tennessee charter school application evaluation …€¦ · focus/grade structure operator with...

Tennessee Charter School Application – Ratings and Scoring Criteria 1

TENNESSEE CHARTER SCHOOL APPLICATION EVALUATION

RATINGS AND SAMPLE SCORING CRITERIA

Ratings and Criteria State law requires the Tennessee Department of Education to provide “a standard application format,” T.C.A. 49-13-116, and “sample scoring criteria addressing the elements of the charter school application specified in the Tennessee Public Charter Schools Act of 2002,” SBE Rule 0520-14-01-.01(2). Evaluators will use the following criteria to rate applications. Within each subsection, specific criteria define the expectations for a well thought out response that “Meets the Standard.” Evaluators will rate the responses by applying the following guidance:

Rating Characteristics

Meets or Exceeds the Standard

The response reflects a thorough understanding of key issues. It clearly aligns with the mission and goals of the school. The response includes specific and accurate information that shows thorough preparation

Partially Meets Standard The response meets the criteria in some aspects, but lacks sufficient detail and/or requires additional information in one or more areas.

Does Not Meet Standard

The response is significantly incomplete; demonstrates lack of preparation; is unsuited to the mission and vision of the district or otherwise raises significant concerns about the viability of the plan or the applicant’s ability to carry it out

An application that merits a recommendation for approval should present a clear, realistic picture of how the school expects to operate; be detailed in how this school will raise student achievement; and inspire confidence in the applicant’s capacity to successfully implement the proposed academic and operational plans. In addition to meeting the criteria that are specific to that section, each part of the proposal should align with the overall mission, budget, and goals of the application. Recommendations for approval or denial will be based on the written application (narrative and attachments), independent due diligence, and, if offered by the authorizer, applicant interviews. Applications that do not meet or exceed the standard in all sections (academic plan, operations plan, financial plan, and, if applicable, past performance), as evidenced by the summary review ratings, and applications that do not meet or exceed any additional LEA requirements will be deemed not ready for approval. Tennessee law states, “The approval by the chartering authority of a public charter school application shall be in the form of a written agreement signed by the sponsor and the chartering authority, which shall be binding upon the governing body of the public charter school. The charter agreement shall be in writing and contain all components of the application.” T.C.A. § 49-13-110(a). Thus, an initial or amended charter application, to be approved, must be ready to be incorporated into a charter agreement.


INSTRUCTIONS TO REVIEWERS

Reviewers should use objective language and complete sentences in their comments on the strengths and weaknesses of each section of the application. Please also remember that all documents, including your individual review, may at some time be available to the public. Additional pages should be used as necessary. For example,

Strengths of the academic plan “The plan aligns with the overall mission and vision because . . .” “The chosen curriculum is research based and proven effective with the targeted population of students because . . .” Weaknesses of the academic plan “The curriculum and daily schedule do not align with the mission and vision because . . .” “The discipline plan does not include provisions for students with disabilities.” Strengths of the operations plan “The governing body is diverse and will be able to support the school effectively.” “The plan to recruit school leaders and teachers is robust and aligns with the mission of the school. Weaknesses of the operations plan “The governing board is composed of only two people who do not have sufficient credentials to support school leadership.” “The staffing projections do not align with the number of students or the stated mission of the school.” Strengths of the financial plan “The financial plan is sound and the assumptions are consistent with the mission and vision of the proposed school.” “The budget assumptions include contingencies for high-dollar special needs students and funds are allocated in the budget document for such contingencies.” Weaknesses of the financial plan “The budget assumptions include a line of credit from XYZ bank, but there is no proof such an agreement exists, and no plan to repay the line of credit when it is accessed.” “The proposed school assumes two buses in the first year, but there is no accompanying line item in the budget that allocates funds for purchasing buses nor is there any indication of salary and training for bus drivers.”


Step by step instructions for evaluators

1. Fill in your name and the name of the proposed school on the following page. Click once on the grey boxes to begin typing.

2. Check the General Information page of application to determine which subsections the application was required to complete. The table below contains the required sections per applicant type.

APPLICANT TYPE DESCRIPTION REQUIRED SECTIONS

New-Start Applicant Operator with no existing schools

• Academic Plan Design and Capacity: 1.1 through 1.12

• Operations Plan and Capacity: 2.1 through 2.10

• Financial Plan and Capacity: 3.1 and 3.2

Existing Tennessee Operator Proposing New Focus/Grade Structure OR Existing non-Tennessee operator

Operator with existing schools in Tennessee proposing to change their focus and/or grade structure OR Operator with existing schools outside of Tennessee

• Academic Plan Design and Capacity: 1.1 through 1.14

• Operations Plan and Capacity: 2.1 through 2.16

• Financial Plan and Capacity: 3.1 through 3.3

• Portfolio Review and Performance Record: 4.1

Existing Tennessee Operator Proposing Exact Focus/Grade Structure

Operator with existing schools in Tennessee proposing no change in focus or grade structure

• Submit original application

• Academic Plan Design and Capacity: 1.2, 1.12, 1.13, and 1.14

• Operations Plan and Capacity: 2.11. through 2.16

• Financial Plan and Capacity: 3.4

• Portfolio Review and Performance Record: 4.1

3. For each required subsection of the application, you should do the following during your initial

individual analysis of the proposal: a. Select a rating for each subsection. Click once on the box to select. If you are not able to

check the box, please HIGHLIGHT your selection. b. Use the “Strengths” area to identify notable positive aspects of the response. Be sure to

include page references where applicable. c. Use the “Concerns/Questions” area to identify weaknesses and areas that should be

explored during the debrief calls and/or capacity interview. Again, reference relevant page numbers.

4. Complete the summary page for each major section (academic, operations, and financial) after you have completed all of the subsections within the section. Type a summary of your analysis of each section into the box provided; it will expand as needed. This should be a paragraph outlining the overall strengths or weaknesses of the application section as a whole. It should summarize your findings and should not be simply cut and pasted from your subsection analysis.

5. Use the “Final Rating” area to provide your final evaluation of each subsection based on the complete application record (initial proposal, due diligence, capacity interview, and amended application, if applicable). This analysis should support the final rating you select.

a. Complete the “Final Rating” area on the summary page for each major section. Document any additional evidence gathered during the capacity interview and/or amended application and indicate your final rating for each major subsection.


Your comments and evidence are at least as significant as your rating. Please also remember that all documents, including your individual review, may at some time be available to the public.

Evaluator Name: Shelby County Schools Review Team

Proposed School Name: Blueprint Avodah


SECTION 1 ACADEMIC PLAN DESIGN AND CAPACITY

1.1 SCHOOL MISSION AND GOALS

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ The mission statement defines the purpose of the proposed charter school. ▪ The mission statement is clear, concise, compelling and measurable. ▪ The vision provides a coherent description of what the school will look like when it is achieving its mission.

▪ Goals are aligned to both the mission and vision and critical to the school’s success.

Initial Application Review

☐ Meets or Exceeds Standard ☒ Partially Meets Standard ☐ Does Not Meet Standard

Strengths Page

BluePrint Avodah is described as an “equity project”, which is compelling. The school also hopes to “disrupt multi-

generational poverty in Memphis” through the proposed school. The personal “blueprint” for success that the school

hopes to develop so that each student in successful in their post-secondary studies is a collaborative effort, one in which

students will develop personal learning plans.

P.1

Concerns/Questions Page

The application shares foundational elements that are building blocks of school success (e.g. cultivate an inclusive

community that supports safety for families and students, ensure satisfaction for parents and stakeholders and maintain

operational and fiscal soundness. However, the stated goals are not measurable, aligned or quantifiable. The goals do

not represent indicators of success or progress towards the student’s readiness for post-secondary success which is

outlines in the mission.

The mission speaks to students developing learning plans “situated in global and 21st century competencies” with no

goal alignment to the mission.

