State Board of Education Topic Summary s16

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION – TOPIC SUMMARY Topic: Request for SBE Sponsorship: Riverside Charter Academy Date: October 11, 2012 Staff/Office: Susan Inman & Margaret Bates/Office of Educational Improvement and Innovation Action Requested: Informational Only Adoption Later Adoption Adoption/Consent Agenda

ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD: Whether to sponsor the Riverside Charter Academy in Brookings-Harbor School District.

BACKGROUND: The Riverside Charter Academy (RCA) is a proposed comprehensive K-8 charter school located in the Brookings-Harbor School District (BHSD) using the Expeditionary Learning model and a K-12 Personalized Learning model reaching out to traditionally home schooled students. The projected enrollment for the first year is 120 middle school students. The Brookings-Harbor SD has an enrollment of approximately 1577 students.

Riverside Charter Academy plans to use the Expeditionary Learning model, a research-based education program founded on the National Middle School Association’s recommendations for successful middle schools. Teachers, based on the Expeditionary Learning model, will use a wide variety of instructional methods that incorporate self-direction, self-expression, inquiry, collaboration and creative problem solving. Project-based learning, experiments, field trips, demonstrations, debates, performances, film production, exhibits and community engagement represent the research-based learning experiences central to student success.

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.”

Riverside Charter Academy made initial application to the Brookings-Harbor School District for sponsorship September 11, 2011. The BHSD denied the application on November 30, 2011. RCA developers submitted a remediated proposal on December 19, 2011 and were denied sponsorship again by the BHSD on January 18, 2012.

The basis for both of the Brookings-Harbor School District denials cited ORS 338.055(2) (a) The demonstrated, sustainable support for the public charter school by teachers, parents, student and other community members ORS 338.055(2) (b) The demonstrated financial stability of the public charter school ORS 338.055(2) (d) The capability of the applicant to specifically provide comprehensive instructional programs to students identified by the applicant as academically low achieving ORS 338.055(2) (e) The extent to which the proposal addresses the information required in ORS 338.045 ORS 338.055(2) (f) The value of the charter school is outweighed by adverse impact ORS 338.055(2) (g) Whether there are arrangements for any necessary special education and related service for children with disabilities.

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; and

2. Consideration by the State Board of Education to sponsor the public charter school.

On February 7, 2012, ODE received notification mediation did not result in an agreement between the applicant and the school district. Riverside Charter Academy requested consideration for sponsorship by the State Board of Education on May 5, 2012. Following the established appeal and sponsorship process, Department staff conducted a substantive review of the proposal using criteria set forth in ORS 338.045 and 338.055. A review panel consisted of internal and external reviews with expertise in curriculum, school finance, governance and innovative learning models. The initial review was completed in May 2012. RCA requested an expanded review with additional materials from the original application to BHSD that were not received by

1 ODE. The school district agreed to the inclusion of the additional materials and the final review of this proposal was completed on August 29, 2012.

The review panel indicated the proposal did not meet the criteria established in ORS 338.055(2). The following list identifies criteria not met: ORS 338.055(2) (a) The demonstrated sustainable support ORS 338.055(2) (b) The demonstrated financial stability of the public charter school ORS 338.055(2) (c) The capability of the applicants, in terms of support and planning, to provide comprehensive instructional programs to students ORS 338.055(2) (d) The capability of the applicant to specifically provide comprehensive instructional programs to students identified by the applicant as academically low achieving ORS 338.055(2) (e) The extent to which the proposal addresses the information required in ORS 338.045

Brookings-Harbor School District staff and the Riverside Charter Academy developers are provided the opportunity to address the Board at the October 2012 meeting. This item is before the State Board of Education for a first read and discussion. It will come back for a final decision at December 2012 meeting.

POLICY QUESTIONS: None at this time.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Superintendent and ODE Staff recommend the State Board of Education deny the proposed sponsorship of the Riverside Charter Academy.

ATTACHMENTS: A – Official Memo B – Combined Report: Oregon State Board of Education Charter School Proposal Review and Analysis Rubric

2 Oregon Department of Education Office of Educational Improvement and Innovation

255 Capitol Street NE September 14, 2012 Salem, OR 97310

TO: Heidi Sipe, Assistant Superintendent

FROM: Susan Inman, Director – Learning, Opportunties, Options, & Supports

RE: Riverside Charter Academy Request for State Board Sponsorship

Riverside Charter Academy received a procedural and substantive review according to State Board established procedures. The substantive review of the charter proposal was conducted by a review team consisting of ODE staff, charter school developers and sponsors, individuals with expertise in curriculum, school finance, governance and alternative learning environments.

The review team found four areas that did not meet the minimum proposal requirements from ORS 338.045(2) and five areas that did not meet the evaluation criteria from ORS 338.055(2).

ORS 338.045(2) - (d) A description of the curriculum of the public charter school (m) The proposed budget, evidence that budget and financial plan are fiscally sound (p) The proposed school calendar for the public charter school including length of school day and school year (t) Community involvement in the planning and development process

ORS 338.055(2) - (a) The demonstrated sustainable support (b) The demonstrated financial stability of the public charter school, including the demonstrated ability of the school to have a sound financial management system that is in place at the time the school begins operating and that meets the requirements of ORS 338.095 (1) (c) The capability of the applicants, in terms of support and planning, to provide comprehensive instructional programs to students (d) The capability of the applicant, in terms of support and planning, to specifically provide, pursuant to an approved proposal, comprehensive instructional programs to students identified by the applicant as academically low achieving (e) The extent to which the proposal addresses the information required in ORS 338.045

ODE staff recommends that the Riverside Charter Academy’s request for State Board sponsorship be denied.

Both the applicant and the School District staff will be given the opportunity to address the State Board of Education during the October 2012 meeting.

Cc: Cindy Hunt Margaret Bates Kate Pattison

Attachment A 3 RCA – Final Review Combined Report

Oregon State Board of Education Charter School Proposal Review and Analysis Rubric

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) (a) The identification of the Applicant identification is evidenced by a listing of the names of applicant key school founders.

Preferable factors  Specification of each person’s role with the proposed school and relevant experience/expertise.

5 Meets 0 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: Meets criteria. Pg. 1 of proposal. The four founding community members/parents names, addresses and experience are provided. Additional description of roles is provided in the section describing Goals & Objectives (pp 25-38) (b) The name of the The proposed public charter school name is evidenced by a clear proposed public charter indication of the name. school Preferable factors  A consistent use of the name throughout the proposal.

5 Meets 0 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: Meets criteria. Pg. 1 of proposal. Riverside Charter Academy (‘RCA’) is used consistently throughout the application and supporting documents. (c) A description of the The philosophy is evidenced by a clear description of the philosophy and mission of proposed school’s approach to education. The mission is the public charter school 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

Attachment B Oregon Department of Education 2012 ORS 338.045(2) 4 RCA – Final Review Combined Report

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2)  Identifies priorities that are consistent with the intent of ORS 338.015

3 Meets 2 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: Clearly defined on Revised Application The mission statement as given does not adhere to the definition of a standard mission statement. Expeditionary Learning is referenced, but not defined, and not related to the vision of the school by the applicant. There are components of the schedule in the mission statement, such as “Learning time is structured in integrated curricular blocks with 2 hours of Math and Science and 2 hours of Language Arts and Social Studies”, which are not appropriate to a mission statement. (p. 2) The writers have a much clearer picture of “Best Practices” in middle school, than the original proposal. The mission and vision is still not in place for a strong and vibrant middle school. REINVENTING and REJUVENATING a middle school takes a very strong belief in the core values seen in the BEST PRACTICES middle school setting. They have not articulated how this school will meet these much higher demands of instruction, curriculum and assessment. The mission statement does not describe the purpose of the school. It tells more details of instruction, than what is the compelling long range vision of the school. The school has two arms of instruction – Community Based Learning and Site Based Learning. They spent a good amount of time describing the Site Based Learning component of their proposal, but the Community Based Learning component did not receive the attention in this proposal. It was difficult to understand what this section of the school would exactly do with the students. The interest in this school started with 25 parents and they called it the Creative Arts Middle School. It seems like they have veered from their first initial approach, found the EL curriculum, which they could not clearly explain until the contract was signed with the district (pg 13 of Proposal). At the end of the day, between 2:30 – 4:30 P.M., they discussed the ‘electives” that would be offered, but it was not clear who is teaching these classes. “Upon approval of the Charter proposal and successful contract negotiations, Riverside Charter Academy will provide to Brookings Harbor School District a complete Expeditionary Learning Curriculum, an overview of the EL Commons on-line lesson plans with corollary standards, and a comprehensive overview of the Expeditionary Learning professional development Attachment B Oregon Department of Education 2012 ORS 338.045(2) 5 RCA – Final Review Combined Report

