As explained in more detail above, ASPIRA utterly controls and dominates Hostos Prep, and Hostos Prep retains no real independence. Additionally, the Board of Trustees does not have real or substantial authority for the educational decisions of the Proposed Charter School, as required by the CSL. Further, the applicant inconsistently names the members on the proposed Board in its application. ii. Section 1719-A(5) — The mission and education goals of the charter school, the curriculum to be offered and the methods of assessing whether students are meeting educational goals. As explained in more detail above, the proposed curriculum fails to adhere to Pennsylvania regulations and academic standards. iii. Section 1719-A(6)— The admission policy and criteria for evaluating the admission of students which shall comply with the requirements of section 1723-A.
{02530138v2 }36 Charter schools must abide by several requirements regarding enrollment, including inter alia, giving preference to students who reside in the district. 24 P.S. § 17-1723-A. The Applicant fails to describe a rationale for why it would contemplate an enrollment preference that draws students from an existing ASPIRA-managed school, Stetson. Given that Stetson leadership is proposed to migrate to Hostos Prep, there is an inference that this may eventually redirect the applicant pool for grades 5-8 from Stetson, a middle school, to Hostos Prep and leave the applicant pool of Stetson to consist primarily of those applicants for grades 5-8 which were not admitted or did not enroll at Hostos Prep. iv. Section 1719-A (9) The financial plan for the charter school and the provisions which will be made for auditing the school under section 437. As explained above, the Applicant failed to submit a cohesive, balanced budget as a
result of inconsistencies across the Application materials, including: 1) assuming that the percentage of special education students to total students enrolled in the proposed Charter School to range between 20 percent and 25 percent, and 2) assuming salary increases that differ between 1.5 percent annually and 2 percent every other year. Further, the applicant cannot calculate how much they will have to pay in rent or relocation costs, once they outgrow the current proposed building. These inconsistencies and undetermined values do not allow for a confirmation of the budget’s viability. v. Section 1719-A (11) A description of and address of the physical facility in which the charter school will be located and the ownership thereof and any lease arrangements. In evaluating denials and nonrenewal of charters, CAB has considered whether a charter school is “independent” of a service provider, including management companies, especially
regarding lease agreements. In evaluating leases and similar agreements between a charter school and service provider, CAB has considered the following factors: whether the parties have
{02530138v2 }37 common board members or administrators; whether a written contract “delineates each entity’s responsibilities to the other or payment terms”; whether one party is “enriched” by a “comingling of relationships” between the parties; whether the service provider has done business with other charter schools in Pennsylvania (doing additional business shows a lack of charter school independence); whether the agreement benefitted the service provider; and whether the agreement benefitted the charter school. Pocono Mountain Charter School v. Pocono Mountain School District, CAB Docket No. 2010-06 at 25-29; I-Lead Charter School v. Reading School District, CAB Docket No. 2016-05 at 30-35. Further, a charter school may only disburse funds for “charter school purposes only.” Pocono at 25 (interpreting 24 P.S. § 17-1714-A(4)). As a result, a charter school cannot conduct its business to financially benefit a service provider.
Hostos Prep plans to open at ASPIRA’s headquarters. However, based on its enrollment predictions, Hostos Prep will outgrow that space by the beginning of Year 2 and plans to provide portable, modular classrooms to accommodate the educational program. Neither ASPIRA nor Hostos Prep have obtained a legal determination as to whether local zoning permits these modulars. After Year 2, Hostos Prep will need to relocate to a new location, but it has not yet identified a location for Year 3 and subsequent years. There is no way to be sure that the new location will be in the proposed target community. Notwithstanding the proposed move, the proposed lease extends to 2027. Families solicited for Intent to Enroll Forms or other indications of interest were not told of the proposed relocation of the Charter School after Year 2. The Applicant states that the maintenance of the proposed facility is provided by ASPIRA under the Management Agreement; however, the Management Agreement states that
the costs associated with said repairs are the responsibility of Hostos Prep. Further, the Lease Agreement submitted as part of the Application states that Hostos Prep shall be responsible for
{02530138v2 }38 the maintenance and repair of the proposed facility, “whether such repairs be interior or exterior, structural or nonstructural, ordinary or extraordinary, foreseen or unforeseen.” This means that the risk of expensive long-term structural damage has been shifted from ASPIRA to Hostos Prep. Finally, pursuant to the Management Agreement, title to any and all equipment provided by ASPIRA to Hostos Prep or placed by ASPIRA in Hostos Prep shall remain the exclusive property of ASPIRA. ASPIRA requires Hostos Prep to insure the equipment, once again shifting risk away from itself onto Hostos Prep. vi. Section 1719-A(15) - A report of criminal history record for all individuals who shall have direct contact with students. Charter schools must include information on the criminal backgrounds of individuals who will have direct contact with students. Here, the Applicant fails to provide any information on the criminal background history of its identified personnel.
D. The Extent to Which the Charter School May Serve as a Model for Other Public Schools The Board must evaluate the Charter School’s Application with regard to the “extent to which it will serve as a model for other public schools.” 24 P.S. § 17-1717-A(e)(2)(iv). As explained above, Hostos Prep has already failed to show that it is a model for other public schools, as its curriculum does not adhere to Pennsylvania regulations. See Spartansburg Community Charter at 32 (“The failure of a charter school applicant to provide a sufficient curriculum plan has been found to be a basis for the denial of an application because it is evidence that the proposed charter school could not be a model for other public schools…” (internal citations omitted). Upon examination and evaluation of the deficiencies in the Application identified above, the Board concludes that the Charter School does not have the capacity to serve as a model for other public schools in Pennsylvania.
{02530138v2 }39 The Board further concludes that the facts articulated in the Existing Operator section above about the operation and performance of Olney and Stetson do not support approving another charter school to be managed by ASPIRA, at this time. Academic and operational results of charter schools managed by an existing charter management company are important and relevant to the Board’s review to determine whether another charter should be granted which would be managed by the same charter management company. Adding another charter school would divert the resources and attention of ASPIRA from the existing charter schools it manages to the start-up operations of the new charter school. The Board nonrenewed the charters of two charter schools managed by ASPIRA — Stetson and Olney. These nonrenewals were affirmed by the CAB. ASPIRA and the charter schools it manages do not have a track record of success in academics, organizational
compliance, or financial management that lend themselves to further growth. In particular, the Application lacks data points to demonstrate whether any ASPIRA-managed school, including ASPIRA’s Eugenio Maria de Hostos Charter School, the charter school upon which Hostos Prep is modeled, have maintained or improved performance and compliance outcomes with the expansion of charter schools managed by ASPIRA. ASPIRA’s goals related to attendance at Hostos Prep is unrealistic given trends at the existing charter schools managed by ASPIRA. ASPIRA should focus its attention on improving the schools it currently manages, as opposed to opening another. [REMAINDER OF THE PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]
Action Item - 3. Title: Application for New Charter School: Philadelphia Entrepreneurial Development Academy Charter High School (Updated 3.4.2022) Board of Education Meeting Date: 3/3/2022 WHEREAS, on or before November 15, 2021, the applicant for Philadelphia Entrepreneurial Development Academy Charter High School ("Applicant") submitted an application ("Application") to the Charter Schools Office of The School District of Philadelphia ("School District") to start a charter school, and public hearings were held on the Application on December 21, 2021 and January 24, 2022; and WHEREAS, Applicant is seeking a charter from the Board of Education ("Board") to operate as a school starting in the 2022-2023 school year and serving at scale by the 2029-2030 school year Grades 9-12 with a maximum enrollment of 600 students; so be it RESOLVED, that, pursuant to the representations, statements and materials contained in the
charter school application and concluding document submitted by Applicant and made during the public hearings by representatives for Applicant, a Charter is hereby DENIED; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board adopts the attached Adjudication as the reasons for its decision; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Applicant may appeal or take other action with respect to this decision in accordance with the procedures set forth in 24 P. S. § 17-1717-A(f)-(i). Office Originating Request: Board of Education ATTACHMENTS: Description Type PEDACHS Adjudication Supporting Document
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA BOARD OF EDUCATION ------- IN RE: PHILADELPHIA ENTREPRENEURIAL DEVELOPMENT ACADEMY CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL 2021 CHARTER SCHOOL APPLICATION ------- ADJUDICATION The Board of Education (“Board”) adopts this Adjudication regarding the 2021 Charter School Application (“Application”) filed with The School District of Philadelphia (“School District”) by the Applicant for the Philadelphia Entrepreneurial Development Academy Charter High School (“PEDACHS”, “Applicant” or “Charter School”). For the reasons that follow, the Application is denied. I. Findings of Fact 1. The School District is a home rule school district of the first class organized and existing under the Pennsylvania Public School Code and the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. 2. The Board currently authorizes approximately 85 operating charter schools serving approximately 67,000 students. 3. The Charter Schools Office (“CSO”) assists the Board and the School District in meeting
their legislative obligations under the Charter School Law (“CSL”) and in promoting accountability by exercising oversight for educationally sound and fiscally responsible charter schools as a means of improving academic achievement and strengthening school choice options in Philadelphia.
