Note: The comments in GREEN ITALICS are the explanations from Aberdovey Charter School Lead Founder, Robyn Rogers. The plain text is the actual MUSD Resolution.
RESOLUTION AND WRITTEN FINDINGS OF THE MENIFEE
UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT DENYING THE PETITION FOR A
PROPOSED CHARTER SCHOOL BY ABERDOVEY CHARTER SCHOOL
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board does hereby deny the Petition of Aberdovey Charter School and makes the following findings in support of its decision to deny the Petition:
A. The Petition presents an unsound educational program for pupils to be enrolled in the charter school (Education Code section 47605(b)(1)) in that:
(1) The Petition proposes a project based learning program for elementary grades (K-5) which would involve the primary instruction being on a single topic. As such, this primary focus which will cover 80% of the instructional day does not provide a broad-based exploratory curriculum at the elementary level critical to complying with state content standards. While a project based program may be appropriate for middle and high school age instruction, it does not meet the needs of elementary aged students.
One of the most looming issues or “oversights” is that the school district completely misunderstood the educational philosophy, stating that “the primary instruction [will be] on a single topic.” They even went so far as to question how we would find single-subject credentialed teachers. In fact, we describe the educational philosophy approach of project-based learning as an “interdisciplinary thematic unit.” It means that a single theme (not subject) is chosen and ALL subjects are taught through the lens of that theme (whenever possible). It is intended to create a more connected sense of all subjects, not to focus on a single subject to the exclusion of all other subjects. We include annual curriculum maps for two different grade levels that clearly show ALL subjects being taught in all classrooms.
For example, if the chosen theme was “Bridges” for the year, students would learn their given curriculum based on state standards, but they would relate it to bridges whenever possible, thus furthering their understanding of the theme. In sixth grade, where ancient civilizations are studied, students might study the architecture of ancient bridges while looking at each civilization and focus on what bridges meant to those cultures. They might learn their math through application on the designing and building of a bridge. They may read books and practice reading and writing strategies with subjects related to bridges. They may study the physical sciences of plate tectonics and earthquakes (state standard) by looking at how the earth and its movements affect bridges and how humans have adapted the design of bridges to those challenges. Students are not just learning about bridges. They are applying parts of each new subject or topic that they study to the theme of bridges. They learn all of the content standards for the year just as they would in any traditional classroom. The difference is that they are tying each new bit of information to a common thread, thus expanding their understanding by connecting it to things that they already know – something called scaffolding. In the end, students are given a greater depth in the chosen theme along with the breadth of all content standards necessary for a “broad-based exploratory curriculum.”
We provided a variety of test scores from project-based learning schools that demonstrate the project-based learning is an effective teaching strategy. We also cited many resources and research projects that prove the efficacy of project-based learning as a best practice.
The CDE also reviewed the Educational Philosophy and felt that it was sound. The CDE rubric states that acceptable charter must have “A rigorous, relevant, and attainable education program for all students (including high and low achievers, English learners, and special education students), including a standards-based curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, and technology aimed at the targeted population, that is founded on cited research-based educational practices, and is compliant with all laws and regulations applicable to California’s charter schools.”
(2) The grade level themes for the year-long projects are developed in isolation with no sequencing of instruction aligned to standards or pacing of skills from year to year. There is no clear program designed to promote mastery.
The grade level themes are not developed in isolation. The teachers will work collaboratively with each other and will work to create a school-wide curriculum map. We include curriculum maps that align with state standards , therefore aligning with the sequencing of instruction as dictated by those standards. We did not feel it necessary to rewrite those standards. If you follow state standards correctly, pacing of skills from year to year and the promotion of mastery is elementary.
(3) The proposed project based program does not establish important reading skills which are critical to eventual learning. An intensive program designed to facilitate the acquisition of reading skills essential to future learning is not provided for preparing primary grade students (K-2). There is no clear plan to develop phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary development and comprehension, all necessary skills to be a successful reader.
This is untrue. We describe specifically how we will teach reading and list a variety of professional reading textbooks that describe the process. All reading skills and strategies would be addressed through this approach. It not only includes a description of whole group instruction but time for guided reading groups where specific skills are practiced.. My only concession is that I could have been more explicit in my description. I assumed that the type of reading skills taught at each grade level would clearly be coming directly from the state standards, although I describe very clearly what it looks like in the classroom.
(4) Given the ages and numbers of the students who have expressed interest in attending the program, the program will result in multi-age classrooms with no clear indication as to how the instruction will be delivered to students at different levels and different grades or how the projects will be modified to accommodate learning which may have already occurred for different age students within the same classroom.
