ACOE Staff Report Portola Academy Petition Appeal Dec 2012

TVLC Portola Academy Charter School (October 2012 Petition)
Charter Petition on Appeal - E.C. 47605 (j) (1) December 11, 2012 Sample Motions: 1. The Alameda County Board of Education denies the Portola Academy Charter School Petition Appeal and requests the Superintendent to prepare the written factual findings pursuant to Education Code section 47605.6(b). The Alameda County Board of Education approves Portola Academy Charter School petition upon condition that it will; 1) address the deficiencies in the petition document as enumerated in the Staff Evaluation Summary Report; 2) finalize a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Tri-Valley Learning Corporation for the Portola Academy Charter School, County Board of Education and the County Superintendent no later than March 1, 2013; 3) if the petitioner fails to meet any of the conditions as set forth in the MOU, the Charter Petition shall be deemed not granted by the County Board on the grounds that implementation of all of the conditional requirements in full are necessary for the successful implementation and sound operation of the school.
2.
CHARTER SCHOOL EVALUATION SUMMARY REPORT
FOR TVLC Portola Academy Charter School (October 2012 Petition)

Charter Petition on Appeal - E.C. 47605 (j) (1)
ACOE Charter Review Team:

Education Services: Karen Monroe, Louise Music, Robert Crose, Aaron Tigerino, Alicia Magalanes Business Services: Spencer Mead, Roland Tom, Teresa Kapellas, Gail Greely Human Resources: Movetia Salter
Portola Academy
December 11, 2012
ANALYSIS SUMMARY
The Alameda County Office of Educations Charter School Review Team completed a thorough review and analysis of the educational, operational, and financial information contained in the petition appeal of Portola Academy Charter School (October 2012 petition). The petition was reviewed in 19 areas, with specific criteria in each element. Below are the rating results.
Criteria that Exceeds Required Standard 1 Criteria that Meets Required Standard 135 Criteria that Fails to Meet Required Standard 31
The Review Team found the petition did not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions in some of the required areas. Based on the critical nature of the criteria (i.e. students with disabilities, English learners, racial/ethnic balance, start-up budget, cash flow), the Review Team has concerns that the petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition as written. Staffs Review Checklist, included as Appendix A, contains detailed analysis of each Element/Section, articulating the strengths and weaknesses of the charter schools proposal. The team determined that this charter petition was very similar to the charter petition submitted by TVLC in October 2011. A comparative analysis, conducted after the teams review, found that some of the areas that failed in the previously submitted petition appeal also failed this petition review. A table summarizing issues raised previously by the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District, ACOE, and the State Board of Education is included as Appendix B.
The petition document met the minimum criteria in the following areas:
Measurable Student Outcomes Student Progress Measurement Government Structure Employee Qualifications Health and Safety Admissions Requirements Annual Financial Audits Suspension and Expulsion Staff Retirement System Attendance Alternatives Description of Employee Rights Dispute Resolution Process Labor Relations Closure Procedures
The petition document did not meet the minimum criteria in the following areas:
Education Program Racial & Ethnic Balance Financial Plan Facilities
Page
Portola Academy
December 11, 2012
Special Education
BACKGROUND The Alameda County Office of Education received a petition appeal from the Tri-Valley Learning Corporation (TVLC) for consideration of authorizing its charter school petition for Portola Academy. TVLC petitioned the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (District) to open a K-8 school with approximately 670 students in its first year of enrollment. This petition was denied by the District on October 16, 2012. Petitioners submitted an appeal to the Alameda County Board of Education (County Board) on October 19, 2012. A public hearing was held in this matter on November 14, 2012. Following the public hearing the District provided staff with additional information responsive to questions from the County Board (included as Appendix D to this report). Staff also requested clarification on some points from TVLC; the responses are referenced in this report. A copy of this report was provided to TVLC prior to the determination hearing. TVLC submitted a similar petition for a K-8 school of the same name at this location in November 2011, which was denied by the District on January 10, 2012, by the County Board on March 13, 2012, and by the State Board of Education on July 19, 2012. Attached as Appendix B to this report is a table summarizing the major issues raised by the various bodies reviewing the previous petition, with notes regarding the manner in which those issues have been addressed. Alameda Board of Educations Role When considering an appeal, it is the role of the Board under Education Code Section 47605(b) & (h) to: 1) Hold a public hearing on the provisions of the charter and shall consider the level of support for the petition by teachers employed by the District, other employees of the District, and parents. 2) give preference to petitions that demonstrate the capability to provide comprehensive learning experiences to pupils identified by the petitioner or petitioners as academically low achieving pursuant to the standards established by the department under Section 54032 as it read prior to July 19, 2006. 3) Determine whether the petition document that has been denied by the District demonstrates a strong potential for establishing and operating a high quality charter school. The governing board of the school District shall not deny a petition for the establishment of a charter school unless it makes written factual findings, specific to the particular petition, setting forth specific facts to support one or more of the following findings: (1) The charter school presents an unsound educational program for the pupils to be enrolled in the charter school. (2) The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition. (3) The petition does not contain the number of signatures required by subdivision (a). (4) The petition does not contain an affirmation of each of the conditions described in subdivision (d).
Page
Portola Academy
December 11, 2012
(5) the petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of the A-P Requirements. Review Process It is our expectation that when a petitioner submits a petition on appeal, that they have submitted a plan they believe can be successfully implemented. Education Code Section 47605(b) clearly outlines the requirements necessary to create a sustainable school. The appeal process, as established by law, is one that allows staff to evaluate the substance of the petition document in order to determine whether the petition stands on its own merit. The Alameda County Office of Education (ACOE) believes that quality authorizing includes a rigorous, comprehensive application process that follows fair procedures and clear criteria. Our evaluation process includes staff members with expertise in various areas in order to provide a thorough review. This review is conducted in a systematic, unbiased approach through a comprehensive checklist which provides uniformity in charter petition evaluations. Staff discusses their results and determines whether the petition document demonstrates a strong potential for establishing and operating a high quality charter school.
FINDINGS OF FACT The Review Team found the current petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions in several areas under Education Code Section 47605(b) A-P requirements. Below is a summary of the key findings. 1. The petition does not sufficiently describe the students whom the charter will attempt to educate. Targeted student population is generally described as underserved. Location from which the school intends to draw students is identified as the Districts Junction K-8 school, but the addresses of families with stated interested (listed in the Proposition 39 facilities request received from TVLC and analyzed by the District) include only a small proportion (approximately 6%) from this location. Petition contains no analysis of performance of students in targeted population, other than outdated information on whole-school performance at selected schools. (Updated performance data on schools referenced on pg. 7 shows many are now making AYP.) No analysis of performance by grade, subject matter or significant sub-groups is included. 2. The petition does not sufficiently describe how learning best occurs. Curriculum content is described only with reference to specific textbooks, aligned with common core. Outcomes and expectations are general and not specific to grades. No appendix is included with subject matter content or skill development expectations. Based on the information provided in the petition, it is unclear if the founders are well versed in the Common Core State Standards and the expectations that both the practice and content standards have for all students. Petition includes no mention of transitional kindergarten curriculum or unique instructional needs.
Page
Portola Academy
December 11, 2012
