The Echo

Pencader has two lenders who have approved them conditionally for a loan.  The condition?  Funding flowing from the state on July 1st.  DOE has previously informed Pencader that their funding will not flow on July 1 unless they can guarantee they have a loan.  The loan is contingent upon the July 1 funding.  The July 1 funding is contingent upon the loan.  The loan is contingent upon the state funding on July 1.  July 1 funding is contingent on the loan.  The loan on July 1, July 1 on the loan...

Scratching your head yet, or have you already rammed it into the brick wall???

There are lenders out there that believe that Pencader has a sustainable plan to pay them back, operate a school, and be free from financial problems.  At least one of these lenders loans money to the State of Delaware.  They have faith in Pencader.  Why is the state playing russian roulette with our children's futures?

Good evening!
In communications back and forth with legislators, etc. I don’t know if the horror of the timeline over two fiscal years has been addressed to you. It has made our situation even more difficult and although Reach Academy made that one of the 122 points in their complaint we felt it best not to sign on with them. However, let me just quickly tell you how we are impacted here: · Our public hearing is July 13 and the SBE does not meet again until July 21. That takes our issue into the new fiscal year.· We have two lenders who are very willing to help us, BSA Capital of New Jersey, and a private loan here in New Castle.· However, the lenders, rightfully, want assurance from the state that Pencader will be a school, even a school under probation, in the new fiscal year, so that they can be assured of repayment. DOE will not grant that. DOE has frozen our accounts so no current bills can be paid, and they are not depositing funds into our account on July 1 as is typically done.· Our new budget (designed by Bill Bentz of Innovative Schools, formerly with Colonial School District) has a very reasonable repayment structure built into it, something very affordable with all of the expenditure cuts we have made (close to $700,000 per year.)· We had hoped to get some donated money but that did not work out favorably.

We are instituting a Capital Campaign which will aid us not only in repayment but in building a solid financial base from which to work. We simply need to be given a year to prove that what we are doing is right and is workable. We did not create the problem but we have fixed it. The children of Pencader and their families should not be punished because of the real negligence of less than a handful of adults. Thank you for anything you can do for us. Listening is important!

Harrie Ellen Minnehan
President, Pencader Charter High School Board of Directors

Comments in Color are Mine:


From: Longhurst Valerie (LegHall)

To:
Sent: Tue, Jun 28, 2011 11:51 am
Subject: RE: Pencader Charter

XXXXX,

Thank you for your email and expressing your concern. I’ve been involved with the Pencader Charter School since the inception. Sen. Longhurst, how frequently do you visit Pencader? Over the years I have received many complaints and followed up on many issues surrounding the school. Have you heard of the many wonderful things that are occuring at Pencader?  How often have you commended the educators at Pencader for going above and beyond, driving educational outcomes for students who were destined, within the traditional public school, to acheive only mediocrity?  Have you looked at Pencader's student body and acknowledged the significant number of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder who are thriving in the small school environment and whose educational future may be damned when they are tossed back into schools that cannot need meet their idividual needs in the way that Pencader has? PENCADER is able to do so because they ARE a Charter School! I feel for the students especially the ones who will be graduating this year. This is a very unfortunate situation that everyone in Legislative Hall has been discussing. We passed a key piece of legislation last week that would protect students from the failures of Charter Schools by moving the date of closure to enable students to find alternative schooling. I know it is too late for the Pencader students but hopefully we can correct this type of situation in the future. "Too Late"?  It's never too late!  This is one of those times when Delawareans need their elected representation to demand that departments of the state are held accountable.  The NACSA report clearly identifies the DOE/CSO's failure regarding charter schools.  The failures at DOE certainly began before this administration, but YOU, Rep. Longhurst, are one of the few who yield the power to demand improvement.  Punishing Pencader's students for the failure of adults is unacceptable.  You MUST demand more of our State's Leaders.  You MUST stand for the children of this state because they are the ones without a collective voice.  They are the whispers.  In your capacity, you and your fellow legislators must ROAR.  You should be angry, not apologetic.  You should be enraged, not complacent.  YOU must act to protect these students and provide Pencader an opportunity to prove their merit.  YOU MUST ACT TO SUPPORT OUR CHILDREN!

As for Pencader, I just started receiving emails in the last two weeks. I’ve discussed the matter with the Governor and Sec. Lowery. This is a very unfortunate situation but Pencader must come up with the financing before and show it still maintains financial support. Pencader has secured the needed funding, contingent upon written assurance that Pencader will be a school in the 2011-2012 school year.  Yet, the state refuses to assure Pencader that its funding will flow.  They have shuttered the Pencader Accounts knowing full well that a loan is contingent upon them!  This behavior is hostile towards childrens, vendors, parents, and community.  This is an issue that I can not help with. You absolutely can help by demanding that the Pencader accounts be re-activated, and ensuring that the DOE reinforces its committment to students by flowing funds to Pencader on July 1.  It's premature, unfair, undemocratic, and unacceptable to freeze the accounts for this school when the decision regarding its future has yet to be made!  Stand Up for Pencader!  Stand Up for Delaware!  Stand Up for your constituents!  They will remember the bullies on election day, even if you do not remember them! I’ve voiced my concern to Sec. Lowery and as had the other Legislators. I will continue to keep the conversation going but can not make any promises. I hope that you can understand that I was asked to get involved too late in the process. Again, please know that I am concerned for the students and this isn’t a matter I take lightly.  Never too late.  Pencader self-reported to the Charter Office their financial difficulties months ago.  The board enacted corrective action immediately.  They moved on this before DOE did.  DOE did not find the financial problems.  DOE has been negligent in monitoring charter schools.  It has been DOE's refusal to share responsibility for the problems at hand that has led to your constituents to need YOU to intervene NOW!

Please stay in touch as I will also.

http://blogs.delawareonline.com/delawareed/2011/06/breaking-news-hearing-for-reach-is-fast-tracked/

Rep. Longhurst responds to a constituent:

-----Original Message-----

From: Longhurst Valerie (LegHall)
To:
Sent: Tue, Jun 28, 2011 11:51 am
Subject: RE: Pencader Charter
XXXXX,

Thank you for your email and expressing your concern. I’ve been involved with the Pencader Charter School since the inception. Over the years I have received many complaints and followed up on many issues surrounding the school. I feel for the students especially the ones who will be graduating this year. This is a very unfortunate situation that everyone in Legislative Hall has been discussing. We passed a key piece of legislation last week that would protect students from the failures of Charter Schools by moving the date of closure to enable students to find alternative schooling. I know it is too late for the Pencader students but hopefully we can correct this type of situation in the future.

As for Pencader, I just started receiving emails in the last two weeks. I’ve discussed the matter with the Governor and Sec. Lowery. This is a very unfortunate situation but Pencader must come up with the financing before and show it still maintains financial support. This is an issue that I can not help with. I’ve voiced my concern to Sec. Lowery and as had the other Legislators. I will continue to keep the conversation going but can not make any promises. I hope that you can understand that I was asked to get involved too late in the process. Again, please know that I am concerned for the students and this isn’t a matter I take lightly.

