STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION – TOPIC SUMMARY
Topic: Request for SBE Sponsorship: College of Knowledge
Date: December 1, 2011
Staff/Office: Susan Inman/Office of Educational Improvement and Innovation
Action Requested: Informational Only Adoption Later Adoption Adoption/Consent Agenda
ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD: Whether to sponsor the College of Knowledge in the Eugene School District.
BACKGROUND:
The College of Knowledge (COK) is a proposed comprehensive 9-12 charter school located in the Eugene School District. The Eugene School District has an enrollment of approximately 16,500 students and currently sponsors four charter schools. COK plans to provide a 9-12 education to “at risk” students in Lane County. “At risk”, as described by COK, are students at risk of dropping out, have special needs, low socio-economic or underserved groups and have poor attendance and/or academic performance. The school will also target Talented and Gifted students who are underachieving or failing to attend school because they see it as a restrictive environment. They propose a curriculum to naturally synthesize academic content, skills, and community connections with each student’s educational plan and profile and include credit for proficiency. The school seeks to enroll 100 students the first year of operation and 125 students the second year.
ORS 338.075 states “If a school district board does not approve a proposal to start a public charter school pursuant to ORS 338.055, the applicant may request that the State Board of Education review the decision of the school district board.”
The College of Knowledge made initial application to the Eugene School District for sponsorship November 15, 2010. The Eugene School District denied the application on January 25, 2011. The College of Knowledge developers submitted a remediated proposal on March 4, 2011 and were denied sponsorship again by the Eugene School District on March 16, 2011.
The following is the basis for the Eugene School District denial:
ORS 338.055(2)(a) -- demonstrated, sustainable support for the public charter school by teachers, parents, students and other community members,
ORS 338.055(2)(b) -- The demonstrated financial stability of the public charter school
ORS 338.055(2)(c) – capability to provide comprehensive instructional programs
ORS 338.055(2)(d) – capability to provide comprehensive instructional programs to academically low achieving
ORS 338.055(2)(f) – value outweighing the adverse impact
Following are the steps required upon the receipt of a request for review:
1. An attempt at mediation between the applicant and the school district board; and
2. Consideration by the State Board of Education to sponsor the public charter school.
On July 6, 2011, ODE received notification mediation was unsuccessful. The College of Knowledge requested consideration for sponsorship by the State Board of Education on July 8, 2011. Following the established appeal and sponsorship process, Department staff conducted a substantive review of the proposal using criteria set forth in ORS 338.045 and 338.055. A review panel consisted of internal and external reviews with expertise in curriculum, school finance, governance and innovative learning models.
The ODE review panel indicated the proposal did not meet the criteria established in ORS 338.055(2). The following list identifies criteria not met:
ORS 338.055(2)(a) -- demonstrated, sustainable support for the public charter school by teachers, parents, students and other community members,
ORS 338.055(2)(b) -- The demonstrated financial stability of the public charter school
ORS 338.055(2)(c) – capability to provide comprehensive instructional programs
ORS 338.055(2)(e) – The extent to which the proposal addresses the information required in ORS 338.045
Both College of Knowledge developers and Eugene School district were given the opportunity to address the Board at the October 2011 meeting. This item is now before the board for adoption.
POLICY QUESTIONS:
None at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Superintendent and ODE Staff recommend the State Board of Education deny the proposed sponsorship of the College of Knowledge.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Official Memo to Susan Castillo, Superintendent of Public Instruction
B – Combined Report: Oregon State Board of Education Charter School Proposal Review and Analysis Rubric
1
Oregon Department of Education / Office of Educational Improvement and Innovation255 Capitol Street NE / September 7, 2011
Salem, OR 97310
TO: / Susan Castillo, Superintendent of Public Instruction
FROM: / Colleen Mileham, Assistant Superintendent
RE: / College of Knowledge Charter School Request for State Board Sponsorship
College of Knowledge Charter School received a procedural and substantive review according to State Board established procedures. The substantive review of the charter proposal was conducted by a review team consisting of ODE staff, charter school developers and sponsors, individuals with expertise in curriculum, school finance, governance and alternative learning environments.
