STAFF ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ......Rocketship Los Sueños Academy Charter School...

Rocketship Los Sueños

1

STAFF ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING REVIEW OF ROCKETSHIP LOS SUEÑOS ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL COUNTYWIDE RENEWAL PETITION

April 1, 2020

* * * * * * * * * * *

Rocketship Los Sueños Academy Charter School (Rocketship Los Sueños or RLS) seeks approval to renew its Santa Clara County independent, countywide charter school serving students in grades TK-5. Rocketship Los Sueños was initially approved on June 17, 2009, for a five year term. A material revision was approved in 2013 regarding adding transitional kindergarten and the governance of all Rocketship charters. RLS was renewed in 2015. RLS is requesting renewal of its charter for another term of five years, from July 2020 through June 2025. RLS is located within the Alum Rock Union School District (ARUSD) boundaries and currently serves approximately 450 students.

PROCEDURAL STATUS

The Charter School’s Office of the Santa Clara County Office of Education (County Office of Education or SCCOE) received a renewal charter Petition (Petition or Charter), from Rocketship Los Sueños Academy Charter School on February 7, 2020. Education Code 47607(a)(1), requires that “each renewal shall be for a period of five years.” If the charter is renewed by the County Board, the new term of the Charter would begin on July 1, 2020, and run through and including June 30, 2025. Renewals and material revisions of countywide benefit charters are governed by the standards and criteria set forth in Education Code Sections 47605.6 and 47607 and California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 11966.5.

On March 4, 2020, Santa Clara County Board of Education (SCCBOE) held a public hearing on the RLS renewal Petition. On March 6, 2020, SCCOE Staff conducted a site visit and held renewal interviews with RLS parents, students, staff, and board members.

Per Education Code Sections 47607 and 47605.6 and California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 11966.5, the County Board has 60 days from receipt of the renewal petition to act, which may be extended by an additional 30 days by mutual written agreement. However, there is no appeal to the State Board of Education if the County Board denies a request for renewal of a countywide charter or fails to act.

SCCOE and RLS developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed by Petitioner on March 26, 2020, which governs the respective fiscal, operational, and administrative responsibilities, legal relationships, and other matters requiring clarification or not otherwise addressed or resolved by the terms of the Charter, pending any further direction or recommendations by the SCCBOE.

The complete Rocketship Los Sueños renewal Petition is attached to the agenda and is also available for review at: https://www.sccoe.org/supoffice/charter-schools-office/Pending/Rocketship%20Los%20Sueños%20Renewal%20Petition%202020-2025.pdf

CRITERIA FOR RENEWAL OF A CHARTER PETITION

A petition submitted for renewal pursuant to Education Code Section 47607 shall be considered by the governing board upon receipt with all of the following requirements (California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 11966.5):

https://www.sccoe.org/supoffice/charter-schools-office/Pending/Rocketship%20Los%20Suenos%20Renewal%20Petition%202020-2025.pdf

https://www.sccoe.org/supoffice/charter-schools-office/Pending/Rocketship%20Los%20Suenos%20Renewal%20Petition%202020-2025.pdf

Rocketship Los Sueños Academy

2

(1) A Determination of Pupil Academic Performance

Education Code Section 47607(b), establishes minimum required academic performance criteria for the renewal of charter schools that have been in operation for four years:

1. Attained its Academic Performance Index (API) growth target in the prior year or in two of the last three years both schoolwide and for all groups of pupils served by the charter school.

2. Ranked in deciles 4 to 10, inclusive, on the API in the prior year or in two of the last three years.

3. Ranked in deciles 4 to 10, inclusive, on the API for demographically comparable schools in the prior year or in two of the last three years.

4. (A) The entity that granted the charter determines that the academic performance of the charter school is at least equal to the academic performance of the public schools that the charter school pupils would otherwise have been required to attend, as well as the academic performance of the schools in the school district in which the charter school is located, taking into account the composition of the pupil population that is served at the charter school.

(B) The determination made pursuant to this paragraph shall be based upon all of the following: (i) Documented and clear and convincing data. (ii) Pupil achievement data from assessments, including, but not limited to,

the Standardized Testing and Reporting Program established by Article 4 (commencing with Section 60640) of Chapter 5 of Part 33 for demographically similar pupil populations in the comparison schools.

(iii) Information submitted by the charter school. (C) A chartering authority shall submit to the Superintendent copies of supporting

documentation and a written summary of the basis for any determination made pursuant to this paragraph. The Superintendent shall review the materials and make recommendations to the chartering authority based on that review. The review may be the basis for a recommendation made pursuant to Section 47604.5.

(D) A charter renewal may not be granted to a charter school prior to 30 days after that charter school submits materials pursuant to this paragraph.

State Level Data Availability

With the recent changes in assessment results, school rankings, and API growth calculations, the API is no longer used or available for charter school renewals. Education Code Section 52052(f) now specifies in pertinent part:

For purposes of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b) of Section 47607, alternative measures that show increases in pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils schoolwide and among numerically significant pupil subgroups shall be used.


3

(2) A Renewal Charter Petition

The renewal petition shall include a reasonably comprehensive description of any new requirements of charter schools enacted into law after the charter was originally granted or last renewed. (Education Code Section 47607(a)(2))

(3) Increases in pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils served by the charter school

Additionally, the authority that granted a charter is required to consider increases in pupil academic achievement for all numerically significant pupil subgroups as the most important factor in deciding whether to renew the Charter. (Education Code Section 47607(a)(3))

(4) Past performance of the school’s academics, finances, and operation in evaluating the likelihood of future success, along with future plans for improvement if any.