The vision of the proposed school does not provide a coherent description of what success will look like when the

mission of the school is achieved.

The proposed school states it will offer workforce development options and college credit opportunity and industry

training. What current partnerships does the proposed school have for these opportunities?

The application lacks a clear connection between the college/career attainment and building sustainable communities.

P.2

P.2-3

P.2

P.2-3

Final Application Review

☒ Meets or Exceeds Standard ☐ Partially Meets Standard ☐ Does Not Meet Standard

Strengths Page

The applicant addressed the questions and concerns raised during the initial application review.

P.4-12




1.2 ENROLLMENT SUMMARY

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ A clear description of the community where school intends to draw students including school zones and academic

performance of surrounding schools. ▪ Rationale for selecting the community where school will locate and description of how the school will serve as a needed

alternative.

▪ Completed enrollment summary and anticipated demographics charts with reasonable enrollment projections.



Strengths Page

The applicant has identified a community for the proposed school as well as a description of the community that could

be served by the proposed school.

P7-8


Projected enrollment of 250 is aggressive for the first year of enrollment, some of which are in the 10th grade. What

data supports this projected enrollment number based on the surrounding communities? How did the proposed school

determine these enrollment targets? The enrollment summary also assumes zero attrition.

In the event that newly enrollment students are behind, what considerations will be made so that students graduate on

time? How will the school prepare/onboard students who transfer from a traditional school model to a project-based

learning environment?

The applicant does not provide any data that suggests there is a demand for additional high school options in the

proposed area. The application suggests that “many students in the population will be returning to the South City that

once lived in Foot homes.” There is no evidence provided to support this claim.

The application states that they are expecting students who have academic challenges to enroll. What consideration

will the school make to address skill gaps? What are the considerations for the potential 10th graders who could be

transferring from neighboring schools who may not have the pre-requisite high school credits? How does this

consideration affect the budget?

The applicant also provides a vague response when asked how they would be more effective than surrounding schools

with the target population and how it would achieve their goals.

P11

P10

P10.-11

P10,

Attachment

P

P10-11



Strengths Page

The applicant addressed the questions and concerns raised during the initial application review.

P.14,18,19




1.3 ACADEMIC FOCUS AND PLAN

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ A clear and comprehensive explanation of the school’s academic focus that is aligned with the school’s mission and vision. ▪ A framework for a rigorous research based academic plan that reflects the needs of the targeted student population and is

aligned with the school’s stated mission and vision. ▪ A robust and quality curriculum overview, supported by research, with a plan for implementation that includes all grades the

school will eventually include. ▪ Evidence the curriculum design is aligned with the Tennessee State Standards. ▪ Evidence the proposed academic plan will be appropriate and effective for growing all students while at the same time

closing achievement gaps.

▪ A description of effective methods for providing differentiated instruction to meet the needs of all students, including a strong plan for Response to Instruction and Intervention (RTI²) that aligns with Tennessee guidelines.

▪ If including blended learning, a clear explanation of the model the school will use and the role of teachers within the blended learning environment.


☐ Meets or Exceeds Standard ☐ Partially Meets Standard ☒ Does Not Meet Standard

Strengths Page

The applicant has shared an affiliation with two models with evidence of success, High Tech High and Big Picture

Learning) which have informed the creation of the proposed Blueprint Avodah Model.

P.12


What will be the relationships between the proposed school and High Tech High and Big Picture learning? The letters

of support from High Tech High speak to the developmental relationship, their confidence in the leader as well as an

outline of options and professional development. Is there a formalized relationship? The application does not include

a letter of support or commitment from Big Picture learning.

The academic plan did not provide a robust description around the work based and project-based learning

opportunities for the students of Memphis. The demographic of the proposed schools differs greatly from the

demographic where both models have found success. How will the achievement gap be closed for the children of

Memphis utilizing these two models?

The application speaks of college course work and internship opportunities without any evidence of industry or early

college partners. These elements are critical the success of the program. There is a lack of clarify around how students

would access these opportunities.

The applicant states the design components are aligned with Big Picture Learning’s three foundational principles but

lacks a plan for implementation into the proposed school. For example, how will the 18 students be paired with the

same advisor and what are the strategies that the advisors will implement, what structure will be used to sustain this

component, how will the structure be supported, effectiveness measured, and how will the plans be monitored?

The applicant provides achievement goals that are critical to the Big Picture learning design. How will those goals be

measured and monitored? What are the targets? How will they be implemented into the proposed school program?

The application provides a large amount of research on instructional strategies. However, how all the parts (e.g.

Equity, Personalization, Authentic Work, Collaborative Design etc.) will fit into a cogent academic plan is lacking.

The applicant states that teachers will utilize time during summer planning for curriculum development. What role

will student play in creating projects and as the center of the learning process as stated by the Big Picture Learning

model?

Attachment

E

P.17

P13

P18 P15 P11-35 P.25


What is the timeline for aligning the PBL curriculum with the TN Curriculum?

The applicant lacked some core course work within the courses sequence such as Economics, number of elective

courses?

PBL has long term projects, some of them are more than 1 semester. How would you routinely check the progress of

the project every week? Which teachers will be responsible for checking the project, especially if more than 1 teacher

is involved? Internships will be 4-6 hours per week in grades 9-10 and 10-12 hours per week for grades 11-12. Are

those hours part of the school hours? If so, how will attendance, participation, transportation for all students be

monitored on a daily basis?

P22 P13



Strengths Page

The applicant has secured letters of commitment from both High Tech High and Big Picture Learning, nationally

recognized models, to provide various levels of support to the proposed school.

P.24,

Attachment

E


While the applicant explained how the academic and work based components of the HTH project based learning

program are interconnected, it is still unclear how the Big Picture Learning design is connected? The mechanics

around providing advisors and structures regarding student work, as well as monitoring of projects in the Big Picture

Learning design model was not addressed.

P.22-55


1.4 ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Academic achievement goals are rigorous, measurable, and realistic and set high standards and high expectations for

student learning. ▪ Academic goals contribute to the stated mission and vision of the school. ▪ Clear and compelling process for setting, monitoring, and / or revising academic achievement goals. ▪ Evidence of clear, rigorous promotion/retention and exit policies and standards.


▪ Appropriate, well-defined corrective action plan if school falls below state and/or district academic achievement expectations.

▪ A clear description of the school’s approach to help remediate students’ academic underperformance based on assessment and other data, and evidence the chosen approach will result in improved academic achievement.



Strengths Page


How was the long-term goal of 70% of students to “complete a college degree or obtain a position in their chosen

career field within five years post-graduation” determined? How will the school assess impact on the cycle of poverty

it seeks to disrupt (e.g., salary goal posts)? How will the school use career data to inform its program? What about

remaining 30% of students who do not meet the goal? How is the school monitoring progress?

The school is utilizing standardized test achievement from the previous year’s test results and individualized

improvement goals for each student. The applicant has not discussed the role of academic achievement and high

expectations.

The application lacks a policy around matriculation given the non-traditional program that the proposed school intends

to implement. How will the proposed school align the personalized learning and project based learning model for

students as they matriculate through the program? Under what conditions will students be granted credit?

The application lacks a robust and specific action plan if the school falls short of academic expectations and outcomes.

(p.36)

The RTI process is inconsistent. Although the application states what is mandated for RTI implementation, specific

interventions for the unique demands of this program are not provided. (e.g. summer bridge, social emotional support

practices)

The information provided regarding systems and structures to assist students at risk of dropping out or not meeting

graduation requirements is insufficient as it focuses on additional supports to individual students. The narrative does

not detail a systematic process the school will use to identify students at risk or to monitor/adjust course offerings based

on cohort credit accumulation and/or other data. (p36-40)

P.36 P.36 P.36 P.36 P.37 P.36-40



Strengths Page



There are still concerns and questions that remain upon review of the amended application. The proposed school did

not address how they established the long term goal of 70% for college or career placement and how the school

monitors and addresses those who fall short of the goal.

