‘allas has also reviewed the recommendations and believes the school will complement and suppor t the
mission of the Recovery School District.

The Department therefore recommends approval of the application for the proposed charter school to open
during the 2011-12 school year. contingent upon the requirements and special considerations set forth
below: P.14 1
etin
__Bullice
_______Not __
__
_

• Completion of a pre-opening checklist (attached)


tion and Recommendation Summary
• Addressing any special considerations set forth in the Evalua
recommendations;
Superintendent of the RSD not later than
• Assignment of an existing RSD-operated school by the
to open this school may be deferred until
March 2011. If an assignment is not made, the authority
by the Superintendent of the RSD.
2012-13 or may he rescinded based on a recommendation
their school assignments during the March
Department staff will report on the status of applicants and
2011 RSD Committee meeting; and
• Execution of the charter contract no later than April 29, 2011.
shall be not be effective until the above
It is recommended that charter application final approval
and execution (signed by president of the
referenced contingencies, including approval of the Department
contract, are met.
non-profit corporation and the BESE President) of the charter

Implications of proposed recommendation -- benefits and problematic areas:

endation.
No problematic areas are foreseen as a result of this proposed recomm

Code
of Intent
Reference:
Emergency Adoption Reason:
--

Item Bulletin:
--
Note:

/
/

i Assistant.Superintendent Chief
Director //
.

P.142
Charter School Application
External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Prot,’ided to the
Lot.iisiatia Department ofEducation

November 10, 2010


5(1- .CL FAME

ReNEW Alternative High School I

,:HATEc SCHOOL TYPE

Independent Review Team Members


REVIEW TEAM LEAD

Parker Baxter
EVAL JATO S

Carolyn Bridges

Jill Dunchick

Dana Hunter

Ting-ting Liang

NFL A!iOt: ISSOCA’FOrJ


Qf C -A SC HOOL

nacsa

P. 1 43
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

ReNEW Alternative High School I

ReNEW Schools Charter Management Organization

t’F 1sS
6-12 6-12

r.PCLL.1F r
150 150

ReNEW Alternative High School will transform an academically unacceptable


alternative high school program into a rigorous, college preparatory school
through high expectations for all students, exceptional teaching and leadership,
and a rigorous academic program that is research-based and data-driven.

CHCO ItJ)ERHIP

Gary Robichaux

ccvr rJ; \

Carol Asher, Board President

ReNEW Schools Charter Management Organization submitted dentical


applicaNons for ReNEW Alternative High School I and Ii.

naç
P.144
J’rri ocNEV itt rntIvt? Hi b .c’nI I

PART 2: RECOMMENDATION

P e application for ReNEW Alternetive H oh School I meets tIe applicable quality stnLards and
is unanimously recommended for approval.

The application is designed to fill a seve e gap n services to olde szudents who need significant
acadornic intervention and an acceerated et rigorous instructional program. The applicants
mission and vision are coherent ai d compei.ing and formed a strong foundation for the
adaptation of the appiicant s existing K-S model. The education philosophy, curricuum and
instruction were clearly articulated, aligned to the mission and vision, grounded in research and
practice, and appropriate for and likely to result in improved educational performance for the
school’s intended service population. The mc’del offers a small school setting which will serve to
foster positive relationships and allow for immediate, personal feedback for students.

The applcant’s oiqanizational and governance plan met the applicable requircrnents and
demonstrated strong capacity in the form of an exceptional leadership team with both broad
nd deep expertise and experience. The capacity interview answered key questions, provided
substantial additional information, and increased the Evaluators’ confidence in the application.

The Financial Plan presented a clear picture of how the school’s finances will be managed and
how central economies of scale will be leveraged, and the budget was aligned with and would
support effective implementation of the educational program. Lastly, the Facilities Plan was solid
and grounded in applicable local experience.

or:. tCi.’i.iAi.

g
P. 1 4 5
School Name. ReNEW Alternative High School I

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

A.Education Philosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

I
T QN
RECOMMENCA

Thc Ed a:c, Curric’!im Qua ln5triuCtiC Sloe:

MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

fl DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS 5000 char, coax) Include ieference, i[releears.

The applicant demonstrates exceptional passIon and commitment to the idea that students can meet high
exnectatIons for academic and personal growth. The curriculum wil: be developed by the Chief Academic
Officer and Pre-GED Coordinator to ensure that it is tailored for this high need population. The curriculum
will be al;aned with GLE/LA State Instructional Standards and make use of instructional software and
EuMark Donchrnar assessments.

he applicant ha strong human capital/staffing for servicing students w,th special needs, including a
Special Education DurEctor (CMO Level), Special Education Coordinator (1/2 per HS), 1 FT Resource Room
rear her, and a sifted teacher if needed.

The applicant is thoughtful aDout devloping capacity to start two schools at once. The model is
purposefully small (150 total) to facilutate individuali7e’d student instr uction and a cohesive,
achievement-focused culture, and can be accomplished due to economies of scale generated by the central
office.

(Reference P 5/107 of application, P 8/107 Education Philosophy, Curriculum and Jnstrijction, Students
wIth Exce)

CON’ EPNS AND ADDITIONAL QbES]IONS ‘mCOC char men,) u,,cL,e ‘c,,,’ Cc,

In the capacity interview, the applicant provided a compelling and detailed explanation as to
how older students needng re-engagement into schooling will be addressed strengthening
the evaluators endorsement of the application. Applicants are encouraged to give attention to
this student population’s response to the “no excuses” model to which ReNEW is so clearly
committed.

(Reference Mission and Vision, Education Philosophy, Curriculum and Instruction)

(‘ART[R SCI-,00i flL’JiiOP,ZFRS


- P.146”
cl

PART 3: EVALUATIO: DETAIL

B.Governance, Leadership and


Management

liE 15 roE 5’.4’JE..I 0

is i I A

L - S cc r r r/. 4

rar.cTHs 0 - - I

Fhe board hs significant experience and capacity both individually ricl rS an existing board. Board
members bring professional expertise in the key components of charter school governance and
shcw a wide array of professional success and ledicarion to ediicational endeavors. Board members
exhibit strong understanding of the difference in the models that the organization would be
operating if approved (K-8 and alt” HS) and also demo strate strong alignment with school
leadership on trarisferabiy of rocdei and urgenc’ of need.

The applicant presented a comprehensive governance plan with near structures and extensive
professional development. The board has a clear rationale for its currert size (13 members) and
planned eypansion; the size broadens/deepens board capacty/expertise and allows for robust
sub-cornniittees with strong leadership. 1 he application contains the necessary components such as
bylaws, statement of compliance with the LA Code of Ethics and LA Public Records Act.

(Reference Governance, Leade ship, and Management, Board Member Resumes, governing
docnrnerits. Capacity Interview)

CThrCCRr-s A’ oruririoNAL F’-Iij’I” -


.. .1 . . - .

f naçsa
P. 1 4 T
hool Nm R NEW Alt ma iv High School I

PART 3: EVALUATION DETA L

C. Financial Plan

E (CM M N CAT C N
•ç

• MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STNDARD

STRErGTHS / oo cIa- lrlQ)) Inciudp iefrtcnce, fe/i’t

The financial plan included conservative budget estimates. All budget forms were provided
and reasonable assumptions were made. As a CMO, the applicant has the ability to leverage
central office resources and economies of scale.

(Reference LADOE Budget review)

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (7000 1


70r max) Include err’nce, ([IcIeIm7L

P. 1 48
‘r’ R,’’JL\, \ltci lie Sc’ el I

PART 3: EVALUA11ON DETAtL

D.Facilities Plan

COME’rATiC’

MEETS ‘HE STAN LEO

IS %PPQACHi’( ‘i-’E 1? ‘.cAD

roEs ,OT M1t TIE STAr

S’RFNCTH ( ,c i,’; / - j, -

The facilftes plan includes the utilization of an existing Orleans Parish school facility. The
applicant has set asde $50,000.00 to update the facility as needed to foster a culture of
success. The applicant has experience renovating school faciities similar to those included in
1
the proposal and can also rely ci central office capacity for facilities management.

(Reference Facilities Plan)

CONCEpNSAr’.DALDIioN,,L cL’ESiO’S r 1 ,.., r

The applicant budgeled for facility renovations based on previous experience but may have to
tap other resources f conditions in a particular school require more investment.

(Reference Year 1 B dqet)

rs
(‘.149
- i- I .-
\‘. , ri ti. c iqtr ‘cti,

PART3:EVALJATION DETML

E.LoLlisiana Charter Operator


Contract Compliance

• ‘.[ ]‘T—EA..D;.D

is Th-’F S ‘iC’

r_ts ,LT ‘.‘i F IE S’A

—c ‘‘‘ .7 i ,,•-i,,,C ii’fri’. - ‘ .

The apolicant is currently operating two schools using a very similar model, with similar
students, in the same city. Both schools opened under the applicant’s leadership in 2010 thus
no early indicators of success have been identified. However, the applicant has demonstrated
its capacity to successfully open two Type 5 K-8 charter schools in a single year with no
identified pre-opening issues.

p.5 ,‘,r ,,Lr iTiCN,,i Qirr )r-.S .. ‘.j Ic,,-

The two schools currently operated by the applicant have only been open since fall of 2010
and so there is limited data to assess current operator contract compliance.

1’.I 5(J
Pre-Opening Checklist & Calendar for Types 2 & 5
Charter Schools Opening in the 201142 School Year

Feb ru arv
submitted on or before Pehi un’
The following pre-opening checklist items are due in February must be
2X. 11 1:

if not specified in charter


List of all board members (minimum of 7) and board officer appointments,
school application
the Office of Parental
2. For each board member, the following information must be on file with
application, or pro’ided
Options, either in the charter school eligibility documents, the charter school
on or before February 28, 2011:
a. Resume
b. Disclosure of Financial Interest Statement
c. Affirmation of Eligibility to Serve
d. Confirmation of completed background check
e. Legal residence/physical home address (to venfy residency and board composition
requirements)
that
3. Confirmation that each board member has received board orientation and training (include dates
orientation and/or training were held, who conducted, and topics addressed)
the
4. A copy of the management contract or service agreement, if applicable and if not provided in
charter school application
and
5. W-9 and EFT Enrollment Form (see Division of Administration Office of Statewide Reporting
Accounting Policy at http://doa.louisiana.go\ /OSRAP)

April
BESE
The charter school contract must be signed by the non-profit corporation board president and the
president on or no later than April 29, 2011.