When considering a petition for renewal, the governing board shall consider the past performances of the school’s academics, finances, and operations in evaluating the likelihood of future success, along with future plans for improvement if any.

Standards for Denial of a Charter Petition Renewal

Education Code Section 47605.6(b) establishes that the County Board of Education may grant a charter renewal for the operation of a countywide charter “only if it is satisfied that granting the charter is consistent with sound educational practice.” The County Board may impose any additional requirements that it considers necessary for the sound operation of the countywide charter school.

Education Code Section 47605.6 and California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 11966.5(c)(2) specifies that the County Board of Education shall deny a renewal petition only if it makes written factual findings that the charter school failed to meet one of the minimum academic performance criteria in Education Code 47607(b), described above, or to support one or more of the following findings:

1. The charter school presents an unsound educational program for the pupils to be enrolled in the charter school.

2. The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition.

3. The petition does not contain an affirmation of each of the conditions required by statute. 4. The petition does not contain a reasonably comprehensive description of all of the required

elements. 5. The petition does not contain a declaration of whether or not the charter school shall be

deemed the exclusive public employer of the employees of the charter school for purposes of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA).

6. Failure to meet one of the criteria set forth in Education Code Section 47607(b) (as applied pursuant to Education Code Section 52052(f)).

7. Any other basis that the county board of education finds justifies the denial of the petition.

Determination Criteria for Renewal of Rocketship Los Sueños

As explained above, the SCCBOE is also required to consider increases in pupil academic achievement for all of RLS’s numerically significant pupil subgroups as “the most important factor” in deciding whether to renew its Charter. Moreover, SCCBOE cannot approve the renewal unless it makes one of the findings specified in Education Code Sections 47607(b) and 52052(f) related to RLS’s minimum academic


4

performance during the current term of its Charter. Additionally, the SCCBOE is required to consider RLS’s past academic, fiscal, and operational performance, and any future plans for improvement, in deciding whether to renew the Charter.

In its Charter, RLS asserts that it meets the minimum required academic performance standards and that its academic performance clearly supports renewal. RLS submitted its data from the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (“CAASPP”) and comparison school data for the local district and local district schools which RLS students would otherwise have attended to assess RLS’s academic performance against these standards. RLS asserts that the data submitted establishes that RLS meets the criteria for charter renewal on pages 10 through 24 of the renewal Charter. Staff has not reproduced all of that information in this Staff Analysis and Proposed Findings of Fact, but incorporates it and the CAASPP data herein by this reference.

The data below represents some of the most significant data provided by RLS and/or available for consideration of RLS’s academic performance.

School Demographics

2019-20 District of Residence Demographics for Rocketship Los Sueños (RLS) as identified by RLS P1 attendance data

District of Residence for RLS Students Percentage

Alum Rock Union School District (ARUSD) 52%

San Jose Unified School District (SJUSD) 16%

Evergreen Elementary School District (EESD) 11%

Franklin-McKinley School District (FMSD) 8%

Berryessa Union Elementary (BUESD) 3%

Oak Grove School District (OGSD) 3%

Mount Pleasant Elementary School District (MPESD) 1%

Santa Clara Unified (SCUSD) 1%

Orchard Elementary School District (OESD) 1%

Milpitas Unified School District (MUSD) 1%

Campbell Union School District (CUSD) 1%

Gilroy Unified School District (GUSD) 1%

Sunnyvale, Manteca, Union, and Cupertino 1%

Based on the above information, ARUSD, SJUSD, EESD, and FMSD have the highest concentration of schools where RLS students would otherwise have attended, therefore these districts are being utilized for academic comparison data. State and County academic comparison data is also provided.


5

School Academics

Academic Performance Table 1: ALL STUDENTS (percentage at or above standard on CAASPP) as identified in Petition

2018-2019 SBAC (ELA: gr. 3-5) Grade RLS ARUSD SJUSD EESD FMSD SCC State

3 40.00 34.40 51.31 62.36 38.81 60.22 48.54 4 35.06 36.09 55.91 62.63 40.30 61.59 49.46 5 46.88 40.10 57.75 68.10 44.93 64.47 51.68

All 39.18 37.83 54.99 64.36 41.35 62.09 49.89

2018-2019 SBAC (Math: gr. 3-5) Grade RLS ARUSD SJUSD EESD FMSD SCC State

3 60.00 38.96 49.31 64.35 45.81 64.49 50.22 4 50.65 29.20 47.07 62.63 36.85 60.03 44.94 5 51.61 27.74 42.13 59.06 32.76 55.14 37.99

All 54.92 29.17 46.17 62.01 38.47 59.89 44.38

Table 2: ALL STUDENTS (percentage at or above standard on CAASPP) 4 year Trend SBAC (ELA: gr. 3-5)

4 year Trend SBAC (Math: gr. 3-5)

15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 RLS 30 36.92 41.27 39.18

RLS 34 51.40 46.32 54.92

ARUSD 37 37.89 38.67 37.83

ARUSD 28 30.76 30.43 29.17 SJUSD 54 53.88 56.39 54.99 SJUSD 46 46.61 46.98 46.17 EESD 60 59.39 62.60 64.36 EESD 58 59.53 61.17 62.01 FMSD 44 39.12 41.23 41.35 FMSD 40 38.66 38.87 38.47

SCC 59 58.33 61.31 62.09 SCC 57 57.25 59.33 59.89 State 45 45.16 48.77 49.89 State 39 40.37 42.59 44.38

