January 24, 2018

The School District of Philadelphia

New Charter School Application Evaluation Report New Charter Application for: Mastery Charter Elementary School

Submitted by: Mastery Charter High School

Application Evaluation Team: Team Lead:

Nick Spiva, Charter Schools Office

Evaluators:

Abena Osei, School District of Philadelphia Chester County Intermediate Unit Jim Palmer, NJ Department of Education Roger Kligerman, Charter Schools Office Tim Hanser, Charter Schools Office

1

Introduction School District of Philadelphia Overview The School Reform Commission (SRC) of The School District of Philadelphia (District) currently authorizes 84 operating charter schools serving approximately 65,000 students during school year 2017-2018.

Overview of Process The Charter Schools Office (CSO) of the District received nine (9) applications for new charter schools for the 2017-2018 new charter application cycle by the submission deadline of November 15, 2017. Each of these applications has been reviewed by a team of evaluators, led by the CSO, comprised of internal District employees and external reviewers with local and national expertise on the operation of successful charter schools. This evaluation report summarizes the assessments of the evaluation team and is limited to an evaluation of whether the application met the criteria set forth in the application instructions and certain aspects of the Charter School Law. This evaluation report is not intended to be a complete legal review of the charter application under the Charter School Law. The SRC by resolution at a public meeting will decide whether to approve or deny an application for a new charter school.

CSO Vision To create a service-oriented environment that enables the District to support and monitor charter schools while ensuring their accountability.

CSO Mission To assist the SRC and the District in meeting their legislative obligations under the Charter School Law and to promote accountability by exercising oversight for educationally sound and fiscally responsible charter schools as a means of improving academic achievement and strengthening school choice options in the District.

Evaluation Criteria Broadly, charter school applications will be evaluated on the following criteria: ● The extent to which the application considers the information requested in Section 1719-A of the Charter School Law and conforms to the legislative intent; ● The capabilities of the applicant, in terms of support and planning, to provide comprehensive learning experiences to students; ● The demonstrated, sustainable support for the charter school plan by parents, community members, and students; and ● The extent to which the charter school may serve as a model for other public schools.

2

Proposal Overview Proposed School Name Mastery Charter Elementary School (MCES or Charter School)

Application Summary The applicant proposes that MCES would serve 756 students in Kindergarten through Grade 8 at scale. The proposed charter school would serve students beginning in the 2019-2020 school year. In Year 1, the Charter School plans to serve 175 students in Kindergarten through Grade 2; in Year 2, 336 students in Kindergarten through Grade 4; in Year 3, 504 students in Kindergarten through Grade 5; in Year 4, 588 students in Kindergarten through Grade 6; in Year 5, 672 students in Kindergarten through Grade 7; and in the next charter term in Year 6, the Charter School would add Grade 8 reaching scale as a K-8 school with a proposed maximum authorized enrollment of 756 students. The proposed charter school would offer a college preparatory curriculum and utilize the Mastery charter schools (“Mastery Charter Schools”) academic model that, according to the applicant, is an educational program design to develop the personal and academic skills students need for post-secondary success. The proposed location for the Charter School is 900 W. Jefferson St., Philadelphia, PA, 19122 in the former location of Wakisha Charter School in the Yorktown section of North Philadelphia. The applicant, Mastery Charter High School (MCHS), in addition to operating a Grades 6-12 charter school, currently manages 14 charter schools in Philadelphia, serving approximately 12,000 students and manages an additional five charter schools in Camden, NJ, serving approximately 2,130 students. In total, MCHS operates 19 charter schools in Pennsylvania and New Jersey serving approximately 14,000 students. In 2015, the SRC approved a new charter application for Mastery Charter School – Gillespie Campus (Mastery Gillespie). As of the date of this evaluation, Mastery Gillespie has not yet opened; however, MCHS intends to open Mastery Gillespie in school year 2018-2019. In this evaluation report, the term Mastery Charter Schools will be used to refer to the network of Mastery Charter Schools, and the term MCHS will refer to both the charter school and the charter management organization.