Our program is based on design principles that address the regular classroom and the multi-age classroom in the same manner. This is again part of our educational philosophy. We believe that students within a classroom are as differed in their skills and abilities as a mixed-age classroom. Thus, we approach lessons keeping those considerations in mind. We use several approaches specifically geared to address a variety of skills and abilities, including differentiated instruction , cooperative learning , criteria-based projects , and flexible grouping . Students would be guarded against repeating curriculum through the use of a school-wide curriculum map.
(5) The educational program presented only addresses 80% of the instructional day.
I can only assume that they refer to the School Learning Objective 7 noted in the Petition that states “ACS will achieve 80% implementation of project-based learning where every classroom is engaged in one to two overarching thematic interdisciplinary projects per year” This is an “oversight” of the District as we are simply recognizing that not all subjects will fit into each thematic unit and that some of the subject matter may have to be taught outside of the unit in stand-alone units that don’t integrate. The goal reflects our desire to integrate as much content as possible and to hold our staff and school accountable to doing so.
(6) The education program does not provide for the acquisition of textbooks which are designed to meet the California content standards.
This is the one item that we intentionally left out. Our educational philosophy is hands-on project-based learning. We intended to use teacher edition curriculum guides that are aligned with state content standards, but employ trade books for the majority of classroom work. This is a difference between our educational design and that of the textbook/workbook-centered traditional classroom. It was not an oversight. We allowed for ample budgetary room to provide trade books, manipulatives, and teacher edition curriculum.
(7) Although the charter school indicates that it is also designed to include high school students, there is no program presented for high school age students.
This is as typographical error. In the process of creating our petition, we contemplated petitioning for a K-12 charter. The mistakes related to noting grades 9-12 are simply oversights on our part with regard to proofreading. We do intend to ask the district to extend our charter to include 9-12th grade – by way of a material revision – but as the charter is only for grades K-8, we are not required to describe our high school program at this time.
B. Petitioner is demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the Petition (Education Code section 47605(b)(2)) in that:
(1) No facilities are identified for the implementation of the program. The charter fails to identify a location for operation of the charter school within the District as required by Education Code sections 47605 and 47605.1. Based on the statements of interest, the Petitioner is not eligible for District facilities, nor has the Petitioner identified how, when and who will procure facilities.
The District is misinterpreting the law. Education Code 47605 states “The description of the facilities to be used by the charter school shall specify where the school intends to locate.” We clearly describe facilities for the charter school in as much detail as possible . We do not have a specific location because it is virtually impossible (not to mention unreasonable) to secure a facility for a school prior to being approved. Few, if any, charter petitions come to the district for approval with a facility already secured. We have looked at possible facilities and are actively working with real estate professionals to locate one, but the law states that we only must describe where we “intend” to locate. We did that. We purposefully left out a statement that said we could find a facility within the district boundaries, as we hoped to negotiate an MOU if we could not find suitable facilities within the district boundaries.
(2) The charter fails to identify any teachers who have single subject credentials for teaching middle school grades 7 and 8 even though the charter anticipates that the primary instruction will be on a single project taken from science, social studies or history.
Based on their misunderstanding, the District notes that our “charter fails to identify any teachers who have single subject credentials” when in fact, we will not have a need for single subject teachers in the beginning of our school. Not only that, but there is no Ed Code requirement that states we must identify our teachers prior to approval. We met the requirement for signatures with half of the anticipated staff, but those teachers are not necessarily going to be our final choices for staffing. They simply show that there is enough interest in teaching at a school like this one to warrant approval. The district can question the qualifications we intend use to determine who to employ, but not specific teachers.
(3) The designated site administrator and the teaching staff identified have limited experience with project based learning at the elementary school level. Furthermore, the consultant for project based learning support is located in central California and is primarily a provider of staff development with a focus on high school and community college instruction.
The Report attacks the experience of the site administrator , but fails to address the qualification requirements set forth in the petition for that position – which the site administrator meets. The District has no jurisdiction with regard to specific people our charter school chooses to hire. In fact, the school has not hired an Executive Director yet. Therefore, the District must focus on the requirements we describe for each position. In this capacity, the District noted no issues with the stated qualifications for the Executive Director/Administrator. The Petition explains that the Executive Director must have the following qualifications: “At least five years teaching experience, a Master’s Degree in education-related field (Education, Child Development, Child Psychology, Teaching, etc.), demonstrated commitment to the Mission and Vision of ACS, A well-developed philosophy of instructional leadership, and demonstrated skills of creative problem solving, effective management, responsibility, and tenacity.”