Table 3: RLS SBAC (Four Year Trend) (percentage at or above standard on CAASPP) ELA

Math

Grade 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 Grade 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 3 22 33.01 36.37 40.00 3 36 56.73 40.26 60.00 4 37 33.73 46.06 35.06 4 38 46.34 50.56 50.65 5 36 60.71 36.13 46.88 5 27 46.43 50.00 51.61

All 30 36.92 41.27 39.18 All 34 51.40 46.32 54.92


6

Table 4: RLS SBAC (Four Year Trend, Subgroups) (percentage at or above standard on CAASPP)

SPED ELA

SPED Math 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 All 5 0 0 11.11

All 0 5.88 0 11.11

Hispanic ELA

Hispanic Math All 26 32.8 38.51 34.51 All 31 48.68 42.59 51.48 SES ELA SES Math All 29 34.25 39.18 37.08 All 32 49.17 43.02 53.11

EL ELA EL Math All 13 14.96 23.07 9.37 All 21 30.84 29.52 32.30

Table 5: Comparison 2019 SBAC Results (percentage at or above standard on CAASPP) 2018-2019 SBAC (ELA: gr. 3-5)

Group RLS ARUSD Chavez Arbuckle San

Antonio SJUSD EESD FMSD SCC State ALL 39.18 36.86 35.84 16.66 41.62 54.99 64.36 41.35 62.09 49.88 SES 37.08 33.10 34.57 15.60 36.84 32.42 37.88 36.42 38.01 37.90

Hispanic 34.71 31.33 30.07 13.86 34.27 36.24 29.57 29.21 37.57 39.69 EL 9.37 6.28 17.44 0.00 9.80 18.28 23.88 13.25 21.71 16.44

SPED 11.11 8.66 12.50 0.00 12.00 24.45 28.08 15.16 25.99 19.58

2018-2019 SBAC (Math: gr. 3-5)

Group RLS ARUSD Chavez Arbuckle San

Antonio SJUSD EESD FMSD SCC State ALL 54.92 31.97 27.53 6.78 37.07 46.17 62.01 38.47 59.89 44.38 SES 53.11 28.39 26.94 5.36 33.12 22.98 33.63 34.00 34.61 32.16

Hispanic 51.48 26.45 23.13 2.88 31.75 25.37 23.52 23.90 32.82 33.36 EL 32.30 9.06 17.58 0.00 12.50 14.76 26.54 15.30 26.19 17.31

SPED 11.11 7.66 0.00 0.00 8.00 21.44 31.67 19.13 26.33 18.52

The Tables above reflect the CAASPP information verified by SCCOE staff, (https://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/sb2019) in determining RLS’s student performance and progress schoolwide relative to the districts with the largest student populations enrolled at RLS. Table 1 reflects the 2018-2019 SBAC (Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium) results in English Language Arts (ELA) and Math for RLS, Alum Rock Union School District (ARUSD), San Jose Unified School District (SJUSD), Evergreen Elementary School District (EESD), Franklin McKinley School District (FMSD), Santa Clara County (SCC) and the State of California (State). RLS’s overall performance is above that of students attending ARUSD in ELA and Math, and above SJUSD, FMSD and the State in Math, but below SJUSD, EESD, FMSD, the State and SCC in ELA and below EESD and SCC in Math. While ARUSD, EESD, and FMSD serves students K-8th and SJUSD,

https://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/sb2019


7

SCC and the State serve students K-12th, the ARUSD, SJUSD, EESD, FMSD, SCC and State scores here represent only grades 3-5 to show comparison to RLS.

Table 2 reflects student progress across the last four years of SBAC assessment for ARUSD, SJUSD, EESD, FMSD, SCC, the State and RLS. Results reflect a rate of progress for RLS students that is comparable to their peers in the ARUSD in ELA but above ARUSD in Math. As compared to SJUSD, EESD, FMSD, SCC, and the State, RLS is below in ELA, but out performs SJUSD, FMSD, and the State in Math. RLS also has declines in ELA from 2017-18 to 2018-19 and declines in Math from 2016-17 to 2017-18, but growth from the first year of the term through last year schoolwide.

Table 3 reflects grade level, year over year, progress for RLS students. When looking across the table, all grades show increases in ELA and Math, except 4th grade 2017-18 to 4th grade 2018-19 in ELA, 5th grade 2016-17 to 5th grade 2017-18 in ELA and 3rd grade 2016-17 to 3rd grade 2017-18 in Math. This table also shows cohort data across grade levels (when looking diagonally on the chart). With the exception of the 3rd grade to 4th grade math scores for 2017-18 and 3rd grade to 4th grade ELA scores for 2018-19, all cohorts show improvement in ELA and Math. Table 4 reflects the student group data over the last four years. There are declines for Hispanic, SES and EL for ELA from 2017-18 to 2018-19, and for all students groups from 2016-17 to 2017-18 in Math. The rest of the student groups show increases in ELA and Math, and all groups show overall increases from the first year of the current term through last year, except English Learners in EL, who have had declines from the first year to 2018-19. Table 5 reflects the 2018-19 SBAC data as compared to the elementary schools in ARUSD which RLS students otherwise would have attended: Cesar Chavez, Clyde Arbuckle, and San Antonio elementary schools, and the other districts (ARUSD, SJUSD, EESD, and FMSD), SCC and State. Cesar Chaves, Clyde Arbuckle, and San Antonio elementary schools were the schools designated in the RLS Petition as comparison schools. While San Antonio and Chavez outperform RLS in ELA for students with special needs and English Learners and San Antonio out performs in the all student category for ELA, RLS significantly outperforms these schools, as well as ARUSD and Arbuckle, in all other categories and subgroups for ELA and Math. In comparison to the other Districts, SCC, and State, RLS outperforms most districts, the State and student groups in Math, however, is outperformed in ELA. See color coded chart below. RLS is in purple and the groups which outperform RLS are in bold and green, groups which RLS outperforms are in orange.