Analysis Summary The application references a mission, vision, academic plan and organizational systems with components that are associated with the Mastery Charter Schools model. As a result of the proposed management relationship with MCHS, evaluators expected MCES to use many established programs and systems. The evaluators were concerned, however, that the application does not sufficiently detail unique programs for the targeted community. The applicant made several references to MCES functioning as a “neighborhood school”; however, evaluators were unable to identify specific components of the application that were tailored to the students and demographics of the proposed neighborhood. Further, the proposed charter school’s goal, which is “to attempt to ensure our students’ academic growth is consistently higher than the national average during the charter term,” is not specifically measurable and is presented as a hope

3

(“attempt to ensure”) rather than a measure of expected performance. Additionally, the mission statement does not identify measures of success for evaluation. The applicant’s educational program is proposed to go beyond academics with a focus on personal skills, positive student relationships and the core values of respect, hard work, responsibility, kindness and teamwork. The program is built upon seven program design principles, and the curriculum targets the integration of specific instructional strategies, so that all teachers can deliver engaging, rigorous instruction. Evaluators indicated that while the applicant’s proposed academic plan is not specifically innovative, it is research-based and can be adapted to serve diverse learners including students with Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) and English Learners (ELs). However, although the applicant provided specific academic goals for proficiency and growth, evaluators were concerned regarding a general lack of alignment to expectations under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and a reliance on measures that are not consistent with those annually assessed by the State for growth. The Charter School’s vision for culture and climate includes the adoption of several different philosophies such as Restorative Practices, Trauma-Informed Practices, Responsive Classroom, Classroom Behavior Systems and Postsecondary Readiness. Evaluators were concerned, however, that due to the lack of professional development planned for classroom teachers in using these systems, implementing the combination of these systems to create a postive and unified school culture may be challenging. Regarding Organizational Compliance, evaluators indicated that the applicant presents a clear and thorough plan for the operation of the Charter School that meets most of the requirements presented in the application. The evaluation team, however, noted concerns including a potential board conflict of interest, inequity in access for ELs and their families and a lack of clarity around the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Evaluators noted that in terms of Community Engagement and Support, the applicant failed to present any specific or compelling evidence that the Charter School would be able to meet its proposed enrollment targets. Moreover, the applicant did not provide any intent to enroll forms for grade and/or age eligible students for MCES in the 2019-2020 school year, the proposed first year of operation. It was particularly concerning that the applicant team, in light of the expansive community outreach the applicant cited in developing the application, was not able to provide evidence of a stated intent to enroll at the proposed charter school, specifically from families of students who might send their children to the Charter School. Further, the applicant provided only one (1) letter of support from an elected official. Evaluators were concerned that MCHS only demonstrated general support, through signed petitions, and relied upon waitlists at current Mastery Charter Schools which represent only an interest to attend the school of application at its location rather than a newly proposed charter school, with a specific targeted enrollment, in a new location

Mission of the School “All students learn the academic and personal skills they need to truly be prepared for postsecondary success and able to pursue their dreams.”

4

Proposed Location The proposed charter school would be located at 900 W. Jefferson St., Philadelphia, PA 19122 in the Yorktown section of North Philadelphia. This facility was formerly used as a charter school, most recently the Wakisha Charter School, in the 2014-2015 school year.

Focus of the School/Academic Program The applicant’s proposed model seeks to provide high levels of support in a positive, relationship based school community so that students develop the personal and academic skills needed for postsecondary success. The Mastery Charter Schools educational program is built upon seven program design principles, including: “Love and Outcomes, A Great Teacher in Every Classroom, High Expectations, High Support, Cultural Context, Families Are Our Partners, Data Driven, and a Common Foundation.” The proposed charter school would offer students a college preparatory curriculum, and the Charter School would rely upon the existing Mastery Charter Schools model which leverages a systematized approach for academic systems and supports including curriculum/instruction/professional development, school culture, assessment/data and student support systems for integrated and consistent educational programs delivery.

Enrollment Projections Academic Year

Grades Served

Proposed Enrollment

2019-20

K-2

175

2020-21

K-4

336

2021-22

K-5

504

2022-23

K-6

588

2023-24*

K-7

672

*The Charter School would not reach scale of grades served or maximum authorized enrollment until Year 6, 20242025, when the proposed charter school would be a Kindergarten through Grade 8 school serving 756 students.