There is NO identified teaching staff at this time. Again, the school will not begin to hire teachers until after the charter is approved. The teachers that the District is referring to are included only as signatures to fulfill the requirement of at least half of the projected teaching staff. These teachers are meaningfully interested in teaching at ACS, however, the Governance Board will hire teachers based on the qualifications listed in the petition.
The District Report also questions the ability of an off-site staff development provider. However, ACS has already talked with this provider – the Buck Institute for Education, allowed for travel expenses in our budget, discussed the numerous online resources and addressed the lack of elementary schools in their repertoire. They have wonderful online services available and are excited to work with a school at the elementary level. They were also more than willing to travel to our school several times within the year to give on-site professional development. We feel confident that their services will be exceptional and available to our staff. In addition, we question whether or not the District houses all of their professional development on-site. If not, why is a charter school expected to do so when the district it will serve does not?
(4) The Petition fails to provide for onsite business related support on a day to day basis. The fiscal plan for the charter school does not provide for the purchase of student textbooks or furniture and equipment such as desks. Moreover, the fiscal plan is based on a projected 250 student start-up enrollment which is not realistic given the student interest information submitted and the ages of the students.
The textbook issue has already been addressed elsewhere. As for onsite business-related support, ACS intends to contract with ExEd – a charter business provider – who will be onsite on a regular basis and will always be available to consult with over the phone. Many charter schools, including Santa Rosa Academy, contract with an off-site office management company for their business needs. This is one of the more responsible ways that a charter can avoid the pitfalls of mismanagement of funds.
As for the projected enrollment number, we are aware that 250 students is a lofty goal, but are confident that we can easily scale back our budget to address our actual numbers. We have to aim high in order to allow for the potential influx of students. If we don’t and we are approved for fewer students than we have interested, we cannot increase our enrollment numbers. We are, however, able to decrease our enrollment numbers.
(5) The charter budget is based in part on expanding into the 9th grade in years
4 and 5, yet there are no plans or programs identified for a high school.
This is as typographical error. In the process of creating our petition, we contemplated petitioning for a K-12 charter. The mistakes related to noting grades 9-12 are simply oversights on our part with regard to proofreading. We do intend to ask the district to extend our charter to include 9-12th grade – by way of a material revision – but as the charter is only for grades K-8, we are not required to describe our high school program at this time. The existence of 9th grade does not negate the remainder of the budget as adding more students means more revenue and more expense. It does not necessarily impact the overall structure of the budget.
C. The Petition does not contain a reasonably comprehensive description of the following (Education Code section 47605(b)(5)):
(1) The education program of the school (Education Code section
47605(b)(5)(A) in that:
(a) The mission statement indicates that the program will be a K-12 program and the Petition puts forth a budget based on 9th grade enrollment at years 4 and 5 but does not provide any 9-12 program information.
This is as typographical error. In the process of creating our petition, we contemplated petitioning for a K-12 charter. The mistakes related to noting grades 9-12 are simply oversights on our part with regard to proofreading. We do intend to ask the district to extend our charter to include 9-12th grade – by way of a material revision – but as the charter is only for grades K-8, we are not required to describe our high school program at this time.
(b) There is no clear description of the grade level objectives or outcomes or how instruction will be sequenced or aligned to standards or designated to promote subject mastery.
We do not break our objectives down by grade level, rather by subject matter competencies. However, we list a variety of standards-based measurements that require students to meet state standards for each grade level. These measurements include standards-based report cards, standards-aligned STAR and NWEA testing, and portfolio samples . In addition, we note that “all students will demonstrate mastery of at least 90% of the state content standards and frameworks for their appropriate grade level” in English Language Arts, Social Studies/History, Math, Science, Visual and Performing Arts, Foreign Language, Physical Fitness/Health Science, and Technology.
(c) The educational program is described as project based for 80% of instructional day with no clear description of what will be provided during the other 20%.
I can only assume that they refer to the School Learning Objective 7 noted in the Petition that states “ACS will achieve 80% implementation of project-based learning where every classroom is engaged in one to two overarching thematic interdisciplinary projects per year” This is an “oversight” of the District as we are simply noting that not all subjects will fit into each thematic unit and that some of the subject matter may have to be taught outside of the unit in stand-alone units that don’t integrate. The goal reflects our desire to integrate as much content as possible and to hold our staff and school accountable to doing so.
(d) The program fails to indicate how reading and/or literature will be taught on a broad-based exploratory basis.
We have a clear description of how reading and/or literature will be taught on a broad-based exploratory basis. It is an approach called Reader’s Workshop. It combines the exploration of literature with the reading strategies and skills needed to become great readers.
