Memorandum Date: February 5, 2015 To: Ms. Hosanna Mahaley

Transcription

Memorandum
Date: February 5, 2015
To:
Ms. Hosanna Mahaley Jones
Executive Director
Illinois State Charter School Commission
VIA EMAIL: state.charter.commission@illinois.gov
From: Greg White
President and CEO
LEARN Charter School Network
Re:
Appeal of the Waukegan Community School District No. 60 Denial of the LEARN
Charter School Application
LEARN Charter School Network, an Illinois 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, is a proven
provider of K-8 college preparatory education for traditionally underserved students, enrolling
primarily minority and low-income children. Our first school opened in 2001, and we now
operate eight elementary and middle schools in the Chicago area, including in the city of North
Chicago. During the summer and fall of 2014, we conducted analysis and outreach to identify
school districts in which to submit charter applications in order to extend our successful model to
more Illinois children. The results of our analysis demonstrated a need for additional high quality
school options in Waukegan Community Unit School District No. 60.
On November 14, 2014, our design team filed our application to open a Waukegan campus of the
LEARN Charter School with the Waukegan Community Unit School District No. 60 (WCUSD
or District). A complete set of the materials submitted to the District is submitted as Attachment
2 of this appeal. On January 6, 2015, based on the recommendation of the District
administration, the WCUSD Board of Education voted to deny our application.
In review of the WCUSD Resolution Concerning Application of LEARN Charter School
(―Resolution,” see Attachment 3B) and the Administrative Summary and Recommendations for
the LEARN Charter School Application (―Administrative Summary and Recommendations,‖ see
Attachment 3C), we believe that the rationale presented by WCUSD is insufficient to deny our
charter school application. Rather, we believe LEARN has presented a compelling and robust
application to open a charter school in Waukegan that complies with requirements of the Illinois
Charter Schools Law and that based on LEARN‘s academic and organizational track record of
success and the strong demand in the community for high-quality educational choice, and
specifically for LEARN Charter School-Waukegan, demonstrates that a school established by
1
LEARN in Waukegan would be in the best interests of the students we intend to serve. In
addition to our strong track record for raising student achievement and sending our graduates to
college, LEARN has demonstrated that it has the capacity and sound fiscal infrastructure to
support expansion to the Waukegan community. For these reasons, and for those described in
this appeal, LEARN requests that the Commission grant LEARN‘s charter on appeal. Pursuant
to the Illinois Charter School Law, we therefore submit this memorandum to the Illinois State
Charter School Commission (ISCSC) requesting authorization on appeal.
At the same time, we remain open to authorization by the WCUSD Board of Education.
Throughout the process, we have worked in a spirit of collaboration, seeking to partner with the
District in order to help raise student achievement for Waukegan students. Following the District
vote, we reached out to Superintendent Batiste to reiterate our continued interest in working with
WCUSD and to ask how LEARN could modify our charter application to gain the Board‘s
approval, while simultaneously entering the appeal process. In this Memorandum and its
attachments, we have attempted to address the concerns the District raised during the
authorization process.
New Information Request
On appeal, we respectfully request that the Commission, in its discretion, accept some new
information included within this Memorandum and its attachments that we have included for the
following reasons: (1) to address or respond to district concerns, (2) to provide support for our
appeal, or (3) to provide updates or modifications to relevant areas of our application, based on
progress since the original application was submitted in November 2014.
This new information includes, but is not limited to, an update on our identification of LEARN‘s
preferred choice for a facility to house LEARN Charter School-Waukegan, additional finance
information, additional curriculum documents, elaboration of our plans for serving English
learners, plans for assuming the responsibility of becoming a Local Education Agency (LEA) if
approved on appeal and a related budget, and new letters of support. We have included all new
documents in Attachment 5.
In addition, we have included the following documents from WCUSD in Attachment 3: board
minutes from the December 2014 public hearing, the WCUSD Resolution and the Administrative
Summary and Recommendations. In Attachment 4, we include documents and correspondence
that have been exchanged between LEARN and WCUSD during the course of the application
and authorization process. Please see the Table of Contents for a full list of attachments.
Please see the Table of Contents for a full list of attachments. We will be happy to provide
additional information about our charter application, authorization process or appeal application,
as needed. We thank you very much for your time and consideration.
2
INTRODUCTION
Background on LEARN
The first LEARN school opened in 2001 in North Lawndale, and we now operate eight
elementary and middle schools in the Chicago area, including in the city of North Chicago. Of
the 3,600 students currently enrolled in our schools, 89% are low-income, 89% are African
American, and 9% are Hispanic.
We believe that students‘ racial, ethnic or economic backgrounds should not predict their
academic achievement, and our academic results bear out this belief. LEARN‘s black, Hispanic,
low-income and limited English proficient students are all outperforming the state average for
their peers in their respective subgroups.
Our most important outcomes are those that are directly aligned to our mission as a college
preparatory elementary school: high school success and college enrollment. To ensure that we
are achieving these outcomes, we track LEARN alumni throughout high school and college. Our
results to date are strong: 95% of LEARN alumni graduate from high school, and 95% of
LEARN alumni attend college, with 71% enrolling in 4-year colleges or universities and 24%
enrolling first in 2-year colleges.
LEARN seeks to expand its successful model to other communities to provide more
economically disadvantaged children with the ambition and skills needed for college success.
We identified Waukegan as a community that could benefit from our model because of its lowincome population, the fact that low-income, Hispanic and African-Americanchildren in many
schools performed below state averages for those subgroups, and the fact that it does not yet
have a charter school.
Waukegan Needs More High Quality Educational Options Serving Its At-Risk Students
We had hoped to partner with WCUSD in creating a K-8 school that provides a new, highquality option for families while also accelerating student achievement for the district as a whole.
WCUSD serves 16,000 students of whom 77% are Hispanic, 16% are African American, and 4%
are Caucasian. As described in the original LEARN Charter Application, pp. 9-15, student
achievement varies across the 20 elementary and middle schools in Waukegan. While several
District elementary schools are performing well, including two elementary schools of choice
(Cooke Magnet and Little Fort, which houses a gifted program), the majority are performing
below – in many cases far below – state averages for Hispanic, low-income and black students in
reading and math. In the Attachment 5C, we include an updated chart showing 2014 ISAT data
for LEARN and WCUSD in comparison to state averages for these subgroups. As in 2013, for
the subgroups listed above, in 2014 LEARN outperformed the state average for each, while
WCUSD performed below state averages.
3
At the high school level, while the four-year graduation rate had risen to 76% in 2014; only 29%
of students met or exceeded standards on the Prairie State Achievement Test and only 18% met
the ―college-ready‖ benchmark of 21 on the ACT. While WCUSD schools are clearly working
for some of their students, the data suggest that the educational potential of many students,
particularly the most vulnerable, is not being met.
After identifying Waukegan as a district whose needs LEARN was well-positioned to address,
LEARN reached out to Superintendent Batiste, along with other WCUSD officials to share and
seek feedback on LEARN‘s plans for a charter school in the district. We appreciated the
willingness of WCUSD administration to meet with us, share questions regarding the LEARN
application, and address other requests, such as for space at Waukegan High School to provide
childcare during board meetings. We continued to reach out to the district throughout the
application process.
We also sought input from Waukegan residents and local organizations in order to further assess
the level of interest in a Waukegan campus of LEARN Charter School. The outreach included a
series of meetings with local individuals and organizations, canvassing in September and
October 2014 and an Open House for Waukegan families on October 7, 2014.
Waukegan Families Want To See LEARN-Waukegan Open
Through our outreach efforts, it became clear that Waukegan families support the expansion of
LEARN Charter School Network to their community and are excited about the possibilities it
will bring to their children and the district. LEARN submitted the signatures of more than 1,300
supporters with its application. In addition, we submitted 145 intent to enroll forms, including
61 from parents who have children who will be in Kindergarten through 3rd grade, the grades of
LEARN‘s planned opening, in Fall 2015.
On December 10, 2014, 49 LEARN supporters attended the WCUSD Public Hearing for the
LEARN Charter Application, including 20 individuals who delivered public comment in support
of the LEARN Charter Application. Twenty individuals, including Waukegan residents, spoke in
support of LEARN. In addition, one person who spoke was neutral and no one spoke in
opposition. We believe that the lack of opposition at the Waukegan public hearing speaks
volumes to the desire of another high quality option in this community.
In addition, eleven LEARN supporters spoke at the Board Vote and no one spoke in opposition.
We will be conducting additional outreach to Waukegan parents in the coming months and
anticipate submitting additional signatures of support and intent to enroll forms.
Post-Decision Activity
LEARN submitted two potential locations in the original proposal to the WCUSD. Subsequent
to this, two additional building were identified. If successful on appeal, LEARN expects that it
will locate LEARN-Waukegan in the most viable option, which is located on 800 S. Genesee
Street, Waukegan, Illinois. The building requires nominal capital investment and the owner
4
expressed a desire to lease to LEARN. The location of the facility is about 10 blocks south of
the downtown area on the southwest corner of S. Genesee Street and Eighth Street, and between
Utica Street and S. Genesee Street. This facility is a two story building with about 32,000 square
foot of space which will accommodate the growth expectations of LEARN. There are 30+
classrooms, a full gym, cafeteria, offices and other space needed for the school. The facility is
less than 11 years old as it was built in 2005 and is in excellent condition. Minimal work will be
required in order to start using the space for classes. Because of this, the investment for LEARN
would be minimal as the classrooms are already set up in the structure required. There is an
entrance drive that is one-way that would allow for smooth traffic flow. Please see Attachment
5D, ―Photos of Preferred Facility.‖
In addition, LEARN is investigating the possibility of opening the new school in the downtown
Waukegan corridor at 202 N. Genesee Street. This building is a two-story, 37,000 square foot
space already outfitted with environmental control units and an elevator. The property has ample
space for traffic control and the building is large enough to accommodate LEARN's maximum
projected enrollment. Because the facility is relatively new and is an open, unfinished space on
the inside, it can be refurbished to house a school more quickly than the buildings under
consideration when we submitted our proposal. Construction would proceed in phases and be
segregated from school activities.
I.
Procedural Background: Application and Authorization Timeline
As described above, from the beginning, LEARN has committed to working with WCUSD in
partnership to expand LEARN to the Waukegan community and has made consistent efforts to
keep the lines of communication with district leaders open. For this reason, we were greatly
disappointed that this spirit of openness and collaboration did not extend to a discussion
regarding specific district concerns and how we might amend our application to gain district
approval. A timeline of key events and communications in the charter application and
authorization process follows.
Timeframe
Activity
June 2014
LEARN contracted the Illinois Network of Charter Schools (INCS) to
assist with community identification, outreach and charter application
development for one or more new LEARN campuses.
Summer 2014
INCS conducted data analysis and community assets and needs
assessments.Waukegan identified as a potential community.
Initial outreach to Dr. Batiste to request a meeting.
September 3, 2014
LEARN met with WCUSD Superintendent, Dr. Batiste, his staff and
board member Michael Rodriguez to inform them of our interest in
opening a campus in the district.
5
September 12, 2014
Dr. Batiste followed up via email with LEARN and expressed
questions and concerns for LEARN expanding to Waukegan.
October 2, 2014
Waukegan teachers‘ strike begins.
October 30, 2014
Waukegan teachers‘ strike ends.
November 5, 2014
LEARN President and CEO, Greg White, sends Dr. Batiste an email
after strike resolves identifying next steps.
November 6, 2014
LEARN sends presentation to Dr. Batiste providing an overview of
LEARN‘s plans, including financial projections.
November 14, 2014
LEARN submits application to WCUSD and sends thumb drive
containing the application via standard mail.
November 20, 2014
Letter from WCUSD arrives informing LEARN that they received the
application on 11/17/2014.
November 24, 2014
WCUSD School Board Member, Don Elliot, visits LEARN North
Chicago campus and meets with LEARN‘s Principal (Kelly Tyson).
November 26, 2014
LEARN sends WCUSD an email requesting a meeting regarding
proposal and expressed an openness to making adjustments to original
plan if feedback is provided. Meeting is scheduled for December 3,
2014.
December 2, 2014
Informed via email by Dr. Batiste that public hearing will be on
December 10, 2014.
December 3, 2014
LEARN leadership team meets with Superintendent Dr. Batiste and
staff. Dr. Batiste and Dr. Lamping provide LEARN with a list of
questions regarding proposal. Dr. Batiste explains that the
administration will incorporate LEARN‘s responses to the questions
into the evaluation of the charter application. Meeting was geared
towards reviewing the questions provided; no direct discussion of
district concerns or how LEARN could modify plans to address
concerns. LEARN was informed that Board Vote would take place on
January 6, 2015.
December 4, 2014
LEARN invites all current WCUSD School Board Members via email
to visit LEARN North Chicago.
6
December 5, 2014
LEARN North Chicago Principal, Kelly Tyson, informs LEARN
Leadership team that several principals and the assistant
superintendent from WCUSD visited LEARN North Chicago earlier
that day.
December 10, 2014
LEARN submits answers to WCUSD questions in the morning.
Public Hearing for charter application held at 6pm at Waukegan High
School – Brookside Campus. (WCUSD Parent Teacher Conferences
held concurrently.)
LEARN CEO Greg White reiterates that LEARN is open to modifying
its charter application based on district feedback.
December 17, 2014
LEARN submits changes to contract based on feedback from the
public hearing.
January 5, 2015
LEARN President and CEO, Greg White, reaches out to Dr. Lamping
and Dr. Batiste to inquire if they or the school board has any further
questions regarding proposal.
January 6, 2015
WCUSD votes 5 to 2 to deny LEARN Charter School Network
application to expand to Waukegan. School Board members Ms. Cheri
Pierson-White and Mrs. Victoria Torres vote against district resolution.
Mr. Don Elliott states that he hopes LEARN will consider reapplying
in the future.
January 14, 2015
LEARN receives electronic copy of WCUSD Administrative Summary
and Recommendations for the LEARN Charter School Application
(January 6, 2015), highlighting the reasons for denial; a hard copy was
received shortly thereafter.
II.
Reasons for the WCUSD Denial of the LEARN Charter School Application and
Rationale for Reversing the Decision
In the Resolution (Attachment 3B), the WCUSD Board of Education describes the reasons for its
denial of the LEARN Charter School application as follows:
1. Failure to demonstrate ―a high or sufficient level of local support‖ for the proposal.
2. An adverse financial impact on the district of the charter school, as proposed.
3. ―Flaws and gaps‖ in the educational program, including with respect to special education,
transportation, English learners, the technology curriculum, culture and climate, and
7
―lack of significant achievement at North Chicago in comparison to comparable District
schools.‖
4. Flaws in the charter‘s organizational plan, especially related to LEARN‘s ability to
equitably serve students and families in the diverse Waukegan community.
5. Concerns regarding terms of the proposed charter agreement submitted as part of the
LEARN application.
The Illinois Charter Schools Law provides that a district‘s decision should be reversed where
there is a sufficient showing that the application on appeal complies with the law and that the
school established would be in the best interests of the students LEARN intends to serve. We
believe that the reasons above do not support denial of LEARN‘s charter proposal.
First, LEARN amply demonstrated that it had a high level of support within the Waukegan
community for its proposal to open a new K-8 school. As indicated above and in its original
proposal, LEARN not only submitted the signatures showing support from over 1,300 people in
the area, we submitted 145 intent to enroll forms. This is precisely the type of evidence that is
normally accepted as evidence of local support for a charter school proposal.
Second, neither the District‘s Resolution nor its Administrative Summary and Recommendations
document provides substantial evidence illustrating the type of adverse financial impact on
WCUSD that would warrant denying families the opportunity to attend LEARN-Waukegan.
Below, LEARN responds in details to concerns the District raises about LEARN‘s financial
condition. In addition, on appeal, LEARN presents information showing that establishment of
our school in Waukegan will not have a material adverse economic impact on its financial
condition.
Third, we believe that our initial proposal, as well as the additional information we ask to present
on appeal fully demonstrates that LEARN stands ready to serve at-risk students in WCUSD and
to do what it has been able to do in its other schools: raise student achievement over time and
send our graduates to college.
Fourth, LEARN is committed to serving families in the Waukegan community and as this appeal
demonstrates, it is prepared to dedicate the resources necessary to do so. LEARN believes that
its original application, which proposed a partnership with the District in serving students, was
well-suited to meet the diverse needs of the students who will attend our school. If authorized by
the Commission, LEARN is prepared to make the transition to a single-charter LEA and meet all
legal and regulatory requirements for serving students with diverse learning needs. LEARN has
already demonstrated its ability to adapt when it expanded from Chicago to North Chicago.
8
Finally, none of the concerns identified in the District‘s Administrative Summary and
Recommendations about LEARN‘s proposed charter agreement show inconsistencies with the
Law or serve as a legal basis to deny the charter application. Moreover, the proposed charter
agreement was included with LEARN‘s application as a draft and was intended to initiate
dialogue around the terms of the relationship between LEARN and the District. As a whole,
LEARN‘s application on appeal complies with the Illinois Charter Schools Law and the school
LEARN intends to open would be in the best interest of the students LEARN has demonstrated it
is ready to serve.
The Resolution was developed based on The Administrative Summary and Recommendations for
the LEARN Charter School Application (Attachment 3C; hereafter ―Administrative Summary and
Recommendations”), which lays out administrative concerns in greater detail. The
Administrative Summary and Recommendations states that the District used the Evaluation
Rubric for Charter Proposals On Appeal to the Commission prepared by the Illinois State
Charter School Commission as a guideline for their analysis, and divided their analysis into the
following three sections: (A) Financial, (B) Educational and (C) Organization.
In this section of the appeal, we respond to each of the District‘s reasons for denial, in the order
in which they appear in the Administrative Summary and Recommendations. Excerpts from this
document appear in gray text boxes.
A. Financial Analysis
Administrative Summary and Recommendations, p. 4-5
1. The terms of the charter, as proposed, cannot be validated as fiscally viable.
As an initial matter, the fiscal viability of Lawndale Educational and Regional Network Charter School
(LEARN) to succeed in the long term raises concerns. One commonly used indicator used to assess
fiscal viability is the year end fund balance, also known as change in net assets, as noted on the school's
audited financial statement. The year-end fund balance is the amount of money reported when actual
expenses are subtracted from revenues. It is reported as the "change in net assets" in LEARN's audited
statement of activities. According to the school's Statement of Activities for Year Ended June 30, 2012,
the year end fund balance was negative indicating a deficit for that fiscal year after the other changes in
net assets were applied.
Additionally, LEARN'S current ratio fell below the commonly accepted threshold of 2.0. The current
ratio is a measure of liquidity. The formula for calculating the current ratio is Current Assets/Current
Liabilities. This formula assesses the ability of a school to meet its current obligations as they come due
by indicating whether the organization has enough cash and other liquid resources to meet its obligation in
the near term. LEARN's current ratio using information on the Balance Sheet of the school's audited
financial statement ending June 30, 2012, was 1.91. which is slightly below the norm of 2.0.
9
Copies of the audited reports for years ending June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2014, were not submitted;
therefore, WCUSD #60 is unable to fully assess and/or support a positive view of LEARN's fiscal
sustainability based upon current audit reports. The omission of the Fiscal Year 2013 Audited Financial
Statement raises multiple questions: 1) did expenditures exceed revenues even more so in FY13 than
they did in FY12? Did the fund balances for the year decline even further? Is a negative trend
developing? 2) Has an Audited Financial Report even been completed? A failure to provide accurate and
current financial data suggests sub-standard accounting/reporting practices, and leaves much to question
about the organization's financial status.
LEARN Response:
First, as stated in our charter proposal and reiterated in our response to the LEARN Network
Charter School Proposal Review Questions (see Attachment 4B), LEARN has a history of
financial health, including operating within our annual budget and exceeding fundraising targets.
Our strong financial track record was highlighted in a 2014 report by The Civic Federation, The
Financial Viability of Chicago Charter Schools: Financial Analysis of Selected Chicago Charter
Schools.1 The report indicated that LEARN Charter School Network had strong fiscal health
during fiscal years 2007-2011, with 12 positive indicators, 1 adequate indicator and no negative
indicators. With respect to the specific points of the WCUSD analysis above of LEARN‘s
financial health in FY2012-14, we provide the following responses:
1) Contrary to the analysis above, LEARN‘s year end fund balance for the year ending June
30, 2012 was not negative, but was in fact $7.9M (page 2 of the 2012 Audit; Statement
of Financial Position as of June 30, 2012 found in the Appendix U of the original charter
application (see Appendix U within Attachment 2C). The change in net assets calculated
by the 2011-12 Audited Financial Statement (AFS) was a positive $450k before a noncash change in the fair value of the SWAP account was deducted.