The review team found five areas that did not meet the minimum proposal requirements from ORS 338.045(2) and four areas that did not meet the evaluation criteria from ORS 338.055(2).
ORS 338.045(2) -
(d) A description of the curriculum of the public charter school
(m) The proposed budget and financial plan for the public charter school and evidence that the proposed budget and financial plan for the public charter school are financially sound
(o) The standards for behavior and the procedures for the discipline, suspension or expulsion of students
(t) Information on the manner in which community groups may be involved in the planning and development process of the public charter school
(w) A proposed plan for the placement of public charter school teachers, other school employees and students of the public charter school upon termination or non-renewal of a charter
ORS 338.055(2) -
(a) The demonstrated, sustainable support for the public charter school by teachers, parents, students and other community members, including comments received at the public hearing held under subsection (1) of this section
(b) The demonstrated financial stability of the public charter school, including the demonstrated ability of the school to have a sound financial management system in place at the time the school begins operating
(c) The capability of the applicant, in terms of support and planning, to provide comprehensive instructional programs to students pursuant to an approved proposal
(e) The extent to which the proposal addresses the information required in ORS 338.045
ODE staff recommends that the College of Knowledge Charter School’s request for State Board sponsorship be denied.
Both the applicant and the School District staff will be given the opportunity to address the State Board of Education during the October 2011 meeting.
Cc: Cindy Hunt
Margaret Bates
Kate Pattison
Attachment A 3
College of Knowledge Combined Report
Oregon State Board of Education
Charter School Proposal Review and Analysis Rubric
Proposal RequirementsORS 338.045 (2) / Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale /
(a) The identification of the applicant / Applicant identification is evidenced by a listing of the names of key school founders.
Preferable factors
· Specification of each person’s role with the proposed school and relevant experience/expertise.
5 Meets / 0 Does Not Meet
Explain rationale for rating:
Board of Directors and Founders are identified on the first page of the Charter Application dated 11.15.10.
Pg. 2 of Application. Clear and easily found.
All founders are clearly named and their backgrounds provided.
Yes this was written out.
(b) The name of the proposed public charter school / The proposed public charter school name is evidenced by a clear indication of the name.
Preferable factors
· A consistent use of the name throughout the proposal.
5 Meets / 0 Does Not Meet
Explain rationale for rating:
College of Knowledge is named or abbreviated “CK” throughout the application.
Pg. 2 and again on page 3 of Application. Clear and easily found.
The public charter school as a clear name that is used throughout the proposal.
This was always clear.
(c) A description of the philosophy and mission of the public charter school / The philosophy is evidenced by a clear description of the proposed school’s approach to education. The mission is evidenced by clear statements that convey the school’s vision for the education of its students.
Preferable factors
· Clear, focused and compelling
· Likely to improve education outcomes
· Expresses a clear guiding purpose
· Identifies priorities that are consistent with the intent of ORS 338.015
5 Meets / 0 Does Not Meet
Explain rationale for rating:
The application includes a philosophy, mission and vision on pages 3 and 4. The goals and outcomes such as “We want to connect students inward to their own talents, beliefs, knowledge and goals, and outward towards meaningful participation in the classroom and the community at large.” indicate the school’s vision but is not entirely compelling as likely to improve education outcomes.
Pg. 4 – 6 – Mission/Vision/Philosophy/Values
Relationship based curriculum support – through differentiation.
The philosophy and mission of the proposed school are very clearly detailed throughout the proposal and would likely improve the learning of their target population.
Yes, it was clear to me what and why they were wanting their school in Eugene.