3. The petition fails to include a comprehensive description of its plan to achieve racial and ethnic balance reflective of the District. The petition includes no specific outreach plan for student recruitment; there is no listing of specific organizations or events designed to increase diversity; no description of events held or planned to reach the target population. Evidence of the student population currently being served by TVLC demonstrates that the petitioners have not been successful in previous efforts to attract a student population reflective of the broader district. (See attached Appendix C for data on student diversity over time, and in comparison to the District and the County.) Data from the California Department of Education for 2011-2012 shows the following:
% of total enrollment TVLC HS TVLC K8 LVJUSD Hispanic or Latino of Any Race 19.4% 10.6% 29.5% White, not Hispanic 57.6% 70.2% 52.4% Special Education 2.6% 7.3% 11.5% Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 13.1% 3.9% 25.7% LEP (per NCLB) 4.7% 3.4% 16.7%
Addresses of the students interested in enrolling in the charter school for 2012-2013 were listed in the request for facilities for Portola Academy, submitted to the District pursuant to Proposition 39. The District analyzed the addresses and found that only a small percentage of the interested families were from the targeted school attendance area (6% from Junction K-8). (Data is found in Appendix D.)
4. The petitions Financial Plan is inadequate and fails to meet the required standard. The charter petition and appendices did not include a start-up budget and did not specifically identify start-up expenditures or funding sources. Pre-opening expenses may impact size of available reserve to address cash flow needs. Staffing plan does not track with program needs. Program includes art instruction, expanded program for English Learners, service learning and other features, but specific staff for these programs is not identified in the budget. The budget does not clearly identify the charter schools contribution to the cost of services provided by the TVLC management / central office. Source of $2.5 million opening balance to cover deficits during the school year is not identified; is not consistent with projected cash from other reports and, to the extent this reserve fund is shared by all TVLC programs; it may not be fully available to Portola Academy. 5. The Facilities section is inadequate and fails to meet the required standard. The petition states that the school intends to be located at its current Proposition 39 Portola Avenue site, but there is no detailed information on the size of this site or the number of specialized and non-classroom spaces needed. It is unclear if the Portola site has sufficient capacity for the proposed charter school or if modifications will be necessary. The petition includes only the Portola campus of LVJUSD (no alternative), and includes a copy of the agreement with LVJUSD for the current charters of TVLC, but 4
Page
Portola Academy
December 11, 2012
it is not clear that the agreement entitles TVLC to occupy the Portola campus with a new charter. 6. The petition fails to address adequately describe Special Education instruction. Petitioners state an intention to be part of the El Dorado County Office of Education Charter School SELPA, but provide no documentation of acceptance into the SELPA for the 2013-2014 school year or of the status of their application for membership. (Agreements with EDCOE SELPA for the other TVLC schools are included.) Petition includes no description of how services for students with IEPs will be delivered and who will provide them. There is no plan for professional development for regular classroom teachers to ensure their ability to modify classroom instruction and support other special education functions. Budget for special education is separately stated but not tied to any program description. There is no discussion of likely needs of targeted population, although TVLC has many years of experience serving students in the community, including those with special needs. No description of notification process in petition or sample MOU with EDCOE SELPA. 7. The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program. Qualifications of the founding group and key school site leaders are not included and do not establish the capacity of the organization to meet the significant challenges facing the school, including: intention to open at full size (672 students in grades K8), operate as an LEA for purposes of special education, and incorporate program elements not employed at other TVLC sites (a dual language immersion program, service learning and arts integration). The petition contains no overall plan for start-up and development of the program; no schedule or assignment of responsibilities. Based on CDE data, petitioners have minimal experience with English Learners in their 2 existing charter schools and have no plan to add significant capacity on their staff for English Language Development. In addition to its 2 operating schools, and the proposed Portola Academy, TVLC has 2 charter petitions pending (Acacia K-5 and Acacia Middle School) pending before the New Jerusalem School District in San Joaquin County, which it also proposes to open in the fall of 2013. In the Prop. 39 facilities request for Portola Academy and at the public hearing, TVLC leadership also stated that it plans to relocate its 2 existing schools for fall 2013 to new facilities that require additional construction. The capacity of the organization to simultaneous successfully relocate its 2 existing schools and open 3 new schools is called into question by: o Absence of any description in the Portola Academy petition of the other petitions pending and plans to meet the demands of 3 simultaneous school openings. o No plan for additional staffing in TVLC management for relocation and significant expansion. o Absence of a budget for the start-up year for Portola Academy (see below). A common financial reserve to support cash flow and contingencies for all 3 proposed new schools.
Page
Portola Academy
December 11, 2012
Should the County Board decide to approve the petition, conditions should be included in the MOU to address these and other deficiencies, including, but not limited to, the development and submission of the following: An implementation plans, including dates, resources and responsible individuals for the major areas of work needed for a successful school start-up. Scope and sequence for the schools proposed curriculum. Daily and weekly instructional schedules, by grade. Special education and English Learning implementation plans, reflecting projected enrollment of students with these needs and including detailed budgets specific to these program elements. Revised measurable pupil outcomes to include measures and targets for each grade served, for significant student subgroups, and for students with special needs. An assessment calendar. Complete staffing plan, with qualifications and recruitment/hiring timeline. An updated recruitment and enrollment calendar, and plan for recruitment strategies to attract a diverse student body. Corrected and updated financial plan, including a start-up budget, and an overall TVLC budget clarifying the available cash reserves in light of other TVLC activities Facilities agreement with the District or other lessor. Verification of Portola Academys membership in the EDCOE SELPA. CONCLUSION If the County Board is inclined to approve the charter petition after consideration of all aspects of the charter proposal, it is recommended that the County Board only approve the charter under certain terms and conditions that will address the deficiencies in the petition document. The conditions should also include that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) be signed by all parties which will include specific conditions, timelines and pre-opening requirements. Further, if the petitioners fail to meet any of the conditions as set forth in the MOU, the Charter Petition shall be deemed not granted by the County Board on the grounds that implementation of all of the conditional requirements in full are necessary for the successful implementation and operation of the school. The Charter School Petitioners have requested an initial term of five years, which is the maximum allowed by law. If the County Board approves the Portola Academy Charter School Proposal, the term of the charter authorization should be included in the motion. The petition states it plans to open in the fall of 2013. Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: District Charter School Petition Review Checklist Summary of Issues from Prior Portola Academy Petition Comparison of Tri-Valley Learning Center Charter School Demographics Additional Information Provided by Livermore Valley Joint Unified School
Page
ALAMEDA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

CHARTER SCHOOL PETITION REVIEW CHECKLIST
Proposed Charter School: Portola Academy Proposed Location: 2451 Portola Ave., Livermore, CA 94551 Petitioner Contact Information
Name Bill Batchelor Phone 925-456-9000 Address Date of Board Action: 2451 Portola Ave. Livermore, CA 94551 Email bbatchelor@trivalleylearning.org October 16, 2012 Livermore Valley USD Date Oct. 19, 2012
APPENDIX A
Denial Information
District Denying Petition:
Petition Review and Presentation Timelines

(Office Use Only)
Petition Presented to ACOE
(Maximum of 180 days from denial)
Public Hearing
(30 days from receipt)
Decision by Board of Education

(60 days from receipt, may be extended 30 days if agreed by petitioner(s) and ACOE)
Date Due Nov. 18, 2012
Date Due Dec. 18, 2012 30 day extension to
Date Held
Nov. 13, 2012
Date of Board Decision Dec. 11, 2012
Section below is for Office Use ONLY

