accs-dec17item01
Page 3 of 11
California Department of EducationCharter Schools Division
Revised 10/2016
accs-dec17item01 / ITEM #
ADVISORY COMMISSION ON CHARTER SCHOOLS
AN ADVISORY BODY TO THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
DECEMBER 2017 AGENDA
SUBJECT
Petition for Establishment of a Charter School Under the Oversight of the State Board of Education: Consideration of the Pacific Valley Charter Academy, which was denied by the Vacaville Unified School District and the Solano County Office of Education. / ActionInformation
SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE(S)
On June 29, 2017, the Vacaville Unified School District (VUSD) unanimously voted to deny the petition of Pacific Valley Charter Academy (PVCA). On September 13, 2017, the Solano County Board of Education (SCBE) voted to deny the PVCA petition on appeal by a vote of four to three.
Pursuant to California Education Code (EC) Section 47605(j), petitioners for a charter school that have been denied at the local level may petition the State Board of Education (SBE) for approval of the charter, subject to certain conditions.
PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION
The California Department of Education (CDE) proposes to recommend that the SBE hold a public hearing and deny the establishment of PVCA under the oversight of the SBE, based on the CDE’s findings pursuant to EC sections 47605(b)(1), 47605(b)(2), 47605(b)(5), and California Code of Regulations, Title 5 (5 CCR) Section 11967.5.
BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE
Pacific Charter Institute (PCI), a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation submitted the PVCA petition on appeal to the CDE on September 29, 2017. The PVCA petition proposes to serve pupils from transitional kindergarten (TK) through grade twelve in a homeschooling and independent study (IS) school setting, continuing the work of the Heritage Peak Charter School Vacaville Resource Center. Heritage Peak Charter School is PCI charter school #0687, authorized by Twin Rivers Unified School District since 2005. PCI has additional resource centers that serve pupils in the Sacramento and San Joaquin counties.
In considering the PVCA petition, CDE staff reviewed the following:
· Petition and appendices (Attachments 3 and 8)
· Educational and demographic data of schools where pupils would otherwise be required to attend (Attachment 2)
· PVCA budget and financial projections (Attachments 4 and 5)
· Description of changes to the petition necessary to reflect the SBE as the authorizing entity (Attachment 9)
· Board agendas, minutes, and findings from the VUSD (Attachment 6) and SCBE (Attachment 7) regarding the denial of the petition, along with the petitioner’s response to the VUSD and SCBE findings (Attachments 6 and 7)
Ability to Successfully Implement the Program
The CDE finds that the PVCA petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition due to an insufficient financial and operational plan provided by PVCA. Furthermore, the petitioners are unfamiliar, in the CDE’s judgment, with the content of the petition or the requirements of law that would apply to the proposed charter school.
· Pupil Budgets
The PVCA petition describes pupil budgets as the allocated part of the local control funding formula (LCFF) entitlement revenue toward each pupil’s individual learning plan (ILP). The CDE finds that this particular practice of allocation of LCFF funds aligned to each pupil’s specific ILP has the potential to create educational and instructional inequities between pupils; PVCA’s LCFF funding may be allocated for certain educational enrichment activities, but a family’s abilities and/or their individual resources and capacities may not allow for equitable, educational experiences. This individualized allocation of LCFF funds has the potential to rely on a separate but equal system, and unless each pupil’s ILP includes the same standards-based activities, could potentially result in inequitable access to the PVCA curriculum.
The CDE finds that PVCA may be at fiscal risk by allocating funds to pupils on an individualized basis pursuant to EC Section 51747.3(a) which states:
Notwithstanding any other law, a local educational agency, including, but not limited to, a charter school, shall not claim state funding for the independent study of a pupil, whether characterized as home study or otherwise, if the local educational agency has provided any funds or other thing of value to the pupil or his or her parent or guardian that the local educational agency does not provide to pupils who attend regular classes or to their parents or guardians. A charter school shall not claim state funding for the independent study of a pupil, whether characterized as home study or otherwise, if the charter school has provided any funds or other thing of value to the pupil or his or her parent or guardian that a school district could not legally provide to a similarly situated pupil of the school.