2) When we submitted the charter application on November 14, 2014, LEARN's 2014 AFS
had not been completed. LEARN intended to submit the 2013 AFS as part of the charter
application. The 2013 and 2014 audited financial reports are included here as
Attachments 5F and 5G, respectively.
3) Our current ratio as of January 31, 2015 is 2.16. Our current assets are $14.8 million
and our current liabilities are $6.8 million.
2. The terms of the charter, as proposed, did not present realistic, evidence-based revenue and
1
The Civic Federation, "The Financial Viability of Chicago Charter Schools: Financial Analysis of Selected Chicago Charter
Schools," October 2014, http://www.civicfed.org/sites/default/files/REPORT_FinancialAnalysisOfChicagoCharterSchools.pdf
(accessed November 12, 2014)
10
expenditure assumptions, including any plan to incur and repay debt
A review of the budget projections for the proposed charter school does little to alleviate
concerns related to LEARN's financial and management viability. The budget projections, as set
forth in the Budget Narrative and Financial Schedule of the application, were incomplete. It
appears that in preparing the budget projections, LEARN relied upon historical revenue
commitments as a means of estimating future funding of the school, rather than providing
evidence of all current or prospective business and for foundation partners' levels of
engagement. It is quite troubling that the application did not show a commitment from its
parent organization for $500,000 for Year 0, as noted on page 3, line 36 of the Budget Narrative;
but rather, was referred to as an "assumption". On page 61of the same application, it is stated
that the school's board has fully approved a significant multi-year commitment to be used
towards start-up and capital expenditures; but, evidence of such commitment is not included in
the application (e.g. board minutes). Also, the budget narrative or financial schedule fails to
include contributions from the Board beyond Year 0. " At the December 10, 2014 Board meeting,
LEARN leadership explained that they fully expect to receive needed revenue by loans,
contributions, donations and raising; but again, failed to provide evidence of firm
commitments. Rather, LEARN spoke in general terms of optimistic plans to gain required
funding. LEARN needs to provide greater assurance of the availability of funds. Otherwise,
there is a significant risk that LEARN will lack the funds necessary to open its doors to
students next year or will begin the year only after making significant fiscal cuts that will
negatively impact its ability to achieve its stated goals. It is important to note that if a loan is
needed, a debt repayment plan was not included in the application.
The proposed contract does not take into consideration the costs of services that the District
is required to provide to students who attend the Charter school, where such services are
not provided by the charter school. For example, the District would be required to provide
transportation to eligible students. The associated cost borne by the District to provide
these services can and must be factored into the PCTC. LEARN transferred the sole
responsibility of providing transportation services for their students to the District. This
transfer may increase the District's transportation budget by approximately $340,000.
During the public meeting, LEARN representatives responded to the District's
Transportation Director's estimate, acknowledging that the figure was high and stating
LEARN's willingness to work with the District to find an acceptable solution. Nonetheless,
the District's analysis must rest on the program information provided. Without details about
the residence of enrolled students or the particular needs of those students, WCUSD must
assume that LEARN will draw students from all of Waukegan, and not just the neighborhood
adjacent to its facility. Given the size of WCUSD, planned school day and school year, and the
impact of hazardous routes, 504 plans and IEPs, the District is unable to identify any fallacy
in its transportation cost estimate. LEARN's school day is a non-traditional day and it is
unlikely to fall within the transportation tiers and school schedule options within the
District.
Equally as concerning, LEARN relied on the presumption of transference of food service and
qualifications, based upon past practice. Each school must file as a separate entity with the
Illinois State Board of Education as a School Food Authority. Furthermore, an application
and qualification in the Community Eligibility Program is required. Lastly, the individual site
must meet the Lake County Health Department regulations to provide meal service to
11
students. The application did not include a food service plan; but instead, stated that they
would seek National School Lunch Program funding. Although LEARN does not expect any
monetary or material contribution(s) from the District, it fails to address how it would pay
for staff or any other cost that is not covered by the National School Lunch Program. What
about breakfast? What about food service workers? What about food service equipment?
None of this was addressed and/or explained in detail. In essence, the application failed to
include a sufficient food service plan. Despite having no budgetary expectation of food servic,
WCUSD knows, through example and effort, that providing food service to students in our
community is essential. Hence, WCUSD offers breakfast and lunch services to a large
percentage of its students. The socioeconomic conditions of our households cannot
financially support an unsubsidized food service program, and the students need nutritional
support to learn. Thus, for example, if the District chose to transfer 100% of the PCTC to
LEARN, this sum would be offset by the costs associated with any food service program
provided by the District.
The proposed agreement also reveals that LEARN seeks to avoid assuming costs associated with
providing special education and related services. The proposed agreement indicates that, at
LEARN's election, the District will reimburse the charter school for the salary and benefits of
special education teachers and other related services, including Occupational Therapy (OT/PT),
Psychology (Psych) and Speech Pathology (Speech). The application fails to address who will bear
the burden of providing other resources, including assistive technologies, to special education
needs students. Notably, cost associated with this presumption is not reflected in the budget
narrative or on the financial schedule. Yet, these tremendous cost allocations have found their
way into the proposed agreement as a District expense.
To fully appreciate the impact of this demand, the Board of Education must consider that the
District expended $28.96 million in FY14 in order to provide special education and related
services to resident students with special needs. If it is assumed that a proportionate number of
special education students would enroll in the charter school and that the costs for providing
special education and related services to these students would likewise be on a proportionate
basis; then, nearly 5.77% of the total costs for educating these special needs students at the
charter school would approximate $1.05 million. See chart below:
12
When adjusting the budget to reflect the terms of the proposed agreement, a
greater surplus is generated. This is because the terms of the proposed
agreement would require the District to fund the charter school well in excess of
that mandated by law. Consequently, then, if the District entered into the
agreement with LEARN, it would be allocating more resources to the 600
students attending the charter school on a per pupil basis than the District
would be allocating to the 16,000+ students who are not admitted into the
charter school. See chart below:
13
LEARN Response:
LEARN will not incur any debt in opening the Waukegan campus. In developing our Budget
Narrative and Financial Schedule, LEARN included a beginning fund balance of $500,000
from LEARN Charter School Network. At the time of our application, the board had
discussed and agreed to a commitment of $500,000 in Year 0, as indicated in the budget
narrative. The board has since formally voted to authorize up to $1,000,000 for startup of
LEARN Waukegan. See LEARN Network Board Resolution re: Startup Funds, Attachment
5E.
In addition, LEARN has secured commitments from five donors for the startup of new
campuses as shown in the chart below.
14
LEARN Future Funding Updated 1.20.15
Donor
Anonymous Individual
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
1,000,000
1,000,000
CSGF Grant
414,000
345,000
636,000
636,000
CSGF Loan
200,000
400,000
400,000
400,000
Crown Family Philanthropies
100,000
100,000
Winnetka Family Partnership
177,000
177,000
Walton Family Foundation (Contingent)
200,000
200,000
400,000
400,000
400,000
$2,091,000
$2,222,000
$1,436,000
$1,436,000
$1,036,000
Charter School Growth Fund
TOTAL COMMITTED FUNDRAISING COMBINED
636,000
Transportation: LEARN requested in our charter application that the district provide
transportation for students attending the charter school who reside at least 1.5 miles from
the campus within WCUSD, based on our understanding of 105 ILCS 5/29-4. The Illinois
Charter School Law, 105 ILCS 5/27A-11(b) also states that a charter and school district
may negotiate for the provision of services provided by the school district, including
transportation, rent, food services (and other services). It is LEARN‘s understanding that
districts receive reimbursement for transportation costs from the state for eligible students.
This is an area in which LEARN expressed openness to negotiation at the WCUSD public
hearing. We do not intend to create unreasonable costs for the district with respect to
transportation and remain open to negotiations in this area.
If we are authorized on appeal as an independent LEA, we understand that LEARN will
assume full responsibility for transportation of students. In our draft LEA budget, we
present transportation costs based on the following assumptions:
a. In response to Waukegan‘s concern about transportation expenses, we included both
transportation revenue and expense in the revised budget. To determine the
appropriate transportation revenue and expense assumptions we use the Waukegan
FY15 budget as posted on the ISBE website. This budget showed that the
Waukegan School District received approximately $4.6 million in transportation
revenue.
b. The Waukegan school district has approximately 16,000 students. Therefore the
average transportation revenue per pupil is approximately $287. Likewise, the
district‘s transportation expense was projected to be $8.8 million or $551 per pupil.
We used these revenue and expense assumptions in building our revised budget in
order to best mirror the district.
Please see Attachment 5A for a description of our transportation plan as an LEA.
Food Services: In response to Waukegan‘s concern about the absence of food service
assumptions in the original budget, we have included them in the revised version. We took a
similar approach to determining food service revenue and expense as we used for the
transportation assumptions. The district FY15 budget projects food service revenue and expense
to be approximately $6.4 million and $6.6 million respectively for about 16,000 students. As
such, the per pupil revenue and expense is approximately $399 and $411 respectively. We used
15
these revenue and expense assumptions in building our revised budget in order to best mirror the
district.
With respect to our Food Service plan, as indicated in our charter proposal, LEARN is already an
approved Community Eligibility Program (CEP) school which allows us to provide free breakfast
and lunch to the schools as long as the network continues to meet the threshold of at least 40% of
students qualifying for free or reduced-price meals. Given the socioeconomic makeup of Waukegan
schools, we fully anticipate meeting this threshold. Our current food service provider, Food Service
Professional, handles serving breakfast and lunch for all schools, provides all of the equipment and
labor required and submits all of the necessary paperwork to ISBE for reimbursement. This is done at
no cost to LEARN and, therefore, no additional cost to the District. Should expenses exceed revenue
for Food Service in Waukegan, we believe the revised figures presented above will provide sufficient
cushion to address this.
Special Education Funding: The Illinois Charter School law states:
Notwithstanding subsection (b) of this Section [105 ILCS 5/27A-11, “Local Financing”]
the proportionate share of State and federal resources generated by students with
disabilities or staff serving them shall be directed to charter schools enrolling those
students by their school districts or administrative units. The proportionate share of
moneys generated under other federal or State categorical programs shall be directed to
charter schools serving students eligible for that aid. (105 ILCS 5/27A-11(c))
In Chicago, LEARN has received funding for special education staff above and beyond the
authorizing district‘s per pupil funding to the charter, based on the number of students with IEPs
and the specific requirements therein. In addition, we have received related services directly
from the district in both Chicago and North Chicago. We are open to negotiation with the
District if, for example, the district prefers to provide district special education staff to LEARN
Charter School, or if the district wishes to negotiate a different reimbursement rate for special
education staff, proportionally based on the special education funding they receive from the state
and federal government.
We disagree, however, with the district‘s analysis which factors special education and federal
categorical funding (Title I & II) into the per capita tuition charge (PCTC). As quoted above,
State and federal funding or services for students with disabilities and categorical funding are
separate from the PCTC. The PCTC is meant to approximate the cost to educate a general
education student within the district, and therefore does not include state or federal revenue for
students with disabilities or other categorical programs. As such, the per pupil costs transferred
to the charter school will exceed 100% of the PCTC if the charter enrolls a representative
percentage of students with disabilities and low-income students (as we expect to do), as
anticipated in the Illinois Charter School Law.
16
In response to the Waukegan concern related to special education revenue and expenditures, and
to project LEARN‘s revenue should it be authorized by the Commission, we modified our
assumptions related to special education revenue. To estimate the special education revenue, we
used Prairie Crossing Charter School as a reference point. Prairie Crossing‘s SPED population is
approximately 13% which is close to the Waukegan district average. Prairie Crossing received
special education funding in three revenue streams, SPED Personnel, Funding for Children
Requiring SPED Services and IDEA funding. The amount Prairie Crossing receives per special
education pupil is $1288 for SPED Personnel, $984 per special education student for Funding for
Children Requiring SPED Services, and $1201 per special education student for IDEA funding.
We prepared the revised budget utilizing these rates and assuming that the proposed school‘s
special education population would be 15% of the total enrollment.
3. The terms of the charter, as proposed, did not present viable strategies for meeting
potential budget and cash flow challenges, particularly for the first year of operation.
The proposed contract included a zero plus five year budget with assumptions, including
strategies for meeting the potential budget; however, it is concerning that 100% of the first year
revenue does not include evidence of commitment. LEARN asserts that loans and donations will
be granted/awarded in time to support start-u p costs. There is no way for WCUSD to determine
if the timing of cash receipts will support operational timelines, particularly in Year 0.
Equally as concerning is that the budget, as presented, has an approximate projected ending fund balance
in FY 2014/15 of twenty-four thousand dollars ($24,000), including a seventy-five thousand dollar
($75,000) contingency. This is concerning because the proposed application does not include a capital
improvement plan. There is a flat $750,000 allocation for initial outlay improvement in the budget for
Year 0. WCUSD cannot determine if this is sufficient since it is not uncommon for construction
projections to have cost over-runs due to unforeseen expenses, particularly where, as here, the
construction projects involve remodeling and conversion of existing sites to current building code and
educational purposes. The school asserts that they will negotiate with a contractor to assume total liability
for all cost that exceed the budgeted amount. While facially responsive, this approach merely requires the
participating contractors to build a contingency for risks and extras into the bid and may promote building
cost inflation. WCUSD has no means of assessing whether the projected budget for construction is viable
since the plan is not included, no actual bidding and contracting has occurred and the application does not
state that the Lake County Regional Office (ROE) and the City of Waukegan have reviewed or approved
either of the proposed building for educational purposes with or without significant structural and facility
modification(s).
LEARN Response:
As stated above, the LEARN board has committed $1,000,000 toward startup costs for the
Waukegan campus and LEARN has secured commitments from five donors for amounts listed
17
in the above chart, ―LEARN Future Funding Updated 1.20.15.‖
Facilities Funding: LEARN has built or remodeled four campuses for a total investment of over
$30 million dollars over the last decade. In negotiating the contracts, we have included a
contingency amount as well as a financial incentive to encourage the General Contractor (GC) to
complete the project on time and within budget. In addition, LEARN has hired a construction
manager to make sure the finances remain sound throughout the project. This process will
continue for any future construction projects including Waukegan.
4. The terms of the charter, as proposed, are not economically sound for the school District and
will, instead impose a financial hardship upon the District.
Section 27A - 7(a)(9) requires that the applicant present"[e}vidence that the terms of the
charter as proposed are economically sound for both the charter and the school district."
105 ILCS 5/27A-7(a)(9). A key term in any charter school proposal is the funding that the
school expects to receive from the school district in the form of PCTC and proportionate
categorical funds. In drafting section 27A-7(a)(9), the legislature understood the funding
specifics of a charter school proposal could affect the financial condition of both the charter
school and the district. Thus, the terms of the proposed charter must leave both the charter
school and district financially secure and solvent. Comprehensive Community Solution, Inc. v.
Rockford School District No. 205, 216 Ill. 2d 455 (2005).
The District stands to lose in excess of $22.7 million over 6 years if the charter is granted and
LEARN enrolls 600 of the District's students in its program. This loss of revenue would be
realized even if the District takes into consideration the elimination of costs that otherwise would
be incurred by the District if the 600 students were educated at the District.
The proposal is not revenue neutral; nor will it become so even if LEARN retracts its request for
transportation and other supplemental contributions. Simply stated, the charter school would
drain much needed revenue from the District inasmuch as the District as a significant
investment in facilities and other long-term commitments, such as collective bargaining
agreements, which must be supported with the available revenues received by the District.
Siphoning off revenue from the District to pay the operational costs of the charter school
significantly impairs the District's ability to pay its fixed overhead and other operational costs.
LEARN proposes to enroll 600 resident students (i.e., 3.5% of the District's approximate student
population of 17,000 students) at an amount that equates to at least 88% of the District's
Education Fund revenue per pupil. However, LEARN does not shoulder the fixed costs, which are
incurred by the District as a result of its historical level of enrollment. Consider the following:
The District's outstanding long-term debt is $49,614,088- which, if reallocated on a proportionate
basis to LEARN (i.e., 3.5%), would be lessened by $1,736,493. The District's total future debt service
payments of principal and interest amount to $91,652,060- which, if reallocated on a
18
proportionate basis to LEARN (i.e., 3.5%), would be lessened by $3,207,822. However, there is no
provision in the law to apportion the debt as with the revenues. Consequently, LEARN would be
taking revenues but not the debt that has accumulated for students who are enrolled in the District.
The reduction in revenues would leave the District ill prepared to continue to pay fixed costs that
have developed over prior years.
In addition, there will be an adverse impact on the District's current educational initiatives,
including one-on-one technology for students. The District has currently committed nea rly $1.9
million to purchase needed IPADS and other hardware to support this initiative. The District's
ability to sustain the base commitment and to fund predictable cost increases for developments in
one-on-one student technology will be dangerously impaired if funds are taken from the District.
At 100% per-capita funding, the District would encounter a net revenue loss of
$22,797,000 over a six-year period using the information, as presented in LEARN's proposal. It
is not possible for the District to sustain such a large reduction in revenue without making major
reductions in services. In order to pay for the charter, the District would add to its $49.6 million
long-term debt. The corresponding loss of revenues would only add to the difficulty and burden
of paying off this long-term debt.
If the District cuts programs to pay for the charter school, its other students would suffer. That is, to
balance the budget the District would have to eliminate non-essential programs and other services.
Vacant positions would be eliminated at the onset; but it is likely that the District would need to
execute a reduction-in-force to balance the budget, since 90% of costs are personnel-related and
program based. All schools will experience reductions and eliminations in enrichment programs,
which are not essential. Thus, the cuts will adversely affect the education of all students, particularly
those at academic watch list schools.
Complicating matters further is the fact that LEARN will not agree to cap the annual increase in
enrollment to the numbers specified in its application; although its financial projections are based
upon this assumption. As such, the District cannot properly plan an enrollment transition. If the
District loses students to LEARN, it would only be able to fully offset the loss of revenue if whole class
sections could be eliminated and if the personnel providing the educational services to these class
sections could be reduced. This is unlikely because the Charter School will draw its students from
across the District. Class section reductions at any particular elementary school are likely to be
minimal and collective bargaining agreements impose class size restrictions, precluding the
collapsing of sections by merger. In addition, reductions-in-force are governed by statute. If the
District does not have sufficient information regarding enrollment in the charter school in the early
spring of each year, the District may have to delay a reduction-in-force. The District may, therefore,
be unable to offset the loss of revenue. See chart below:
19
LEARN Response:
As of June 30, 2013, Waukegan School District was in a strong financial position. The district
had a fund balance of over $37 million which was significantly higher that the FY11 and FY12
fund balances of $33 million and $18 million respectively. Additionally, according to the 2013
School District Financial Profile, published by ISBE, Waukegan had $35,672,144, or 75 days,
cash on hand. It is important to note that this exceeds the standard set by the Commission for
charter renewal of 60 days cash on hand. Furthermore, according to the data found on ISBE‘s
2012 and 2011 School District Financial Profiles, both the total cash on hand and the days cash
on hand have trended positively over the past three years as demonstrated in the table below:
Year
Cash on Hand
Days Cash on Hand
2013
$ 35,672,144
75
2012
$ 31,294,176
70
2011
$ 19,932,646
46
20
In addition, per data found on ISBE‘s ILEARN website, Waukegan has been operating at a
surplus for each of the last three years:
Year
Revenue
Expense
Surplus/(Deficit)
2013
$ 216,238,494
$ 214,247,723
$ 1,990,762
2012
$ 190,435,541
$ 181,139,932
$ 9,304,609
2011
$ 192,711,624
$ 175,066,791
$ 17,644,833
The figures in the table above are important for several reasons:



The average surplus over the last three years is $9,646,735
Total revenue has grown by 12% between 2011 and 2013
Spending has grown by 22% over between 2011 and 2013
The annual surpluses combined with the revenue and expense growth demonstrate the
Waukegan‘s financial position is robust and suggest that should this trajectory continue,
Waukegan will continue to have strong financial performance during the course of the proposed
LEARN charter term.
LEARN will have a minimal impact on Waukegan‘s financial position. Using 100% of the FY13
PCTC published by ISBE and LEARN‘s proposed enrollment we note that even at full capacity,
LEARN‘s impact on the district is significantly less than Waukegan‘s average three year surplus
noted above.
Fiscal Year
Enrollment
PCTC
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
200
250
300
400
500
$ 2,026,400
$ 2,533,000
$ 3,039,600
$ 4,052,800
$ 5,066,000
Furthermore, LEARN‘s impact as a percentage of Waukegan‘s total budget, using the FY13
revenue from ISBE‘s ILEARN site, ranges from less than 1% in FY16 to slightly more than 2%
in FY20. In fact, the total PCTC over the proposed five year charter term is $16,717,800 which
represents less than 45% of Waukegan‘s 2013 fund balance. As such, the financial impact of the
proposed LEARN charter school leaves the district financially solvent.
21
It is important to note that in the 2011 case between the Board of Education of District 227 vs.
The Illinois State Board of Education, the Appellate Court made the following made the
following statement:
―While the parties do not dispute that the Southland proposal creates an adverse financial
impact on District 227‘s budget, both currently and over the course of the five-year
charter period Southland and the ISBE dispute District 227‘s claim of insolvency on
which the appeal is grounded Contrary to District 227‘s claim, the manifest weight of the
evidence presented to the ISBE, however, does not show that the reallocation of funding
for the establishment of the charter school and its continued existence over a five-year
period would financially imperil the entire school district.‖ Bd. Of Ed. Of Rich Township
H.S. Dist. 227 v. ISBE, 965 N.E.2d 13, 32 (1st Dist.) 2011.
Additionally, in the case of Comprehensive Community Solutions, the supreme court stated:
―To allow a local school board to deny a charter proposal because it may have an adverse
financial impact on the district‘s budget would defeat the purpose of the statute which is
to create choice and thus competition.‖ Comprehensive Community Solutions, 216 Ill 2d
at 475. Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc. v. Rockford School District No. 205, 216 Ill.
2d 455, 475 (2005).
Based on the analysis presented above, LEARN may have an ―adverse financial impact on the
district‘s budget‖ however, it would not ―financially imperil the entire school district.‖ As such
the establishment of the LEARN school in Waukegan is economically sound for the district.
B. Educational Analysis
1. The proposal fails to describe a coherent educational plan.
LEARN states that they believe that all children can excel when provided with a high-quality curriculum,
high-expectations, and engaging lessons tailored to their individual level, combined with individualized
support. They believe that they have selected from the best research-based programs and emphasize
project-based instruction that guides students to ask relevant, deep questions and apply their findings to
the real world.
In math and language arts, students receive small group instruction tailored to their instructional level or
their needs with respect to a specific skill or concept. Student progress is continually monitored and
students are regrouped or singled out for individual help from the classroom teacher or an Academic
Interventionist to ensure that all are appropriately challenged and supported. Those with special needs are
evaluated by an intervention team and provided with additional academic, health, and social/emotional
services.
22
This proposal fails to fully describe an educational program and curriculum that cover all required
subject areas demonstrating alignment with the New Illinois Learning Standards and fails to include
pupil performance standards. The proposal describes more of a philosophical approach to
education and does not provide a coherent educational plan. Curriculum assessment is not
adequately addressed.
For example, one of the stated goals is: "By the end of the year, read and comprehend
history/social studies texts at the high end of grades 6-8 text complexity band independently and
proficiently." This statement appears to be a restatement of the New
Illinois Learning Standards with little specificity in the types of instruction, materials, or
performance standards to be used. The proposal states that student progress is continually
monitored, which is merely a statement that it will take place, but fails to describe what
continually monitored means, what tools will be used, and what the expected annual
performance levels are. Additionally, setting a percentage of 19% of 6th grade students at LEARN
North Chicago to meet or exceed on ISAT is not adhering to LEARN's claim of providing a rigorous
academic program.
LEARN Response:
Educational Program and Curriculum: LEARN‘s academic program is based on clear and
rigorous curriculum standards – statements of what students should know and be able to do – for
every subject and for every grade. In the Appendix to our charter application to WCUSD (see
Attachment 2C), we included the following documents in order to provide both an overview and
specific examples of our academic program, including curriculum standards as well as
professional development and data monitoring practices that support the program.
 ELA & Math Program Frameworks (Appendix A)
 Sample Standards & Benchmarks (Appendix B)
 Sample Sequence Reports & Complexity Tables (Appendix C)
 Data Chat Template (Appendix H)
 Sample Induction Agenda (Appendix I)
 Sample Teacher Common Core Training Agenda (Appendix J)
The district did not request additional documentation of our academic program during the
application process; however, LEARN has developed an extensive, detailed iteration of our
curriculum and standards, which explicitly describe our work. Please find the following
documents in Attachments 5H, ―LEARN Curriculum Documents for ELA,‖ and 5I, ―LEARN
Curriculum Documents for Math,‖of this appeal:


English Language Arts Program Framework, K-8
English Language Arts Standards and Benchmarks (LEARN‘s unpacked Common Core
State Standards for ELA), for each grade, Kindergarten through 8
23






