The Echo

From: Cruce Daniel [mailto:dcruce@DOE.K12.DE.US]

Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 11:00 PM
To: XXXXX
Cc: Lowery Lillian; Carwell John; Hindman John; Peterson Karen; Kowalko John; Schooley Terry; Brady Gerald; Henry Margaret Rose; Johnson Quinton; Sokola David; Osienski Edward; Blevins Patricia; Deluca Anthony; Hall-Long Bethany; Hickey Catherine T.; Haberstroh Susan Keene; Moore Dani; Cruce Daniel

Subject: RE: DOE Charter School Accountability-Or-Lack-Thereof Report
XXXXX-

Below, please find information regarding the upcoming public hearing process:

The public hearing required in a formal review of a charter school is conducted in accordance with internal practices of the Charter School Office of the Department of Education. The public hearing is jointly held by the Department of Education and the State Board of Education. The Hearing Officer is appointed by the Secretary of Education to conduct the hearing and a court reporter is present to make a record of the hearing. The hearing is opened by the Hearing Officer, who states the purpose of the hearing, i.e., to give the school the opportunity to respond to the final report of the Charter School Accountability Committee and to receive public comment; recites the notice that was provided; and recognizes the presence and purpose of the court reporter. The hearing officer advises that the record of the hearing will be provided to the Secretary of Education and the State Board of Education, together with any written or electronic comments received by the Charter School Education Associate at or before the hearing, and then identifies the comments which have been received.

The Hearing Officer reviews the order of procedure for the hearing, noting that first any representatives of the charter school who wish to comment on the Advisory Committee’s final report will be heard, and then comments from anyone else who desires to speak will be taken. The attendees are told there is a signup sheet at the back of the room, and are asked to sign up if they desire to speak. A show of hands of all who wish to speak, to determine if it may be necessary to impose time limits on comments, is requested, after which there is a short off the record break to allow those who wish to sign up to speak the time to do so. The intent is to be as liberal as possible as time and reason allow in accepting comments. However, the Hearing Officer may limit comments that are repetitive or cumulative. If there are a large number of people who wish to speak, each speaker may be limited to 5 or 10 minutes. Thereafter, the school representatives provide their comments, followed by comments from others, and the hearing is closed.

I hope this information is helpful-

Dan

Daniel E. Cruce, Esq.
Deputy Secretary/Chief of Staff
Delaware Department of Education

• "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."

• "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 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)."

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

After receiving Sen. Henry's advice, Pencader parents searched high and low for the contact information for the members of the State Board of Education.  Although the state board members are appointed, PAID, government officials and their bios are published on the Department of Educations website, their email addresses have been kept out of the public eye, likely locked in Jack Markell's secret guarded vault in the Governors Mansion. Always resourceful, the Pencader community has succeeded in attaining the state board's email addresses.

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