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) framework.” Pg. 13 of Revised Proposal (12/9/11). All this considered, Riverside Academy does not have a complete vision or philosophy that is compelling and galvanizing for the long term future of this school. There is a great deal left to individual interpretation on the instructional methods. Application, the philosophy is aligned to best practices for Middle School and with learning techniques that are known to be best practices to date. The mission as described is to deliver the EL curriculum to community & site-based learners, in alignment w/national Common Core standards. While it is clear and focused, it is challenging to determine if it is compelling without further information & curriculum from the EL program. The integrated curricular blocks and project-based expeditionary learning is a model that could improve education outcomes for learners who learn best by such an approach. For some students, this may be more engaging and thus a more successful approach than the traditional school schedule and a less interdisciplinary- focused curriculum. The application describes 10 design principles that are the foundation to providing a clear guiding purpose. The application includes a statement of intention to follow the intent of ORS338.015, with specific focus and supporting detail on Goals 5 and 9 of the statute. (d) A description of the The curriculum description is evidenced by an explanation of the curriculum of the public instructional approach/methodology and an outline of each charter school content area addressed within the public charter school. The description includes how the school’s comprehensive education program will meet the needs of ALL students, particularly academically low-achieving students

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

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2)  A cohesive and coherent description of all components

2 Meets 3 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: Clearly describes curriculum and goals in revised application (pgs 1 – 12) for the 40 - 5-8th grade students participating in the site based program. Information included in “RCA Federal Application Fall 2011” documents proposal details regarding Goal 1: Develop a high quality charter school with an emphasis on environmental awareness & natural resources, for grades K-12, that will promote high academic achievement & varied curricular options. The additional information includes timelines and details regarding how the project director will work with teachers and contracted experts to develop new research based courses, select and align curriculum and plan for ongoing evaluation over the course of a year previous to opening the charter for K-12 students as well as continue adjustments over subsequent years. The plan details that the unique small school structure of the program will allow teachers to have intimate knowledge of all students’ strengths & learning weaknesses. In addition, the school will budget for expert consultation services to assist teachers with the development of research-based interventions as needed for specific student situations. This section contains many statements that are unsupported by evidence, data, or other references. For instance, the applicant states, “All of the skills listed in A through I are “essential skills”, yet standardized tests inadequately measure student progress towards these standards.” (p.3) Not only does the applicant go on to describe how the majority of their assessments will be based on standardized testing data, but there is no evidence to support this generalization. While the program appears to be based on an existing model – Expeditionary Learning – there is no information provided about the common curriculum or approaches that this model uses. In fact, the applicant states that, while it will be responsible for selecting curriculum, none has been selected as of yet. No alignment to standards is provided. Applicant does not specifically address academically low achieving students. Applicant makes statements such as, “A variety of both traditional and non-traditional educational materials will be utilized” (p.7), but provides no examples. Continue to see that RCA does not get to the point of discussing the state standards – and their relationship with Exploratory Attachment B Oregon Department of Education 2012 ORS 338.045(2) 7 RCA – Final Review Combined Report

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) learning model. I would have wanted to see the year mapped forward – showing exactly what the students will work toward. They have a much better understanding of Middle School Education – after their visit with the accreditation team to the Middle School. Because the MISSION/VISION is still not strongly in place for this school – it is difficult for them to move forward linking the curriculum. They need work on a strong mission and vision. Pg. 2 – 6 of the Revised Proposal - discusses Riverside Academy’s curriculum design. There are many general comments concerning methods of delivering instruction. Because these particular methods are so general, example: The Natural World, Solitude and Reflection, it is very difficult to understand the intent and focus of the school. There were “typical days” and “a sample study” that were discussed, but the applicant was unable to demonstrate how this particular curriculum would be presented to all grade levels, tying the learning to their clear and simple mission and vision of education. Community Education Model – Brief explanation (pg. 40 – 44) of the revised proposal, discusses the general outline of the Community Education model, but it does not specifically indicate what will be required of the students working individually. The reader was left with many questions of what exactly is the curriculum for this community based model. Planned course statements are provided, samples from the Expedition Learning curriculum are provided as well. Timelines are set for creating that represent alignment of State Standards to curriculum. This work is to happen pending the receipt of a planning grant. Although the plan is marked out well, the application would need to include these documents in order to be considered ready to open. Does not meet the ‘preferable factor’ as curriculum is not provided. There is a statement of intention to provide the complete curriculum upon approval and successful contract negotiations for RCA. A cohesive and coherent description of all components would be provided at that time. The EL curriculum is incorporated within RCA’s mission statement, so it is not only aligned with but is also integral to the mission statement. Applicant states that EL is an established, research-based curriculum. Applicant describes a process to align the core classes of the EL curriculum to state and local academic standards. A policy for Attachment B Oregon Department of Education 2012 ORS 338.045(2) 8 RCA – Final Review Combined Report

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) reviewing and selecting instructional materials is provided. Exhibit 3 of the Attachment ‘RCA Exhibits 1-16’ provides RCA’s Curriculum Selection Process (with specific responsibilities) and their proposed Textbook Evaluation Form. A copy of a Complaint Form (Exhibit 4) for textbook-related complaints is included, and the applicant notes RCA’s intent to develop a complaint policy. Because there is not currently a schedule of integrated curricular blocks and project-based expeditionary learning offered in the school district, the addition of this model as a learning option could improve education outcomes for learners who may be more engaged learners using such an approach. RCA describes how implementation of the curriculum will be monitored: final approval of all curriculum materials will be the responsibility of the RCA Governing Board and a curriculum committee will be formed consisting of two teachers and the school administrator who will review and evaluate all curriculum suggestions and will make a recommendation to the governing board of RCA. RCA describes how it will meet the needs of all learners, including ELL, Talented & Gifted, and students on a 504 Plan. The applicant supports the ability of RCA to meet all learners’ needs because the model for RCA itself that stresses individual developing needs and allows flexibility in the materials and curriculum to meet the needs of all students. RCA further states that the small school approach will “allow early identification of children with special needs and promote effective service delivery.” (e) A description of expected Proposal outlines in detail the expected results of the curriculum, results of the curriculum and such as student and school outcomes and goals. Plans to the verified methods of measure outcomes with verified methods and objective reporting measuring and reporting are evidenced by a well- developed and comprehensive plan for objective results that will assessing student and school goals. Oregon State Assessments show the growth of and other means of yielding data allowing comparisons with other knowledge of students public schools are clearly described. attending the public charter school and allow Preferable factors comparisons with public  Alignment with school’s mission schools  Goals are clear, specific, measureable, ambitious and attainable  Objectives 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

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2)  Understanding of and strategy for complying with state achievement and reporting requirements

3 Meets 2 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: The application provides detailed descriptions of assessment and measurement tools intended for measuring progress and demonstrating student growth towards state standards and attainment of learning targets for the site based model. This model will serve approx. 40 5th-8th grade students. However, the reader is unsure of how the program will improve student achievement for the 40 community-based K-12 homeschooled students if lessons, curriculum and attendance is optional . (See pgs 11 – 20) Applicant plans to use OAKS testing and MAP testing for assessment. However, applicant also states, “Students will also be evaluated biannually using assessment tools developed by Riverside and in-house tests of social and behavioral traits” (p. 11) but provides no specifics. Applicant states that students will make at least one year’s gain in core subjects, and that “Underlying each of these subject areas will be other skills: critical thinking, creative expression through music, theater and art, and physical fitness”, but does not specify how these will be assessed or in what context. Applicant continually mentions in-house assessments, but provides no specifics as to what these might be. Applicant notes a goal of 5% growth per year in reading and math, but provides no baseline. Goals do not necessarily inform expected outcomes, and applicant provides no data on other Expeditionary Learning schools and their outcomes. Pg. 14, of the revised proposal, sets up the plan to match EL curriculum to ODE State Standards. This work will be completed by EL Learning Consultants. Pg. 19 – 22 discusses how the students will be participating in Performance Standards to demonstrate meeting the State Standards. These are very general descriptions for yearly progress. Pg. 23 of the Revised Proposal, Riverside has specific recommendations for the progress of their students in meeting the State Standards. It is unclear if the Community Education Model was subject to these same requirements – as these are all “in house” assessment systems. What will the assurance be that these students will also meet state standards?

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) There are plans for creating these specific artifacts (Federal Application), which, if completed would fully meet the evidence required to justify opening this school. Again, these documents need to be included in the application in order to signify the school is ready to open. The inclusion of a range of assessment activities, including portfolios and student work samples along with parent-community feedback, provide alignment of the RCA assessment process to its mission. Assessment of the non-academic goals further support the RCA mission e.g. goals addressing community engagement and collaborative skills. Academic Goals and Objectives are described on pp 19-20. Student and school goals are outlined in table-format, with categories of ‘Goals’, ‘Reporting Frequency,’ and ‘Metric for Accountability.’ The combination of the ‘Goals’, ‘Reporting Frequency,’ and ‘Metric for Accountability’ meet the clear, specific and measurable standards. Note: I don’t have enough data to determine if some of the goals are ‘ambitious and attainable’ (e.g. is an increase of 5% annually in the OAKS score ambitious &/or attainable). I would rate the wording on the non-academic goals as ‘fuzzy’ because “making progress” can mean a wide range of things from a miniscule movement forward to a major accomplishment. It seems too ‘fuzzy’ and potentially too easy to establish a goal of “90% of students make progress” on a goal area. Methods and frequency of assessment as well as instruments, such as STAR for Math and Reading, are described. RCA plans to include internal assessments such as portfolios and student self-assessments and teacher assessments as well as external tools such as the ‘Northwest Evaluation Association’s Measures of Academic Progress.’ The standards of academic performance will be keyed to the ‘Common Core Student Standards’ and ‘Oregon Content Standards’ and students will be assessed annually using Oregon State Assessments. Strategies are described for improving student achievement and closing achievement gaps, including developing a ‘Plan for Correction’ with timeframes. RCA provides reporting activities with timeframes that demonstrate an understanding of and strategy for complying with state achievement and reporting requirements.