Group RLS ARUSD Chavez Arbuckle San Antonio SJUSD EESD FMSD SCC State

ALL 39.18 36.86 35.84 16.66 41.62 54.99 64.36 41.35 62.09 49.88SES 37.08 33.10 34.57 15.6 36.84 32.42 37.88 36.42 38.01 37.90

Hispanic 34.71 31.33 30.07 13.86 34.27 36.24 29.57 29.21 37.57 39.69EL 9.37 6.28 17.44 0 9.80 18.28 23.88 13.25 21.71 16.44

SPED 11.11 8.66 12.50 0 12.00 24.45 28.08 15.16 25.99 19.58

Group RLS ARUSD Chavez Arbuckle San Antonio SJUSD EESD FMSD SCC State

ALL 54.92 31.97 27.53 6.78 37.07 46.17 62.01 38.47 59.89 44.38SES 53.11 28.39 26.94 5.36 33.12 22.98 33.63 34.00 34.61 32.16

Hispanic 51.48 26.45 23.13 2.88 31.75 25.37 23.52 23.90 32.82 33.36EL 32.30 9.06 17.58 0 12.50 14.76 26.54 15.30 26.19 17.31

SPED 11.11 7.66 0 0 8.00 21.44 31.67 19.13 26.33 18.52

2018-2019 SBAC (Math: gr. 3-5)

2018-2019 SBAC (ELA: gr. 3-5)


8

Per the California Dashboard for all students for 2018-19, RLS was green for Math and orange for ELA. Notably, ELA was 23.2 points below standard (decline 3.1 points) and 13 points above standard in Math (increase 13.7 points). RLS’s status for its subgroups in ELA was as follows: English Learners (orange - 39 points below standard – decline 3.7 points), Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (orange – 27.3 points below standard – maintained -2.3 points), Hispanic (orange – 34.4 points below standard – declined 6.7 points), Asian (no performance color – 99.6 points above standard – increased 50.1 points), and Students with Disabilities (no performance color – 120.7 points below standard – maintained 2.7 points). In the area of Math, RLS’s status for its subgroups was as follows: English Learners (green – 1.3 points above standard – increase 14.9 points), Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (blue – 9.4 points above standard – increase 15.1 points), Hispanic (green – 4.2 points above standard – increase 11.9 points), Asian (no performance color – 106.4 points above standard – increase 47.2 points), and Students with Disabilities (no performance color – 74.3 points below standard – increase 4.2 points). No performance colors or scores were given for African American, Filipino, Foster Youth, Homeless, Two or More Races, or White as the sample size was less than 11 students tested and data was not provided to protect privacy. See chart below.

RLS has acknowledged to SCCOE Staff areas in which its pupils suffered declines, most particularly based on the grade level results for the current fourth grade students in ELA and the declines for most student groups in ELA. RLS has provided explanations for these results, and is working with Rocketship Network staff to implement plans specifically aimed at addressing these declines. RLS’s academic performance data reflects increases in academic achievement schoolwide and across significant student groups over the course of the entire charter term. While RLS students perform at or above the schools or districts they otherwise would have attended in math, there are still declines in performance for numerically significant student groups (English Learners, Hispanic, and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged) in ELA. Overall, SCCOE staff does not believe that there is the requisite “clear and convincing data” for SCCBOE to determine that RLS’s academic performance is at least equal to the performance of the districts and schools RLS’s students would otherwise have been required to attend, taking account of the composition of the pupil population. When reviewing all RLS academic data taken together, however, RLS’s alternative measures may be adequate to show increases in pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils schoolwide and among numerically significant pupil subgroups adequate to meet the minimum performance requirements of Education Code Section 47607(b)(1)-(3) and to support renewal when considering increases in pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils as the most important factor. As a requirement of renewal, as part of an addendum to the new MOU, SCCOE Staff recommends that RLS include in its 2020-2021 Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) how it will address the declines in academic performance and provide SCCOE a clear explanation as to the declines, including how the declines will specifically be addressed.

Chronic Absentee

Suspension Rate ELA Math

Yellow Blue Orange GreenGreen Blue Orange Green

Yellow Blue Orange Blue

Yellow Yellow None NoneBlue Blue None None

Yellow Blue Orange GreenNo colors given because number of tested students in group is less than 30

Student Group Report for 2019 per the California Dashboard

GroupAll StudentsEnglish LearnersSocioeconomically Disadvantaged

Students with DisabilitiesAsianHispanic


9

Finances RLS exhibits a healthy financial position. As of June 30, 2019, RLS had an audited reserve balance of 26.3%. RLS, the Network and the Rocketship Public Schools (RPS) Board of Directors have shown strong fiscal oversight. RLS’s Independent Auditor’s Report and Consolidated Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2019, reports an Unmodified Opinion on the financial statements as a whole, as well as on State and Federal compliance with various laws and regulations. In addition, there were audit findings for internal control processes for FY2017-18. However, the audit findings were not due to RLS nor did they impact RLS. Since then, RPS has reviewed and improved its current internal control procedures. RPS has also employed external consultants since May 2018 to improve and clarify all accounting processes and controls. Currently, all fiscal reports as required by law and the SCCOE have been received on a timely basis. RLS reported an Average Daily Attendance (ADA) of 429.93 for FY18-19. RLS projects an increase in enrollment for FY 19-20 with an ADA of 432. RLS has projected ADA at 95%. Charter Department Fiscal Staff (Fiscal Staff) is not aware of any significant financial concerns for RLS.

