WCS_Response to the Initial Memo

AID 1634395 · View on Simbli

Agenda Item

a. The Wright Community School ~ Start-Up Charter Petition

Summary: Presented by: Kina M. Champion; Director, School Innovation; Division of Equity
Request: It is requested that the DeKalb County Board of Education deny the start-up charter petition of The Wright Community School.
Why: The recommendation of the Petition Review Committee is based on evaluation of the written petition (narrative and attachments), independent due diligence, and the founding board capacity interview. In addition to meeting the criteria that are specific to that section of the evaluation rubric, each part of the petition should align with the overall mission and vision, educational program, and organizational and financial performance/plans.
Details: The Petition Review Committee identified the following concerns:

Community Need/Support


The petitioner did not present a compelling case for the unmet need in the DeKalb Community that its proposed school meets or an understanding of the unique characteristics of DeKalb County’s educational landscape.
Neither responses provided during the Founding Board Capacity Interview nor the final revised petition demonstrate a deep, realistic, or authentic understanding of the targeted population or the community school model.
The petitioner did not demonstrate an understanding of the economic, political, historical, and social contexts of the community it seeks to serve. Awareness of the community's needs, assets or strengths was not evident in the final revised petition.
Insufficient evidence of involvement of DeKalb community members, organizations, and/or families in the design of the school was provided. Further, the petitioner submitted no letters of intent or agreements detailing proposed community partnerships to support the educational model.
Little or no evidence of authentic community engagement within the DeKalb community or a plan for moving forward to incorporate diverse stakeholders, touch-points, and tactics were presented.


School Governance


The Founding Board members have a broad and varied knowledge base. The Founding Board reflects the sociodemographic diversity of the targeted community. However, it is unclear what role(s), if any, Board members played in the petition development process. Meeting minutes submitted in response to the Initial Memo do not reflect substantive engagement by the Founding Board in the development of the petition.
The petitioner acknowledges that there is a gap in the Founding Board’s knowledge base. WCS is actively seeking a board member with legal expertise.
The Founding Board did not clearly articulate its policies or a decision-making process for determining when and how to adjust its plans based on feedback.
Collectively, the Board did not demonstrate the capacity to implement all aspects of the education program or to meet the needs of the target student population.


Academic Plan


The petitioner did not sufficiently address student subgroups or recognize and plan for the needs of diverse students.
The final revised petition does not describe in detail the mechanisms and/or strategies to ensure equitable access to the curriculum for all students nor were there concrete strategies and materials to support students with disabilities, English Language Learners, and academically struggling students. The Petition Review Committee was especially concerned about WCS’s capacity to support ELLs, Gifted Education, Special Education, AP, and dual enrollment.
The petitioner did not present a plan for contingencies and program adjustments regarding different rates of SWDs, ELLs, and academically struggling students and differing levels of student need. The final revised petition lacks the specifics for progress monitoring to ensure student success and/or build capacity for students to be a part of the program as it relates to AP and dual enrollment.
The student behavior management system and restorative practices described in the final revised petition were unclear and do not distinguish between outcomes that are automatic versus those that are discretionary.


Financial Plan


The budget is not based on realistic expectations for income and expenditures.
The budget does not reflect all needs outlined in the Academic Plan, including personnel, technological resources, facilities, curricular resources, and mission specific expenditures.
Insufficient detail on the assumptions underlying estimates in the budget template was provided.
The petition lacks a financial plan for the facility. The petitioner did not present a clear plan to fund the purchase of land, property, and/or renovations required to build or convert potential sites for educational purposes.
Financial policies/protocols are not comprehensive.
The WCS’s plan to ensure adequate levels of cash on hand, including cash reserves and/or contingencies for unexpected shortfalls, is not evident.