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) RCA provides a statement of intention to meet AYP requirements. Annually, in July of each year, the Riverside Charter Academy Governing board will examine and evaluate student progress and set the goals for the coming year. The application describes specific process and procedures relating to student performance and corrective action that will go into effect the third year of operation. School Goals and Outcomes have been provided (section describing Goals & Objectives (pp 25-38) and on pp 17-18 a ‘School Accountability Plan & School Objectives’ are provided. (f) The governance structure The governance structure is evidenced by assurances of non- of the public charter school 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 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

5 Meets 0 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: Clear description of roles and responsibilities of governing board, parent advisory board and school dean positions. (see pgs. 19 – 21) Description includes plan for board training, policies and procedures and budget (see pgs 20-22 + Fiscal Policies and Procedures attachment) This section minimally meets criteria, but applicant does not indicate having selected any members to its governing board. Exhibits 1 – 16, Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and Governance structure clearly state the roles of the board members,

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) development and removal of members etc. Pg. 32 –34 Revised Proposal - Training of board members - there seems to be a great deal of emphasis on the “training” of board members at conferences, in-services – travel expenses. Not clear why there is such a large emphasis on the board having this much training both locally and out of the area. This seems excessive for a school that is just opening. It would be prudent to put this training budget into the instructors of the school as the school opens. If necessary, bring the board on easily and as cost effectively as possible. Well detailed in the By-laws for the school (Exhibit Documents). RCA has established itself as a charitable organization in the state of Oregon and its request for tax-exempt status with the feds is under review. Key features of its governance model include a description of the officers of the board and the board’s primary duties, its decision- making process as well as further detail provided in the By Laws. The applicant describes the contribution of board members in general terms by topic of expertise (education, finance, etc.) but does not include specific individuals who are ready to commit as board members and a description of their pertinent experience, skills, etc. While I see some description of activities to encourage board training, I don’t see specific plans such as describing training activities and frequency, or a line item in the budget to support board training (travel and expense reimbursements were noted in the application, but not seen in the budget). Board member selection and terms (1-year, no term-limit) are described. There is no description of process or reasons for removal of a board member (though this information is included for officers of the board). Meeting schedules are not described and are to be determined. Clear distinction between the roles and responsibilities of the board the executive director has been provided. RCA plans to provide opportunities for parent & community member involvement via a Parent Advisory Board (all parents automatically become members) and by providing opportunities for parents and community members to serve on the governing board. I would estimate that time, money and personnel for startup will

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) all be challenging with an opening date in September and would recommend mapping out a plan with all of the activities, steps, responsibilities, etc. mapped out from the date of approval to startup. (g) The projected enrollment Enrollment and ages/grades served is evidenced by a clear to be maintained and the description of anticipated enrollment (by age/grade) for at least ages or grades to be served three years (and for the duration of the desired charter term, if longer than three years).

Preferable factors  A complete description of the student population the school intends to serve  Evidence of strong support from an adequate number of parents, or community members, or any combination thereof

3 Meets 2 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: Plan states it will serve 40 middle school students and 40 community based students in first year, adding more as possible (pg 22-23 + Exhibit 7, 2011.12.21 Revised App Plan). Financial plan estimates 40 site based 5-8th and 40 community based K-12 years 1-2. In years 3-5 estimate 80 site based 5th -8th and 40 community based K-12 This section minimally meets criteria, but demonstrates neither of the preferable factors. The writers clearly have a vision of 90 students in their first year. The interest just is not shown in the revised documents that were sent. There is no attempt to show that anything has been done to have public meetings and/or gathering public support. There is a clear explanation of how many students Riverside has planned to serve. The problem becomes whether there is support to show that this many students/parents/families will be interested in this school to support this budget. There was very little support shown in this proposal of community based support – and this leads to the question of this school can attract its clients for the level that they have projected its first year student population. They state that 90 will be in house based students and the remaining 30 will be community based students. Do they have them already? Most documents clearly detail the target of the Charter School as

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) students in grades 5-8. It is clear that the proposers anticipate pulling from the current middle school and from home school. However there is little evidence of strong support from either community. The board is very strong and represents a cross section of the community, but there is little that demonstrates parent/student desire to enroll in this program. In years 1 and 2, RCA plans for an estimated student population of 40 site-based students, grades 5th-8th, and 40 community- based students, grades K-12. In years 3-5 the estimated number of site-based students rises to 80 and the number of grades K-12 community-based students served remains at 40. There is a very brief description of the student population. Only a very limited amount of support from parents & community members is evident. Additional support for a middle school alternative such as the EL Model is provided by the ‘Program Assessment and Evaluation’ of Azalea Middle School, based on their findings after a survey that included middle school staff, students and parents. (h) The target population of The target population to be served is evidenced by a description students the public charter of student demographics and characteristics. school will be designed to serve 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  Evidence of targeted 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

4 Meets 1 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: The additional information submitted in the” Fall 2011 RCA Federal Application” reveals that the proposal contains community, and target student characteristics and demographics. The proposal does not address sufficient interest from the community to fill the number of student openings needed to fill the school enrollment projections. The plan refers to poverty, ELL and students in Foster Care as part of their financial plan only, not as an overview of the Attachment B Oregon Department of Education 2012 ORS 338.045(2) 15 RCA – Final Review Combined Report

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) community. There does not seem to be community support for this school indicated in this application. Applicant describes its target population as “any student in middle school who would benefit from the Expeditionary Learning curriculum.” (p. 24), which is not a sufficient description to meet criteria. Proposal is much more of a narrow focus on middle school students – what the needs are of the target audience. They have spent the time needed to demonstrate that they wish to be a middle school and have the research to show that they understand what strong Middle School Curriculum needs to look like to engage its learners. Again, the writers of this proposal have a clear picture of who they are gearing the school toward –middle school students, 5th – 8th grade of Brookings Oregon. There is no evidence of support from students/parents or community to confirm that this amount of students are interested or would attend Riverside. The founders identify their target populations of grades 5-8 students in the district who may be seeking a different instructional approach/methodology for the site-based program. , Brief demographics are provided showing the total number of grades 5-8 students in the district and the number of students meeting benchmarks in reading, math, and science. Trends in the growth rate for this population are not provided. 60 K-12 homeschoolers are identified, but again, there are no trends on whether or not this population is growing or shrinking or staying flat, or any supporting information to indicate that two-thirds (40) of the current homeschoolers are interested in participating in RCA. With the addition of the Azalea Middle School Evaluation, RCA has provided some evidence of sufficient interest in the school to fill the proposed number of student openings beyond the 25 parents that attended the initial planning meetings in 2010. (i) A description of any Distinctive learning and teaching techniques are evidenced by a distinctive learning or detailed description of educational model(s), activities, and/or teaching techniques to be delivery strategies that will characterize the school. used in the public charter school Preferable factors  Clear, focused and compelling  Likely to improve educational outcomes  Expresses a clear, guiding purpose aligned with the

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) mission and vision  Supported by research, applicant experience, and/or sound reasoning behind techniques

3 Meets 2 Does Not Meet

Explain rationale for ratin g: If the proposal was focused on only the 5th – 8th grade on-site model, I would agree that the proposal meets in this area Information included in “RCA Federal Application Fall 2011” documents proposal details regarding Goal 1: Develop a high quality charter school with an emphasis on environmental awareness & natural resources, for grades K-12, that will promote high academic achievement & varied curricular options. The additional information includes timelines and details regarding how the project director will work with teachers and contracted experts to develop new research based courses, select and align curriculum and plan for ongoing evaluation over the course of a year previous to opening the charter for K-12 students as well as continue adjustments over subsequent years. The plan details how RCA, as a network school of Expeditionary Learning, benefits from decades of educational research specifically addressing protective practices designed to keep early adolescents engaged in learning and on the path to graduation and successful adulthood. This section minimally meets criteria, but demonstrates none of the preferable factors. This has not shifted with the additional information provided. They have very general statements of what “should “ be seen in the classrooms – they plan on staff development but the training of the staff of the current school (as it is assumed that this staff will transition to this school) is not clear how they will move them by leaps and bounds to provide what they describe as “best practice” of middle school. The description of the current school was indicative of the work that they need to do to move forward. There are many instructional methods that the teachers “may use” listed in this proposal. There are general topics and also topics and strategies of instruction that are detailed (differentiated instruction). At the conclusion of this application, I continued to be at a loss as to what exactly the curriculum would be – and relate that to this school’s guiding mission and vision for the future.