*please note that failure to complete this item by April 29, 2011 may result in a one-year
**

deferment or action to rescind the charter approvaL

Pd av
Pre-opening checklist items due in May must be submitted on or before \Li\ . The items due in
May include:

I Final student handbook for 20 11-2012 school year


2. Documentation of engagement of a CPA for independent financial audit
3. Final school calendar for the 2011-12 school year
4, Final budget/financial documents (budget forms available at
ii ’ state Ia
1
do Ie/LIJ/oL1I?$ i/s)
a. Budget with detailed assumptions for all reenues and expenditures for the first year of operation
.
151
b. Monthly cash flow projection for first year of operation
c. Five-year budget
5. Updated facility plan and school location address
6. Plan for ensuring compliance and accuracy with reporting data to the LDOE and RSD, if applicable
7. Policy and procedure manual that includes all components necessary to locate, indentify, evaluate,
and serve students suspected of being disabled and to provide a free appropriate public education
(FAPE) to students with disabilities

June

Pre-opening checklist items due in June must be submitted on or before June 30, 201 1 and include:

I. Proof of insurance
2. Signed lease or use agreement for any RSD facility
3. School facility inspection reports and zoning, lease or land and building use permits for any non
RSD facility to be used
4. Designation of the school’s special education designee
5. Resume and qualifications for the individual hired to provide business services for the charter
school, including a detailed job description

***please note that all of the above items must be completed by June 30 in order to receive approval
to opeii school for the 2011-12 school year.

July
Pre-opening checklist items due in July must be submitted on or before July 29, 2011 and include:

I. Date of application period and admissions lottery, if applicable


2. Roster of enrolled students and students on waiting list, if applicable
3. Roster of charter school staff
4. Principal and emergency contact information
5. Confirmation that criminal background checks for staff have been completed
6. Safety and emergency plans
7. Documentation of food and nutrition services
8. Transportation plan

Other Requirements: In addition to the above required items, charter school leaders and
appropriate staff are required to attend any informational or training events hosted by
the LDOE and/or RSD (for Type 5 charters,), including but not limited to those pertaining
to educational/academic programs, state or federal rules or regulations, special
education, grants management, accountability, andfinance/budgeting.

Page 2 of 2
P. 1 52
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS December / 2010 (Mo/YR)

(updated 10/10)
Receive & Refer Contact Person: Erin Bendily
X Action Phone Number:
Information Office:gçntaIOtiop__

gçpyer School District Committee AGENDA

Item # IV.B.4o. Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


ReNEW Alternative High School 2 ReN EW-Reinventing Education Inc.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve

Background on application and evaluation process:


A Request for Applications to operate Type 2, 4, and 5 charter schools was released in April, 2010.
Information sessions and a series of workshops for applicants were held in June in Baton Rouge. New
Orleans, and Shreveport. Applicants were informed of the following Type 5 Recovery School District
(RSD) priorities: takeover or conversion of RSD high schools, alternative schools, schools specializing in
serving special needs students, and takeover of low-performing RSD K-8 schools. A total of 14
organizations applied to operate 18 Type 5 schools.

On behalf of the Board and Department, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
(NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compliance with the Principals and Standards
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written application evaluation, applicant interviews,
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local and national evaluators who brought
expertise in areas of curriculum, management, finance, and the management of urban charter schools.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process, conducted completeness checks, and
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators in reviewing the applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1, 2010.

Applicant information:
ReNEW-Reinventing Education Inc. submitted a Type 5 charter application to operate ReNEW
Alternative High School 2 in Orleans Parish. The proposed school will serve approximately 150 students
in its first year in grades 6-12 and approximately 150 students in grades 6-12 at full capacity.

ReNEW-Reinventing Education Inc. currently operates Laurel Elementary and Live Oak Elementary Type 5
charter schools in Orleans Parish.

Summary of recommendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only- those Type 5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. NACSA’s evaluation team has recommended
approval of the Type 5 charter application submitted by ReNEW-Reinventing Education Inc. to operate
ReNEW Alternative High School 2. A copy of the Evaluation and Recommendation Summary is attached.
Department staff has reviewed the evaluators’ findings and agrees that they are sound. Superintendent
Vallas has also reviewed the recommendations and believes the school will complement and support the
mission of the Recovery School District.

The I)epartment therefore recommends approval of the application for the proposed charter school to open
during the 2011-12 school year, contingent upon the requirements and special considerations set forth
below: P.153
_______________
_______Not etin
__Bullice _____
_____
____

• Completion of a pre-opening checklist (attached);


Recommendation Summary
• Addressing any special considerations set forth in the Evaluation and
recommendations;
nt the RSD not later than
• Assignment of an existing RSD-operated school by the Superintende of
school may be deferred until
March 2011. If an assignment is not made, the authority to open this
Superintendent of the RSD.
2012-13 or may be rescinded based on a recommendation by the
assignments during the March
Department staff will report on the status of applicants and their school
2011 RSD ‘ommittee meeting; and
• Execution of the charter contract no later than April 29, 2011.
effective until the above
It is recommended that charter application final approval shall be not be
by president of the
referenced contingencies, including approval of the Department and execution (signed
non-profit corporation and the BESE President) of the charter contract. are met.

Implications of proposed recomniendation -- benefits and problematic areas:

No problematic areas are foreseen as a result of this proposed recommendation.

of Intent Code
Emergency Adoption -- Reason: Reference:
Item -- Bulletin: Note:

//‘- i) 1/ I
/ // /J
Difector A
1
7 stãh Superinte$en Chief

Deputy Superin enden \


L Sta\Superintende t

P.1 54
Charter School Application
External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Prrniided to the
Louisiana Deportviient of Education

DATE

November 10, 2010


SCHOOL r.AME

ReNEW Alternative High School II

C’ARl ER SCHO(’I lYRE

Independent Review Team Members


REVIEW TEAM LEAD

Parker Baxter
ic ‘S

Carolyn Bridges

Jill Dunchick

Dana Hunter

Ting-ting Liang

D’,F OPEO RY THE AHONAL ASSOCATlON


CH Si F S SCHCL SUTHORZERS

nacsa 4
E DUCAflON

P. 1 5 5
PART 1: SCHOOL PROflLE

CHOL

ReNEW Alternative High School II

:.p LiC

ReNEW Schools Charter Management Organization

1 ‘TEAR 5
‘AOF [E’ S
6-12 6-12

ME
‘.‘

150 150

AISSIQ

ReNEW Alternative High School will transform an academically unacceptable


alternative high school program into a rigorous, college preparatory school
through high expectations for all students, exceptional teaching and leadership,
and a rigorous academic program that is research-based and data-driven.

SCHC.OL LEA[ SHIP

Gary Robichaux

COVER 5
ANCF

Carol Asher, Board President

S’ECiM •

ReNEW Schools Charter Management Organization submitted identical


applications for ReNEW Alternative High School I and II.

()
P.1
School Name: ReNEW Alternative High School II

PART 2: RECOMMENDATION

rIa mex)
ANALYSIS (2S0c)

Kcy comcmsJ’nm o!’oto, sreer:

The Evaluation Team concludes that the application for ReNEW Alternative High School II meets
the applicable quality standards and recommends approval.

Evaluators determined that the applicant’s mission and vision were coherent and compelling,
and formed a strong foundation for the adaptation of the applicant’s existing K-8 model. The
applicant’s education philosophy, curriculum and instruction were clearly articulated, aligned to
the mission and vision, grounded in research and practice, and appropriate for and likely to
result in improved educational performance for the school’s intended service population.

The applicant’s organizational and governance plan met the applicable requirements and
demonstrated strong capacity and both broad and deep expertise and experience. Evaluators
further determined that the applicant’s Financial Plan presented a clear picture of how the
school’s finances will be managed and how central economies of scale will be leveraged and that
its budget was aligned with and would support effective implementation of the educational
program. Lastly, Evaluators determined that the applicant’s Facilities Plan was grounded in
applicable local experience.

Evaluators agreed that the applicant’s capacity interview answered key questions, provided
substantial additional information, and significantly increased the Evaluators’ confidence in the
application.

OVERALL REcOMMENDATioN

The fo!icw:ng recoi ndotion a made based apcn nacrmdeni app/i cation
es’eiaot on and capacity otern/ew:

DENY

•: APPROVE

g
P. 1 57
School Name: ReNEW Alternative High School 11

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

A. Education Philosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

RECOMMENDATION

Te Ld::ot:on Pht!c:cphy, 1Y:CL CiQ J:sti c:CO P!a:,

a MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHc,rV..’’O’ ,..‘il.

The applicant demonstrates exceptional pass:on and commitment to the idea that students can meet high
expectations fr academic and personal growth. The cui ricu’um will be developed by the Chief Academic
Officer and Pic-GED Coordinator to ensure that it is tailored for this high need population. The curriculum
will be allaned with GLE/LA State Instructional Standards and make use of instructional coftware and
EduMark benchmark assessments.

The applicant has strong human capital/staffing for servicing students with special needs, irwludrng a
Special Education Director (CMO Level), Soocial Education Coordinotoi (1/2 per ItS). 1 FT Recource Room
Teacher, and a Gifted Teacher if needed.

The applicant is thoughtful about aevEIoprig cacacity to start two schools at once. The model is
purposefully small (150 total) to facilitate individualized student instruction and a cohesive,
achievement-focused culture, and can be accomplished due to economies of scale generated by the central
office.

(Reference P 5/107 of application, P 8/107 Education Philosophy, Curriejlum and Instruction, Students
with Exce)

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUE5TlONSC’...I’ .,, jir,,.

In the capacity interview, the applicant provided a compelling and detailed explanation as to
how older students needing re-engagement into schooling will be addressed strengthening
the evaluators endorsement of the application. Applicants are encouraged to give attention to
this student population’s response to the no excuses” model to which ReNEW is so clearly
Corrirnitted.

