Cherry Creek School District Board of Directors Cherry Creek School District # S. Yosemite Street Greenwood Village, CO

Transcription

1 Cherry Creek School District Board of Directors Cherry Creek School District # S. Yosemite Street Greenwood Village, CO October 12, 2015 Directors, On the morning of October 7, 2015, the Board of Directors of the proposed Heritage Heights Academy Charter School (the HHA Board ) received a binder from the Cherry Creek School District ( CCSD ) staff entitled Cherry Creek School District Board of Education Study Session-Heritage Heights Academy Charter School Application (the Study Session Materials ). The Study Session Materials contained hundreds of pages of correspondence, reviews and matrices regarding the Heritage Heights Academy application. The HHA Board recognizes and appreciates the efforts of CCSD staff, application review team and others who commented and submitted materials for the CCSD Board s review. We recognize that the CCSD review team has recommended denial of the application. However, as set forth herein, that recommendation is not supported by the totality of the evidence presented to the CCSD Board of Directors. A quality review is not a call to probe for only errors or weaknesses. We respect the value of having areas for improvement identified, but would note that areas needing improvement does not warrant denial of an application. The standard of review is not perfection, as there is no such thing as a perfect application or school. The CCSD Board must consider the application as a whole, balancing all of the strengths with any areas for improvement and determining whether the Application as a whole presents an educational, governance, and management structure which will produce a successful school. As set forth in the remainder of this document, it is readily apparent that the totality of the HHA Application merits approval. The main questions before the Board of Directors are whether the proposed HHA Charter School will be a successful educational model, with sound operational and financial management, and a governing board with the capacity to successfully lead a public charter school. The HHA application, the Board interview, the historical performance of HHA s educational and management partners, and the demand of the community demonstrate that all of these questions must be answered in the affirmative. As such, the CCSD Board should approve the HHA application, with any areas needing clarification or revision to be addressed as conditions on that approval.

2 I. The charter application reviews demonstrate that the HHA Charter Application should be approved with conditions, as there is not a single area of the application wherein all three review teams concurred that the application did not warrant approval. On page three of the District Review tab of the Study Session materials a chart is provided which contains nineteen areas of review which were scored by the District Review Team, the District Accountability Committee ( DAC ), and the Charter School Institute (CSI) respectively. (The DAC only scored seventeen areas within the application). The color coded chart notes that areas in red do not met requirements, areas in yellow partially meet requirements, and areas in green meet requirements. The CSI review document clarifies this color coding, labeling the red areas as supporting denial, the yellow areas as warranting approval with conditions, and the green areas as warranting approval. Thus, all areas coded green or yellow warrant approval. The chart from the Study Session materials is recreated below, with notations demonstrating the overwhelming evidence in support of approval of the HHA application, with conditions in those areas where further information or clarification is requested. OVERVIEW OF APPLICATION REVIEW SCORES AND ANALYSIS Meets Requirements-Approve Partially Meets Requirements-Approve with Conditions Does not Meet Requirements-Deny Not Addressed by Reviewer Executive Summary Mission and Vision Goals, Objectives and Student Performance Purpose & Evidence of Support Student Acheivement/Academic Accountability Students with Special Needs Discipline, Suspension, Expulsion Criteria for Enrollment Decisions Professional Development Annual Calendar Governance and Decision Making Parent Involvement Dispute Resolution Waivers Employment Plan and Policies Financials Insurance Transportation Educational Management Provider District Review Team DAC CSI Summary APPROVE per DAC and CSI and District Review Team and District Review Team APPROVE with conditions-per CSI and DAC APPROVE with conditions per all reviewers APPROVE per DAC and CSI APPROVE per DAC APPROVE with conditions per all reviewers APPROVE with conditions per DRT and CSR APPROVE with conditions-per DRT and CSI APPROVE with conditions-per DRT and CSI and CSI Total Areas in which HHA was evaluated 19 Total Areas in which HHA given score for approval or approval with conditions by at least one review team 19 Total Areas in which none of the three review teams scored for at least approval with conditions 0 Total Number of Categorical Scores 55 Total Number of Categorical Scores for Approval or Approval with Conditions 41 Total Number of Categorical Scores for Denial 14 Percentage of Categorical Scores for Approval or Approval with Conditions 75%