2 4. On or about November 15, 2021, the School District received the Application filed by the Applicant. (PEDA 1-468).1 5. The Board appointed a Hearing Officer to preside at the hearings to be held on all of the new charter school applications. Pursuant to the appointment letter, the Hearing Officer was empowered to undertake the following actions: “(1) to regulate the course of each charter application hearing, including the scheduling thereof, subject to the approval of the Chief of Staff of the Board or her designee; (2) to administer oaths and affirmations; (3) to issue subpoenas, if necessary or permissible under applicable law; (4) to rule on offers of proof and receive evidence as may be permissible under applicable law; (5) to hold appropriate conferences before or after hearings; (6) to hear and dispose of procedural matters and motions in anticipation of or during hearings; and (7) to take other action necessary or appropriate to discharge your duties as Hearing
Officer consistent with law.” 6. Two public hearings were held on the Application, the first occurring on December 21, 2021, and the second occurring on January 24, 2022. The public hearings were each stenographically recorded.2 7. Supplemental materials were not accepted by the School District. Potential applicants were informed in the “Application Components and Guidelines For Submitting A New Charter School Application For Charter Schools Seeking To Open In The 2022-2023 School Year” form (“Application Form”) published by the School District at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b6QS_RFl-HjFCuZZ2TGPPGStFN1FetqH/view, as follows: Applications must be complete upon initial submission. No supplementary materials will be accepted or considered after submission of the application. All 1 The record in this proceeding will be referred to by reference to the Bates Stamped number beginning with the prefix “PEDA”.
2 The Notes of Testimony from the two hearings will be referred to as “[Date of hearing] N.T. [page number].”
3 documents, policies, and procedures submitted should be specific to the proposed charter school . . .” (PEDA 832). 8. Applicants were also reminded at the December 22nd and January 24th hearings that because the CSO and the Board needs sufficient time to review all of the materials submitted by each applicant, no supplemental application materials would be accepted from any applicant and that the concluding document submitted by the applicant should focus on the information that is already part of the record. (12/21/21 N.T. 9; 1/24/22 N.T. 6-7). 9. The Board has reviewed and evaluated the complete record in this matter, which contains the following documents: a. The Application including all submitted attachments, marked as Exhibit 1 (PEDA 1-468); b. A Powerpoint submitted by the Applicant at the first hearing, marked as Exhibit 2 (PEDA 469-484); c. A list of individuals who signed up and provided public comment at the first hearing, marked as Exhibit 3 (PEDA 485);
d. The CSO’s written Evaluation Report and accompanying documents, marked as Exhibit 4 (PEDA 486-724); e. Legal ads reflecting publication of the hearings (PEDA 725-726); f. Written public comments received by the public comment deadline established by the School District (PEDA 727-736);
4 g. The concluding document filed by the Applicant on February 3, 2022, following the second hearing (PEDA 737-829);3 h. The School District’s Application Form found at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b6QS_RFl-HjFCuZZ2TGPPGStFN1FetqH/view (PEDA 830-874); and i. Transcripts from the hearings held on December 21, 2021 and January 24, 2022. General Information 10. The name of the proposed Charter School is “Philadelphia Entrepreneurial Development Academy Charter High School”. (PEDA 1). 11. The Applicant seeks a five-year charter for the school years 2022-2023 through 2026-2027. (PEDA 1; 1/24/22 N.T. 24). 12. The Charter School would open in year 1 with 300 students in grades 9-11, with 100 students in each grade. Twelfth grade would be added in year 2. At scale by the 2029-2030 school year, the Charter School seeks to operate a grade 9-12 school with 600 students. (PEDA 1, 13, 410; 1/24/22 N.T. 24-25). The inconsistent representation on PEDA 5 is not accurate.
13. The lead applicant, Bernard X. James, III, is currently in graduate school for human resources management at Georgetown University School of Continuing Studies, scheduled to graduate in May 2022. He has a bachelor’s degree from Morehouse College in business administration, which he received in May 2020. (PEDA 6, 201; 1/24/22 N.T. 28-29). Mr. James described himself in the Application as a “serial and social entrepreneur and grad student”. (Id.) 3 The Applicant’s Concluding Document contains approximately 81 pages of supplemental information about proposed courses that was not previously provided to the School District or included in the Application. (PEDA 737- 818). Submission of this information violates the clear and unequivocal instructions provided to the Applicant both before and during the hearing process regarding supplemental materials and information. For these reasons, this supplemental information is not being considered.
5 14. Mr. James is proposed to be PEDACHS’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), the top administrator operating the Charter School. (PEDA 1; 1/24/22 N.T. 27-28). 15. Mr. James has no experience working in public education and does not possess any K-12 education degrees, teaching or other certification, or other educational credentials. (1/24/22 N.T. 28). 16. Mr. James is the only member of the six-member founding coalition who would actually be employed by PEDACHS. One of the other founding members, his mother, Dr. Sharmon James, is a school psychologist employed by the Franklin Towne charter schools. Dr. James made it clear during the hearing that she has no intention of leaving the employment of Franklin Towne schools before her retirement and would not work for PEDACHS. (1/24/22 N.T. 32, 37-38, 41-42). 17. The Application did not identify any other individuals besides Mr. James who would work
for the Charter School. During the second hearing, Mr. James identified four additional individuals who had been identified as potential employees of PEDACHS in the roles of Director of Student Services, Dean, Director of Entrepreneurship, and security, all of which would likely be non- professional employee positions. Some of these positions would not be staffed until years 2 or 3 of the charter. (1/24/22 N.T. 42-43). 18. The applicant has not identified anyone with K-12 education experience who would be employed by PEDACHS in any role. 19. The Applicant copied portions of the content of the Application from third parties, without attribution or permission. For example, portions of the narrative describing the educational programming to be offered has been copied from the ASPIRA Bilingual Business, Finance, and Technology Charter High School (“ASPIRA Tech”) application filed in November 2020. In
addition, the Student Handbook and Code of Conduct is copied from Franklin Towne Charter High
6 School (“FTCHS”). Neither ASPIRA, Inc. of Pennsylvania, the applicant for ASPIRA Tech, or FTCHS are involved in the submission of the PEDACHS application.4 The Applicant admitted during the hearing process that portions of the Application had been copied from other sources that the Applicant believed were “public records”; that the Applicant used those other’s content “as a template”; and used the content without permission from those other entities. (1/24/22 N.T. 60-64). That alone is a concern. A secondary problem resulting from the copying of content is that the Application is filled with inconsistencies because the copied content does not necessarily match up to the Applicant’s prepared content or programmatic intentions. Therefore, the inconsistencies make it impossible to understand what the expectations are in the way of curriculum, programming and operations. A third concern that the copying raises is whether the
Applicant is truly prepared and competent to independently operate a public charter school. Curriculum and Educational Programming 20. The proposed mission of the Charter School is to “to educate inner city youth in Philadelphia to define life on their own terms, through real-world business and technological schooling, programs, and mentoring opportunities to be prepared for life after high school.” (PEDA 1, 4). 21. Priorities associated with that mission are identical to the information provided in the ASPIRA Tech application. (PEDA 489). 22. The Fact Sheet indicates that PEDACHS would be a “project based” school, which was also reiterated during the first hearing presentation. (PEDA 1; 12/21/21 N.T. 53). Project-based 4 Additional content from the Pride Academy Charter School application submitted to the School District in November 2020 is also copied and included without attribution in the Application. The Board understands from the Applicant’s
Concluding Document that Omnivest provided content to both the applicant for the Pride Academy submission and the Applicant here (PEDA 826-828), and therefore the Board does not raise the copying of the Pride Academy content as a deficiency. Nevertheless, the Applicant failed to make appropriate changes to the language in the PEDACHS Application to remove all of the references to Pride Academy Charter School or “PACS”. (See, e.g. PEDA 69).