Proposed Opening Year ☐ 2018-19 ☑ 2019-20

New or Experienced Operator (in Philadelphia) ☐ New Operator ☑ Experienced Operator

5

Section Summaries Opening and maintaining a high-performing charter school depends on having a complete, coherent plan and identifying highly capable individuals to execute that plan. The analysis below provides insight into the key strengths and weaknesses of the five main sections of the new charter applicant’s proposal.

Mission and Vision Evaluators indicated that MCES’s mission is credible and articulate, but noted that it does not speak to unique programs tailored for the targeted community at the proposed charter school. Evaluators also found that aspects of the mission would be challenging to measure and that the application does not thoroughly describe how the Charter School intends to evaluate mission execution. For example, the mission singularly highlights post-secondary success, but the application did not clearly describe how the proposed elementary school would measure the post-secondary success of its students. Although the proposed mission highlights postsecondary success, no specific academic goals related to academic success beyond Grade 8 were presented. The Charter School’s vision of “becoming one of the highest performing neighborhood schools in this section of North Philadelphia, and eventually one of the highest performing schools citywide” was found to be aligned to the applicant’s vision for all of its schools. Although Mastery Charter Schools’ vision is aspirational, it does not allow for effective evaluation over time of progress towards the vision (page 1). Evaluators noted also that there was an overemphasis on prior outcomes at a single Mastery Charter Schools campus (Thomas), and evaluators did not find sufficient evidence that the applicant is primed to obtain its vision at MCES. The applicant repeatedly states an intent that MCES be a “neighborhood school” throughout the application. As such, evaluators felt that the academic results of all Mastery Charter Schools should be referenced, or more specifically, the Renaissance charter schools operated by MCHS because they are neighborhood schools. Evaluators’ review of academic performance of the Mastery Charter Schools network compared to School District of Philadelphia (District) or neighborhood school averages did not provide evidence that the applicant’s vision to eventually become one of the highest performing schools citywide would be realized. In 2016-2017, the average building level School Performance Profile (SPP) score for all Mastery Charter Schools was 55.5 and with the exception of only one of these schools, the SPP score for each MCHS-operated school was lower in 2016-2017 than in the first year that same MCHS-operated school received a SPP score.

Academic Plan The evaluation team indicated that the proposed school’s educational philosophy is researchbased and focused on both the academic as well as social-emotional needs of the student. The applicant would seek to realize their educational philosophy through use of systems for curriculum, instruction, professional development, school culture, assessment, data and student supports. Further, the applicant explained in detail the proposed instructional techniques that would be implemented in support of the educational philosophy and academic plan including gradual release of responsibility, inclusion and targeted intervention. Evaluators found that the curricular scope and sequence and lesson plans appear to drive towards clear, rigorous objectives

6

and seem to be authentic and engaging. At a high level, the stated instructional goals were aligned to some of the applicant’s overarching program design principles (e.g. Love and Outcomes). There were significant citations of research and provided curricular documents appear to be evidence-based; however, there were no curricular materials provided for the proposed non-core courses (music, art, world languages, physical education and health). Additionally, although curricular materials were provided for all core content areas including writing, the materials provided were not complete and some were not fully aligned to Pennsylvania Core (PA Core) or Pennsylvania Academic Standards (PAS). For example, the applicant did not provide clear evidence that the proposed curricula for English Language Arts (ELA), social studies and math are PA Core or PAS aligned; unit plans were only partially provided for ELA and math; and lesson plans were only partially provided for subjects for which curricular materials were presented. The applicant provided enVision math curricular materials; however, evaluators note that as no standards crosswalk or alignment was provided by the applicant and as enVision Math is aligned to the national Common Core Learning Standards, evaluators were not able to determine if the curriculum that would be used by MCES was aligned to the PA Core. (Attachments 1, 1A, 1B) The applicant does not provide a clear rationale why the proposed curriculum is likely to be effective at MCES specifically or how it would be adapted to ensure the academic success of all students who would likely enroll at this school in this location. Instead, the applicant provided a broad description of why this curriculum is effective generally across the applicant’s other schools. The applicant did provide a clear, actionable and differentiated plan for assessing students (page 6). Further, due to the absence of detailed unit and lesson plans provided for math, it was not possible to determine student mastery, the variety of practices and student experience for learning, the accessibility of the instructional resources for students or the instructional objectives and goals. When evaluating the applicant’s response to why the proposed curriculum will succeed with students who are at-risk, the evaluation team was only able to identify a general response that included a short list of universal interventions (page 12). The applicant mentioned a multidisciplinary team that would create specially designed instruction, but no details of how that team would be staffed, operated, funded or how the team executes, monitors and assesses the student intervention plans that it develops (page 13). As for serving gifted students, the applicant refers to data from the MAP assessment that is used to show evidence that the standard Mastery Charter Schools educational model scaffolds accelerated learners to do better compared to national peers; however, it is not clear what year, from which school and what criteria were used, therefore evaluators were not able to assess the credibility of the claims (page 12). Additionally, the application does not outline a clear plan for identifying gifted students, or for providing training to staff on the identification and support for gifted students, especially in ways that address and minimize bias and under-identification of historically disadvantaged subgroups. Further, it was unclear to evaluators why the MAP data was provided as the rationale for why the curriculum would be successful for gifted students yet no historical MAP, or any assessment, data from the applicant’s other schools was provided as a rationale for why the curriculum would be successful for academically struggling or at-risk students. The applicant’s plan to serve all students, specifically those with special needs and disabilities, includes a plan for the identification of these students, the support personnel dedicated to these 7