REVIEW OF THE CHARTER PETITION

Staff reviewed the renewal Petition using the criteria established in Education Code section 47605.6(b) and County Board Policy 0420.4 (c) and found:

1. Sound Education Program The RLS renewal Petition presents a research based educational program that meets all the required elements of a sound educational program. As one of the 10 Rocketship schools in Santa Clara County, it benefits from a network-wide structured systematic and congruent educational program. RLS, along with the other schools in this portfolio, operates under three foundational pillars (1) Teachers and Leaders elevating and celebrating success, (2) Rocketeer students with personalized learning and growth, and (3) Rocketeers’ parents being leaders in home, school, and community. Instruction is provided through a blended learning model using standards-aligned curriculum (Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards), delivered through a block schedule with 90 minutes of independent learning (learning lab). ELA focuses on explicit teaching of literacy, reading comprehension skills, application of literacy and reading comprehension skills, and the explicit teaching of writing skills and writing process. RLS has taken on a thematic approach for the English Language Arts block so that students have an opportunity to go deeper into the topics and make connections across the literacy domains with what they are studying. Mathematics begin with Practice standards (allowing learners to engage with the subject matter), while preparing them for the actual content standards. Next Generation Science Standards are delivered through the Integrated Content Instruction, where social studies and science are embedded and explored through ELA and Math instruction. In addition, RLS is using a different approach to how the Learning Lab time is used. While some students are working with online learning programs, other students may be in a reading nook enjoying a variety of reading material or engaged in a hands-on project or investigation with one of the Individualized Learning Specialists that compliments learning done in the classroom. PE enrichment is provided to all students. Spanish enrichment is provided to K-2 students and science enrichment is provided for grades 3-5 students.

Each Rocketship school has four core values (respect, responsibility, persistence, and empathy), with a fifth value selected by the school itself. RLS has added “Leadership” for their school. The


10

Online Learning Program (OLP) is individualized and adaptive, providing students on-demand insight into performance and progress. The OLP also yields classroom and school-wide data.

Students Performing Below Grade Level: The OLP allows all students to identify and receive immediate support from staff in remediating challenges, and accelerating strengths. Additional support is provided during the learning lab times and small group instruction in the classroom.

Special Education: RLS has 8.4 % (52 students) of its students identified as special education eligible, with many of these students being eligible with mild to severe needs. These needs are identified as follows: 38.5% specific learning disability, 25% speech-language impairment, 11.5% other health impairment, 7.6% autism, 9.6% emotional disturbance, 3.8% hard of hearing, and 3.8% intellectual disability. Special education students are supported through RLS’s Integrated Special Education (ISE) model where Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals are delivered with the maximum amount of inclusion as appropriate. RLS has two ISE specialists and two ISE support staff providing support for identified special education students through small group pull-out or push-in models, co-teaching with general education staff, and individual support as appropriate. The prescriptive nature of the educational day allows a higher level of adult support per eligible special education student. RLS, along with the other schools in the Rocketship portfolio, has a lower percentage of special education eligible students relative to the district of location (ARUSD = 11.1%). RLS serves as its own LEA for the purposes of compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) and is a member of the El Dorado County Charter SELPA. SCCOE Staff continues to monitor special education compliance though RLS is solely responsible for compliance with the IDEIA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

English Learners (EL): RLS has 57.2% of its student population identified as English Learners. RLS has instituted a compliant systematic process that addresses the identification of students as English Language Learners from day one, while making sure each student’s educational and language development progress is measured annually to help determine individual growth and schoolwide performance. The English Language Development (ELD) Standards are broken down into three parts that allow for (1) meaningful interaction with English language, (2) meaningful application of English language, and (3) foundational skills for beginning EL students. ELD standards are delivered through integrated and designated instructional environments. EL students are provided individual and small group instruction depending on their stages of language development (emerging, expanding and bridging) within integrated classroom environments. The intent of the designated ELD periods is to focus on oral language development as well as reading and writing tasks to develop awareness of how the English language works. During SCCOE Staff’s annual visit, informal observations, and discussions with RPS staff, RLS agreed that although all staff had been trained, more training and follow-through is needed regarding ELD. Members of the RPS Achievement Team have been working to improve the quality of instruction for English Learners. They have received some guidance from the SCCOE multilingual team and have begun to incorporate best practices into network plans, observation protocols, and school site coaching sessions. Additional training and support of RLS staff in ELD should be included in an addendum to the MOU to address the very low English Learner progress indicator on the RLS California Dashboard where only 22.3% of English Learners are making progress toward English Language


11

Proficiency and to address the 49.1% of English Learners who decreased at least one language proficiency level during the 2018-19 school year.

The Charter Schools Department Staff concluded that the RLS renewal Petition provides sufficient information to substantiate the required elements for a sound educational program provided that academic performance issues are remediated through amendment to the 2020-21 LCAP and provisions in the MOU and an addendum to the MOU.

2. Ability to successfully implement the program set forth in the Petition Staff found facts that demonstrate that the Petitioners are likely to successfully implement the program if RLS creates and implements plans for addressing academic declines through an addendum to the MOU as described more fully throughout this Staff Analysis and Findings of Fact.