Please stay in touch as I will also.

Valerie J. Longhurst
House Majority Whip – State of Delaware

11 Winchester Court
Bear, DE 19702
Dover: 302-744-4351 Fax: 302-739-2313
Wilmington: 302-577-8475 Fax: 302-577-6701
E-mail: Valerie.Longhurst@state.de.us
House Democratic website: www.DeHouseDems.com http://www.dehousedems.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Delaware-House-Democratic-Caucus/

Last week, we posted the email address for the State Board of Education following a recommendation from Sen. Margaret Rose Henry to Pencader families.  Her advice was to lobby the SBOE as the legislature has very limited influence over matters such as closing a charter school.

We have received a copy of correspondance from the SBOE via their counsel, the AG's office to a constituent. Initially, it's an unsurprising email.  Reading between the lines, however, should spark your ire - if you are tax paying low-man-on-the-political-totem pole Delawarean, that is. 

1) If you wish to have a formal comment submitted to the state board of education on a matter that potentially could come before the state board for a vote at some unknown or potentially known date/time, you must submit that item through the appropriate education associate in DOE.

Why?

• Because the DOE has made it so easy for Delawarean to identify just which education associate is compiling various files of unknown information that could someday prove useful. 
• Because we all know that we can trust DOE to be honest, fair, transparent, comprehensive, honest, reliable, unbiased, honest, timely, transparent... and we can rest, assured that our various unknown concerns will be 100% included in the mysterious final record of any unknown issue that could potentially come before the SBOE someday.
• Because Delaware knows that DOE and its puppet, the SBOE are so committed to transparency and living in the light that they didn't need the legislature to mandate that they record their PUBLIC meetings and make those recordings available to the PUBLIC because they meet at a time that is convenient to the tax payers. (Oh, wait, the legislature did have to do that! and the SBOE meets at 1 pm when most of the public is at work.)
• Because we can rest assured that DOE is self-policing and would never need an outside evaluator to identify areas of weakness, flaws, loops that leave an opening for legal challenges.  (Oh wait, that's what NACSA did...)

Enough Sarcasm -

2) If you send correspondance directly to the SBOE regarding an issue that could at sometime be an item voted on the SBOE, expect to receive an email from the Deputy Attorney General in the Delaware Department of Justice. 

This is necessary because:

• The Secretary was out of the office for the day and the Dep. AG fills in for the secretary?
• The DOE office staff is on vacation, likely at their Rehobeth Beach homes?
• Brute intimidation towards those who pay the State Board of Education members?
• Scare Tactic to put the public in it's place?
• The SBOE members are so insulated by the Gov. who appoints them and the Sec. of Education who controls the flow of information to them, that common citizens are not permitted to access these paid appointed employees of the people? Peasants.
• The Gov. and Sec. fear that the SBOE might grow a pair, evaluate the evidence on its merit and determine a course of action other than what's recommended?  (Happened once, under Minner... Could it happen to Markell?)
• The SBOE might hold the DOE accountable for its failures and mistakes?

Sorry, sorry, more sarcasm.

3) After a deep personal struggle, I feel I am morally obligated to share the following email chain.  It has nothing to do with my own disconnect to DOE and the Gov.  I believe in transparency, accountability, and access.  Someone is using the AG to limit access to public officials who hold great power in this state. The policies and procedures that allow this to happen need to be addressed, likely by the legislature.  The processes in place only allow one side of a story to go to the SBOE, the state's side.  The SBOE needs to be permitted to view all documentation - free of manipulation and undue influence.  And I just can't trust that DOE will allow that to happen. 

You may want to read up from the bottom verses down from the top.  The oldest/first email is last.


-----Original Message-----
From: Hickey Catherine T. (DOJ) [mailto:Cathreine.Hickey@state.de.us]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 5:44 PM
Subject: RE: Email communications regarding Pencader Charter High School

XXXXX,

Please let me clarify this matter, as I am concerned that I did not adequately communicate with you initially. It is not that your (or any other persons) email/written messages cannot be part of the record. The regulation I cited and provided the link to describes the procedure by which any comments, electronic or otherwise, can become part of the record. So, if you or any other member of the Pencader family would like to make comments that are part of the record and thus available for the State Board members to read and consider, I encourage you to look at and follow the procedure set out in the regulation. Some, if not all, of the State Board members will not even read the totality of messages that are sent to them directly via email in matters such as the formal review of Pencader, as the Board members are very aware of the need to consider only the proper record in the case when making a decision. So, once it becomes evident that a message is sent outside of the proper procedure, the recipients are likely to delete it without reading it to ensure compliance with the requirements of the law.

Catherine T. Hickey, Esquire
Deputy Attorney General
Department of Justice
102 West Water Street
Dover, DE 19904
(302) 739-7641 (voice)
(302) 739-7652 (facsimile)

---------------------------------------
To: Hickey Catherine T. (DOJ)

Subject: RE: Email communications regarding Pencader Charter High School

Thank you for your email. I fully understand that my or any other person's email/written messages cannot be a part of the record. I will share your information with the members of our Pencader family.

XXXXX

--------------------------------

From: Hickey Catherine T. (DOJ) [mailto:Cathreine.Hickey@state.de.us]

Good afternoon, XXXXX.

I represent the State Board of Education (SBE). It had come to my attention that you have sent an email message to one or more of the members of the SBE about Pencader and the formal review it is currently undergoing. As I am sure you are aware, the matter of Pencader and the formal review is expected to be on the SBE's July 21, 2011 meeting agenda. The SBE must base any decision it makes on this matter on the record, which is defined by regulation. Your email message(s) to individual Board member(s) will not be a part of the record before the Board. I have pasted a link to the applicable regulation (14 DE Admin. Coder 275.3.10) below so that you can review it and see how to make any comments you wish the SBE to consider a part of the record. Anything that is not part of the record as described in this regulation will not be part of the Board's decision.

http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title14/200/275.pdf

Back to work on the NASCA report.  Here's the latest - DOE clears some hurdles with NASCA regarding compliance, at the same time, NASCA finds more deficiencies.  Here's the code:  Bold Black is Good for DOE.  Bold Red is Bad for DOE. Here's the CASCA link again (note: the citation for the following quotation - Page 18/35)http://blogs.delawareonline.com/delawareed/files/2011/06/NACSA_DE_Eval_REPORT_FINAL.pdf

Analysis


As established, DDOE does not execute charter contracts per se, nor are charter contracts required by statute. By law and by practice, the charter application, as submitted, is the approved document. While some material terms are addressed in the charter application, the designation of the application as the charter contract is both an atypical and inadequate practice, as critical elements outlining the roles and responsibilities of both parties - the authorizer and the school operator - are not included in the charter application.