(Reference Hission and Vision, Education Philosophy, Curriculum and Instruction)

nacsa
F4AflONaL PSLOOAh,00 Of
CUARTEP SCHOOL AUffLOROIRS

P. 1 58
I kr:EV /Itrr .‘ h Sc[cc,I 11

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

B.Goverriance, Leadership and


Management

• ilL 5 H

i ArFQ4Fi C F—E si’’r

iaEr ]IE Si,. .L

Tr C ‘us - - •. ‘.

The board has significant exr,ericnce and capacity both individually arid as an existing board.
Board members bring professional expertise in the key components of charter school
governance and show a wide array of professional success and dedication to educational
endea’jcrs. Board members exhibit strorg understanding of the difference in the models that the
organization would be operating if approved (K-S and alt” HS) and also demonstrate strong
alignment with school leadership on transferability of model and uraen’y of need.

The applicant presented a comprehensive governance p1 n with clear stn ctures and extensivo
professiurial development. lhe hoard has a clear rationale for its current size (13 members) and
planned expansion; the size broadens/deepens board capacity/expertise and allows for robust
sub-committees with strong leadership. The application contains the necessary components such
as bylaws, statement of compliance with the LA Code of Ethics and LA Public Records Act.

(Reference Governance, Leadership, and Management, Board Member Resumes, governing


documents. Capacity Interview)

CCiNPt ‘siDiL Ii C’ALc,i,FS’i’’S l —-


rï.--.c , -

P.1 3)
hoot Nam ReNEW Alternativ H h chool II

PART3:EVALUATION DETML

C Financial Plan

RFCOMM NDATION

TJ’ ,a,rai r?

s MEETSTHESTANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

1 Cx) Iniude ref ,eoce, fr4ei’ t


STRENGTHS (000 hor Cr

The flnancial plan included conservative budget estimates. All budget forms were provided
and reasonable assumptions were made. As a CMO, the applicant has the ability to leverage
central office resources and economies of scale.

(Reference LADOE Budget review)

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (70CC Ir C Ox) Ic’uJe 1e(rrerCe, fieiriant

S S
nacsa
M SO OSS

P. 1 60
R rcvi ‘it High Schc’;

PART 3 : EVALUATION DETML

D.Facilities Plan

:G.i’Er.c \ir.

F.EETS F-E 5T [i”

I’. AF C.cC- irC — E Sr.cAR

CCS N r VCE’ i -IF ST,i4LARD

STENGF- S r :i.i rci.de tcJtiri J


The facilities plan includes the utilization of an existing Orleans Parish school facility. The
applicant has set aside $50,000.00 to update the facility as needed to foster a culture of
success. The applicant has experience renovating school facilities similar to those included in
the proposal and can also rely on central office capacity for facilities management.

(Reference Facilities Plan)

CONCFPJS AND f.iiTiD -IAL çi.Fc’ioNs (r -‘ - ii

Applicant budgeted for acrlity renovations based on previous experience but may have to tap
other resources if conditions in a particular school reouire more investment.

(Reference Year 1 Budget)

g
P. 1 b 1
School Name: ReNEW Alternative High School II

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

E.Louisiana Charter Operator


Contract Compliance
fl NOT APPUCABLE

RE CO M M F N DAT ON

Tke LoL!saaa CL7Ite? OCc7ar Cc t:CU

R MEETSTHE STANDARD

IS AppRoAcHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS hooo cha’. max) Irciude efeience, f telccaot.


The applicant is currently operating two schools using a very similar model, with similar
students, in the same city. Both schools opened under the applicants leadership in 2010 thus
no early indicators of success have been identified. However, the applicant has demonstrated
its capacity to successfully open two Type 5 K-S charter schools in a single year with no
identified pre-opening issues.

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (ooo chop max) Include Jt r’m e, 1 ,eliiant

The two schools currently operated by the applicant have only been open since fall of 2010
and so there is limited data to assess current operator contract compliance.

inacsa
OOfL fSOCflOf Of
(I-fARflR SC’400r AuU4OR7rRS

P. 1 62
5
Pre-Opening Checklist & Calendar for Types 2 &
Year
Charter Schools Opening in the 2011-12 School

February
ry must be submitted on or before f1IiiI
The following pre-opening checklist items are due in Februa
2. 2011:
appointments, if not specified in charter
1. List of all board members (minimum of 7) and board officer
school application
be on file with the Office of Parental
2. For each board member, the following information must
the charter school application, or provided
Options, either in the charter school eligibility documents,
on or before February 28. 2011:
a. Resume
b. Disclosure of Financial Interest Statement
c. Affirmation of Eligibility to Serve
d. Confirmation of completed background check
cy and board composition
e. Legal residence/physical home address (to verify residen
requirements)
tion and training (include dates that
3. Confirmation that each board member has received board orienta
sed)
orientation and/or training were held, who conducted, and topics addres
if applica ble and if not provided in the
4. A copy of the management contract or service agreement,
charter school application
5. W-9 and EFT Enrollment Form (see Division of Administratio
n Office of Statewide Reporting and
Accounting Policy at http://doa.louisiana.gov/OSRAP)

April
board president and the BESE
The charter school contract must be signed by the non-profit corporation
president on or no later than April 29, 2011.
ar
** *please ii ole that failure to complete this item by April 29, 2011 may result in a one-ye
deferment or action to rescind the charter approvaL

i’iav
1i 2L2UH. The items due in
Pre-opening checklist items due in May must be submitted on or before
May include:

1. Final student handbook for 2011-2012 school year


2. Documentation of engagement of a CPA for independent financial audit
3. Final school calendar for the 2011-12 school year
4. Final budget/financial documents (budget Jàrms a’aiiable at
year of operation
a. Budget with detailed assumptions for all revenues and expenditures for the first

P. 163
b. Monthly cash flow projection for first year of operation
c. Five-year budget
5. Updated facilitv plan and school location address
applicable
6. Plan for ensuring compliance and accuracy with reporting data to the LDOE and RSD, if
necessary to locate, indentify, evaluate,
7. Policy and procedure manual that includes all components
education
and serve students suspected of being disabled and to provide a free appropriate public
(FAPE) to students with disabilities

June

Pre-opening checklist items due in June must be submitted on or before June 30, 2011 and include:

1. Proof of insurance
2. Signed lease or use agreement for any RSD facility
3. School facility inspection reports and zoning, lease or land and building use permits for any non
RSD facility to be used
4. Designation of the school’s special education designee
5. Resume and qualifications for the individual hired to provide business services for the charter
school, including a detailed job description

***please note that all of the above items must be completed by June 30 in order to receive approval
to open school for the 2011-12 school year.

JuI’

Pre-opening checklist items due in July must be submitted on or before July 29, 2011 and include:

1. Date of application period and admissions lottery, if applicable


2. Roster of enrolled students and students on waiting list, if applicable
3. Roster of charter school staff
4. Principal and emergency contact information
5. Confirmation that criminal background checks for staff have been completed
6. Safety and emergency plans
7. Documentation of food and nutrition services
8. Transportation plan

Other Requirements: In addition to the above required items, charter school leaders and
appropriate staff are required to attend any informational or training events hosted by
the LDOE and/or RSD (for Type 5 charters,), including but not limited to those pertaining
to educational/academic programs, state or federal rules or regulations, special
education, grants management, accountability, andfinance/budgeting.

P.164
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS December / 2010 (1o/vR)
(updated 10/10)
Receive & Refer Contact Person: Erin Bendilv
Action Phone Number: (225) 342-3640
Information
J Of1ice:2talOtio1

Recovery School District Committee AGENDA

Item #j.4,j. Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


Benjamin Banrieker Academy Total Learning Community, Inc.

RECOMMENDATION: Receive

Background on application and evaluation process:


A Request for Applications to operate Type 2, 4, and 5 charter schools was released in April, 2010.
Information sessions and a series of workshops for applicants were held in June in Baton Rouge, New
Orleans. and Shreveport. Applicants were informed of the following Type 5 Recovery School District
(RSD) priorities: takeover or conversion of RSD high schools, alternative schools, schools specializing in
serving special needs students, and takeover of low-performing RSD K-8 schools. A total of 14
organizations applied to operate 18 Type 5 schools.

On behalf of the Board and Department, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
(NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compliance with the Principals and Standards
fir Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written application evaluation, applicant interviews,
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local and national evaluators who brought
expertise in areas of curriculum, management, finance, and the management of urban charter schools.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process. conducted completeness checks, and
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators in reviewing the applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1, 201 0.

Applicant information:
Total Learning Community, Inc. submitted a Type 5 charter application to operate Benjamin Baimeker
Academy in Orleans Parish. The proposed school will serve approximately 400 students in its first year in
grades PK-8 and approximately 480 students in grades PK-8 at full capacity. The organization does not
propose to contract with an education service provider.

Total Learning Community. Inc. does not currently operate any charter schools in Louisiana.

Summary of recommendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only those Type 5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. ISACSA’s evaluation team has recommended
denial of the Type 5 charter application submitted by Total Learning Community. Inc. to operate
Benjamin Barmeker Academy. A copy of the Evaluation and Recommendation Summary is attached.
Department staff has reviewed the evaluators’ findings and agrees that they are sound. Therefore. the
Department is not recommending approval of this application.

Implications of proposed recommendation -- benefits and problematic areas:

No problematic areas are foreseen as a result of this drecommendation.


Charter School Application
External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Pro t’ided to the
Louisiana Department of Education

0 A!

November 8, 2010
Sd CDL IJAME

Benjamin Banneker Academy

CHAR! ER 5CHOO -

Type 5

Independent Review Team Members


REVIEW TEAM LEAD

Jennifer G. Sneed
EV LUATOrS

Cheri Shannon

Mark Comanducci

Judy Foil

Adrian Morgan

nacsa
F. 1 67
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

SLHCQ_ . .‘. -

Benjamin Banneker Academy

‘-LIC. L NIZH

Total Learning Community, Inc.

F; 1 EP5

rRADE Li
PreK-8th PreK-Sth

LLMI
400 480

M S SIGN

The Benjamin Banneker Academy Community believes that every child can learn
and has a right to a quahty education. Our beliefs strongly promote excellent
Academic and Interpersonal skills that promise for a productive life. We embrace
the task of educating the whole child in collaborative partnership with parents
and the community at large to ensure the development of every person.