7 learning is not evident in the curriculum or the narrative description of educational programming. In other places, the curriculum is described as a “traditional core curriculum” without any reference to project-based learning. (PEDA 10). 23. The Charter School would have four pathways for students to take: Youngpreneur, Pathway to College, Innovation or Critical Thinkers (Life Skills). (12/21/21 N.T. 57-59). Very little information is provided about how students satisfy each of the pathways to graduate vis-à- vis the credit requirements or how PEDACHS will support students in completing the requirements of a pathway. The CSO also raised the following concerns regarding the pathways, which the Board finds to be supported by the record and adopts: The Application does not provide concrete plans for how it proposes to support students in completing the requirements of a pathway. Additionally, the pathways do not seem to [be] equal in the time and effort or resources that would be
requirement for a student to achieve said pathway. For example, it is unclear how many hours would be required of a student to dedicate to an internship or job in the Youngpreneur track versus the requirement to be accepted into an accredited college or university if on the Pathway 2 College track. (PEDA 495). 24. Those students who select the Youngpreneur pathway, must seek and acquire an internship or a job with a partnering small or big business. (12/21/21 N.T. 57). The Applicant did not identify any small or big businesses that it would partner with for internships, or how such relationships would be built between now and the opening of the school for 11th graders. The pathways begin in 10th grade. (1/24/22 N.T. 81). 25. The top priority for PEDACHS over the next five years is to “serve a traditionally underserved population through additional specialized service supports, community resources, and
post-secondary focused programming. This may and should result in higher earned income for graduates, professional and technical training for students interested in vocational pathways,
8 professional and academic training for students interested in higher education, and marketable skills such as bilingualism.” (PEDA 4). However, the Application does not reflect the specialized service supports, community resources, or post-secondary focused programming that would be offered. In addition, the Application does not identify what specific opportunities would be provided to students for bilingual education, professional and technical training for students interested in vocational pathways, or professional or technical training for students interested in higher education. 26. The narrative also proposes to offer students exposure to business education, technological information systems, innovative technology instruction, world language education, fine arts exposure, awareness of nutrition, participation in physical fitness, and the development of strong moral character. (PEDA 5, 7, 10, 23). However, the Application does not reflect or provide any
information as to when and how students will be offered such exposures. 27. The Application states: “At PhilaEDA, a high school entrepreneurship class is different from an average high school business class.” (PEDA 11). No information is provided in the Application to support the accuracy of this statement, such as curricular documents reflecting planned instruction for any entrepreneurship class. 28. The Application also references vocational and technical programming and “CTE coursework” that would be offered to students. (PEDA 62). This content was taken from the ASPIRA Tech application. The Applicant is not proposing any “CTE” or vocational and technical courses in the course descriptions provided. 29. PEDACHS would offer block scheduling, with four, 90-minute blocks per day plus one, 30-minute advisory and a 40-minute lunch. (PEDA 15).
9 30. A curriculum was not submitted for any course or grade to be offered at the Charter School. The document included in Appendix 1 is a course of studies, which is essentially a course listing for high school grades. (PEDA 79-110). While a few of the courses include a description of expectations or an overview of units of studies, the materials provided did not evidence planned instruction in any subject area such as the inclusion of a scope and sequence, curriculum maps, unit plans, evidence of alignment with the applicable Pennsylvania standards, or how students would be assessed. The Applicant admitted that the documents in Appendix 1 did not reference or incorporate the State standards in any subject area. (1/24/22 N.T. 70-71). 31. The information in Appendix 1 was compiled by Dr. Sharmon James and Andrea Allen, an individual who works for the Boeing Company in human resources and project management
positions, neither of whom have certifications or background as school principals or supervisors of curriculum and instruction or curriculum writing experience. (1/24/22 N.T. 66-68). 32. It is unknown who would actually prepare the curriculum if a charter would be granted. No one is proposed to serve in a curriculum supervisor or development role. Nor are expenditures in the budget to hire someone to prepare curriculum. 33. Appendix 1 mentions approximately 65 individual courses that students could take. (PEDA 79-110). The Application does not identify which of these courses would be available to students in year 1, when the charter school is proposed to open with 300 students in grades 9-11 but only 12 teachers. 34. Nor did the Applicant address how 12 teachers would be assigned given the more specific certification requirements for high school grades and subjects and the block scheduling structure
proposed by the Applicant. The Applicant could not answer these questions with any detail or evidence of thoughtful planning during the hearings. (1/24/22 N.T. 78-79).
10 35. The College and Career Readiness course references 21st Century skill standards adopted by the State of Washington. (PEDA 107). 36. The Introduction to Technology course references preparing students for intermediate level technology courses in middle school. (PEDA 103). The Charter School would not serve middle school grades. 37. There are no health courses listed in Appendix 1 of the Application. 38. To graduate from PEDACHS, a student must earn 28 credits, which is significantly higher than the School District’s 23.5 credit requirement. (PEDA 21-22, 495). The Applicant did not address a specific plan for credit recovery, other than to say that students “must use a platform approved by the Local Education Agency (LEA).” (PEDA 23). The lack of information surrounding credit recovery reflects poor planning, given that students would enroll in the Charter School from other schools (with differing credit requirements) in year 1 in grades 10 and 11 and
likely be under-credited to graduate compared to the Charter School’s higher credit requirement. 39. There are no expenditures in the budget for Saturday or weekend school, which was a credit recovery option mentioned by the Applicant when questioned at the hearing. (1/24/22 N.T. 88-89). 40. Students must complete one of the four pathways to graduate (PEDA 22); however, the Application does not identify the components of each pathway that students will have to meet, or how the pathways intertwine with the credit requirements. (PEDA 495). 41. The applicant’s discussion about promotion and retention does not reference credit attainment, a deficiency given that this is a high school program where promotion would be driven by earning credits. (PEDA 20-21). 42. The CSO reviewed the curricular information submitted by the Applicant to determine if the materials submitted contained a complete curriculum, evidence of planned instruction aligned
11 to Pennsylvania standards, and establish that the unique elements proposed by the Applicant are reflected in the submission. The CSO’s “Curriculum and Educational Plan” findings have been reviewed by the Board, are found to be credible and supported by the record, and are hereby adopted and incorporated herein in their entirety. Those findings include the following: The Application does not include a comprehensive set of curricular materials to demonstrate that the proposed Charter School would meet grade level requirements as required by Chapter 4, Title 22 of the Pennsylvania Code. A curriculum must contain tangible resources to include goals, assessments, instructional strategies, expectations, and resources for teaching and learning. 22 Pa. Code 4.12(d) states that “A school entity’s curriculum shall be designed to provide students with planned instruction needed to attain these academic standards.” ***
The submitted materials provide a brief overview or course descriptions including unit of study titles and course expectations for the courses the proposed Charter School proposes to implement across Grades 9-12. The submitted materials did not demonstrate full alignment with the Pennsylvania Core and Academic Standards[.] All standards were missing. *** The curriculum materials submitted did not substantiate the Applicant’s claim to provide an entrepreneurial, hand[s]-on, or project-based curriculum and instruction. (PEDA 489-492). 43. Language about the Applicant’s performance goals and assessments plan was copied from the ASPIRA Tech application, thereby calling into question the accuracy of the Applicant’s planning specific to the proposed mission for this Charter School. (PEDA 493-494). 44. Inconsistent references are made to the number of school days (180 vs. 184) to be included in the school calendar. (PEDA 1, 15).