students, special programming and resource access. The Response to Intervention and Instruction (RtII) plan proposed by the applicant clearly delineates a timeline for all stages of the process, including descriptions of tiers and organizational responses within (page 13). The applicant expressed a stated intention to and addressed plans for serving low-incidence special education students but did not indicate the rate of low-incidence students projected for this proposed charter school based on the proposed lottery preferences. The applicant did provide details regarding how students with a primary disability in each of the 13 categories would be served and evaluators found this response to be thorough (page 13 and Attachment 38). The evaluation team highlighted the Charter School’s proposal to utilize a case management model that is reassessed on a bi-monthly basis to ensure that optimal service is being provided to students (page 16). The applicant’s plan to address student mental, emotional and social development and behavioral health included a three-tiered system of support in the form of Positive Behavior Intervention and Support (PBIS) and a partnership with outside agencies, although no Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was included in the application to reflect this relationship. The Charter School intends on establishing an Intervention & Referral System (I&RS) Team to ensure that there is a system in place to support students in need of social emotional interventions. The team will be composed of teachers as well as members of the school leadership team and will meet on a bi-weekly basis. (page 18) Evaluators noted a comprehensive vision for identifying, instructing, assessing, and monitoring EL students, including the use of the WIDA Model and Access tests. Evaluators found the EL policies and Language Instruction Educational Program (LIEP) submitted by the applicant to be compliant with Applicable Laws and consideration for parents and families of ELs was also noted throughout sections referring to the applicant’s plan to serve ELs. (page 14 and Attachment 2) Evaluators did have concerns regarding the exit standards in the terminal grades of the proposed school. The “case-by-case” basis approach cited by the applicant fails to articulate clear standards for promotion or retention, especially in Kindergarten through Grade 6, which evaluators felt could create inconsistent retention decisions leading to disproportionality with how students are treated, specifically a concern for historically underserved subgroups (page 19). Evaluators were unclear what happens to students who attempt summer courses but are not successful in one or both of them, and also why students who fail three core subjects do not have the same summer credit recovery opportunity. Evaluators were concerned that there is no clear system of denying or granting promotion and that high school acceptances could be placed in jeopardy on a student-by-student basis, which raised additional due process and equity concerns. The School Culture & Climate section provides a comprehensive description of the applicant’s vision for a positive learning environment. The plan includes a blend of Restorative Practices, Trauma-Informed Practices, Responsive Classroom, Classroom Behavior Systems and Postsecondary Readiness (page 20). The use of a restorative model with a focus on traumainformed care suggested to evaluators that the applicant is aware of and responsive to the risk factors and traumas that Philadelphia students may experience that can impact their readiness for learning. However, evaluators did raise questions of how the extrinsic influence of the Merit/Demerit System in Grades 4-8 would coexist with the intrinsic Restorative Practices. Further, the applicant states that only the Charter School’s culture team will receive training in 8