SCHOOL i.I-AOERI P

Cheryllyn M. Branche/Principal

GO V F R N NCF

Joseph T. Ridolfo/President (education), Dipo Mosadomi/Vice-President


(engineer/educator/entrepreneur), Gerri Moore Elie/Secretary-Treasurer
(education), Carole Whelan (education), and Donya Harvey (community rep)

SPEd i F. TI 5

The applicant team, ncluding staff from Tulane, indicated that the reason they
wanted to convert to a charter school was to get out from under’ the RSD. An
in-depth description of the relationship between Tulane and Banneker was
described, including now interns v.’ould be used. Tulane assisted in writing the
application.

g nqsa
I’.IbS
I ‘ -t’ III Fi !CkG V

PART 2: RECOMMENDATION

ticn is nut recemmer ed for apcvcl.


1 ‘e phc
1

Inc .pecrt prcpses to cc’ivort toe e\rsting Bcrijaiin Bannker Academy to a chcrtc and
conduct a scnool tot na’ound. It is not clear hnt he thic school s &igiblo to be a 1 ype 5 school,
o whcthLr t’u cove sic would rnct the fcdur nI I ‘i rocerdino turnaround srncc it is tie intent
cf the ho,:i d to retain the carve rtrcipai and tna same teachinq staff. The cr rical issue for this
school is hether or not becoming a charter :chccl would significantly impact stucient
achievc mLnt. The principal stated that rnt ch progress had been rnaoe tinder the present
program, and the major reason for making the change was to be free from the constraints of
the RSD.

The evaluators did not appear to recognize a sense of academic urgency from the application
based on the low academic expectations (highest goal is 60% of students achieving basic or
above in the school’s 5th year). When interviewed, the proposed principal stated that it was
important to have goals reflecting the delays of the students and 50% achievinq Basic or above
was noteworthy. Evaluators found the application unfocused; it referred to numerous programs
and approaches, such as Effective Schools, Turnaround Model, Schools that Make a Difference,
Differentiated Learning, Nine Best Practices and Classrooms that Work, for addressing the needs
of at-risk students. Details related to programs/cervices for students with disabilities and
students who are LEP are very limited. The evaluators were not convinced about the efficacy of
the selected progra ms/approaches.

Governance and leadership plans lacked clarity and were not well thought-out. The applicant
had not adequately developed a plan to effectiveiy aud capacity to the board, or develop a
succession plan for the school leader. The school start-up plan lacked description or time lines.
There was limited/no details regarding provision of food, transportation and health services

The proposed charter school plans to engage ti-re support of the community with a significant
role for Tulane University’s faculty and students including tutoring in reading, and classroom
support in academics and student behavior. This arrangement was confirmed by Tulane via
letters and representatives participating in the interview.

• --Ti

g nacsa
1’. I frY
School Name: Benjamin Banneker Academy

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

A.Education Philosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

RECOMMENDATiON

Th Ed TticT-doicWhy, CrrdUd rO CJ /00? Ct:O0

MEEIS THE STANDARD


IS APPRoAcHINc THE STANDARD
DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STREUc;THS ) l .J [‘

The proposed charter school would use the Louisiana Comprehensive Curriculum that includes
maps, scope and sequence to facilitate lesson planning, interim assessments and
supplemental curriculum development. (Reference
p. 19)

The application and applicant team appeared to understand the significance of professional
development. The applicant team when nterviewed described the proposed school’s
professional development plan that would be bascd on grade level teams. The grade-level
teams would evaluate data and make recommendations, and the professional development
would be job-embedded. (Reference p.20)

CONCERNS AND ADDITiONAL QUESTIONS fC ;o’ due ,clocncc,


“‘) •f ICif-Oi

Academc goals on state assessments are low, with the highest scores expected
in the schools
5th year with 60% of students scoring basic or above in English language arts,
mathematics,
science and social studies. Fhe applicant failed to convey a sense of urgency
in the application or
the interview.(Reference p28)

Alrhouah professional development s taken seiiouiy, the application lacks


a weekly schedule
for teachers cr a school schedule. E”aluators could not determ:ne whether the school
would
schedule tirne for teachers to collabnrate. The annual calendar did not reflect
professional
development days following maJor breaks (or holidays) as stated in the narrative.(Re
ference
p43)

Details related to proams/services for students w:th disabilities and students


who are LEP are
very limited. The appication did not provide detail beyond stating that there
would be a
“plethora cf resourrcs for students w/tb dsabiloics and that collaboration hetveeri
regular nd
special educators will take place.” (Referer.ce p30-3k)

P. 170
Ecriainin Pn . ‘ny

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

B.Governance, Leadership and


IVianagement

D’..r’,lL.L’ r(D’

FarTS 1HE SIANOAPO

IS ,sPPPO,,CI INC THE STAN DARD

• OnES NAT rarEr TIE STANCAPIj

S1’JCTHS .AO C’7’ HrX) ;c!...r ?‘ftr’

The application laid out the board’s committee structure which would include
an Executive,
Governance, Development, Academic Excellence and Finance commi
ttees. (Reference
ByLaws,Art. 15, pp. 12-15)

AenrERnS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIOnS ‘r :., ,,


‘‘‘t’’

There are significant concerns around how the conversion to charter


a with the same
principal, staff arid ‘interested others’ would improve
student achievement. The applicant
seemed more focused on being free from the constra
ints of RSD and did not convey a sense
of urgency or high expectations. (Reference p.147)

Governance and leadership plans lacked clarity. Each board membe


r commits a one-year
term and determines whether they will return at the end of the year;
th:s is viowed as a
‘testing” period. The board includes five members and plans to expand
to nine. When acked
the areas of expertise for new board rnembes, the response was CPA
and that the board is
leoking for good talent.” When asked for clarification regarding succession
planning icr
leadership, the applicant did not seem to understand the questio
n. (Reference o.55)

The sc hoci start-un plan lacked descnpticn or time ne There


was lirn.ted/rio details
egardrng prcvrscn of fond, trarsportaticn a’rd bealh
ce’,cts. (Rerence pp.78-87)

‘csa
P.171
‘;- i1 B:irnip Prnekcr :1env

PART 3: EVALUAflON DETAIL

C. Financial Plan

I 1 1 AN DAPD

iS APPOA.:Hik1; i £ STA.D,i’[.

• 01.15 ‘‘T 1.14 1,44

S rF1trc.rHS1 -
..,:
--
1
1’.-L’

CDCtPNS /.NDAODI1Ic-NA1. cLtS’i0N1.


(‘‘‘L

The application’s budgets did not include much in terms of assumptions


to explain the
rationale behind certain dreas of income and expenses, such as $400,000
rather than
200,000 from the federal PCSP, the large surplus at the end of the schools
first year (over
$500,000) and the fluctuation in the surplus amount over the life of the charter.
When
interviewed, tPe applicant group did not provide any additional information
regarding the
fluctuation in the surplus amount. (Reference Budgets)

There were several other errors es well. Prekindergarten numbers were


included n the
budget, but when interviewed, the applicant team indicated that the numbers
would be taken
out to make the budget accurate. Fundamental flaws in the 1st year
budget resulted in errors
in each suhseauent ‘ear. There was wde discrepancy n the budget figure
on the
applicabors cover sheet ($3.2H) and the budget documents ($6.OM).

ri.a.c.sa
P. 1 7 2
E5fli1iIi H .flfl( I

PART 3: EVALJATON DETAIL

D.Facilities Plan

ME IS TElL STND,lD

IS APPOA’l-lING TEHE Sr;nCkn

• DOES ‘ELi ‘irvr tiE sTAr,rA,o

1-
-
S S N 1 — -

The current school is housed in the site that the cherter school would plan to remain in.
(Reference Cover Sheet)

rNcERNS.AEDf\nfliTiflNAL QiESiIO’.S CL-,- ‘-

Since this is an application for a conversion charter school, the proposed charter school would
like to remain in the current schools locatIon and facility. The application does not identify a
secondary site should something prevent the charter school from inhabiting the same space,
as required by the RFA. No additional information was provided regarding the necessary
space to accommodate the proposed charter schools projected nroIlrnent, the associated
costs, or other options or plans to secure space. (Reference Cover Sheet)

The interview team wa not clear whether the proposed ch3rter school would be eligible for d
Type 5 school. In addtion, the question was posed regarding whether this conversion met
the federal law regarding turnaround since t was the irtcnt of the beard to retain the same
pincipal and same teach;nq ctaff. (Rerorerce p.92)

o.acsa
P. i ‘
Schoo’ Name Benjamin Banneker Academy

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

E.Louisiana Charter Operator


Contract Compliance
NOT APPLICABLE

RECOMMENDATION

The L0LIs,aiio Chm tei Opciowr Conroct Compliance

MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT M[ETTHE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (7000 choi ma>) Include reference, felenant

SectIon Not Applicable

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (7000 char max) Include reference, felenant

nacsa
P. 174
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS December / 2010 (MO/YR)
(updated 10/10)

Receive & Refer Contact Person: nBendi1y__


Action Phone Number: (225) 342-3640
__ Information Office: Parental Options

Recovery School District Committee AGENDA

Item Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


Walter L. Cohen High School Walter L. Cohen Alumni

Association Charter Division

RECOMMENDATION: Receive

Background on application and evaluation process:


A Request for Applications to operate Type 2, 4, and 5 charter schools was released in April, 2010.
Information sessions and a series of workshops for applicants were held in June in Baton Rouge, New
Orleans, and Shreveport. Applicants were informed of the following Type 5 Recovery School District
(RSD) priorities: takeover or conversion of RSD high schools, alternative schools, schools specializing in
serving special needs students, and takeover of low-performing RSD K-8 schools. A total of 14
organizations applied to operate 18 Type 5 schools.

On behalf of the Board and Department, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
(NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compliance with the Principals and Standards
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written application evaluation, applicant interviews,
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local and national evaluators who brought
expertise in areas of curriculum, management, finance, and the management of urban charter schools.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process, conducted completeness checks, and
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators in reviewing the applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1, 2010.

Applicant information:
Walter L. Cohen Alumni Association Charter Division submitted a Type 5 charter application to operate
Walter L. Cohen High School in Orleans Parish. The proposed school will serve approximately 150
students in its first year in grades 9-12 and approximately 150 students in grades 9-12 at full capacity. The
organization does not propose to contract with an education service provider.

