Charter School Revised and Resubmitted Application Review Team - - PDF document

4/23/2014 1

Charter School Revised and Resubmitted Application Review Team Findings and Recommendations for:

Provident Charter School for Children with Dyslexia

Agenda Review Meeting April 23, 2014

AGENDA REVIEW MEETING April 23, 2014 Charter Resubmission Recommendation

Initial Review Team Findings and Recommendation: Not Approve Board Voted to not approve at it February 26, 2014 Legislative Session

Provident Charter School for Children with Dyslexia (PCSCD)

2 April 23, 2014

4/23/2014 2

Application Review Team: Provident Charter School for Children with Dyslexia

Lisa Augustin Director of Assessment Amber Dean Special Education Specialist Meghan Murray Assessment &Curriculum Coordinator Christine Wells Budget Analyst

3 April 23, 2014

Proposed Focus – Children with Dyslexia Proposed Grade Levels – 2 through 8

Background Information

Projected Enrollment Year 1: (3‐4) 96 Year 2: (3‐5) 144 Year 3: (3‐6) 192 Year 4: (3‐7) 240 Year 5: (3‐8) 336

4 April 23, 2014

4/23/2014 3

Proposed Location

• Troy Hill area of Pittsburgh, North Catholic High School Building

Communities to be served

• Children diagnosed with Dyslexia
• 14 districts within a 10 mile radius of Pittsburgh

Scheduling

• Proposed extended year

Background Information Continued

5 April 23, 2014

• 1a. Does the charter school have current petitions and letters of

support from teachers, parent and students and the community? 1b. Did the charter school have support from the community at the public hearing?

• Current, local signatures and letters of support submitted with the

resubmission (corrected from previous review)

• 2. Does the charter school provide the School District of Pittsburgh

with expanded choices in the types of educational opportunities currently being offered?

• The school does not provide the District with expanded educational
• pportunities (same as previous review).
• Looping at City Charter
• PPS teachers Orton-Gillingham trained
• Proposed programming used within the District

Findings Based on Checklist Criteria

6 April 23, 2014

4/23/2014 4

• 3. Does the application consider all the information requested in section

1719-A and conform to the legislative intent outlined in section 1702- A? The application does not consider all information requested (same as previous review).

• Lacks a comprehensive curriculum
• Lacks a comprehensive professional development plan for general

academics and Orton-Gillingham

• Lacks a code of conduct with infraction levels and consequences
• Lacks information on the manner in which community groups will

be involved in the charter school planning process; no agreements, contracts, MOUs

• Fails to provide parents and pupils with expanded choices in the

types of educational opportunities that are available within the public school system

• Does not increase learning opportunities for all pupils
• Does not encourage the use of different and innovative teaching

methods

Findings Based on Checklist Criteria Continued

7 April 23, 2014

• 5. Is the curriculum complete and comprehensive; aligned to state

standards? The curriculum included in the application is not complete and comprehensive (same as previous review).

• Lacks a clear and complete, comprehensive curriculum including

resources, differentiation, scope and sequence, pacing guides, teaching activities etc.

• Lacks specific assessments
• 6. Does the charter school provide a continuum of services to meet

the needs of all students, including students with disabilities, English language learners and at-risk students? The charter school does not provide a continuum of services to meet the needs of all students (same as previous review).

• Changed admissions policy but made no plans for educational

programming, staffing, curriculum or pedagogy to address potential student body

• Application incorrectly states that a functional curriculum or

curriculum aligned to the PA alternate standards is not needed.

Findings Based on Checklist Criteria Continued

8 April 23 2014

4/23/2014 5

7. Is the proposed charter school financially viable? The proposed charter school is financially viable with exceptions (corrected from previous review).

• 8. Is a location identified that can comply with all federal, state and local

health and safety regulations? A location is identified that can comply with all federal, state and local health and safety regulations with the exception of religious symbols (same as previous review).

• 9. Can the charter school serve as a model for other schools in the District?

The school does not serve as a model for other schools in the District (same as previous review).

• Proposed programming used within the District
• Special Education services provided within the District

Findings Based on Checklist Criteria

9 April 23, 2014

Final Checklist

Criteria

• 1a. Does the charter school have current petitions and letters of support from

teachers, parents, students and the community?

Sufficient (Insufficient)

• 1b. Did the charter school have support from the community at the public

hearing?

Sufficient w/Exceptions

• 2. Does the charter school provide the School District of Pittsburgh with

expanded choices in the types of educational opportunities currently being

• ffered?

Insufficient

• 3. Is the governance structure of the charter school in compliance with all

federal, state and local regulations and the PA school code?

Sufficient

• 4. Does the application consider all the information requested in section 1719-A

and conform to the legislative intent outlined in section 1702-A?

Insufficient

• 5. Is the curriculum complete and comprehensive; aligned to state standards?

Insufficient

• 6. Does the charter school provide a continuum of services to meet the needs of

all students, including students with disabilities, English language learners and at-risk students?

Insufficient

• 7. Is the proposed charter school financially viable?

Sufficient w/Exceptions (Insufficient)

• 8. Is a location identified that can comply with all federal, state and local health

and safety regulations?

Sufficient w/Exceptions

• 9. Can the charter school serve as a model for other schools in the District?

Insufficient

10 April 23, 2014

4/23/2014 6

Based on a thorough analysis of the Provident Charter School for Children with Dyslexia revised and resubmitted application, the Pittsburgh Public Schools review team recommends that the Board not approve the application. Recommendation – Not Approve

11 April 23, 2014