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
Charter School Final Petition Evaluation Rubric
The Wright Community School
The Petition Review Committee will use the following criteria to rate the petition. Within each category,
specific criteria define the expectations for a response that meets expectations. Reviewers will reach
consensus when rating responses by applying the following guidance:
Rating Characteristics
Meets the Standard The response reflects a thorough understanding of key issues. It
addresses the topic with specific and accurate information that shows
thorough preparation; presents a clear, realistic picture of how the
school operates and expects to operate; and inspires confidence in the
applicant’s capacity to carry out its plans effectively.
Partially Meets the Standard The response meets the criteria in some respects but lacks detail and/or
requires additional information in one or more areas.
Below the Standard The response is wholly undeveloped, demonstrates lack of preparation,
and/or is unsuited to the mission of the authorizer.
Far Below the Standard The response is significantly incomplete, raises substantial concerns
about the viability of the plan and/or the applicant’s ability to carry it out.
Recommendations from the Petition Review Committee will be 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, each part of the petition should align with
the overall mission and vision, educational program, and organizational and financial performance/plans.
Evidence of Standard Rating
- The petitioner demonstrates a deep, realistic, and authentic
understanding of the “who” (targeted population), the Meets
“how” (education model), and the “why” (educational the Standard
philosophy).
- The petitioner describes how members of the community
have been involved in the design and will continue to be
Community
involved in the implementation of the school. Partially Meets
Support & Need
- The community engagement to date and plan for moving the Standard
forward incorporate diverse stakeholders, touchpoints, and
tactics, which are well-suited to reach the school’s target
population.
- The petitioner understands the unique characteristics of Below
DeKalb County’s educational landscape and is aware of its the Standard
communities’ needs, assets, and strengths.
The Final Petition Evaluation Rubric and Governance Board Capacity Interview Rubric are adapted from the Application
Evaluation Criteria published by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers at National Association of Charter
School Authorizers at www.qualitycharters.org.
- The petitioner demonstrates an understanding of the
economic, political, historical, and social contexts of the
community it seeks to serve. Far Below
- The petitioner demonstrates that the school will continue to the Standard
have the necessary community support to carry out its
proposed program, especially with regard to building and
sustaining community partnerships.
Review Committee’s Comments or Concerns:
- 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, touchpoints, and tactics were presented.
Though WCS submitted documentation for Letters of Intent to Enroll, only a small percentage of
the Letters of Intent to Enroll were from families who reside in DeKalb. The vast majority of the
Letters of Intent to Enroll were for students residing in Clayton, Henry, and Fulton counties. A
student survey included in Appendix I was redacted by the District to protect student information.
Of the students who responded to the survey, none had zip codes within the attendance zone of
the DeKalb County School District. Reported zip codes were within the Atlanta Public Schools and
Fulton County Schools attendance zones.
Evidence of Standard Rating
Meets
- The Board collectively has the capacity to implement all aspects the Standard
of the education program and is, therefore, able to meet the
needs of the target student population and those not in the
target population but likely to enroll. Partially Meets
School Governance - The governance structure creates a forum for parent, teacher, the Standard
and community input and the strategies for communicating
Board priorities and decisions include all stakeholders.
- The Board clearly articulates both its policies and a decision- Below
making process for determining when and how to adjust its plans the Standard
based on feedback.
- The Founding Board reflects the sociodemographic diversity of
the community served by the charter school. Far Below
the Standard
The Final Petition Evaluation Rubric and Governance Board Capacity Interview Rubric are adapted from the Application
Evaluation Criteria published by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers at National Association of Charter
School Authorizers at www.qualitycharters.org.
Review Committee’s Comments or Concerns:
- 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.
- In the Initial Memo, the Petition Review Committee requested documentation of all Founding
Governing Board meetings. The petitioner submitted documentation for two total meetings.
Supplemental documentation in response to the Initial Memo indicates that the Inaugural Founding
Board meeting was held (1/16/24) after submission of the letter of intent to the District. The
minutes of the 1/16/24 meeting state that the Founding Board “reviewed charter petitions
submitted by the proposed school leader.”
- 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.
- WCS bylaws state that the Board has established 6 committees. The response to Question 3 of the
Founding Board Capacity Interview was provided in the future tense and raised concerns that the
committees had not yet been established as indicated in the petition. The petitioner did not clarify
whether the committees include members who are not on the Founding Board.