45. The school calendar submitted by the Applicant does not reflect any in-service or Professional Development (“PD”) days prior to the start of the school year. (PEDA 111). The PD plan lacks detail about specific content, goals and opportunities that would be made available to
12 staff, does not reflect mandated trainings, and further lacks detail about an induction program. (PEDA 210-215). The document does not contain any information about what specific learning opportunities would occur, when those opportunities would occur, who would provide the PD, etc. English Learners and Students with Disabilities 46. Inconsistent information is provided by the Applicant regarding its anticipated student body of English Learners (“EL” or “ELL”): 13% of all students on PEDA 42 and 10% of all students on PEDA 62. Similarly, inconsistent information is provided about the anticipated percentage of students with disabilities: 25% on PEDA 42 and 15% on PEDA 61. 47. Neither an ELL Coordinator nor Special Education Coordinator will be hired until year 2. (PEDA 14). 48. The Special Education Coordinator is responsible for writing Individualized Education Plans (“IEPs”) and overseeing the implementation of special education services, as well as
managing outside contractual services that support special education students. (PEDA 23, 32). The Application does not identify who would perform this important and mandatory services in year 1 when the Charter School would not employ a Special Education Coordinator. 49. The following CSO finding is incorporated herein: “The applicant does not provide any plans, strategies, or details on how students with differing disabilities and needs will be served and supported after being identified. There is no discussion of strategies, services, or curriculum adjustments in relation to supporting students with disabilities overall, and the Applicant did not address the challenge of serving each students’ specific needs. As a result, the Applicant does not outline how students with high and low incidence disabilities will be supported.” (PEDA 495- 496).
13 50. The following CSO finding is incorporated herein: “The program models outlined in the application to serve English Learners do not align to the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s approved program models or acknowledge Pennsylvania’s English Language Development Standards for English Learners.” (PEDA 496). Student Enrollment, Health, Safety, Discipline, and Truancy 51. The Student Handbook and Code of Conduct (“Code”) has been copied from FTCHS without permission. The Code as submitted contains information for FTCHS, a wholly separate charter school unaffiliated with PEDACHS, such as the name of employees and administrators of FTCHS, the location of FTCHS, operational information about events and activities at FTCHS that have no relationship to PEDACHS, etc. (PEDA 266-315). 52. The disciplinary description requires parents of suspended students to meet with the Principal or Dean before being reinstated to attend class, which violates Chapter 12. (PEDA 284, 292).
53. The Code reflects a traditional discipline model and not the restorative justice model described in the narrative. (PEDA 509). 54. The Charter School proposes to refer an expelled student to the School District for appropriate placement if the expelled student is unable to find an alternative education program, which violates Chapter 12. (PEDA 55). 55. Descriptions of the Positive Behavior Support system inconsistently differs within the narrative, likely because some content was copied from other sources. (Cf. PEDA 29, 32, 51). Some of the rewards for good behavior included extra recess, which is inappropriate for a high school program. (PEDA 32, 51).
14 56. The Truancy Policy is copied from FTCHS’s Truancy Policy and Program Description. (PEDA 510). 57. Climate support staff are to include security personnel (PEDA 45), but no such employees or contractors are budgeted in year 1. (1/24/22 N.T. 45). 58. The Parent/Student Complaint Policy is copied from some other source because it identifies a Federal Programs Coordinator by name, which is a different name than the name that appears in the Code. (PEDA 315, 405). Neither individual is affiliated with PEDACHS, which is not proposed to have a “Federal Programs Coordinator.” 59. The Admissions Policy includes provisions for zip code and founders preferences for enrollment that, in other parts of the application and at the hearing, the applicant represented it would not have. (Cf. PEDA 1, 50-51, 61, 264-265). These inconsistencies and deficiencies are discussed in the CSO report and incorporated herein. (PEDA 508). 60. The Admissions Policy also refers to the charter school’s website as
www.franklintowne.org, which is a website for a completely different entity. (PEDA 264). The Admissions Policy also does not provide any details on how the charter school would create and enroll from its waiting list. (PEDA 264-265, 508). 61. The student health services description in the narrative is inconsistent with Pennsylvania requirements for medical and dental exams. (PEDA 504). Facility 62. The Charter School would be located 5210-5218 N. Broad Street, Philadelphia 19141 located in Olney neighborhood in the former Cristo Rey High School. (PEDA 75).
15 63. A letter of intent to lease is provided, signed by Father Labatorio, Pastor of Our Lady of Hope Parish, and Mr. James. (PEDA 454-462). The letter includes proposed rent and other leasing arrangements, including the following representation: Tenant’s analysis of the current building condition has estimated that approximately $100,000 will be required to make nonstructural cosmetic improvements and repairs and maintenance, all of which will be paid for by the Tenant at Tenant’s sole cost and expense. (PEDA 455). Financial Planning and Staffing 64. The only individual identified in the Application for employment with the Charter School is Mr. James. No clearances or background checks were provided for Mr. James. (1/24/22 N.T. 46-47). 65. The Hiring and Personnel Policy does not identify the provision of all legally required clearances as a condition of hiring. (PEDA 208). 66. The Application did not contain job descriptions for any position other than the CEO. Nor
did the Application indicate who would fulfill the human resources functions for the Charter School. At the second hearing, the Applicant stated that the business manager would fulfill those functions. (1/24/22 N.T. 30-31). 67. The CEO job description in Appendix 20 of the Application appears to have been copied from some other source because the job description indicates the CEO reports to the “Principle (sic) and the Chief Academic Officer”. (PEDA 203-204). PEDACHS is not proposing to employ a Chief Academic Officer, and the organizational chart submitted does not reflect the CEO reporting to the Principal. 68. The CEO job description reflects responsibilities for developing curriculum, supervising and mentoring building staff, supervises student performance, implements and evaluates
16 professional development programs, etc. (PEDA 203-204). All of these job responsibilities would fall under a principal certification in Pennsylvania, which Mr. James does not possess and is not in the process of acquiring. 69. Various important administrative positions are not funded in the proposed budget until year 2 or year 3, such as the Director of Operations, ELL Coordinator, and Special Education Coordinator, without any explanation of who would fulfill the functions of these positions in years 1 or 2. 70. The Applicant could not explain how the staffing allotment of 12 teachers in year 1 would be distributed among the courses and grades proposed for year 1. Having only 12 teachers for 300 high school students over three grades appears insufficient given the corresponding number of course offerings identified in the Application, particularly given the large number of electives and science courses.