Walter L. Cohen Alumni Association Charter Division does not currently operate any charter schools in
Louisiana.

Summary of recommendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only those Type 5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. NACSA’s evaluation team has recommended
denial of the Type 5 charter application submitted by Walter L. Cohen Alumni Association Charter
Division to operate Walter L. Cohen High School. A copy of the Evaluation and Recommendation
Summary is attached. Department staff has reviewed the evaluators’ findings and agrees that they are
sound. Therefore. the Department is not recommending approval of this application.

P.1 75
C
— C:,)

C

-

r
Charter School Application
External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Provided to the
Louisiana Department of Education

DArt

October 28, 2010


SCHCOL NAME

Walter L. Cohen High School

CHARTER SCHOOL TYPE

Five

Independent Review Team Members


REVIEW TEAM LEAD

Gail Lazard
EVAL UATC’ PS

Matthew Shaw

James Barr

Sonia Park

Kathleen Padian

DELOED 8 EHE NAHONR1 ASSOCAi ION


Or CH?T ER ECHOOL ALTHO:ERS

nacsa
R 177
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

SCH OLN

Walter L. Cohen High School

APPLICAN GA TION

Walter L. Cohen Alumni Association Charter Division

EAR YEAR 5
GRADE LEVELS
- 12 9 - 12
PROJECTED NROLLMENT
600 600

MISSION

The mission of Walter L. Cohen is to develop the mind, character and physical
well-being of our students through a safe, supportive learning environment with
opportunities for each student to develop the skills and knowledge to become
responsible, successful citizens.

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

To be determined.

GOVERNANCE

James Raby, President, Erika Yerks, VP, Lucy Bates, Secretary, Ester Brumfield,
Otto Duncan, Lucille Clark, Lorraine Williams, Donald Brown, Constant Serrette,
Lynette Wallace
1 Isaac Johnson, James Mitchell, Ashanti Paulin

SPECI’L ‘OTES

N/A

P. 178
.Lcnec I NE, 1 P \‘ialter L Cchen Hh Scho I

PART 2: RECOMMENDATION

,.\L’ iS

The Cohen Alumni AEsoc aticn Charter Divisic, has presented an ambi:ious plan to turn
are nd
a failing school, Walter L. Cohen. While it is admirable that the Cohen alumni appear
to be truly
concerned about the current educational program at the high school, it is not clear that
they
have fully planned for a succcssful tckec ‘er cf th s chocI.

The new focus for the sd ool s to provide an educaton for students where they will
be able to
matriculate through he following areas: liberal arts, health careers, science and technology
education. This new focus is not sufficiently rurrorted by curriculum and instruction
information presentcd in the written applcation ci d in the interview. Though
a host of
curricular programs and packages were presented, it was not clear how these programs
would
interact with each other within the context of the focus described. Nor was it explained
how
teachers would be trained in curriculum delivt’ y. The following areas in the educational
philosophy, curriculum and instruction amna 3re all unsatisfactory and are not ready
to be
implemented in an urban high school: curriculum monitoring, services for exceptional
students,
monitoring and reporting, student evaluation, schcol improvement/corrective action
plans,
learning standards, promotion/graduation criteria, daily schedules, extracurricul
ar activities,
parent complaint procedures and strategies for at usk students.

The governance, leadership and management section of the proposal raised a number
of issues
and concerns regarding the relationship between the Alumni Association and
the Charter
Division which remained for the reviewers after the conclusion of the interview.
This is troubling
because the Alumni Association is charging a 1.5% management fee to the school.
The
descriptions of leadership are inconsistent and it is not clear which organization
will be held
accountable for the charter school, the Alumni Association Charter Division
or the Alumni
Association. TI-ic applicants also did not meet standards in the following areas:
board
recruitment and succession, board leader relationship, organizational chart, instructional
staff
chart, start-up plans, insurance quote and safety and security plans. The
financial plans were
unacceptable and did not meet standards as set forth in the RFA.

• . ,.

P ce ,

naçsa
1-i. 1 7 9
chooi tarnc Wafter L Coh n High School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

A. Education Philosophy Curriculum


and Instruction

RECOMMENDATION
t Ed C EiiJ scp?iy, L)rr, id m and li tt’t, Pfn

MET5 THE STANDARD

IS APPROc NC THE STANDARD

rn DflS NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (1000 rJa ox) Injud tefnce :E,e/’,t

N/A

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (boa clinr O10() (ac/ode Ir,’flce fle/tnaIbt

The educational plan for the school was not sufficiently Suppofted by Sound
curriculum and
instructional decisions in the wntten application nor the inteiew. Although the
applicant
Indicated an Intent to adopt the Louisiana Comprehensive Curriculum (LCC) and other
Curricular programs it was not clear how the curriculum would be implemented nor how the
teachers would be trained to deliver Instruction Many of the significant concepts in
this area
were unacceptable including seices for exceptional Students, student ation learning
evalu
standards 0 promotion/graduti criteria, School improvement/Corrective action plans,
strategies for at risk students, etc.

(Reference Section II, LDOE Evaluation Rubric)

;nacsa
CR LlOO
iCr 0F

P.180
_choI Walti I... Cohen High School

PART3:EVALUAIION DETAIL

B.Governance, Leadership and


Management

MEEiS1HST4NDPD

IS PFQ,.C[IiNC i- ST,. DARD

[‘(‘5 N’i M[f I ifit SV,Nr.’.Hn

STRENCIHS (.C’rcl i; ‘c-’cnc, 1 ‘i!,”

N/A

(Reference Section 111, LDOE Evaluation Rubric)

CONCFPNS Alu ADDItIONAL OUrSTiONS i’:.) j., ‘‘,rn,’. . ‘

The following areas were problematic and raised concerns for the reviewers before and after
the interview: board recruitment succession, board-leader relationship, organizational
chcrt/instructional staff chart, start-up plans, insurance coverage and safety and security
plans.

It is not clear who will have final authority for the charter school, the Alumni Association
Charter Division boaid or the Alumni Association board. Descriptions of leadership were
confusing in the written narrabve and in the interview. The Alumni Association is charging the
school a 1.5% management fee; it is still unclear what services will be provided for this fee.
In the interview, thc accountant stated that the fee was to be used for hack office operations;
this was not ,n the wrtten appiicaticn. Finally, outlined activ:ties in the oritten
.pohcation/stated in the nrtrview dd nct reveal edd’ucnl plans for any fee-based
comriiitrnents.

g
P. 1 ‘- I
n VaIter L. C’hcn I in.

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

C. Financial Plan

MEl-IS -rHE STANDARD

is ArpRoCHic THE STANDARD

• DOES NOT MEET TIlE SIANDARD

S EL NC iii / n. y) ic7,.

N/A

CONCEPTS ANOIDDIT!ONALQFJESTIQIJS ;C’C-•- (;;r ,, (‘.‘nJi ‘rn

The financial plan is unacceptable and does not meet standards. The plan raised serious
concerns about the school’s ability to budget and about the long term financial viability of the
school. The five-year budget showed a S1.8 million surplus in year I which rapidly decreased
in subsequent years so much so that by year 4 there was a $2000k deficit. The budget also
-

omitted many expenses that were described throughout the written application. Most
significantly, at least six staff members who were discussed in the program narrative were
not included in the budoet. The interview revealed that there appeared to be a lack of
understanding on the part of the applicants regarding the number of teaching staff that would
be needed to run the education vograrn.

(Reference Section IV, LDOE Evaluation Rubric)

P. 1 8 2
pi
School Name. Walter L. Coh a High School

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

D.Facilities Plan

7 PIA L

RE Co M ME N DAT ON

T FocI c Pon

- MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHiNG THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARO

1
STRENGTHS (:000 char mar) Juje :ejetc cc,

CONCERNS AND ADD1TICNAL QUESTIONS (C0C; 110’ mOx 1ncie rLfencc, Jie?i’nnt
The Recovery School District in New Orleans, LA is the final authority relative to decisions on
school site selection. Cohen School is on the RSD master plan for facility improvement but
the applicants did not know which year the school was scheduled

-
nacsa
NA1OflM. ASSOC lION OF
CIA FE Si FlOE AEFIORI S
P.1 83
V.
U,
U
C
..s
t
. $
a
ti
S
...t... 1
.:.1:.;.... 2
,

:?..[. •.
z
L. .t
.. ...
..1
r’.
..... . ..
—I
.9 -
.E ..-. -
.1
h
0)
a
I
,—
Lu .g S
O
2
§
C. ..

.
.
M t In .:._/.:
cO
Pa
tea 1
0
— a’:. . ..

:;•
:.. .
a.
a.
_.
1
x t
.
:,;;‘.
., . i. .
.. C
< at :‘;t —,
-E 8
!<D
j
UE
CUØ t
)4
4
a ..
;i.
t.::..3:’
arw E 1 . . . i.e.
< CL) 2 2
1$-
.
.1
zUi..
,w .!÷
(flU • Ot
--t
i-;w
5$.%.’.:..t$\•
fl
•:;—..
•U.:’.
< t
.. at .: .. ..
gen
•a
z.
Ct a x a o In
z
<!
.

.:..,
.

:
..

..
$ ... ...
Z
Ii— ‘a
fr a. “ I
b • .
.
1
(X Q LIJL)
— Z Oa Za z as
u<
:. .

i...
I.

.““ .
s
S ODD gt
December 7 2010 (Mo/YR)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(updated 1 0/10)
Receive & Refer Contact Person: n.çndily__
Action Phone Number: (225) 342-364()
Information Office: Parental Options

Recovery School District Committee AGENDA

Item # lV.B.4.r. Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


Joseph A. Craig Community School Young Audiences of Louisiana, Inc.

RECOMMENDATION: Receive

Background on application and evaluation process:


in April, 2010.
A Request for Applications to operate Type 2, 4, and 5 charter schools was released
, -New
Information sessions and a series of workshops for applicants were held in June in Baton Rouge
5 Recov ery Schoo l Distric t
Orleans, and Shreveport. Applicants were informed of the following Type
izing in
(RSD) priorities: takeover or conversion of RSD high schools, alternative schools, schools special
serving special needs students, and takeover of low-performing RSD K-8 schools. A total of 14
organizations applied to operate 18 Type 5 schools.

