BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS
OF THE
NORTH PENN SCHOOL DISTRICT
:
Charter School Application
:
:
:
APPLICATION OF:
:
Education for New Generations Charter School :
:
DATE OF DECISION:
February 12, 2013
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS
OF THE NORTH PENN SCHOOL DISTRICT
The applicant, Education for New Generations Charter School (hereinafter referred to as
the “Applicant” or “eNG”), has filed an application with the North Penn School District
(hereinafter referred to as “District”) requesting approval to establish a charter school. The
application was properly advertised and a public hearing was held before the Board of School
Directors of the North Penn School District on December 3, 2012.1 Present during the hearing
were members of the Board of School Directors of the North Penn School District, members of
the District Administration, the Applicant, the Solicitor for the District, the Court Reporter and
members of the public.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Applicant is Education for New Generations Charter School.
2. Appearing on behalf of the Applicant at the hearing held on December 3, 2012 were
Naomi Rodriguez, Kim Siar, Ryan Schumm and Joshua Pollak, Esquire. [N.T.
12/3/12, p. 9]
1
During the public hearing on December 3, 2012, a copy of the application was entered into the record as Exhibit 1
and the public notice of the hearing was entered in as Exhibit 2.
Page 1 of 10
3. The Applicant submitted its proposal to establish a charter school to the District to be
opened for the start of the 2013-2014 school year on October 31, 2012.
4. The proposed location for eNG is 100 Commerce Drive, Montgomeryville, PA.
[Exhibit 1, p. 30]. This location is within the geographic boundaries of the District.
5. eNG has entered into a non-binding letter of intent with 722 Commerce Partners LP
regarding the property located at 100 Commerce Drive, Montgomeryville, PA.
[Exhibit 1, Appendix P]
6. The Applicant proposes to operate a school that will consist of students in grades K
through 5, with a total projected enrollment of 220 students for the 2013-2014 school
year, grades K through 6, with a projected enrollment of 260 students for the 20142015 school year, grades K through 7, with a projected enrollment of 300 students for
the 2015-2016 school year, grades K through 8, with a projected enrollment of 340
students for the 2016-2017 school year and grades K through 8, with a projected
enrollment of 380 students for the 2017-2018 school year. [Exhibit 1, p. 29-30]
7. The Applicant estimates that the payments made from the District to eNG in each
school year of operation will be: $2,490,605.00 in 2013/2014; $2,968,600.00 in
2014/2015; $3,489,866.00 in 2015/2016; $4,030,795.00 in 2016/2017 and
$4,324,991.00 in 2017/2018. [Exhibit 1, Appendix O]
8. The Applicant testified that it currently has an executed, signed agreement with
Charter Choices. [N.T. 12/3/12, p. 55]
9. The Applicant did not submit to the District a copy of a signed agreement with
Charter Choices.
Page 2 of 10
10. eNG’s application indicates that it intends to engage an independent business
manager to provide the school with back office and fiscal management services.
[Exhibit 1, p. 38]
11. The Applicant’s business manager will be responsible for developing an annual
budget, establishing bank accounts, providing payroll services, and maintaining
accounting records. [Exhibit 1, p. 39-41]
12. eNG has budgeted at least sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00) each school year for
business services. [Exhibit 1, Appendix O]
13. The Applicant intends for its kindergarten program to be a full-day program. [N.T.
12/3/12, p. 29]
14. Beginning with the 2014-2015 school year, the Applicant plans to start the school
year on August 1st and conclude the school year on June 26th. [N.T. 12/3/12, p. 20;
Exhibit 1, Appendix C]
15. Included in the eNG application were approximately two hundred (200) preenrollment forms. [N.T. 12/3/12, p. 26; Exhibit 1, Appendix J]
16. Approximately twelve percent of the pre-enrolled students currently qualify as
English Language Learners (ELLs) [N.T. 12/3/12, p. 46]
17. eNG did not submit an English as a Second Language (ESL) curriculum with its
application. [N.T. 12/3/12, p. 49]
18. On December 31, 2012, eNG submitted a post-hearing letter to the District indicating
that it planned to utilize the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment
(WIDA) Model to “assess and plan for students potentially needing English language
support.”
Page 3 of 10
19. The Applicant testified that it is typical for charter schools to require a line of credit
during the first few months of operation. [N.T. 12/3/12, p. 57]
20. No evidence or documentation was presented during, or subsequent to, the hearing to
show that eNG had secured a line of credit from a bank.
21. None of the members of eNG’s founding coalition are residents of the District. [N.T.
12/3/12, p. 44]
22. During the public comment portion of the hearing on December 3, 2012, nine citizens
stood up to speak. One of the speakers, Paul Edelman, openly opposed the Applicant.