71. In addition, the teacher to student ratio promised in the Application (1:16) is not reachable based upon the actual number of teachers in the budget. (PEDA 14, 492). 72. Various positions are mentioned in the application documents that are not included in the staffing chart or the budget: Assistant Principal, security employees (either employees or contractors), Chief Operating Officer, Director of Special Education, Chief of Educational Support Services, Parent and Community Liaison, Director of Human Resources, Senior Director of Specialized Services & Special Education, HR Clerk, Chief Academic Officer, and Director of School Operations. (Cf. PEDA 14 to PEDA 33, 43, 45, 47, 48, 61, 203, 322, 436-437). 73. The Application does not identify who would be responsible for PIMS child accounting to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, and the applicant could not answer that question during the hearing. (1/24/22 N.T. 56-58).
17 74. The applicant will allow staff to choose between participation in the Public School Employee Retirement System (“PSERS”) or in a 403(b) retirement plan with a 5% employer contribution. (PEDA 49, 243). However, the applicant has only budgeted for 50/50 participation in these plans. (PEDA 70). If more than 50% of the employees chose to enroll in PSERS, which has a significantly higher employer contribution rate, PEDACHS will have insufficient funds to operate. 75. The Internal Controls Policy appears to be written for a different entity because it refers to the “District” and positions that are not included in the Staff List. (PEDA 418-443). 76. The Travel and Business Expense Reimbursement Guidelines are written for “PhilaEDU”, an unidentified entity. (PEDA 444). 77. In addition to the staffing inconsistencies identified above, the budget does not include any expenditures for student transportation for special education students, internships or a contracted
physician. (PEDA 404-416, 504-505, 515). 78. Only $20,000 has been budgeted for renovations, which is $80,000 less than the Applicant’s representations in the letter of intent to lease reflecting renovation needs of $100,000. (PEDA 406-416). 79. The proposed health care coverage identified in the Application reflect benefits that are not the same as the health care benefits that would be offered to an employee of the School District. Examples of the differences are provided in the CSO report. (PEDA 234-238, 507). Governance Issues 80. An entity called “PhilaEDA, Inc.” is identified in the Fact Sheet as the nonprofit applicant for the Charter School. (PEDA 2). The Application states that PhilaEDA, Inc. will incorporate the Charter School. (PEDA 37).
18 81. PhilaEDA, Inc., is an existing nonprofit created by Mr. James to provide mentoring and other services to youth. Articles of Incorporation (“AOI”) for PhilaEDA, Inc. are included in the Application and reflect a state purpose to open a charter school. (PEDA 133-136). The AOI for PhilaEDA, Inc. contain a dissolution process that is inconsistent with the Charter School Law. (PEDA 135). 82. At times within the Application, PhilaEDA, Inc., is described as having management functions over PEDACHS (PEDA 37, 43), even though the Application also repeatedly states that PEDACHS would not have a management company (PEDA 40, 164-165). No management agreement was submitted. 83. When asked if PhilaEDA, Inc., would be the entity that would hold the charter if a charter were granted, Mr. James ultimately stated that a separate non-profit corporation for PEDACHS would be created to hold the charter but that the incorporation process for that entity had not yet
started. (1/24/22 N.T. 36-37). Therefore, PhilaEDA, Inc. would not hold the Charter, and AOI for PEDACHS have not been submitted with the Application. 84. A separate board will be established to operate PEDACHS, separate from the PhilaEDA, Inc. members. (PEDA 37). 85. The Application does not identify any board members to serve on PEDACHS board. In the section where resumes of board members were to be provided, the Application states: “[PEDACHS] is still seeking and building relations with valuable and competent community leaders, corporate executives, and other high level candidates to sit amongst the board of the School.” (PEDA 140). 86. Mr. James is also the sole employee of another entity, Worknard, an entity created in the District of Columbia to provide free life coaching and personal training services to students.
19 (PEDA 383-388; 1/24/22 N.T. 48). Worknard is proposed to provide internship opportunities and free life coaching and personal training services to students at PEDACHS through a “General Agreement” that identifies Mr. James as the contact person for both Worknard and PEDACHS. (PEDA 383-388). When Mr. James was asked at the second hearing why he would not be providing those services to students within his duties or role as CEO of PEDACHS, as opposed to Worknard providing such services, he could not answer the question. (1/24/22 N.T. 48-51). That scenario raises conflict concerns because Worknard, and in turn Mr. James, could be receiving a pecuniary benefit from the provisions of services, even if the services are donated (and therefore possibly deductible by Worknard as a tax benefit). It is unclear how Worknard could provide internship opportunities to PEDACHS students when Mr. James is the sole employee of Worknard
and he would also be serving full-time as the CEO of the Charter School. 87. Worknard was identified as the trade name of PhilaEDA, Inc. (PEDA 139); however, during the hearings, the Applicant clarified that this representation was a mistake and had been rectified. (1/24/22 N.T. 52). 88. The Bylaws submitted in the application are for PEDACHS and call for a governing board of 7-11 trustees. (PEDA 144-159). 89. The Bylaws also call for an Executive Committee consisting of 5 members, which could constitute a quorum of the entire board. The Bylaws permit the Executive Committee to take action on behalf of the board, but do not require the Executive Committee or other committees to meet in accordance with the Sunshine Law. (PEDA 145) 90. The board committees identified in the Bylaws (PEDA 147) differ from the board committees identified in the narrative (PEDA 37, 39).
20 91. The authority granted to the Personnel Committee to make final decision related to hiring, firing and disciplinary action is inconsistent with the CSL and the Sunshine Law. (PEDA 147). 92. The conflict of interest policy (PEDA 160-163) does not reference or include conflict of interest provisions in compliance with the Pennsylvania Public Officials and Employees Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”). 93. The narrative includes references to a “Service Level Agreement” with an unknown entity. (PEDA 44, 60). It is believed that the content in these sections was taken from the ASPIRA Tech application, which referenced a Service Level Agreement with Aspira, Inc. of Pennsylvania. Inclusion of this content is wholly inconsistent with what the Applicant is proposing. Community Support 94. The Applicant inaccurately states that the Charter School would be located in the Northwest section of Philadelphia when the proposed facility is actually located in North Philadelphia. (PEDA 499).
95. Twelve (12) letters of support are included in the Application. (PEDA 368-391). None of the letters reflect interest from any elected officials or parents. One of the letters is from Omnivest, the Charter School’s proposed business services provider. (PEDA 374-379). One of the letters is from one of the founders. (PEDA 372). Some of the letters do not reflect or indicate a Philadelphia address or association. 96. The Applicant did not provide any information that any student or family is interested in enrolling in the Charter School. 97. None of the Applicants live in the School District. (PEDA 1, 120-132).