On behalf of the Board and Department, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
(NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compliance with the Principals and Standards
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written application evaluation, applicant interviews,
t
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local and national evaluators who brough
expertise in areas of curriculum, management, finance, and the management of urban charter school s.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process, conducted completeness checks, and
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators in reviewing the applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1,2010.

Applicant information:
Young Audiences of Louisiana, Inc. submitted a Type 5 charter application to operate Joseph A. Craig
Community School in Orleans Parish. The proposed school will serve approximately 560 students in its
first year in grades PK-8 and approximately 560 students in grades PK-8 at full capacity.

Young Audiences of Louisiana. Inc. does not currently operate any charter schools in Louisiana.

Summary of recommendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only those Type 5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. NACSA’s evaluation team has recommended
denial of the Type 5 charter application submitted by Young Audiences of Louisiana, Inc. to operate
Joseph A. Craig Community School. A copy of the Evaluation and Recommendation Summary is
attached. Department staff has reviewed the evaluators’ findings and agrees that they are sound,
Therefore, the Department is not recommending approval of this application.

Implications of proposed recommendation -- benefits and problematic areas:

No problematic areas are foreseen as a result of this proposed recommendation.


P.18 5-
Charter School Application
External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Pro ulded to the
Louisiana Department of Education

November 10, 2010


S’ HOCL

Joseph A. Craig Community School (YALA)

CHARTER SCHOOL TYPE

Independent Review Tam Members


REVIEW [ J’ LFAD

Parker Baxter
•/; LI A’ J - S

Carolyn Bridges

Jill Dunchick

Dana Hunter

Ting-ting Liang

• nacsa
P. 187
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

SC H DO L . . -

Joseph A. Craig Community Schoci (YALA)

‘.-PL:. T DRGANlZ

Young Audiences of Louisiana, Inc. (YALA)

YEAR 1 YEAR 5
GRADE LEVELS
PreK-8 PreK-8

PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
560 560

MISSION

Joseph A Craig s Community School s mission will be to foster high academic achievement by
creating a learning environment that promotes resilience and a sense of self-efficacy in its
students. Students will develop these traits through differentiated, data-guided instruction and
an arts-integrated curriculum. Through learning to believe in their own faculties and through
the pride of being part of a like-minded community, students will envision themselves as
talented young people with limitless potential and will utilize this confidence to pursue their
academic endeavors with great vigor and to persevere through adversity They will embrace
academic accomplishment not merely as a destination, but rather a way of being

SCHOOL lEADERSHiP

Not yet selected, stated interest in current principal of Joseph A. Craig Elementary School

GOVERNANCE

Young Audiences of Louisiana CMO Managing Board

flac-sa
S(OOAU4QRflS

P. 1 88
School Name: Joseph A. Craig Community School (YALA)

PART 2: RECOMMENDATION

ANALYSIS iCO

isfrcN

The Type 5 application for Joseph A. Craig Community School from Young Audiences of
Louisiana (YALA) does not meet the applicable quality standards and is not recommended for
approval

The applicant s mission and vision lacked coherence, were not at the forefront of the
application, and did not connect to a sufficiently detailed educational program. The applicant’s
educational program lacked sufficient operational detail in all key areas, including the
educational philosophy, assessment plans, professional development plans, and a plan for
implementing proven instructional techniques to meet the specific needs of the intended student
population. The application also lacked sufficient detail regarding the arts curriculum, the core
of the applicants proposal and failed to provide a clear vision for how student performance at
the applicant s intended Type 5 school would improve once operated by the applicant The
application references relevant research but does not connect this research to specific
instructional strategies to be employed at the proposed school

The applicant’s organizational and governance plan was unclear; provided no rationale for the
proposed management structure; and provided insufficient detail regarding the applicant’s plans
for evaluation of school leadership and overall performance management. The application does
not include documentation of proper legal structure and fulfillment of minimum qualifications
required by law (Articles of Incorporation stamped by the Office of the Secretary of State).

The applicant s financial plan contained significant errors and raised a number of questions
regarding short and longterm sustainability.

OS’EEAL[ RECOMMENDATiON

— i, - ... r

-i

DENY

APPROVE

[Ic
P. 1 89
School Name: Joseph A. Craig Community School (YALA)

PART3: EVALUATION DETAIL

A. Education Philosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

REcoMMENDATION

The Ed; n Pbhcod, c rihio od I sii Ci:flU P!o,:

MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

Ii; DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS hoQe ehr. 070xj 7:reoeC f,e/eioi:t.


/Iie/Ldr !c
1

An arts-infused curriculum is a viable charter school model that has been successful in a
numberof communities.

The applicant has ties to the arts community and has a successful background of arts in
education. They bring financial resources, human capital and community contacts to the
proposed school site. There is evidence of existing or proposed community partnerships that
are likely to support the school’s mission and educational program.

(Reference Community Support, pp. 14/192, p.32/192, p.16)

CONCE P .5 ‘‘D tDD1TIONAL QUESTiONS -


‘ .7 “ ,.C it r I,

he educational program also lacked opeiational detail, including the educational philosophy,
asscissrnent plans, professional development and plan for implementing proven instructional
techr iques for students attending who have been attending an academically unacceptable school
for years.

In total the application lacked sufficient detail regarding the arts curriculum failing to provide a
clear vision for how student performance at the school would improve once operated by the
applicant. As a result, the application does not provide evidence that the educational philosophy
is effectve or will result in high academic achievement for the anticipated student population.

There is no detail provided regarding professional development to assist teachers in curriculum


development and the use of student assessment data.

The application lacked specific and detailed description of measUrable goais. (Reference
pp.5-16/192, p,
/192)
27

C*A&E Cf’OOL AL’HoRirrQs

P.190
School Name: Joseph A. Craig Community School (YALA)

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

B.Governance, Leadership and


Management

R E Co M M EN DAT iO N
Toe Core, ,:a:ce. ord M;v;pe meat:

MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

() DOES NOT MEETTHE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (1000 cioe max) Inc/ode Pc/enlace, freieioot.

The application includes clear, sensible definition of governing body roles and responsibilities
in relation to management. There is a plan for meaningful involvement and input of parents
and community members in the governance of the school through parent councils, advisory
committees or other supporting groups.

(Reference p 180/192)

CONCERNS AND ADDiTiONAL QUESTIONS (1000 cLr, max) inciode ieferencc, feierant.

The application does not appear to include documentation of proper legal structure and
fulfillment of minimum qualifications required by law (Articles of Incorporation stamped by
the Office of the Secretary of State).

The application states that the charter will be held by a “CMO Managing Board of Directors
that is composed of eleven (11) members who are currently members of the YALA Board of
Directors that [tjhe CMO Board is a Standing Committee of the current Board and that
[tjhe 11 member Managing Board will govern Joseph A Craig School The application
provides insufficient explanation as to the rationale for this organizational structure

Alignment between professional development, student performance, and staff evaluation will
facilitated by the board and school leader needs further development and explanation.

(Reference p.62/192)

-
-:
-
--
CtkRTFRSCFOOLUt4oRl7rRS

P. 1 9 1
School Name: Joseph A. Craig Community School (YA)

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

C Financial Plan

RECOMMENDATION

The Fooricc’! Pee:

MEETS THE STANDARD

iS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS P000 01101. mex) 1ncide iL’fereece. if e1ecee,

YALA that federal funds would not come until September, which, given the
estimates
reimbursement basis of those funds, is a wise cash flow projection.

(Reference Budget for YALA, 1 year cash flow projections tab)

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (7000 char max) Inc/ode rejrence, ifteicoant.

In the start-up budget, concerns exist regarding the amount of revenue compared to
projected expenditures with minimal margin for error should any specific expenditure be
higher than projected This minimal buffer may result in reserve dollars having to be utilized
early on

For the 1st year budget, YALA is projected to spend almost all of the $5.76 million of its
anticipated year 1 revenues. This is based on 100% enrollment. This fund balance leaves
very little room for error. Contingency plans should enrollment not reach 100% are not
presented

YALA does not provide a financial policy and references policies that were not included in the
application or appendices.

(Reference Budget for YALA, 1 year cash flow projections tab, and Budget for YALA, 5 year b
YALA app, p. 82)

-
-
nacsa
I NAUC4AL SSCCAiION OF
C1o&TFR SCI400I

P. 1 92
School Name: Joseph A. Craig Community School (YALA)

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

D.Facilities Plan

RECOM MEN DATION

The Faci!’:es Play::

MEETS THE STANDARD

:• IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (:000 chac max) Include iefr mace, fieIeuaat.

The team has knowledge of the existing school facility.

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (00 ha, rn) Incade mjr.r.mce, f ILIyva I.
The applicant has no demonstrated experience with school facIlitIes, plant operatIons,
renovation or school design

nacsa
P. 1 93
SchoolName: Joseph A. Craig Community School (YALA)

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

ELouisiana Charter Operator


Contract Compliance
CPPJCAELE

RECOMMENDATION

MEETSTHESTANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

fl DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (ooo char, max) Include refrrencc, f mleuant.


Not applicable

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONc O 0 N) Incuic r


1 1 - .- 2-

It is unclear why the applicant refers to Itself as a charter management organization but does
not currently operate any schools or state any intentions to operate multiple schools.

nacsa
P. 1 94
______________________________________

EXECUTiVE SIJMPIARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS December / 2010 (MO/YR)


(updated 1 0/10)
Receive & Refer Contact Person: Erin Bendilv
Action Phone Number: (225) 342-3640
X Information

Recovery School District Committee AGENDA

Item #IVB.4.s. Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


Linear SABIS Academy— Shreveport Charter School Association. Inc.

RECOMMENDATION: Receive

Background on application and evaluation process:


A Request fur Applications to operate Linear Leadership Academy in Caddo Parish was released in
August, 2010. Two organizations applied to operate the school.

On behalf of the Board and Department, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
(NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compliance with the Principals and Standards
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written application evaluation, applicant interviews,
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local and national evaluators who brought
expertise in areas of curriculum, management, finance, and the management of urban charter schools.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process, conducted completeness checks, and
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators in reviewing the applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1, 2010.