Organizational Plan


The Petition Review Committee raised concerns that the staffing/recruitment plan does not provide sufficient academic, non-academic, and mission-critical staff to cover all courses and programs described in the Academic Plan.
The professional development plan does not sufficiently address all necessary areas to prepare teachers to fulfill the school’s goals. The professional development plan does not sufficiently address support for special student populations.
The petitioner did not articulate a realistic plan for how the school will meet its expected growth trajectory. The Petition Review Committee expressed concerns that the petitioner’s limited understanding of the unique characteristics of DeKalb County’s educational landscape and limited awareness of the community's needs, assets or strengths (noted above under Community Support & Need) would serve as barriers to identifying, recruiting, and retaining faculty and staff that reflect the diversity of the community.
Financial impact: If approved, the 5-year financial impact of The Wright Community School is estimated to be $26,625,151.
Contact: Dr. Yolanda Williamson; Chief of Community Engagement, Innovation, & Partnerships; Division of Community Engagement, Innovation, & Partnerships; 678-676-0027



Kina M. Champion; Director, School Innovation; Division of Equity; 678.676.0718
Effective: July 1, 2025 - June 30, 2030
Status: Attorney Approval Not Required
                                                      Initial Memorandum To
                                                   The Wright Community School
                                                            March 4, 2024

The DeKalb County School District’s Initial Memo provides the petitioner with feedback from the DCSD Charter Petition Review
Committee. The Initial Memo includes identified strengths, clarifying questions, and requests for additional information or
documentation.

Directions:
    1. Review the Initial Memo.
    2. Respond in writing to each item. Written responses should be submitted with the revised petition. Below is an example.

       Feedback: Describe the process for collecting data on stakeholder satisfaction. It is unclear as written.
       Petitioner’s Response: Process revised in petition. See pages 2-3. Copy of survey included. See exhibit #32.

   3. Revise the original petition and save the revised document in Microsoft Word. All changes made to the original petition
      should be made using the “track changes” feature in MS Word. No additional changes to the petition will be accepted
      unless requested by the DeKalb Board of Education.
How to Submit the Final Revised Petition and Response to the Initial Memo

By March 11, 2024 (12:00 PM), deliver to the School Innovation/Governance Department via DropBox at
charterschools@dekalbschoolsga.org the revised petition (including exhibits) and the Response to the Initial Memo. Use electronic
folders for sections, exhibits, and appendices.


Your Application Package must include the following:

1. Microsoft Word version of your Application Cover Page (page 14)
2. REDLINED Microsoft Word version of your Application and Exhibits
3. PDF version of your Complete Application Packet in the following order: Cover Sheet, Application, signed Assurances Form(s),
    Affidavit, and Exhibits
4. PDF version of your Locally-Approved Charter School Partners Roles and Responsibilities Chart
5. Excel version of your completed Budget Templates
6. Microsoft Word version of the Response to the Initial Memo


Faxed or emailed copies will not be accepted. Only complete applications that comply with these guidelines will be evaluated.
SUMMARY
On February 7, 2024, The Wright Community School submitted a DCSD Start-Up Charter application seeking the DeKalb Board of
Education’s approval for a five-year contract term. In evaluating the petition, the Charter Petition Review Committee identified
aspects of the petition, which would affect students attending the charter school.

Commendations from the Petition Review Committee:

   ● The Founding Board collaborated and communicated effectively during the Founding Board Capacity Interview performance
     task.


Process:
Items requiring a response are listed below. If applicable, questions correlate to the page number in the Microsoft Word version of
the petition. Additional areas of concern may be raised by DeKalb Board of Education members during their review of the petition or
by GADOE during its review process.


School Governance

 Item                  Committee’s Feedback                                     Petitioner’s Response
   1     Please provide a resume for the prospective school Resumes revised in petition. See pages 943--947.
         leader and each member of the Founding Board. - pp.
         50-51
   2     How does the Founding Board ensure compliance          Process revised in petition. See pages 81-83
         with Georgia’s Open Meetings/Records Laws? Provide
         the agendas and minutes of all previous Founding
         Board meetings. - p. 47
   3     Which line item in the Budget Template includes the    Summary revised in petition. See pages 84
         cost of annual Board member training? - Exhibits 5 and
         Exhibit 22