21 98. A change.org petition is represented to include 303 “signers,” but the none of the signers are identified other than four comments included in the Application. It is not known whether the signers are residents of Philadelphia. (PEDA 392-396). 99. The Board received one (1) supportive written public comment from a resident of Philadelphia. (PEDA 732). No one spoke in support of the Application at the first public hearing. Multiple people spoke or wrote in opposition to the Application. (PEDA 727-731, 733-735; 12/21/21 N.T. 66-74). 100. The CSO found, and the Board concurs, that the Applicant demonstrated a lack of understanding and consideration for the needs of the surrounding community of the proposed Charter School and future students. In the section of the Application where applicants must describe the student health supports and services that would be provided, the Applicant copied language from the ASPIRA Tech application regarding partnering with various community and
health agencies. There is no indication that the Applicant has established the community partnerships outlined therein. (PEDA 497-498). The Applicant also copied the language in the “Targeted Community Needs” section and the language about local resident and stakeholder needs and priorities from the ASPIRA Tech application. (PEDA 512). II. Evaluation Standards The CSL, Act of June 19, 1997, P.L. 225, as amended, 24 P.S. §17-1701-A et seq., mandates that “[a] charter school application submitted under the [CSL] shall be evaluated by the local board of school directors based on criteria, including, but not limited to,” the following: 1. The demonstrated, sustainable support for the charter school plan by teachers, parents, other community members and students, including comments received at the public hearing;
22 2. The capability of the charter school applicant, in terms of support and planning, to provide comprehensive learning experiences to students pursuant to the adopted charter; 3. The extent to which the application addresses the issues required by the CSL; and 4. The extent to which the charter school may serve as a model for other public schools. 24 P.S. § 17-1717-A(e)(2); 53 Pa. C.S.A. § 303(2). The CSL requires charter school applicants to address the following issues in their applications: 1. The identity of the applicant; 2. The name of the proposed charter school; 3. The grade or age levels served by the school; 4. The proposed governance structure, including a description and method for the appointment or election of members of the board of trustees; 5. The mission and education goals of the charter school, the curriculum to be offered and the methods of assessing whether students are meeting educational goals;
6. An admission policy and criteria for evaluating the admission of students that complies with the CSL; 7. The procedures that will be used regarding the suspension or expulsion of pupils; 8. Information on the manner in which community groups will be involved in the charter school planning process; 9. The financial plan for the charter school and the provisions that will be made for auditing the school; 10. Procedures to review parent complaints regarding the operation of the school;
23 11. A description of and address of the physical facility in which the charter school will be located, the ownership of the facility, and the lease arrangements; 12. Information on the proposed school calendar, including the length of the school day and school year; 13. The proposed faculty and a professional development plan for the faculty of a charter school; 14. Whether any agreements have been entered into or plans developed with the local school district regarding participation of the charter school student in extracurricular activities with the school district; 15. A report of criminal history record for all individuals who shall have direct contact with students; 16. An official clearance statement from the Department of Public Welfare; and 17. How the charter school will provide adequate liability and other appropriate insurance for the charter school, its employees and the board of trustees of the charter school.
24 P.S. §17-1719-A. In addition, cases interpreting these requirements from the State Charter School Appeal Board (“CAB”) and the appellate courts provide additional parameters for the School District’s review. Against this backdrop, the Board examines the Application. III. Analysis Under the CSL A. The Applicant Has Not Demonstrated Sustainable Support for the Charter School Plan by Teachers, Parents, Other Community Members and Students. Section 1717-A(e)(2)(i) of the CSL requires the applicant to demonstrate “sustainable support for the charter school plan by teachers, parents, other community members and students”
24 within the community where the charter school is to be located. 24 P.S. § 17-1717-A(e)(2)(i). “Sustainable support” has been defined by CAB as “support sufficient to sustain and maintain a proposed charter school as an ongoing entity.” Bear Creek Community Charter School, CAB No. 2003-3; Ronald Brown Charter School, CAB No. 1999-1. Sustainable support is “an inherent variable based upon the size of the proposed school, the size of the community and other factors.” Environmental Charter School, CAB No. 1999-4. Sustainable support is measured in the aggregate and not by individual categories. Carbondale Area School District v. Fell Charter School, 829 A.2d 400, 405 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003). The appropriate measurement for sustainable support is against the initial opening and operation plan of the charter school. Bear Creek Community Charter School, CAB No. 2004-2, at 6-7. The proper community to determine sustainable support is the school district in which the
charter school is to be located. Legacy Charter School, CAB No. 2000-14. The support documents, including petitions, must clearly identify that the signers or supporters are school district residents to be considered as evidence of sustainable support. Dr. Lorraine K. Monroe Academy Charter School, CAB No. 2000-16. The applicant must show that “the charter school enjoys reasonably sufficient support from the community”. Brackbill v. Ron Brown Charter School, 777 A.2d 131, 138 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2001). Based upon a review of the totality of the record, the Board concludes that the Applicant has not taken steps to garner sustainable support for the Charter School from those who live in Philadelphia and particularly the targeted community, given the size of the proposed Charter School (300 students in year 1), the size of the community in which the Charter School would be located (the City of Philadelphia), and the volume of support reflected in the record. Reviewing
all of the submitted evidence of community support in the aggregate, the Applicant has not met its
25 burden of showing sustainable support for the proposed charter school and for the overall charter school plan set forth in the Application, as required by Section 1717-A(e)(2)(i) of the CSL. B. The Applicant Has Not Established That It Has Properly Planned To Provide Comprehensive Learning Experiences To Students Pursuant To The Adopted Charter. The CSL requires charter school applications to demonstrate “the capability of the charter school applicant, in terms of support and planning, to provide comprehensive learning experiences to students pursuant to the adopted charter.” 24 P.S. § 17-1717-A(e)(2)(ii). A careful review of the Application establishes that the Applicant has not demonstrated, based upon its support and planning, the capability of providing comprehensive learning experiences to students under the standards articulated by CAB and the appellate courts in Pennsylvania. Governance Structure
A charter school must be organized and operated as a non-profit entity. 24 P.S. § 17-1703- A. To determine whether a charter school will be operated in accordance with the CSL, the appellate courts in Pennsylvania require a review of several different types of documents: the articles of incorporation filed by the applicant; the proposed Bylaws of the charter school; and the management agreement, if any, between the applicant and any proposed management company. Carbondale Area School District v. Fell Charter School, 829 A.2d 400, 407-408 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003). Here, the Applicant has not incorporated a non-profit entity to hold the Charter, did not submit AOI for such an entity, and did not have a basic understanding of the requirements to do so. The inconsistent statements within the Application about whether the Charter School would have a management company or not, and what entity would serve in that role, also reflect a
26 fundamental lack of understanding about requirements and expectations for charter schools in Pennsylvania. Who will govern the Charter School is unknown. Not a single board member has been identified to the School District for an entity that anticipates opening as a public charter school funded by taxpayer money in less than six months. Only one of the founders intends to be employed by the Charter School, in the role of CEO; however, he has no experience or credentials in K-12 public education, and no transferable experience managing a corporation or other entity. No one with educational credentials or experience has been identified to date. The Bylaws provisions noted in the Factual Findings above contain provisions that are inconsistent with a public school operating pursuant to the CSL and the Sunshine Act. Bylaws provisions allowing the Executive Committee or other committees to take on authority of the full
board are not in compliance with the CSL, 24 P.S. § 17-1716-A. Those provisions are exacerbated by the lack of information as to whether committees would meet in public. In addition, the Conflict of Interest policy provided does not reflect charter school governance grounded in the requirements of the Ethics Act. That concern is exacerbated by the potential conflicts that would exist should other corporations (PhilaEDA, Inc., and Worknard) associated with Mr. James perform services for the Charter School without any clear delineation of Mr. James’ role and the overlapping duties that he would be performing while also serving as the Charter School’s CEO. These governance concerns establish grounds for denial of the Application. Curriculum and Educational Program The proposed curriculum for a charter school must, inter alia, show how the applicant will offer comprehensive planned instruction to fulfill Chapter 4 requirements, how the particular