Additionally, the PVCA petition states that PVCA will reimburse households $15 per month for internet connectivity. However, the CDE believes this is based on the assumption that all PVCA families have computers at home for pupil use. It is possible that some families could incur additional expenses for computers and internet provided fees. The CDE finds that this could constitute a fee and a potential violation of EC Section 49011(b)(1) which requires that all supplies, materials, and equipment needed to participate in educational activities shall be provided to pupils free of charge.
· Fiscal Analysis
The CDE conducts a fiscal analysis pursuant to EC Section 45605(b)(2) and 5 CCR sections 11967.5.1(c)(B)(2) and (c)(B)(3).
The PVCA multi-year projected budget includes the following (Attachment 4, p. 2):
o 354 TK to grade twelve pupils in 2018–19
o 354 TK to grade twelve pupils in 2019–20
o 354 TK to grade twelve pupils in 2020–21
Currently, the Heritage Peak Charter School Vacaville Resource Center, which would become PVCA upon SBE’s authorization, has 229 pupils (Attachment 3, pp. 7–8).
The CDE is unable to determine if the budget is fiscally viable because the PVCA projected budget fails to provide the necessary enrollment projection data by grade level, average daily attendance (ADA) ratio, and rationale for the increased enrollment of over 100 pupils for fiscal year (FY) 2018–19, with no increase in enrollment for the succeeding years. Given that PVCA is an existing, operational resource center (Heritage Peak Charter School Vacaville Resource Center), it seems to be a reasonable expectation that the petitioner would have provided projected grade spans that LCFF would be calculated on.
· Revenue
The CDE is unable to determine if the LCFF revenue is reasonable as the PVCA budget does not provide the enrollment projection by grade level, ADA ratio, or LCFF calculations. Furthermore, the PVCA appears to overstate the Special Education funding by $8,850 for FY 2018–19 through FY 2020–21. The PVCA multi-year projected budget includes lottery funds in the first year of operation, however, lottery funds are based on prior year Second Principal Apportionment enrollment. PVCA will not begin receiving these funds until the second year of operation, 2019–20. Based on these factors, the CDE excluded the lottery funds of $42,480 from the projected revenue in 2018–19 and adjusted the understated lottery funds of $88,004 and $22,762 in FYs 2019–20 and 2020–21, respectively.
· Expenditure
The PVCA budget provides the salary and benefit assumption in FY 2018–19 only. Therefore, the CDE is unable to validate the accuracy of salary and benefit for FYs 2019–20 and 2020–21.
The CDE is also unable to determine whether PVCA has realistically budgeted costs, as a detailed budget narrative and assumption for the expenditure of books, supplies, and other services is not included in the PVCA budget documents.
· Cash Flow Projections
The PVCA budget includes a short-term advance of $650,000, to be repaid within the same fiscal year, to support the first six months of PVCA operation in FY 2018–19. However, the PVCA budget fails to provide detailed information regarding terms of repayment, costs of borrowing, or any contingency plan should PVCA fail to repay the advance.
Reasonably Comprehensive Descriptions
Pursuant to EC sections 47605(b)(1), 47605 (b)(2), 47605(b)(4), 47605(b)(5), and 5 CCR Section 11967.5.1, a charter petition must provide a reasonably comprehensive description of multiple required elements.
The PVCA petition does not provide reasonably comprehensive descriptions of the required elements, including Element 1: Description of Educational Program (Attachment 3, pp. 29–56), Element 2: Measurable Pupil Outcomes (Attachment 3, pp. 57–71), Element 4: Governance Structure (Attachment 3, pp. 76–84), Element 8: Admissions Requirements, if Applicable (Attachment 3, pp. 102–103), and Element 10: Suspension and Expulsion Procedures (Attachment 3, pp. 106–125).
· Element 1: Educational Program
CDE finds that the PVCA petition does not present a reasonably comprehensive description of the educational program. Although the PVCA petition’s stated vision is developing self-motivated, educated individuals in the Solano County who will spread the wealth of knowledge worldwide in a meaningful way, with a mission that empowers pupils to take charge of their education by connecting their individual needs and interests to a rigorous learning plan, thus creating self-motivated and responsible citizens, critical problem-solvers, and lifelong learners (Attachment 3, p. 29), the specifics of how this will be accomplished are not apparent within the educational program outlined.