As applied, the authorizer does not have a systematic approach to verifying with statutory requirements or charter terms, nor does it systematically review annual reports charter schools are required by law to submit. However, because charter schools are legally defined as public schools, and must report compliance, operating, and financial information to DDOE in the same manner as do traditional schools, the authorizer is able, to some degree, to monitor compliance and charter term fidelity. In practice, the authorizer has been in taking compliance monitoring actions, as evinced by correspondence sent to schools regarding failure to meet compliance requirements (including charter conditions) and the authorizer's history of placing schools on Formal Review and Probationary Status for non-compliance and other reasons. School operators confirmed the authorizer's active focus on ensuring compliance, though some, if not most, operators interviewed believed that the authorizer's aggressiveness borders on, or crosses over into, micro-managing and unnecessarily impedes school operating autonomy.

Special Note to Charter Operators regarding the final sentence of this NACSA paragraph - You think DOE micro-manages you?  DOE insinuates itself so deeply into school district management, all the while claiming
"its" (whatever "it" may be) is a local issue, that local control has been crippled and will likely eventually disintegrate before our very eyes.

Okay, folks, we are up to page 17/35.  Here's that link again: http://blogs.delawareonline.com/delawareed/files/2011/06/NACSA_DE_Eval_REPORT_FINAL.pdf
If you haven't visited the report, you really should.  We are just posting highlights (or lowlights depending on who you are.)

The following is from Page 17:

The Delaware Department of Education (DDOE) does not execute charter contracts per se, nor are charter contracts required by statute. By law and by practice, the charter application, as submitted, is the approved charter document. Because there is no executed charter contract, the material terms for the school's existence, educational program, and operations are not defined in specific, legally binding terms. Arguably, some educational, operational, and financial material terms are contained in the approved charter contract, but the articulation of such terms has varied significantly from application to application.

• "DDOE executes a Performance Agreement for each newly approved and renewed school. However, the Performance Agreement is not used to annually or periodically monitor school academic and non-academic performance, nor is it the basis for making renewal decisions. In fact, most elements of the Performance Agreement are not examined during the renewal process."
• "Data on academic growth and progress are compiled for renewal review purposes but do not drive renewal decisions which are based, in large part, on whether schools are meeting state performance requirements."
• "There is no consensus within DDOE or the Charter School Office (CSO) on how to monitor academic performance or about whether the authorizer has the flexibility to establish performance-based academic and non-academic goals other than those prescribed by statute. Current and prevailing interpretation of statutes that speak to academic performance inhibit the authorizer from engaging in quality practices that specifically define academic performance goals against which schools will be measured, and ensure academic performance and progress are the primary considerations for charter renewal decisions."

NACSA's document review and site visit elicited little evidence of systematic monitoring and of any aspect of school operations. Though school reporting requirements are largely by statutes and spelled out in detail in the DDOE Technical Assistance Manual, the authorizer does not have a systematic approach for verifying statutory or charter terms compliance, sufficiency of school operations, or the financial viability of schools. Its review of annual reports, which charter schools are required by law to submit to DDOE, is cursory and not guided by policies, processes, or monitoring tools or instruments. The authorizer does not conduct formal site visits or utilize any site visit protocol. Schools receive little feedback on academic, operational or financial performance, except when problems arise. Communication with school operators is largely restricted to correspondence following up of concerns flagged by DDOE staff (often pertaining to enrollment or financial activity) or concerns that have been brought to the authorizer's attention from the school community or other external sources. State law requires the authorizer to prepare and submit an annual report. However, this requirement has not been met since 2006.

Fortunately for Delawareans, a concerned tax payer previously addressed the very last issue with the head of the Charter School Accountability Committee.  Although we've previously printed Mr. Carwell's reponse, we'll post it again:

"I am following up on your request for a copy of the most current Charter School Report. My apologies for the delayed response. You are correct that no reports have been issued since 2007. The reason is that a lot of the charter school information provided in past reports is now available on the Department’s web site under School Profiles (see http://profiles.doe.k12.de.us/SchoolProfiles/State/Default.aspx). When I joined the department in August one of the priorities I was asked to focus on was to republish the annual report. It is an important tool for improving authorizer and charter school accountability and provides a higher level of transparency. The annual report needs to be completely revised. We are developing a new performance framework for charter schools. Clearly, it will be important for the new report to align with our new charter performance metrics. Our goal is to republish the new report in the fall. "

Okay - Mr. Carwell joined the Department in August 2010.  Seven months later, NACSA sees little to no evidence of progress regarding bringing the department into complaince with state law.  According to Mr. Carwell's timeline, such a product should be available this fall.  The question has to be asked - If DOE had abided by state laws in the last five years and authored said report, Would Pencader and Reach be facing closure?

Here's what NACSA says about Delaware's Charter Application Reviewers:
(http://blogs.delawareonline.com/delawareed/files/2011/06/NACSA_DE_Eval_REPORT_FINAL. p.15)

"As established, the decision making process is reasonably clear, though the basis for decision making is not. There is no guidance or explanation provided as to which of the 14 statutorily established criteria, or other authorizer expectations, are or are not non-negotiable for approval, or whether a minimal number of criteria must be satisfied.

"In practice, new school approval decisions are based on an incomplete analysis of charter school applications. CSAC recommendations are based, in large part, on whether an application meets statutory criteria for approval. However, the authorizer has not established meaningful criteria or indicators, other than tools to evaluate curriculum alignment with state content standards, to be consistently used to evaluate applications against statutory criteria. It is not always clear why a school is approved or denied, or the extent to which curriculum alignment reviews are the basis for a final new school (or renewal) decision. Present practice has the potential for reviewers to be partial or biased, or vary in the standards they apply to reviews. Reviewers receive little or no training about review standards or the review process; individual reviewers evaluate portions of the application, but few reviewers, if any, evaluate the application as a whole. The lack of review criteria and the lack of consistency in making decisions could, at some point, lead to authorizer decisions being legally challenged."

(http://blogs.delawareonline.com/delawareed/files/2011/06/NACSA_DE_Eval_REPORT_FINAL. p.15) Graphic Courtesy of Children and Educators First.

The NACSA report released in March continues to boggle the mind.   We've already learned that the DeDOE does not assign anyone to review applications in their entirety, instead carving out subsections to various education associates.  The net result has been no eyes ensuring continuity of the application to fulfilling a proposed-charter school's mission statement.  We also now know that DOE fails to ensure that Charter applicants have the capacity within in their boards and leadership to ensure that a proposed school is actually viable.  NACSA has found that DOE's criteria for educational programming "are vague, incomplete, and overly focused on alignment to state content standards."  There is no requirement for a budget narrative, financial projections, or requirements to share research/data to support a charter's specified mission. 

And that's just part of the application process. 