27 subject areas will meet Pennsylvania standards, and how the applicant will deliver special education services to students with disabilities. Bear Creek Community Charter School, CAB No. 2003-3. This is required in order to show how the proposed charter school will offer comprehensive learning experiences to its students as required under Section 1717-A(e)(2)(ii). For the following reasons, the Applicant has not fulfilled this burden. “The curriculum of a school, any school, is one of the most significant building blocks of the educational program at that institution. To not have the curriculum completed and fully aligned shows a lack of adequate planning.” Thomas Paine Charter School, CAB No. 2009-04, at 9. Section 4.4(a) of the State Board of Education regulations, 22 Pa. Code § 4.4(a), applies to charter schools. 24 P.S. § 17-1732-A, n.8. That regulation provides as follows: “It is the policy of the
Board that the local curriculum be designed by school entities to achieve the academic standards under § 4.12 (relating to academic standards) and any additional academic standards as determined by the school entity.” 22 Pa. Code § 4.4(a). A curriculum is defined by the State Board of Education regulations as: “A series of planned instruction aligned with the academic standards in each subject area that is coordinated and articulated and implemented in a manner designed to result in the achievement at the proficient level by all students.” 22 Pa. Code § 4.3. Planned instruction is defined as: “Instruction offered by a school entity based upon a written plan to enable students to achieve the academic standards under § 4.12 (relating to academic standards) and any additional academic standards as determined by the school entity.” Id. A charter school applicant’s failure to submit curricular materials that establish the planned
instruction required by the State Board of Education regulations for the grade levels to be served by the applicant is a basis for denial of the application. Allentown Engineering Academy Charter School v. Allentown School District, CAB No. 2014-01, at 16-18. The charter school’s curricular
28 plan must be fully developed at the time the application is filed. Environmental Charter School at Frick Park, CAB No. 2007-05, at 6-7. In addition, the complete curriculum plan must be submitted to determine if the proposed charter school could be a model for other public schools. Duquesne Charter School, CAB No. 2013-01, at 9 (citing In Re: Environmental Charter School, CAB No. 1999-14, at 21). An applicant would not be a model for other public schools if the curriculum submitted was not fully developed. Duquesne Charter School, CAB No. 2013-01, at 12. To meet the definition of “curriculum” in the State Board of Education regulations, the curricular documents submitted must include the indicators of planned instruction set forth in the regulations, including resources and assessments that will be utilized in each subject area. Spartansburg Community Charter School v. Corry Area School District, CAB Docket No. 2016-
02, at 33. The documents must establish a program that is fully aligned with Pennsylvania standards; if PA Core Standards for the appropriate grade levels are missing, or if the curricular documents cite to standards in use in other States or academic standards that do not exist in Pennsylvania, the curricular documents are not fully aligned. Id., at 35-37. The curricular documents submitted must also give an idea of “how the teacher of the course is to lead the students through the course or gauge whether students understand the concepts and have attained the competencies at the heart of the course.” Id., at 33. The resources and materials to be used in each course must be age-appropriate for the grades to be served by the charter school. Id., at 33-35. Failure to use age-appropriate material creates barriers to learning. Id., at 35. The curricular materials submitted by an applicant must also address the nontraditional
elements of the Charter School and how those elements will be integrated into the curriculum; failure to do so will render the curriculum insufficient. In re Appeal of Community Service Leadership Development Charter School, CAB No. 2010-02, at 11 (citing In re David P.
29 Richardson Academy Charter School, CAB No. 2001-08). For example, where an applicant touted the use of hands-on learning outside the classroom, CAB expected to see lesson plans or instructional timelines to indicate where and how those themes and hands-on learning would be integrated into the charter school’s education programming, and found fault with the applicant where the two lesson plans provided did not reflect any such hands-on learning outside the classroom. Spartansburg Community Charter School, supra, at 39. Further, if an applicant represents that a theme will be integrated into the curriculum, evidence of such integration in the overall curriculum must be apparent from the curriculum maps or documents submitted. Id., at 39-40. Here, the Applicant has not taken sufficient steps to provide evidence of planned instruction that meets and is aligned with the Pennsylvania standards in every course to be offered
in the first year of the charter, as detailed in the Factual Findings above. The documents submitted do not evidence standards-aligned, planned instruction in all core subject areas and electives to be offered at the Charter School. Required content under Chapter 4, such as two World Languages (one of which must be offered in a minimum 4-year sequence) and family and consumer science programming, is not evident. See 22 Pa. Code §§ 4.23(c)(9), 4.25. The Applicant has not provided any timeline or other information as to when complete curriculum would be completed before the Charter School opens or by whom, given that there are no employees or contractors proposed to be hired to create the curriculum. Teachers are not proposed to begin working until mid-August, with the first day of classes for students beginning on September 6, 2022. Because portions of the Application have been copied from ASPIRA Tech, the Board
cannot ascertain what this Applicant is actually proposing to offer in terms of a unique educational
30 programming and mission. The mish-mosh of inconsistent representations in the narrative and the simple list of courses in Appendix 1 does not provide for a coherent description of what the Charter School would offer to students reflective of its mission. Very little information is provided to describe what the comprehensive high school experience would look like for students of varying ability levels enrolled in the Charter School and taking the different pathways; how the proposed programming would fit into graduation requirements; how a student’s experience in the Charter School might include CTE, wellness, fine arts exposure, technology, business and entrepreneurship opportunities, internships or other college opportunities; and what partners would be utilized to implement such programming and opportunities. Another unique aspect of the Charter School’s model is supposedly project-based learning.
Such an instructional model is not evident within the documents available. No curriculum for any entrepreneurship, business or technology courses have been submitted. As a high school, credit attainment and credit recovery towards meeting graduation requirements are extremely important. The Applicant has failed to address these important considerations in its planning. Very little information and explanation is provided for how special education students with a continuum of needs would be served in the Charter School or how students with academic and behavioral needs short of being identified as special education students will be provided with a system of interventions designed to address those needs, as set forth in Chapter 711 of the State Board of Education regulations. Insufficient details about the Applicant’s comprehensive plans in these areas are provided. Based upon these deficiencies, the Board concludes that the Applicant has not established
that it is prepared, in terms of curriculum and planning, to offer a comprehensive learning
31 environment to students at the proposed charter school or comprehensive planned instruction to fulfill the mandates of Chapter 4. English Learners Charter schools are required to “provide a program for each student whose dominate language is not English for the purpose of facilitating the student’s achievement of English proficiency and the academic standard under § 4.12 (relating to academic standards). Programs under this section shall include appropriate bilingual-bicultural or English as a second language (ESL) instruction.” 22 Pa. Code § 4.26. On July 1, 2017, PDE reviewed and re-issued its Basic Education Circular (“BEC”) on Educating English Learners (ELs) pursuant to 22 Pa. Code § 4.26. The BEC on Educating English Learners states in pertinent part: The purpose of this circular is to provide local education agencies (LEAs) with the requirements and interpretations of the legal mandates governing the education of
students who are English Learners (ELs). The information included should be used in designing, staffing, and evaluating effective programs for ELS. These mandates and interpretations are based on the Pennsylvania Regulations, Chapters 4 and 11; and on federal law, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Educational Opportunity Act (EEOA), the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), and regulations and case law under those statutes. BEC at 1. Here, the Application does not include plans to serve English Learners that are consistent with Pennsylvania law or that meets the requirements of the BEC, as detailed in the Factual Findings. These concerns are additional deficiencies in the Charter School’s planning. Financial Planning and Staffing An item that must be addressed in the application and which is relevant to the determination
whether the proposed school has the capacity to provide comprehensive learning experiences pursuant to Section 1717-A(e)(2)(ii) is the school’s financial planning. Bear Creek Community
32 Charter School, CAB No. 2003-3. A charter school is required to submit a budget that provides a sufficient basis from which to conclude that the charter school has considered fundamental budgeting issues and has determined that it will have the necessary funds to operate. Thomas Paine Charter School, CAB No. 2009-04, at 12; Voyager Charter School, CAB No. 2005-09. The budget must be complete, and much clearly identify a plan to address start-up expenses and the source of such funds. New Castle Arts Academy Charter School v. New Castle Area School District, CAB Docket No. 2014-14. Deficiencies in the budget submitted by the applicant can be grounds to reject an application under Section 1717-A(e)(2)(ii). Bear Creek Community Charter School, CAB No. 2003-3. Several material concerns exist with the Applicant’s financial and staffing plan. Many, many positions identified throughout the Application are not included in the staffing plan and