Applicant information:
Shreveport Charter School Association, Inc., submitted a Type 5 charter application to operate Linear
SABIS Academy in Caddo Parish. The proposed school will serve approximately 300 students in its first
year in grades 6-8 and approximately 500 students in grades 6-8 at full capacity. The organization
proposes to contract with SABIS.

Shreveport Charter School Association, Inc., currently operates Linwood Public Charter School, a Type 5
charter school in Caddo Parish.

Summary of recommendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only those Type 5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. NACSA’s evaluation team has recommended
approval of the Type 5 charter application submitted by Shreveport Charter School Association, Inc., to
operate Linear SABIS Academy. A copy of the Evaluation and Recommendation Summary is attached.
While Shreveport Charter School Association. Inc. submitted a strong written proposal. the Department is
not recommending approval of this application due to slow academic growth at Linwood Public Charter
School and the need for the operator to focus on academic improvement at its existing school prior to
being granted an additional charter.

Implications of proposed recommendation -- benefits and problematic areas:

No problematic areas are foreseen as a result of this proposed recommendation.


P. 1 95
Charter School Application
External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Provided to the
Louisiana Department ofEducation

DATE

October28, 2010
SCHOOL NAME

:4 • : • •..

CHARTER SCHOOL TYPE

pe

independent Review Team Members


REVIEW TEAM LEAD

;._ .•‘ • •. .s •?v.2,. .

EVALUATORS

iette

Dawn Ofodi

DEVELOPED ST THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


OF CHARTEP SCHOOt AUTHORiZERS

nacsa
El 97
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

s’ C’L

Linear SABIS Ac demy

PUCNT SC Z-TC

Shreveport Charter School, Inc.

YA ER

GRADE L V LS
6-8 6-8

ROJECTED ENS LLMENT


300 500

MISSION

The Schools mission is to be a provider of top quality education to a highly


diverse student body. The School will prepare all students for admission
to college, equip them with the ability and desire for lifelong learning, and
strengthen their civic, ethical, and moral values. The School will maintain high
standards of efficiency and accountability throughout its operation.

SCHOOL LEA ERSHIP

not yet identified

OVERNANCE

Gard Wayt, David A. Barr, Travis H. Morehart, Keidra Phillips Burrell, Willie
Caldwell, Willie H. Phillips, Shanna L. Hicks

I I 01

P. 1 98
S hool N m Linear SAB S Academy

PART 2: RECOMMENDATtON

ANALYSiS t.’ fl

ti’j I L 3iJ 5 St I

This application as submtt d by Shreveport Chart r School, mc, proposing to operate the
current Linear Leadership Acad my in Shreveport as Linear SABIS Acad my. The Evatuation
Team believes that the applicants can effectively manage and lead a high quality school.

The educational, governance and fiscal plans presented within the application are strong and
comprehensive The pplication pre ented a trategic approa h to improving student
achievem nt and provides a ci ar sense of what the school will be like in action. The interview
indicated a capable, stable board with the skills and knowledge necessary to oversee the school.
The board will contract with SABIS, an experienced educational service provider (ESP) with over
70 schools, to provide all services, educational and management, required.

The SABIS model is a highly structured approach to education. The educational philosophy rests
on a tightly scripted and rigorously paced educational program with a focus on closing the
learning gap. The model provides an infrastructure, organized curriculum, a common approach
and numerous resources. The proposal includes a robust plan for student acceleration which
utilizes diagnostic testing, grouping, and tailored textbooks to provide an appropriate pathway
for each student.

The board has currently contracts with SABIS to manage another school, Linwood Academy in
Shreveport, and has established an effective working relationship. During the interview, board
members provided examples of reporting and monitoring processes as well as examples of how
disagreements were resolved with SABIS. The Evaluation Team believes that they have
sufficient expertise to provide the oversight necessary to monitor the school’s programs and it
was apparent that they are committed to doing so. As one board member said, “We love
SABIS, but we love the kids more.”

The applicants have strong local ties and the application provided specific reference to Linear,
its population and its past performance. The board, which includes two graduates of Linear,
expressed a sense of the school’s history and role in the local community, highlighted by the list
of its prestigious graduates one brought to the interview. The board’s other school has a
established partnership with a local university.

OVE L arc i 1ENDTlCN

I i.Ierprcr
II , y

o NI

S DROVE

nacsa
ARTP t5
’E1’’,, 1
CF

P. 1 99
chl r”c. linear SAPIS c dtn,v

PART3:EVALUATION DETAIL

A. Education Philosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

R’ -( ‘‘.

‘ET’ THE S DC.i )

IS ,P’POA( -,1NC 1-’F

r(,[c .cT MEET THE S

Si RE .C 1 S C’C ‘I

The edLic.aton plan is cunsistunt snd comprehensive and effectively makes the connection
across assessment, curriculum and instructional methodology. The proposal centered on the
SABIS educational plan which is used in the other schools they manage; prominent features
include an emphasis on closing the learning gap as quickly as possible through a scripted and
very structured curriculum, frequent assessments and data driven instruction, pacing charts,
extensive professional development support for the SABIS method, and use of SABIS
materials and methods in all academic areas.

The proposal includes a obust plan for student acceleration. While it will be challenging to
re-teach concepts while maintaining required pacing chart progress, the SABIS method uses
diagnostic testing, grouping, and tailored textbooks to provide an appropriate pathway for
each group of students.

cc CFP’S AOADDiTiDq.1 Qc_HONS cc / .,r

The applicant committed to an aggressive School Performance Score (SPS goal of 9 ’o


0
O
within five ears which is notable, and suggested several additional goals which were not
consistently rigorous or measurable. The evaluation team recommends that specific and
measurable goals be required for the charter contract. (Reference pp. 27-29)

g
P.2UU
School Name: Linear SABIS Academy

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

B.Governance, Leadership and


Management

RECOMMENDATION

1 i c. Lcc r u

• MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

Si RENGTHS (;ooo cha x) hid tefriLt I

The board possess the necessary legal, fiscal and governance expertise to oversee the school.
In addition, the board has strong local ties and which include Linear alumni. The board is very
self aware of areas where they can add additional expertise and is in the process of
interviewing candidates.

The board has invested heavily in their own development, including national conferences and
regular training by a well-known expert in charter school governance During the interview,
board members provided specific examples of monitoring the school’s program and working
with SABIS to resolve issues.

During the interview, the board presented a plan for governing two schools. Members, two of
whom are former members of the Parish school board, have experience overseeing multiple
schools. In addition, they will partner the schools through joint professional development,
health clinics, and celebrations.

CONC RNS AND ADDITIONAL QUES iONS ( hi o) I u ui ui C u Iiiau


The Board has not yet developed an evaluation protocol to evaluate its educational service
provider (ESP), SABIS. At Linwood Academy, the board appears to have effectively
monitored the academic and operational programs; during the interview, they provided
examples of how monitoring led to changes in procedures. The evaluation team recommends
that the board formaize these procedures by developing an evaluation protocol prior to
opening.

- : - --

P.201
School Nam Linear SABI Acad my

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

C. Financial Plan

ECOMMENDATiGN

• MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACHING HE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

ST P EN GTH S ( 000 a n]ox) Include t rence, f, ele ‘ant


The plans appear to be financially viable, despite a first-year deficit, and the school has
budgeted sufficient funds. The budget was conservative in that only the Minimum Foundation
Program (MFP) and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA funding was budgeted.
Additional funds from “Title” programs will be included when awarded.

While the average teacher salary is lower than the Parish average, it is part of the SABIS
model to reward performance and to provide a more supportive environment in place of a
larger salary.

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (iOr rIlOf ?riflX) de iejer’nce, ifleluiaiit


lnc
u
t

nacsa
A1OI L ,CC”
(HAR,FF _C’’COI’F”
F

F. 202
c hool Jam Line r SABIS Academy

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

D.Facilities Plan

@ NT ;pr C/L

RECOMENDAT)0N

The I-nra r

MEETS THE STANDARD

ISAPPROACHINGTHESTANDARD

DOES NOT MEETTHE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (oco char max) Inciuue iefricno-, Jieirian

This section of the application is not applicable.

This proposed school did not require a facilities plan, as it is a takeover of an existing school.

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ( oco char max) Include reftrencr, ifieieuauit.

nacsa
P.203
5choo Name: tjnear SABIS Academy

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

E.Louisiana Charter Operator


Contract Compliance
NOT APPUCABLE

RECOMMENDATION

Toe LOL s00n cr Oepeor Cootrect Ccr(,once:

s MEETS THE STANDARD

IS APPROACH1NC THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

5TRENCTH5 (7000 char may) Include refeicnce, freleatit.

The proposed board is currently operating another school in Shreveport Linwood Academy
utilizing SABIS as the educational service provider This school completed its first year with a
surplus and is in good standing with the Louisiana Department of Finance SABIS is also
operating another charter school in New Orleans which has several years of operational data
including six years of audit reports with no negative findings or material weaknesses

With regards to student academic performance the New Orleans SABIS school was
commended for exemplary academic groisth by the State Superintendert Linwood in its
first year of operation did not have a school performance score at the time of the application
submission.

(Reference p.98)

CONCERNS AND ADDiTiONAL QUESTIONS (7000 char. max) Inciuae irjrr ncr, [ic! cot

P.204
___________
___

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS December / 2010 (Mo/YR)


(updated 10/10)
Receive & Refer [ontact Person: Erin Bendilv
Action Phone Number: (225 342-3640
N Information Office: Parental Options

Recovery School District Committee AGENDA

Item # 1V.B.4.t. Title: Consideration of Type 5 Charter School Proposals:


Aurora Academy of Performing & Communication Arts — Wilson Community
Development Corporation

RECOMMENDATION: Receive

Background on application and evaluation process:


A Request for Applications to operate Linear Leadership Academy in Caddo Parish was released in
August, 2010. Two organizations applied to operate the school.