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) Pg. 13 of the revised proposal, the writers state that they will provide: “Upon approval of the Charter proposal and successful contract negotiations….. “Riverside Charter Academy will provide to Brookings Harbor School District a complete Expeditionary Learning Curriculum, an overview of the EL Commons on-line lesson plans with corollary standards, and a comprehensive overview of the Expeditionary Learning professional development framework.” Because they have not provided this in this proposal, it is unclear what this instructional approach will be and it is uncomfortable that they will provide it AFTER the contract is completed. If the planning grant is funded and the plans for curriculum mapping occur, then the school would likely be ready to open. Based on the assumption this happens, the instructional model relies on strong pedagogy and best practices for developing 21st Century Skills. The creation of the ‘projects’ that are conducted in the community is dependent upon the use of the EL curriculum. Still vague is the relationship between the home school component, and the community education component for the 2nd targeted population (current home school students). Without a standardized curriculum for these students, it will be difficult to justify the use of funds and do the student accounting piece needed to satisfy the financial laws governing payment and attendance. More information about this program is needed in order to forward with this charter school. RCA provides a description and supporting detail of its unique approach with differentiated classes and thematic units, flexible grouping, and active exploration. RCA’s proposal includes use of a wide variety of instructional methods such as project-based learning, mentoring and apprenticeships, experiments, field trips, demonstrations, debates, performances, film production, exhibits and community engagement. RCA describes the school’s Community-Based Personalized Learning component that will incorporate strong business partnerships, a collegial relationship with parents, and “classrooms without walls.” The educational program is framed around the EL model, a comprehensive curriculum aligned with nationally adopted Common Core Standards. The description of the activities and approach sounds engaging for students and incorporates a variety of approaches that would

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) provide more opportunities to appeal to a number of learning styles. The integrated curricular blocks and project-based expeditionary learning is a model that could improve education outcomes for learners who learn best by such an approach. As noted earlier, for some students, this could be a more successful approach than a traditional school schedule with a less interdisciplinary-focused curriculum. (j) The legal address, School’s address, if known, and legal/mailing address. facilities and physical location of the public charter Preferable factors school, if known If a facility has been identified:  Designation of the proposed facility  Evidence the 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

If a facility has not yet been identified:  Description of anticipated facilities needs including evidence the facility will be appropriate for the educational program of the school and adequate for the projected student enrollment  Inclusion of costs associated with the anticipated facilities needs in the budget, including permits, rent, utilities, and maintenance  Evidence to indicate facilities-related budget assumptions are realistic based on anticipated location, size, etc  Assurance the proposed location will be in compliance with applicable building codes, health and safety lows, and with the requirements of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA)  Plan for finding a location, including a proposed schedule for doing so

4 Meets 1 Does Not Meet

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2)

Explain rationale for rating: $1,000 per month for rent for 40 students, utilities $500 per month, renovations $10,000 at start-up seems minimal. The address is not known; the section minimally meets criteria. Was not addressed in the additional materials that were sent in. Five Year Operating Budget – Exhibits 1 – 16 (pg. 40) lists $12,000 for rent for 120 students. This is way too low. On page 81, of the revised proposal, they state that they will be: “requesting the use of district facility. Details will be outlined in an annual Memorandum of Understanding.” The district does not mention this in any of their communications. At the conclusion of the Revised Proposal, there is a proposal from Annette Klinefelter, that she is going to find a facility and provide proof that this facility will meet the requirements 60 days before opening the school (pg. 84 revised proposal). Both of these options do not make it clear what this proposal wishes to do about a facility. The writers of this proposal have included in renovation costs – but yet they don’t have a building. How are they budgeting for this, at this low rate of renovation, for a building that they don’t have? ($10,000 see budget). RCA founders state that they will that they will be able to secure a suitable facility, and the occupancy and safety permits and insurance policies with minimum coverage as required, at least thirty (30) days before the intended date to begin operation. A description with details of facilities needs is not provided. The proposal states that RCA will seek to lease a facility within the school district for approximately $1000/mo, with primary consideration given to district facilities. I do not see comparative lease cost information to substantiate that the estimated budget will be sufficient in this market. Additional costs related to rental and maintenance of the facility are included in the budget, in addition to cost for renovations. (k) A description of The admission policies and application procedures, including admission policies and lottery procedures are evidenced by specific descriptions aligned application procedures with ORS Chapter 338.

Preferable factors  Clear description of the enrollment policy, including lottery

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) procedures consistent with the requirements of ORS 338.125  Clear procedures for withdrawals and transfers from the school that will support an orderly transition for exiting students or a clear plan for developing such procedures

5 Meets 0 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: This section meets criteria. However, applicant states, “Prior to admission, an application will be signed by all parents indicating they understand the charter school philosophy, program, and requirements.” (p. 25). Admission to a charter school cannot be predicated on requiring a parent to sign a letter of understanding, or anything of the like. Applicant also indicates preference will be extended to siblings of students admitted, but does not clarify that this cannot be offered in the first year of operation. Explained on page 45 of the revised proposal. Not clear what the “application” will include, but Riverside states that “the parents will sign an application with the charter belief’s and philosophy”, and a lottery will be held if more students than anticipated are interested. Clearly articulated in the ‘Federal Application’ document Admission policies and application procedures are described and a lottery process consistent with Oregon statute is included. An orderly process for withdrawals and transfers is provided, with a focus on working closely with the family during the transition process. (L) The statutes and rules Statutes and Rules that apply to the school are evidenced that shall apply to the public through an encompassing written statement of compliance with charter school all laws listed as applicable to charter schools in ORS 338.115(1).

Preferable factors  Citation of any statutes or rules in addition to those listed in ORS 338.115 (1) and copies of policies or a timeline for policy development

5 Meets 0 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: This section meets criteria. Pg. 46 – 48 Revised Proposal - list the statutes that apply to

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) Riverside. RCA states that it will be in compliance with statutes and rules applicable to public charter schools and lists the specific statutes and rules as noted in ORS 338.115 (1). (m) The proposed budget Demonstration of a sound budget and financial plan is evidenced and financial plan for the by documentation of a detailed three-five year budget, accurate public charter school and projection of revenues and expenditures based on prevailing evidence that the proposed costs and other factors that contribute to solvency. budget and financial plan for the public charter school are Preferable factors financially sound  Budget assumptions and financial planning based on realistic revenue and expenditure projections for the term of the contract, including based on minimum enrollment needed for solvency  Spending priorities aligned with the school’s mission, curriculum, and plans for management, professional development, and growth  Realistic cash flow projection for the first year of operation, including a plan for funding cash flow shortfalls  Sound financial management systems  Plan for making required school and employee contributions to PERS  Adequate and reasonable plan to manage start-up costs  Description of how the school will conduct an annual audit of the financial operations

0 Meets 5 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating:  A five-year budget is provided.  Spending priorities are aligned with the mission, including cost for contracted services with EL (which is named in the mission), field trips, AV equipment and the software and instructional supplies needed for RCA’s approach.  Sound financial management systems as well as fiscal policies and procedures are described.  RCA’s budget includes a plan for making required school and employee contributions to PERS  RCA provides a description of the procedures to conduct an annual fiscal audit. Relies on fundraising of $15,000 in first year – to $25,000 in yr. 5 If fundraising is not successful – first year total revenue is Attachment B Oregon Department of Education 2012 ORS 338.045(2) 22 RCA – Final Review Combined Report

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) $449,757. The plan relies on 80 students @ $5,929 per child – if only 40 students enroll – first year total revenue is $ $224,878 and charter would not be able to proceed.  The original budget has 120 students, and the revised budget has 80 students.  The revised budget has increased fundraising from 10k to 15k in first year without explanation as to how this is reasonable.  The revised budget has lowered the administrator’s salary to 50k from 80k.  The revised budget eliminated counseling staff in first two years.  The revised budget reduced travel by 6k, reduced field trips from 30k to 8k. Supplies are reduced from 70K to 20K. Computers are reduced from 50k to 12k. Furniture is reduced from 30k to 5k.  The budget is predicated on receiving 90% of the charter school SSF rate, but does not indicate whether the district has agreed to this amount.  Applicant does not explain how these adjustments were necessary or possible, and the budget itself seems arbitrary and unstable.  “Other fringe benefits” are not defined.  Custodial service is listed at only 4K a year, which seems unlikely.  Transportation is not included in the budget. Expenses seem to be ‘light’ for the school.  As stated above, the building costs are under-reported (12,000 per year) for 120 students and staff members associated with this building.  There is a discrepancy in the proposal language of 2 – 3 teachers based on how many students show interest in Riverside, and the budget that lists 8 teachers – with both having a payroll cost of $135,000. From the 5 year budget provided: “Salary-Teaching 3 FTE (yrs 1 and 2) 5 (yrs 3-5) Yr 1: 135,000”  Where are payroll costs – is this considered a “fringe Attachment B Oregon Department of Education 2012 ORS 338.045(2) 23 RCA – Final Review Combined Report