Area of Review
A. Education Program B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. Measurable Student Outcomes Student Progress Measurement Government Structure Employee Qualifications Health and Safety Racial & Ethnic Balance Admissions Requirements Annual Financial Audits Suspension and Expulsion Staff Retirement System Attendance Alternatives Description of Employee Rights
Department(s) Responsible
Education Services Education Services Education Services Human Resources & Credentialing Human Resources (reviewed by ALL) Human Resources & Ed. Services (reviewed by ALL) Education Services (reviewed by ALL) Ed. Services/Human Resources (reviewed by ALL) Business Services Ed. Services (reviewed by ALL) Human Resources & Business Services Reviewed by ALL Human Resources (reviewed by ALL) Business Services Human Resources (reviewed by ALL) Business Services
Meets or Fails Requirements

Fails Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Fails Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Fails Meets Fails Fails N/A
N. Dispute Resolution Process O. Labor Relations P. Closure Procedures Financial Plan Impact Statement Facilities Special Education Independent Study (if applicable)
Supplemental Information
Business Services Reviewed by ALL Business Services Ed. Services & Sp. Education SPAS & Ed. Services
Printed by Alameda County Office of Education
Charter Petition Name:
Portola Academy
Complete Petition Received: October 19, 2012
Note: This checklist is designed to guide the review of charter school petitions. Throughout the evaluation, the petitioners response is
rated as Exceeds, Meets, or Fails to Meet the criteria required for each specific area. The following rating definitions are used to guide the assessment. Exceeds Required Standard: The response reflects a thorough understanding of key issues and indicates capacity to open and operate a quality charter school. The section addresses the topic with concise, specific and accurate information that shows thorough preparation, presenting a clear, realistic picture of how the school expects to implement and operate its program. The response indicates solid preparation and grasp of key issues that would be considered reasonably comprehensive. Overall it contains many of the characteristics of a response that exceeds the required standard, although it may require additional specificity, support or elaboration in places. The response addresses some of the selection criteria, but lacks meaningful detail and requires important additional information in order to be reasonably comprehensive. It demonstrates lack of preparation, is unclear, or otherwise raises substantial concerns about the petitioners understanding of the issue in concept and/or ability to implement or meet the requirement in practice.
Meets Required Standard:
Fails To Meet Required Standard:
Ed Code 47605 A | Education Program

Found on page: Evaluation Criteria A-P Exceeds Required Standard Meets Required Standard Fails To Meet Required Standard
6-8
8 6 App. B, pg. 8 App. J, K
1. Targeted School Populations

Age, grade levels and number of students Describe students whom the charter will attempt to educate
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
2. Attendance
School year, academic calendar, number of school day and instructional minutes Attendance expectations and requirements
9
9 9 9
3. What it Means to be an Educated Person in The 21st Century
Objective of enabling pupils to become self-motivated, competent, lifelong learners Clear list of general academic skills and qualities important for an educated person Clear list of general non-academic skills and qualities important for an educated person Persuasive instructional design Broad outline (not entire scope and sequence) of the curriculum content Description of instructional approaches and strategies Description of learning setting (e.g. traditional, home-based, distance learning, etc.) Proposed program strongly aligned to school's mission Affirmation that, or description of, how curriculum aligned to California Content Standards Outlines a plan or strategy to support students not meeting pupil outcomes Instructional design or strategies based upon successful practice or research Describes instructional strategies for special education, Insufficient English proficient students, etc.
10-18
10-18 10-18 10-18 10-18 10-18 10-18 17 10-18 10-18
4. Description of How Learning Best Occurs
Legend:
Required to be included in charter petition and/or Memorandum of Understanding Strongly suggested to ensure that charter elements are reasonably comprehensive
Portola Academy
Found on page:
Evaluation Criteria A-P
Exceeds Required Standard
Meets Required Standard
Fails To Meet Required Standard
n/a
n/a n/a
5. Additional Requirements for Charter Schools Serving High School Student

How Charter School will inform parents about the transferability of courses to other public high schools How Charter School will inform parents about the eligibility of courses to meet college entrance requirements
Education Program Comments and/or Concerns

Overall, the charter petition meets most of the minimum requirements in this section. Given the fact that the TVLC currently operates two charter schools, there was an expectation that the petition responses would have included more meaningful detail and other additional information that demonstrated their understanding of key issues and capacity for operating a quality charter school. Describe students whom the charter will attempt to education Targeted student population is generally described as underserved. Location from which the school intends to draw students is identified as the Districts Junction K-8 school, but the addresses of families with stated interested (listed in the Proposition 39 facilities request received from TVLC and analyzed by the District) include only a small proportion (approximately 6%) from this location. (See Appendix C.) Petition contains no analysis of performance of students in targeted population, other than out-dated information on whole-school performance at selected schools. (Updated performance data on schools referenced on pg. 7 shows many are now making AYP.) No analysis of performance by grade, subject matter or significant sub-groups is included. Broad outline of the curriculum content Curriculum content is described only with reference to specific textbooks, aligned with common core. Outcomes and expectations are general and not specific to grades. No appendix is included with subject matter content or skill development expectations. Based on the information provided in the petition, it is unclear if the founders are well versed in the Common Core State Standards and the expectations that both the practice and content standards have for all students. Petition includes no mention of transitional kindergarten curriculum or unique instructional needs. Description of instructional approaches and strategies Petition includes descriptions of some program elements and instructional approaches (arts integration, culturally relevant pedagogy, etc.). However, there are no examples of the use of these strategies in the classroom or of the professional development planned to support teachers in using them. The petition includes no daily schedule or description of how the various program elements will fit into the day/week, such as The Learning Center, arts integration, service learning, and interventions for struggling students. In the absence of schedules, there is a lack of clarity about the differences between the program structures by grade, such as which grades are in self-contained classrooms, if core blocks will be used, and how arts and service learning integration will be managed. The amount of teacher preparation time is also unspecified. Instructional design or strategies based upon successful practice or research Research on culturally responsive teaching is provided in the appendix. Arts integration component includes effective practices, but implementation lacks specificity. Petition lacks strong through-line describing how the programmatic elements serve the targeted population of under-served students. Why were these elements chosen for these students? Describes instructional strategies for special education, Insufficient English proficient students, etc. It appears that petitioners have a clear system for identifying students for RtI interventions. App. D contains flowchart of supports for struggling students (RtI) as well as samples of SST documentation. Although the petition has an expanded description of its program for English Learners to include 3 options, depending on the needs of enrolled students, there are questions remaining, including: o How teachers will adapt their curricula to meet the needs of English Learners and what, if any support they will have for this work? o How will pull-out program be implemented to avoid loss of important learning time on core academic curriculum? o Who will lead the effort to implement 3 options for ELs? o When and on what basis will the decision be made to include the dual language immersion option? o What resources will be needed to develop the dual-immersion program? o How will students be placed in the dual-immersion program? Educational Philosophy and Program Integration of arts and service learning with traditional core classes is discussed, but no examples of this integrated approach are given. It is unclear when and how the integration occurs for all grades served.
Legend:
Portola Academy
Ed Code 47605 B | Measurable Student Outcomes