Academic Plan

 Item                   Committee’s Feedback                                            Petitioner’s Response
  4     Given the limited number of instructional staff in Year 1, Process revised in petition. See pages 51-52
        how will English Language Learners be served at WCS?
        Provide detail on the program, model, and segments.
        Respond under the assumption that the WCS population
        will reflect DCSD’s current student demographics (19.6%
        English Language Learners). - pp. 25-27
  5     How will WCS exit English Language Learners or serve       Process revised in petition. See pages 52-53
        students who are on waivers? - pp. 25-27
  6     Please specify by grade level the diagnostics for gifted  Assessment revised in petition. See pages 22-23
        identification that will be used. - pp. 15-16
  7     Per the petition, WCS will require 4 units of financial   Section revised in petition. See pages 31-33
        literacy. Explain how WCS will adjust its master schedule
        to accommodate the financial literacy course. What data
        supports the need for a stand-alone financial literacy
        course above the content included in the current HS
        Economics course? - pp. 7 and 17
8    Is the law course described during the Founding Board   Section revised in petition. See pages 42-34
     Capacity Interview required for graduation? If so, how
     does this course align to the WCS model and curriculum?
     - Founding Board Capacity Interview
9    How will you structure your MTSS process to include     Section revised in petition. See pages 37-39
     referrals to exceptional education? - pp. 21-22
10   How does WCS plan to address parent concerns or
     complaints regarding special education programming at    Section revised in petition. See pages 44-36
     the school? - pp. 20-25
11   What shifts will be made when students with IEPs enroll Process revised in petition. See pages 40-41. See exhibit #22a.
     in the middle of the year? How will WCS support
     students who need to be co-taught for all four subjects in
     Year 1? What budget line item includes contingency
     funding for this purpose? - pp. 20-25
12   Describe WCS’s special education behavior management Section revised in petition. See pages 42-43
     plan. - pp. 20-25
13   How will the school evaluate the effectiveness of          Section revised in petition. See pages 47-48
     contracted psychologists and/or other contracted mental
     health service vendors? - pp.20-25
14   What will be the universal screener used for gifted        Assessment revised in petition. See pages 22-24
     identification (i-Ready or MAP)? What would be the
     WCS’s timeline for gifted referrals? - pp. 15-16
15   How will the WCS serve students (at varied pacing) in    Assessment revised in petition. See pages 24-25
     the advanced content model? - p. 16
16   Detail the timing and frequency of formative             Assessment revised in petition. See pages 62-64
     assessments. - pp. 31-33
17   The petition states that dual enrollment and AP will start      Section revised in petition. See pages 28-31
     in 9th grade. Provide additional detail on this plan. - pp.
     15, 19-20
18   How will the curriculum and dual enrollment offerings at        Section revised in petition. See pages 30-33
     the WCS surpass the Move On When Ready program? -
     pp. 15, 19-20
19   Describe your understanding of the new requirements             Section revised in petition. See pages 1-2
     for Istation screening. - Academic Plan (General)
20   How will WCS ensure compliance with HB 538 (early               Section revised in petition. See page 2
     literacy act) and Senate bill 48 (Dyslexia Bill)? - pp. 28-30
21   In the event that the student needs Tier 3 interventions,       Section revised in petition. See page 38
     what would the team look like? Who would provide the
     Tier 2 pull-out services? From what intervention bank
     will the WCS pull? - pp.28-30
22   What will remediation opportunities (i.e. Credit                Section revised in petition. See page 10
     Recovery) look like? What supports will be in place to
     ensure students stay on track each year to meet these
     requirements? - p. 16
23   What is entailed in the ILP process? - pp. 33-34                Section revised in petition. See page 18-19
     Describe how students will be utilized in the restorative       Section revised in petition. See page 42-44
24   practice process to resolve level 1-3 disciplinary
     infractions. - pp. 23, 54-55, and 71
     Clarify how Modern States/CLEP is of greater advantage          Section revised in petition. See Executive Summary.
25   to students than the state’s Dual Enrollment program. -
     Executive Summary
     What efforts will be made to ensure students meet               Section revised in petition. See Executive Summary.
26   college admissions requirements to take Dual
     Enrollment courses? When will students participate in
     SAT/ACT prep courses? - Executive Summary
        Clarify how Mastery Based Learning prepares students         Section revised in petition. See Executive Summary.
  27    for college readiness. How will students who are not
        successful with coursework receive grade recovery? -
        Executive Summary
        How and when will staff be trained to ensure PBIS is         Section revised in petition. See pages 114
        implemented with fidelity? How will Tiered Levels of
  28    Supports be addressed for behavior infractions within
        the school setting? Who will be responsible for
        school-wide implementation of PBIS? - pp. 70-71
        What will social emotional learning entail for students      Section revised in petition. See pages 16
  29    during the Flex Period? Will an SEL platform be used to
        teach SEL to students? Who is responsible for facilitating
        SEL lessons to students? - Executive Summary
        What are the college and career readiness goals of WCS?      Section revised in petition. See pages 34-35
  30    How does the school plan to exceed the performance
        metrics of students in its community who attend their
        zone schools? - pp. 19-20
        Will all CTAE courses be taught online via Edmentum?         Section revised in petition. See pages 7-8
  31    Will there be labs in the WCS facility? - p. 5