English Language Arts Standards and Benchmarks Levels of Complexity (LEARN‘s
organization of the Standards and unpacked Benchmarks into three levels of complexity),
for each grade, Kindergarten through 8
English Language Arts Sequence Table (LEARN‘s unpacked CCSS ELA standards,
organized into a planning tool for teachers to utilize when developing their Annual
Plans), for each grade, Kindergarten through 8
Mathematics Program Framework, K-8
Mathematics Standards and Benchmarks (LEARN‘s unpacked CCSS Math standards),
for each grade, Kindergarten through 8
Mathematics Standards and Benchmarks Levels of Complexity (LEARN‘s organization
of the Standards and unpacked Benchmarks into three levels of complexity), for each
grade, Kindergarten through 8
Mathematics Sequence Table (LEARN‘s unpacked CCSS Math standards, organized into
a planning tool for teachers to utilize when developing their Annual Plans), for each
grade, Kindergarten through 8
Science: We are beginning work this spring to put into place the Next Generation Science
standards (http://www.nextgenscience.org/) at every grade. Currently, teachers use the Full
Option Science System (―FOSS‖) kits developed at Lawrence Hall of Science, the University of
California at Berkley which have an extensive research base
(http://www.fossworks.com/research.asp).
Social Studies: We have been working this year to implement the College, Career, and Civic
Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards. Teachers are using excellent
instructional materials provided through our partnership with Chicago Public Schools
(http://www.socialstudies.org/c3).
Curriculum Assessment, Monitoring of Student Progress and Academic Goals: Our goal
is for every student to demonstrate proficiency on identified grade level standards. As
described in detail in our charter application, teachers, in partnership with their grade level
teams and school leaders, monitor progress through:
 NWEA MAP, administered in fall, winter, and spring: MAP data is analyzed, with
subsequent action plans developed, at the Network level, school level, grade level,
and classroom level.
 ISAT (PARCC, beginning spring 2015), administered in spring: ISAT data is
analyzed, with subsequent action plans developed, at the Network level, school
level, grade level, and classroom level.
 BAS, administered quarterly: Classroom teachers administer and use BAS data to
inform reading instruction for every scholar.
 Benchmark and Standards-aligned formative assessments, administered throughout
the year: We have completed for some grade levels, and are in the design stage for
other grade levels, benchmark-aligned formative assessments (quizlets) to assess
24
every CCSS standard and LEARN benchmark. These formative classroom tasks
allow teachers to analyze learners‘ progress towards standards and benchmarks to
inform instruction.
School leaders monitor the implementation of all curricula through regular review of teachers‘
annual plans and lesson plans, through review of assessment results, and through weekly teacher
lesson observation feedback conferences.
Administrative Summary and Recommendations, p. 12
2. The curriculum described in the proposal is incomplete.
LEARN students engage in four core subjects- English language arts, mathematics, science, and social
studies-as well as in enrichment courses in technology, visual and performing arts, Spanish, and
physical education. The curricula for reading, math, science, and social studies are adequate;
however, information regarding the curricula for technology, visual and performing arts, Spanish, and
physical education is inadequate. Specific strategies for monitoring the implementation of the
curriculum are not described.
The Fountas and Pinnell guided reading is identified as the core reading resource. This is an
outstanding resource, but does not align to grade level CCSS. For example, if a 5th grade student is at
reading level M (end of 2nd grade), he/she will be receiving appropriate reading instruction at
his/her instructional level, but n.ot his/her grade level. So, he/she will not be taught using the 5th
grade standards. No explanation is provided as to what resources/curriculum they are using to ensure
the grade level standards are being taught.
LEARN Response:
LEARN's technology curriculum is described in detail later in this document. Curricula for the
arts, Spanish and physical education are described below:
Visual and Performing Arts: LEARN Waukegan scholars will participate in visual and/or
performing arts for 110 minutes weekly. Arts teachers plan, teach, and assess scholars‘
progress, utilizing Illinois Learning Standards for Fine Arts.
Physical Education: LEARN Waukegan scholars will participate in physical and health
education for 165 minutes per week, not including their work on Sexual Health Education,
with an identified curriculum for every grade level. Physical education/health teachers plan,
teach, and assess scholars‘ progress, following the Illinois Learning Standards for Physical
Development and Health.
25
Spanish Language Instruction: Spanish language instruction is offered at some LEARN
schools. Following authorization, we will conduct more detailed planning to determine how
LEARN Waukegan will incorporate the Illinois Learning Standards for Foreign Languages.
Teaching the Common Core: In addition to Fountas and Pinnell materials, teachers use a wide
variety of resources for challenging grade-level text, including trade books and novels, Junior
Great Books, Leveled Literacy Intervention, and information text derived from a variety of
appropriate online sources, including a number of Gale Group database and sites such as
Newsela (https://newsela.com/) and Readworks (http://www.readworks.org/).
3. The proposal fails to describe a program to address the needs of English Language
Learners, one of the largest student populations in the District.
LEARN stated that depending on the number of students eligible for English Learner services,
they will offer either Transitional Bilingual Education (for 20 or more English learners of the
same language classification) and/or Transitional Program of instructions (for 19 or fewer
English learners of any single language classification other than English.)
Literature is available for students in multiple languages. To support English learners in the
classroom, LEARN teachers use evidence-based instructional strategies with a high probability or
increasing student achievement. Support is provided through whole group instruction, small
groups, one-on-one assistance, and after school."
The above statement provided by LEARN does not specify what curricula will be used for
English learners and having a quality program in place to meet the needs of English learners is
critical because of the District's large Hispanic student population (77%).
The proposal from LEARN originally depicted a Transitional Bilingual Program with additional
Transitional Program of Instruction, and then changed to a Dual Language Program at the time of
the presentation. It is indicated that LEARN will receive the per- capita amount for each ELL
student. Our current grant funding for our ELL Programming covers only a portion of our salaries
and some supplemental materials and training for staff. In order to use our funding effectively, we
carefully manage our classes to completely fill each class per type of student (TPI, TBE, and Dual)
as required by the state. The proposal and budget from LEARN does not clearly outline additional
costs for classrooms and staff that may be required if classrooms are not completely filled through
the lottery. Based on the lottery system, LEARN's proposal does not describe how consistent
sections of students for ELL services would be maintained.
In addition, costs for programming needs of the Dual Language Program proposed in terms of
curriculum, materials, and training are not addressed. The District is currently searching for
qualified Bilingual staff each year based on shortages and LEARN indicated that they would train
current and local staff for the ELL and Bilingual certifications required by the state. Costs for
this coursework and licensure are not listed. One idea that was presented was attracting
teachers through higher salaries, and the question remains as to how this increase in cost will be
26
covered.
We house approximately 740 Bilingual Preschool Students. At this time, it is unclear if LEARN
will be attempting to house any of these students and the possible costs as well as the
additional costs of a full-time Kindergarten proposed (as the District houses a half-day
program)
In addition, with the large amount of students previously referenced who require
ACCESS testing each year, it is not indicated how funding will be addressed for the testing
costs, student accommodation requirements, and proctor training costs. It seems plausible that
a coordinator to handle the testing needs of ELL's for ACCESS and PARCC would be required and
the additional cost of this is not outlined. The proposal lists two ELL specialists to guide
instruction and training but it does not indicate if LEARN will fund this independently or
attempt to add this to the ELL grants. We currently employ one ELL Specialist for the District
and this utilizes all the funding available for this purpose.
Please note, there are a percentage of students who are ELL and also receive SPED services. There is
not a cost provision outlining how these services will be tailored and the estimate of the additional
funding needed. The ELL grant received a variable amount for an increased percentage for new
immigrants to cover specific curriculum adaptations for them, so the curriculum supplements for any
new immigrant going to LEARN would need to be outlined. Another area for clarification is if there
will be funding needs in regard to assessment of students as they enter the District, costs for
translation, bilingual secretary costs, and costs related to data management for students.
27
28
After reviewing the questions that the District asked, LEARN responded at the public meeting that
they would be implementing a Dual Language Program for the next school year. However, they need
to address several issues if they plan to implement Dual Language next year. According to Gomez
and Gomez, Dual Language Costs must be calculated and are not included in LEARN's current
budget:
1) Initial training for teachers implementing the upcoming year (one grade level at a time
require training thus spreading out training costs over five years until the DL program is
fully implemented);
2) Spanish reading books and supplemental materials in Spanish Science and Social
Studies. Spanish materials are typically needed more at the upper grades since transitional
programs exit the majority of ELL students by 3rct grade; and
3) Developing the dual language library with Spanish reading books (PK-5). Library
budgets should be skewed to purchasing more Spanish books (75% Spanish books
versus 25% English books) in order to begin to close the English versus Spanish book
gap. Libraries and classrooms target one grade at a time as the DL program rolls up
29
from one grade level to the next thus concentrating the resources on the grades where
they will be most needed.
In general, the LEARN proposal is insufficiently developed in its approach to ELL and the
needs of LEP families. Home surveys concerning language preferences demonstrate that
slightly more than half of the students attending District schools come from homes that are
predominately Spanish speaking. About 42% of Waukegan students come from homes where
English is the preferred language. As a result of this diversity, an expansive and
accommodating language program is necessary to avoid discriminatory practice and to make
available sufficient translation services to support the students and families of Waukegan.
LEARN Response:
In its first year, LEARN Waukegan will follow a Transitional Bilingual Education model (TBE),
providing instruction in both English and Spanish for English Language Learners in grades K-3
and ESL support for grades 4-8. Our goal is eventually to transition to open one Dual Language
classroom per grade which will instruct native English speakers and native Spanish speakers in
the same classroom, allowing students to learn from each other as they achieve fluency in both
languages. Because of the shortage of certified bilingual teachers, it makes sense to begin with
TBE and move to Dual Language in coming years after we have secured the necessary number
of qualified staff. We also need time to educate the community on the benefits of dual language
instruction and ensure that there is sufficient support among parents to pursue this option.
Each model offers instruction in both Spanish and English to support the development of oral
and written fluency, content knowledge, and the ability to communicate well in both languages.
LEARN Waukegan will employ a Bilingual Lead Teacher who will have primary responsibility
for ensuring that all general education instruction is accessible to English Learners. He/she will
have an expertise in bilingual and ESL instruction and provide needed support throughout the
new school to ensure high quality instruction and compliance with state requirements for
teaching English Learners.
In both models, LEARN‘s English Learners are expected to reach grade level benchmarks at the
conclusion of each school year. In kindergarten and first grade, these benchmarks consist
primarily of Spanish language competencies. Beginning in second grade, there are English
language competencies included, as well. Students are expected to have complete proficiency in
English and Spanish by the end of fifth grade when they have the same English and Spanish
benchmarks, defined by the Common Core State Standards.
In its first year, LEARN Waukegan will organize one TBE class per grade level, based on the
assumption that at least 29% of enrolled students will be English Learners, which is the
30
Waukegan district average. Parents of both Spanish and English speaking children will be given
the option to enroll their children in a TBE classroom in grades K-3. This classroom will be
staffed by co-teachers, one ESL/Bilingual teacher who primarily teaches and assesses English
learners, and one regular classroom teacher who primarily teaches and assesses the learning of
English speakers.
Transitional Bilingual Education with High Quality ESL Instruction
Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) develops students' academic skills in their native
language while they learn English. A transitional program of instruction includes: an ESL
component designed to develop skills in listening, speaking, reading, and writing in English;
content-area instruction in both the native language and English, and a Native Language Arts
(NLA) component designed to develop skills in listening, speaking, reading, and writing in the
students‘ home language while cultivating an appreciation of their own history and culture. As
students develop English language skills, time in the native language decreases, and students in
the upper grades are only held to English Language Arts standards, rather than to standards in
two languages.
Expected Growth/Progress
At each LEARN school, principals review student achievement data and set academic
goals. NWEA MAP assessment data (administered and analyzed three times each year). At
every LEARN school, the goal set for the current year is a minimum of 150% growth from fall to
spring on MAP, the equivalent of a year and-a-half of academic progress per school year.
Because our students need to accelerate their learning to overcome achievement gaps, we set
high standards for achievement. This year, we are on track to meet 150% growth on the MAP at
all of our schools. Beginning next year, schools will also use PARCC data to measure student
progress.
Staffing
All Transitional Bilingual Program teachers for K-3rd grade will be fully bilingual and have their
bilingual and English as a Second Language endorsements. The English as a Second Language
teacher working with grades 4-8 will have an ESL endorsement. LEARN will make every effort
to hire a bilingual ESL teacher to better facilitate communication with students and families.
This teacher will work with English Learners in the classroom in collaboration with the general
education teacher, or with small groups outside of the regular classroom who need more
intensive support.
Instructional Program
31
Students in grades K-3 will receive literacy instruction in English and Spanish to build their
skills in both languages. As students reach an intermediate level of English proficiency, hands-on
subjects including science and mathematics, as well as art/music and PE will be taught almost
exclusively in English, with support from the ESL teacher. The ESL teacher and Bilingual Lead
Teacher will guide classroom teachers to follow best practice in supporting English Learners so
that they are able to master content in all subject areas.
Students in grades K-3 will be instructed in both English and Spanish, but the language of
instruction will depend on the grade level and subject area, as shown in the framework below:
Grade
Literacy
Content Instruction
Kindergarten
(Instruction 60% in
Spanish, 40% in
English)
Spanish/English
1-2 (Instruction 50%
in each language.)
Spanish/English
Mathematics- Spanish and
English
Social Studies- Spanish and
English
Science- Spanish and English
PE-English
Art/Music-English
Primarily English with ESL
support
3 (Instruction 25% in
Spanish.)
Spanish/English
English with ESL support
Dual Language
We believe that in the long term, a dual language program would best serve all the students of
LEARN Waukegan. A dual language program is a proven best practice language instruction
model for communities that have native language Spanish and native language English students
in the same educational environment. The goal is for students to read, write, and speak fluently
in two languages and to gain knowledge of a second culture. Multiple research models
demonstrate that students in dual language classrooms have equal or better outcomes than their
monolingual peers on standardized assessments. LEARN‘s dual language program would be
based on these successful research models.
The dual language model transitions students gradually into learning a second language. English
Learners would begin with a full day of Spanish instruction in kindergarten. In 1st grade, 90% of
instruction would be in Spanish, decreasing to 80% of the day in second grade. Core subjects
32
would be taught in Spanish but students would be exposed to English instruction during PE and
Art/Music. Their instructional time in Spanish would decrease to 70% of the day in third grade,
and 60% of the day in fourth grade as students spend more time reading and writing in English as
well as Spanish. In 4th grade, social studies is taught in English, as well.
Each grade level would have a dual language classroom with one ESL teacher and one regular
classroom teacher. By grouping both English Learners and English speakers in one room, we
will avoid segregating English learners socially. Parents of English speakers will be given the
option to enroll their children in the program.
In the primary grades, both groups will be exposed to two languages in informal parts of the day
when they gather together as a full class: morning meeting, etc. However, the ESL teacher will
be responsible for teaching and assessing the ELs, and the classroom teacher will be responsible
for teaching the English speakers.
In 5th grade, instruction for native Spanish-speakers will be taught equally in English and
Spanish. In 6th to 8th grade, all Spanish-speaking students in the dual language program would
continue to take two core subjects in Spanish.
Staffing
LEARN Waukegan will employ only bilingual professionals in the dual language program, some
of whom are native speakers of Spanish, and some of whom have learned Spanish through their
life experiences or educational pursuits. All teachers in the dual language program will have their
Bilingual and ESL endorsements.
Instructional Program
English Learners will be instructed in both English and Spanish, but the language of instruction
will depend on the grade level and subject area, as shown in the chart below. The percentage of
instructional time spent on Spanish vs. English at each grade level is indicated in the subject
column.
Subject
Reading
Guided Reading
Writing
Math
Science
Social
Studies
PE
K (90%/10%,
Spanish
Spanish
Spanish
Spanish
Spanish
Spanish
English
Spanish
K-2 Spanish
When students
reach level J—
Spanish
Spanish
Spanish
Spanish
English
excluding PE)
1-2
(80%/20%)
33
Spanish/English
3 (70%/30%)
Spanish/
English
Spanish/English
Spanish/
English
Spanish
Spanish
Spanish
English
4 (60%/40%)
Spanish/
English
Spanish/English
Spanish/
English
Spanish
Spanish
English
English
5 (40%/60%)
Spanish/
English
Spanish/English
English
English
Spanish
Spanish
English
6-8 (40%/60%)
Spanish/
English
Spanish/English
English
English
Spanish
Spanish
English
Expectations by Grade Level –Spanish (for both native Spanish and English-speakers)
a. Kindergarten
i. Listening
1. Understands simple commands—follows class instructions
2. Listens attentively to read-alouds in Spanish
3. Follows directions using picture and teacher support
4. Recognizes differences in spoken tenses (person)
ii. Speaking
1. Responds to greetings and common questions
2. Identify primary colors
3. Identify family member words
4. Participate in calendar—days, weeks, months
5. Identifies shapes
6. Can ask for basic needs
7. Responds with simple phrases
8. Participates in shared and echo reading
b. First Grade
i. Listening
1. Follow three to four step directions with minimal support
2. Comprehends and responds to stories in read-alouds and grade
level texts
ii. Speaking
1. Initiate and responds to greetings appropriate to the time of day
2. Uses familiar phrases and simple sentences in appropriate contexts.
3. Able to list vocabulary words according to categories
4. Actively participate in oral language activities
5. Make requests to teacher using correct tense
6. Ask clarifying questions (como se dice?)
7. Begin to use and recognize formal and informal tense according to
audience (adults—ud. and kids—tu)
34
c. Second Grade
i. Listening
1. Listens attentively in small and large groups
2. Listens without interrupting
3. Follow multi step directions—most of the time without assistance
4. Shows listening comprehension by responding to questions
appropriately
ii. Speaking
1. Speaks in complete sentences and uses some new vocabulary in
every day speech
2. Asks and answers questions in open dialogue
3. Takes turns in conversation
4. Speaks at an appropriate rate
5. Expresses most ideas clearly
6. Uses correct formal and informal tenses in conversation
d. Third Grade
i. Listening
1. Understands and participates in content related vocabulary and
content related discussions
2. Follows multistep directions (oral and written) without support
3. Comprehends grade level text read aloud
ii. Speaking
1. Participates in group discussions related to content or grade level
texts with some support (sentence starters)
2. Personal presentations (show and tell, community meeting,
author‘s chair, interview) using correct language and expressions
3. Gives directions or explains directions to peers
4. Fluently uses the correct formal or informal tenses
5. Uses correct sentence structure when speaking (La casa de mi tia
not mi tia‘s casa)
e. Fourth Grade
i. Listening
1. Able to follow multi-step directions
2. Comprehends grade level text read aloud
3. Listen, analyze and apply information provided in Spanish
ii. Speaking
1. Initiate conversations and responds when appropriate
2. Demonstrates willingness to speak Spanish with peers in class
3. Uses content related vocabulary in discussions with minimal
support
4. Uses conjugated verbs in past and present tense correctly in
context
5. Summarize or paraphrase instructions to peers
f. Fifth Grade
35
i. Listening
1. Restate and carry out a variety of oral instructions
2. Comprehends stories and other texts read aloud
3. Record appropriate notes from a presentation
ii. Speaking
1. Present oral reports to an audience using content related
vocabulary
2. Differentiate between formal and informal tenses and use
correctly.
3. Conjugates verbs into the past, present and future
4. Participates in group discussions related to content and asks
questions
5. Willingness to speak Spanish with peers
6. Uses language that is clear, audible and appropriate
7. Uses appropriate grammar, word choice and pacing
g. Middle School
i. Reinforcing all Listening and Speaking expectations from previous grades
Teacher Resources
As described in its section on curriculum and instruction, LEARN Charter School Network has
fully implemented the Common Core State Standards for instruction and assessment of student
learning. Teachers in the TBE and Dual Language programs will follow the Common Core in
Spanish: http://commoncore-espanol.com/common-core-state-standards-language-arts-andliteracy-historysocial-studies-science-and-technical.
LEARN has evaluated a variety of effective resources, all listed below, to support our evidencebased curricula. While we may employ a number of carefully selected resources over time, the
teacher and student resources in bold will be used immediately.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Bien Dicho (Literacy K-5, Hampton Brown Publishing) K, 1, 2, 3
El Sabelotodo (Hampton Brown; grammar, spelling)
Words Their Way for ELL, Pearson Publishing
Vocabulary Alignment List (Spanish/English words for use throughout content
instruction)
Dual Language Instruction: A Handbook for Enriched Education (Cloud, Genesee,
Hamayan)
Dual Language Instruction: Practical Guidance for Teachers and Administrators (Cloud,
Genesee, Hamayan)
Dual Language Essentials (Freeman and Freeman)
Language Demands for Next Generation Science Standards:
http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/academic-papers/03-
36
Quinn%20Lee%20Valdes%20Language%20and%20Opportunities%20in%20Scie
nce%20FINAL.pdf
I. Foss science resources for elementary and middle school teachers; all Foss
Teachers’ Guides include materials in Spanish, including worksheets, graphic
organizers, and assessments.
http://www.fossweb.com/delegate/ssi-wdf-ucm-webContent?dDocName=D567151
http://www.fossweb.com/delegate/ssi-wdf-ucm-webContent?dDocName=D2676372
Spanish Language Student Materials
Language Arts
A. Guided Reading:
a. Leveled Literacy Intervention
http://www.heinemann.com/fountasandpinnell/research/LLI_DataColl_ELLsubreport_JULY2011.pdf
b. Benchmark Education (for content materials in Spanish, particularly for
Social Studies and Science content, to assist learners in making connections
in their native language)
http://www.benchmarkeducation.com/spanish/spanish.html
c. Mondo
http://www.mondopub.com/c/@KVaMQYJ7wzIiQ/Pages/product.html?nocache
@1+record@S5414
d. Reading A to Z
http://www.readinga-z.com/translations/spanish/leveled-books/
e. Scholastic Guided Reading en espanol
http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/guidedreading/espanol.htm
f. Colorin Colorado
http://www.colorincolorado.org/read/forkids
B. Assessment
a. Sistema de evaluacion de lectura (BAS in Spanish)
http://www.heinemann.com/fountasandpinnell/sel_Overview.aspx
C. Resources from Santillana:
http://www.santillanausa.com/santillana-usa-k12-catalog/spanish-language-arts.html
Mathematics
A. Everyday Mathematics (LEARN uses Everyday Mathematics, which has significant
Spanish language support.)
37
http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/teaching-topics/ell/
B. Drops in The Bucket:
http://www.frog.com/drops/resources.html
C. Tareas Plus:
http://www.tareasplus.com/
Science and Social Studies
A. FOSS “ Spanish Student Readers” that accompany the science modules, providing
content in Spanish
B. Next Generation Science Standards curriculum support
a. The Einstein Project (in Spanish)
http://www.einsteinproject.org/for-educators/spanish-resources/
C. Science A to Z (science content area text in Spanish)
http://www.scienceaz.com/scienceweb/resource/Spanish%20Translations?typeId=75
D. Social Studies: C3 Social Studies Standards implementation provides the need for
Spanish language support trade books with social studies content.
a. Del Sol books
http://www.delsolbooks.com/
b. Pearson (Spanish language historical biographies)
http://www.pearson.com:
c. California Vistas
http://www.mhschool.com/ss/ca/esp/index.html
Professional Development
High quality professional development is crucial to the ongoing success of LEARN and to our
teachers in all programs. The teaching of English Learners will be a key component of our
professional development program from the beginning. The following professional development
options will be available to teachers at LEARN Waukegan in order to ensure that they are ready
to meet the needs of all of our students, especially the English Learners.
1. Illinois Resource Center:
a. Teaching for Biliteracy Summer Institute: June 22-26:
http://www.thecenterweb.org/irc/pages/f_events-summer-institute.html
b. Introduction to Biliteracy and The Bridge:
http://www.thecenterweb.org/irc/pages/f_events-isbe.html
2. ESL/Bilingual Endorsement
38
While our Human Resource team is actively recruiting ESL-certified and bilingualcertified teachers, LEARN has also developed a program in partnership with National
Louis University to help a cohort of teachers currently employed in our schools earn ESL
certification. The first team of teachers will begin the six-course certification program
this spring, with the option of attending classes either on campus or on-line.
Parent Support and Communication
The school will ensure that we employ as many bilingual staff as possible. In particular, we plan
for at least one of the two school leaders (principal or assistant principal) and at least one
member of the front office support staff to be fluent Spanish speakers.
We will provide translation services for parent meetings and conferences and all written
communication to parents, including student report cards, will be prepared in both English and
Spanish.
Family involvement is important to us. We will establish a Bilingual Parent Advisory
Committee, with the majority of members parents of students in the program. This committee
will meet a minimum of four times each year. They will provide feedback and assistance in
reviewing our annual grant application. LEARN hosts a variety of parent education courses;
we will consider the possibility of hosting an English as a Second Language course for
interested parents.
Administrative Summary and Recommendation, p. 16
4. The proposal fails to articulate a program that addresses the needs of special education
students across the continuum.
LEARN states that, "It is our belief that a child is better served in an inclusion program rather than a
pullout program. For those students found to require an IEP, we first consider providing
accommodations in the general classroom. Accordingly, special education intervention is provided
one-on-one within the classroom so a student does not lose the benefit of the classroom experience
or the instruction of their peers. When we do have some students for whom inclusion does not
provide enough support, those students will receive additional time in our self- contained/resource
room with the learning resources teacher, and every effort will be made to provide those additional
services at a time when the student will not miss an academic lesson in the primary classroom."
This proposal is based primarily on an inclusion model and does not fully describe what occurs when
a student requires additional services, except to say that those students will receive additional time in
their self-contained/resource room with the learning resource teacher. The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act requires a full continuum of services for special education students. The
proposal also does not define alternate means of providing services should District 60 not agree to
provide them.
39
LEARN Response:
As stated in our charter application, the LEARN special education team strives to provide
services in the least restrictive environment for each student, based on what that individual
student requires. Our preference is to provide services using an inclusion model; however, we
offer a continuum of services as described below:
LRE 1: Less than 20% of the day is spent outside of the general education classroom. The
majority of our students fall within this LRE group.
LRE 2: More than 20% of the day and not more than 59% of the day outside of the general
education classroom.
LRE 3: More than 60% of the day is spent outside of the general education classroom.
The plan decided upon at the IEP meeting can always be revisited if the services and/or
environment are shown to be inappropriate or insufficient. Services provided in the general
education setting can include modifications to the classroom space, co-teaching with a special
education teacher, and accommodations such as assistive technology devices, adaptations to
instruction, materials or assessments, support from a paraprofessional, and behavioral supports.
General education and special education teachers use a variety of co-teaching models, such as
working with different small groups of students, teaching the same lesson together, or having one
teacher lead the instruction while the other circulates and assists individual students.
Services provided for students who spend part of day outside of the general education classroom
in a special education resource room can include small group or one-on-one instruction one or
more subjects, guidance in learning social and emotional skills, and paraprofessional support.
Classrooms for students who spend most of the day in a special education setting (often called a
"self-contained" special education classroom) have an 8 to 1 student teacher ratio and
paraprofessional support. These students benefit from small group instruction, alternative
teaching methods and individualized instruction, depending on their individual needs.
Special education teachers collaborate with general education teachers in designing instruction,
to ensure that students with disabilities are provided with the same grade-level content as their
general education peers. In some cases, curriculum may be modified insofar as volume of work
or the method for demonstrating proficiency is concerned. These classrooms may also provide
additional support in learning social and emotional skills.
Students who spend most of their day in a special education setting typically join general
education students for PE, Art/music, technology and other "specials," as well as lunch and
recess.
40
In rare cases we use consultative services for students with very particular needs, in addition to
the services described above.
It is our belief that most children with IEPs are best served in an inclusion program, and this is
always the first option considered, so a student does not lose the benefit of the classroom
experience or the instruction with their peers.
At LEARN a 504 Plan helps a child with special health care needs to fully participate in school.
Usually, a 504 Plan is used for our general education student who may not eligible for special
education services. Our 504 Plans list accommodations related to the child‘s disability and/or
may be required by the child so that he or she may participate in the general classroom setting
and educational programs. For example, our 504 Plan may include:






504 Plans to make a school wheelchair-accessible
Assistive technology needs
Permission to type assignments or utilize a scribe instead of writing them by hand
Permission to hand in assignments late due to illness or a hospital stay
Extended time on exams
Stand and stretch breaks
Although LEARN tries its best to meet the needs of all students, there are instances where the
student's needs are greater than the services available within our setting. When all internal
resources have been exhausted, the continuum of resources has been depleted, LEARN continues
to partner and problem-solve with the district representative to find the best placement option for
the identified student. We first convene a problem-solving team which includes a district liaison,
psychologist, special education teacher, general education teacher, social worker,
speech/language pathologist, campus administrator, and district representative to strategize
interventions, gather and discuss data, and transition the student through the Response to
Intervention (RTI) process, as needed.
After the RTI process has been followed, the team gathers to discuss student data and evaluate
the success of interventions. In the rare case that a student referred for special education
evaluation is found to have needs that can only be met in an alternative setting, we would work
with the district to identify an appropriate placement outside of the charter school.
We understand that if authorized on appeal, we will become our own LEA and will hold ultimate
responsibility for all students with special needs who enroll in the charter school, including
identifying and funding an alternate placement if it is found to be necessary.
Administrative Summary and Recommendation, p. 16
Procedures and policies intended to address the provision of special education are not included in the
proposal.
41
LEARN response:
We would be happy to provide the Commission with a copy of our Special Education handbook,
upon request.
Administrative Summary and Recommendations, p. 16.
The proposal also fails to describe how behavioral intervention plans and transition service needs
plans will be implemented, how needed supports will be provided to any severely disabled student
who might enroll, and does not include any reference to Section 504 plans or any reference to LEP
plans.
At LEARN Waukegan, a team including the child's parent, social worker, special education
teacher, general education teacher, psychologist, and usually an administrator will be responsible
for completing the functional behavior assessment and behavior intervention plan (BIP). A BIP
specifies target behaviors, strategies used to teach replacement behaviors, how behavior change
will be measured, reinforcement strategies, and specifies the roles of each team member in
supporting the student and communicating with the parent. The BIP is revisited at least once per
quarter and re-written annually at the IEP meeting. As stated in the LEARN Student Special
Education Handbook,
At LEARN, transition plans provide a framework for thinking about and planning for
post -secondary goals, covering the areas of education, employment, training, and
independent living skills our students are provided with transition assessments that
address each area in order to formulate transition plans that are student centered;
assessments are used to gather information about the student’s strengths and goals
such as career inventories and life skills scales. Our team forms relationship with the
family and assist them in getting connected to resources that will be necessary to
support their child’s needs once they turn 21 years old. The transition plan is written
by the special education teacher in conjunction with the student, parent and other
special education team members. In addition LEARN seeks the participation of
community agencies in the planning phases of transitions. The special education
teacher uses a portfolio collection process to monitor monthly transition activities
that align with those specified in student Transition Plan. Transition activities shall
occur both within the academic setting in the general education classroom and or in
a resource setting.
Additionally the proposal does not contain procedures and policies for the discipline of
42
special education students.
LEARN response:
Discipline for a special education scholar requires additional considerations that do not come
into play when considering the appropriate disciplinary actions for a general education student.
In general, a special education student cannot be suspended for more than ten school days per
year and there cannot be a ―pattern of exclusion‖ from school. Students also cannot be excluded
from school for behaviors caused by their disability. It is LEARN policy for a student's
classroom teacher, special education teacher, case manager and an administrator to all weigh in
on the decision to exclude a special education student from school.
Below are the general guidelines and protections provided to a special education scholar being
considered for suspension or expulsion:
Removal for Up to Ten School Days
The minimal due process protections for a removal for up to ten school days include:



The right to an informal meeting with the principal before suspension, except in an
emergency
The right to notice of the charges and the evidence against the student
The right to explain his/her side of the story.
If the student with a disability is determined to be ―guilty‖ of the disciplinary infraction through
this informal procedure, IDEA allows the student to be suspended in school or out-of-school for
a comparable period of time as a student without a disability would be suspended. S/he has the
right to fair and equal treatment in determination of the consequences. In other words, the
student with a disability should not be suspended longer than a student without a disability would
be suspended for the same or similar behavior.
For removals of up to ten consecutive or cumulative school days, the student with a disability is
not entitled to:



A manifestation determination
An IEP/positive behavior support plan review
Educational services during the period of exclusion, UNLESS the student‘s IEP explicitly
requires services during even short-term exclusions. The IEP may prohibit suspension as
43
a response to student behavior. School personnel may consider ―any unique
circumstances on a case-by-case basis‖ to reduce the allowable term of suspension.
In Chicago, if LEARN plans to suspend a student who has already been suspended more than ten
cumulative school days within the school year, we must seek approval from Chicago Public
Schools Office of Dispute Resolution within Diverse Learner Supports and Services. In order to
receive approval from Dispute Resolution, we must first consider whether or not the cumulative
days of suspension have amounted to a ―change of placement.‖ In making this determination,
the district must consider factors such as:



The length of each removal
The total amount of time the student is removed, and
The proximity of the removals to one another.
If the district determines that an additional removal would result in a change of placement using
the above criteria, it must follow the procedural requirements for an exclusion of greater than ten
consecutive school days. Similarly, LEARN would conduct these determinations as its own
LEA.,
Removal for More than Ten School Days
For exclusions longer than ten school days, students with and without disabilities have the right
to a more formal due process hearing to determine their ―guilt,‖ including the right to:




Notice of the charges and evidence against them
Question and present witnesses
Review and present evidence
Bring an attorney or advocate (at their own expense).
The only exception to this rule is if the student carried or possessed a gun or dangerous weapon,
knowingly possessed or used illegal drugs, sold or solicited a controlled substance at school, on
school grounds, or at a school function.
The proposal does not indicate the intent to provide special education services to all students
identified or the realization of the needs such students may demonstrate. The proposal fails to
address how the full range of Special Education services and related services such as mental
retardation, autism, traumatic brain injury, etc. will be provided. It merely states that they will
recruit special education teachers whose experience and training best match the needs of
students at each site.
44
LEARN response:
The LEARN special education team strives to provide services in the least restrictive
environment for each student, based on what that individual student requires. Special education
services are provided on a continuum as described above.. Other services may include services
from clinicians or consultative services.
No description is given of the method of access to records or any access controls in place;
This information can be found in the LEARN Charter School Network Parent and Student
Handbook 2014-15, pp. 11-15, which was included as Appendix G of our charter
application. See Appendix G within Attachment 2C.
No indication is provided as to how PARCC/DLM testing is determined by IEP teams; or how
PARCC/DLM accommodations will be made for students with disabilities whose IEPs require
accommodations.
LEARN response:
IEP teams determine whether students require extended time or other accommodations for
standardized testing. Accommodations may include:
 Test administration is during the student‘s optimal time of day (as long as test session is
completed on the same day the test session began)
 Breaks during a testing session
 Breaks between testing sessions that are longer than the 10 minutes allowed to all
students
 Testing sessions divided into smaller time segments, with more frequent breaks
 Other testing accommodations and modifications made in accordance with students' IEP's
The costs for special education services are usually much greater than the state and federal
funding for students in need of special education. Since the charter school will likely have
specifically targeted students who are academically challenged, a contingency for special education
services is critical and the charter proposal addresses how such special
45
education services will be provided at the District's expense. In LEARN's application, they
indicate the following:
a. In the event that there is a determination based upon the requirements of students'
IEPs and applicable law that the Charter School must employ part-time or full-time
special education staff, the District shall either provide such
personnel at its own expense or permit the Charter School to hire such personnel
and obtain reimbursement from the District for the personnel costs.
b. The Charter School shall hire all special education teachers employed on a part- time
or full-time basis for the purpose of meeting the requirements of students' IEPs. The
Charter School shall receive full reimbursement from the District for
the cost of the special education teachers' salary and benefits; provided, however, that
reimbursement shall be (a) only to the extent such personnel are necessary
to the provision of the services required by students' IEPs; and (b) commensurate with
salary and benefits paid by the District for special education personnel or lower.
c. The District shall provide directly to the Charter School any clinicians, paraprofessionals,
or other personnel that the Charter School determines are required by its students' IEPs.
Upon request and prior to a staff person's assignment at the Charter School, the Charter
School shall have an opportunity to interview any staff person or candidate offered by
the District to determine his or her qualifications. In the event that the Charter School
determines that the candidate offered by the District or District staff person assigned to
the Charter School is unqualified for the position, the Charter School may hire its own
special education staff person or replace the District staff person at its own cost. The
Charter School shall receive full reimbursement from the District for the cost of the
special education staff persons' salary and benefits.
LEARN Response:
To project LEARN‘s revenue should it be authorized by the Commission, we modified our
assumptions related to special education revenue, as described earlier.
In recognition that the school would be responsible for hiring additional special education staff
should it become its own LEA, we included the salary for clinicians in the revised budget. We
assume that the clinical services across all disciplines will require the full time equivalent of 0.25
clinicians in year one growing to 1.25 in year five. In the revised budget projections, we also
added a position for a Director of Special Education.
Additionally, the proposal does not describe how the charter school will perform background
checks as well as credential verification of the prospective special education personnel.
46
LEARN Response:
In accordance with LEARN‘s human resource policies, all special education personnel will have
background checks as well as credential verification.
In addition the proposal fails to describe how mandatory summer sessions for special education
students with IEP requirements or for those students who require additional support to achieve
grade level performance will be incorporated in the school's budget but rather imply that the
responsibility for extended school year services will fall to the District at the District's expense.
LEARN response:
As LEARN has an extended school year, we typically do not mandate summer school.
5. The student achievement recorded by LEARN Charter School Network students is not
significantly higher than District students.
The proposal provides statistics as to how students enrolled in LEARN Charter Schools perform
in relation to District 60's schools. However, the proposal fails to provide pupil performance
standards to be achieved by the charter school thus making it impossible to determine how
students move from one grade to another. Likewise, the proposal fails to describe the plan for
evaluating pupil performance or the procedures for taking corrective action in the event that the
pupil performance falls below the expected standards as required by Illinois Charter Schools
Law. Expected pupil performance standards must be included for all seven fundamental areas of
learning.
Additionally, expected pupil performance standards are not provided for any of the state
assessments or any other assessments that are administered. The proposal also does not
specify whether summer school is required or optional, including those students whose test
scores are insufficient for promotion to the next grade."
LEARN response:
Determining the recommendation for a child‘s promotion to the anticipated grade level is a
complex decision. Throughout the school year, parents are kept apprised of students‘ progress.
Promotion decisions are made in June with input from parents and consideration of the following
information:
47





Independent Reading Level as identified by STEP/Benchmark Assessment System (BAS)
Cumulative Grades: Scholars earning a grade of D or F cumulatively in core subject areas
may be considered for current grade retention.
Attendance Records
NWEA MAP: Students are expected at minimum to achieve their individualized spring
targets as well as achieve or exceed the 50% National Ranking on the Spring MAP
assessments for Reading, Math & Science.
Developmental Readiness for the next grade: Some scholars in Kindergarten or First
Grade may benefit from additional time to grow and mature at the current grade.
As stated in the proposal, two or more of the following requirements must to be met in order for
a student to be promoted to the next grade level:



Requirement 1: Core Academic Classes The student has earned a C- or better in all
core subjects (reading, writing, math, science, social studies).
Requirement 2: Standardized Assessments Based on internal assessments (MAP and
STEP/BAS) and external assessments (ISAT/PARCC), a student must not be more than
one year below grade level in any core academic classes.
Requirement Number 3: Attendance A student has less than ten unexcused absences.
More than 20 unexcused absences may result in non-promotion. (Note: Our policy states
that three tardies equal one unexcused absence.)
Because our school calendar begins in August and ends in mid-June, summer break is typically
only 6-weeks long. Most students need that short time off so that they can begin the next school
year rested and eager to learn more. There may be a small group of students who require
additional support over the summer, and meet the criteria mentioned above, who will attend
summer school at LEARN. This is school-by-school and student-by-student decision.
For all incoming 8th graders, we provide a voluntary summer program entitled, ―Rising Stars‖.
We use this time to offer focused support in preparing their high school applications, coaching of
study habits, time management, and public speaking. We believe these are key skills they will
need as they transition to high school and generally become more independent and mature
students.
Administrative Summary and Recommendations, pp. 18-19
In comparing our performance scores on the 2013 ISAT, nine of the District's schools had our LEP
sub-group performing above the state average. Additionally, on the 2013 ISAT Reading Assessment,
Cooke, Little Fort, and McCall had higher achievement scores than LEARN with Glen Flora
performing at the same level as LEARN. Nine of our fifteen elementary schools are performing above
the state average in reading with one additional elementary school and one middle school
performing at the state average.
48
LEARN's proposal states that they have a 13-year track record of raising the achievement of
traditionally underserved low-income and minority students. However, due to the small size of
LEARN North Chicago, the only subgroups reported for 2014 ISAT included Black (114) and
Hispanic (68) out of 206 students. Waukegan District 60 2014 ISAT included
Black (1,064), White (234), Hispanic (5,760), Asian (91), American Indian (34), and Two or
More Ethnicities (125). 69.9% of Waukegan District 60 students are considered low- income,
compared to LEARN North Chicago low income at 13.6%, as reported on the IIRC website.
LEARN North Chicago students did not outperform Waukegan District 60 students in reading and
math in the category of low income overall and in Grade 6 math in all subgroups, as reported on
the IIRC website.
LEARN response:
The data in the chart below demonstrates that LEARN students did in fact meet and exceed state
standards on the ISAT at a higher rate than did students in WCUSD in reading, in math and in
science. This was true both for students overall and for low-income students.
2014 ISAT % of students meeting and exceeding standards
Overall
Waukegan
LEARN N. Chicago
LEARN CMO (Chicago)
Reading Math Science
34
44
55
48
48
90
43
54
66
#Tested
7388
206
1254
Low Income Students
Waukegan
LEARN N. Chicago
LEARN CMO (Chicago)
Reading Math Science
30
39
51
*45
*45
Null
41
52
64
#Tested
5127
*150
1202
*Data reported in the IL Report Card is erroneous for
LEARN – North Chicago only. ISBE is in the process
of correcting the data to represent what is indicated
above. If there are any questions, please contact:
Shuwan Chiu -ISBE Performance Office: 217-7823950, schiu@isbe.net
49
Reference to various types of assessments is made in the proposal: daily formative
assessments, end-of-unit assessments, and teacher created performance assessments.
However, the expected performance levels on these assessments are not provided. LEARN
also needs to specify what data they use to monitor progress, place students in interventions,
or plan for instruction.
LEARN response:
We expect our students to be performing at grade level. Historically, that meant operating at
the 50th percentile or higher on the NWEA MAP assessment, and meeting the BAS/STEP
thresholds as well. With the implementation of Common Core standards, we know that the bar
has been raised for being on grade level. According to NWEA, scholars need to be closer to the
70th percentile to be college-ready. We have increased the rigor of our instruction, including
having teachers write new assessments and obtaining new instructional materials to better align
with the higher standards. It is multi-year process that is already improving student academic
outcomes across the network.
Administrative Summary and Recommendations, p.19
6. The LEARN Charter School Network proposal contradicts the results described within the2012
5Essentials Survey.
The 5Essentials framework is a leading indicator of school performance now and predictive of
the future. Schools strong in 3-5 Essentials were 10 times more likely to improve
student learning substantially compared to school s weak in 3-5 Essentials. Learning
conditions and school climate contribute to strong student outcomes including better
attendance and improved academic performance.
In the 2012 5 Essentials Survey administered to the LEARN Charter School on the South
side of Chicago the following results were reported: Principal Instructional LeadershipVery Weak; Program Coherence-Very Weak; Teacher Influence-Weak; Teacher Principal
Trust-Weak; Collective Responsibility-Very Weak; Quality Professional DevelopmentVery Weak; School Commitment-Very Weak; Teacher to Teacher Trust-Weak; Human and
Social Resources in the Community-Low Response NA; Outreach to Parents-Weak;
Parent Involvement in School-Neutral; Teacher-Parent Trust-Neutral; Academic
Personalism-Low Response NA; Academic Press-Low Response NA; Peer Support for
Academic Work-Low Response NA; Safety-Low Response NA; Student-Teacher TrustLow Response NA; Course Clarity-Low Response NA; English Instruction-Low Response
NA; Math Instruction-Low Response NA; Collective Use of Assessment Data-Neutral;
Innovation-Weak; Teacher Collaboration was the only area rated strong in South
Chicago.
The data was essentially the same for the LEARN Charter School- Hunter Perkins in Chicago.
50
These results are contrary to what LEARN describes in their proposal that the charter school
is all about. No response was provided to address the low ratings on these surveys during the
public meeting and no answer was provided in support of the importance of learning
conditions and school climate in improving student achievement and in school improvement
planning.
LEARN response:
In 2011-12, LEARN South Chicago received a new principal. She took this position knowing
that this one-year-old school with only 150 students had just earned Chicago Public School's
lowest possible rating on its performance evaluation. After three years of this principal‘s tireless
efforts, this school has earned CPS‘s highest rating in its 2014 performance evaluation. The
2011-12 school year was the first year of operation for LEARN Hunter Perkins. It has steadily
grown in size and demonstrated strong academic results as it has grown. On the 2014 ISAT,
52.5% of students met or exceeded standards in reading, and 60.7% of its students met or
exceeded standards in math. Their math performance exceeded the state average of 59%, thereby
closing the achievement gap for a school consisting of 97% low income and 98% African
American students. Furthermore, the school is operating at full capacity and the demand for
more seats is high; among our eight schools, Hunter Perkins has the longest waitlist.
Our academic success is grounded in five core principles that define and shape the culture and
environment of all of our schools.
Expectation of high achievement: LEARN prides itself in the high quality of instructors that it
recruits and maintains so that its students will achieve at high levels for the long term.
Mutual respect among staff, parents, students and communities served: We believe it is the
right, privilege and responsibility of each individual to contribute to and work in an environment
of trust and cooperation. We know that this is the foundation for what motivates employees to
come to work, students to attend school, and parents to participate in our school.
Safe and nurturing environment: We aim to provide a place where learning takes place and
students gain a sense of acceptance and pride in the absence of fear of physical harm or
insecurity. We practice positive discipline when students make mistakes and need to be
counseled and/or redirected, and view these instances as opportunities to teach and not punish.
Active family participation & contribution: In developing partnerships with our families, our
staff conducts home visits in the beginning of the year, and then work diligently to communicate
regularly with the families throughout the year, including hosting themed family nights that are
intended to support the academic and non-academic growth of the students and their families.
51
Positive development of the whole child: LEARN is dedicated to meeting the social,
emotional, physical, and psychological needs of all students and will invest all necessary
resources to accomplish these goals.
7. The proposal does not sufficiently articulate how technology is used to improve student
acquisition of knowledge and skills.
The LEARN Charter School Application provided an overarching view of how LEARN
Programs utilize technology to support their program. The LEARN staff readily answered
the questions posed by Waukegan Unit School District #60 staff. The following is a
summarization of the LEARN Technology Program based upon the LEARN application and
the answers to our questions.
The LEARN program provides adequate and filtered Internet access. The bandwidth exceeds
the federal standard that is currently in place for each student. Classrooms have sufficient
hardware to provide students with daily access. Chromebooks and refurbished netbooks
make up the tools available to the students. While not the most capable devices, they do
provide students with access to the Internet and web-based curriculum. Teachers have access
to non-interactive projectors and document cameras. LEARN states that they are evaluating
interactive projection systems for classroom use.
The LEARN program does not have a technology curriculum. Classroom technology is used only
to support the online curriculum programs provided by LEARN. Students use the online
curriculum to reinforce their learning and keep them occupied while the teacher works with
small groups of students. While this is one use of classroom technology, it misses the promise of
how technology can help students to improve thinking skills, learn research practices and
improve communication skills. Waukegan Unit School District #60 uses technology to support
online curriculum but is moving towards using the NETS Standards as a basis of our technology
curriculum. Ultimately, we want all students using technology to support every aspect of their
learning.
There does not appear to be a written professional development plan in place. The professional
development program consists of helping teachers to manage the technology in their classroom.
Teachers learn to organize and direct students to use the online curriculum provided by LEARN.
There was no evidence that teachers are instructed in the use of technology as a tool to support
all aspects of learning. There is no evidence of a structured professional development program
that utilizes national standards as a basis for developing teacher technology skills.
LEARN response:
LEARN makes technology accessible to all our scholars in grades K-8. Currently, students in grades
2-8 have access to Chromebooks in their classrooms while all K-1 scholars have access to netbooks.
Students have access to these devices and the internet in multiple subjects throughout the day.
52
Technology Curriculum Standards
As we develop our Technology curriculum, teachers are already following some of the curriculum
standards created by the International Society for Technology Education (ISTE), formerly known as
NETS. The ISTE standards currently guiding our technology curriculum are listed below.
ISTE Standard 2 Communication and Collaboration:
This shift requires using technology to communicate and collaborate with others. Scholars have been
using the Google Docs application on the Chromebooks to collaboratively publish and revise projects
and writing tasks with both their peers and teachers. Teachers are using Google Docs to post
assignments and excerpts of texts so that scholars may digitally annotate texts, type responses to
assignments, comment on each other‘s writing, and make revisions after receiving feedback.
Assignments are both general and individualized so that teachers are able to target specific skills for
students to practice. Teachers also post announcements and assignments using Google Classroom.
At home students are able to access information from both Google Docs and Google Classroom by
logging onto their Google Drive from any device. In the classroom, students use Chromebooks to
learn technology skills and to complete assignments in core subjects.
ISTE Standard 3: Research and Information Fluency:
This standard requires using technology to gather, evaluate, process, and report information. LEARN
has been providing on-going professional development for teachers on using research databases,
including but not limited to Gale Group‘s Research in Context databases. All scholars have access to
these leveled databases which include primary sources, videos, graphics and audio resources to
support student learning.
ISTE Standard 6: Technology Operations and Concepts:
This standard requires scholars to demonstrate an understanding of technology concepts, systems and
operations. Teachers have been using various Google Apps for Education as well as other resources
such as Lexia Core 5 and Dance Mat Typing to expand student knowledge of device applications,
website functionality (use of drop down menus, hyperlinks, bookmarks, etc…), Cloud technology
and general typing skills.
Professional Development
In addition to implementing new technology standards, LEARN has been providing on-going
professional development for staff in technology literacy. The LEARN network began with a
Chromebook orientation session covering the basics of google technology and Chromebook use in
the classroom. We then followed up with a session on using Chromebooks for database research.
To further support teachers in learning new technology, we have created Google groups so that
teachers could share documents, post questions, and share ideas. We draw on these virtual
conversations to further identify which technology skills teachers are interested in further developing
during professional development.
C. Organizational Plan Analysis
53
1. The proposal failed to articulate the level and type of involvement that local residents will
have in the school.
LEARN Charter Schools has a well-defined governing body with a Board of Directors
with well-qualified members interested in its success. At the public hearing, the staff
present indicated an interest in including local Waukegan residents, but no clear
process was shared with how exactly that works. No documentation was given for the
adding and removal of board members.
LEARN Charter Schools also indicated that they welcome parent and community
comment and will have committees for discussions with staff. However, nothing was
shared about how these committees would be formed and what, if any, authority they
would have in making changes at the charter school. Also, no clear plan was shared
about how they would invite and encourage limited English proficient (LEP) parents to
be part of the governing structure and fully engage them in all facets of their program,
including its management and governance.
LEARN response:
LEARN Charter School Network will form an advisory group which will consist of parents of
our school (who have completed our parent university) and community members. The advisory
group will consist of five to eight members who will work collaboratively with the school
principal to improve academic outcomes and the student experience. All parents (including
those of special education students and those with limited English proficiency) will be invited
and encouraged to participate.We will be able to host these meetings in Spanish as well. The
advisory group will work with the school principal and other appropriate LEARN staff to
provide guidance to the school in Waukegan.
LEARN Charter Schools shows a relationship with United Lake County. An outreach plan to
include Waukegan parents and community members was not shared, only implied.
Without a clear strategy and planned activities, this seems to be a lower priority. The level
of community support for LEARN Charter Schools was not clearly given. A petitions
with1510 signatures was submitted, however 139 of those addresses were not within our
district boundaries, ranging from Waukegan addresses in District 56 to families in Zion or
Lake Bluff. The District was also supplied with intent to enroll forms. One hundred forty
five (145) students were listed on signed forms. Out of the 145, seven (7) had out of district
addresses. There were only sixty-one (61) who would be eligible in the proposed grade
levels of Kindergarten through 3rd grade, well below the needed two hundred (200)
54
students.
The signatures for the petition and the intent to enroll forms were collected in October
when students were home due to an extended and contentious teacher strike. With this
unique situation, it is felt many families would be inclined to sign such a petition and
expression of intent without a firm commitment to follow through with actual enrollment
once the regular school year resumes.
LEARN Response:
We are still proud that over 1,300 Waukegan residents support a LEARN Charter School in their
community. Our intent was to collect from families with children in kindergarten through eighth
grade. In our original application, we included 5 letters of support for LEARN. In Attachment
5K, we include 13 additional letters of support, received in January and February 2015.We will
continue to complete additional intent to enroll forms. Canvassing to secure signatures began at
the end of September, prior to the teachers‘ strike. Waukegan residents who signed petitions
cited reasons such as long-standing frustration with Waukegan Public Schools, poor student
performance, large class sizes and a desire for full-day kindergarten, a longer school day and
year, among others – reasons unrelated to the October teachers‘ strike.
Moreover, when the public hearing held at the high school on December 10, 2014 (after
schools reopened) there were drew fewer than fifty (50) community members present
and only three (3) participants requested Spanish translation. Such a turnout does not
show a high community interest in the approval and implementation of a charter school
in the Waukegan Community Unit School District 60.
LEARN Response:
There were 49 members present in support of LEARN at the public hearing. The meeting was
held on parent/teacher conference and we in fact received emails from teachers and parents
stating that they wanted to attend but could not because it was on the same day as the conference.
In addition, no one spoke against LEARN. We believe that the lack of opposition at the
Waukegan public hearing speaks volumes to the desire of another high quality option in this
community.
2. The LEARN Charter School staff turnover rate is higher than the turnover rate of the
District.
55
LEARN Charter Schools shows success in recruiting and hiring staff members with welldefined interview and training methods shared. The evaluation and due process procedures are
not as well defined as shared which may indicate a shortfall. The 25 to 30% annual turnover rate
for staff indicates difficulty in maintaining high staff standards.
LEARN response:
LEARN has not been provided with the WCUSD turnover data in order to provide a detailed
comparison. An analysis of our employee turnover rates shows that staff primarily leave the
organization as result of relocation outside of Illinois state, joining a district school, or leaving
the teaching professional altogether. While we seek to increase our retention of staff, our
historical network turnover rates are comparable with larger charter management organizations
nationally.
Few specifics were provided about how the challenges of securing qualified staff for non-English
speaking students would be managed.
LEARN response:
With regard to non-English speaking students, LEARN employs an English Language Learners
(ELL) Coordinator/Teacher at both our North Chicago and South Chicago campuses which have
a higher ESL/Latino population. We would create a similar position at the Waukegan campus. As
described earlier in this document, LEARN is also developing an ESL teacher certification
program in partnership with National Louis University to build the skills of our existing staff.
Finally, as part of our recruitment process we would seek to hire bi-lingual educators nationally
and from the local community to support the needs of non-English speaking students.
3. The proposal fails to articulate ongoing professional development that will be
implemented throughout the year.
LEARN Charter Schools shows intensive professional development prior to the start of the school
year. They fail to show how professional development continues through the school year and
how teachers are given an opportunity to collaborate during the school day. Also lacking is
documentation as to how staff members are held accountable to items learned through
professional development to maintain the high professional standards in the classroom.
56
LEARN response:
LEARN provides high-quality intensive professional development throughout the school year.
Our professional development structure is as follows:
 Bi-weekly all-faculty site-based PD sessions followed with implementation supports
 Bi-weekly collaborative planning sessions focused on analyzing data to plan small
group instruction and plan for units of study
 Professional study groups for teachers to read professional literature and discuss how to
put it into practice in their classrooms
 Individual Professional Development Plans
 Ten dedicated Professional Development Days throughout the school year
Our schools use Professional Learning Communities (PLC) as the cornerstone of their
professional development program to improve teaching and learning. These meetings are an
opportunity to review student work, analyze assessment data, and trouble shoot with classroom
practices and teaching concepts. What makes these meetings unique is that the topics are
teacher-directed, though the meeting may be led by any of the staff members, including a
school leader. They are held once or twice a month, meeting for an hour each time. The
alternating weeks are reserved for common grade level planning time.
Development and planning time is used to focus on one particular school-wide instructional
goal that was either collectively agreed upon as a goal, or identified based on MAP and STEP
results. This is typically led by a leadership team member and may involve bringing in outside
consultants and experts.
We have built into our calendar ten full-day professional development days. These sessions
currently are focused on supporting the implementation of Common Core State Standards,