The application still did not provide a system or structure to assist students at risk for dropping out, but rather a list of

strategies.

The concerns regarding RTI noted are still present. Given the uniqueness of the chosen school models, how what

supports within RTI will be provided.

P.55

P.65

P63-64


1.5 PHASE-IN/TURNAROUND – IF APPLICABLE

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Inclusion of strong prior experience in turning around or converting an underperforming school or plan for doing so if the

organization does not have prior experience.

▪ A clear explanation for how the organization will engage with the neighborhood, community, and student population prior to conversion.

▪ Specific ways to engage and transform the existing school culture and how the organization will determine what aspects of school culture to keep, modify, or add.

▪ If proposing a phase-in approach, the organization clearly describes how transition to a shared campus will occur with regard to campus collaboration and building-wide issues.

▪ If proposing a full school take-over approach, the organization has a clear plan for communicating with existing staff and a comprehensive plan for needed additional support to ensure student success.


☐ Meets or Exceeds Standard ☐ Partially Meets Standard ☐ Does Not Meet Standard

Strengths Page

Not applicable.




Strengths Page




1.6 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION STANDARDS – IF APPLICABLE

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Plan for meeting the Tennessee Graduation Requirements (including credits, transcripts, electives, GPA calculation) and

compelling explanation of any additional requirements beyond the State’s requirements. ▪ Clear, persuasive explanation of how the school’s graduation requirements will ensure student readiness for college or other

postsecondary opportunities, including trade school, military service, or entering the workforce).

▪ Effective systems and structures for students at risk of dropping out or not meeting graduation requirements.



Strengths Page


The application lacked a sufficient description regarding how the school’s graduation requirements will prepare

students for college or other postsecondary opportunities. It is unclear the how the work force development option

discussed in section 1.1 will be incorporated into the graduation requirements/course sequence.

How does a student earn credit if they have failed a course or do not meet a standard for POL’s?

The application speaks to the criteria that must be met in order to receive a diploma. What are the requirements for

ACT and internship completion?

What is the number of POL’s (Presentations of Learning) that are required for graduation? There are conflicting

numbers within the application. How will the school ensure valid and reliable scoring?

If the review panel is comprised of parents and community members, what is the process for training evaluation? Will

there be confidentiality agreements to ensure student privacy?

How will the graduation requirements be modified for students with disabilities? (e.g. Presentation of Learning)

P.38-40,

P.2

P.39

P39

P41

P.40

P.44



Strengths Page

The applicant has addressed the questions and concerns raised in the review of the amended application.

P.66-67




1.7 ASSESSMENTS

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Assessment selection will provide sufficiently rich data for evaluation of the academic program and align with state

standards. ▪ Assessment plan details the collection and analysis of individual students, student cohorts, and school level performance

throughout the school year, at the end of the academic year and for the term of the charter. ▪ A process for using data to support instruction is clearly articulated, with detailed plans presented to provide adequate

training for teachers and school leaders. ▪ An explanation of how the organization will use data to inform instruction and evaluate academic progress for at-risk

students, students with disabilities and English Language Learners.

▪ Demonstrates an understating of the obligation under state law to participate in the statewide system of assessments and accountability.



Strengths Page


What, if any baseline assessments will the proposed school administer to obtain data for incoming students?

How will student’s year to year progress be monitored and how will the school evaluate the effectiveness of their

program?

The application does not provide a robust explanation regarding the interim assessment process for students, nor any

detailed information regarding alignment to the proposed school program, goals and state standards.

How will the school use data to monitor progress and improve effectiveness of interventions for students with

disabilities, ELLs, and students struggling academically?

How will the school define rigor and enforce consistent standards for student portfolios and POLs?

The applicant does not present a systematic process to collect, analyze, and use comprehensive data.

The application states that data is embedded in every professional development and learning opportunity in the school.

How are teachers accountable for the outcomes of their data analysis? Who will monitor the teachers to ensure that the

appropriate instruction and/or interventions are implemented?

When will teachers receive specific training based on teacher needs?

P.42

P.43

P 40-43

P.41-42

P.44

P.44



Strengths Page

The school has various performance based assessments built into their program

P.70


While the rationale for the POL’s are provided, the application does not explain the standard by which POL’s and

portfolios are evaluated? How are rigor and enforcement of standards defined?

The applicant did not discuss how the school will use data to monitor progress and improve effectiveness of

interventions for students with disabilities, ELLs, and students struggling academically.

The applicant still did not provide a systematic process to collect, analyze, and use comprehensive data

The application did not provide a robust explanation regarding the interim assessment process for students. How will

the proposed school monitor progress of students prior to performance based assessments?

P.70-71

P.74

P.75

P.70



1.8 SCHOOL CALENDAR AND SCHEDULE

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ School calendar (Attachment A) and student schedules meet Tennessee minimum requirements of the equivalent of 180

days of instruction. ▪ Calendar and schedule support implementation of the academic plan and align with stated mission and vision. ▪ Attendance goals are clearly outlined.

▪ Description of a typical day for teachers and students align with key priorities of the academic plan and the overall mission and vision for the school.

▪ If proposing Saturday School, summer school, or after school programing, a description of programing is included



Strengths Page


With the identified area scores being well below the state average for reading and math, does the schedule need to be

amended to help to bridge the achievement gap? There is also a concern about the RTI schedule being limited to 3xs

per week, when the state mandates 45 minutes daily for Tier 3 or 225 minutes weekly.

The plan to “closely resemble” the district calendar does not support implementation of the academic plan nor does it

align with the school’s stated mission and vision. Given the emphasis on providing students opportunities to earn

college credit and/or industry credentials as well as using Learning through Internships as a key instructional strategy,

it is surprising that the school would not offer an extended year to maximize those opportunities.

The daily schedule provided in response to 1.8c does not match the 3x instruction/ 2x internship plan stated in 1.3b.

The application states that the use of Saturday school or after school tutoring will be determined in the planning year.

How will you adjust your budget to meet potential resource needs and staffing for extended day and Saturday school?

How will you determine whether or not recovery opportunities for students will be available? (p.48)

Attendance goals were not stated nor discussed in the application.

P.46-47

P.46,

Attachment

A

P.46,,P13



Strengths Page





1.9 SPECIAL POPULATIONS AND AT-RISK STUDENTS

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ An identified founding school team member with experience working with special populations. ▪ Clear process for identifying students with disabilities, English Language Learners, and at-risk students, and gifted students. ▪ Clear description of RTI² procedures, including a plan for how data will be collected, progress will be monitored, and

instructional decisions made related to student performance ▪ A viable plan to provide students with special needs with instructional programs, practices, and strategies that ensure access

to the general education curriculum and academic success. ▪ Requirements and processes for monitoring services to students in need and plans to exit students that attain sufficient

progress. ▪ An understanding of, and capacity to fulfill, State and federal obligations and requirements pertaining to students with

disabilities and English Language Learners. ▪ A realistic plan for hiring licensed and highly qualified personnel including service providers, nursing, and educational

assistants.

▪ Evidence of adequate resources and staff to meet the needs of all students, including professional development for teachers.



Strengths Page


More specificity is needed in regards to student accommodations, number of staff to support a large special education

population (15%) and how the large component of work based learning, presentations and internships will be accessible

for exceptional learners. How will the staff be equipped to serve and support students in the project based learning

model?

The application did not correctly outline the timeline for the progress monitoring of goals and the role of the annual

meeting was not clearly defined,

The application lacked all diploma options for students with disabilities.

The RTI process prescribes a specific number of service minutes depending on the Tier that students are placed. The

application did not have the correct number of intervention minutes.