The educational program has notable concerns in each of the following plans:
o Plan for Low-Achieving Pupils
The PVCA petition states that pupils two or more grade levels below in reading will need intensive intervention. However, other than re-teaching, the petition does not adequately describe what intensive intervention will be provided to pupils. The PVCA petition states that all pupils will have access to state standards-based curriculum along with support services offered by PVCA but does not describe the support services for low-achieving pupils. The petition addresses the use of Northwest Evaluation Association Measures of Academic Progress assessments to determine both reading and math levels. The petition further states that teachers have the ability to fill the gap using Compass Odyssey, Study Island, or PLATO along with direct instruction with the appropriate curriculum to support the pupil (Attachment 3, p. 46). Pupils will also have access to qualified tutors and teachers, and opportunities to participate in additional instructional experiences in the community (Attachment 3, p. 46). Although the PVCA petition references access to curriculum, teachers, and tutors, the petition does not describe how the low-achieving pupil can access these various options in an intensive intervention model other than re-teaching. Although the PVCA petition indicates that it is imperative that each teacher re-teaches skills and concepts not mastered (Attachment 3, p. 46), the petition does not describe how or when this will occur, or what the re-teaching strategies will look like.
o Plan for English Learners
The PVCA petition, with regard to English learners (ELs), states that PVCA will be committed to supporting ELs and will meet all applicable legal requirements for ELs. As the proposed PVCA has been an operating resource center for Heritage Peak Charter School, the description of the EL program should assist the authorizing agency to visualize the program. Instead PVCA does not adequately describe an EL plan. The petition does not adequately describe how PVCA will support EL pupils in an IS educational program.
The PVCA petition does not provide a specific plan for designated English Language Development (ELD) instruction as part of a comprehensive instructional plan to meet the needs of EL pupils that is recognized as protected time during the school day in which teachers group EL pupils according to particular ELD need as identified by California English Language Development Test or English Language Proficiency Assessments for California proficiency level, or discrete skills such as reading, writing, speaking, and listening. The petition does not adequately describe ELD instruction, who will provide this instruction, when ELD instruction will take place, how parents will be supported to provide ELD, and how limited-English speaking parents will be supported to provide ELD.
The PVCA petition states that the instructional model will place heavy emphasis on differentiated instruction to meet the needs of the EL but does not go into any detail as to how that is accomplished in an IS educational program. The petition states that an EL specialist will be employed due to the large number of EL pupils in Solano County. The EL specialist will conduct workshops for parents to better engage pupils with academic content (Attachment 3, p. 49).
o Plan for Special Education
Special education pupils may not participate in an IS program unless it is specified as an instructional method in their individual education program (IEP), as required by EC Section 51745(c). Additionally, if a pupil is enrolled in an IS program and his or her IEP does not include IS as an instructional method, a determination needs to be made within 30 days as to whether IS is appropriate for the pupil. This is the requirement of EC Section 47605(d)(2)(A). The PVCA petition does not address the requirements of either EC Section 51745(c) or EC Section 47605(d)(2)(A) in the enrollment process for special education pupils.
The petitioner does not address the process or requirements for enrolling special education pupils in the charter school. The PVCA petition states that PVCA will comply with all applicable state and federal laws in serving pupils enrolled in the charter with disabilities (Attachment 3, pp. 50–52).
· Element 4: Governance Structure
The PVCA petition does not meet the evaluation criteria for Element 4: Governance Structure. The CDE finds that the PVCA petition does not outline how PVCA will specifically seek parental involvement in the governance of PVCA or serve on the governing board. Otherwise, the petition provides a reasonably comprehensive description of the governance structure (Attachment 3, pp. 76–84).
The petition states that PVCA will be governed by the PCI Board of Directors according to the adopted bylaws (Attachment 10).
· Element 8: Admission Requirements
The PVCA petition states that as part of the admission process, all three parties–PVCA, the pupil, and their parent or guardian–must first meet with the PVCA Director or his/her designee. The parent and the pupils will then sign the agreements that outline the expectations of all of the stakeholders (Attachment 2, p. 102). The petition states that PVCA will admit all pupils who wish to enroll, subject to capacity and an interview with the PVCA Director (Attachment 3, p. 103).