- WCS bylaws state that the Board will meet 4 times a year. Per Appendix A of charter schools’
contract, Governing Boards must meet a minimum of 7 times a year.
- 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.
Evidence of Standard Rating
- The petitioner addresses student subgroups individually,
recognizing and planning for the diverse needs of diverse
students. Meets the Standard
- The application describes mechanisms and/or strategies
that ensure equitable access to the curriculum for all
students, including students with disabilities (SWDs) and
Academic English Language Learners (ELLs).
Performance/ - Embedded in the instructional methods and resources are
Plan concrete strategies and materials to support SWDs, ELLs, Partially Meets
and academically struggling students. the Standard
- The petition describes a student behavior management
system that is likely to result in a low rate of out-of-school
suspensions and expulsions, is not overly punitive, and
distinguishes between outcomes that are automatic versus
those that are discretionary.
- The petitioner has planned for all contingencies, including Below
different rates of SWDs, ELLs, and academically struggling the Standard
students, different disabilities, different levels of need, and
The Final Petition Evaluation Rubric and Governance Board Capacity Interview Rubric are adapted from the Application
Evaluation Criteria published by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers at National Association of Charter
School Authorizers at www.qualitycharters.org.
how the school will adjust its programs and processes
accordingly.
- Vision for school culture or ethos that will promote high
expectations, a positive academic environment and
intellectual and social development for all students,
including those with special needs, English Language Far Below
Learners, and students who struggle academically. the Standard
- The Board has demonstrated understanding of federal,
state, and local laws, regulations, and policies to
appropriately identify, serve, and report data for all
subgroups of students.
Review Committee’s Comments or Concerns:
− The petitioner did not sufficiently address student subgroups or recognize and plan for the diverse
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.
− The petitioner’s revised response to Question 1 in the final revised petition includes elements of the
organizational plan that were previously provided in the initial petition.
− The revised petition did not answer the initial memorandum question, “What will be the universal
screener used for gifted identification?” The revised petition only reads I-READY or MAP. It does
not specify the month, frequency, or grade level for gifted screenings.
− The revised petition references an out-of-date gifted diagnostic assessment.
− Regarding the gifted assessments being used, the revised petition did not specify the grade levels,
nor did they indicate the months or the frequency in which these assessments would be utilized
with the gifted identification process. These specifics as a district must be spelled out, because it is
a state funded program.
− The revised petition refers to students working at their own pace but does not describe how
teachers would facilitate learning while students use online programming like Edmentum. The
facilitation and monitoring of the online programming is not detailed.
− The Initial Memo (Item #16) asked the petitioner to detail the timing and frequency of formative
assessments. The revised petition does not answer the question with specifics but uses the terms
“regular and ongoing.”
− DCSD uses four and a half, six and a half, 9 1/2 weeks checkpoints. There is an expectation that
WCS should use checkpoints.
The Final Petition Evaluation Rubric and Governance Board Capacity Interview Rubric are adapted from the Application
Evaluation Criteria published by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers at National Association of Charter
School Authorizers at www.qualitycharters.org.
− Question 8 in the revised petition lacks the specifics for progress monitoring to ensure student
success and/or building capacity for students to be a part of the program as it relates to AP and
dual enrollment, especially if the petition plans to allow them as early as ninth grade.
− The revised petition does not give enough detail about how WCS would support remediation.
− Support for ninth grade dual enrollment was a concern raised by all DCSD divisions.
− The revised petition does not describe programming to address academic recovery.
− The revised petition does not explain how the ILP process is being monitored.
− Many of the explanations regarding restorative practices included in the petition are unclear or
confusing and do not go align with DCSD best practices.
− The role of the counselor in the revised petition is confusing or unclear. The title college and career
counselor is used often. The terms advisor, academic advisor, academic/educator coach are used
(seemingly) interchangeably.
− Responses to the Initial Memo include lengthy definitions and overviews, but many of the questions
are not answered in depth.
− The revised petition and answers to the initial memorandum do not address the concerns the
district ESOL Department raised. A few of the items were not addressed at all.
− Considering that DCSD has 19% of its enrollment as linguistically diverse, there needs to be a
certified ESOL teacher written into the plan and budget.