3. Affirmation of each of the conditions required by statute SCCOE Staff found that the Petition contains all of the required affirmations other than an explicit statement that RLS shall provide notice of the requirements of Education Code Section 47605.6(d) in the form developed by the California Department of Education, which notice shall be posted on RLS’s internet website and RLS shall provide a parent or guardian a copy of this notice at all of the following times:

(i) When a parent, guardian, or pupil inquires about enrollment.

(ii) Before conducting an enrollment lottery.

(iii) Before disenrollment of a pupil.

RLS has provided this documentation on its website, but will also need to include this affirmation in an addendum to the MOU.

4. Reasonably comprehensive description of the required elements

In order for the description of each element to be considered “reasonably comprehensive,” it is not enough that the renewal Petition include a description, but rather the description should be acceptable to SCCOE and be consistent with and not contrary to SCCOE’s standards and expectations for charter schools under its oversight. SCCOE Staff notes that Staff’s indication that it believes the description of an element is “reasonably comprehensive” should not be interpreted to mean that Staff does not believe that additional or different terms relative to that element would need to be agreed to by the Petitioner through the Memorandum of Understanding and addendum process. Further, while Staff may make recommendations for remediation in an area, this does not mean that other areas may not need additional correction to be included in the MOU or in an addendum to the MOU. The Charter Schools Department Staff found that the Petition provides a sufficiently comprehensive description of the required elements for approval, though, as indicated in the Charter and in the staff analysis, additional specificity and requirements governing RLS’s operations, including its compliance with the required charter elements, have been included in the MOU and/or will need to be included in an addendum to the MOU among RLS, its governing entity/CMO, RPS, and the SCCOE.


12

A. Element One: Description of the Educational Program/Plan for Student Academic Achievement SCCOE Staff concluded that RLS provided sufficient information in the renewal Petition to substantiate the required elements for a sound educational program. However, implementation of all the elements in the Petition, need additional support and practice. The Charter Schools Department Staff believes that this section of the Petition includes a reasonably comprehensive description only if means of remediating academic performance declines are provided for in the addendum to the MOU and successfully implemented by RLS.

B. Element Two: Measurable Student Outcomes RLS’s petition included an LCAP that addresses state requirements and provides both quantitative and qualitative indicators for determining performance and progress, however, the LCAP is more focused on the network plan rather than specifically RLS’s individual plan. Parent input was solicited through a survey of all Rocketship parents, followed by an in-person meeting where the required components of the LCAP were shared. Charter-wide parental input was considered as RLS parents and staff determined the best way to utilize their Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) funds. RLS’s LCAP sets achievable benchmarks that scaffold across the three-year span, utilizing student (plus sub-groups) proficiency levels on CAASPP in English Language Arts and Math as the academic criteria. Additional academic metrics involve student performance and progress on the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC). Attendance, absenteeism, suspension and expulsion rates, with achievable benchmark goals, help provide corresponding metrics in determining student outcomes, however, specific goals for RLS action items were not present as the goals listed in the LCAP were more network guided. Parent satisfaction survey results and frequency of parent-teacher conferences and community meetings help round out additional measurable outcomes in describing RLS’s comprehensive LCAP. SCCOE Staff also notes that the law regulating charter school adoption of an LCAP has been revised and RLS is now required to comply with all requirements for adoption and revision of an LCAP, including the holding of at least one public hearing to solicit public input on the LCAP in accordance with Education Code Section 47606.5. The Charter Schools Department Staff believes that this section does include a reasonably comprehensive description only if additional written information to address the causes of and plans to remediate academic declines at RLS is provided to SCCOE and committed to in the addendum to the MOU and RLS updates its 2020-21 LCAP to include how it will address its academic declines.

C. Element Three: Method by Which Pupil Progress in Meeting Outcomes will be Measured

RLS’s assessment plan utilizes multiple measures that include baseline, formative, interim and summative assessments. Baseline and formative assessment (beginning-year Core CMO/teacher assessments) provide individual and classroom feedback to inform instruction for students and staff. Interim assessments [Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), mid-year Core CMO/teacher assessments] provide standardized data that can be aggregated and analyzed to both inform and predict student performance and progress. Summative data (SBAC, ELPAC, Physical Fitness Testing, and end of year Core CMO/teacher assessments), provide school- and network-wide information relative to student


13

performance and success. RLS is supported by the Rocketship Network’s Achievement and Analytics team which provides and leads frequent discussions throughout the school year in helping staff reflect on student performance and growth. It is clear that every student’s performance and progress is measured and adult support/intervention is “adapted” to target for student success.

The Charter Schools Department Staff believes that this section does include a reasonably comprehensive description.

D. Element Four: The Location of Each Charter School Facility that the Petitioner Proposes to Operate

RLS currently operates leased facilities at 331 S. 34th Street in San Jose, CA. This lease is included in RLS’s budget.