More from NACSA:

• "As applied and in practice, DDOE has not taken any tangible steps to determine its priorities as an authorizer for new schools. Specifically, the authorizer has not defined educational needs it could or would like to address by authorizing new or replicating charter schools. Likewise, the authorizer has not identified schools in its portfolio, or analyzed how currently operating schools - if replicated - could meet educational needs in certain in any strategic way the characteristics (strengths, weaknesses, uniqueness, etc.) of the communities or among specific demographic groups, and therefore increase quality choice opportunities in the state." (p.11)
• "the application process is not well tailored to assess school proposals that differ from traditional school designs, such as on-line models, alternative schools, or academically rigorous schools specifically focused on under-served communities." (p. 12)
• "There are no high performing schools serving significantly at-risk and disadvantaged student populations" (p. 12)
• "The application for renewal and replication of existing schools is the same as for new schools." (p. 12)
• "As applied, the review and decision making process, including timelines, is generally well understood by charter school applicants and operators. In practice, applicants are given an opportunity to respond to questions raised by reviewers, and to provide additional information prior to, or at, public hearings. However, because the timeframe for such feedback or follow-up with applicants during the review process is not specified or consistently applied, applicants sometimes get minimal advance notice of CSAC questions or concerns before public hearings." (p.13)
• "As established, the application document is not well constructed; in places, it is not clear precisely what information the authorizer is requesting. The disparate pieces of the application do not connect in such way as to allow applicants to present a coherent articulation of the entirety of the school they are proposing." (p.13)
• Specifically, the application is not aligned with a comprehensive evaluation rubric or with authorizer established evaluation criteria. Rubrics used to evaluate curriculum examine items not specifically required by the application. In addition, some application requirements do not appear to be reviewed whatsoever by the CSAC. (p.13)
• "The review process does not include a structured applicant interview of the sort that strong authorizers use to evaluate applicant capacity and cohesiveness. After a charter application is submitted, the CSAC meets with applicants during an informal “meet and greet” session." (p.14)

C&E 1st Note:  NACSA's joking right?  DOE approves charter school applications without ever having a formal interview with the applicant?  I can't get a job without an interview... how the hell can DOE approve Charters and allow children to attend them without interviewing the people applying for and running them? (Anthony White, anyone?) Nearly every highlighted point in this series of posts is a knock on DOE.  But, that's because the majority of NACSA's report is an indictment of a very broken, under-developed process, the result I believe of years of neglect on DOE's part! 

What deeply disturbs me is that at the point in time this report was completed and submitted to DOE, there were two charters going through the review process.  The same committee that has had its wool shorn in the NACSA evaluation, the CSAC, has since recommended closing these schools.  These schools are in trouble primarily because CSAC did not do a thorough job during the application and review process.  Now, rather than fix their mistakes, CSAC passes the blame and moves to close the schools.  How can the State Board of Education seriously evaluate any recommendation that comes from CSAC at this point in time?  DOE has had this report since March and the public has seen little to know action on DOE's part to address the allegations asserted by NACSA... Mind blowing...

Thanks to the Nichole Dobo of the New Journal for digging up this gem (hmmmm... is it me or has there been a lot of digging around DOE of late? Searching for the rubies and diamonds, I'm sure.)  http://blogs.delawareonline.com/delawareed/2011/06/report-from-march-evaluated-doe-charter-school-office/

Here's the link to the report in its entirety:  http://blogs.delawareonline.com/delawareed/files/2011/06/NACSA_DE_Eval_REPORT_FINAL.pdf

C&E 1st notes that the President of the State Board of Education was an authorizer of this report.  Its fairly safe to assume that the full board has read this report and will be aware of these findings going into their vote on the futures of Pencader and Reach in July.

For the purpose of this post, C&E 1st will focus on the highlights of Pages 8, 9, and 10 of the NACSA report (Highlighting and Bolding done by C&E 1st for emphasis.)  The following statements can be found/attributed on Page 8:

• "The charter school law in Delaware provides a framework identifying fourteen criteria that developers must meet to receive approval to open a charter school... In practice, the approval criteria have been interpreted fairly narrowly, creating an environment where reviews of charter school applications are not comprehensive or consistent and are thus open to subjectivity."
• "The authorizer does not have an established process or the evaluative tools to evaluate new charter school applications in their entirety... Few people actually read each application in its entirety, and individual reviewers do not provide comprehensive feedback in any standard format...  As a result, evaluations do not enable the authorizer to determine the extent to which individual components of the application align with each other, with the proposed budgets and financial projections, and with the overall mission and vision for the school."
• "The application decision-making process lacks adequate attention and due diligence to critical areas such as leadership capacity, need or demand for the proposed school, the likely success of the proposed educational program, and applicant capacity to implement and operate the proposed school... there is no place for applicants to address, and reviewers to assess, research or information related to effectiveness of the proposed educational model... As a consequence, CSAC application deliberations do not focus specifically on the viability of the proposed school and how or whether the applicant has capacity to actualize the plan."

The following statements can be found/attributed to Page 9:

• "While the application does not specifically address a vision statement, it requests a statement of the purpose and philosophy of the school. The evaluation criteria do not analyze mission alignment with the educational program or academic goals."
• "the educational program requirements are incomplete and do not elicit a cogent picture of the proposed educational program as a whole."
• "The application also does not require the applicant to address how the proposed learning program will be delivered, a leadership development plan, or position descriptions of school employees."
• "Evaluation criteria for the educational program are vague, incomplete, and overly focused on alignment to state content standards."

The following statements can be found/attributed to Page 10:

• "the application does not require critical information geared toward determining the applicant's plan or ability to create a sound organizational infrastructure or appropriate operations and management systems."
• "application does not require provision of an organizational chart, a description of the leadership model or structure, a comprehensive staffing plan, or a detailed professional development plan, which precludes assessment of the alignment of the organizational plan with school mission and education plan."
• "if a proposed school has a specific learning model - a Montessori program, for example, the authorizer does not require information necessary to ensure teachers will be adequately trained or that the unique aspects of a proposed school design can or will be actualized."
• "The application does not require a comprehensive budget narrative in which the applicant must present assumptions indicating how financial projections are tied to the proposed learning model, unique components of the school design, staffing and organizational plans, facilities plans, fundraising strategies, etc."
• "there is evidence from CSAC preliminary and final reports and recommendations, internal memoranda, case history content and site visit interviews with DDOE/CSO officials and school operators indicating that financial projections and facilities plans are reviewed for viability, reliability, and sufficiency."
• "However, this is not done in any consistent, systematic way, and the review process does not focus on the components or the adequacy of business plan components, and hence, is not a comprehensive assessment of the proposal -including critical infrastructure components - as a whole."
• "For example, the authorizer recently approved a school intended to serve a special education population; however, key questions were not asked during the application review process to assess the viability of the financial plan -enrollment assumptions. The financial plan was constructed on the assumption that at least 60 percent of the school's students would have special needs; the financial viability of the proposed school model was dependent upon receipt of additional funds targeted for special education students. In approving the school, the authorizer did not ask for a contingency budget plan if the school enrolled a much lower special education population -- which now appears likely -- nor did the application ask for, or reviewers inquire into, the recruiting or marketing plan the school would employ to attract its targeted population."
• "the review process does not focus on the experience or qualifications of school founders to start or operate a school, and thus lacks comprehensive assessment of the founding team's capacity to realize the vision of the proposed school program."
• "the review process is limited to ensuring that the composition of the school development group meets statutory requirements (i.e., that the initial founding board includes a parent and a teacher on the board)."