Restorative Practices and Trauma-Informed Practices, while not mentioning any classroom teacher training in these practices or classroom systems including Responsive Classroom. The evaluation team noted that in a school that would serve 756 students at scale, having only a handful of staff trained in these systems is likely to pose a challenge in implementing the positive learning environment as proposed, particularly if none of the staff are the classroom teachers (pages 20-21). Evidence of classroom teacher training in these systems/philosophies was not present in other parts of the application, including in the Staff Development section and documents related to professional development. Evaluators did note a thorough and clear bullying policy was attached to the application and appeared to align with the Charter School’s overall vision for school culture and climate. The application cited extracurricular and after school programs that are offered across the applicant’s network of schools but does not present a comprehensive description of the proposed offerings at MCES in Year 1 or any year. The narrative mentions an on-staff Extra-Curricular Supervisor or staff member with that additional responsibility, but there is no evidence in the budget for this position in Year 1 therefore it was unclear to evaluators who would establish partnerships and what, if any, extracurriculars would be available to the students in Year 1. (page 22 and Attachment 26)The applicant provided specific academic goals for proficiency and growth however evaluators were concerned regarding a general lack of alignment to expectations under ESSA and a reliance on measures that are not consistent with those annually assessed by the state for growth. Evaluators noted that the applicant’s academic performance goals had an absence of goals focused on closing the achievement gap compared with Pennsylvania state averages and for specific student sub-groups both of which are expected under ESSA. The applicant proposed only to improve proficiency performance by a margin of 3% per year against the state average without indicating that this goal would be sufficient to close the gap with the state fully in time. Evaluators also noted that whereas Mastery Charter Schools has developed its own grown measurement model (MVAS) for delivering data-driven instruction and teacher evaluation, MVAS is not the state-approved growth model – PVAAS, and the charter school would be assessed by both the state and its charter authorizer under the PVAAS model. Further, the applicant’s only academic goals related to growth are based on the MAP test and not the PSSAs (PVAAS). The applicant presented a systematic and compelling description of a plan to use data to drive multiple aspects of the proposed school’s programming and, although the plan discussed the Charter School’s plan to close the achievement gap, it was presented as a general gap and did not examine specific sub-groups as identified in ESSA. All core subjects and related staff are described in this plan, including the Board’s role in intervention when goals are not being met. The application describes the various levels of data review that start with student and classroomlevel analyses led by the Charter School’s leadership team, then review by the Charter School’s Regional School Officer (RSO) and central office team, and ultimately a review by the Board three times per year (page 25). Depending on what the data indicates, student level interventions will be determined by the school leadership team along with relevant central office staff and will be implemented for a nine-week period (page 28). The applicant proposes frequent data review meetings for the staff which are scheduled and also rosters “responsive teaching days” for necessary reteaching sessions so that students can master skills not yet evident as acquired in the interim assessment data.