(d) A description of the curriculum of the public charter school / The curriculum description is evidenced by an explanation of the instructional approach/methodology and an outline of each content area addressed within the public charter school. The description includes how the school’s comprehensive education program will meet the needs of ALL students, particularly academically low-achieving students
Preferable factors
· Curriculum framework is clearly presented, aligned with the school’s mission, and provides an appropriate level of detail for objectives, content, and skills for each subject and for all grades the school will serve
· Curriculum is supported by research and/or by applicant experience· Educational program is a good match for the target student population
· A clear outline of how the school will monitor the implementation of the curriculum
· A cohesive and coherent description of all components
1 Meets / 4 Does Not Meet
Explain rationale for rating:
The application includes an explanation of the instructional approaches to be used. Reliance on Understanding by Design, personal education plans and thematic units are all described in sufficient detail. There is an emphasis on the arts and humanities and areas such as math and science are described. However, the application lacks clarity on how cohesive the curriculum is and how the developers can ensure that state content standards in all content areas will be addressed.
Proficiency for credit was quite unclear to me as a reader. It seemed as if this applicant would be granting quite a few credits to “catch students up” to build their self-esteem and not to get into the tail spin of too many credits missed. This is admirable but the applicant was not able to show a clearly developed plan for granting these credits. What proficiency standards would they be using for work samples, credit for work off-site, it just was not clear how they were going to “catch” up their students.
College of Knowledge will develop STEPP plans for all students –this plan is based on the advisor and although there were the links to the philosophy, there is no basis for judgment from other than their advisor on the credits and the plan that will be put in place for the student. How will this measure to the students in other schools?
Who is ultimately responsible for approval of their STEPP Plan?
I was very uncomfortable with the credit for proficiency discussion from CK founders.
The school’s educational philosophies are very well explained and very impressive. I also believe that the education program proposed would provide a great opportunity to the target student population of the school. However, there is still a lot of detail missing in regards to the content of the proposed courses at each grade level and how the curriculum aligns to state standards. I believe the applicant is capable of designing an appropriate curriculum but sufficient detail has not been given at this time.
In their reply to the district they did outline their program. They did not mention all of their curriculums but they gave a picture of clarity of what kinds of materials they would be looking at.
Due to the supporting appendixes this meets for me. Pg 17 of the proposal was confusing to me.
From the appendix I felt they had a good or solid understanding of their program, I felt that it would match their mission and vision of kids.
(e) A description of expected results of the curriculum and the verified methods of measuring and reporting objective results that will show the growth of knowledge of students attending the public charter school and allow comparisons with public schools / Proposal outlines in detail the expected results of the curriculum, such as student and school outcomes and goals. Plans to measure outcomes with verified methods and objective reporting are evidenced by a well- developed and comprehensive plan for assessing student and school goals. Oregon State Assessments and other means of yielding data allowing comparisons with other public schools are clearly described.
Preferable factors
· Alignment with school’s mission
· Goals are clear, specific, measureable, ambitious and attainable
· Objectives follow clearly from the goals
· A clear plan for the school to meet AYP
· Clear realistic strategies for improving student achievement and closing achievement gaps
· Understanding of and strategy for complying with state achievement and reporting requirements
3 Meets / 2 Does Not Meet
Explain rationale for rating:
The developers submitted a Response to Charter School Denial document dated March 2011. In this document, the developers replace a section from the original proposal titled, Methods of Measuring and Reporting Objective Results. In this response the developers clarify how the OAKS assessments, work samples, and other assessment “options” will be used to assess students. However, the curriculum is somewhat vaguely described especially given the range of students (grades 9-12) the developers plan to serve and the unique learning needs they will bring. It is likely that many of these students will be performing far below grade level and the developers have described instructional strategies and prescribed course to assist them, but the actual curriculum needed to meet standards lacks clarity. The lack of offering Algebra II (Appendix C – average pace student) may be problematic since this level of mathematics is needed for most students to meet the rigorous math requirements of the State.