That's the tip of the iceberg.  We'll take on another chunk tomorrow.

Senate Majority Whip Margaret Rose Henry's reponse to a constituent:

Dear XXXXX

Unfortunately the legislature does not have anything to do with making the decision to keep a school opened - it is the State Board of Education that makes the final decision. I would recommend your lobbying efforts be directed to the members of the State Board. I support the school and have heard wonderful things about the students and the progress that has been made academically. I am so sorry about the financial issues. I do plan to support your efforts to keep the school opened.

Sincerely,
Margaret Rose Henry

For those interested in contacting the state board over the Charter School issues or other concerns, here they are:

Dr. Terry Quinn Gray, tgray@doe.k12.de.us
Jorge Melendez, Jorge.melendez@pnc.com
Dr. James, Wilson, imjwilson@comcast.net

Compensation

The compensation of State Board members is specified in 14 Del. C. §104(h), which states the following:

(h) The members of the Board shall receive $100 for each day’s attendance at the meetings of the Board not to exceed 24 days’ attendance in any 1 calendar year; and they shall be reimbursed for the actual travel and other necessary expenses incurred in attending meetings and transacting the business of the Board. http://www.doe.k12.de.us/ddoe/files/pdf/desbe_proceduresmanual.pdf

http://kilroysdelaware.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/new-delaware-charter-school-law-hb205-in-the-pipeline/

Rep. Osienski's response to a constituent:

XXXXX,

I am concerned also with the aspect of closing Pencader Charter. I am gathering all the facts and info and so are my other follow legislators since Pencader Charter student body stretches over many legislative districts many have heard from concerned parents. I have marked July 13th on my calendar so I do not miss the public hearing.
Thank you for your e-mail.

Ed Osienski

Representative
24th District
183 Scottfield Dr.
Newark, DE 19713
Home: 302-292-8903
Office: 302-577-8476

Rep. Kowalko's response to a constituent:

Dear XXXXX

I have read your email and many others that express a similar frustration with the Pencader situation. I have reached out to various departments seeking advice and proposals to try to help. I share your frustration with the process and the finite limits that seem to restrict dialogue in the matter. The Charter school process for review seems to be very limited to the jurisdiction of the Executive branch, DOE and the State School Board but I will continue to seek audiences with those players to continue the conversation on behalf of those affected children.

Respectfully,

Representative John Kowalko

Sen. Peterson's response to a constituent's email request:

XX XXX

Given that we are in the final two weeks of the legislative session -- and receiving more than 100 e-mails per day (not to mention phone calls and letters) -- you might want to give us time to respond before chastising us.

I do not expect to be back from Dover tomorrow night in time to attend the open house. I will, however, request that Dr. Lowery be asked to meet with our caucus this week to explain why DOE is recommending the closing of Pencader Charter in spite of its academic record.

Sen. Karen Peterson

Kenton's Response to a constituent -

Per Rep. Kenton-

The State Legislature will be in session. Therefore the likely hood of my being able to attend is questionable. Thank you for your email and invitation. I wish you and your students all the best and continued success in the future.
Harvey

Margaret Moore Dean
Legislative Assistant/House Minority Caucus

Legislative Hall
Dover, Delaware 19903
Telephone: 302-744-4267
Fax: 302-739-2773
Email address: Margaret.Moore-Dean@state.de.us

From Kilroy's:

http://kilroysdelaware.wordpress.com/

In a letter to Reach Academy, Dep. Sec. of Education Dan Cruce states that John Carwell, the head of the DOE Charter School Accountibility Committee will be their hearing officer.  John Carwell heads the committee that recommended closing the school. 

How can John Carwell be a non-partison player in a hearing that his committee set in motion when it recommended closing the school?

Gov Markell,
How will you ensure that Reach and Pencader receive fair hearings when DOE is stacking the deck with biased officers???

DE Legislators,
What will you do to ensure fairness and integrity is inflicted into these Charter processes?  Background checks is barely a start? How about ensuring the Department of Education follows the laws you pass? 

Remember the voters today, because they will remember you in November...

I used to like TFA.  I was happy when Markell signed legislation a few years back that brought TFA to Delaware.  I was in love with the mirage, young educators coming into hardened city schools to inspire engagement and success. Then I did my research.  Five weeks of summer training for college grads that don't have any education background.  Statistics that show the TFA-ers don't stay in education.  Overhead to the TFA organization in addition to salaries.  You've heard it all before.  I won't digress...

June 16, 2011


Teach For America Establishes Delaware Office; Brings Nearly 30 New Teachers to Join Local Efforts to Expand Educational Opportunity

Teach For America-Delaware Welcomes New Teachers While Many Alumni Continue in Education

WILMINGTON —Teach For America announced today the launch of a Teach

For America-Delaware region headquartered in Wilmington. The organization has placed teachers in Delaware schools since 2009, as part of its Mid-Atlantic region, and now will operate an independent regional office led by a local Wilmington-based team. In addition, Teach For America will welcome nearly 30 new teachers who will begin teaching in Delaware schools this fall as part of the largest national entering corps in the organization’s history. During the 2011-2012 school year, 45 first-and second-year corps members, teaching alongside other dedicated educators, will reach 3,000 students in high-need public schools across the greater Wilmington area.

“Ensuring that every child has access to an excellent education has long been one of my top priorities, particularly when I served as Delaware’s Governor,” Senator Tom Carper said. “I am thrilled to learn that Teach For America will open a Delaware-region headquarters in Wilmington, and look forward to their efforts as a strong and effective partner in education in our state. As we continue to make strides to improve the education of our students across the First State, through Race to the Top and other critical reforms, we are grateful that Teach For America is continuing to build a strong presence in Delaware. Educational excellence for all students is critical to the success of our state and our country, and Teach For America teachers are determined to help ensure our students reach their full potential.”

This year, Teach For America’s talent pool was the most competitive ever: Nearly 48,000 individuals applied, and 11 percent were accepted. Teach For America’s new national corps totals 5,200 teachers who are top graduates from colleges and universities across the country. These corps members represent a wide variety of personal and academic backgrounds and professional experiences. One-third identify as people of color, including 12 percent who are African American and 8 percent who are Hispanic. Twenty-two percent are the first in their family to graduate from college, and nearly one-third received Pell Grants. Twenty-three percent are graduate students or professionals.

Teach For America is building a strong pipeline of leaders in education. Two-thirds of Teach For America alumni are working full-time in the field, including many alumni who are launching innovative efforts to expand educational opportunity.