What program model will the school use to support ELLs? Sheltered instruction, immersion, integrated ENL? Does the

school plan to hire certified ELL specialists? ELL staff was not listed in the staffing chart or the budget?

The application states that inclusion specialists (certified special education teachers) serve as case managers who will

train and supervise academic coaches (paraprofessionals) “who provide push-in services to equip students with

the tools to access the general educational curriculum.” Will inclusion specialists provide direct services or just

“oversee the provisions of all services”? It is unclear if this staffing is adequate to meet the needs of all students with

IEPs mandating academic supports given the school’s unique model.

How will RTI be implemented? What curriculum will be used? How will students be identified?

What support and resources can staff activate in order to support exceptional children and ELL students if needed?

P.48

P. 53-54

P.51

P.49-50

P.50

P.49,52

P.49




Strengths Page


P.81-90




1.10 SCHOOL CULTURE AND DISCIPLINE

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ A clear vision for school culture or ethos that will promote a positive academic environment and will reflect high levels of

academic expectation and support. ▪ Coherent plan for creating and sustaining the intended culture for students, teachers, administrators, and parents from the

school’s inception, and for integrating new students and families as they arrive. ▪ Plan for how school culture will embrace students with special needs. ▪ Student discipline policy (Attachment B) that provides for effective strategies to support a safe, orderly school climate and

strong school culture while respecting student rights. ▪ Evidence of legally sound discipline policies that outline discipline procedures, suspension, and expulsion procedures and

appeals processes. ▪ If not included as part of school handbook (Attachment B), inclusion of student discipline policy (Attachment C)

▪ Thoughtful consideration of how the discipline policies protect the rights of students with disabilities..



Strengths Page

The school is considering restorative justice practices as a part of their school discipline process.

P.56


Given the unique mission and vision of the proposed school, there does not seem to be any differentiated discipline

strategies, especially ones that address the needs of the students in the area that include sensitivities such as poverty

and trauma. How might the school create a more tailored discipline policy given the uniqueness of the program and

the students it will serve?

The application mentions that the proposed school will develop a discipline policy rooted in restorative justice

principles and practices. A specific policy and steps that will be implemented to decrease and address negative

behaviors was not provided.

The application did not address how the school culture will embrace exceptional learners, student with disabilities,

ELL and at risk scholars.

The school did not provide a detailed response regarding how the proposed school will create, implement and sustain

culture for its staff and students. As a new school, how will you engrain the school culture into the fabric of the

school?

P.55-56,

Attachment

C

P.56,

Attachment

C2

P.55

P.54-55



Strengths Page





1.11 MARKETING, RECRUITMENT, AND ENROLLMENT

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Articulated student recruitment and marketing plan, timeline, and enrollment policy that will provide equal access to all

interested students and families, including those in poverty, academically low-achieving students, students with disabilities, and English Language Learners.

▪ Enrollment policy (Attachment D) that complies with state law and district policies.

▪ Compelling student outreach plan that includes community, family, and student involvement, and that is realistic and likely to foster student retention and community support.



Strengths Page

The proposed school will conduct focus groups with parents and create strategic alliances with the community.

P.58


The plan is not compelling. The proposed school has not provided a detailed plan including touch points to keep

parents engaged once their students are enrolled in the program. How will family and students be involved in strategic

relationship building through the community and within the families themselves?

The application does not have a well-planned student recruitment plan, that includes timelines, benchmarks and goals

to ensure that the school is not only fully enrolled but that parents in the target community are aware of the opportunity

available to their children.

P.58 P.58



Strengths Page


The applicant has provided a timeline for student recruitment. However, the applicant has not provided benchmarks

and goals. Benchmarks and goals to ensure full enrollment are not present. While the applicant has evidence of

strategic partnerships, the applicant has not provided evidence for how to keep families engaged during the planning

year in order to ensure full enrollment into the school given the number of school options available to families.

P.103-106



1.12 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND PARENT ENGAGEMENT

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Effective strategies for informing parents and the community about the school’s development both pre- and post-

authorization. ▪ Clear plan for informing and educating parents on school policies. ▪ A sound and compelling plan for engaging parents and community partners in the design and life of the school. ▪ Description of existing community resources and partnerships already formed that will benefit students and parents and that

include a description of the nature, purposes, terms, and scope of services of any such partnerships; and evidence of commitment from identified community partners including documentation of pledged support (Attachment E), if available.

▪ Letters of support, MOUs, or contracts (Attachment E) to show proposed school is welcomed by the community.

Application Review


Strengths Page


The application does not provide a robust description of the efforts and timeline for informing the public regarding the

proposed school. The application states that focus groups will begin in the Spring of 2018?

What is the plan to engage parents in the program as well as informing them of the expectations, policy and school

culture of the proposed school? How will the school begin to build a base of support?

What are the parameters of expected partnership with South City Community Development Corp?

Why has the group chosen not to hold community events thus far?

How will At the Table conversations “serve as a pipeline to our parents’ association, and to additional opportunities for

parent leadership”?

P.58-59 P.58 P.58 P.58



Strengths

The application has discussed opportunities for the school to inform and engage parents. Meetings will be held throughout the day

to give families options for attendance. The school will also accommodate special requests made by parents. (p.108). The applicant

also proposes opportunities for parent leadership, engagement and volunteerism within the school. (p.110-111)

Concerns/Questions

The application did state that Spring of 2018 was the start of focus groups convened by the proposed school and the South City

Community Development Corporation. However, the application did not provide a detailed description of recruitment efforts. This

ensures that the community is fully informed about the unique educational opportunity. Further, that the proposed school has the

best opportunity to be fully enrolled.



1.13 EXISTING ACADEMIC PLAN (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS)

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Provides a clear description of the existing academic plan. ▪ Key features of the existing academic plan that will significantly differ from the operator’s existing schools (if any).

▪ Clear, concise rationale for any academic program variance that includes implementation strategies, resources needed, and expected outcomes.



Strengths Page

NOT APPLICABLE




Strengths Page



1.14 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS)

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Clear description of any mission-specific goals and targets the organization will have, with measures and/or assessments

fully described and a rationale for their choices. ▪ Clear and compelling explanation of how the organization will measure its academic progress – individual students, student

cohorts, all grade levels within a school and across the network of schools. ▪ Appropriate, well-defined corrective action plan if one school, student cohort, or entire network of schools falls below state

and/or district academic achievement expectations.

▪ Clear and concise contingency plans that describe in great detail how the organization will react in the event academic targets are not met, and how the organization will react to adversity through delayed or modified growth.



Strengths Page

NOT APPLICABLE




Strengths Page




SUMMARY COMMENTS Each part of your summary comments should, in a few sentences, provide a clear understanding of your overall evaluation of the proposal as well as the most significant strengths and/or weaknesses. The summary comments for each section should support your rating for the section, and should not be simply cut and pasted from your subsection analysis.

Summary Rating for Entire Academic Plan Design and Capacity



Strengths: The proposed school’s mission hopes to “disrupt multi-generational poverty” for the children of Memphis. The

mission will be achieved through a collaborative effort with students, their families and the larger community.

The proposed school will use two models with proven success to fulfill the mission of post-secondary success for

their students.

Weaknesses/Questions: Without measurable goals, it is difficult to understand how the proposed school will successfully fulfill its

mission for post-secondary success. Although the school has evidence of support from High Tech High, there is

no evidence that the applicant has made the necessary modification to serve the students of Memphis. The

academic plan lacked depth and a detailed plan for how the project based learning model will close the

achievement gap. The application did not articulate a solid plan for enrolling students in grade 9 and 10, nor a

plan for ensuring that students who are academically behind are given the support to not only get on track but

successfully graduate from the program. The application lacks sufficient evidence that the school will meet its

enrollment targets because a robust and aggressive enrollment plan was not presented. Nor is it clear that the

school is prepared to support the target population, which the school has identified as students who they expect

will arrive with significant academic challenges. While the school welcomes all students, the application did not

sufficiently provide a plan for supporting exceptional learners and ELL students. The school does not appear to

have yet begun outreach efforts to garner support and speak to the community regarding the proposed school.