Of the remaining eight speakers, four of them mentioned having a relationship with
the two founders through their teaching positions in neighboring school districts.
Only three of the individuals who spoke in favor of the Applicant mentioned having
children who reside in the District and who would be able to attend eNG in the 20132014 school year [N.T. 12/3/12, p. 84-103]
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate its capability, in terms of support and planning,
to provide comprehensive learning experiences to students.
2. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate sustainable support for the charter school plan by
teachers, parents, other community members and students.
Page 4 of 10
DISCUSSION, REASONS FOR DENIAL AND
DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCIES
(a) The Applicant failed to demonstrate its capability, in terms of support and planning, to
provide comprehensive learning experiences to students
Section 1717-A(e)(2)(ii) of the CSL requires that the applicant demonstrate its capability,
in terms of support and planning, to provide comprehensive learning experiences to students. 24
P.S. § 17-1717-A(e)(2)(ii). Because the Applicant has not shown the amount of planning and
preparation that is necessary to demonstrate that it will provide students with comprehensive
learning experiences, the Board is denying the application.
(1) The Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of an English as a second
language (ESL) program
As was revealed during the hearing, approximately twelve percent of the students who
have pre-enrolled with eNG currently receive ESL services from the District. [N.T. 12/3/12, p.
46] As compared with the overall demographics of the District, the proportion of ELLs who
would attend eNG based upon the current pre-enrollments is nearly three times higher. In spite
of this, eNG has failed to provide sufficient evidence of an ESL program that is appropriate for
the education of English language learners. In fact, eNG openly acknowledged during the
hearing that there is no specific ESL curriculum or instructional program contained within its
application. [N.T. 12/3/12, p. 48-51] In addition to serving as a basis of concern for the District
with regard to its decision as to whether to approve the proposed charter, the lack of an ESL
curriculum or instructional program also appears to clearly violate eNG’s own policies which
require conformance to state regulations, 22 Pa.Code §4.26, and the No Child Left Behind Act.
[Exhibit 1, Appendix B2] Although the Applicant’s ESL policy is fairly comprehensive, the
Page 5 of 10
testimony presented during the hearing suggests that the founding members lack familiarity with
the requirements of that policy. Subsequent to the hearing, the Applicant submitted a posthearing letter to the District indicating that it planned to utilize the World-Class Instructional
Design and Assessment (WIDA) Model to “assess and plan for students potentially needing
English language support.” While the utilization of the WIDA Model is an improvement as
compared to the materials submitted with the original application, the WIDA documentation that
was submitted consists of standards, not curricula.
Along the lines of meeting the needs of English Language Learners, the Applicant’s ESL
policy states that “ESL students and families shall be provided translation and interpretation
services to the extent needed to assist with the enrollment process.” [Exhibit 1, Appendix B2]
In the main body of its application, eNG states that its enrollment materials will be translated
into Spanish, Filipino and Korean. [Exhibit 1, p. 44] The Applicant’s selection of languages
into which it plans to translate its materials is surprising given the fact that the five most
commonly-spoken languages among the District’s students, aside from English, are Bengali,
Korean, Gujurati, Vietnamese and Chinese. While this fact does not alone serve as grounds for
rejecting the application, it does raise questions about eNG’s founders’ understanding of the
North Penn community.
In short, not only did the Applicant fail to provide an ESL curriculum aligned to PA
English Language Proficiency Standards, the Applicant failed to provide any ESL curriculum
whatsoever. Coupled with its limited understanding of the diverse community that it proposes to
serve, eNG’s stated plan of waiting until students with ESL needs walk through the schoolhouse
door before determining how to educate them is a clear example of its failure to demonstrate its
capability to provide comprehensive learning experiences to students.
Page 6 of 10
(2) The Applicant did not submit sufficient evidence of start-up funding
eNG’s application includes a budget for the first five years of operation, but the start-up
financing is not adequately described. Despite acknowledging that start-up costs are “a
significant challenge for charter schools” and that it is typical for charter schools to require a line
of credit during the first few months of operation, eNG provided no evidence whatsoever that it
has taken affirmative steps to secure such financing. [N.T. 12/3/12, p. 57] The Applicant’s
rationale for not having received a line of credit was that “it’s of course impossible to secure a
line of credit without having an approved charter.” [N.T. 12/3/12, p. 71] The District finds this
explanation difficult to accept in light of the fact that another charter applicant that was heard on
the very same night as eNG, Montgomery Flex Charter School, produced evidence that it had
secured a $200,000.00 line of credit for the purpose of financing start-up costs. Therefore, the
application does not sufficiently demonstrate that eNG would have the necessary start-up capital
to fund operations prior to the receipt of revenue.