Found on page:
Evaluation Criteria
31-37
31-32 31-32 31-37 35 n/a 34-35 34-37 n/a
Pupil outcomes are measurable, i.e. specific assessments listed for each exit outcome
How pupil outcomes will address state content and performance standards in core academics Clearly stated exit outcomes include acquisition of academic and non-academic skills Affirmation that "benchmark" skills and specific classroom-level skills will be developed Affirmation/description that exit outcomes will align to mission, curriculum and assessments Affirmation that college-bound students wishing to attend California colleges or universities will have the opportunity to take courses that meet the AG requirements Lists school-wide student performance goals students will achieve over a given period of time: Projected attendance levels, dropout percentage, graduation rate goals, etc. Acknowledges that exit outcomes and performance goals may need to be modified over time If high school, graduation requirements defined and WASC accreditation addressed
Meets Required Standard X X
X X X
X X
Measurable Student Outcomes Comments and/or Concerns

The charter petition includes the required affirmations and meets some of the minimum requirements in this section. However, given that petitioners already operate two charter schools, one would have expected more detail in this petition document. The measurable pupil outcomes lack specificity: for example, no explanation or example is provided for average achievement level of neighborhood schools. There is no specific target for an identified measure, and no analysis of the current performance of the comparison school group, upon which a target could be based. Measurable pupil outcomes are not included by grade level on any measure, including CST results. No outcomes are identified for significant subgroups, such as students with special needs or traditionally under-served students identified as the target population for the charter school. No school-wide student performance goals related to school persistence or satisfaction of students or parents. The suggested competencies in core academic areas lack detail. The concern is that not all of these competencies are appropriate for all grade levels. They dont reveal the extent of the petitioners understanding of common core content.
Ed Code 47605 C | Student Progress Measurement

Found on page:
34-35 31-32 34-35 34-35 35 31-32; 34-35 35-37
Evaluation Criteria

Assessments include multiple, valid and reliable measures using traditional/alternative tools Assessment tools include all required state and federal assessments (STAR, API, and AYP) At least one assessment method or tool listed for each of the exit outcomes Chosen assessments are appropriate for standards and skills they seek to measure Affirmation/description of how assessments align to mission, exit outcomes, and curriculum Describes minimal required performance level necessary to attain each standard Outlines plan for collecting, analyzing/utilizing and reporting student/school performance
Meets Required Standard X X X X X X
Legend:
Portola Academy
Student Progress Measurement Comments and/or Concerns

The charter petition includes the required affirmations and meets the minimum requirements in this section. However, there is a lack of specificity in naming the assessments and data analysis tools they plan to use. There is no indication of a minimal performance level for each standard. Rubrics in Appendix E do not cover all core and non-core academics. The petition includes no assessment timeline or calendar and no designated individual to oversee assessments. There is no professional development timeline with specific opportunities for teachers to learn how best to use the assessments and resulting data. Plan for working with assessments and the resulting data are vague; relies heavily on the ability of individual teachers to understand assessment results and use the information to improve instruction.
Ed Code 47605 D | Government Structure

Found on page:
Apps. F,G, H, J,N,O; pgs. 38-40 37 37-40 37-40 37-40 37-40 37-40 40 37-40 37-40 37-40
Evaluation Criteria
Describes what role parents have in the governance and operation of the school
Exceeds Required Standard X
Describes key features of governing structure (usually a board of directors) such as: Compliance with Brown Act, Public Records Act and Conflict of Interest Policy Size/composition of board, board committees and/or advisory councils Board's scope of authority/responsibility Method for selecting initial board members Board election/appointment and replacement Affirms future development of, or has set of, proposed bylaws, policies or similar documents Initial governing board members identified by name or the process to be used to select them Clear description of the legal status of the charter school Outlines other important legal or operational relationships between school and granting agency
X X X X X X X X X X
Government Structure Comments and/or Concerns

The petition meets the minimum required standards. Description includes extensive parental involvement in governance, with details on method for electing parent leaders, including parent board representatives.
Ed Code 47605 E | Employee Qualifications

Found on page:
App. I, J, O and pgs. 41-59 41-59 41-59
Evaluation Criteria
Identifies all key staff positions with the school
Meets Required Standard X
Legend:

Describes specific key qualifications (knowledge, experience, education, certification, etc.) Defines core, college preparatory teachers & affirms they will hold appropriate Commission on Teacher Credentialing certificate, permit or other equivalent
X X 4
Portola Academy
n/a
document as required by Law including the No Child Left Behind Act. Identifies any non-core, non-college prep teaching positions staffed by non-certified teachers, along with required qualifications.
Employee Qualifications Comments and/or Concerns

This section meets the minimum required standard, but given the rewrite of the educational program component, it would be reasonable to expect more detail in the staffing plan. There is a lack of clarity on staffing when comparing the text of the petition with the budget assumptions and spreadsheets. The budget includes 30 teachers, but the petition shows 23 classes. There is no specific allocation of the other 7 teaching positions. The special education budget includes 3 resource specialists, but there is no analysis of the special needs population to support the staffing. Unclear if a Vice Principal is included in the staffing or what the size threshold is for adding this position, especially given that the school proposes to open at full capacity. Although school anticipates a significant population of English Learners, there is no staffing specific to the EL program (including the proposed dual immersion bilingual program). A position of Program Advisor appears on the TVLC organization charter, but there is no job description or budget for this position. Includes no professional development calendar.
Ed Code 47605 F | Health and Safety

Found on page:
51, 63
Evaluation Criteria
Affirms that each employee will furnish the school with a criminal record summary
Meets Required Standard X X X X X X X
63
63,App J 63,App J
Outlines specific health and safety practices addressing such key areas as: Seismic safety (structural integrity and earthquake preparedness) Natural disasters and emergencies Immunizations, health screenings, administration of medications Tolerance for use of drugs and/or tobacco Staff training on emergency and first aid response References accompanied by a detailed set of health and safety related policies/ procedures or the date by which they will be adopted and submitted to the ACOE
63
63,App J 63,App J
Health and Safety Comments and/or Concerns

This section meets the required standard. The Student and Family Handbook and TVLC Employee Handbook, Appendices N and O, contain health and safety related information for students who attend Portola Academy. An emergency/disaster plan is not included in the petition and no timeline or responsible person is identified for its. Given that the organization currently occupies the proposed site with its high school program, one would expect that an emergency/disaster plan already exists.
Ed Code 47605 G | Racial & Ethnic Balance

Found on page:
64-67 64-67 Legend:
Evaluation Criteria

X
Lists specific practices/policies designed to attract a diverse applicant pool/enrollment Includes specific language access policy for attracting and achieving targeted racial and ethnic balance
X 5
Portola Academy
64-67
Practices and policies appear likely to achieve targeted racial and ethnic balance
Racial & Ethnic Balance Comments and/or Concerns

This section fails to meet the minimum required standard as the policies and practices of the organization appear unlikely to achieve targeted racial and ethnic balance. The petition includes no specific outreach plan for student recruitment; there is no listing of specific organizations or events designed to increase diversity; no description of events held or planned to reach the target population. Evidence of the student population currently being served by TVLC demonstrates that the petitioners have not been successful in previous efforts to attract a student population reflective of the broader district. (See attached Appendix C for data on student diversity over time, and in comparison to the District and the County.) Data from the California Department of Education for 2011-2012 shows the following:
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race 19.4% 10.6% 29.5%
% of total enrollment TVLC HS TVLC K8 LVJUSD
White, not Hispanic 57.6% 70.2% 52.4%
Special Education 2.6% 7.3% 11.5%
Socio-economically Disadvantaged 13.1% 3.9% 25.7%
LEP (per NCLB) 4.7% 3.4% 16.7%
Addresses of the students interested in enrolling in the charter school for 2012-2013 were listed in the request for facilities for Portola Academy, submitted to the District pursuant to Proposition 39. The District analyzed the addresses and found that only a small percentage of the interested families were from the targeted school attendance area (6% from Junction K-8). (Data is found in Appendix D.)
Ed Code 47605 H | Admission Requirements