Overall, the application lacked depth to in order to assess the academic strength and outcomes for students should

the application be approved.



Strengths: (If Any) Weaknesses: The proposed school intends to use both the High Tech High and Project Based Learning models. However, the

application does not provide an explanation of how these two programs will connect learning for the students that

will be served. Concerns still exist around the evaluation of student data and assessment including portfolios and

POL’s (Presentation of Learning). The applicant also does not provide evidence of on-going engagement with

families during the recruitment and enrollment process. Given the uniqueness of the proposed program,

continued touch points are critical in order to ensure full enrollment of the school.


SECTION 2 – OPERATIONS PLAN AND CAPACITY

2.1 GOVERNANCE

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Strong understanding of the roles and responsibilities of a governing board including structure, size, powers, duties, and

expertise that aligns with the school’s mission and vision. ▪ Proposed structure is likely to ensure effective governance and meaningful oversight of school performance, operations, and

financials. ▪ Evidence the proposed board members will contribute the wide range of knowledge, skills, and commitment needed to

oversee a successful charter school, including but not limited to educational, financial, legal, and community experience and expertise.

▪ Plans for meaningful board training as required by law. ▪ If applicable, a timely plan for creating or transitioning from a founding board to a school governing board. ▪ Clear, compelling plans to ensure parents have access to the governing board, including a process for complaints that is fair,

transparent and a plan for communicating the process. ▪ Sound plan and timeline for board recruitment, expansion and orientation of new members.

▪ Governance documents (Attachments F1-F7) are complete and align with state laws and district policies.



Strengths Page

Concerns/ Questions Page

The structure and size of the board are poorly defined. The range in number of trustees (5-15) is quite broad. To what

extent will the committee and/or advisory structure be determined by the size of the governing board? Has the group

discussed potential committees?

Will the School Director report to the board or to the Executive Director? The application states the board will “support

and evaluate the School Director”. Is this actually the Executive Director?

Has the group attempted to recruit representatives from higher education institutions and potential industry partners to

the board? If yes, what barriers have surfaced? How will the board ensure these key stakeholders inform the program

and participate in school governance in the future?

How will the parent representative be selected? Will the full parent body have a voice in selection?

What reports will the board require to ensure it has all necessary information to provide comprehensive oversight of the

school? From whom? With what frequency?

When does the group intend to create a board orientation and training plan? The application states the group will work

with BoardOnTrack to do this but does not provide a timeline or identify key needs.

Having a school’s founder on the governing board can have both benefits and drawbacks. How have proposed trustees

dealt with disagreements while completing the application and how will they ensure the founder does not drive the

work of the board?

How often will the board meet? What consideration has the team given to making meeting times convenient for

families? When will the annual meeting take place?

The by-laws state that the minimum number of trustees necessary to comprise a committee is two. How will a

committee of two resolve disagreements to present a recommendation to the full board?

There is no legal or governance expertise on the identified board (and no budgeted legal fees). What other areas of

expertise has the board identified as missing? How will recruitment efforts target these areas?

P.60 P.60 P.60 P.60 P.60 P.61




Strengths Page


The application still did not address the communication structures and processes by which the Chief Executive Officer

will update the board on the various aspects of progress in the schools? It is unclear how the board receives

information in order to appropriately managed and serving the students and their families.

P.114-117



2.2 START-UP PLAN

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Compelling plan for leading the development of the school from post-approval to opening, including identification of a

capable individual or team to lead the planning and start-up, as well as a viable plan for compensating this individual or team during the planning year.

▪ Adequately addresses potential challenges.

▪ Detailed start-up plan specifying tasks and timelines which are aligned with a sound start-up budget.



Strengths Page


The applicant provided a “high level” start-up plan which did not provide a detailed task list.(e.g. Hire start-up staff).

The Founder/Executive Director and Board of Directors are identified as completing all planning year tasks which

seems unfeasible and unsustainable. The lack of detail and planning around ownership of the tasks within the planning

year is concerning because the duration of the planning year is predicated on approval.

What financing options has the proposed school started to explore? What areas will be scaled back if anticipated

funding does not materialize? The application shares that the proposed school will secure initial funding in phase 1:

August thru December of 2018

The applicant provided a cursory description of anticipated challenges to starting a new school. With the training and

board capacity that is noted, how will the school address these challenges?

p.62-63

P.62

P.63



Strengths Page

The applicant provided a more detailed start up plan for start-up tasks.

P.118-126


The key challenges identified in the application were related to funding, facility preparation and hiring staff. The

application still did not provide a detailed response regarding how those challenges would be addressed. The

application has now identified the CEO and the Board of Directors as the responsible individuals. However, the

amount of tasks in the planning year is a heavy lift and it is concerning that nowhere in the start-up plan, that there are

no other members of the school team identified as having ownership of these tasks.

P.118-126



2.3 FACILITIES

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Facility plans are reasonable and adequately meet the requirements of the educational program and anticipated student

population.

▪ A sound plan and timeline for identifying, financing, renovating, and ensuring code compliance for a facility.



Strengths Page

The proposed school has anticipated the need for an open floor plan and spaces for collaboration which are needed for

the proposed school model.

The applicant has identified three possible options within the proposed area as well as potential benefits for each

option.

p.64

p.65


Description of facility needs does not mention science labs, counseling offices, internship and college advising, career

training labs, etc.

The application states that the proposed school will receive facilities acquisition supports from HTH Graduate School.

Is there a written agreement that details these supports and any associated costs? What is the relationship between HTH

Grad School and identified agent? What is the division of responsibilities regarding acquisition?

What other sources of funding will the proposed school consider for any major renovation projects? The application

states that the TN Charter Center will be one avenue regarding securing facilities funding without any additional

avenues.

Has the proposed school considered the budgetary implications of the contingency plan, especially given that a

renovation seems to be the primary option?

p.64

p.64-65

P66

P.67



Strengths Page


The previous stated concerns and questions exist after the review of the application.

P.126-129



2.4 PERSONNEL/ HUMAN CAPITAL

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ The schools organizational charts (Attachment G) clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of – and lines of authority

and reporting among – the Board, staff, any related bodies (such as advisory bodies or parent/educator councils), and any external organizations that will play a role in managing the school.

▪ If leader is identified, chosen leaders have necessary qualifications, competencies, and capacity for their assigned roles and resumes for school leadership are included (Attachment H). If available, includes previous student achievement data for school leadership (Attachment H). NOTE: If school leader has not been chosen, a clear description of qualifications, expectations, responsibilities and timeline for hiring is included.

▪ Identifies strategies for supporting school leadership. ▪ Recruitment and hiring strategy, criteria, timeline, and procedures are likely to result in a strong staff and are well suited to

the school. ▪ Compensation packages are likely to attract and retain strong staff are clearly defined. ▪ Provides a strong plan for supporting, developing, and annually evaluating school leadership and teachers that aligns

statewide evaluation requirements. ▪ Effective planning for unsatisfactory leadership/teacher performance and turnover.

▪ Employee manual and personnel policies (Attachment I) are complete and effective. ▪ Staffing projections for each year are robust and aligned with the educational program and conducive to the school’s

success.



Strengths Page


The application is internally inconsistent regarding staffing plans. Budgeted positions do not match submitted

organizational chart or functional descriptions included in various sections of narrative.

Will the founder serve as executive director or school director? Does the board intend to lead selection of both the

school director and the executive director? What other hiring decisions does the board plan to make? How will the

board hold the executive director accountable for results if he/she is unable to select the school’s staff?