On behalf of the Board and Department. the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
(NACSA) conducted the application evaluation process in compliance with the Principals and Standards
for Quality Charter School Authorizing, including written application evaluation, applicant interviews,
and due diligence. NACSA assembled teams of qualified local and national evaluators who brought
expertise in areas of curriculum, management, finance, and the management of urban charter schools.
Department staff managed a preliminary qualification process. conducted completeness checks, and
provided information to NACSA for use by its evaluators in reviewing the applications. Final evaluations
were received by the Department on Wednesday, December 1. 20] 0.

Applicant information:
Wilson Community Development Corporation submitted a Type 5 charter application to operate Aurora
Academy of Performing & Communication Arts in Caddo Parish. The proposed school will serve
approximately 300 students in its first year in grades 6-8 and approximately 600 students in grades 6-8 at
full capacity. The organization proposes to contract with Access Educational Management.

Wilson Community Development Corporation does not currently operate any charter schools in Louisiana.

Summary of recommendation:
Pursuant to state law and Board policy, the Board considers only those Type 5 charter applications that are
recommended by the State Superintendent of Education. NACSAs evaluation team has recommended
denial of the Type 5 charter application submitted by Wilson Community Development Corporation to
operate Aurora Academy of Performing & Communication Arts. A copy of the Evaluation and
Recommendation Summary is attached. Department staff has reviewed the evaluators’ findings and agrees
that they are sound. Therefore, the Department is not recommending approval of this application.

Implications of proposed recommendation -- benefits and problematic areas:

No problematic areas are foreseen as a result of this proposed recommendation.


P.20 5
I.’
narter cnooa ppcauon
bj á1 1*

External Evaluation
and Recommendation
Pro ‘ided to the
Loi,iisiana Deportment of Education

DAT

October 28, 2010


Sd-i :‘ L

Aurora Academy of Performing & Communication


Arts

SCl’CCL T’rPE

Type 5

Independent Review Team Members


REVIEW TEAM LEAD

Hillary Johnson
EVA LU A I PS

Anna Bernard

Paulette Bruno

Dawn Ofodile

Karega Rausch

nacsa
P.207
PART 1: SCHOOL PROFILE

Aurora Academy of Performing & Communication Arts

rj7 OC NIZTIC N

Wilson Community Development Corporation

AR 1

6-8 6-8

OJEcroENRclL1ENT
300 500/600

M I S S C’ N

The mission of the Aurora Academy of Performing & Communication Arts is to


ensure student development into capable, academically competent readers,
speakers, writers, critical thinkers, life-long learners, as well as pioneers and
inventors of art, mathematics, science, and technology.

SCHOOLiFA’;ERSI-P

not yet identified

JVERNANC E

LaVerne Simpson, James Singleton, Natasha Watson-Bellamy, Eva McIntosh,


Tony Scott, Stacey Wallace-Perkins, James Mack, Howard J. Clark

The Year 5 enrollment above is noted as 500/600 because the applications is


inconsistent on this point. Both numbers are included in different sections of the
application.

g
l.2US
-h ,ari,c : Aur r, A( ndmy ‘- Fri f ‘rn ii C’ n,n ur’,catic n Arts

PART 2: RECOMMENDATION

The Evaluation Team recommends that the apohcat’on be denied.

Ouera’l, tho prcpcsci ‘ckei chrit, cl’crence, focus, and rcquireo content. Thc aDphcnt failed
to present a cohes ‘o visic’- for the school. Wi ile the proposed name and rnissio’i suogest an
arts focus, there .as litUe mention of the arts within the application or the interview. The
application indicated that the school ‘‘ould use the Louisiana Core Curriculum, yet it did not
explain how this would be implemented to fit the mission and teaching strategies, or how it
would vepare teachers to implement the 9umerous programs. In several instances, the
applicant indicated that s,nce the schocl was a Type 5 charter that would be returned to the
Parish, they wanted to maintain elements of the current school and Caddo Parish, including
collective bargaining, discipline policy, and the LA Core Curriculum. The application did not
include sufficient detail to indicate that the applicants were familiar with these elements or the
implications for the school’s program.

According to the applicant, the Educational Service Provider (ESP)’s other school achieved a
28°/o increase in 4th grade last year. While notable, an increase in a single year does not
represent sufficient evidence of a high quality academic program, especially in light of the
application’s substantial weaknesces.

The application raised serious concerns regarding the applicant’s capacity to govern and run a
high quality charter school. The resumes and the interview did not indicate the necessary
expertise to piovide the academic, fiscal and governance oversight required, and there was not
mention of future training. There was no description of the relationship between the board and
school Ieadei ship, and local representation/community involvement was a single sentence.

Finally, the application was not carefully prepared. The school was referred to inconsistently as
Aurora Academy of the Performing and Communication Arts, Linear Leadership Academy and
Linden Leadership Academy, making it difficult to determine when items were included as
examples from other schools (e.g. Dreamland Academy in Arkansas, which the ESP operates),
and when items were intended for the proposed school. The application also contained
numerous typos, errors in grammar and punctuation, incomplete sentences, repeated
paragraphs, and illogical responses (8 “After School hours devoted to academics”). Other
sections were out of order, absent or very thin.

—-
,.‘5 ‘-‘--.- .:;--- ,,. ‘‘_.i ‘‘r

. ‘naçs
P.209
Li’ r,ro Arolo ,‘ c’ Prh nir S Corr uoi:ion

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

A. Education Philosophy, Curriculum


and Instruction

-- ‘.EEiS Ti S’JDD

- IS AFP QAC HING ‘H SIAN DARO

• Di)E .‘7 ‘iE1 THE 1Ar.DAi.D

STI.ENGIHS ( t)i:

CCN.CEPFIS AFD A)r)iTIONAL QETIO..S IC : ii’ frr’?) ( ‘j .‘ o ‘ it.

The appicant failed to present a cohesive vision for the proposed school design. The
educational philosophy, curriculum and instruction sections were disjointed, disorganized and
internally inconsistent, and the interview did not yield adequate clarity and content to
overcome these weaknesses. While the application proposed researchbased educational
approaches (e.g. Response to Intervention) and included supporting research, it failed to
present a vision for how the instructional strategies form a coherent educational approach.
The application indicated that the school would use the Louisiana Core Curriculum, yet it did
not contain an explanation of how the curriculum would be implemented to fit the mission
and teaching strategies. The professional development plan lacked specificity and did not
su1ficienty address how it would prepare tcachers to implement the numerous programs
named in the application. Goals were incomplete, insufficiently rigorous and inconsistently
measurable.

P.210
mac I ‘. mc Aurcr Ic d€ ray Per I—rning Cr.mmur calm ri Arts

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAiL

B.Governance, Leadership and


Management

—F(OLFL.-.TiC’

F1EETS 1- I S]A’ Dr.L,

IS I PFDACHINC - HE SIAr.JDACD

• nr NCT MEFr111 s1ANr.cn

STREr.C1F S tJ , .‘rjfL’’

C’)’. R’.S I, .Jt) 1-.JDI1I’DNIL Qc F5rNS ‘C’•. .‘ -

The applicant did not present evidence that the board is equipped to govern a high quality
charter school. The resumes submtted do not indicate the necessary expertise to provide the
academic, fiscal and governance oversight required. While the application asserted that board
members have participated in training, there was no detal provided or any mention of futu e
training.

There as no reference to local involvement cr capacity other then a statement that local
teachers assista Fhe ESP with the application. The applicant is incorporated in Arzona, board
members live in North Carolina and Arizona, and the ESPs other school is in Arkansas.
Parents were named as an important consttuency represented on the existing ArKansas
school’s board, yet there was no plan presented to include local parents on this board.

nacsa
‘..
P.211
School re Aurora Ac adc ry of Performing ‘ i , rnunicaUon Arts

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

C. Financial Plan

ME1S T’: S

IS APPO .CiIIF3C T E S]-,JD,RD

DOES NOT MrT TIE ST.AR

SE’JcTirS ‘ 1’ ‘ . c...1, ‘ir - 1,

The proposed school has budgeted adequate resources. They underestimated local aid and
as such, would have more funcis available than indicated in the budget presented.

cQrE RI S 1’ D Al_i_lOG ./ I - L EIO’ - - ‘‘ - . . -

The appiication did not include an acceptable financial plan. The submftted budget is not in
agreement with narrative components in several instances (e.g. narrative says 180 days
while budget suggests 190 days). The applicant underestimated local aid and as such, would
actually have more funds available than indicated in the budget presented.

Of major concern is the lack Cf financial stahilit of the ESP’s school :n Arkansas. The school
ended the 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years wth defic ts. The independent auditor’s report
for the school was included with the application; the auditor “issued an adverse opinion”
because the school’s financial statements wcre prepared using “accounting practices which
differ from accounting princioles generally accepted in the United States of America.” This
issue was highlighted in the 2009 audit but nc rrwdied prior to the 7010 audit. This lock of
correction raised concerns about the board and ESP’s financial manngement and oversight.

P.212 . -
chool Nam Aurora A ad my of Performing & Communwation Arts

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

D.Facilities Plan

RECOMMENDATION

. tih cc P 11

MEETc THE STAND.PD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (ion C) Dr C Dy) in lude ief reo e,

ThIs section of the application is not applicable.

This proposed school did not require a facilities plan, as it is a takeover of an existing school.

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ;onc (ij’t mox) lnr1de cjrrrcce, fteiivaot

nacsa
P.2 1 3
School Name Aurora Academy of Performing & Communication Arts

PART 3: EVALUATION DETAIL

E.Louisiana Charter Operator


Contract Compliance
NJT , PLICACLE

RECOMMENDATION
Tre Lc’om n Lhoiet Opeirnor CoflIroct C oplooc

MEETSTHESTANDARD

IS APPROACHING THE STANDARD

DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD

STRENGTHS (onc c1or niax) Include ,cfercnce, (, It ‘nut


ement
This section of the application is not applicable The ESP, Access Educational Manag
Corporation, does not yet operate charter school s in Louisi ana.

land
Access Educational Management Corporation currently operates one school, Dream
my, in Arkansas. Accord ing to the applica nt, Dream land achiev ed a 28°k increas e in 4th
Acade
a single year does not represe nt suffici ent
grade last year. While notable, an increase in
evidence of a high quality academic program, especially in light of the application’s
substantial weaknesses.

CONCERNS AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS (700n char max) Include iefrr”ncc. j ic/cu’ ut

g
P.214