Teach For America began bringing corps members to Delaware two years ago as state and school district leaders sought an additional pipeline of effective teachers to help address the region’s significant achievement gap. During the 2011-12 school year, the organization will partner with Red Clay and Christina school districts, the Latin American Community Center and local charter schools.

“Teachers selflessly devote themselves to ensuring that our children are properly educated to succeed in tomorrow’s economy,” Senator Chris Coons said. “I’m delighted by the announcement that Teach For America will expand its program in Delaware. Teach For America has a record of training highly qualified recent college graduates to teach in the country’s toughest schools. These teachers work tirelessly alongside other great educators in the state to facilitate an educational atmosphere that encourages students to reach their highest potential.”

A broad coalition of community groups, corporations, local philanthropists, and school leaders have offered ongoing support of Teach For America’s presence in the state. Lead investors include the Rodel Foundation, the Longwood Foundation and the Delaware Business Roundtable.

“I’ve had the pleasure of meeting many of Delaware’s current TFA members and those who will start in the fall,” said Rodel Foundation President and CEO Paul A. Herdman, Ed.D. “They’re a great group of talented and energetic individuals committed to closing the achievement gap. We are glad they’re here to help build the ranks of great teachers working with our most needy children.”

A growing body of rigorous research demonstrates the effectiveness of Teach For America corps members in the classroom. Recent studies from Louisiana, North Carolina and Tennessee found that corps members have a positive impact on student achievement. The Tennessee study identified Teach For America as the most effective of the state’s 42 teacher-preparation programs, with corps members demonstrating a greater impact on student achievement than the average new teacher in every evaluated subject area.

In conjunction with announcing its new Wilmington headquarters, Teach For America named Joe Moorman as the founding executive director of Teach For America-Delaware. As a 2007 corps member, Moorman taught seventh- and eighth-grade English and coached the basketball team at his school in Philadelphia. After teaching, Moorman joined Teach For America’s staff, managing the Mid-Atlantic region’s corporate and foundation partnerships. Moorman holds a B.A. in political science from Xavier University, and a Master’s of Urban Education degree from the University of Pennsylvania.

“I’m thrilled to lead Teach For America’s efforts in Delaware and to welcome our new corps members to classrooms this fall,” Moorman said. “These new teachers are eager to join our community’s efforts to expand educational opportunity for all of our kids. They are poised to have a real impact both as corps members and as long-term educators and leaders in our city.”

About Teach For America

Teach For America is the national corps of outstanding recent college graduates who commit to teach for two years in urban and rural public schools and become lifelong leaders in expanding educational opportunity. This fall, 9,300 corps members will be teaching in 43 regions across the country, while nearly 24,000 Teach For America alumni continue working from inside and outside the field of education for the fundamental changes necessary to ensure educational excellence and equity. For more information, visithttp://www.teachforamerica.orghttp://www.teachforamerica.org/.

From the Vision Network Newsletter:

THE VISION NETWORK NAMES NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Nationally acclaimed coalition of public schools gains new leadership for work ahead

Following a national search, former principal and school leadership expert Mark T. Murphy has been named as the new Executive Director of the Vision Network, a coalition of 26 public schools in Delaware.

Delaware Secretary of Education and Vision 2015 member Lillian Lowery, Ed. D, said Murphy's appointment comes at a critical time. "The Network's growth and the work ahead present a real opportunity for our schools to benefit from a top-notch leader, and Mark's talents are right on target." Vision 2015 member Paul A. Herdman, President and CEO of the Rodel Foundation, added that Murphy is ideally suited for the role. "His expertise in building strong school leadership will help ensure that all students have the opportunity to get an excellent education." That's exactly what we need."

As a Delaware resident for four years with children enrolled in public schools,  Murphy is excited about working in the community where he lives. For the past five years, Murphy worked at New Leaders for New Schools (NLNS), directing programmatic work at the national level and serving as Executive Director of Leadership Development. Prior to joining NLNS, Murphy was an assistant principal and principal in the St. Mary’s County Public School system in Maryland. "I'm excited about the opportunity to work hand-in-hand with our schools, building on  he successes so far, and partnering to take student achievement to the next  level; truly aligning and focusing our efforts on the critical drivers of  student achievement," he said.

Sen. Sokola is the Chair of the Senate Education Committee. From 2005-2006 and for part of 2007 he served on the Newark Charter School Board of Directors.

Sen. Sokola's Response to a Constituent:

XXXXX,
Thank you for your email concerning Pencader Charter High School.

I appreciate your concerns and opinions on this issue, as I have been a long supporter of charter schools. I feel it is important for such schools to have an opportunity to succeed and make an impact in the lives of its students. While I can appreciate that some changes have been made at Pencader Charter School, such as the new leadership, these changes may not be enough to ward off very significant challenges that lie ahead.

You mentioned in your email that the new School Leader had presented a balanced budget for the upcoming school year. I believe that this balanced budget is contingent only upon receiving a loan, which so far has not been granted.

I understand and share your frustrations in that poor planning and bad judgment on the part of the previous administration has caused great hardship for the school. Going forward, we must implement policies to ensure that these schools meet the standards in their Charters, and do so within their budgets.

Thank you again for your email and for contacting me about this issue.
Dave Sokola
State Senator
8th District

Letter from Dori Connor to her constituent regarding Pencader Charter High School:

XXXXX,

Many of us have made inquiry into your situation and are awaiting answers from the Dept of Education and do not know of any action that is taking place to change the course. I applaud your open meeting on the 21st and am hopeful for a successful event.

I am not able to attend your gathering due to my responsibilities and required attendance for Legislative Session in Dover on the day. At this time of year our agendas tend to be quite lengthy and no one can predict the length of debate on each proposal, that is why I am not at liberty to commit my attendance at any function on session days. These next two weeks are our final days with a close-out date of the 30th. Our days are very long and go into the evening and in the last week we have a history of even going in the next morning.

In closing, as a parent and former educator, please know that I have been a strong supporter of families having the opportunity to select the education plan that is best for their child…..be it public, charter or private. Again I regret that I am not able to attend on the 21st.

Yours in Service,
Dori Connor
State Senator

Welcome back to the second story in our series, Better Know a DOE-Staffer.  Today, we'll take a look at DOE's Peter Shulman,  Chief Officer of the Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Unit.

