Home Antioch Tonight: Antioch Unified School District to Vote on Rocketship Charter School Petition

Tonight: Antioch Unified School District to Vote on Rocketship Charter School Petition

by ECT

Tonight, the Antioch Unified School District Board of Education will vote on a petition to establish Rocketship Antioch Elementary Charter School from Rocketship Education.

According to the District, the Charter School seeks to commence operation of the chart school in the 2018-19 school year.

Board Members Walter Ruehlig, Debra Vinson, Diane Gibson-Gray, Alonzo Terry and Fernando Navarro will vote on the petition even though the election has been finalized, the AUSD made the decision to not swear in top vote-getter Chrystal Sawyer-White or Gary Hack prior to the meeting.

District Staff has recommended to the Board of Education they vote against the charter:

The Petition, as submitted, fails to provide a reasonably comprehensive description of several essential charter elements and suggests that the Petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program.  Accordingly, staff is recommending denial of the Petition.

The following reasons justify denial of the Petition prior to the commencement of the school’s operations:

  • The Petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program presented in the Petition; and
  • The Petition fails to provide a reasonably comprehensive description of all required elements of a charter Petition.

If the District grants the Petition, the Charter School becomes a legal entity. Under
Education Code section 47605, subdivision (j)(1), if the District denies the Petition, the
Petitioners may appeal the denial to the Contra Costa County Board of Education
(“CCBOE”). If the CCBOE grants the Petition, the CCBOE becomes the supervisory agency
over the Charter School. If the CCBOE denies the Petition, then Petitioners may appeal to
the State Board of Education (“SBE”). (Ed. Code, § 47605, subd. (j)(1).)

The staff report highlights a team of AUSD conducted the review of the petition which includes the following:

  • Stephanie Anello, Superintendent
  • Chris Learned, Interim Chief Business Official
  • Adam Clark, Associate Superintendent, Educational Services
  • Jessica Romero, Chief Human Resources Officer
  • Ruth Rubalcava, Director, Special Education
  • Jason Larson, Director of Education Services
  • Terri Ryland, Financial Consultant, Ryland School Business Consulting
  • Dannis Woliver Kelley, Legal Counsel

Here is a portion of the 23-page Staff Report, for full report, click here.


RECOMMENDATION
Based upon a comprehensive review and analysis of the Petition, the District’s staff and
legal counsel recommends that the Petition be denied.

FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF DENIAL
Review and analysis of the Petition resulted in the following findings:

The Petitioners are Demonstrably Unlikely to Successfully Implement the
Program. (Ed. Code, § 47605, subd. (b)(2).)

In determining whether Petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to succeed in implementing
their educational program, the Regulations require consideration of, among other items:

  • Whether the Petitioners have a past unsuccessful history of involvement in charter
    schools or other education agencies.
  • Whether Petitioners are unfamiliar with the content of the Petition or the requirements of law that would apply to the proposed Charter School.
  • Whether the Petitioners personally have the necessary background in areas critical to
    the charter school’s success or a plan to secure the services of individuals who have
    the necessary background in these areas.
  • Whether Petitioners have presented an unrealistic financial and operational plan for
    the proposed Charter School, including:

    • An administrative services structure that reflects an understanding of school
      business practices and expertise to carry out the necessary administrative
      services, or a reasonable plan and time line to develop and assemble such
      practices and expertise.
    • The adequacy and reasonableness of the operational budget, start-up costs,
      and cash flow, and financial projections for the first three years, including
      reasonable estimates of all anticipated revenues and expenditures necessary
      to operate the school, including, but not limited to, special education, based,
      when possible, on historical data from schools or school districts of a similar
      type, size, and location.
    • A budget that in its totality appears viable and over a period of no less than
      two years of operations provides for the amassing of a reserve equivalent to
      that required by law for a school district of similar size to the proposed
      Charter School.
    • In the area of facilities, a description of the types and potential locations of facilities needed to operate the size and scope of the educational program proposed in the charter, including evidence of the type and projected cost of the facilities that may be available in the location of the proposed Charter School, as well as reasonable costs for the acquisition or leasing of facilities to house the Charter School, taking into account the facilities the Charter School may be allocated under the provisions of Education Code section 47614.