9

Organizational Compliance Evaluators note that the applicant team has extensive prior experience in opening and operating charter schools in Philadelphia and possesses the collective operational expertise to plan and open a charter school. The applicant failed to demonstrate, however, that the applicant team has the capacity necessary to successfully open Gillespie in 2018-2019 and MCES in 2019-2020 in addition to anticipated growth in Camden. A school leader/principal candidate was not identified in the application; failure to identify a school leader/principal during the formation of a charter school has been identified in research as being negatively correlated with successful charter school startup. The application, however, did identify a thorough Year 0 training and mentoring program, the Apprentice School Leader (ASL) program, which would be used for the principal and possibly assistant principal to ready these individuals for opening in Year 1 (page 30). Evaluators noted the strength of the ASL program as a training program for internal and external talent that the applicant is able to leverage to ensure that new school leaders receive tailored support. The qualifications and responsibilities of the school leader were clearly stated and aligned with the proposed responsibilities for the school leader (Attachment 6). In addition to the applicant’s plan for identifying a school leader, the application includes a plan for the recruitment of high quality staff that is detailed, comprehensive and includes potential partners. For example, the Charter School proposes to partner with the Relay Graduate School of Education and Teach for America (TFA) to help identify and recruit instructional staff (page 32). The applicant, however, failed to provide evidence of a formal partnership with either organization (e.g. a contract or MOU). Based on this and the retirement plan participation projections which suggest 90% of the MCES professional staff would be new to the Mastery Charter Schools Network (page 57), evaluators were concerned that the Charter School would rely too heavily on instructional staff without prior teaching experience, especially as MCES intends to serve primary historically underserved and at-risk students. The staffing model presented is generally acceptable and aligns with the proposed budget. The proposed budget, however, does not include a directly employed EL teacher or the aforementioned Extra-Curricular Supervisor. The application also describes a large and comprehensive leadership team beyond the principal but it is not clear who the Year 1 leadership team would be comprised of. For example, the application states that the leadership team “will include some combination” of six other leadership roles, including Assistant Principals of Instruction, Specialized Services and School Culture (page 30). Although the applicant acknowledged that some roles will be phased in due to the proposed size of the school (page 31), there was no mention or provision for which other staff would assume roles and responsibilities assigned to these individuals in Year 1 or later years until these positions were filled. It appears from the proposed budget, that Year 1 would include just the Assistant Principal for Specialized Services leaving evaluators with concern for who would manage the data-driven instruction work (AP Instruction) and various school climate and culture models and staff training and development (AP School Culture) in the initial year(s). The applicant provided detailed Personnel Policies & Procedures which evaluators found to be clearly stated and containing necessary requirements for background checks and clearances; however, evaluators noted the Network Support Team (NST or Central Office) may terminate

10

employment of school-level staff (i.e. employed teachers). That authority should only reside with the Charter School’s Board. (Attachment 7 & 8) The applicant utilizes a performance-based Teacher Advancement System (TAS) and a parallel system for leadership called Mastery Management Model (M3). Both systems purport to reward performance and not seniority (page 35). There are clear opportunities to apply and obtain leadership roles and for career development. For example, the application notes that end-of-year evaluations include career planning and the ASL program creates a “formal structure for aspiring school leaders” (page 36). The attached school calendar complies with 1715-A of Act 22. The proposed employee health care benefits are offered at a low employee cost and with coverage comparable to the District’s. The proposed charter school would offer PSERS as well as a 403(b) option that appears to be approved by PSERS, as it is the pre-existing 403(b) plan available at other MCHS-operated charter schools (page 40 and Attachment 12). The application, however, states that “effective August 1, 2016, all new hires are eligible to enroll in the 403(b) plan only” (page 40). It appears that PSERS is restricted to existing Mastery Charter Schools employees only. The proposed charter school plans to offer breakfast and lunch, but it is not clear if universal breakfast or lunch is provided for all students. The funding of lunch and actual plan for execution is limited in details; plans for actual implementation of the NSLP and School Breakfast Program (SBP) programs do not delineate whether students will have “grab and go” options nor what procedures look like for tardy students (page 41). There is an appropriate and compliant description of student health services and screenings that would be provided, but the applicant does not identify how parental consent for certain health services would be handled for non-English speaking families. Further, the applicant does not specify training of non-medical staff regarding allergies or mandated reporting (page 41). There is a stakeholder complaint policy provided, but there is no provision for non-English speakers, which evaluators flagged as potentially exclusionary for non-English speakers. It allows for a lengthy timeline for resolution (10 days) and does not indicate what would occur if the complaint is urgent (Attachment 15). In the General Enrollment and Target Population section of the application, the year-by-year enrollment table provided by the applicant is consistent with the application narrative and budget. Further, the subgroup enrollment rates are consistent with target community demographics. MCES proposes a recruiting plan inclusive of door-to-door canvassing, direct mail and targeted social media outreach and would focus on the “priority” enrollment zone. (page 43) The Charter School proposes an enrollment preference for siblings of currently enrolled students, students living in the “priority catchment zone” and students of families who were “active participants” in the development of the school (pages 45-46). It was not clear to evaluators, however, if the “active participant” preference was permanent or only for Year 1 applicants. Further, the applicant proposed that the “priority catchment zone” preference would extend to students on waitlists at other MCHS-operated schools; it was not clear to evaluators if this was only if those students submitted an application to MCES or if based solely on being on the waitlist at the other schools. Evaluators did note that MCES proposes a back-filling policy that

