STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION – TOPIC SUMMARY
Topic: Request for Board Sponsorship: Ivy Montessori Public Charter School
Date: October 16, 2008
Staff/Office: Phyllis Guile/Office of Educational Improvement and Innovation
Action Requested: Information only Policy Adoption Policy Adoption/Consent Calendar
ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD: State Board Sponsorship of the Ivy Montessori Public Charter School
BACKGROUND:
The Ivy Montessori Public Charter School is a comprehensive 1st through 8th grade school located in the Portland Public Schools District. Ivy plans to offer an individualized instructional program which merges the Oregon Curriculum goals with the Montessori scope and sequence. The school seeks to initially enroll 60 students in grades 1st – 3rd and grow to a total enrollment of 240 students in year 7 for grades 1st through 8th.
The Portland Public School District has an enrollment of approximately 47,000 and currently sponsors seven charter schools.
The Ivy Montessori Public Charter School developers have received a federal Public Charter School Program incentive grant in the amount of $25,000. Two supplement awards totaling $5,000 have also been disbursed to this school.
ORS 338.075 states “If a school district board does not approve a proposal to start a public charter school pursuant to ORS 338.055, the applicant may request that the State Board of Education review the decision of the school district board.” The Ivy School made application to the Portland Public Schools Board sponsorship in July of 2007. The Portland Public Schools staff review of The Ivy School was completed in November of 2007. The Portland Public Schools Board denied the application for sponsorship.
The applicants requested a review of Portland’s decision to deny.
Following are the steps required upon the receipt of a request for review:
1. An attempt at mediation between the applicant and the school district board;
2. Recommendation of revisions to the applicant and the school district board; and
3. Consideration by the State Board of Education to sponsor the public charter school.
Mediation was unsuccessful and there were no suggestions for revision to the applicant and the school district board. Following the established appeal process, Department staff conducted a substantive review of the proposal using criteria set forth in ORS 338.045 and 338.055. The review panel was made up of internal and external reviews with expertise in curriculum, school finance, governance and Special Education.
The review indicated the proposal did meet the criteria established by the State Board of Education for sponsorship.
At the October 16, 2008 board meeting, both the Portland Public Schools staff and The Ivy Montessori Public Charter School developers will be given the opportunity to address the board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Superintendent and ODE Staff recommend adoption of the following resolution at the regularly scheduled December 11, 2008 meeting:
RESOLVED, that the State Board of Education approve sponsorship of the Ivy Montessori Public Charter School.
Oregon Department of Education / Office of Educational Improvement & Innovation255 Capitol Street NE / September 29, 2008
Salem, OR 97310
TO: / Susan Castillo, Superintendent of Public Instruction
FROM: / Salam Noor, Assistant Superintendent
RE: / State Board Sponsorship of The Ivy School Montessori Public Charter School
The evaluation and review of The Ivy School Montessori Charter School began with information to the developers on the review procedures and timelines. A procedural review of the Portland Public School District (PPS) charter school evaluation process found the district was in compliance with charter school law and charter school application timelines.
A substantive review of the charter proposal was conducted in July 2008 by a review team consisting of ODE staff and the charter school developers and those with expertise in curriculum, school finance, governance and Special Education.
The review indicated the proposal did meet the criteria established by the State Board of Education for sponsorship. While required steps to receive State Board sponsorship have been met, it is important for Directors to understand the strain that these decisions have on the capacity of the Department to monitor and provide oversight. Currently, two Education Specialist positions with the support of the Learning Opportunities, Options and Support Team director provide state wide technical assistance to 88 charter schools, districts and those desiring to develop and open new programs. Additionally, the new grant award of 16.5 million dollars received from the USDOE will further stretch the availability of staff’s time to provide the level of assistance that they have come to be known for.
The Oregon Charter School Program is growing. It is hoped that it will continue to do so as indicated in the submission and subsequent award of the federal funds. Local districts were to be the key partners in working with developers to add an additional instructional option to parents and students. In the coming months staff will be developing additional criteria in regards to State Board sponsorship for consideration and adoption. They will include alignment with current goals and directions as set by the State Board of Education.
Both the applicant and the PPS staff will be given the opportunity to address the State Board of Education at the October 16-17, 2008 meeting.
The staff recommends approval for The Ivy School Montessori Public Charter School’s request for State Board sponsorship.
Cc: Phyllis Guile
Cindy Hunt
Oregon State Board of Education
Review Rubric
ORS 338.045
The Ivy Montessori Public Charter School
Proposal Requirements(ORS 338.045(2)) / Evidence, Rating and Rationale /
(a) The identification of the applicant / Applicant identification is evidenced by a listing of the names of key school founders.
Preferable factors
Specification of each person’s role with the proposed school and relevant experience/expertise.
Meets / Does not Meet
Explain rationale for rating:
The Board of Advisors is clearly identified and lists each person’s school and related work experience
(b) The name of the proposed public charter school / The proposed public charter school name is evidenced by a clear indication of the name.
Preferable factors
A consistent use of the name throughout the proposal.
Meets / Does not Meet
Explain rationale for rating:
Name of the school remained consistent and secure in the proposal.
(c) A description of the philosophy and mission of the public charter school / The philosophy is evidenced by a clear description of the proposed school’s approach to education. The mission is evidenced by clear statements that convey the school’s vision for the education of its students.
Preferable factors
· clear, focused and compelling
· likely to improve education outcomes
· expresses a clear guiding purpose
· identifies priorities that are consistent with the intent of ORS 338.015
Meets / Does not Meet
Explain rationale for rating:
The education outcomes are supportive of the District Strategic Objectives.