The staffing projections do not align to the school’s mission and vision and are not conducive to the success of the

educational program. The human capital dedicated to providing supports for English learners and students requiring

special education services are insufficient to meet students’ needs. It is unclear that the school will be able to offer

dual enrollment and work-based learning opportunities without identified staff responsible for coordinating these key

program components.

Employee manual provided is from High Tech High SY 2007-08 which is based in California. What is the plan for

creating a Blueprint handbook?

The hiring strategy and criteria are not sufficiently defined to result in a fair and consistent process. The plan also does

not include a method to gauge mission alignment, which will be critical to staff retention and school success. The

application lacks a systematic process for vetting and ensuring appropriate licensure, background checks and

credentials for teaching and administrative staff.

Given the specialized program and the shallow teacher pool, what strategies will the school implement to find quality

candidates?

The application was absent information regarding health benefits and compensation.

The application does not provide a robust description around coaching, retention and leadership development.

(P67-68)

(P73)

Attachment

O

Attachment

I

P69-70

P.70-71




Strengths Page

The proposed school will be able to access candidate pools through the High Tech High Network and their affiliation

with the Big Picture Learning network.

P.132


The ongoing professional development plan presented in this section of the application is in conflict with the

professional development plan in section 2.5. The employee handbook that was presented in the amended application

was for the High Tech High School in 2007-08. The application still did not address questions regarding health

benefits and compensation. Given the specialized program, the hiring plan did not address the previous feedback

raised around gauging mission alignment to ensure the best chances for staff retention and school success. The

application also did not address human resource processes and procedures to ensure teachers are appropriately

licensed, statutory requirements regarding background checks as well as appropriate credential for administrative staff

are handled. There were some positions presented in the staffing chart that did not align to the proposed budget.

Staffing projections still appear to be inconsistent with the proposed mission and expectations for the school to serve

students’ special education and ELL population.

P.131-137



2.5 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Professional development standards, opportunities, leadership, and calendar/scheduling effectively support the education

program and are likely to maximize success in improving student achievement. ▪ Thoughtful plan for professional development in the areas of special education and English Language Learners, including

implementation of IEP’s, discipline of students with disabilities and communication with ELL families.

▪ Professional development plan supports professional growth, generates collaboration, and cultivates future leadership.



Strengths Page


The plan to hold PD meetings for 30 minutes before school four times a week is not likely to yield positive results.

Thirty minutes is too little time to dive deeply into a topic and/or model effective practices. Further, it will be difficult

to shelter teachers from competing demands such as parents and students seeking informal conferences.

The application response lacks information regarding professional development related to exceptional children and

ELL students.

The response identifies the school director as responsible for PD in Year 1. Who will be responsible in subsequent

years?

Is the New teacher Odyssey required for both new and veteran teachers? Will pre-training be two weeks prior to Year

1 only?

Is the budget for PD sufficient given the complexity of the school design? PBL, authentic assessments, and digital

portfolios all require specific, ongoing training, at least some of which should be conducted by external facilitators.

What is the comprehensive plan for professional development both internal lead and externally facilitated professional

development?

The professional development plan lacks intentionality regarding teacher development and cultivating leadership

within the proposed school. While the application lists sets of activities and opportunities but there is no explanation

as to how they connect. Given the project based learning model, the application did not fully articulate the role of

collaboration to fulfill the mission and vision.

P45, 74

P.75-76

P.75

P.76

Attachment

O

P74-76



Strengths Page

The proposed school will have professional support development and monitoring from High Tech High and Big

Picture Learning. The support will include staff training/coaching, parent engagement, program design etc.

P.139,140


While the applicant addressed questions regarding the various sources that will deliver and support professional

development for the proposed school. The annual professional development plan presented still does not provide a

comprehensive plan of professional development for the teaching staff. The application does not provide an

explanation of how these various activities connect. The proposed school is planning to implement two different

school models and this plan does not provide a plan for implementing the various components of training with two

providers as well as the in house professional development. The professional development plan also does not address

or allot time for professional development for exceptional children and ELL students.

P.138-143



2.6 INSURANCE

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Plan to secure comprehensive and adequate insurance coverage, including worker’s compensation, liability, property,

indemnity, directors and officers, automobile, sexual abuse and any other required coverage. ▪ If applicable, additional liability for such activities as sports teams.

▪ Insurance company letter (Attachment J) states required coverage will be provided upon approval of the charter school application.



Strengths Page

The school has a letter indicating coverage can be secured pending approval.

Attachment

J




Strengths Page




2.7 TRANSPORTATION – IF APPLICABLE

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Clear description of transportation plan that includes anticipated routes, extracurricular activities, and Saturday school where

applicable. ▪ A comprehensive oversight plan that identifies school staff responsible for this oversight. ▪ Description of how the school will arrange transportation for special needs students where necessary.

▪ Demonstrated familiarity with state and federal regulations relating to provision of transportation services to students.



Strengths Page


The application did not provide a detailed response regarding the transportation plan for the proposed school

The application states that most students who are enrolled will live in the surrounding area. While the school is

planning for one bus, how will the school determine the route? Are there specific criteria that the school will use to

determine who will be able to take advantage of transportation? Has the school planned in the event the demand

exceeds the budgeted transportation?

Will the school provide transportation for Saturday school or extracurricular programming? How will the proposed

school communicate these expectations to families?

Given the most recent transportation legislation, the application does not address the mandates for oversight of the

transportation plan nor does the handbook address the school’s transportation policy. The proposed school has

provided a copy of the SCS handbook without any considerations for the proposed school.

How will the school provide consideration for students who may have special needs that require transportation?

P.76-77

P.76

P77

Attachment

B



Strengths Page

The applicant sufficiently addressed the questions and concerns raised during the initial application review.

P.143-145




2.8 FOOD SERVICE

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ A clear description of how the school will offer food service to all students, adhering to all nutritional guidelines. ▪ A plan to collect free and reduced price lunch information, including procedures to receive reimbursement.

▪ A plan to ensure compliance with applicable state and federal regulations.



Strengths Page

The school has already selected a food service provider.

P.77


The application did not have a detailed response in this section of the application.

What process will the school put into place to ensure that the school will appropriately communicate to parents the

process for the free and reduced lunch program? Who will be responsible for collecting the data and communicating

the status of their student to the parents? Who within the proposed school will provide overall management of the

lunch program?

P.77



Strengths Page


P145-146




2.9 ADDITIONAL OPERATIONS – IF APPLICABLE

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Detailed plans for use of technology within the classroom and for state assessments. ▪ Provides compelling data management plan that includes communication strategies for parents. ▪ Demonstrates understanding of health and safety requirements that includes a plan for hiring a registered nurse for creating

individual health plans as required by law. ▪ Detailed safety and security plans for students, staff, guests, and property. ▪ Provides detailed maintenance plan for school facilities. ▪ If school plans to contract with a CMO, describes rationale and process for selecting CMO and explanation of why the CMO

is a strong choice and good fit for the proposed school and community. ▪ Provides clear division of roles between the board and the service provider.

▪ If available, the CMO arrangement (Attachment K) is free of conflicts of interest and there is a viable plan for identifying and managing potential conflicts.



Strengths Page


The applicant provided very general responses in this section of the application.

What is the school’s plan in regards to safety and security for students, guests, parents and staff? The application

states that this will be developed during the planning year. What are the budgetary considerations to ensure the safety

of the school?

The school states they will contract for nursing services as well as additional support service. However, who will be

responsible for managing the state immunization compliance as well as any other state mandated health reporting?

How will the school plan should there be students who require nursing service during the school day?

The application states that the proposed school will offer 1:1 technology. The budget did not have any IT support

included. The facilities plan did not include a computer lab.

The school provided no discussion regarding how technology will be leveraged in the classroom, nor how the school

will plan for state assessment.