E. Element Five: Governance Structure In 2013 Rocketship Education submitted, and the SCCBOE approved, a material revision that consolidated the governance and leadership of all the Rocketship charters in one governing Board of Directors and centralized all vital functions into one location referred to as the “Rocketship Network” (i.e. finance, accounting, human resources, special education, curriculum, professional development, facilities/maintenance and technology). The 2013 material revision provided the Rocketship network of charters educational consistency and financial optimization. In accordance with Education Code section 47604, all Rocketship campuses will be operated by Rocketship Education, Inc., doing business as Rocketship Public Schools (RPS), a California non-profit public benefit corporation with 501(c)(3) status. All staff are employees of RPS. RPS is governed by a Board of Directors (“Board”) pursuant to its corporate bylaws as adopted in accordance with the RPS 2013 Material Revision. Board meetings are held quarterly in accordance with the Brown Act, and public participation is accessed through manned teleconferencing locations at all RPS California Charters. SCCOE Staff does not believe that quarterly meetings are adequate for the Board to carry out all of its functions in operating RLS and the other RPS Network Charters. SCCOE Staff is also concerned that the RPS Board may have challenges complying with the legal requirements for developing and adopting the RLS LCAP and timely approving other mandated documents with so few meetings, for example, at the March 5, 2020, RPS Board meeting, the RPS Board approved the 1st Interim financial reports which had been submitted in December, but, did not review or approve the 2nd interim financial reports which would be due March 15, 2020. RLS has specified that it will also hold special meetings as necessary in order for the Board to carry out its functions. As SB 126 further adjusts the requirements for board meetings and governance effective January 1, 2020, RPS will need to adjust its meeting schedule to comply with the changes to the law, which RLS has specifically acknowledged in the renewal Petition. Staff recommends that the SCCBOE require as a condition of renewal that the RPS Board meet at least every other month. The Charter specifies that RPS shall comply with the Brown Act, the Public Records Act, Political Reform Act of 1974, Government Code Section 1090 et seq., and that no interested person


14

(as identified in the corporate bylaws) is permitted to serve on RPS’s Board of Directors. In accordance with the Political Reform Act, RPS has adopted the Fair Political Practices Commission’s model conflict of interest code including designating reporting positions and categories. While SCCOE is not Rocketship’s code reviewing body and does not make determinations regarding the designations in its conflict code, RPS’s code must be updated to make clear, as required by law, that the default requirement is that consultants and new positions must disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category, unless the Chief Executive Officer limits the disclosure obligations in accordance with the code requirements. During the March 5, 2020, Rocketship Board Meeting, RPS took action to appoint two (2) parents to the RPS Board of Directors for a 2-year term. During the meeting, RPS also presented and approved a plan regarding parent voice at all stages of leadership: School Site Councils, English Learner Advisory Committees, the Regional Advisory Council, and the RPS Board of Directors. The plan includes adding a parent to the RPS board at the March 2020 meeting and another parent to the RPS board by June of 2020-21, though RPS implemented this plan early by appointing two parents at the March 5 meeting. RPS Board of Directors now has 17 members including the two (2) parents. In accordance with SCCBOE’s priorities for parental involvement in charter school governance, SCCOE staff recommends that SCCBOE include as a requirement for renewal of RLS’s countywide charter, that at all time RPS shall reserve a minimum of two (2) board seats for parents of current Rocketship Network parents, consistent with the plan developed by Rocketship and adopted by the RPS board at its March 5, 2020, meeting. While the Charter specifies that parents can get involved by becoming members of the Advisory Board, School Site Council, or English Language Advisory Committee, the addendum to the MOU should also specify that parents can become members of the RPS Board of Directors. The Petition further describes the Regional Advisory Council (RAC) as a regional representation of parents, teachers, and civic and business leaders that serve as a formal structure giving a voice to Rocketship students, families and communities in advising the RPS Board of Directors. The RAC meets four times a year. The two new parent board members will also serve on the RAC. RLS has established a School Site Council (SSC) and English Language Advisory Committee (ELAC) that meets four times per year. In addition, there are monthly “cafecitos” held at the RLS location that provide informal opportunities for parents to interact and engage with RLS staff. RLS staff also indicated they are considering starting a parent-teacher organization (PTO) to provide additional opportunities for teachers and families to collaborate and advocate for their students. The corporate bylaws were last revised in 2017 and must be updated to be consistent with the requirements of the MOU and the addendum to the MOU, specifically clarification that any SCCBOE representative to the RPS Board shall serve solely in the SCCBOE or designee’s discretion and no limitations or qualifications for service on the Board shall apply to any such SCCBOE representative as well as any new laws enacted since the last revision. The Bylaws must also be revised relative to the place of holding board meetings to comply with the requirements of Education Code section 47604.1.

In accordance with the SCCBOE’s previously expressed position on best practices for charter school transparency, SCCOE Staff recommends that SCCBOE require as a condition of renewal that RPS’s board of directors and any other legislative bodies for purposes of the Brown Act include with their posted agendas links to the backup materials for each agenda item for which there are electronic versions of backup materials that are not excluded from


15

public disclosure. At the later of (1) the posting of the agenda or (2) the time that the staff provides a final copy of agenda item backup materials to all or a majority of all of the members of the legislative body, it shall post a link in the pertinent agenda item to those materials that are not excluded from public disclosure.

The Charter Schools Department Staff believes that this section does include a reasonably comprehensive description only if the issues identified above are addressed in an addendum to the MOU and imposed as requirements for renewal.

F. Element Six: Employee Qualifications

RLS recruits professional, effective and qualified personnel for all administrative, instructional, instructional support, and non-instructional support capacities who believe in the instructional philosophy outlined in its vision statement. In accordance with Education Code Section 47605.6(b)(5)(F), RLS shall be nonsectarian in its employment practices and all other operations. RLS shall not discriminate against any individual (employee or student) on the basis of the characteristics listed in Education Code Section 220 (actual or perceived disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, including immigration status, or association with an individual who has any of the aforementioned characteristics).

RLS continues to work diligently with SCCOE Human Resources to make sure that the teaching staff meet all the legal requirements for them to perform as teachers. RLS CMO has an experienced teacher as its network program director and two specialists who are supporting the special education staff at the site and across the network to monitor all special education needs. As of the time of the SCCOE Staff annual visit to RLS, all RLS Staff meet the current credentialing requirements.