along with its "Instructional Shifts" pedagogy.
The Network has recently significantly expanded resources for teaching and learning, with a
Chief Academic Officer, Data Analyst, Director of Teaching and Learning, two Senior
Managers of Teaching and Learning, and a coach guiding the school-based instructional
coaches.
Each of our principals has school-wide professional development goals unique to their
respective campuses. In conjunction with their leadership teams, our principals set guidelines
for how and when they will be measured, and formulate a plan on how to achieve those goals.
Student academic outcomes as well as separate teacher, student, and parent surveys factor into
the assessment of the program‘s progress. For Waukegan, it will be essential that the Student
Support Services team is involved in helping to set these goals and monitor progress towards
them. Similarly, their expertise will be required in the professional development of the staff so
57
that teachers are effectively able to work with students on academic as well as non-academic
challenges.
4. Student Recruitment and Enrollment
LEARN Charter Schools has a generic plan for recruiting students with a flexible timeline to help
the district meet its needs including a lottery system for grade levels with too many requests.
Without an aggressive recruiting plan and attention to LEP issues, many families in Waukegan
will be left out because they will be unaware of the opportunity until it is too late and selections
have already been made.
LEARN response:
Upon approval of LEARN 9 in Waukegan, the LEARN recruitment and enrollment team will
develop a targeted marketing strategy to ensure all families in the Waukegan community are
informed of LEARN‘s open enrollment process, lottery dates, and the required documentation to
fully enroll. To do this, LEARN will 1) hire a field team including Spanish-speakers to perform
grassroots marketing to local daycares, community centers, churches, and preschools in the area;
2) disseminate at least two direct mail pieces to the Waukegan community to inform families of
the new school; 3) invest in highly visible collateral (i.e. billboard and banners) so families are
well aware of the school opening and enrollment timeline; 4) attend and host local/open house
events in the community for informational purposes.
5. Spanish Interpreters
At the public hearing on December 10, 2014, LEARN stated that they would seek volunteers to
assist with communicating to parents in languages other than English. This is contradictory to an
agreement that District 60 reached with the Office of Civil Rights in 2012 to ensure compliance with
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 34 C.F.R. Part 150. The agreement set forth these
expectations in regards to oral interpretation with parents in languages other than English for their
basic civil right of understanding the educational needs of their children.
a. The District will maintain an updated list of interpreters and translators at school
and District levels who are proficient in the languages served by the District and who are
competent to provide interpretation and translation services;
b. The District will continue to ensure that all persons on its list of interpreters and
translators have been appropriately trained regarding the role of interpreter and translator, the
ethics of interpreting and translating, and the need to maintain confidentiality;
c. The District will also evaluate how it ensures that the interpreters and
translators have the skills and proficiency to interpret and translate in a particular nonEnglish language; and
d. The District shall ensure that staff utilizing interpreters and translators are provided
58
guidance on the role of interpreter in a meeting and how to use an interpreter.
The Charter School would be subject to similar objections to assure non-discrimination on the
basis of race, color or national origin. Volunteers are not sufficient.
LEARN response:
LEARN would work with WCUSD to comply with the agreement it reached with the Office of
Civil Rights in 2012 with regard to providing oral interpretation services for parents.
LEARN Waukegan will use the services of leadership team, office staff, ESL and bilingual
teachers, and other native Spanish speakers on staff for translation and interpretation services.
Please also see LEARN's response to comment #3 in the Educational Analysis above.
E.
Legal Analysis
LEARN believes that nothing in the district‘s analysis should be considered a barrier to any
decision to move forward with LEARN‘s Charter Application for a few key reasons: First, the
Charter Law requires that a proposal to establish a charter school meet two essential
requirements: it must comply with the Law by containing the 15 or so elements set forth at 105
ILCS 5/27A-7(a) and it should be in the best interest of the students the applicants intend the
school to serve. None of the issues raised at pages 22-27 of the Administrative Summary and
Recommendations demonstrate that LEARN‘s proposal to establish a school in Waukegan fails
to meet the requirements of the Charter Schools Law.
Second, the fact that Waukegan would have offered a counterproposal to the draft Charter
Agreement that LEARN included with its proposal or would have ―preferred‖ different language,
or even that the draft contract contained terms that appear not to be entirely consistent with
public statements made by LEARN representatives or in some aspects of the Proposal, the
contents of a draft Charter Agreement cannot serve as the exclusive basis for denying a charter
proposal. It is Section 27A-6 of the Charter Law which sets forth the contents that a proposed
charter contract must include, not Section 27A-7, which instead applies to the requirements for
the Charter Proposal itself.
Many of the issues raised by the District in its Report refer to elements LEARN must include in
the Proposal under Section 27A-7, not the proposed contract. Moreover, the draft proposed
agreement is not an official contract or statement of the law, it merely reflects the initial contract
terms LEARN proposes. Any final charter agreement entered into would be the result of
negotiations between the two parties and even then, the contract would not be effective until
certified by the Illinois State Board of Education. See 105 ILCS 5/27A-6.
Finally, it should be noted that most of the ―legal analysis‖ at pages 22-27 makes clear the
comments were intended merely to highlight issues for District officials to consider negotiating
or to use in making a counter-proposal, not to use as a basis for denying LEARN‘s Proposal.
59
Specific Responses to Legal Issues Raised in District Report
The following section includes a response and analysis of each of the issues raised by the District
in its Administrative Summary and Recommendations at pages 22-27 which the District
Administration classified as either Apparent Variances, Concerning Issues or Minor Corrections.
Apparent Variances
1. On page 3 of the Proposed Contract, the text describes the Educational Program at paragraph 4.
Although the Mission Statements asserts that the Charter School will ―operate pursuant to its
commitments,‖ the brevity leaves room for disagreement about what is promised. The Proposal
refers to the need to provide ―an academic foundation and ambition to earn a college degree.‖
(Proposal, p. 4). The Proposal states that LEARN ―places a special emphasis on the STEM skills so
in demand in today‘s economy.‖ (p. 5). At page 7, LEARN‘s mission and core values are explicitly
stated. The Contract would be clearer if the key commitments were specified with greater clarity.
LEARN's response:
As is customary in most charter school contracts, the proposed Charter Agreement refers to the
mission statement set forth in its Proposal. Nothing more is required under the Law. The
proposed contract includes a specific statement that LEARN will operate pursuant to the plans
and commitments included in its proposal or application. See also NACSA Core Charter School
Contract at 6, 9.2 In addition, the language in the proposed provision is similar to language
recently approved by ISBE in charter agreements certified as in compliance with the Charter
Schools Law.
2. 105 ILCS 5/27A-7(a)(2) requires that the Contract include a statement of the minimum number
of students the Charter School will serve. This detail is omitted, but low enrollment could be a basis
for terminating the Charter. Some floor should be included to comply with the statute. Similarly,
there is no discussion of age of the students or age cut-offs for acceptance and enrollment. Although
LEARN refers to its lottery, the contract omits the details its representatives mentioned publicly
before the Board. 105 ILCS 5/27A-4, effective on January 1, 2015 added new requirements, and the
proposal does not include them. (see P.A. 98-783, videotaped, observed by authorizer, date/time
stamp, copies provided to authorizer). Participation in additional intake activities, as outlined in the
statute, may not be a condition for enrollment. Updated waitlists should be provided quarterly.
These limitations and obligations should also be acknowledged, or the amended statute cited
expressly. Since the contract is effective on July 1, 2015, the new statute‘s terms should apply and
be incorporated as material obligations.
2
The NACSA Core Charter School Contract is a model charter performance agreement published by the National
Association of Charter School Authorizers.
60
LEARN response:
Minimum Enrollment. Section 7(a)(2) requires applicants to state the minimum and maximum
number of students that a proposed school intends to serve. The Charter Schools Law does not
mandate that the proposed charter contract explicitly identify a floor of students below which the
Charter School would cease to operate. Instead, the majority interpretation of Section 7(a)(2) is
that the Law requires applicants to state the proposed enrollment for each year of the charter,
assuming that it will increase over time. ISBE has certified contracts in the recent past that do
not contain any express statement regarding a minimum enrollment number. In addition, the
NASCA Core Charter School Contract does not include any language setting forth the minimum
enrollment a school will allow. See NACSA Core Charter School Contract at 15. Accordingly,
the notion that an enrollment floor ―should be included [in the contract] to comply with the
statute‖ is simply an incorrect statement of the Law.
Age Requirements. Contrary to the District‘s contention, the proposed contract need not
specifically set forth the age cut-offs for acceptance and enrollment. Instead, Section 27A-5 of
the Charter Law expressly provides that ―a charter school may limit student enrollment by age or
grade level.‖ LEARN limits enrollment by grade level and in Section 4(b) of the proposed
contract, LEARN specifically states that it will provide instruction to 600 students in grades K-8,
as provided in its Proposal. The Proposal includes a chart that sets forth the number of students
that will be enrolled in grade levels each year from the first year of LEARN‘s charter through
2021 and beyond.
Lottery. Contrary to the District‘s Report, the language of the proposed contract includes a
statement from LEARN that it intends to comply with all requirements of the Charter Schools
Law and that includes the provisions imposing new obligations LEARN must follow when it
implements its annual lottery in the future. At Section 5(a) of the proposed agreement, LEARN
states that ―[t]he Charter School shall operate at all times in accordance with the Charter Schools
Law and all other applicable federal and state laws from which the Charter School is not
otherwise exempt . . . .‖ Nothing in the Charter Schools Law requires that the amendments to
provisions regarding the lottery be expressly mentioned in charter contracts, see 105 ILCS
5/27A-6. Therefore, the language in Section 5(a) should suffice and does not amount to a
―deficit‖ that warrants denial of LEARN‘s Proposal.
3. There is no explanation of the relationship that will exist between the charter schools and its
employees, except with respect to teacher certification issues. Very little was stated about wage and
working conditions, employee and employer rights. The statute [5/27A-7(a)(11)] refers to terms and
conditions of employment and any bargaining unit representatives. This topic is ignored, and is
notable given the failure to explicitly incorporate the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act [115
ILCS 5/1 et. seq.] as required by 105 ILCS 5/27A-5(g). The failure to expressly acknowledge the
Charter‘s obligations under the IELRA makes the application non-conforming with express statutory
61
requirements.
LEARN response:
The Charter Law requires only that the proposal include a general explanation of the terms and
conditions of employment. LEARN‘s description amply satisfies the Law‘s requirement by
referring to its discussion of personnel in the Proposal, which includes a detailed explanation of
LEARN‘s expectations of its employees and how it intends to recruit and hire them. The
LEARN staffing model is set forth in detail at pages 39-40 of the Proposal. The staff recruitment
and hiring process is also described in the Proposal at pages 40-42. LEARN also explains the
relationship it will have with its employees as part of its discussion of its educational program at
pages 30, School Calendar and Schedule (extended school day and school year and 10
professional learning days); 31, Professional Development (describing goals of professional
development for teachers); 31, Induction Period (two weeks of professional development for new
teachers and one week for returning teachers); 31-32, Professional Learning Schedule and Plan
(describes use of professional learning communities); 32, Teacher Evaluation (describes cycle of
teacher evaluation). The Charter Law does not mandate that a charter applicant repeat all of this
information in a proposed Charter Agreement. By referencing the Proposal and its explanation
of the terms and conditions of LEARN employees, LEARN has satisfied the requirement under
Section 7(a)(11).
In addition, the Charter Law does not require that any particular statute be addressed expressly.
LEARN‘s obligation to comply with the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act, 115 ILCS 5/1
et seq., (IELRA) is covered by Section 5(a) of the proposed agreement, which states ―The
Charter School shall operate at all times in accordance with the Charter Schools Law and all
other applicable federal and state laws from which the Charter School is not otherwise exempt .
. . .‖ Prior to the General Assembly‘s decision to make the IELRA applicable to Illinois charter
schools, LEARN would have been exempt from complying with the law. Now that the IELRA is
incorporated into the Charter Law under 105 ILCS 5/27A-5(g), LEARN is no longer exempt and
as indicated in Section 5(a) of the proposed agreement, LEARN warrants that it will comply with
all such applicable laws. Therefore, the contract‘s failure to state explicitly its intention to
comply with the IELRA does not render LEARN‘s Charter Proposal ―non-conforming‖ with the
Charter Law‘s ―express statutory requirements.‖
62
4. Paragraph 5 lists federal and state statutes with which the Charter School will comply. There are
aspects to this portion of the Proposal that are troubling. First, the application lists statutes with
which the Charter School will comply if it is ―not otherwise exempt.‖ This implies that the Charter
School will first seek to find an exemption and further that it will limit itself to the laws it has
identified. It would be preferable to state that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations
and then stop. Second, the applicant indicates that it will comply with all constitutional provisions
prohibiting discrimination. Does that include federal regulations implementing the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 as well? Finally, the most recent amendments to 105 ILCS 5/27A-5 (P.A. 98-1102,
effective August 26, 2014, and P.A. 98-669, effective June 26, 2014) added Illinois statutes to the
mix of applicable state law. They are not identified in the Proposed Contract and their absence
creates a legal deficit. The statutes are: a) Section 10-17a of the School Code regarding school
report cards; b) The P-20 Longitudinal Education Data System Act; c) Section 2-3.160 of the School
Code regarding student discipline reporting; and d) Section 27-23.7 of the School Code regarding
bullying prevention. The number of recent amendments begs the question whether the enumeration
of statutes is the best approach. Again, it might be better for the Charter to simply indicate that it
will comply with all applicable requirements of the Charter Schools Law, as amended from time to
time. That will assure that both the District and the Charter School remain in compliance with the
law during the term of the Charter.
LEARN response:
Again, counsel for the District misconstrues the plain language of LEARN‘s proposed contract.
Section 5(g) of the Charter Schools Law provides that ―A charter school is exempt from all other
State laws and regulations in the School Code governing public schools and local school board
policies, except‖ certain enumerated laws set forth in the Law. Accordingly, in an effort to make
clear its intention to comply with applicable law, regulations and policy, in Section 5(a) of the
proposed agreement, LEARN states that ―[t]he Charter School shall operate at all times in
accordance with the Charter Schools Law and all other applicable federal and state laws from
which the Charter School is not otherwise exempt . . . .‖ It also lists a number of laws that are
commonly considered not-exempt.
A plain reading of this language indicates that LEARN is re-stating its commitment to comply
with those laws and regulations that are specifically enumerated in Section 5(g) of the Charter
Law, as well as any other any applicable law or regulation, whether in existence at the time or
later adopted by a federal or state governing body, that the Law does not provide an exemption
for. By including the statement, ―shall operate at all times in accordance with the Charter
Schools Law and all other applicable federal and state laws from which the Charter Schools is
not otherwise exempt,‖ LEARN has proposed precisely the type of language the District counsel
recommends when it suggests ―it might be better for the Charter to simply indicate that it will
comply with all applicable requirements of the Charter Schools Law, as amended from time to
time.‖ Ultimately, LEARN warrants that it will comply with any applicable laws and
regulations, and any amendments to those laws and regulations, whether enumerated or not, as
required to ensure compliance with the Charter Schools Law. The fact that LEARN did not
63
propose the precise contract language that District‘s counsel would have used does not warrant
denying the charter proposal or ―create a legal deficit.‖
Finally, ISBE has certified contracts in the recent past that contain the precise language used in
Section 5(a) noting compliance with all applicable federal and state laws and then enumerating a
sample of applicable statutes. In addition, the NASCA Core Charter School Contract includes a
similar provision. See NACSA Core Charter School Contract at 13 (―The School shall be
deemed a public school subject to all applicable provisions of local, state and federal law and
regulation specifically including but not limited to health and safety, civil rights, student
assessment and assessment administration, data collection, reporting, grading, and remediation
requirements, except to the extent such provisions are inapplicable to charter schools or the
School has obtained waivers, in accordance with §7 below‖).
5. In Section 5.d, LEARN agrees to provide a list of its employees and those of its subcontractors. We
suggest that salary information and other non-exempt data should also be provided, as the data are
records subject to FOIA. WPS60 may be obligated to provide such data in accordance with the
requirements of 5 ILCS 140/7(2), as LEARN will be performing a governmental function under a
contract with a public body. A second concern in this section relates to the issue of teacher
certification. In LEARN‘s proposal and in its public statements to the Board of Education on
December 10, 2014, it was unequivocally stated that all teaching staff would be certificated and
highly qualified. In this section, LEARN permits itself the option of engaging teaching staff that ―is
otherwise qualified to teach, as set forth in Section 27A-10 of the Charter Schools Law.‖ The
Charter Schools Law does not require teachers to be certificated under Article 21 and highly
qualified. Thus, the proposed contract departs materially from the Proposal and public presentation.
See also, the discussion in 5.f regarding instructional providers.
LEARN response:
Whether or not LEARN agrees to provide a list of its employees and subcontractors
automatically, or upon the presentation of a proper request submitted under the Freedom of
Information Act should have been a matter of negotiation and is not a basis for denying
LEARN‘s Charter Proposal.
In addition, the fact that the proposed contract leaves open the possibility that the report
submitted to the District on or before September 15 might classify a teacher as ―otherwise
qualified to teach‖ does not amount to a material departure from any commitment to hire and
retain teaching staff that would be certificated and highly qualified. It merely enables LEARN to
ensure that it will not be unduly penalized if a person hired at the time the list is provided is in
the process of obtaining certification or if there are other circumstances that warrant use of the
other qualification. As the District notes, LEARN is not required to hire only certificated
teachers. Therefore, as long as LEARN hires the required number of certificated and highly
64
qualified instructional providers stated in the Law, it would not be out of compliance. Further, if
the District wanted LEARN to commit to hiring and retaining only certificated and highly
qualified instructional providers, that could have been a point for discussion and negotiation. It
does not serve as a basis to deny LEARN‘s Charter Proposal.
6. There are some apparent errors in the Contract Proposal‘s discussion of Financial Operations that
require modification. First, paragraph 6a discussions funding procedure. The first sentence is
incomplete or incorrect. It concludes with the phrase ―whichever number is greater;‖ however, the
preceding portion of the sentence only refers to one number, i.e., 100% of the District‘s then per
capita student tuition rate. Second, in the next sentence, there is no context for the figure $10,132.
Is that an amount that LEARN regards as a guarantee? In its presentation to the Board, LEARN
disavowed any claim to 125 percent of the District‘s per capita student tuition rate. If a ceiling on
funding is being set, the phrasing is awkward. Third, in subpart i of subparagraph d, LEARN sets a
date of August 20, 2012 for submission of its pre-enrollment report. Clearly the year is erroneous,
but the date creates additional problems. If the payment is to based on the report, then the report
must be delivered before the payment is due. In Year One, and despite the inconsistent language in
the preceding section [6(c), calling for payment by July 1, 2015], LEARN seeks the first quarterly