The application did not provide a proposed plan for school maintenance nor was there any custodial costs included in

the budget. The application states that the plan will be decided after a facility has been secured.

The application did not address how and/or what tools will be used regarding student information and communication

to parents. What tools will the school utilize to communicate critical student information (e.g. grades, school closings,

behavior, special events etc.)

P.77-78

P.78,

Attachment

P

P.77

P.77, 64

P.77

P.78

P.77-78



Strengths Page


P.147-150




2.10 WAIVERS

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Detailed description of waivers requested that includes compelling and thoughtful rationale describing how the waivers will

impact student achievement.

▪ A demonstrated understanding of the rules and statutes that cannot be waived under Tennessee law.



Strengths Page


The applicant did not provide a detailed response regarding why specific waivers would be needed to impact student

achievement. Some of the statutory citations and corresponding state rules that were referenced are outdated.

P.78-84



Strengths Page


The only waived not approved is Teacher Evaluation 49-552205. State Board rule requires that all charter schools must use a state approved evaluation model.



2.11 NETWORK VISION, GROWTH PLAN, & CAPACITY (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS)

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Detailed strategic vision for the network that includes a robust five-year network growth plan. Growth plan should include the

following: proposed years of opening; number and types of schools; a clear, detailed outline of any pending applications (whether in the same LEA, Tennessee or another state); all current and/or targeted markets/communities and criteria for selecting them; and projected enrollments.

▪ Strong, compelling evidence of organizational capacity to open and operate high quality schools in Tennessee and elsewhere including specific timelines for building organizational capacity.

▪ Clear, detailed description of the results of past replication effort, challenges, and lessons learned, and how the organization has addressed any challenges.

▪ Realistic presentation of anticipated challenges and risks over the next five years associated with opening additional schools, along with a plan to overcome them to achieve the organization’s stated outcomes.

▪ Comprehensive and complete annual report (both network and individual schools) (Attachment L). ▪ If facility has been selected, facility plans are reasonable and adequately meet the requirements of the educational program

and anticipated student population.

▪ If facility has not been selected, or selected facility needs renovations/upgrades, a sound plan and timeline for identifying, financing, renovating, and ensuring code compliance for a facility.



Strengths Page

Not Applicable




Strengths Page




2.12 NETWORK MANAGEMENT (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS)

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Leadership team identified and role and responsibilities listed. ▪ As Attachment M, organizational charts for Year 1, Year 3, and Year 5 clearly delineate roles and responsibilities of the

governing board, including lines of authority between the board, school leadership, and staff. If applicable, the chart should include other related bodies (advisory bodies or parent-teacher councils) and a charter management organization if school has contracted with one and it will play a role in managing the school.

▪ Clear, compelling network strategy that includes any shared or centralized support services, along with their costs, across the network.

▪ Strong description of relationship between schools and charter management organization, including presentation of a contract or MOU (if applicable).

▪ Fees from member schools are clearly delineated, along with a rationale for their collection, use, and structure (if applicable).

▪ Associated table provided in application is complete with explanations for school and organization-level decision-making responsibilities.



Strengths Page

Not Applicable




Strengths Page




2.13 NETWORK GOVERNANCE (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS)

Characteristics of a strong response: 1) If there is a network board that operates as the main governing body with each school having an advisory

committee: ▪ Applicant provides a complete description of the governance structure at the network level and delineates how that relates to

each individual school within the network. ▪ Provides a robust plan for ensuring there is adequate local/Tennessee stakeholder representation. ▪ Roles and responsibilities of this board described clearly and concisely. ▪ Description of the current size and composition of the governing board, with a rationale of how the current/proposed

governance structure and composition will ensure the desired outcomes of a network of highly effective schools. ▪ A clear and compelling plan to evaluate academic and operational success including the evaluation of the school and school

leader (s). 2) If there will be one governing board for all schools at the local level, or separate governing boards for each school:

• If there will be one governing board for all schools: o A clear, detailed description of the governance structure at the network level and how it relates to the individual

school including any changes that will take place at the board level for it to be effective (if necessary). o A copy of the by-laws and organizational chart is included. o A clear, thorough plan to transform the board’s membership, mission and by-laws to support the expansion plan.

Plan should include timeline for the transition and orientation of the board to its new responsibilities.

• If there will be a separate governing board for each school: o A clear, detailed description of how the new governing board will be formed and the relationship between the new

and old boards described, along with any overlapping responsibilities. o Includes biographies of new board members, roles and responsibilities of the board described clearly and concisely,

an organizational chart and governing board structure.

▪ By-laws of the new board are included (if available) and there is a plan in place for board training as required by Tennessee law.



Strengths Page

Not Applicable




Strengths Page




2.14 CHARTER SCHOOL MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS (IF APPLICABLE; FOR EXISTING OPERATORS)

Characteristics of a strong response:

▪ As Attachment N, a detailed, strong rationale explaining the selection of the CMO, including descriptions of proposed duration of the contract, roles and responsibilities of the governing board, school staff, and the service provider, scope of services provided, performance evaluation measures, financial controls, and terms of renewal.

▪ Draft of proposed management contract. ▪ Detailed documentation of CMO’s non-profit status, including evidence it is authorized to do business in Tennessee.



Strengths Page

Not applicable




Strengths Page




2.15 PERSONNEL/HUMAN CAPITAL – NETWORK-WIDE STAFFING PROJECTIONS (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS)

Characteristics of a strong response:

▪ Network staffing projections for each year are robust and aligned with the educational program and are conducive to the school’s success.



Strengths Page

Not applicable




Strengths Page




2.16 PERSONNEL/HUMAN CAPITAL – STAFFING PLANS, HIRING, MANAGEMENT, AND EVALUATION (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS)

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Chosen leaders have necessary qualifications, competencies and capacity for their assigned roles. ▪ Identifies strategies for supporting school leadership. ▪ Recruitment and hiring strategy, criteria, timeline, and procedures are likely to result in a strong staff and meet requirements

for being “highly qualified” and are well suited to the school. ▪ Effective planning for unsatisfactory leadership/teacher performance and turnover.

▪ The organizational charts (Attachment G) provided clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of – and lines of authority and reporting among – the Board, staff, any related bodies (such as advisory bodies or parent/educator councils), and any external organizations that will play a role in managing the school.



Strengths Page

Not applicable




Strengths Page



SECTION 2 OPERATIONS PLAN AND CAPACITY


Summary Rating for Entire Operations Plan and Capacity



Strengths: The applicant has identified several possible sites to open the school and benefits for each option. The founder

included letters of support from High Tech High and has completed graduate work through their school of

education.

Weaknesses/Questions: The application lacked a detailed response and supporting evidence that the proposed school has strong

operational systems and processes. The startup plan for the proposed school lacked a detailed timeline outlining

key tasks required for opening. There were many questions related to the proposed board and their role with

providing oversight to the proposed school. The school does not have a robust recruitment plan to secure

teachers and on-going professional development given the specialized school model the proposed school will

implement. The application did not provide enough evidence to ensure that the proposed school has all the

elements needed to operate a school effectively and efficiently.



Strengths: The applicant has secured letter of support from HTH and BPL for professional developing and support from pre-

opening and ongoing support.

(If Any) Weaknesses: The proposed school has both the CEO and Board undertaking all pre-opening tasks which is not feasible. The

applicant has not been able to provide an explanation regarding how both the HTH and BPL models are

connected and complement each other to serve the students of the proposed school. Even with the professional

development support that will be provided by both organizations, it is unclear how all of this fits into an overall

plan for professional development plan. Teacher will still need additional support and training in other critical

areas to serve their students (e.g. special education, culture, ELL etc.)


SECTION 3 – FINANCIAL PLAN AND CAPACITY

3.1 & 3.2 CHARTER SCHOOL FINANCING

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Budget worksheet (Attachment O) contains assumptions and reasonable budget numbers that reflect rent, utilities,

maintenance, insurance and build-out costs.