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) benefit”? There is no mention in the budget of payroll costs.  ADMw by law starts @ 80% . They have figured this number in their budget @ 90%.  Contracted Services (Administration – 10,000 plus an administrator @ $80,000)  They discuss Classroom Assistants, but these are not listed in the Budget.  The writers also listed an Administrative Assistant – is this considered the Bookkeeper? Revised budget 2 with 82+ students is a very tight budget, especially given little evidence the number of families wishing to enroll their children in this Charter School. Some of the assumptions of the budget may not be realistic:  Where is the substantiation for the projected number of students to be served—how do the founders know that 40 students will be interested in attending the site-based program? How do founders know that 40 out of the 60 homeschoolers will want to participate in the community-based program?  $1000/mo may be inadequate for rent  Carryover totals in years 3-5 do not add up—they do not reflect the variance between total revenues & expenses.  # of site-based students doubles in the third year, but the rent and related services such as custodial, utilities, maintenance do not reflect a corresponding increase. No corresponding increase in other expenses that may be impacted by an increase in students served, such as assessment/testing, computers, furniture, and administration costs such as copier costs and printing.  The approach notes that teachers will meet weekly with each student and his/her parents either at the school or in the home. Teaching staff levels may be inadequate for this approach given the time needed to schedule, prep and conduct weekly meetings for 30 students given the many other responsibilities the teachers will have.  Staff development is heavily weighted in the first two years of the school’s operation and drops off significantly from year three on. However, RCA anticipates doubling the number of students served starting in year 3, so the amount targeted for staff development in year 3 and going forward may need to be increased.  Fundraising is estimated to be $15K for the first 3 years, $20K

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) for the 4th year and $25K for the 5th. Fundraising is time consuming and challenging. These targets may be too high for a new school with unidentified people resources (e.g. someone with a proven track record in fundraising) and other assets needed to accomplish this level of fundraising at the same time that a new school is being launched. People may be reticent to give to an organization without a track record.  No plan for funding cash flow shortfalls or a reasonable plan to manage start-up costs (particularly if there are less students enrolled at start up) (n) A description of the The financial management systems are evidenced by financial management documentation of board and staff management responsibilities, system for the public charter fiscal policies, budget development and oversight system, school, an explanation of creating and using budgets, balance sheets reflecting assets, how the financial expenditures and liabilities, accounting systems, payroll, management system will insurance and benefits, financial reporting, internal controls meet the requirements of (staffing policies and procedures), the audit (understanding, ORS 338.095 (1) and a plan conducting and preparing for an audit and using 990s. for having the financial management system in place Preferable factors at the time the school begins  Clear description of the financial responsibilities of the operating; charter board as it compares to the staff responsibilities  A check and balance system described for budget development and the oversight system during the budget year  Board policies describing the internal controls for receiving revenue and paying bills  Clear operating standards for financial management with a consistent foundation, institutionalized practice in the event of leadership or staff turnover  Processes reflecting annual review of such systems by both the public charter school and sponsor

5 Meets 0 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: Clear policies and financial management strategies. This section meets criteria and contains several of the preferable factors. The Financial Plan discusses in general that the school will have a director and treasurer sign for anything over $250.00, there will be a bookkeeper who will do monthly financial statements. Treasurer will review these monthly. Although general, it seems

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) that they do have their controls in place for success. The money to improve facilities is limited and likely insufficient. Policies and procedures for creating budgets are in place, but only minimally. Missing are specific references to account programs that are being considered and the student data system to be used. The RCA application provides fiscal policies and procedures describing board and staff management responsibilities; systems and timelines for budget development and management/oversight practices; use of General Accepted Accounting Procedures including balance sheets reflecting assets and systems to manage expenditures and liabilities. RCA will use a payroll service and has built in to its budget funding for insurance and benefits. RCA’s policies include timelines and responsibilities for financial reporting and meeting audit requirements. Policies describe that the responsibilities for audit activities including selection of the auditor shall be independent of those managing the operational budget. RCA includes policies to ensure internal fiscal controls are in place, with a system of checks and balances and separation of duties for budget development and oversight, receipt of revenues, and non-payroll expenditures and statement reconciliation. The timeline of monthly fiscal activities with identification of persons responsible ensures practices will be institutionalized in the event of leadership or staff turnover. (o) The standards for Clear description of standards for student behavior and behavior and the procedures accompanying discipline procedures, which include suspension for the discipline, suspension and expulsion procedures. or expulsion of students Preferable factors  Policies for addressing expulsion, suspension and education of expelled or suspended students providing adequate safety of students and staff; provide due process for students; serve the best interest of the school’s students; create a positive environment for learning OR  A description of student standards for behavior  A clear plan for developing such policies including a schedule for doing so  An explanation of how the proposed school will conduct appeals for students facing expulsion

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2)  A description of how students will be expelled, for what offenses and which schools they will be expelled from if the expulsion hearing is conducted by the proposed charter school

5 Meets 0 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: Clear and detailed policies and procedures outlines in proposal. This section meets criteria, but almost to a fault. Applicant spends an inordinate amount of time detailing fully-fleshed out policies in student behavior, consequences, etc. It should be noted that, while this section is thorough, the applicant proposes to refer students to another school (or their school of origin) if they have attendance problems, cheat, commit a dress code violation, possess tobacco or drugs, litter, or commit computer violations. While a charter school can suspend and/or expel students, it cannot unilaterally refer or move a student to another school. This is quite detailed and found in the exhibits 1 – 16. The behavior policies that the students will sign and also the explanation of the behavior policies are defined. This is quite specific for a myriad of offences. It is not necessarily voiced to create a positive environment for learning, but does list the sanctions. Found in several documents reviewed. RCA provides its Student Code of Conduct in Exhibit 15. The founders state that they will develop and maintain a comprehensive set of student discipline policies with behavioral standards that will comply with ORS 339.240-280. The application reflects much of that work has been accomplished and includes policies with specific steps for addressing a range of discipline issues as well as policies regarding expulsion and suspension. Policies for the education of expelled or suspended students have not yet been developed. RCA’s behavioral plan includes means to ensure the rights of students with disabilities or exceptional needs are met in the case of expulsion by involving an Individualized Education Team. The discipline policies include provisions for adequate safety of students and staff. The policies provide due process for students and describe a commitment to serve the best interest of the school’s students, up to and including making every effort to help parents or caregivers find a more appropriate educational

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) placement for any child who is unable to continue at Riverside Charter Academy due to behavioral issues. RCA’s plan describes what RCA will do to ensure parents and students understand the standards of student behavior. RCA policies establish the behavioral expectations and a Parent/Student Handbook is to be given to students at enrollment. The Handbook will be reviewed annually by each teacher with every student and parent on their caseload. RCA will use additional means to communicate the information on standards for student behavior such as in the school newsletter, face to face visits and on the school website. (p) The proposed school The school calendar is evidenced by a description or calendaring calendar for the public of school days; the length of the school year and the length of a charter school including school day that meet the instructional time requirements in OAR length of school day and 581-022-1620. school year Preferable factors  School day and school calendar are structured in ways that align with the educational program

2 Meets 3 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: Only addresses the instructional hours required for grades 5-8 (900 hours), nothing is described for grades K-12 (required 990 hours for high school students). Describes single track or any other calendar that improves instruction. The RCA year will be 180 days. Applicant states that “The charter school shall have a single track calendar or, as necessary, any other calendar that would improve the delivery of instruction.” (p.31), which is unspecific. Applicant also notes that school will be open from 8-4 each day, which may exceed the maximum amount of instructional hours per day. The additional information gives a “typical day” which gives the school day hours. This shows what “typically” will occur. Much more clear information. The calendar is clear for the school year. The school day hours are unclear. Pg. 61 & 62 of Revised proposal lists calendar assumptions. They do not provide a sample calendar – but they state that they will uphold the minimum hour count by OAR 581—22-1620 (900 hours for students in grades 5 – 8). They state that they will use the bus services of the district, but

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) the school days are different lengths than the district. It is not clear how they will be able to utilize these transportation services. They are not clear about the length of the day. Does it end at 2:30? (typical day explanation in revised proposal) vs. 4:30 P.M. when the electives are completed? It was very unclear what electives would be offered or even if they would be offered. There is no direct reference to calendar (‘matching sponsoring district’ would have been sufficient); nor is there a definite start and stop time for the school. A sample day includes start and stop times however. RCA proposes a single track calendar. RCA also states that other calendars will be considered if the change would result in improved delivery of instruction to students while still complying with applicable law. This statement represents intent to align the calendar with the EL curriculum and RCA’s proposed educational program. RCA’s proposed instructional year will consist of 180 days (student instruction days) and at a minimum, all students will participate in the annual number of instructional hours required by the state. No later than May of each year, RCA will provide to Brookings-Harbor School District a copy of the proposed calendar for the next academic year. While RCA states that the school will be open from 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM each school day, they may need to provide a more flexible schedule for its educational activities in order to meet the intent of the educational program (e.g. involvement with local businesses may mean activities that happen after 4:30). (q) A description of the All proposed staff positions and qualifications are described. proposed staff members and required qualifications of Preferable factors teachers at the public charter  Explanation of the relationship that will exist between the school charter school and its employees  Employment policies of the school OR clear plan for timely development of such policies  Plans for ensuring all staff meet ESEA Highly Qualified Teachers requirements  Staffing plan that clearly describes qualification, roles and responsibilities of each staff member, including school administrator  Description of ongoing professional development for staff, aligned to school’s mission