(e) The program description does not indicate how skills necessary to successfully teach reading (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary development and comprehension) will be taught.
This is untrue. We describe specifically how we will teach reading and list a variety of professional reading textbooks that describe the process. All reading skills and strategies would be addressed through this approach. It not only includes a description of whole group instruction but time for guided reading groups where specific skills are practiced.. My only concession is that I could have been more explicit in my description. I assumed that the type of reading skills taught at each grade level would clearly be coming directly from the state standards, although I describe very clearly what it looks like in the classroom .
(f) There is no clear description of how special needs students will be identified, assessed and assisted.
In fact, we have an entire section dedicated to the process of identifying and assessing special needs students including IDEA and Section 504 . We do not go into depth with regard to specific special education services that our school would provide, as we intended to ask to be an "arm of the district" in which we pay the district our SELPA money in return for their special education services. This is a common practice for charter schools.
(g) The Petition fails to demonstrate how materials and information and services will be adopted for low achievement learners.
The Petition describes clearly how low achievement learners will be identified and how their needs will be addressed . Because of the educational design of ACS, differentiated instruction is the norm and therefore an adoption of different materials would be unnecessary. Students will simply be given additional support with skills and abilities appropriate trade books and activities.
(h) There is no description of textbooks or how and when students will use textbooks.
This is the one item that we intentionally left out. Our educational philosophy is hands-on project-based learning. We intended to use teacher edition curriculum guides, but employ trade books for the majority of classroom work. This is a difference between our educational design and that of the textbook/workbook centered traditional classroom. It was not an oversight. We allowed for ample budgetary room to provide trade books, manipulatives, and teacher edition curriculum.
(2) The method by which pupil progress will be measured. Education Code section 47605(b)(5)(C). At page 78 the Petition indicates that assessment will be based on successful completion of the learning adventure but fails to indicate a definition of successful completion or how that will be determined. Moreover, the content, basis and consistency of rubrics are undefined and not standard-based.
The District focuses on a single aspect of measurement, the successful completion of a learning adventure, and fails to mention that we list a variety of standards-based measurements including standards-based report cards, standards-aligned STAR and NWEA testing, and portfolio samples . In addition, we note that “all students will demonstrate mastery of at least 90% of the state content standards and frameworks for their appropriate grade level” in English Language Arts, Social Studies/History, Math, Science, Visual and Performing Arts, Foreign Language, Physical Fitness/Health Science, and Technology.
(3) The qualifications to be met by individuals employed by the school. Education Code section 47605(b)(5)(E). The experience factor for non-core teachers is not specific and there is a failure to account for the credentialing required by Education Code section 47605(l).
Education Code section 47605(l) requires that these teachers be fully credentialed but no such qualification appears to have been noted.” In fact, the Education Code reads, “charter schools be given flexibility with regard to non-core, non-college preparatory courses.” The California Department of Education has taken the position that non-core and non-college preparatory teachers do not need a credential.
2.4 Charter school teachers and NCLB teacher requirements
Charter school teachers of NCLB core academic subject, as defined in the NCLB Act of 2001, must meet all of the NCLB requirements. Charters may decide, for credentialing purposes only, that which is non-core. Federal law defines teacher requirements for NCLB Core Academic Subjects (California EC Section 47605[1]).
The NCLB Act of 2001 requires the following for charter school teachers in order to be considered highly qualified: Must hold at least a bachelor’s degree; Must demonstrate competence in the core academic areas in which they teach; and Must meet the credentialing requirements established in the state’s public charter school law (California EC Section 47605[L]).
(4) The procedures the school will follow to ensure health and safety of pupils. Education Code section 47605(b)(5)(F). There is no description of food services or nutrition standards and services and no description of a health curriculum.
The District Report states that ACS does not comply with the Education Code related to Health and Safety of Pupils because we do not describe food services or nutrition standards. However, the Education Code states “The procedures that the school will follow to ensure the health and safety of pupils and staff. These procedures shall include the requirement that each employee of the school furnish the school with a criminal record summary as described in Section 44237.” Nowhere in the California Education Code that the District sites (or anywhere else in the Ed Code that I am aware of) mentions the specific requirement for food services or nutrition standards.
(5) Admission requirements. (Education Code section 47605(b)(5)(H)). Contrary to Education Code section 47605(d)(2)(B), the procedures provide that no preference shall be given to students residing within the Menifee School District but at the same time provides for a double opportunity for those students in a lottery. The Petition is also inconsistent with respect to the cut-off date for open enrollment.
