Cliff Brush, Charter Schools Manager

Portland Public Schools

501 North Dixon Street / Portland, OR 97227

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3107/97208-3107

Telephone: (503) 916-3359 / Fax: (503) 916-3296

December 19, 2007

Mr. Ertugrul Kostereli

Rose Education Center

1426 SE Hawthorne Blvd.

Portland, OR 97214 (Also Sent by Email)

Dear Mr. Kostereli:

As you know, at its December 10, 2007, meeting, the Board of Education voted 6-0, Director Henning absent, to deny the charter proposal submitted by the Pioneer Technology Charter School. Though her vote is unofficial, Student Representative Myers concurred. A copy of the Board’s Resolution 3827 is enclosed.

Consistent with ORS 338.055(4), OAR 581-020-0301(7), and district policy, you may choose to submit revisions to the proposal within thirty days. The district must receive all revisions by Friday, January18, 2008, 5 p.m. local time. Send or deliver all revisions to me at the address above and to me at . No additional revisions or other information will be accepted or considered after that date and time unless requested by the district.

Submit only revisions. Do not resubmit the entire proposal.

The district has twenty days from the date it receives the revisions to approve or disapprove the revised proposal. The district requested an extension of that timeline so that it would consider all revised proposals at its February 11, 2008, Board meeting.

If you choose to submit a revised proposal, and if the Portland Public Schools Board of Education does not approve it, you may request that the State Board of Education review the decision. A copy of ORS 338.075 is enclosed. It describes that review processes.

The tables below provide the reasons for the denial and suggestions for revisions. Authorities are ORS 338.055, OAR 581-02-0301, and PPS Policy 6.70.010.

Reasons for Denial

Suggestions for Revisions

The application and other materials do not provide detail satisfactory to the district demonstrating sustainable support for the public charter school by teachers, parents, students, and other community members, including comments received at the public hearing. / Explain
1. the plan to market to diverse populations, including detailed examples, and
2. where the potential pool of students for the charter school reside, taking into account that, consistent with ORS 338.125, the first priority for enrollment will go to students who reside within the sponsoring district,
3. how many of those students there are and where they are enrolled in school now,
4. which district schools’ enrollment trends may be affected if those students enroll in Pioneer,
5. the impact on those district schools if the students in the potential pool enroll in Pioneer,
6. how the potential pool of students are those targeted by the charter school proposal, and
7. why Pioneer would provide new, innovative, or more flexible ways of educating children that are not already available in other district schools or programs. Describe the methods used to make that determination.
The application and other materials do not provide detail satisfactory to the district about the capability of the applicant, in terms of support and planning, to provide comprehensive instructional programs to students pursuant to an approved proposal. / Applicant intends to replicate programs offered by Magnolia Science Academy (Magnolia) in Reseda, California. Provide additional information about Magnolia’s performance as measured by California standards. Include,
1. for the most recent year reported,
a. aggregated academic performance data,
b. NCLB subgroups academic performance data,
c. a description of the academic assessments used,
d. suspension and expulsion data,
e. dropout data,
f. credit recovery data,
g. diploma graduation data,
h. data showing Magnolia’s performance as compared to averages for the state, the sponsoring district, and similar schools, and
2. academic and behavior trend data over Magnolia’s years of operation, and
3. copies of the most recent state and district evaluations of Magnolia.
Provide a letter from the Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission explaining if and how it would license or register individuals from foreign countries so that they qualify to teach or administrate in an Oregon public charter school.
Clarify who will administer or direct school operations and provide information about his or her qualifications and availability.

Reasons for Denial /

Suggestions for Revisions

The application and other materials do not provide detail satisfactory to the district about the capability of the applicant, in terms of support and planning, to specifically provide, pursuant to an approved proposal, comprehensive instructional programs to students identified by the applicant as academically low achieving. / Applicant proposes to replicate the Magnolia charter school program. Provide data showing
1. Magnolia’s methods for identifying academically low achieving students, and Magnolia’s effectiveness in
2. providing comprehensive instructional programs to those students,
3. improving those students’ academic performance,
4. reducing dropout rates for those students, and
5. increasing the number of those students who earn standard diplomas or GEDs.
Applicant proposes to use Measures of Academic Progress (MAPs) tests to identify academically low achieving students. If Magnolia uses MAPs tests, provide
1. a description of how they are used, and
2. MAPs test data demonstrating Magnolia’s effectiveness in providing instruction to and improving the academic performance of academically low achieving students.
Provide information about how home visits will be appropriate and conducted within the proposed budget for students with challenging home environments and for students who may live outside the district.
The application and other materials do not provide detail satisfactory to the district about the plan for financial operations of a new school. / Provide additional information about
1. supports that would be provided by the Dialog Foundation, including descriptions of products and services to be provided,
2. the term(s) of the service agreement(s),
3. the service providers, and
4. the compensation plan(s).
The application and other materials do not provide detail necessary for the district to reasonably determine whether the value of the public charter school is outweighed by a directly identifiable, significant, and adverse impact on the quality of the public education of students residing in the school district in which the public charter school will be located. / At its projected total enrollment of 530 students, this would become the district’s largest charter school. As suggested at page 2, explain
1. where the potential pool of students for the charter school reside, taking into account that, consistent with ORS 338.125, the first priority for enrollment will go to students who reside within the sponsoring district,
2. how many of those students there are and where they are enrolled in school now,
3. which district schools’ enrollment trends may be affected if those students enroll in Pioneer,
4. the impact on those district schools if the students in the potential pool enroll in Pioneer, and
5. why, given the number of education options already available in SE Portland, Applicant chooses to locate there rather than in another quadrant of the district.

Please direct any questions to me at . Please notify me if you choose not to submit a revised proposal.

Sincerely,

Cliff Brush

Copies:Board of Directors

Carole Smith, Superintendent

Zeke Smith, Chief of Staff

Jollee Patterson, General Counsel/Board Secretary

Cameron Vaughan-Tyler, Board Manager

Kristen Miles, Senior Specialist to the Board