− The revised petition has not clearly identified the ESOL screener and does not detail how students
will be identified and screened using language reflective of GaDOE.
− In the revised petition the service delivery model for ELLs was not clearly defined.
− Item 5 on the academic plan asks about students who are on waivers, but the petitioner did not
state how students on waivers should be assessed with ACCESS only. They are not being serviced.
The petitioner confuses the words waiver, reclassification and exit criteria.
Evidence of Standard Rating
- The budget is balanced, error free, and based on realistic
expectations for income and expenditures.
Meets
- The financial plan demonstrates a clear understanding of
the Standard
the statutory funding formula, private funding opportunities,
and all applicable federal funds.
- The budget reflects all necessary outlays outlined in the
Financial Academic Plan, including personnel, technological
Performance/ resources, facilities, curricular resources, and mission-
Plan specific expenditures.
Partially Meets
- If the budget includes substantial private fundraising
the Standard
revenue, the application details a strong fundraising plan
and the Board includes a member or advisor with significant
fundraising expertise.
- The identified facility will meet the needs of the education
program, and there are effective measures to ensure the
health and safety of students.
Below
- The facilities financing plan is based on realistic market
the Standard
expectations and includes contingencies in the case that
the preferred financing method is unavailable.
The Final Petition Evaluation Rubric and Governance Board Capacity Interview Rubric are adapted from the Application
Evaluation Criteria published by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers at National Association of Charter
School Authorizers at www.qualitycharters.org.
- The applicant has established protocols to ensure strong
financial performance, compliance with generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP) and major federal fund
requirements.
- Financial policies are comprehensive and likely to prevent
fraud, including clear job responsibilities of the staff and Far Below
board members who direct or execute financial the Standard
transactions; strong financial and accounting procedures
and internal controls; clear, robust policies for managing
actual or perceived conflicts of interest; direct Board
oversight of procurement contracts; and in-depth reviews of
budgets, actuals, forecasts, and external financial audits.
Review Committee’s Comments or Concerns:
- The budget is not based on realistic expectations for income and expenditures. For example, the
Founding Board’s assumption that it will grow a surplus year over year is not realistic.
- The budget does not reflect all needs outlined in the Academic Plan, including personnel,
technological resources, facilities, curricular resources, and mission specific expenditures.
- Applicable federal funds are not detailed in the budget.
- Insufficient detail on the assumptions underlying estimates in the budget template was provided.
- The petitioner did not present a solid facility plan, financial plan, or development campaign. The
petition lacks a financial plan for the facility. A fundraising plan and/or capital campaign (critical to
the viability of the facility options presented in the petition) are not evident.
- The petitioner is exploring multiple facility locations (one more than 12 miles from the targeted
community) as well as a new construction across from the Sam Moss Center. Per Operations, a
new construction cannot be built in the time frame projected by WCS.
- The petitioner did not present a clear plan to fund the purchase of land, property, and/or
renovations required to build or convert identified sites for educational purposes. It is unclear how
WCS would fund these costs or complete these projects during the planning year.
- None of the proposed sites can accommodate 600 students. The proposed sites are retail spaces.
WCS did not demonstrate understanding of DOE requirements for educational facility
modifications when questioned about immediate next steps if the petition were approved.
- A facilities financing plan based on realistic market expectations (including contingencies in the
case that the preferred financing method is unavailable) is not evident.
- 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.
Evidence of Standard Rating
- The Board has, collectively, expert professional knowledge
Organizational and requisite skills in all areas needed to open a successful
Performance/ Plan public charter school, including organizational, financial, Meets
legal, real estate/facilities, start-up, and other operational the Standard
capabilities along with extensive, recent, and relevant
teaching/school leadership experience with a population
The Final Petition Evaluation Rubric and Governance Board Capacity Interview Rubric are adapted from the Application
Evaluation Criteria published by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers at National Association of Charter
School Authorizers at www.qualitycharters.org.
similar to that the school plans to serve. Experience with
ELLs, SWDs, and/or economically-disadvantaged students
is evident. Partially Meets
- The Board has identified the school leader(s) or the skills the Standard
and experiences necessary for the leaders who will operate
the school.
- The applicant has a thorough and accurate plan for how the
school will meet its expected growth trajectory.