First, the district states that we do not meet Educational Code 47605(d)(2)(B) which states “admission to a charter school shall not be determined according to the place of residence of the pupil” (47605(d(2) but allows for preferences “permitted by the chartering authority on an individual basis (Ed Code 47605(2)(B)).” We clearly indicate in our Admissions policy that MUSD students will not be given preference (per Ed Code 47605(d)(2)(B)) and then follow with a statement that we desire to enter into an agreement with the authorizing agency (MUSD) to weight MUSD students on a two to one basis in the lottery (per Ed Code 47605(2)(B)). This weighting is not necessary, it simply shows that the charter recognizes the importance of educating the students within the authorizing district.
It is interesting to note that the California Department of Education reviewed this section for their $450,000 Implementation grant of which we were pre-approved. The CDE rubric states that acceptable charter must have “Recruitment and admissions policies and procedures (including a description of the process for a public random drawing when admissions applications exceed the enrollment capacity of the school) that are in compliance with state and federal law. “
The cutoff date was simply a typographical error. It is May 1st.
(6) The procedures with respect to the procedures by which pupils can be suspended or expelled. Education Code section 47605(b)(5)(J). The Petition fails to differentiate between offenses for suspension and those which would result in expulsion; fails to differentiate between completed, attempted and threatened offenses; subjects the students to suspension or expulsion for offenses not specified; inadequately addresses the needs and rights of special needs students; fails to indicate how the educational needs of expelled students will be met; and fails to address suspension pending expulsion.
The District claims that the petition fails to meet the educational code related to suspension and expulsions in a variety of ways. However, the Education Code reads “The procedures by which pupils can be suspended or expelled.” The Petition clearly states that it will “be consistent with district, state, and federal laws,” and that it will “provide due process in conformity with the requirements state and federal law regarding discipline, special education, confidentiality, and access to records.” They also state that students may be subjected to suspension or expulsion for offenses not specified. The intention of the Ed Code is not to create an exhaustive list of offenses, but to display an understanding of the process and the common offenses. We state that we will comply with all laws and that we will work as a Governance Board to create a Student Handbook defining exactly what offenses will not be tolerated.
(7) The procedures to be followed by the charter school and the entity granting the charter to resolve disputes relating to provisions of the charter. Education Code section 47605(b)(5)(N). The Petition fails to indicate how mediation will be funded or how disputes will be resolved in the event that non-binding mediation is unsuccessful.
The cost of mediation is an oversight on our part. ACS intended to note that both parties will share mediation costs. If disputes are unresolved by non-binding mediation, either party must decide whether or not to pursue legal action at their own cost.
(8) The procedures to be used by the charter school upon closure. Education Code section 47605(b)(5)(P). The Petition fails to identify how assets may be donated to another 501(3) entity without constituting a gift of public funds, how records will be maintained or disposed of, and how obligations with respect to any grant funds from state or federal agencies will be complied with.
Our section on School Closure states:
An independent final audit will be conducted within six months after the closure of the School and any assets remaining after payment of all liabilities will be disposed of to a governmental entity or to another 501(c)3 by decision of the ACLC Governance Board. All liabilities will remain as liabilities to ACLC, which has been incorporated as a non-profit public benefit corporation, and will not be transferred to any other entity (Ed Code 47604(c)). ACS will ensure the completion and filing of a final annual report to appropriate agencies.
Upon closure of the School, all student records will be transferred to MUSD or the students’ district of residence, the CDE and/or the parents or guardians of the enrolled child.
It seems to me that all of the issues that the District Report question, are clearly addressed in this section of the petition. We may not mention that assets can be donated without being seen as a gift, but we clearly state that assets may be given to another 501(c)3. We state that records will be given to the student’s district and/or parent. And we state that any liability (i.e. grant) will remain a liability of ACLC.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the findings set forth in sections A through C above, the Board concludes that it is not satisfied that granting the charter is consistent with sound educational practice. (Education Code section 47605(b).)
____________________________________
Mr. Robert O’Donnell, President
____________________________________
Mr. Jerry Bowman, Clerk of the Board
Aberdovey Charter School
We are crew, not passengers.
Hi! My name is Ed and I'd like to talk with you about the California Education Code. Charter schools are required to meet the Education Code when writing their petition, so they learn everything they can about the Education Code as it relates to charters.
Trouble is, most school districts don't know the Education Code as well as they should. This causes districts to misunderstand, misinterpret, and generally miss, how charter school petition's are meeting those requirements. Let's take a closer look at one district and the petition they misunderstood...
Mr. Ed Code
