The Echo

State Investigation Reveals Widespread Cheating in Atlanta Schools

Deeply disturbing.  What a disservice perpetrated on Altanta's school children!

Well, here we are, celebrating Independence Day, freedom, and democracy.  But, as we attend our barbeques and fireworks, I think it's important to point out that not every deserving Delawarean is free today -- students and families at two of Delaware's charter schools have been taken hostage by the Gov and the DOE. 

Gov. Markell will not share when he plans to sign the latest charter legislation.  His press office has already confirmed that when he does, it will not be a Pencader Charter High School, although that community has generously invited him to return to the school where, just over a year ago, he was a guest a speaker at its graduation.  In fact, intel from teh Gov's office indicates that he will not sign this vital piece of legislation until after the State Board of Education votes on the futures of Reach and Pencader.

Here's the reality - the intention of the original financial legislation sum years back was to include Charter schools as elsewhere in Delaware law, code, and regulations, charter schools are determined to be disticts unto themselves.  Now, some crooked kink is using the lack of foresight of many to indicate that without the newest legislation, Pencader and Reach are not eligible for the same safeguards offered Christina when it had its own financial meltdown.  DOE refuses to respond to contituents regarding this issue.  I know many at Pencader have asked the question - could implementing the finance recovery team allow for their school to continue operating? 

The real raw deal is this:  When Christina was ripped off, the legislature acted quickly to enact the recovery team legislation because Christina was too big to fail, it was signed just as quickly by the state's governor to enable a loan to flow into Christina's coffers so that all due pay received it.  Just as today's bill was written as a reactive measure, so it was five years ago.  The difference is that this Gov. is hiding from his constituents because apparently, EVERYONE IS EQUAL, SOME ARE JUST MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS. Charter students simple do not have the same right to their education as district students.  That's hostage-taking.  And that's the Democratic Word of the Day.

Thanks to all those legislators who've been trying to pump some life into DOE and get Pencader's questions answered before the community shows up at the final hearing.  One last question for you:  If the hearing is held jointly by DOE and SBOE will there be a rep from the SBOE present?

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

"This is an example of how a great idea on the district level was shared and expanded to benefit all of our schools across the state," XXXXX said. "We're thankful for the forward-thinking and collaborative nature of our local personnel."

Answer:  Dr. Lillian Lowery.
Anonymous gets the Good Apple Award of the Day!  Thank You, Dr. Lowery for reading C&E 1st. 

1) I wish this was a heartfelt sentiment.  But, I deeply doubt it.

on Pencader and Reach?

http://kilroysdelaware.wordpress.com/

It appears that Pencader is a no go as of now.  However, some enterprising petitioners have begun lobbying the Gov via his Facebook page, http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=8066779953&topic=21619
Go ahead, Sign!  You know you want to!

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Darby Mary (Governor) > wrote:

Good afternoon, XXXXX:

No signing ceremony has been scheduled yet, but thank you for your invitation. We do not expect it will be signed at Pencader.

Sincerely,

Mary Darby
Scheduler for Governor Jack Markell
(302) 577-8175

http://transparentchristina.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/jack-markell-delivers-budgetary-death-blow-to-delaware-school-districts/

The Gov. has spoken and the legislators have affirmed it.  This is another strong arm tactic to weaken local control and hurt students.  Districts were not given a provision in epilogue language to utilize a match tax to raise funds.  Therefore, the funding for transportation will either 1) have to pass at referendum, or  2) come from local funds that are traditionally used to support the classroom.   Christina will be in a slightly better position than most district as our voters supported last year's referendum, but our neighboring districts across the state may feel this cut very deeply.  Charter schools, too.  No one is immune to this obvious assault on children!

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.