(3) The Applicant did not submit a copy of its contract with Charter Choices
eNG’s application indicates that it intends to engage an independent business manager to
provide the school with back office and fiscal management services. [Exhibit 1, p. 38] Some of
the duties for which the business manager will be responsible are: developing an annual budget,
establishing bank accounts, providing payroll services, and maintaining accounting records.
[Exhibit 1, p. 39-41] eNG has budgeted at least sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00) each school
year for these business services. [Exhibit 1, Appendix O] At the start of the hearing, the
Applicant introduced Mr. Ryan Schumm of Charter Choices as the “business coordinator” for
Page 7 of 10
eNG. [N.T. 12/3/12, p. 7] The Applicant also testified that eNG had an executed, signed
agreement with Charter Choices to provide accounting services. [N.T. 12/3/12, p. 54-55]
Despite this admission, the Applicant has not submitted a copy of any agreement between eNG
and Charter Choices.
In School Dist. of City of York v. Lincoln-Edison Charter School, the Commonwealth
Court considered a situation in which a model charter management agreement was included in
the application to the school district. In vacating the approval of the charter by the CAB, the
court held that it was “impossible to determine whether the charter application comports with the
requirements of the Law when integral parts of the application are not finalized.” 772 A.2d
1045, 1050 (Cmwlth. 2001). The court further explained that a proper review of a charter
application cannot be had “until the essential components of the application, such as a
management agreement, are before the Board” and that a charter cannot be granted “based on a
‘model’ agreement or promises that after negotiations it will comply with the law.” Id. With
regard to the eNG application, the application strongly suggests that virtually all financial and
business activities will be performed by a contracted business manager. Due to the fact that the
financial well-being of eNG will, to a significant degree, be in the hands of this contracted
business manager, the arrangement between the Applicant and the contracted entity, Charter
Choices, is an essential component of the application. Because the Applicant has not provided
the written contract that describes the arrangement that eNG has with Charter Choices for the
provision of this essential component, business management, the District must deny the
application.
Page 8 of 10
(b) The Applicant Failed to Demonstrate Sustainable Support for the Charter School Plan by
Teachers, Parents, Other Community Members and Students
Section 1717-A(e)(2)(i) of the CSL directs school districts to evaluate, as one of several
factors, a charter school application on the basis of whether there has been “demonstrated,
sustainable support for the charter school plan by teachers, parents, other community members
and students, including comments received at the public hearing.” 24 P.S. § 17-1717-A(e)(2)(i).
Because the Applicant has not demonstrated the amount of support that is necessary to sustain a
charter school, the Board is denying the application.
According to guidance from PDE, sustainable support can be demonstrated by signed
petitions of support, letters of support, testimonials of support or in other concrete ways. Charter
Schools, Basic Education Circular (Issued 10/1/2004). Furthermore, the District is required to
analyze the support provided by various groups in the aggregate as opposed to each individual
group. Brackbill v. Ron Brown Charter School, 777 A.2d 131, 138 (Cmwlth. 2001).
With regard to eNG, while it has shown its ability to gather various types of supportive
documentation, the District is unconvinced that the support is sustainable for purposes of
operating a viable charter school. To this point, of the eight individuals who spoke in favor of
approving the application during the hearing, four of them mentioned having a relationship with
the two founders through their teaching positions in neighboring school districts. Only three of
the individuals who spoke in favor of the Applicant even mentioned having children who reside
in the District and would be able to attend eNG in the 2013-2014 school year [N.T. 12/3/12, p.
84-103] For an Applicant that submitted approximately two hundred pre-enrollments and
fourteen or more “community partners” with its application, the showing of support at the
hearing, or lack thereof, was underwhelming and, more importantly, inadequate to demonstrate
sustainable support.
Page 9 of 10
DECISION
For the reasons set forth in this Decision, the Board of Directors of the North Penn
School District, by a vote of ____ to ____, hereby denies the charter school application
submitted by Education for New Generations Charter School.
Dated: __________________________
______________________________
VINCENT SHERPINSKY, President
North Penn School Board
In accordance with law, copies of this Decision shall be sent forthwith to the following:
Via U.S. Mail and Email:
Education for New Generations Charter School
c/o Joshua Pollak, Esquire
Latsha Davis & McKenna, P.C.
350 Eagleview Boulevard, Suite 100
Exton, PA 19341
Via U.S. Mail:
Pennsylvania Department of Education
c/o Marlene Kanuck
Charter Schools Coordinator
333 Market Street, 8th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333
Pennsylvania Charter School Appeal Board
c/o Ernest N. Helling, Esquire
Assistant Chief Counsel
Pennsylvania Department of Education
333 Market Street, 9th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333
Page 10 of 10