Found on page:
64
Evaluation Criteria
Mandatory assurances regarding non-discriminatory admission procedures Admission preferences which are required for conversion charter schools, if applicable Clearly describes admissions requirements, including any preferences Proposed admissions and enrollment process and timeline, as well as procedures for public random drawings, if necessary
Meets Required Standard X N/A X X
66-68 66-68
Admission Requirements Comments and/or Concerns

This section meets the minimum required standard, but additional detail would be appropriate prior to school opening. The petition contains no reference to changing age requirements for its transitional kindergarten program. Comparing this petition to the one previously submitted by TVLC for Portola Academy, it should be noted that preference in attendance for students in a targeted neighborhood was removed. A neighborhood preference could be a tool for impacting the schools racial and ethnic balance.
Ed Code 47605 I | Annual Financial Audits

Found on page:
69 69 69 69
Evaluation Criteria
Procedure to select and retain independent auditor Qualifications of independent auditor Audit will employ generally accepted accounting procedures The manner in which the audit will be conducted
Meets Required Standard X X X X
Legend:

Portola Academy
69 69
Scope and timing of audit, as well as required distribution of completed audit Process for resolving audit exceptions and deficiencies to the satisfaction of the Alameda County Office of Education
X X
Annual Financial Audits Comments and/or Concerns

This section meets the minimum required standard, but additional detail would be appropriate prior to school opening. The process for resolving audit exceptions and deficiencies refers to the satisfaction of the District, not ACOE. If the charter is approved, this would need to be corrected. The TVLC bylaws specifically provide for an Audit Committee to select the independent auditor, and to review audit exceptions. The Audit Committee is not referenced in charter petition. The bylaws and the charter language should be reconciled.
Ed Code 47605 J | Suspension and Expulsion

Found on page:
App. N, pgs. 73-81 73-81 75 80-81 73-88 73-88 80-81
Evaluation Criteria
Detailed, step-by-step process by which student may be suspended or expelled
Reference to a comprehensive set of student disciplinary policies Reference homework policy for students suspended less than 5 days Describe the expulsion appeal process Outlines or describes strong understanding of relevant laws protecting constitutional rights of students, generally, and of disabled and other protected classes of students Policies balance students' rights to due process with responsibility to maintain a safe learning environment Explains how ACOE may be involved in disciplinary matters
X X X
Suspension and Expulsion Comments and/or Concerns

This section meets the minimum required standard, but additional detail would be appropriate prior to school opening. References to manifestation determinations are to IDEA only; protections for disabled students with Section 504 plans are not included.
Ed Code 47605 K | Staff Retirement System

Found on page:
App. L, and pg. 81
Evaluation Criteria
Statement of whether staff will participate in STRS, PERS, or Social Security (if STRS, then all teachers must participate)
Staff Retirement System Comments and/or Concerns

This section meets the minimum required standard, but some clarification would be appropriate prior to school opening. The petition is not clear as to whether non-certificated employees will participate in PERS or other pension program, in addition to federal social security. This is not addressed in the petition or the employee handbook. Pension payments for non-certificated staff are budgeted in some schedules, but not consistently carried into annual or multi-year budgets. The budget omission is not significant if PERS is offered, but it demonstrates a lack of attention to detail.
Legend:
Portola Academy
Ed Code 47605 L | Attendance Alternative

Found on page:
82
Evaluation Criteria
States that students may attend other schools or pursue an inter-district transfer in accordance with existing enrollment and transfer policies of their district or county of residence and/or description of other attendance alternatives
Attendance Alternatives Comments and/or Concerns
Ed Code 47605 M | Description of Employee Rights

Found on page:
82 82 82 82
Evaluation Criteria
States that collective bargaining contracts of ACOE will be controlling Whether and how staff may resume employment within the district or ACOE, if applicable Sick/vacation leave (ability to carry it over to and from charter school, if applicable Whether staff will continue to earn service credit (tenure) in district or ACOE while at charter school, if applicable
Description of Employee Rights Comments and/or Concerns

This section meets the minimum required standard, but some clarification would be appropriate prior to school opening. Petition mentions LVJUSD, but not ACOE. If approved, the MOU should address this area.
Ed Code 47605 N | Dispute Resolution Process

Found on page:
Evaluation Criteria
82-85 82-85; Apps. N and O
Outlines a simple process for the charter school and the Alameda County Office of Education to settle disputes relating to the provisions of the charter
X
Outlines process by charter school will resolve internal complaints and disputes
Dispute Resolution Process Comments and/or Concerns

This section meets the minimum required standard, but some clarification would be appropriate prior to school opening. Petition mentions LVJUSD, but not ACOE. If approved, the MOU should address this area.
Legend:
Portola Academy
Ed Code 47605 O | Labor Relations

Found on page:
Evaluation Criteria
86
States whether charter or ACOE will be employer for EERA purposes
86
If Alameda County Office of Education is to be the employer, includes provisions clarifying charter's role in collective bargaining process
N/A
Labor Relations Comments and/or Concerns
Ed Code 47605 P | Closure Procedures

Found on page:
86-87
Evaluation Criteria
Outlines a description of the process to be used if the charter school closes
87-88
Process includes a final audit of the charter school, specific plans for disposition of all net assets and liabilities, as well as for the maintenance and transfer of pupil records
Closure Procedures Comments and/or Concerns
Likelihood that the Petitions Will be Able to Successfully Implement the Program of the Proposed Charter Evaluation Criteria
The Petition includes a thorough description of the education, work experience, credentials, degrees and certifications of the individuals comprising, or proposed to comprise, the directors, administrators and managers of the proposed charter school.
Likelihood that the Petition will be able to successfully implement the program of proposed charter Comments and/or Concerns
This section fails to meet the minimum required standard, based on the following evidence: The founding group is listed in Appendix A, but no individual resumes or statements of qualification are included. It is not clear how each of these individuals will be involved with the start-up of the school, and whether they are qualified for those positions. Appendix G includes qualifications for board members only, but none for key school site leaders. The start-up of the proposed school will have significant challenges, given that it intends to open at full size (672 students in grades K-8), operate as an LEA for purposes of special education, and incorporate program elements not employed at other TVLC sites (a dual language immersion program, service learning and arts integration). Absence of qualified school leadership would be an obstacle to success. The petition contains no overall plan for start-up and development of the program; no schedule or assignment of responsibilities. The petition does not include a plan for recruitment of teachers nor a calendar for professional development, either prior to opening or during the Legend:
Portola Academy
school year. The petition lacks analysis of likely special needs population and no plan is described for staffing, training and service delivery for special education. (Special education issues are also addressed below.) Based on CDE data, petitioners have minimal experience with English Learners in their 2 existing charter schools and have no plan to add significant capacity on their staff for English Language Development. The petition contains no plan for developing specific assessments; there is no assessment calendar; and no professional development described for administering assessments or for use of data and data analysis tools. The financial documents contain numerous small errors (identified below), raising questions about the capacity of the organization. In addition to its 2 operating schools, and the proposed Portola Academy, TVLC has 2 charter petitions pending (Acacia K-5 and Acacia Middle School) pending before the New Jerusalem School District in San Joaquin County, which it also proposes to open in the fall of 2013. In the Prop. 39 facilities request for Portola Academy and at the public hearing, TVLC leadership also stated that it plans to relocate its 2 existing schools for fall 2013 to new facilities that require additional construction. The capacity of the organization to simultaneous successfully relocate its 2 existing schools and open 3 new schools is called into question by: o Absence of any description in the Portola Academy petition of the other petitions pending and plans to meet the demands of 3 simultaneous school openings. o No plan for additional staffing in TVLC management for relocation and significant expansion. o Absence of a budget for the start-up year for Portola Academy (see below). o Errors in the combined budget for the pending Acacia charter schools identical to Portola Academy. (Acacia budget (requested and received from TVLC) is identical to the budget presented for Portola Academy.) o A common financial reserve to support cash flow and contingencies for all 3 proposed new schools.
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Financial Plan
Found on page:
App L App L App L App L App L App L App L App L App L App L App L App L
Evaluation Criteria
Proposed first year operational budget
Start-up costs Cash flow for first three years Financial projections for first three years Planning Assumptions Number/types of students Number of staff Facilities needs Costs of all major items are identified and within reasonable market ranges Revenue assumptions in line with state and federal funding guidelines Revenue from soft sources less than 10% of ongoing operational costs Timeline allows window for referenced grant applications to be submitted and funded
Meets Required Standard X X X X X X X X X X X
Financial Plan Comments and/or Concerns