Based on the following findings, the Petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to succeed in
implementing the program set for the in the Petition:

  1. Past Unsuccessful History
    In determining whether Petitioners are demonstrably likely to successfully implement the
    program, the authorizing agency may consider the success or failure of Petitioners’ past
    history with charter schools. (Regulations § 11967.5.1(c)(1).) Rocketship Education’s past unsuccessful history of developing charter school petitions and operating charter schools is demonstrated by the following, but not limited to, facts:

    (a) Petitioner Rocketship Education submitted a charter petition for the establishment of Rocketship Education Mt. Diablo Charter School to the Mt. Diablo Unified School District (“MDUSD”) on or about June 17, 2015. On or about August 10, 2015, the MDUSD Board took action to deny the petition. The proposed findings included that the proposed charter school was demonstrably unlikely to be able to successfully implement the program set forth in its petition and the petition failed to contain a reasonably comprehensive of the elements set forth in the petition. Among other concerns, MDUSD found that the petition lacked a reasonably comprehensive description as to the soundness of having students spend 50 minutes on a computer engaging in an online adaptive curriculum, supervised by non-certificated personnel, as opposed to direct classroom instruction by certificated teaching personnel. MDUSD also noted concerns about the petition’s description of how it would meet the needs of English Language Learners and Special Education students.

    (b) On or about January 13, 2015, the Franklin-McKinley School District (“FMSD”) Board received a charter petition submitted by Rocketship Education for the establishment of the Rocketship Education Franklin-McKinley Charter School. On or about April 14, 2015, the FMSD Board took action to deny the petition. The proposed findings adopted by the FMSD Board included that the proposed charter school was demonstrably unlikely to be able to successfully implement the program set forth in its petition, and the petition failed to contain a reasonably comprehensive description of the elements set forth in the petition. Among other things, MSD found that Rocketship’s heavy reliance on uncredentialed instructional staff was not supported by any established research-based instructional pedagogy, but rather appeared to be motivated by petitioner’s desire to reach certain economies of scale. FMSD also found that the petition lacked a reasonably comprehensive plan for meeting the needs of English Language Learners.

    (c) On or about September 6, 2013, petitioner Rocketship Education submitted a charter petition to the Morgan Hill Unified School District (“MHUSD”) for the establishment of the RSMH Charter School. On or about November 5, 2013, the MHUSD Board took action to deny the petition. The proposed findings included that the petitioners were demonstrably unlikely to be able to successfully implement the program set forth in its petition. Among other things, MHUSD found that Rocketship Education presented an unrealistic financial and operational plan, particularly due to flawed budget assumptions. MHUSD also noted significant concerns with the charter petition’s description of how the charter school would meet the needs of special education students and English Learners.

    (d) Although the petition submitted by Rocketship Education for the establishment of Rocketship 9 at Jackson Charter School was authorized by the Santa Clara Office of Education to start operations in August 2014, Rocketship abandoned the charter on or about July 31, 2014, and the charter school never opened.

    (e) Although the petition submitted by Rocketship Education for the establishment of Rocketship Eight Elementary Charter School was authorized by the Santa Clara Office of Education to start operations in August 2015, Rocketship abandoned the charter on or about July 31, 2014, and the charter school never opened.

    (f) Although the petition submitted by Rocketship Education for the establishment of Rocketship Fourteen Elementary Charter School was authorized by the Santa Clara Office of Education to start operations in August 2014, on May 16, 2014, the charter authorizer notified the California Department of Education that charter school would not open and the charter application had been withdrawn.

    (g) Although the petition submitted by Rocketship Education for the establishment of Rocketship Nine Elementary Charter School was authorized by the Santa Clara Office of Education to start operations in the 2013-2014 school year, on or about April 5, 2013, Rocketship notified the California Department of Education, Charter Schools Division, that Rocketship would not be opening the charter school, and the charter school was changed to closed status.

    (h) Although the petition submitted by Rocketship Education for the establishment of Rocketship San Francisco Charter School was authorized to start operations in the 2013-2014 school year, on or January 11, 2012, Rocketship abandoned the charter on or about January 11, 2012, because the charter school was “unable to open.

For the full 23-page Staff Report, click here.

You may also like

0 comment

Julio Dec 8, 2016 - 5:50 pm

It passed on a 3-2 vote. Congratulations Rocketship! A new future for education in Antioch.