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) 5 Meets 0 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: While this section minimally meets criteria, the expectation that 3 staff with multiple endorsements will be able to sufficiently provide a range of educational opportunities and requirements is unlikely.  Pg. 62/63 of the revised proposal describes the staffing of Riverside.  The budget does not agree with this revised staff description. There are no classroom assistants.  The teaching staff description in the budget is for 8 teachers – this revised proposal and revised financial plan discusses 2 – 4 teachers depending on the enrollment. RCA’s application includes a description of its staffing plan and the duties and relationship of all staff and contracted employees. Staff duties are described. RCA notes that staff will need to support the philosophy and approach of the school and that much of the staff development of the school will be provided by Expeditionary Learning Consultants to ensure close alignment with the school’s mission. RCA specifically identifies several key areas for staff development and states that staff will receive extensive training, including but not limited to, personalized learning, teaching styles, assessment techniques, higher level questioning, service learning, the National Technology Standards, multiple intelligence and the principles of project-based learning The application describes some of RCA’s employment policies (e.g. discipline, termination). Plans for timely development of complete set of employee policies can only be construed from the statement that the school will provide an Employee Handbook upon new employee’s hire date. RCA’s application states that all teachers of core classes will meet the requirements of “highly qualified” as defined in No Child Left Behind. (r) The date upon which the The operational date is evidenced by a clear statement of public charter school would projected start date. begin operating Preferable factors  A description of the process for opening the school on the projected start date  A timeline outlining the significant items needed to open the school by the projected date.

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2)

5 Meets 0 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: Additional information from the RCA Federal Application Fall 2011 includes a detailed account of School and Student Objectives needed to fulfill before opening the charter doors in Sept. of 2012 (which would change if approved by ODE to Sept. of 2013 assumed). Pgs. 20 – 41 Meets criteria. Pg. 67 of Revised Proposal. Although there is not timeline for items needed to open the school by this proposed date. If the time line published in the Federal Application document were followed to create all the processes, training and documents prior to opening are completed then, yes there is a viable timeline. An opening date of September 2012 is provided. A description of the process to open the school or a timeline outlining significant items needed to open the school on the projected date is provided on pp 25-26 & 30, 32. (s) The arrangements for any The arrangements for special education and related services are necessary special education evidenced in a comprehensive description which aligns with ORS and related services provided 338.165. pursuant to ORS 338.165 for children with disabilities who Preferable factors may attend the public charter  Realistic plan to identify and meet the general education school learning needs of, resident and non-resident students with disabilities  Timeline, lead contact, and intervention process with specific action steps for meeting learning needs of students with suspected special needs  Plans for serving special populations align with the overall curriculum, instructional approaches, and the school mission  Plan for contracting with resident districts for providing Identification and IEP services for students with suspected or special needs.

4 Meets 1 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: The proposal included a section regarding Special Populations that detailed how RCA would serve IEP, TAG, ELL and 504 students. They also included a “Child Find Policy” example for Attachment B Oregon Department of Education 2012 ORS 338.045(2) 31 RCA – Final Review Combined Report

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) students with disabilities. Plan details how the charter will develop a MOU with BHSD to provide PD for staff and SPED services for students. Applicant “pledges” that it will cooperate with the district to implement special education, but does not provide specifics on its responsibility as a school to make accommodations. School District (Brookings) to provide all services (pg. 68 revised proposal). Use of sponsoring district to get Child Find training and to have the sponsoring district provide specially designed instruction are a part of the proposed activities. RCA states that enrollment will be open to all students regardless of disability and that individuals with special needs will be served in accordance with applicable federal and state law. RCA provides a plan with and intervention process & steps identified to meet the needs of students with suspected special needs. (pp38-39) RCA does not lead contact and intervention process & steps identified to meet the needs of students with suspected special needs. The application does state that RCA’s small school setting and individualized approach will allow it to readily identify and meet the needs of students with special needs. RCA states it will work in cooperation with the District to ensure that a free and appropriate education is provided to all students with exceptional needs. RCA confirms in its application that the Brookings-Harbor School District, as required by statute, will provide all Special Education Services for all students enrolled RCA. The details of service delivery will be established in an annual Memorandum of Understanding with the District. (t) Information on the manner Plans to involve the community in the planning and development in which community groups of the public charter school are described in detail (e.g., may be involved in the identification of key community groups or members the planning and development developers will access given the school’s mission and target process of the public charter population, tactics to engage key community constituents, the school process of how community input will be sought, etc.).

Preferable factors  Sound outreach plan to inform parent and members of the community about the operations of the school, including

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) providing information about the school to students of all races, languages, and abilities, a timeline for implementation, a lead contact, and specific action steps  Evidence the proposed school is welcomed by the larger community, has formed partnerships with community organizations, and is viewed as an attractive educational alternative that reflects the community’s needs and interests

1 Meets 4 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: Information included in “RCA Federal Application Fall 2011” documents proposal details regarding Goal 2; Develop community partnerships/mentorships, including active parent participation that will enhance the academic program, reduce drop out, increase drop out retrieval and increase college attendance. Within this goal are details regarding timelines for developing community partnerships and a community outreach plans led by a Project Director early in the planning phase of the school development as well as throughout implementation years 1 and 2. (Pgs. 35 – 39) This section is overwhelmingly general, and applicant provides no specifics that would meet even minimum criteria. Additional information outline clearly who is responsible for what tasks that are needed. It states that the school will have a “reach out” to community based groups – but it is not clear how. Descriptions of what they might do would be helpful – open houses, get togethers, meet and greet with the businesses, etc… I would also have liked to see specific goals in place so that I knew what amount of community support that they intended to seek. Pg. 69 of the Revised Proposal – that 25 parents were involved in the Creative Arts Middle School planning – but is this the same school as Riverside? It does not seem that Creative Arts is the main mission of this school. This particular area of parent involvement is very nebulous. It states that parents will be involved but it does not clearly state how or when. No evidence of community involvement to date, but there are plans in the Federal Proposal. While the application notes that there were initial meetings in 2010 and up to 25 people attended, this is the only discernible involvement of parents and/or community members.

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) No outreach plan is provided and substantiation of the school being welcomed by the larger community is lacking. Marketing budget is inadequate for a new organization needing to connect with and engage the community. (u) The term of the charter The term of the charter is evidenced by a proposed beginning and ending date for the charter contract; proposed term must be a minimum of one year and maximum of five years.

5 Meets 0 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: 5 yr. term proposed. Meets criteria. Pg. 69 – Revised Charter Proposal. Application includes a 5-year term for the charter, beginning on the date of approval by the School District. (v) The plan for performance The insurance plan is evidenced through a description of the bonding or insuring the public types and levels of insurance coverage the school plans to charter school, including purchase or a description of the plan to secure performance buildings and liabilities bonding.

Preferable factors  Budget reflects insurance costs

5 Meets 0 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: Pg. 70 in application & pg. 10 in Financial Plan - $6,000 per yr. Meets criteria. Pg. 2 of 5 year budget – Liability insurance of $6,000 seems reasonable. Pg. 70/71 of Revised proposal lay out insurance coverage in detail. Seems reasonable. Details of the insurance plan are provided and costs are reflected in the budget. (w) A proposed plan for the The plan for placement of staff and students (in the event of non- placement of public charter renewal or termination) is evidenced through a written description school teachers, other school of the process to be used; student plans should include employees and students of collaboration with the local school district. the public charter school

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) upon termination or non- 5 Meets 0 Does Not Meet renewal of a charter Explain rationale for rating: Detailed on page 71-72 Meets criteria. Pg. 71/72 of the Revised Charter Proposal states the plans for the students and teachers. The teacher-plan is much “softer” in how they would assist in finding employment – the student-plan is much stronger and seems to be reasonable. Plans are described for staff and student placement in the event of non-renewal or termination and collaboration with the local school district as well as other charter schools, is included. RCA expresses its intent to work closely with students and families to ensure the least disruptive transition as possible. (x) The manner in which the The plans for annual review of educational program and program review and fiscal operations, and municipal fiscal audits will be evidenced in a audit will be conducted detailed description of how both will be accomplished

Preferable factors  The process and timeline for arranging the annual fiscal audit  The process and timeline for a sponsor site visit  The manner in which fiscal audit and program review results will be incorporated into school improvement planning  The plan and timeline to submit audit and annual program review to ODE

5 Meets 0 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: Pg 73 - 81 This section meets criteria. However, much of the language resembles contractual language that the sponsor has not yet agreed to. Revised Financial Plan has an outline for audit completion and delivery to Brookings District. Could be improved by naming outside vendors being considered. RCA includes a description of its plans for an annual review of its educational program and operations, with a School Accountability Performance Report to be provided to the School District School Board and the public in October of each academic year. Details of information to be included in the report are noted.