11

aims to enroll students throughout the year, space permitting, in all grades served by the Charter School. The proposed targeted community and “priority zone” would be “19122 and adjacent areas of 19123 and 19121” (page 63). Given this description, it was not clear to evaluators whether the preferenced enrollment area would be all of 19122, 19123 and 19121 or if it would include just portions of 19123 and 19121. If the latter, the feasibility of such an arrangement was questioned by evaluators. A comprehensive Code of Conduct was provided but it appears to provide for broad discretion by administrators to determine disciplinary actions. The Code of Conduct uses “consequences including, but not limited to” phrasing, which concerned evaluators (Attachment 17). As stated previously, the evaluation team found effective, staff-wide use of the combination of multiple discipline systems in one school together with a lack of training of frontline staff outside of the culture team to be a serious concern. The evaluation team did note that there is an internal system proposed for tracking discipline incidents and that parents would receive and sign a copy of the handbook as well as have student discipline expectations shared throughout the year at parent and family engagement events (page 47). In regards to the safety plan, evaluators noted that there is no mention of annual violence, crime or drugs reporting nor any MOU established with the local police department to co-develop and share disaster response and emergency preparation plan (page 49). Evaluators noted that the applicant did not reference tailoring the school safety plan to address safety concerns related to the shared occupancy of the proposed facility at 900 W. Jefferson Street in Year 1 with at least one other non-Mastery Charter Schools, non-MCES entity that could result in contact between adults and MCES students in the building. Evaluators raised several concerns with the documents submitted pertaining to the establishment and governance of MCES. The submitted bylaws and Articles of Incorporation were both for MCHS, the proposed management organization (Attachments 19 and 20), not MCES. MCHS would serve as the Charter Management Organization (CMO) or charter operator, and therefore MCES would have its own independent board and should have a unique set of bylaws. The applicant did not submit Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws for MCES, therefore evaluators could not review the terms of the Charter School’s incorporation documents. The applicant submitted a board meeting schedule for the 2017-2018 school year, and the schedule was titled “Mastery Board Meeting Schedule” (Attachment 22). It was not clear to the evaluators whether this board meeting schedule was for MCES. If the Charter School intends on implementing a similar board meeting schedule, evaluators are concerned that none of the board meeting locations are at the proposed facility and the schedule includes just six scheduled public meetings. Further, the applicant stated that the Board would hold five to six board meetings during the 10 months of the school year (page 52); evaluators found this frequency of board meetings to be inconsistent with a commitment to being readily accessible and transparent to the school community and insufficient for oversight of a new charter school. The plan for the creation of the founding Board is unclear as is the timeline for the appointment of founding Board members by the incorporator, the Chief Executive Officer of MCHS, the CMO. Further, the transition of the founding Board to the initial operating Board of Trustees

12

was not clearly stated. Therefore evaluators could not determine which, if any of the CMO appointed Board members would remain on the operating Board of Trustees and when key contracts, including the CMO contract, would be approved and who the Board members would be at that time. The proposed management agreement between MCES and MCHS appears to have been written for another school. The agreement states that the “Charter School applied to the School District of Philadelphia for a charter and was approved to receive that charter by the School Reform Commission on June 18, 2015 and now seeks to open for the School Year 2018-2019” (Attachment 24). Evaluators were also concerned by the level of control that MCHS would have over the Charter School. For example, the management agreement states that MCHS will “determine the number and assignments” of teachers without any indication of what role the Charter School would serve in staffing assignments. Similarly, the management agreement provides MCHS with the right to evaluate Charter School staff and make personnel “recommendations”, including promotions and discharges. It is not clear to evaluators how personnel decisions will be made and by whom. Additionally, the agreement states that approval of the budget by the MCES board “shall not be unreasonably withheld”; however, the budget is prepared by MCHS and includes the management fee paid to MCHS. The agreement also provides that MCHS may make changes to the provision of administrative services at any time without the approval of the MCES board and that MCHS will retain ownership over curriculum and other educational materials. This latter clause caused concern for evaluators as to whether MCES would be able to operate as a charter school without interruption should the relationship between MCES and MCHS be terminated.