This section meets the minimum required standard, but some clarification and correction would be appropriate prior to school opening. Startup costs were not clearly identified, as discussed below. The number of projected FTEs is not clearly stated, as discussed above. Budget for 30 teachers for 23 classrooms, with no clear explanation of other positions. Large unexplained increase in Classified Support salaries between 2013-14 and 2014-15. Salary changes are unclear (increased salaries between 1.5% and 4% each year reflected in budget). Legend:
10
Portola Academy
Not clear how the expenses for TVLC management (central office functions) are charged to the school. Various components of the financial plan not checked and reconciled: budget, cash flow, and multi-year projections have inconsistent revenue assumptions; cash flow from year-to-year used ending cash including accruals instead of straight cash. Revenues on cash flow statements exceed the revenues on the financial projections by $52K and $132K for 2013-14 and 2014-15. It is unclear if the charter is able to meet grant application deadlines. No information provided on status of PCSGP implementation grant application. No grant funds are shown in the first year, but appear to have been added in the second year, but at less than the grant amount ($150,000 included). Unclear how the scheduled bond payments for the new facilities for existing TVLC schools will impact the availability of cash to support Portola Academy start-up. Because relocation has been delayed from January 2013 to fall 2013, but bond payments begin in December 2012, TVLC will be paying facilities costs to the Districts for its existing schools for several additional months.
Start-Up Costs
Found on page:
App L App L App L App L App L App L App L App L Staffing Facilities Equipment and Supplies Professional Services
Evaluation Criteria
Clearly identifies all major start-up costs
Assumptions in line with overall school design plan Identifies potential funding source Timeline allows for grant and fundraising
X X X X X X X X
Start-Up Costs Comments and/or Concerns

This section fails to meet the minimum required standard. The charter petition and appendices did not include a start-up budget and did not specifically identify start-up expenses or funding sources. Assumptions stated that an implementation grant was not included in the budget, but appears in the second year as $150,000. There appears to be no budget for start-up activities, including planning, hiring and professional development in the months prior to opening. Pre-opening expenses may impact size of available reserve to address cash flow needs.
Annual Operating Budget

Found on page:
App L App L App L App L App L App L App L App L App L App L App L Legend:
Evaluation Criteria
Annual revenues and expenditures clearly identified by source Revenue assumptions closely related to applicable state and federal funding formulas Expenditure assumptions reflect school design plan Expenditure assumptions reflect market costs Soft revenues not critical to solvency Strong reserve or projected ending balance (the larger of 3% of expenditure or $25,000) If first year is not in balance, identifies solvency in future years and sources of capital sufficient to cover deficits until the school year when the budget is projected to balance Expenditure for sufficient insurance to name district as also insured/hold harmless agreement Expenditure sufficient for reasonably expected legal services Expenditure for Special Education excess costs consistent with current experience in the school district/county Expenditure for facilities if specific facilities not secured, reasonable projected cost
Meets Required Standard X X X X X
X X X X X 11
Portola Academy
Annual Operating Budget Comments and/or Concerns

This section meets the minimum required standard, but some clarification and correction would be appropriate prior to school opening. Staffing plan does not track with program needs. Program includes art instruction, expanded program for English Learners, service learning and other features, but specific staff for these programs is not identified in the budget. The budget does not clearly identify the charter schools contribution to the cost of services provided by the TVLC management / central office. Charter appears to have underestimated benefits expenses by approx. $144K. Amounts for FICA and Medicare seem low; Workers Compensation and STRS costs seem high. Health & Welfare benefits costs seem low (approximately $360 per month per person). Source of $2.5 million opening balance to cover deficits during the school year is not identified; is not consistent with projected cash from other reports and, to the extent this reserve fund is shared by all TVLC programs, it may not be fully available to Portola Academy. Projected first year operating surplus of $144K is sufficient, at 4% of total expenditures.
Cash Flow Analysis

Found on page:
App L App L App L
Evaluation Criteria
Monthly projection of revenue receipts in line with local/state/federal funding disbursements Expenditures projected by month and correspond with typical/reasonable schedules Show positive cash balance each month and/or identify sources of working capital
Meets Required Standard X X
Cash Flow Analysis Comments and/or Concerns

This section meets the minimum required standard, but some clarification and correction would be necessary prior to school opening. Charter anticipates having $2.5M beginning cash balance in 2013-14 based on reserves of parent org TVLC. If this beginning cash is not available, the charter may experience liquidity problems. o Source of this cash is not clear; not consistent with previous reports by TVLC of cash on hand. (Audit report for 2010-2011 showed $2.5 M in assets, but only $570K in cash.) o Cash reserves of TVLC may need to be shared with other TVLC schools, including 2 start-ups (Acacia) and relocation of 2 existing schools. The petition appears to have overstated the 2014-15 beginning cash balance by $146K and the 2015-16 beginning cash balance by $216K. The District submitted documentation (Appendix D to this report) of late payments by TVLC for facilities fees and utilities. This may be indicative of cash flow challenges. Audits indicated that TVLC has previous entered into short-term loans totaling $500K to address cash needs.
It should be noted that bonds for the new campus for TVLCs K-8 school were successfully issued following due diligence by the State of California.
Long-Term Plan
Found on page:
App L App L App L App L App L
Evaluation Criteria
Projects revenues and expenditures for at least two additional years Revenue assumptions based on reasonable potential growth in local, state and federal revenues Revenue assumptions based on reasonable student growth projections Reasonable cost-of-living and inflation/funding reduction assumptions Annual fund balances are positive or sources of supplemental working capital are identified
Long-Term Plan Comments and/or Concerns