• Detailed budget assumptions that include the impact of the anticipated number of students who receive free or reduced price lunches.

• Detailed financial procedures, policy, or other reasonable assurance that the proposed school will have sound systems and processes in place for accounting, payroll, and independent annual school-level and network-level (where applicable) financial and administrative audits.

• Sound criteria and procedures in place for selecting contractors for any administrative services.

• Complete, realistic, and viable start-up and five year operating budgets.

• Detailed budget narrative (Attachment P) that clearly explains reasonable, well-supported revenue and cost assumptions, including grant/fundraising assumptions, identification of the amounts and sources of all anticipated funds, property, or other resources (noting which are secured vs. anticipated, and including evidence of firm commitments where applicable.

• Sound contingency plan to meet financial needs if anticipated revenues are lower than estimated.

• Individual and collective qualifications for implementing the financial plan successfully, including capacity in areas such as financial management, fundraising and development, and accounting.



Strengths Page


The budget narrative was very general and did not provide any depth to priorities that drive the budget.

Nor was there any explanation around ongoing need as the school commits to meeting its mission and

vision. The application did not provide a robust explanation regarding financial procedures and

assurances that strong systems are in place for managing the affairs of the school. What role will the

founder and board member play in the financial management of the proposed school?

Revenue projections for ELL students and students will disabilities are inconsistent with the application.

The applicant reflects $743,000 of unsecured grant funds for planning year activities. What is the backup

should those funds not be secured? There is no evidence that suggests any of those funds have yet been

secured.

What is the contingency plan in event that the school is under-enrolled and/or grant funds do not

materialize?

Other than the potential grant opportunities in the startup year, what is the school’s plan, if any, to secure

additional grants or philanthropic support to supplement state revenues?

There are areas within the instructional staffing budget that seem incongruent with information shared in

the application (section 2.4).

Is the proposed school anticipating no debt service with facilities financing?

What are the sources of the school activity revenues?

Attachment P Attachment O and P Attachment O Attachment P Attachment O, p73 Attachment O


Will there be any costs for the internship program, early college partnership or cte course work? If so

where are those costs reflected?

Has the school budgeted for the Summer Bridge and Summer teacher training?

What is the rationale around increased laptop jump in year 4 when no additional grades are added?

Student furniture costs stay flat but there are increases to enrollment.

The budget does not reflect any IT costs in Year 1? Given the school’s technology needs give the model,

has the school appropriately budgeted and planned for both short term and long term needs?

Attachment O Attachment O, Attachment P



Strengths Page


There are still unanswered questions and concerns after the review of the amended application. The applicant’s

planning year activities are reliant on the receipt of unsecured funds (e.g. CSP, New Venture School Funds grant).

The budget narrative addressing low enrollment was brief and still insufficient to provide confidence that the school

has an actionable plan. Costs related to programmatic features that are critical to the program such as internship

program, early college partnership or CTE course work are not reflected in the budget or budget narrative. The

professional development budgeted does not explicitly speak to the summer teacher training. It is unclear how the

proposed school will pay for the extensive summer training. Overall, the budget narrative lacked depth and lacked a

coherent explanation regarding the school’s budget priorities and ongoing needs in order to fulfill their mission to

their students.

Attachment O and P.141-143



3.3 FINANCIAL PLAN (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS COMPLETING SECTIONS 3.1 AND 3.2)

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Detailed description of the fiscal health of other schools in the network (if applicable) including a comprehensive description

of any schools on fiscal probation or in bankruptcy. ▪ Complete, realistic, and viable budget for the network (Attachment Q). The budget includes reasonable, well-support

revenue and cost assumptions, including grant/fundraising assumptions, identification of the amounts and sources of all anticipated funds, property, or other resources (noting which are secured vs. anticipated) and including evidence of firm commitments where applicable.

▪ Sound contingency funds to meet financial needs if anticipated revenues are lower than estimated.



Strengths Page

N/A




Strengths Page




3.4 FINANCIAL PLAN (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS NOT COMPLETING SECTIONS 3.1 AND 3.2)

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Budget assumptions and reasonable budget numbers that reflect rent, utilities, maintenance, insurance and build-out costs of

facilities.

• Detailed financial procedures, policy, or other reasonable assurance that the proposed school will have sound systems and processes in place for accounting, payroll, and independent annual school-level and network-level (where applicable) financial and administrative audits (both school level and network level).

• Complete, realistic, and viable start-up and five year operating budgets for network and individual schools (Attachment Q) that align with the academic plan and operations plan included in the application. If applicable, clearly describes the fiscal health of any other schools in the network and any fiscal issues the schools have faced (bankruptcy, fiscal probation, etc.).

• Detailed budget narrative (Attachment P) that clearly explains reasonable, well-supported revenue and cost assumptions, including grant/fundraising assumptions, identification of the amounts and sources of all anticipated funds, property, or other resources (noting which are secured vs. anticipated, and including evidence of firm commitments where applicable.

• Sound contingency plan to meet financial needs if anticipated revenues are lower than estimated. Particularly important is Year 1 cash flow projections and contingency, as well as a 24-month cash-flow projection.

• Individual and collective qualifications for implementing the financial plan successfully, including capacity in areas such as financial management, fundraising and development, and accounting.

• Detailed budget is inclusive of both individual schools and network.

▪ All cost revenues and all major expenditures are accounted for and are realistic.



Strengths Page

Not Applicable




Strengths Page



SECTION 3 FINANCIAL PLAN AND CAPACITY


Summary Rating for Entire Financial Plan and Capacity Section



Strengths: Weaknesses/Questions:

Overall, the application for Blueprint Avodah did not provide sufficient information to determine the

financial capacity of the school if approved. The budget narrative lacked a robust description of

financial policies and procedures which gives assurance that the school will have strong systems in

place to manage their financial affairs. The school is reliant solely on unsecured grants in the planning

year without any contingency plan should those funds not materialize. There are many questions

around budgeting for staffing, contracted services, and facilities that appear to be inconsistent with

ensuring that the proposed school is able to fulfill the mission; as well as full implementation of

programmatic features that are critical to the success of the students they will serve.



Strengths: (If Any) Weaknesses: The application still did not address other concerns raised during the initial review. The applicant is still reliant on unsecured funds for start-up cost which are significant. (CSP funds are not granted until after a school is approved.) The proposed school has professional development and other costs that are critical to the success of the program. There are not contingencies should those funds not materialize.


SECTION 4 – PORTFOLIO REVIEW/PERFORMANCE RECORD

4.1 PAST PERFORMANCE (FOR EXISTING OPERATORS)

Characteristics of a strong response: ▪ Applicant provides clear, compelling evidence of successful student outcomes for each school in the network (Portfolio

Summary Template, Attachment S) and evidence that the operator’s schools are high performing and successful by meeting state standards and national standards (Attachment R).

▪ Graduation rates are indicative of highly successful graduation strategies (if applicable, Attachment R). ▪ Applicant selects one or more of the organization’s consistently high-performing schools and provides a detailed narrative

outlining primary causation of high-quality, high-performing status, along with description of challenges met and overcome. ▪ Applicant selects one or more of the organization’s low or unsatisfactorily performing schools and provides a detailed

narrative outlining primary causation of low performing school(s) in the network and specific strategies outlined that corrected, or will correct, the deficiencies (if applicable).

▪ Latest audit (Attachment U) shows no findings and is prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting and auditing principles as is outlined in Tennessee law.

▪ Organization is in good standing wherever they have located schools, and there have been no revocations, litigation that has resulted in negative outcomes, non-renewals, or financial, organizational, or academic deficiencies (if applicable, Attachments T and V).

Application Review


Strengths Page

N/A




Strengths Page


tennessee charter school application evaluation …€¦ · focus/grade structure operator with...

Documents