Proposal Requirements Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.045 (2) RCA notes that it plans to work with the district to develop a rubric for the annual school site visit. RCA describes that the board will establish a school audit committee that will be in charge of the process to ensure fiscal audits are accomplished. The committee’s timeframe and duties are described. RCA states that a copy of the audit findings and the Annual Review will be forwarded each year to the Brookings-Harbor School District, the State Board of Education and the Oregon Department of Education. The school audit committee will review any noted exceptions or deficiencies and report to RCA’s governing Board with recommendations for resolution. Plans for resolving exceptions or deficiencies will be provided to the district, State Board and ODE. (y) In the case of an existing (A) Alternative arrangements for staff or students who choose not school being converted to to be in the public charter school is evidenced by a detailed plan charter status: that addresses the needs of each group and does not create an adverse impact or violate the rights of an individual.

(A) The alternative Meets Does Not Meet arrangements for students Explain rationale for rating: who choose not to attend the public charter school and for teachers and other school N/A employees who choose not to participate in the public charter school; and (B) Description of the relationship between the public charter school and its employees, should they choose to remain at the school once converted to charter, with evidence that all (B) The relationship that will employment terms and conditions have been addressed. exist between the public charter school and its Meets Does Not Meet employees, including Explain rationale for rating: evidence that the terms and conditions of employment have been addressed with N/A affected employees and their recognized representatives, if any.

Oregon State Board of Education Charter School Proposal Review and Analysis Rubric

Evaluation Criteria Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.055(2) (a) The demonstrated, Demonstration of sustainable support is evidenced by substantial sustainable support for the documentation, e.g., market research, marketing plans, results of public charter school by community meetings/presentations, community partnerships, teachers, parents, students and/or survey results, as well as documentation of community and other community testimony provided during the public hearing conducted by the members, including school district. comments received at the public hearing held under 0 Meets 5 Does Not Meet subsection (1) of this section Explain rationale for rating: No evidence of market research, marketing plans, results of community presentation or meeting, no actual formal partnerships or survey results showing community interest in the charter. The additional information showed a plan to plan for community partnerships and parent survey, but nothing was included showing actual current support for the school. Applicant does not address or include any evidence of demand in the application, nor does it provide evidence of a need for the model that the applicant seeks to provide. Continue to not see the support for this school for the long term sustainability of a major shift in Middle School Education in Brookings. The only evidence in the proposal of Riverside Academy was the initial interest of 25 parents, who worked on a Creative Arts Middle School idea. The idea for this school has changed into an EL (Expeditionary Learning) model. This model was not shared in this proposal, but stated that it would be shared when the contract was signed. The writers of this proposal alluded to the model several times, but it was a great concern that they did not develop this method to its fullest. This does not meet this requirement. Evidence of community involvement in planning and parent commitment to enroll was not provided in these documents. The Board represented in the “Federal Application” are from a variety of backgrounds and have very specific knowledge that would help this Charter School be successful. While the application notes that there were initial meetings in 2010 and up to 25 people attended, this is the only discernible involvement of parents and/or community members. Minutes or notes to capture testimony, or a roster of attendees at these

Evaluation Criteria Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.055(2) meetings, were not included. No outreach plan is provided and substantiation of the school being welcomed by the larger community is lacking. A marketing plan is not provided and the marketing budget is inadequate for a new organization needing to connect with and engage the community. (b) The demonstrated Demonstration of a fiscal stability is evidenced by documentation financial stability of the public of a detailed three-five year budget, balance sheets reflecting charter school, including the assets, expenditures and liabilities, accurate projections of demonstrated ability of the revenues and expenditures based on prevailing costs and other school to have a sound factors that contribute to solvency, as well as GAAP and other financial management sound fiscal management practices. system that is in place at the time the school begins Preferable factors operating and that meets the  Annual reserve, minimal reliance on soft funds requirements of ORS 338.095 (1);  Sound financial management policies and strategies including but not limited to cash management, investment practices, financial reporting, segregation of duties, and processes reflecting annual review of such systems.

0 Meets 5 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: A five-year budget is provided. Sound financial management systems as well as fiscal policies and procedures are described. RCA provides a description of the procedures to conduct an annual fiscal audit. The proposal does include a 5 year detailed budget; however it is reliant on a minimum of 80 students and fundraising to meet their fiscal requirements. The charter proposal does not include adequate evidence of community support for maintaining enrollment of 80 students at this time. Please see above for comments related to the budget and financial plan. While the financial plan is thorough, the budget is built on unsubstantiated assumptions, many of which vary widely between the first and second drafts of the application, and for which the applicant provided no rationale. No changes in the additional information that was provided to change their financial picture to a more secure and realistic picture of a Middle School with a start of 90 students.

Evaluation Criteria Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.055(2) Riverside Academy has many of its financial policies in place, but the budget is a huge concern for its financial feasibility. It is not clear how many teachers they will be hiring (budget states one number and proposal states another number). The classroom Assistants are not accounted for on the budget (discussed in the proposal). They rent for a building is low and seems to not be a realistic figure. Their budget needs work, which is why this does not meet the financial stability of the school needed in its first crucial years. Plans for enrollment are too ambitious to make this plan viable without 80 or more students. Building improvements and rent likely too low given the number of students anticipated. Substantiation for the projected number of students to be served has not been provided and because this is almost the sole funding source for RCA, this presents not only a heavy reliance on one funding source, it is also not a reliable source based on information provided. RCA’s goal after the first year of operation is to reserve 5% of the annual operating budget as contingency. However, no Reserve fund line item is listed in the budget, although there are Carryover funds. Carryover in years 1-2 are approximately 8-10% of respectively, then increase significantly to 28-47% respectively in years 3-5. The Carryover totals in years 3-5 do not add up—they do not reflect the variance between total revenues & expenses. I cannot determine how the applicant came up with Carryover amounts reflected in years 3-5. Some of the projections for expenditures may be inadequate: $1000/mo may be inadequate for rent; # of site-based students doubles in the third year, but the rent and related services such as custodial, utilities, maintenance do not reflect a corresponding increase. No corresponding increase in other expenses that may be impacted by an increase in students served, such as assessment/testing, computers, furniture, and administration costs such as copier costs and printing. Fundraising is estimated to be $15K for the first 3 years, $20K for the 4th year and $25K for the 5th. Fundraising is time consuming and challenging. These targets may be too high for a new school with unidentified people resources (e.g. someone with a proven track record in fundraising) and other assets needed to accomplish this level of fundraising at the same time that a new school is being launched. People may be reticent to give to an

Evaluation Criteria Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.055(2) organization without a track record. No plan for funding cash flow shortfalls or a reasonable plan to manage start-up costs (particularly if there are less students enrolled at start up) (c) The capability of the Evidence of the applicant’s capacity to support, plan and provide applicant, in terms of support comprehensive instructional programs, including relevant and planning, to provide expertise and experience of the applicant, a proposed comprehensive instructional comprehensive curriculum aligned with state standards and programs to students based on research-based instructional practices, adaptable for all pursuant to an approved achievement levels. proposal Preferable factors  Effective staffing, professional development  Assessment plans that support effective delivery and measurement of the instructional program.

2 Meets 3 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: The proposal has evidence of planning and providing a comprehensive instructional program for a 5-8 grade middle school program. Information included in “RCA Federal Application Fall 2011” documents proposal details regarding Goal 1: Develop a high quality charter school with an emphasis on environmental awareness & natural resources, for grades K-12, that will promote high academic achievement & varied curricular options. The additional information includes timelines and details regarding how the project director will work with teachers and contracted experts to develop new research based courses, select and align curriculum and plan for ongoing evaluation over the course of a year previous to opening the charter for K-12 students as well as continue adjustments over subsequent years. The additional information also details how the charter plans to develop a professional development plan that addresses the core training needed for staff to insure a comprehensive K-12 program that that will promote high academic achievement & varied curricular options. (Pgs. 25 – 34) Please see comments above regarding the lack of curriculum design and planning, the lack of any evidenced alignment to state standards, and the lack of detail about Expeditionary Learning, which is an established educational model.