Finance and Facilities Evaluators of the finance section noted that general education funding assumes a 2% increase each year, starting with Year 0 (2018-2019) being 2% over the 2017-2018 per pupil rate and were concerned this may be overly optimistic especially considering the deficit the District faces in coming years. The application narrative states that special education per pupil revenue projections are flat. This is true from Year 1-5, however the Year 1 value is 1.3% higher than the current special education per pupil rate; otherwise, the assumption is conservative. Evaluators identified concerns regarding the $2.5 million in fundraising revenues. While the Charter School did identify a Charter School Program grant from the U.S. Department of Education, evaluators were not provided a proposed breakdown of how these funds would be distributed so as to have a level of confidence that these funds as budgeted by MCES could be relied upon. Fundraising revenues at 25% of Year 1 revenues and 28% of Year 2 revenues raised concerns for financial sustainability as the inability of the Charter School to secure even a portion of these funds threatens the viability of the proposed budget. In the budget expenditures, evaluators noted that no directly employed English as a Second Language (ESL) instructor is listed even though the Charter School projects that 3% of its students will be ELs (page 43). In the Purchased Property Services section, Gas and Electric utilities should have been included in Supplies, but were not. The other values stated in the budget for expenditures are reasonable, however. In the five-year budget, the evaluation team had concerns about fund balances for each year which were at 2.9% after Year 1 and rise to only 4.9% after Year 2. Since Year 1 is missing a 13

special education teacher (~$90,000 salary and benefits) and at least 0.5 ESL instructor (~$45,000 in salary in benefits), Year 1 would actually be in deficit and future years would see a reduced margin as a result. The proposed location of the Charter School is 900 W. Jefferson St. in the Yorktown section of Philadelphia. This site was formerly occupied by the Wakisha Charter School, which closed in the winter of the 2014-2015 school year. The applicant presented a letter of intent for a two-year lease agreement for the site at $11 per square foot, but MCES does not intend to permanently locate in the building unless an agreement can be reached with the landlord to expand the facility (Attachment 34). Evalutors were concerned with the proposed $1.5m in improvements in the second year of a two-year lease for a facility that the Charter School acknowledges as being a short-term solution (page 57 and Attachment 34). Furthermore, it was not clear to evaluators whether the proposed facility would be able to accommodate all core classrooms and non-core classrooms (e.g. electives, resource rooms) in Year 2 with a projected enrollment of 336 students. Unrelated to the new charter application process, the District conducted a walkthrough of the facility and identified potential issues that were not acknowledged or addressed in the application.

Family and Community Engagement and Support In the Community Engagement and Support section, evaluators indicated data regarding the demographics of the neighborhood are not accurate in regards to how many public schools operate in the neighborhood currently. For example, the applicant proposes a targeted enrollment zone, and lottery preference, for 19122 and some or all of zip codes 19121 and 19123. The application, however, includes a display of outcomes for just four schools; all of which are District-run and located in 19122. The applicant fails to identify the other nine District-run or six charter schools in 19121 or 19123 that serve similar grade spans. The applicant provided scanned copies of petitions of support signed by Philadelphia residents who support the Charter School. The applicant stated the number at 1,540 but the evaluation team estimates that the number of signatures is closer to 1,200. Of these petitions, fewer than 500 are from the targeted zip codes of 19121, 19122 or 19123. These petitions lack any indication of age, grade or intended enrollment of any student at the proposed charter school at the proposed location. As such, evaluators could not verify that any petition of support was from an age or grade eligible student that would intend to enroll for Year 1 of MCSE located at 900 W. Jefferson Street. The application includes only one (1) letter of support for the proposed charter school, which is from an elected official, and no letters of support or MOUs from community organizations that would partner with MCES to provide services or supports (e.g. after-school programming or extracurriculars) to students. The application includes a thorough description of the various parent and family engagement intiatives that the Charter School would maintain. The Charter School proposes to launch a Parent Association after opening to serve in an advisory capacity regarding issues such as safe corridors, extracurriculars and school uniforms. Parents and guardians of students at MCES will also be invited to join the Mastery Charter Schools Parent Advisory Council, a citywide collection of Mastery Charter Schools families that advises the board. The Charter School also proposes to form a Parent Action Team made up of parents and guardians seeking to address issues concerning the Charter School’s community. (page 67)

14