From the Delaware Department of Education website:  Peter Shulman serves as the Chief Officer within the Delaware Department of Education’s Teacher & Leader Effectiveness Unit. In this role, Peter is tasked with leading the human capital reform strategy outlined in Delaware’s winning Race To The Top application. By working closely with Superintendents and Principals throughout the state, Peter will help ensure that initiatives are implemented in a manner that is addressing the unique needs of Delaware’s schools. Prior to coming to Delaware, Peter served as an Administrative Director within Miami-Dade County Public School’s Human Resources division, focusing primarily on the recruitment, placement and retention of instructional employees. Peter is a graduate of the Broad Residency in Urban Education and holds a Master of Business Administration from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from the University of Michigan

C&E 1st Notes on Shulman:

• Shulman is also a board member of the Florida-based SpendforED. SpendforED was created in 2008 by Erik Sussman, Managing Partner of John Hancock Financial Network as a result of a roundtable discussion lead by Alberto Carvalho, Superintendent of Miami-Dade County Public Schools with members of the business community to address the need for supplemental funding admist a nationwide education funding crisis.
• Sussman mini-bio from SpendforED.org:  

Through John Hancock Financial Network’s involvement with Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Mr. Sussman and many of his South Florida Group associates have become part of a growing movement in educational reform. This reform creates public-private partnerships to provide students opportunities to find relevance in their day-to-day studies. Mr. Sussman serves as the Vice Chair for both the Miami-Dade County Public Schools' Academy of Finance Executive Board and the Miami-Dade County Foundation for New Education Initiatives Fundraising Committee.

• Shulman SpendforEd.org Bio:

Prior to joining the Secretary of Education Office, Peter Schulman supervised the six offices that comprise the Miami-Dade County District’s Employee Services division. Further, Mr. Shulman worked directly with the Chief Human Resource officer and other Cabinet members on District-wide human capital and strategic initiatives.

Mr. Shulman was accepted to and graduated from the Broad Residency, a two-year leadership development program that places participants into full-time high-level managerial positions in school districts. Over his residency period with M-DCPS, Mr. Shulman focused on launching a District-wide integrated technology platform and developing a comprehensive instructional recruitment plan.

Prior to joining M-DCPS, Mr. Shulman served as the vice president of operations for Cityfeet.com, a real estate technology company that he co-founded in 1999 and was acquired by a competitor in 2007. In this role, Mr. Shulman raised funding, supervised operations, managed various internal and client-driven projects and grew the company to sustained profitability. Previously, Mr. Shulman worked as a financial analyst at Rockwood Realty Associates, a real estate investment bank specializing in transactional services. Mr. Shulman holds a bachelor’s degree in economics from the University of Michigan and a master’s degree in business administration from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

• Information on the 2007 sale of Cityfeet, the company Shulman co-founded:

From http://apps.shareholder.com/sec/viewerContent.aspx?companyid=LOOP&docid=534160 LoopNet has purchased Cityfeet for an aggregate cash consideration of $15 million, with an additional potential future consideration of $3 million cash if certain performance targets are met. LoopNet expects that Cityfeet will add approximately $1 million in revenues to LoopNet for the remainder of 2007. While Cityfeet has been consistently profitable as a standalone business, LoopNet expects the transaction to have no significant impact on 2007 EBITDA, and to be dilutive to 2007 EPS in the range of approximately ($.02) per diluted share due to various acquisition related expenses. Impact on the Company’s financials beyond 2007 will be incorporated in the guidance given for 2008.

• Shulman in the 2000s: 

From the "Office of the Superintendent of Schools," (Miami Dade County Public Schools)
Board Meeting of August 17th, 2005. 
Subject: Appointments and Assignments of Personnel New to the School District

Mr. Peter Shulman is recommened for appointment to the open budgets position of Executive Director, Budget and Operations, MEP pay grade 22, Business Operations.  Mr. Shulman received a Bachelors of Arts in Economics from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor Michigan.  Mr. Shulman's work history includes Fiscal Policy Intern, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, School District of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Co-Founder  and Vice President of Operations, CityFeet.com, Inc. New York, New York, and Analyst, Rockford Realty Associates, L.L.C. New York, New York.  Mr. Shulman is a Broad Resident under the The Broad Residency in Urban Education Program. This position was authorized at the July 13, 2005 Board meeting, Agenda Item C-82.
http://pdfs.dadeschools.net/Bdarch/2005/Bd081705/agenda/d22.pdf

Well, folks, that's the second edition of Better Know a DOE-Staffer.  Hope we've helped to fill your empty challace with the sustainance of knowledge!

By Christina A. Samuels


Billionaire businessman Eli Broad, one of the country’s most active philanthropists, founded the Broad Superintendents Academy in 2002 with an extraordinarily optimistic goal: Find leaders from both inside and outside education, train them, and have them occupying the superintendencies in a third of the 75 largest school districts—all in just two years.

Now hosting its 10th class, the Los Angeles-based program hasn’t quite reached that goal, but it’s close. The nation’s three biggest districts have Broad-trained executives in top leadership positions: Shael Polakow-Suransky, the chief academic officer in New York City; John E. Deasy, the superintendent of Los Angeles Unified; and Jean-Claude Brizard, who became the chief executive officer of the Chicago schools last month. In all, 21 of the nation’s 75 largest districts now have superintendents or other highly placed central-office executives who have undergone Broad training...

A Must Read HERE:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/06/08/33broad_ep.h30.html?tkn=VZXFVcxO70QSMSI%2F%2FP2EYDT3bndZTg1xTBRj&cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS1

“What I see happening is that they colonize districts,” said Diane Ravitch, an education historian who criticized education venture philanthropy in her 2010 book The Death and Life of the Great American School System.

“Once there’s a Broad superintendent, he surrounds himself with Broad fellows, and they have a preference towards privatization. It happens so often, it makes me wonder what they’re teaching them,” said Ms. Ravitch...

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/06/08/33broad_ep.h30.html?tkn=VZXFVcxO70QSMSI%2F%2FP2EYDT3bndZTg1xTBRj&cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS1

With DOE growing exponentially under its Race to the Top win, we, at C&E First, believe it would serve the contituents well if we began a series on just who at the state level is serving Delaware's students.  Jack and Lil' aren't doing it alone, folks. 

So who are the newbies brown baggin' it in Dover?

Delaware's charter schools seem hell bent on making a name for themselves in the press and the State Board of Education minutes where John Carwell, Jr, who heads the charter school division, usually has some golden nugget to share.

Let's introduce you to John Carwell Jr., Delaware Department of Education Charter School Officer:

John H. Carwell, Jr.

Biography

John H. Carwell, Jr. has a background in public education, federal government and the non‐profit sector. Most recently John served as Vice President of Community and District Partnerships for the Rodel Foundation of Delaware. In this role for nearly five years, he supported promising practices for Delaware charter schools and traditional schools. John also supported the Delaware Charter Schools Network and has served on the board of Kuumba Academy Charter School since 2009.

Prior to coming to Delaware, John was Grants Manager for the Commonweal Foundation, where he supported educational programs and projects assisting disadvantaged youth in the greater metropolitan D.C. area. Prior to that, John served as Program Director for the Institute for Student Achievement, managing school based academic support programs for low‐performing students in several schools in the Fairfax County Public Schools district in Fairfax, Virginia. These programs operated as small learning communities, serving 60‐120 students at each school.

In 1999, John was a Presidential Management Fellow for the U.S. Department of Education in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. He managed grants for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program. John also served in the United States Senate as a Legislative Fellow for the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee focusing on education policy.

John earned his bachelor’s degree in psychology from Delaware State University and earned a Master of Social Work degree from the University of Pennsylvania.