Evaluation Criteria Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.055(2) The greatest factor for this rating, is that there is going to be a large amount of professional development time needed to shift the paradigm of the present school to the new “best practices” school. The steps are huge and were not shown in this application or additional information sent. There is no evidence that the applicant has the relevant background in either this age level or this type of learning (EL) model, to lead this school to a positive fruition. This school does have a plan to meet state standards with its students, but the glaring oversight in explaining their instructional approach does not assure that this school would be successful opened and managed toward meeting its mission and vision. The Federal Application document lists out a strong plan for making sure all instructional programs are comprehensive and aligned to state standards and diploma expectations that trickle down into the middle school setting. Once the outlined processes and supporting documents are created, then the school will be ready to open. There is a statement of intention to provide the complete curriculum upon approval and successful contract negotiations for RCA. Applicant states that EL is an established, research-based curriculum. Applicant describes a process to align the core classes of the EL curriculum to state and local academic standards. A policy for reviewing and selecting instructional materials is provided. RCA’s application includes a description of its staffing plan and the duties and relationship of all staff and contracted employees. Staff duties are described. RCA’s application states that all teachers of core classes will meet the requirements of “highly qualified” as defined in No Child Left Behind. Professional development is included in the budget with the primary focus on training on the EL program by EL consultants. RCA specifically identifies several key areas for staff development and states that staff will receive extensive training, including but not limited to, personalized learning, teaching styles, assessment techniques, higher level questioning, service learning, the National Technology Standards, multiple intelligence and the principles of project-based learning. Methods and frequency of assessment as well as instruments, such as STAR for Math and Reading, are described. Student and school goals are outlined in table-format, with categories of ‘Goals’, ‘Reporting Frequency,’ and ‘Metric for

Evaluation Criteria Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.055(2) Accountability.’ RCA plans to include internal assessments such as portfolios and student self-assessments and teacher assessments as well as external tools such as the ‘Northwest Evaluation Association’s Measures of Academic Progress.’ The standards of academic performance will be keyed to the ‘Common Core Student Standards’ and ‘Oregon Content Standards’ and students will be assessed annually using Oregon State Assessments. (d) The capability of the Evidence of the applicant’s capability to support, plan, and applicant, in terms of support provide comprehensive instructional programs that will meet the and planning, to specifically needs of academically low achieving students is evidenced by a provide, pursuant to an plan for identifying low achieving students, specific program approved proposal, planning/ implementation to close anticipated achievement gaps comprehensive instructional and assessment plans to measure individual progress. programs to students identified by the applicant as academically low achieving 2 Meets 3 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: The proposal states that each child will have a Personalized Learning Plan that will meet the individual needs of the child based on a variety of options. The proposal states that RCA will offer ongoing assessment, remediation of basic core and advanced educational opportunities for students, meeting each child’s needs. Applicant does not address anticipated achievement gaps; neither does it address how it would serve students that are identified as academically low achieving. The proposal references that they will work individually with students to identify them for Child Find, but it does not say how they will judge whether a student is below level and what they will do to assist them to gain educational experience. There does not seem to be any type of remedial assistance described for low- achieving students other than individualized instruction based on the students interests. Specific processes for targeting students who are low performing are not outlined. RCA describes how it will meet the needs of all learners, including ELL, Talented & Gifted, and students on a 504 Plan. RCA believes it will be able to meet all learners’ needs because the model for RCA itself stresses meeting individual developing

Evaluation Criteria Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.055(2) needs and allows flexibility in the materials and curriculum to meet the needs of all students. RCA further states that the small school approach will “allow early identification of children with special needs and promote effective service delivery.” RCA provides some details of a plan with more details to be developed, with a pledge that individuals with special needs will be served in accordance with applicable federal and state law. (e) The extent to which the Evidence that the proposal addresses the information required in proposal addresses the ORS 338.045 to a satisfactory extent. information required in ORS 338.045 2 Meets 3 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: Overall, the plan is an exciting experimental educational proposal for the Middle School years (grades 5-8). The proposal is based on National Middle School Association recommendations of integrated curricular block schedules and utilizes the research based Expeditionary Learning model. Information included in “RCA Federal Application Fall 2011” documents proposal details regarding how the needs of the K-12 students will be met. These details are evident in Goals 1 – 3 (Pgs. 28 - 41). Applicant does not sufficiently address many key components of the application, including the budget, the curriculum and its alignment to state standards, ELL, TAG, SpEd, and students that are identified as academically low achieving. The application as a whole is very general, and full of pledges and future plans, but very little tangible components are presented in the application. They are aware of the best practices and how AZALEA MIDDLE SCHOOL measures up – but there is not a clear application of how to implement and train for these best practices in the Charter School Implementation. Too many omissions in the instructional practices, the clearly stated mission and how they will achieve, and finally the support of the community/parents/students, it seems to be lacking to assure that this school would be a success. Once the work outlined in “Federal Application” has been completed, the school should be ready to provide a strong instructional program. The lack of community involvement in planning and the scant evidence of interest in enrolling in the program will need to be addressed as well if this Charter School were to open. The comprehensive needs assessment indicates a need for the Charter programs. An alternative public school Attachment B Oregon Department of Education 2012 ORS 338.055(2) 43 RCA – Final Review Combined Report

Evaluation Criteria Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.055(2) option for students in this area has been evidenced as well. (f) Whether the value of the Evidence from the proposal demonstrates the value of the public public charter school is charter school. outweighed by any directly Evidence from the school district response demonstrates an identifiable, significant and explicitly identifiable, significant and adverse impact on the quality adverse impact on the quality of education of students within the district. of the public education of students residing in the (A “Meets” score signifies there is NO adverse impact) school district in which the public charter school will be 3 Meets 2 Does Not Meet located Explain rationale of rating: Value- Offering an exciting Expeditionary Learning model for middle [and area K-12] students – but does not appear to have community support for adequate middle school student enrollment at this time. Applicant does not demonstrate the expected value that the charter school would add to the district. Applicant demonstrates no demand for the program. The value of the charter school would be that Middle School students have a choice of a smaller school that individualizes instruction. This type of instructional program is very impressive and in contrast to the current Middle School program represented in the Evaluation write-up, a needed change of programming. However, it seems that the current middle school could adopt the same model and nullify any uniqueness of the RCA. The integrated curricular blocks and project-based expeditionary learning is a model that could improve education outcomes for learners who learn best by such an approach. For some students, this may be more engaging and thus a more successful approach than the traditional school schedule and a less interdisciplinary- focused curriculum.

Adverse Impact- Brookings Harbor sites financial hardship on the district for lost ADM funds at the middle school level. If the charter is successful, it would create difficulty in maintaining the existing middle school programs within the district due to loss of enrollment/funding. According to the district’s denial letter, district total enrollment is 1600 students. A school for 80 students – which is what the

Evaluation Criteria Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.055(2) revised application specifies – would be 5% of the total district population. The district notes that the applicant would be specifically targeting middle school students, which could present an adverse impact to the district if a district middle school were to lose a large number of its students to this school. The district would not collect the ADMw for the students, which they attest would cause an economic impact. If the Charter School draws significant numbers of students away from the other district schools, there is a potential to reduce basic programming in the current Middle School, yet issues created by this type of change are being faced in small schools throughout Oregon, and do not directly impact students. While the district response includes several strong points regarding the viability of some portions of RCA’s application, the district does not present a compelling case for adverse impact. The district states that the proposed 40 site-based students along with the 40 homeschooled students would present a dramatic decrease in ADM revenue for a district with 1600 students. The numbers as proposed are such a small proportion of the total number within the district, that I would not rate the overall impact as adverse. The district further states that because most of the site-based student enrollment would be at the middle school level that this would “create great difficulty in maintaining the existing middle school program.” This is not substantiated in any way—no specific examples of how this would impact the middle schools are provided. (g) Whether there are Evidence of arrangements for necessary special education and arrangements for any related services for children with disabilities include detailed plans necessary special education aligned with ORS 338.165, i.e., recognition that student resident and related services for districts to retain responsibility for providing all special education children with disabilities and related services, plans for charter school to contract with pursuant to ORS 338.165 sponsor district and other districts for payment of ADMw for special education students and specifying respective responsibilities related to the provision of special education and related services to the student.

Preferable factors  Professional development for charter school staff related to identification and referral, modifications and accommodations, discipline, attendance reporting, communication with parents, and charter school’s role on IEP team.

Evaluation Criteria Evidence, Preferable Factors, Rating and Rationale ORS 338.055(2) 4 Meets 1 Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: Defined working with BHSD to provide SPED and related services for students enrolled at RCA as established in an annual MOU. Teachers of RCA will attend all professional development provided by BHSD as it relates to SPED students, parents and IEPs. Please see comments above re: SpEd services. Brookings school district would handle all the Special Education needs of Riverside Academy. RCA also pledges to work in cooperation with the District to ensure that a free and appropriate education is provided to all students with exceptional needs. Part of this commitment includes an annual 504 plan will be developed for a student with a disability who does not qualify for Special Education services. The 504 plan will identify individualized strategies to be implemented to facilitate academic success. RCA confirms in its application that the Brookings-Harbor School District, as required by statute, will provide all Special Education Services for all students enrolled RCA. The details of that service delivery will be established in an annual Memorandum of Understanding. RCA states that staff will attend all professional development provided by Brookings-Harbor School District related to Special Educational identification and referral, modifications and accommodations, discipline, attendance, reporting, communication with parents, and the charter school’s role on the IEP team. (h) Whether there are Applicable to conversion schools only alternative arrangements for Alternative arrangements for staff or students who choose not to students and for teachers be in the public charter school is evidenced by a detailed plan and other school employees that addresses the needs of each group and does not create an who choose not to attend or adverse impact or violate the rights of an individual. who choose not to be employed by the public charter school Meets Does Not Meet Explain rationale for rating: N/A

Attachment B Oregon Department of Education 2012 ORS 338.055(2) 46