Developers have clearly stated the school’s mission statement and connected PPS objectives.
The Ivy School priorities are in line with the priorities in ORS 338.015.
(d) A description of the curriculum of the public charter school / The curriculum description is evidenced by an explanation of the instructional approach/methodology and an outline of each content area that is addressed within the public charter school.
Preferable factors
· curriculum framework is clearly presented, aligned with the school’s mission, and provides an appropriate level of detail for objectives, content, and skills for each subject and for all grades the school will serve
· curriculum is supported by research and/or by applicant experience· educational program is a good match for the target student population
· a clear outline of how the school will monitor the implementation of the curriculum
· a cohesive and coherent description of all components
· description of how the schools comprehensive education program will meet the needs of ALL students, particularly academically low-achieving students
Meets / Does not Meet
Explain rationale for rating:
All preferable factors are present in the proposal and supporting curriculum documents.
Research has shown the education method to be successful for students.
Developers have addressed low-achieving students and document research in low-performing schools.
(e) A description of expected results of the curriculum and the verified methods of measuring and reporting objective results that will show the growth of knowledge of students attending the public charter school and allow comparisons with public schools / Proposal outlines in detail the expected results of the curriculum, such as student and school outcomes and goals. Plans to measure outcomes with verified methods and objective reporting are evidenced by a well- developed and comprehensive plan for assessing student and school goals. Oregon State Assessments and other means that yield data that allows comparisons with other public schools are clearly described.
Preferable factors
· alignment with school’s mission
· goals that are clear, specific, measureable, ambitious and attainable
· objectives that follow clearly from the goals
· a clear plan for the school to meet AYP
· clear realistic strategies for improving student achievement and closing achievement gaps
· understanding of and strategy for complying with state achievement and reporting requirement
Meets / Does not Meet
Explain rationale for rating:
The proposal outlines expected results using a variety of measures.
The applicants use a table to show sample Montesorri test scores vs. PPS test scores.
Realistic strategies for improving student achievement are part of the curriculum instructional program.
The student goals and parent involvement and satisfaction goals are in alignment with school’s mission. They also include additional goals in community partnerships, professional development and the annual audit.
(f) The governance structure of the public charter school / The governance structure is evidenced by assurances of non-profit and tax-exempt status and description of key features of the school’s governance model.
Preferable factors:
· proposed board members will contribute a wide range of experience and expertise that will be needed to oversee a successful charter school such as education, management, financial planning and community outreach
· comprehensive plan for providing board training
· clear description of selection and removal procedures, term limits, meeting schedules, and powers and roles of board members
· clear distinction between the roles and responsibilities of the board members and school administrators
· plan for meaningful involvement of parents and community members in the governance of the school
· sufficient time, money and personnel allocated for planning and start-up prior to the school’s opening
Meets / Does not Meet
Explain rationale for rating:
All preferable factors are present in the proposal and supporting governance documents.
All of the above preferable factors are included except for a comprehensive plan for providing board training.
Board members have a variety of expertise related to governance.
The proposal clearly shows evidence of tax-exempt status and the school’s governance model.
The proposal has bylaws and assigns roles appropriate to board members and administrators.
(g) The projected enrollment to be maintained and the ages or grades to be served / Enrollment and ages/grades served is evidenced by a clear description of anticipated enrollment (by age/grade) for at least three years (and for the duration of the desired charter term, if longer than three years).
Preferable factors
· a complete explanation of the student population the school intends to serve
· evidence of strong support from an adequate number of parents, teachers, pupils or any combination thereof
Meets / Does not Meet
Explain rationale for rating:
Both the original proposal (July 2007) and the revisions (January 2008) clearly designate the expected enrollment.
The applicant has many letters of support from parents, businesses, and community members.
(h) The target population of students the public charter school will be designed to serve / The target population to be served is evidenced by a description of student demographics and characteristics.
Preferable factors
· evidence that founders understand key student populations and demographics within the district which are likely to influence the proposed school’s student body and needs
· student’s current levels of achievement and instructional needs
· evidence of a need in the community to serve the target student population
· evidence of sufficient interest in the school to fill the proposed number of student openings
Meets / Does not Meet
Explain rationale for rating:
The proposal contains evidence that the developers understand the demographics of the population to be served.
There is sufficient interest to fill the proposed number of student openings.
Letters of Intent to Enroll evidence sufficient interest to fill openings.
The founders present clear and convincing evidence of their understanding of Portland Public demographics and potential enrollees.
(i) A description of any distinctive learning or teaching techniques to be used in the public charter school / Distinctive learning and teaching techniques are evidenced by a detailed description of educational models, activities, and/or delivery strategies that will characterize the school.
Preferable factors
· clear, focused and compelling· likely to improve educational outcomes
· expresses a clear, guiding purpose
· supported by research, applicant experience, and/or sound reasoning behind techniques
Meets / Does not Meet
Explain rationale for rating:
The Montessori program is well described and support by the applicants’ experience and research is provided.
The applicant includes relevant research throughout the proposal.
Current learning theory is represented by the brain-compatible principles which are clearly present in the teaching and learning strategies inherent in Montessori pedagogy.
(j) The legal address, facilities and physical location of the public charter school, if known / School’s address, if known, and legal/mailing address.
Preferable factors
If a facility has been identified:
· designation of the proposed facility
· evidence that facility will be appropriate for the educational program of the school and adequate for the projected student enrollment
· adequate reflection of the costs associated with the proposed facility in the budget, including rent, utilities, and maintenance
· assurance the proposed facility will be in compliance with applicable building codes, health and safety laws, and with the requirements of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA)
· sound plan to identify needed renovation as well as the funds and timeline for the completion of those renovations