This section meets the minimum required standard, but some clarification and correction would be necessary prior to school opening. The Charter was conservative overall. Annual fund balances are positive. Legend:
12
Portola Academy
The projections did not include increases for ADA or COLA, or PCSGP grant funding (except for $150,000 in year 2) or CSR K-3 funding. In addition, it appears that State Lottery revenues have been understated by approximately $85K (through 2017-18). State Special Ed revenues appear to be overstated by approximately $96K (through 2017-18), except in the first year.
Impact Statement
Found on page:
8 72 72-73 85 85 73 72 App M 72 72 72 73 o o
Evaluation Criteria
Provides estimated numbers of students anticipated to enroll Identifies whether charter will request to purchase support services from ACOE or district Describes suggested processes and policies between charter and ACOE including: Process, activities and associated fees for oversight of charter Content, processes, timelines, and evaluation criteria for annual review and site visits Regular, ongoing fiscal and programmatic performance monitoring and reporting Content, process, timelines and evaluation criteria for charter renewal Proposed support service needs and suggested payments to ACOE or district for services Clearly drafted contract/agreement or reference to MOU Identify whether a request will be made for use of ACOE or district-owned facilities Reasonably detailed lease or occupation agreement for privately obtained facilities Proposed legal status of school is identified Describes the manner in which administrative services of the charter school are to be provided Identify whether school intends to manage risk independently or will seek to secure coverage through the Alameda County Office of Education or other public agency Addresses potential civil liability effects, if any, upon the school and the ACOE
Meets Required Standard X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X
Impact Statement Comments and/or Concerns

This section meets the minimum required standard, but some clarification would be necessary in the MOU prior to school opening. Renewal processes, timelines, and evaluation criteria are not clearly stated. Vague statement about possibly requesting services from district; no reference to ACOE services. No reference to oversight fees payable to district or ACOE. Appendix M lease agreement is not applicable to proposed new charter for Portola Academy. No alternative or back-up plan provided should the pending Prop. 39 facilities request not result in a satisfactory agreement with the District.
Facilities
Found on page:
72
Evaluation Criteria
Describe the types and potential location of facilities needed to operate the size and scope of educational program proposed in the charter. In the event a specific facility has not been secured, provide evidence of the type and projected cost of the facilities that may be available in the location of the proposed charter school.
72
Legend:
13
Portola Academy
72
Are reasonable costs for the acquisition or leasing of facilities to house the charter school reflected in budget (taking into account the facilities the charter school may be allocated under the provisions of Education Code section 47614)
Facilities Comments and/or Concerns

This section meets the minimum required standard, but some clarification and correction would be necessary prior to school opening. The petition states that the school intends to be located at its current Proposition 39 Portola Avenue site, but there is no detailed information on the size of this site or the number of specialized and non-classroom spaces needed. It is unclear if the Portola site has sufficient capacity for the proposed charter school or if modifications will be necessary. The petition includes only the Portola campus of LVJUSD (no alternative), and includes a copy of the agreement with LVJUSD for the current charters of TVLC, but it is not clear that the agreement entitles TVLC to occupy the Portola campus with a new charter.
Ed Code 47641 | Special Education

Found on page:
24-30, Apps. D and L
Evaluation Criteria
Petition specifies the means by which the charter school will comply with the provisions of Education Code section 47641 Has consulted with a SELPA agency concerning Special Ed. Services Has contacted the Alameda County Director of Special Ed. Discussed special education responsibilities of charter Discussed application of SELPA policies Describes how special education services will be provided consistent with SELPA Plan and/or policies and procedures Includes fiscal allocation plan Includes the process to be used to identify students who qualify for special education programs and services, including Referral Assessment o o o o Instruction Due Process Agreements describing allocation of actual and excess costs
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Exceeds Required Standard Meets Required Standard X X X X 14

Charter fiscally responsible for fair share of any encroachment on general o funds The school's understanding of its responsibilities under law for special education pupils, and how the school intends to meet those responsibilities o
Found on page:
Evaluation Criteria
If charter is LEA within SELPA

App. D Legend:
Notifies SELPA Director of intent prior to February 1 of the preceding school year Provides current operating budget in accordance with Ed Code 42130 and 42131 Responsible for any legal fees relating to application and assurances process Meets the terms of the Agreement Regarding the Organization, Implementation, Administration and Operation of SELPA
st
Portola Academy
Assurance Statement that Charter is fiscally responsible for fair share of any encroachment on general funds The charter will comply with all provisions of IDEA No student will be denied admission based on disability or lack of available services Will implement a Student Study Team process Any student potentially in need of Section 504 services will be the responsibility of the charter school
X X X X X X
Petition includes the following assurances:
Overview of how special education funding and services will be provided by:
Petition/MOU describes the process for notifying district of residence and authorizing school district when a special education student enrolls, becomes eligible, ineligible and/or leaves charter school Charter School Alameda County Office of Education SELPA Petition/MOU describes the transition to or from a district when a student with an IEP enrolls in, or transfers out of, the charter school
Special Education Comments and/or Concerns

This section fails to meet the minimum required standard. No consultation undertaken with ACOE special education. Petitioners state an intention to be part of the El Dorado County Office of Education Charter School SELPA, but provide no documentation of acceptance into the SELPA for the 2013-2014 school year or of the status of their application for membership. (Agreements with EDCOE SELPA for the other TVLC schools are included.) Petition includes no description of how services for students with IEPs will be delivered and who will provide them. There is no plan for professional development for regular classroom teachers to ensure their ability to modify classroom instruction and support other special education functions. Budget for special education is separately stated but not tied to any program description. There is no discussion of likely needs of targeted population, although TVLC has many years of experience serving students in the community, including those with special needs. No description of notification process in petition or sample MOU with EDCOE SELPA.
Legend:
15
Appendix B
SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONCERNS: TVLC PORTOLA ACADEMY CHARTER PETITIONS 2011 AND 2012
2011 Petition LVJUSD Concerns
Description of educational program is general, and lacks important specific information regarding the educational program Insufficient description of the targeted student population and how their unique needs will be met; no description of instructional design aligned to target population Inadequate, general description of the actual curriculum and instructional design; misaligned with underserved population targeted Insufficient description of plans to meet the needs of English Learners; fails to address involvement of parents of EL students; inadequate description of plans for EL assessments; and reclassification Inadequate description of plans for proposed dual immersion Page 1 Insufficient plan for English Learners Insufficient information to describe how it will meet the unique needs of the specific subgroup of students the school intends to enroll
2011 Petition AC Board Concerns
2011 Petition: State Board Concerns
2012 Petition: Concerns Addressed?

Yes - Educational program description revised and expanded
No - Description of target population and how program aligns with their needs remains limited
No - Description of the proposed curriculum is general; not broken down by grade or aligned specifically with target population Yes - English Learner program description expanded to include 3 options, parent role and reclassification
Insufficient detail, curricular descriptions, or plan for
Partial Some additional detail, but plans for implementing dual
Appendix B
program Student and school outcomes are vague; not measurable; infrequent; not objective; not sufficient to inform instructional decision-making

implementation of possible dual language immersion program Inadequate school and pupil outcomes that are subjective, non-committal, not measurable, and unlikely to be attained; no clear metric to facilitate objective assessment of academic performance