- Staff recruitment and retention plans are likely to attract
and retain the quality and specific expertise needed to Below
support the school’s academic program. the Standard
- The PD plan is broad, covering all necessary areas to
prepare teachers to fulfill the school’s goal, including
offering consistently high-quality instruction, as well as
flexible enough to respond to teacher/PD needs as they
develop throughout the school year.
- The PD plan specifically addresses any supports the student Far Below
population may require. the Standard
- The charter school’s faculty, staff, and students reflect the
sociodemographic diversity of the community served by the
school.
Review Committee’s Comments or Concerns:
- 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 WCS conflict of interest policy and form lack specificity on the personal and professional
interests that would constitute a conflict.
- The petitioner includes the DCSD Employee handbook as its grievance and complaint policy.
Charter school employees are not district employees. Charter school governing boards must adopt
and implement a grievance/complaint policy at the local school level. The WCS grievance policy is
written from the perspective of the school district and appears to have been copied in part from
DBOE Policy JCAC. The District’s Policy JCAC cannot serve as the school’s grievance procedure.
- The petitioner did not articulate a realistic plan for how the school will meet its expected growth
trajectory. 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.
- The Wright Community School was incorporated by the prospective principal through the GA
Secretary of State as a domestic non-profit organization on 10/30/2023. The inaugural Founding
Board meeting was held 1/16/24. The Board’s role in identifying a prospective school leader with
the skills and experiences necessary to operate the school is unclear.
- The petitioner acknowledged gaps in the Founding Board’s knowledge base.
The Final Petition Evaluation Rubric and Governance Board Capacity Interview Rubric are adapted from the Application
Evaluation Criteria published by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers at National Association of Charter
School Authorizers at www.qualitycharters.org.
Evidence of Standard Rating
Meets the Standard
- Applicant met all submission deadlines and requirements.
- The essential elements of the mission, philosophy, and
school program are infused in each element of the Partially Meets
Minimum application. Standard
Requirements - Petitioner presented evidence to support the program design
and sufficiently responded to clarifying questions and/or
evidence that challenged or refuted elements of the Below the Standard
proposed program.
- Petition includes specific examples of waivers or flexibility
needed to accomplish the school’s goals. Far Below
the Standard
Review Committee’s Comments or Concerns:
- In the start-up petition orientation and application timeline, it is stressed that all board members
must attend the Founding Board Interview. Changes were made to the Founding Board roster after
the petition was submitted. One Founding Board member was excused for medical reasons. An
additional substitution was acknowledged only after prompting from the Petition Review
Committee.
- The petitioner added components of its response to the Initial Memo to the DropBox after the
submission deadline. The page numbers listed in the response to the Initial Memo do not align to
the final revised petition.
- The WCS’s final revised petition includes an application that is 137 pages in length with multiple
single-spaced sections and sections with font size less than 11-point. Question #1 of the executive
summary is 676 words in length exceeding the 350-word limit. Question #2 of the executive
summary is 406 words in length exceeding the 350-word limit.
- The petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to support the program design or sufficiently
respond to clarifying questions and/or evidence that challenged or refuted elements of the
proposed program.
- The school’s unique innovation was not evident in the petition. Specific examples of waivers or
flexibility needed to accomplish the school’s goals are not evident.
Overall Assessment/Final Evaluation
Meets Partially Meets Below Far Below
the Standard the Standard the Standard the Standard
Written Petition
X
Evaluation
Governing
Board Capacity X
Interview Evaluation
The Final Petition Evaluation Rubric and Governance Board Capacity Interview Rubric are adapted from the Application
Evaluation Criteria published by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers at National Association of Charter
School Authorizers at www.qualitycharters.org.
Final Evaluation X
Meets the Standard - The petition may be recommended for approval without any further action on the
part of the applicant.
Partially Meets Standard - Additional supplemental information and/or clarification is required before a
recommendation to approve or deny the charter can be made to the DeKalb Board of Education (DBOE).
Below the Standard - The petition requires substantial and material revisions before a recommendation
to approve or deny the charter can be made.
Far Below Standard - Petition is irreparably flawed and will be recommended for denial.
The Final Petition Evaluation Rubric and Governance Board Capacity Interview Rubric are adapted from the Application
Evaluation Criteria published by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers at National Association of Charter
School Authorizers at www.qualitycharters.org.