C&E 1st Notes:

• A Check of Kuumba Academy records via the DOE website indicates that Carwell is no longer serving on the board.
• Carwell previously served on the PIRC board.
• The Commonweal Foundation, serving students in Washington D.C. was the child of the Bainum Family, the founder of Manor Care Healthcare, a nursing home management company.  The Bainum family has ties to Delaware.  One brother Robert, operates his own facility independent of the Manor Care franchise right here in Delaware. The Board of Commonweal is comprised primarily of Bainum Family members and Manor Care associates.
• Since Carwell has come into his office, it's been verified that the required annual Charter School Report has not been conducted since 2007.  Mr. Carwell responded to a concerned constituent regarding this manner:

"I am following up on your request for a copy of the most current Charter School Report. My apologies for the delayed response. You are correct that no reports have been issued since 2007. The reason is that a lot of the charter school information provided in past reports is now available on the Department’s web site under School Profiles (see http://profiles.doe.k12.de.us/SchoolProfiles/State/Default.aspx). When I joined the department in August one of the priorities I was asked to focus on was to republish the annual report. It is an important tool for improving authorizer and charter school accountability and provides a higher level of transparency. The annual report needs to be completely revised. We are developing a new performance framework for charter schools. Clearly, it will be important for the new report to align with our new charter performance metrics. Our goal is to republish the new report in the fall. "

Let's see Carwell in action:
From the State Board of Education Minutes for 4/21/11:

• Recommendation for Formal Review of an Existing Charter: Pencader Business & Finance (For Action)
  
  Mr. Carwell indicated that monitoring by the Charter School Office has lead to some concerns about fiscal planning and sustainability. The school has recently gone through a leadership change and a new board president. The formal review process will allow the Charter School Accountability Committee to document the issues and proposed solutions and require specific actions. The Secretary stated that after reviewing the background in this matter, she is seeking the consent of the State Board of Education to place the charter school on formal review. A letter from Harrie Ellen Minnehan, President of the Pencader Charter School Board was distributed to the State Board of Education.
  
  A motion was made by Dr. Whittaker to consent the Secretary’s recommendation to place Pencader Charter School on formal review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Heffernan and carried with the following vote recorded:
  
  Ayes:                                  Nays:
  
  Dr. Gray None
  Mr. Melendez
  Mr. Heffernan
  Mrs. Rutt
  Dr. Whittaker
  Dr. Wilson

• Let's break this one down for you:  The official minutes would lead one to believe that Carwell's office discovered the fiscal issues at Pencader.  In fact, Pencader's leadership found the financial problems first.  The board moved to remove the school leader, board president, and vice president.  They began restructuring before they notified the Department of Education and Carwell.  It was Pencader's board that sounded the warning bells and they moved swiftly to shore up the school's finances.  After re-negotiating their contracts, the school has managed to shave $700,000 from their expenses for the fiscal year beginning July 1. 
• Sadly, Someone in the Charter School Office at DOE failed to notify Pencader that 1) they would be the subject of Board Action at this meeting and 2) send an official document verifying that the school had been placed on formal review after the meeting.  The Charter Office dropped the ball.  For an entire month Pencader leadership believed that they were in informal conversations with DOE and they were very compliant with DOE requests for documentation.  It wasn't until this meeting's minutes were approved by the SBOE in May that Pencader learned of their OFFICIAL status. Carwell, you may want to muck around in the hay and find out who dropped that ball???
• However, Pencader currently needs to overcome a $400,000 deficit for this fiscal year.   When you're talking education dollars, it's important to note that $400,000 is a drop in the bucket.  It comes nowhere near the deficit left to Christina when former superintendent Joseph Wise scadaddled out of Delaware. The state swooped in to bail out Christina, although many of its schools are failing.  Pencader is high achieving charter school.  One would hope that the DOE and Gov. have plans to help Pencader bridge into the next fical year with carry-over funds into September so that they can continue their legacy of success.
• On a side note - Christina is making it's final loan payment this year!!!

Well Folks, that's our first edition of Better Know a DOE Staffer. Hope you enjoyed our fact finding session.  And please, drop us a line in the comments section if you have a recommendation for our next DOE Staffer! 

Oh yeah, and Cap't Sully's plane was transported down I-95!

Now, on to my new role at the DDOE. I believe that charter schools should be the hub of innovation in public education where non-traditional ideas are merged with quality instruction to create great places of learning that serve as models for the entire public education system. It is vital that charter schools provide distinct and unique alternatives to traditional public schools to maximize the potential of students for whom traditional schools may not be the best fit. Delaware is seen as a leader in many ways for other states in the nation, and I'm excited to be a part of the DDOE as it explores new and innovative school models to serve as “proof points” for the entire country.

Hint:  Not Me!

Court Upholds Rule Against Use of Schools for Sunday Worship

By Mark Walsh on June 2, 2011 6:15 PM
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2011/06/a_new_york_city_school.html
A New York City school system rule barring the use of public schools for weekend religious worship services does not violate the First Amendment rights of a Christian church, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.

If that conclusion sounds familiar, it's because the controversy between the Bronx Household of Faith and the New York City school district has been raging since 1994. In the first lawsuit, both a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld the school system's refusal to rent a school to the church, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case in 1998.

Later, the Supreme Court's 2001 ruling in Good News Club v. Milford Central School prompted the church to try anew. In Good News, the high court held that it was unconstitutional for a school district to bar a private Christian group from after-school use of its facilities when it opened them to a wide range of other community uses.

In 2002, Bronx Household of Faith was granted an injunction allowing it to use Public School 15 for its Sunday worship services, and it has been doing so since then while its second legal challenge has proceeded on the merits. The school system now defends its efforts to deny access based on a 2007 rule that prohibits using school buildings for worship services.

A federal district court granted a permanent injunction to the church. But in a 2-1 ruling on June 2, a 2nd Circuit panel ruled for the school system. The majority said the school system had valid, non-viewpoint discriminatory reasons for barring worship services even when it allowed certain other religious activities in its facilities.

"The board could ... reasonably worry that the regular, long-term conversion of schools into state-subsidized churches on Sundays would violate the Establishment Clause by reason of public perception of endorsement," said the 2nd Circuit majority in Bronx Household of Faith v. New York City Board of Education. "A worship service is an act of organized religion that consecrates the place in which it is performed, making it a church. ... Bronx Household and the other churches that have been allowed access under the injunction tend to dominate the schools on the day they use them."

Writing in dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge John M. Walker Jr. said the school system's rule against allowing religious worship services "is impermissible viewpoint discrimination against protected speech and is unsupported by a compelling state interest. In this case, Bronx Household's worship services fit easily within the purposes of the board's broadly available forum and may not be the object of discrimination based upon the religious viewpoint expressed by the services' participants."

Walker said the majority's ruling could not be squared with Supreme Court decisions on religious viewpoint discrimination, and he said the case presented "important doctrinal considerations worthy of the Supreme Court's attention."