immersion program remain unclear No - Measurable outcomes for students and school are limited; aggregate measures without significant subgroups or special populations; some measures are vague; selection of measures and targets not supported Partial Bylaws revised
Governance section unclear as to how board will meet expanded responsibilities; inconsistencies between charter petition and bylaws; inadequate description of how conflicts of interest requirements will be addressed Inadequate description of qualifications of hired staff; inconsistent and confusing job descriptions Recruitment efforts are vaguely described; outreach plan is not specific does not reflect understanding of diverse communities within the District Admissions policy contrary to state law with respect to Page 2 Practices and policies in the petition are unlikely to achieve targeted racial and ethnic balance reflective of the District as a whole Admissions policy contrary to
Partial descriptions expanded; some inconsistencies with budget remain No recruitment plan not provided; evidence of ineffective outreach in list of interested families Yes preferences revised
Appendix B
preferences; inadequate description of process/timeline Suspension and expulsion policy is not legally compliant lacks appeal process Suspension and expulsion section fails to meet standard; lacks protections for students with special needs Dispute resolution process fails to address ACOEs role; internal complaint policies not developed Description of staff retirement plan lacks clear statement of intention Petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement, due to unrealistic financial and operational plan Financial Plan is not sound or realistic; does not include all program elements; individual cost items are unrealistic; starting balance unsupported; no start-up costs identified; special education expenditures and revenues unsupported Inadequate Financial Plan with errors in PCSGP grant revenue; no start-up costs; errors in annual operating budget Unsustainable and overly optimistic financial plan, with overstated state aid revenue and reliance on PCSGP grant Staff retirement system incomplete with respect to STRS membership; lack of clarity re: PERS

state law Expulsion policy does not meet state law
Yes policy revised
Yes complaint procedures in handbooks Partial STRS clarified; PERS still unclear
No Financial Plan not revised; organizational capacity not addressed No Financial Plan contains errors in revenue; no start-up budget; cash flow concerns
Page 3
Appendix B
Facilities section does not include plans to relocate existing school/s; does not describe how school will fit at proposed site Insufficient description of plan for special education and other students with disabilities (504); no plan for identification, referral and instruction Inadequate understanding of and plans for compliance with Section 504 (disabilities) Insufficient parent signatures; signature collection process and format contrary to statutory requirement Insufficient signatures due to failure to provide charter petition to parents for review

Facilities section fails to include information on size of proposed site; concerns regarding failure to make timely payments for facilities and utilities Insufficient information on special education instruction; lack of specific plan for identification, referral and assessment; insufficient documentation of SELPA status

No petition not clear on facility needs or timing of relocation of existing HS program at identified site Partial IDEA and 504 compliance responsibilities described; SELPA status described; plan for meeting responsibilities, particularly with respect to instruction, unclear Yes fuller description of 504 responsibilities Yes teacher signatures adequate to meet statutory requirement
Page 4
Tri- Valley Learning Corporation Charter School Demographics Comparison

TVLC HS CDE Data American Hispanic or Indian or Latino of Any Alaska Native, Race Not Hispanic 18.6% 0.0% 19.4% 0.0%
APPENDIX C
% of total enrollment 2010-2011 2011-2012
Total Enrollment 70 191
Pacific African Asian, Not Islander, Not Filipino, Not American, Not Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic 8.6% 0.0% 1.4% 2.9% 8.4% 0.5% 1.6% 5.8%
White, not Hispanic 48.6% 57.6%
Two or More Races, Not Hispanic Not Reported 5.7% 14.3% 3.1% 3.7%
SocioSpecial economically Education Disadvantaged LEP (per NCLB) 7.1% 18.6% 1.4% 2.6% 13.1% 4.7%
TVLC K8
CDE Data American Hispanic or Indian or Latino of Any Alaska Native, Race Not Hispanic 9.6% 1.0% 10.7% 1.1% 11.1% 0.9% 10.6% 0.8%
% of total enrollment 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
Total Enrollment 881 890 932 931
Pacific African Asian, Not Islander, Not Filipino, Not American, Not Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic 9.0% 0.7% 2.6% 2.6% 11.2% 0.4% 2.2% 1.7% 10.9% 0.4% 2.6% 1.6% 11.7% 0.4% 3.2% 1.6%
White, not Hispanic 73.7% 72.0% 71.8% 70.2%
Two or More Races, Not Hispanic Not Reported 0.0% 0.8% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.1% 1.3%
SocioSpecial economically Education Disadvantaged LEP (per NCLB) 4.8% 4.0% 2.8% 5.2% 4.7% 3.0% 7.0% 4.8% 3.4% 7.3% 3.9% 3.4%
District Comparison
CDE Data
2011-2012 American Hispanic or Indian or Latino of Any Alaska Native, Race Not Hispanic 19.4% 0.0% 10.6% 0.8% 29.5% 0.4%
% of total enrollment TVLC HS TVLC K8 LVJUSD
Total Enrollment 191 931 3,280
Pacific African Asian, Not Islander, Not Filipino, Not American, Not Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic 8.4% 0.5% 1.6% 5.8% 11.7% 0.4% 3.2% 1.6% 5.2% 0.4% 2.8% 2.1%
White, not Hispanic 57.6% 70.2% 52.4%
Two or More Races, Not Hispanic Not Reported 3.1% 3.7% 0.1% 1.3% 6.4% 0.7%
SocioSpecial economically Education Disadvantaged LEP (per NCLB) 2.6% 13.1% 4.7% 7.3% 3.9% 3.4% 11.5% 25.7% 16.7%
Appendix D

ACOE Staff Report Portola Academy Petition Appeal Dec 2012

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

ACOE Staff Report Portola Academy Petition Appeal Dec 2012

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

TVLC Portola Academy Charter School (October 2012 Petition)

CHARTER SCHOOL EVALUATION SUMMARY REPORT

FOR TVLC Portola Academy Charter School (October 2012 Petition)

ACOE Charter Review Team:

December 11, 2012

December 11, 2012

December 11, 2012

December 11, 2012

December 11, 2012

December 11, 2012

ALAMEDA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

Petition Review and Presentation Timelines

Decision by Board of Education

Date Due Nov. 18, 2012

Date Due Dec. 18, 2012 30 day extension to

Date of Board Decision Dec. 11, 2012

Section below is for Office Use ONLY

Meets or Fails Requirements

Charter Petition Name:

Complete Petition Received: October 19, 2012

Meets Required Standard:

Fails To Meet Required Standard:

Ed Code 47605 A | Education Program

1. Targeted School Populations

3. What it Means to be an Educated Person in The 21st Century

4. Description of How Learning Best Occurs

Charter Petition Name:

Complete Petition Received: October 19, 2012

Evaluation Criteria A-P

Exceeds Required Standard

Meets Required Standard

Fails To Meet Required Standard

5. Additional Requirements for Charter Schools Serving High School Student

Education Program Comments and/or Concerns

Charter Petition Name:

Complete Petition Received: October 19, 2012

Ed Code 47605 B | Measurable Student Outcomes

Exceeds Required Standard

Meets Required Standard X X

Fails To Meet Required Standard

Measurable Student Outcomes Comments and/or Concerns

Ed Code 47605 C | Student Progress Measurement

Exceeds Required Standard

Meets Required Standard X X X X X X

Fails To Meet Required Standard

Charter Petition Name:

Complete Petition Received: October 19, 2012

Student Progress Measurement Comments and/or Concerns

Ed Code 47605 D | Government Structure

Exceeds Required Standard X

Meets Required Standard

Fails To Meet Required Standard

Government Structure Comments and/or Concerns

Ed Code 47605 E | Employee Qualifications

Identifies all key staff positions with the school

Exceeds Required Standard

Meets Required Standard X

Fails To Meet Required Standard

Charter Petition Name:

Complete Petition Received: October 19, 2012

Employee Qualifications Comments and/or Concerns

Ed Code 47605 F | Health and Safety

Exceeds Required Standard