payment not later than August 1, 2015. WPS60 asks that the contract language conform to a
consistent payment date and that the pre-enrollment report be provided at least 15 days before the
payment is due. Finally, WPS60 objects to the proposed refund methodology. The language
proposed is consistent with 5/27A-11(b), which calls for refunds to be made on a quarterly basis. If
funding follows the student, then upon a transfer or dismissal from the Charter School, WPS60
submits that it would be clearer to state that any refund due should be paid in full as an offset in the
next quarterly funding cycle.
Section 6 Typographical Errors. The District incorrectly points to Section 6a as the provision
which sets out the proposed funding procedure. Instead, Section 6d contains the language for the
proposed funding procedure. However, the District has correctly identified certain typographical
errors. The first paragraph of provision 6d should instead read:
d.
Funding Procedure. Beginning in the 2015-2016 school year and for
each subsequent year of the Term of this Agreement, the District shall calculate
each quarter the per capita student tuition payment for each pupil enrolled at the
Charter School at the rate of 100 percent of the District's then per capita student
tuition rate. For purposes of this Section, "the per capita student tuition" rate refers
to the rate on the most recent Annual Financial Report for the Waukegan
Community School District 60, as calculated by the Illinois State Board of Education.
In addition, Section 6d(i) contains an additional typo in its reference to ―August 20, 2012‖ which
should instead read ―August 20, 2015, and in each year thereafter no later than July 1 . . .‖
65
With the correction of these typographical errors, the provision presents a proposed funding
procedure that asks for funding at the rate of 100 percent of the District‘s per capita student
tuition, enables total funding to be calculated based upon a pre-enrollment report that LEARN
submits no later than August 20, 2015 and then in subsequent years, calculated based upon preenrollment reports submitted no later than July 1 and enrollment reports submitted prior to
installment payments made in October, January and April of each year.
Refund Methodology. The District objects to the language of Section 6d(v) of the proposed
agreement and instead proposes that it would be preferable to have any refunds be provided to
the District ―in full as an offset in the next quarterly payment.‖ However, as the District
acknowledges, the language in the proposed contract is consistent with the Charter Schools Law.
More critically, changing the provision to reflect the District‘s preferred language would render
it inconsistent with the Law. Section 11(b) of the Law uses precisely the same language
requiring that refunds be provided on a quarterly basis, in a prorated portion of the public
funding received. See 105 ILCS 5/27A-11(b) (―if a charter school dismisses a pupil from the
charter school after receiving a quarterly payment, the charter school shall return to the school
district, on a quarterly basis, the prorated portion of public funding provided for the education of
that pupil for the time the student is not enrolled at the charter school. Likewise, if a pupil
transfers to a charter school between quarterly payments, the school district shall provide, on a
quarterly basis, a prorated portion of the public funding to the charter school to provide for the
education of that pupil‖).
7. Paragraph 6g raises an issue that should be analyzed internally. In general, the law provides that a
public Charter School will not charge tuition. In this section, LEARN allows itself the opportunity
to accept students who would otherwise be liable for tuition costs under the School Code. Typically,
this refers to students who are not District residents. In general, it is the policy of Waukegan Public
Schools to not accept non-resident students on a tuition basis. Does the District want to open that
possibility for LEARN?
LEARN response
The District correctly notes that under the Charter Schools Law, 105 ILCS 5/27A-5(e), a charter
school may not charge tuition. However, the provision that LEARN proposes specifically
preserves LEARN‘s right to accept students and concomitant obligation to charge tuition if the
students would be obligated to pay for the right to access LEARN via the District. See 105 ILCS
5/10-20-12a. The District does not appear to object to the proposed language and the provision
complies fully with the Charter Schools Law. It is clear that the District highlighted the
provision merely because it would have been a matter of negotiation between WCUSD and
LEARN to determine whether the District would have allowed LEARN to accept non-resident
students on a tuition basis.
66
8. Paragraph 6i describes management and financial controls that LEARN will employ. Therein, they
refer to the creation of quarterly reports. There is no commitment by LEARN to furnish those
quarterly reports to WPS60, but that would be helpful and not an excessive burden. Under 5/27A-4,
an authorizer is allowed to require quarterly financial statements.
LEARN response:
Section 5/27A-5 of the Charter Schools Law does allow an authorizer to require a charter school
to submit quarterly financial statements, ―if deemed necessary for proper financial oversight of
the charter school.‖ It would have been a matter of negotiation between WCUSD and LEARN
to determine whether the District should have required LEARN to submit quarterly financial
statements.
Concerning Issues
1. On page 4, the Charter School reserves the right to ―develop and implement its own system of
student discipline.‖ There is no obligation to coordinate its discipline policy and
consequences with WPS 60. While not likely problematic at the K-3 level, the Charter
envisions a middle school within the initial charter term. Given the existence of gang issues
and a strong expectation that the safety of staff will be honored by the student discipline
policy (see Teachers‘ CBA, Articles I I.E and V.S.8), how will physical assaults of staff be
managed for example? Since LEARN anticipates that the District will be supplying staff for
supplemental services, will a more lenient disciplinary code result in grievances by District
staff about unsafe and changed working conditions?
LEARN response:
The District apparently does not object to LEARN‘s proposed language and its intention to use
its own system of discipline. Further, the District expressly acknowledges that there is no law or
rule that prohibits LEARN from doing so. The District‘s counsel appears to have highlighted the
language from page 4 of the proposed contract in an effort to ensure that District administrators
consider the impact of LEARN‘s separate disciplinary policy on WCUSD and take the steps
internally that would be necessary to address any potential impact. The District‘s comments are
not intended to serve as the basis for denying LEARN‘s proposal.
Moreover, to the extent the District‘s comments are intended to raise a concern regarding the
safety and security of staff on campus, LEARN maintains a calm and orderly learning
environment in all of its schools.
67
2. The transportation section of the School Code [5/27A-7](13)] requires the applicant to describe how
the Charter School will meet the transportation needs of low-income and at-risk pupils. The
application leaves the problem with the District. While that is an approach, the Charter should
contain a reciprocal commitment to adjust the per pupil cost calculation to address the additional
transportation cost made necessary by the increased distance between residences of the students and
LEARN‘s choice of location in lieu of the neighborhood school the student would otherwise attend.
This area seems has so many variables that it needs to be a subject of annual review, depending on
State reimbursement rates, impact of unsafe route analysis given the particular routes for students
enrolling at the Charter School, decisions about separate buses, etc. Thus, the Agreement should
have an annual review section to address the vagaries of transportation services and its related cost
impacts.
LEARN response:
The District does not object to LEARN‘s proposed approach for the provision of transportation
on legal grounds. In the proposal, LEARN asks the District to provide transportation for students
as appropriate and required for LEARN to meet the transportation needs of low-income and atrisk students under Section 27A-7(13). In the Report, the District‘s counsel suggests that
WCUSD present a counter-proposal that features two new elements: (1) an adjustment to the perpupil tuition cost calculation (LEARN‘s revenue per pupil) designed to compensate the District
for the additional cost it would incur to transport students any additional distance beyond their
assigned neighborhood school and (2) a requirement that the provision of the agreement
allocating the burden of transportation provision to the District be reviewed by the parties
annually. As with a number of the other provisions classified as ―Concerning Issues,‖ whether
LEARN decided to accept these counter-proposals from the District would have been matters of
negotiation.
3. Case law arising from the Second Appellate District (Crystal Lake) has recently evolved clarifying
that home rule municipalities have jurisdiction to enforce local building and zoning codes on public
schools. Until recently this was a legal question in flux. Consequently, paragraph 5.a.xiv, on page 6,
should be modified to include the County of Lake and the City of Waukegan as legal authorities
with which the Charter School will comply. 105 ILCS 5/27A-5(d) requires Charter Schools to
comply with all applicable health and safety requirements applicable to public schools, and this issue
will arise immediately as the Charter School selects and remodels leased property for its school site.
LEARN response:
Currently, the language of Section 5(a)(xiv) in the proposed contract provides that LEARN will
―comply with the following [laws and regulations] to the extent applicable to Charter Schools . . .
xiv. All applicable health and safety regulations of the State of Illinois, including without
limitations, those specifically identified by the State Superintendent as being applicable to
68
charter schools.‖ The District suggests that the LEARN should include among the list of health
and safety laws and regulations with which it will comply, the health and safety regulations of
Lake County and the City of Waukegan. However, the case law on which the District relies to
support its argument speaks exclusively to the application of municipal zoning regulations and
does not require the addition of the District‘s suggested language.
In Gurba v. Community High School District No., 155, 2014 IL App (2d) 140098, the appellate
court held that that school districts are subject to the zoning regulations of home rule
municipalities. Therefore, when a school or local school board plans to make building changes
that require zoning changes or some other approval under a municipal zoning ordinance or
regulation, the school must apply for and obtain that approval before it can start any
construction. To simply add ―County of Lake and City of Waukegan‖ to the first sentence of
Section 5(a)(xiv) after ―the State of Illinois‖ would give those government entities far more
authority over LEARN than the Charter Schools Law and even the Gurba case requires.
Although zoning ordinances may be considered one type of health and safety regulation, Gurba
does not stand for the proposition that school districts must comply with all municipal health and
safety regulations. Moreover, to the extent that Gurba will operate to control LEARN‘s ability
to remodel any facility within the boundaries of Lake County and Waukegan, the law will apply
regardless whether the parties charter agreement contains an express acknowledgement.
4. There are several versions of 5/27A-5 in effect currently. This is the section of the Charter Schools
Law that identifies the legal requirements. One version is P.A. 98-639, effective June 9, 2014. It
provides that a Charter School shall comply with ―all federal and State laws and rules applicable to
public schools that pertain to special education and the instruction English language learners,
referred to in this Code as ‗children of limited English-speaking ability‘ . . . .‖ In Section 4,
paragraph l, the LEARN proposed contract states that it will provide ―bilingual education services in
a manner consistent with the description in the Charter Schools proposal, provided that such services
are in compliance with relevant state, federal and Charter Schools Law.‖ Once again, phrasing of
legal obligations in terms of what LEARN‘s proposal states introduces a potential for ambiguity. Is
the LEARN bilingual program identical to the scope and extent of programs required for English
language learners? Wouldn‘t it be more appropriate for LEARN to simply state that it will comply
with all federal and State laws and rules applicable to public schools that pertain to the instruction of
English language learners? Similarly in Paragraph 9a (relating to the provision of special education
services), we suggest the last sentence should conclude with the phrase, ―and all federal and State
laws and rules applicable to public schools that pertain to special education.‖
LEARN response:
As noted above, in Section 5(a) of the proposed contract, LEARN makes clear its intent to
comply with all federal and state laws from which it is not otherwise exempt and that it ―shall
operate at all times in accordance with the Charter Schools Law.‖ This language therefore
covers LEARN‘s intent to comply with the amendments to the Charter Law passed by the
69
General Assembly in June 2014 to require that charter schools comply with state laws and rules
pertaining to the instruction of English Language Learners. To the extent there are any
obligations with which LEARN must comply that are over and above the commitments that
LEARN has made in its Proposal, the language proposed in Section 5(a) make plain that LEARN
warrants it will satisfy those obligations. The practice of referring back to an applicant‘s charter
proposal is well-established and similar contract language has been included in contracts
approved by authorizers in Illinois and certified by ISBE. Moreover, if the District preferred
different language, with regard to ELL students or special education services in Paragraph 9(a)
of the proposed contract, it could have proposed modifications to the relevant contract provisions
as part of negotiations with LEARN. The language included in the contract proposed by
LEARN, however, does not serve as a basis for denying LEARN‘s charter proposal.
5. 105 ILCS 5/27A-7 anticipates an agreement between the authorizer and the charter school applicant
on legal liability and applicable insurance coverage. In paragraph 7, LEARN commits to provide
the coverages set forth in Exhibit C. WPS60 will be a named insured only under the CGL policy.
That should be clarified to assure that the Automobile and the Umbrella/Excess Liability Insurance
policies will include the District as an additional insured for occurrences arising from the Charter
School‘s services. A definition of Services was not found, and clarification of that term is needed.
The word ―material‖ should be added before the word ―breach‖ in the second line of the first
paragraph of Section 2.
LEARN response:
Each of the items raised by the District would have been matters for negotiation had the WCUSD
and LEARN moved forward with a charter agreement. The requests the District appears likely to
have made are based upon facts and circumstances specific to WCUSD and are unlikely to be
issues raised by another authorizer.
Administrative Summary and Recommendations, p 26
6. Paragraph 9b is inconsistent. Under the hearing Personnel, the Charter School promises to
maintain an appropriate level of special education staffing as necessary to fulfill the students‘ IEPs
and applicable law. Moreover, the District is allowed to ensure this occurs. If this is true, then why
does subpart i shift the cost liability to the District for full or part time staff necessitated by the
requirements of the IEP? Are we okay with subpart ii of 9b? The Charter School can interview,
assess qualifications and reject our staff, replace our staff member with their own and bill us for the
cost? Same problem with subpart iii (outside service providers). Is this a way for the Charter
School to augment their staff and to evade their blanket assumption of responsibility for necessary
personnel under 9b?
LEARN response:
70
The language of Section 9b of the proposed contract is not inconsistent. As required under the
Charter Schools Law and special education laws and regulations, LEARN agrees to provide
instruction to students as necessary to fulfill their IEP requirements and comply with applicable
law. However, funding for special education students would not have flowed directly to LEARN
to cover the costs of providing the required instruction. Therefore, LEARN proposed contract
provisions that would ensure that LEARN is accountable for satisfying its legal obligation to
provide instruction to special education students, but also ensure that the District met its
obligation to provide LEARN the special education funding the District received for those
students so that the students could be properly served. Thus, LEARN is not ―augmenting its
staff‖ or otherwise ―evading its responsibility for necessary personnel‖ simply because it seeks to
preserve its ability to select the personnel that works with its students and to ensure that the
funds intended for LEARN students are used to support the instruction of those students.
7. The schedule for consideration of charter renewal under paragraph 11 is far too tight.
LEARN response:
The schedule for renewal is not a matter set forth explicitly in the Charter Schools Law. Instead,
Section 27A-9 is silent as to the time allotted for an authorizer to review and decide a renewal
application. Therefore, if the District believed that a charter renewal schedule that would run on
the same timeline the Law provides authorizers for consideration of an appeal under 105 ILCS
5/27A-8 was ―too tight,‖ it could have negotiated a longer timeline for renewal with LEARN.
8. The Revocation of Charter Section (Paragraph 12) is stacked against termination of the Charter. The
District must ―clearly‖ demonstrate any claimed violation. Violations must be considered material.
The Charter School may be allowed up to two years to implement its proposed corrective action.
The Charter School determines the corrective action plan and has 30 days to prepare and submit it.
The timeline for correction and response should be shortened especially if we are facing a material
violation. There is a reference to situations where the health, safety or education of students is at
risk, but such a situation does not trigger any reduction in the two-year corrective action allowance.
LEARN response:
The language of Section 27A-9 of establishes the standard for revocation under the Charter
Schools Law. Contrary to the District‘s Administrative Summary and Recommendations, the
language that LEARN proposes in Section 12 of the contract on revocation is not ―stacked
against termination of the charter.‖ Instead, the language is taken directly from the Charter
Schools Law. Section 27A-9(c) of the Charter Schools Law requires that an authorizer seeking
to revoke a school‘s charter must ―clearly demonstrate‖ that the charter school failed to comply
71
with the requirements of the Law or fell in one of the other categories set forth in Section 27A9(c)(1-4). In addition, the Law states that a charter may be revoked under Section 27A-9(c)(1)
only if the charter school ―committed a material violation of any of the conditions, standards, or
procedures set forth in the charter.‖ Similarly, Section 27A-9(c) gives charter schools the right
to prepare and submit a corrective action plan and specifically states that ―the plan shall include a
timeline for implementation, which shall not exceed 2 years or the date of the charter‘s
expiration, whichever is earlier.‖ The Law neither requires nor prohibits the implementation of a
two-year timetable for revocation in the event the school‘s charter is being revoked in the face of
a risk to the health, safety or education of the school‘s students. Therefore, LEARN‘s proposed
contract language merely states the legal requirements for revocation and due process required
be given to schools under the Charter Schools Law.
9.
Paragraph 15 of the Proposal (Governing Law) should be amended to add a statement that exclusive
venue for any legal proceedings is either in the 19th Judicial Circuit Court, Lake County, Illinois, or
the U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
LEARN response:
There is no law necessarily requiring that the proposed contract specify the venue for any legal
proceedings. This would be a matter for negotiation between the parties.
MINOR CORRECTIONS
1. The Agreement should be with the Board of Education of Waukegan Community Unit
School District No. 60.
2. In several places, the proposed Agreement refers to the Illinois Administrative Code
sections pertaining to charter schools. See, e.g., 6.1 and 9.b.iv. Each such reference
should be preceded with the Title number. It is 23, so the cite is 23 Ill. Admin. Code§_.
3. Add the Associate Superintendent for Finance & Business Services to the Insurance
Notice provision (paragraph 7). Add the Board President as an addressee in paragraph 23.
4. Suggest that the Transcript of Proceedings before the Board of Education on December
10, 2014, as transcribed by McCorkle Reporting, be added as a document incorporated
by reference in Exhibit A.
5. Exhibit B has several typos. In paragraph 1, the cite to the School Code should be 105
72
ILCS 5/1-1and not 511-1. Similarly, the number 1should be substituted for the letter I in
1.d, 1e,1f, and 3. The Fire Drill Act has been repealed. Paragraph 5 should read ILCS and
not JLCS.
6. The reference to Exhibit E should be revised to Exhibit C in the last paragraph of Section
2 (p. 27).
7. The date November 1, 2015 should be inserted in Exhibit D (blank on second line of para.
1).
LEARN Response:
1.
This item would no longer be apply unless a contract is entered into with the District.
2.
These corrections should be made in any future contract.
3.
This item would no longer apply unless a contract is entered into with the District.
4.
The transcript should not be added an exhibit to a charter agreement.
5.
These typos should be corrected for any future contract.
6.
This typo should be corrected for any future contract.
7.
This typo should be corrected for any future contract.
LEARN Charter School Network believes that the concerns raised by the District in its analysis
have been properly addressed. We remain interested in working with the district and
Commission to modify our plans as needed in order to open a high-quality LEARN Charter
School campus to serve Waukegan students and families who have asked for this choice.
73

Memorandum Date: February 5, 2015 To: Ms. Hosanna Mahaley

Transcription

Similar documents

View Online

Custom Lemsteraak 12.80 - {ModelName} Charter Brochure

T H E E A G L E - Springs Charter Schools

Charter Compass 03-21

Erasmus+ Programme

Grant Development

9291129 SLP Spanish Ju03

Go Fish - Cloudinary

The Charter Dialogue between Courts and Legislatures

Planning a trip to Tahiti