3 Reviewing the summary chart above reveals that the totality of the scoring of all sections overwhelmingly supports approval of the HHA charter application. Indeed, while each review team coded a minority of the areas in the application as meriting denial, that conclusion was never supported by the consensus of the other review teams. Not in one single area of the application review did each of the three review organizations agree that the application contents were so insufficient as to merit denial. The reviews of the HHA application simply do not support the District Review team s statement that Overall, the application failed to meet requirements of a quality charter application. (See Summary of District Leadership Team Review). Indeed, the District review team marked 5 areas for denial where neither of the other review teams agreed with that conclusion; in one case recommending denial (the lowest score) where both of the other review teams concluded the application met requirements (the highest score). Thus, the conclusion of the District Review team s Summary is inaccurate and not supported by a totality the evidence. In total, the three review teams issued 55 categorical scores, with two of the review teams issuing 19 categorical scores, and the third issuing 17 categorical scores. Of these, 41 categories were marked as meriting approval or approval with conditions, a rate of seventy-five percent. Recognizing that no application is going to receive universal approval from all reviewers, the passing rate achieved by HHA is well within any reasonable standard, and the HHA application should be approved with conditions. II. Negative Comments within Reviews often resulted from misstatements and misunderstandings, further demonstrating that the application merits approval. As noted in the graph and summary in Part I, above, not every evaluator gave a passing grade to every section of the HHA application. However, every section of the application did receive a passing score from at least one evaluator, proving that the HHA application must be approved. Furthermore, in those areas where poor scores were assigned to the application, those scores were often based on misstatements and misunderstandings by the evaluators which call into question the negative scores assigned. The HHA Board would like to note this letter is not meant to be a criticism of any evaluating team or team member. The HHA Board recognizes that evaluating a several hundred page document is a difficult task, and, much like with the creation of the application itself, perfection would not be a fair standard. These misunderstandings and misstatements are bound to occur in dealing with such a volume of material. Nevertheless, much as our errors and need for improvement should be noted, the errors in the evaluations must also be considered in order to give the application a fair consideration and vote. For example, one reviewer commented that the designations of both Core Knowledge and Singapore math curriculum seemed inconsistent. This represents a basic misunderstanding of Core Knowledge, which is a curriculum mapping and sequencing tool, and Singapore math, which is a math curriculum. Similarly, multiple reviewers questioned whether HHA was providing a new option to the CCSD area because a Core Knowledge charter school already exists within the CCSD boundaries, referencing although not always naming Cherry Creek Academy. This question ignores important facts noted in the application, such as the fact that HHA will be located in and

4 target a different geographic region, HHA s partnership with a distinct Core Knowledge school, Liberty Common, and the extensive waiting list for the lone charter school currently located within CCSD which prevents it from truly being an option to families not already enrolled. This final fact alone, the thousands of students waitlisted at Cherry Creek Academy, demonstrates that the only other Core Knowledge Charter School in the district is not a valid option for families. Thus, HHA will provide a new and needed option. These are just some examples of many of the critiques throughout the evaluations which are not supported by a totality of the facts. There are also many valid critiques which warrant clarification prior to entering into a Charter Contract, as noted in the reviews. However, none of these issues are sufficient to warrant denial. Accordingly, the CCSD Board of Directors should approve the HHA application with conditions. III. The Selection of Academica as a service provider strengthens the HHA application and supports the approval of the HHA Application. Academica is one of the largest, most successful and lowest priced comprehensive educational service providers in the country. As with all large organizations, there is sufficient data available that the organization can be presented in a negative light if there is a predisposition to doing so. However, a fair evaluation of all information available proves that Academica is a quality service provider, the selection of which is further evidence of the capacity and the prudent decision-making of the HHA Board. Unfortunately, much of the information gathered and presented to the CCSD board has been inaccurate and based upon politically motivated news articles arising from Academica s Florida operations. However, the HHA Board has been able to provide an equivalent number of fact-based media pieces focused on Academica s strong national track record of supporting quality schools in their operational success. The Study Session materials also contained documents arising from audits and investigations completed in Florida. We recognize the importance of the CCSD review team and Board addressing any issues raised in these reports and verifying that the HHA Board will ensure arms-length and fair transactions in all of their business dealings, including the development of a school facility. Nevertheless, it must also be recognized that the audit report contained in the Study Session materials was completed by Miami-Dade Public Schools, and that same district has approved numerous charter applications with Academica as the educational service provider in the decade since that investigation was completed. As such, when the very school district that reviewed the matters in question has granted multiple charters to schools who have selected Academica as a service provider, there can be no reasonable basis for CCSD to conclude, based on that district s report, that Academica is not a quality service provider who can effectively support HHA s operations under the direction of the HHA Board. Despite the HHA Board s efforts to accurately portray the relationship between HHA and Academica, misperceptions seem to persist. During the final minutes of the October 8, 2015 Study Group one Cherry Creek School District Board Member expressed reluctance to approve a for-profit charter school, with Board Members selected by a management provider, whose facilities plan involved renting space from a Church which was described as illegal and a

5 violation of the separation of chuch and state. 1 All of these statements are false. HHA is a non-profit public charter school, whose contract with a private service provider is as fair and reasonable as the many for-profit providers who provide textbooks, professional services, furniture, food, and many other goods and services to CCSD. HHA Board members are not selected by Academica, and any recommendations by Academica to seek out particular expertise for membership on the Board of Directors only strengthens this Board s ability to govern and oversee the school. The Candidates possessing that expertise who are presented for Board Membership have always arisen directly from the Board and school community, not Academica. And renting a facility from a church is legal and proper so long as the facility and agreement are managed properly. See (link to article) In short, Academica s involvement in the HHA operations plan strengthens the school program. As set forth in the NACSA evaluation contained in the Study Session support materials, No schools have terminated services with Academica according to our research. As such, Academica s track record of servicing more than 100 schools without having a single school seeking to find a different service provider demonstrates the quality of the services they provide. IV. Conclusion The overall result of all reviews completed of the HHA Application demonstrate that it clearly merits approval. The HHA Board requests that the application be approved, with the District Board setting any conditions necessary to address reasonable questions or concerns prior to the execution of a charter contract. We feel that the compilation graph on page two of this document representing separate reviews conducted by various committees supports our request. Sincerely, Heritage Heights Academy Board of Directors 1 Please note that although quotation marks are used, the actual wording of the statements may have varied slightly. The single business day between the completion of the Study Session and the CCSD Board Meeting to vote on the HHA application did not allow time to review the actual recording.