budget, which would adversely affect the year 1 budget by several hundred thousand dollars. Other positions that are necessary to fulfill the functions of the Charter School, such as the Special Education Coordinator, ELL Coordinator, Director of Operations, and Director of Student Supports, are not hired until after the first year of operations, raising questions about who would take on those roles in year 1 and year 2. Under the budget allotment, insufficient numbers of teachers are proposed for the high school model and the proposed teacher to student ratio. Other material errors or omissions related to financial planning and staffing include, but are not limited to: (1) underestimated costs for health care coverage; (2) underbudgeted renovation costs by $80,000 in year 1; (3) omitted or underbudgeted expenditures associated with the student transportation for special education needs or internships required under the curriculum, potential
PSERS costs, internships and contracted physician services; (4) failure to employ or contract with
33 someone to perform PIMS child accounting; and (5) financial policies and guidelines written for some other entity(ies) that are not reflective of the Charter School’s structure or proposal. One important cost driver of the Applicant’s proposed financial plan is the provision of health care benefits to its employees. The CSL states as follows: “Every employe of a charter school shall be provided the same health care benefits as the employe would be provided if he or she were an employe of the local district.” 24 P.S. § 17-1724-A(d). In order to determine if the financial plan is viable and consistent with the requirements of the CSL for purposes of the Applicant’s planning, the Applicant must describe its health insurance coverage plans, and the School District must determine if those plans are consistent with the CSL’s “same health care benefits” provision. According to CAB, such a determination turns on the meaning of “health care
benefits,” meaning what type of items or services are covered by the plan. Gillingham Charter School v. Pottsville Area School District, CAB Docket No. 2016-11, at 68. The CSO evaluated the Applicant’s health care benefits and determined they are not the same as the School District’s benefits, which is a significant deficiency in the Applicant’s financial and operational planning. The other budget and planning concern relates to school health services. Charter schools are required to comply with Article XIV-A of the Public School Code, which prescribes the health services to be provided to students, including inter alia, health screenings and medical and dental examinations. 24 P.S. § 17-1732-A(a). The implementing regulations for the school health requirements under Article XIV-A are found in 28 Pa. Code § 23.1 et seq. Every child of school age shall be given . . . (1) a vision test by a school nurse, medical technician or teacher, (2) a hearing test by a school nurse or medical
technician, (3) a measurement of height and weight by a school nurse or teachers, who shall use the measurement to compute a child’s weight-for-height ratio, (4) tests for tuberculosis under medical supervision, and (5) any other tests as the Advisory Health Board may deem advisable to protect the health of the child. Vision tests shall be given at least annually and other tests at intervals established by the Advisory Health Board.
34 24 P.S. § 14-1402(a); see also, 28 Pa. Code §§ 23.4 (vision tests), 23.5 (requiring hearing test in grades 1, 2, 3, 7 and 11), 23.7 (requiring height and weight measurement by school nurse or teacher at least once annually). “The school physicians of each district or joint board shall make a medical examination and a comprehensive appraisal of the health of every child of school age, (1) upon original entry into school in the Commonwealth, (2) while in sixth grade, [and] (3) while in eleventh grade . . ..” 24 P.S. § 14-1402(e); see also 28 Pa. Code § 23.2. The Applicant’s budget does not reflect expenditures for a school physician to meet those requirements. For all of these reasons, the Board finds the budgetary and staffing planning by the Applicant to be deficient. C. The Application Does Not Consider Or Properly Address All Of The Information Required Under Section 1719-A. Section 1719-A of the CSL requires the charter applicant to include certain information in
its application. The Board believes that the Applicant has failed to include or properly address several items of information as required in this section of the CSL. 1. Section 1719-A(4) – The Proposed Governance Structure Of The Charter School, Including A Description And Method For The Appointment Or Election Of Members Of The Board Of Trustees. Aspects of the proposed governance structure of the Charter School raise concerns, as discussed in more detail above.
35 2. Section 1719-A(5) – Mission And Goals Of The Charter School, The Curriculum To Be Offered And The Methods Of Assessing Whether Students Are Meeting Educational Goals. The Board fully discussed its conclusions about the Charter School’s proposed curriculum and programming above and reiterates that the deficiencies fail to establish that the Charter School will provide comprehensive learning experiences to all enrolled students. 3. Section 1719-A(6) – The Admission Policy And Criteria For Evaluation The Admission Of Students . . .. Inconsistent representations exist about the Applicant’s expectations for the admission of students and the criteria for evaluation of the admission of students, including whether a zip code preference and founder’s preference would be permitted. Those inconsistencies are outlined in the Factual Findings above. The lack of information about the lottery and wait list is also a deficiency. 4. Section 1719-A(7) – Procedures Which Will Be Used Regarding
The Suspension Or Expulsion Of Pupils. Said Procedures Shall Comply With Section 1318. The Board does not know what procedures will be used by the Applicant because the information submitted in the Application is FTCHS’s Code, not the Applicant’s. To the extent the Code would be reflective of the Charter School’s operations and procedures, the information submitted reflects procedures and practices that would violate Chapter 12, and does not reflect the restorative justice model described in the narrative, as delineated in the Factual Findings above. 5. Section 1719-A(9) – The Financial Plan For The Charter School . . .. The Applicant’s financial planning is deficient, as discussed more fully above.
36 6. Section 1719-A(11) -- A Description Of And Address Of The Physical Facility In Which The Charter School Will Be Located, The Ownership Of The Facility, And The Lease Arrangements. Although the address and ownership information are provided, $80,000 in necessary renovation costs to be expended by the Charter School under the letter of intent to lease are not included in the budget. 7. Section 1719-A(13) – The Proposed Faculty And A Professional Development Plan for the Faculty Of A Charter School. The Applicant did not provide a PD plan to address how the Charter School will provide initial and ongoing training to teachers and other staff. No detail was provided about the knowledge and skills that would be addressed at varying points during the school year in order to implement the programs proposed by the Charter School. This is particularly important in the first year of operation when all of the staff will be new and many, if not all, of the staff would not have
experience implementing the unique curricular and educational focus of the charter school. While the narrative sporadically identified some topics to be covered through PD, the Applicant never disclosed specifically when such opportunities would occur; any specific details about the programming that would be provided; how or when mandated trainings would occur for staff; or who would provide the programming. Also, no teacher induction plan was provided. These are deficiencies in the Application. See e.g. New Castle Arts Academy Charter School v. New Castle Area School District, CAB No. 2014-14 (finding sufficient a professional development plan that contained topics, projects/outcomes, responsible parties and standards tied to the National Staff Development Council’s standards for staff development).
37 8. Section 1719-A(15) And (16) – Criminal History Records And Official Clearance Statements For All Individuals Who Will Have Direct Contact With Students. The Hiring and Personnel Policy submitted by the Applicant reflects a lack of understanding about all of the clearances and other required background check information that must be collected from staff and contractors that work with students in accordance with applicable legal requirements. In addition, no clearances have been provided for the identified CEO, Mr. James. These are all deficiencies in the Application. D. The Extent To Which The Charter School May Serve As A Model For Other Public Schools. Pursuant to Section 1717-A(e)(2)(iv) of the CSL, the School District must evaluate the Charter School’s Application with regard to the “extent to which it will serve as a model for other public schools.” 24 P.S. § 17-1717-A(e)(2)(iv). “The failure of a charter school applicant to
provide a sufficient curriculum plan has been found to be a basis for the denial of an application because it is evidence that the proposed charter school could not be a model for other public schools, as required under section 1717-A(e)(2)(iv) . …” Spartansburg Community Charter School, supra, at 31 (citations omitted). Upon examination and evaluation of the myriad of deficiencies in the Application identified above, the Board concludes that the proposed Charter School does not have the capacity to serve as a model for other public schools in Pennsylvania. Further, the Applicant’s actions in trying to masquerade ideas and content from other applications that have been denied by the Board in prior school years and another charter school’s operating documents as the Applicant’s own plans and creations reflect the exact opposite of what the General Assembly intended when it enacted the Charter School Law.