Financial Plan

 Item                    Committee’s Feedback                                             Petitioner’s Response
        Per the petitioner, WCS is exploring various facility        Section revised in petition. See pages 123
        options, three of which will require substantial
  32    renovations to be used for educational purposes. A
        fourth option involves building a new facility. The
        petition does not include a capital campaign. How will
        WCS obtain funds to purchase or build a facility? - p. 74;
        Appendix 5
        What is the maintenance plan for the facility? How           Section revised in petition. See pages 121-123, See exhibit
  33    were estimated maintenance costs calculated? - Exhibit       #22a.
        22
        The petition states that WCS has allocated a specific        Section revised in petition. See pages 120, See exhibit #22a.
        budget for transportation, underscoring its commitment
  34    to making the school accessible to all students,
        regardless of their location or economic status. What
        transportation services will WCS provide? How much
        has WCS allocated for transportation? - pp. 73
        To ensure meaningful engagement of EL parents, how           Section revised in petition. See pages 56, See exhibit #22a.
  35    much has WCS allocated for translation services? In
        what budget line item does this allocation appear? -
        Question 7, Exhibit 22
        Which line item in the Budget Template includes the cost Section revised in petition. See pages 100, See exhibit #22a.
  36    of an annual independent audit? - Exhibit 22

        How will WCS ensure that the facility (i.e. restrooms,       Section revised in petition. See pages 121-123
  37    doorways, playgrounds) is accessible to all students? -
        Appendix C

Organizational Plan
Item                   Committee’s Feedback                                             Petitioner’s Response
       Provide WCS’s template design for the school's safety       See Appendices 948-1006
38     plan. (Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) §
       20-2-1185). - p. 76
       Provide more detail regarding how staff will be trained     Section revised in petition. See pages 86-88, See exhibit #22a
39     in restorative justice. Identify the estimated cost and
       budget line for this training. If a resolution cannot be
       reached in restorative circles, what would be the next
       steps? - pp. 52-54
40     With what mental health providers will the WCS              Section revised in petition. See pages 44-45
       collaborate? - p. 29
41     Describe in detail the professional learning that will be   Section revised in petition. See pages 90-92
       provided to implement the TCS model. - Appendix D
42     What is WCS’s knowledge of HB 147? - Question 49            Section revised in petition. See pages 119-120
       What would cultural competency training look like at        Section revised in petition. See pages 50-51, See exhibit #22a
43     the WCS? What agency or professionals would facilitate
       such training? - p. 27
       How will WCS retain highly qualified staff who are          Section revised in petition. See Executive Summary
44     certified to teach both middle and high school? -
       Executive Summary
       What evaluation tools will be implemented to                Section revised in petition. See Executive Summary
45     determine teacher effectiveness in middle versus high
       school? - Executive Summary
       What will comprehensive mentoring look like at WCS?         Section revised in petition. See Executive Summary
46     How will WCS’ mentoring program differ? - Executive
       Summary