Staff notes that RLS revised the qualifications for the positions of Principal and Assistant Principal by eliminating the requirement that these positions require a valid California teaching credential. SCCOE Staff believes that this change would put the school at a disadvantage and is inconsistent with best practices particularly in light of the recent changes to the law to require all charter school teachers to hold credentials and eliminating the “flexibility” afforded to some charter school teachers, (though there was never such flexibility in the credentialing requirements for countywide charter schools). Possession of at least a teaching credential is necessary even to allow those administrators to cover classrooms or teach classes as needs arise. The job duties assigned to the RLS Principal and Assistant Principal – including but not limited to supervision, one-on-one coaching, and evaluation of teachers and the Principal’s role as the instructional leader of the school – are consistent with the need for at least a valid teaching credential, if not an administrative credential. SCCOE Staff recommends that the SCCBOE require the minimum qualifications for the positions of Principal and Assistant Principal to include a valid teaching credential, which is consistent with the current RLS charter.

As a countywide benefit charter, RLS does not provide for “flexibility” in credentialing in noncore, non-college preparatory classes, which has been eliminated for all charter schools per AB 1505. While the RLS Petition quotes the current law on teacher credentialing requirements, RLS will be required to comply with the law as revised by, which will be operative on July 1, 2020. Additionally, the description of teacher qualifications in the


16

Petition refers to “core classroom teachers,” but those qualifications apply to all RLS teachers.

The Charter specifies that all “core” teachers must have or be working toward CLAD certification or a Commission on Teacher Credentialing recognized equivalent. However this requirement is not limited to “core” teacher, but, rather, applies to all teachers who are assigned to provide instruction to English learners.

The Charter Schools Department Staff believes that this section does include a reasonably comprehensive description only if, through the addendum to the MOU and as a requirement of renewal, the requirement for a valid California teacher credential is reinserted into the minimum qualifications for the Principal and Assistant Principal positions and it is clarified that all of the teacher qualifications apply to all teachers, not only “core” teachers.

G. Element Seven: Health and Safety

RLS provided a detailed description of its Health and Safety Policies. The renewal Petition addresses fingerprinting and background checks for all employees and volunteers. All staff are expected to comply with Education Code Section 47605.6(b)(5)(G) and legal requirements. RLS is committed to providing a safe, compliant working environment. RLS has committed to adopting and updating its legally compliant school safety plan by March 1 of each year, which was completed. All classrooms have a first aid kit.


H. Element Eight: Racial and Ethnic Balance

2018-19 Total # Hispanic

or Latino %

Asian %

Filipino %

White %

African American

%

Two or More

Races % RLS 454 86.6 7.5 0.4 1.5 0.9 1.8 ARUSD 9206 78.4 11.8 4.7 1.7 1.3 1.3 Clyde Arbuckle

223 82.5 12.1 3.1 0.4 0.9 0.0

Cesar Chavez

344 83.7 9.0 4.7 0.6 0.6 0.9

San Antonio 344 78.5 11.0 4.1 0.3 1.7 2.9 Santa Clara County

267,224 38.2 30.2 4.0 19.2 1.8 5.1

Total # SES% EL% SPED% RLS 454 91.4 44.9 8.4 ARUSD 9,206 83.1 40.0 11.1 Clyde Arbuckle

223 92.4 57.4 20.6

Cesar Chavez

344 92.7 61.9 6.4

San Antonio 344 88.7 41.3 10.5


17

Santa Clara County

267,224 38.1 21.8 10.6

Data from: www.data1.cde.ca.gov RLS strives through recruitment and admissions practices, to achieve a racial and ethnic balance among its students that is reflective of the general population residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the local school district. RLS’s strategy includes, but is not necessarily limited to, (1) printing and distributing materials in English, Spanish, and other languages reflecting the needs of the community. (2) An enrollment process that is scheduled and adopted to include a timeline that allows for a broad-based application process. (3) The development and distribution of promotional and informational material that reaches out to all of the various racial and ethnic groups represented in the territorial jurisdiction of the local school district. (4) Continuous outreach activities throughout the community.

RLS’s student demographics do not currently reflect those of the general population residing within the SCCBOE’s jurisdiction. While RLS has not, at this time, achieved the target balance, this element of the Charter does reflect the Board’s desire to provide opportunities for the targeted demographic population to have access to choice programs. RLS’s Petition includes an outreach plan and focuses on a variety groups and has increased in diversity over time.

Rocketship Los Sueños Demographic Data from 2015-16 to 2018-19 Total # Hispanic

or Latino %

Asian % Filipino %

White % African American

%

Two or More

Races % 2015-16 581 87.8 7.6 1.2 0.5 2.1 0.5 2016-17 498 88.0 6.6 0.8 0.2 1.8 0.4 2017-18 483 85.3 8.7 0.6 0.8 1.4 1.9 2018-19 454 86.6 7.5 0.4 1.5 0.9 1.8

Rocketship Los Sueños Student Group Data from 2015-16 to 2018-19 Total # SES% EL% SPED% 2015-16 581 90.7 55.9 4.6 2016-17 498 88.6 51.4 6.6 2017-18 483 89.2 59.2 8.1 2018-19 454 91.4 44.9 8.4

Pursuant to changes implemented by AB1505, at the time the renewal term commences, RLS will also be required to describe the means by which RLS will achieve a balance of special education pupils and English learner pupils, including redesignated fluent English proficient pupils as defined by the evaluation rubrics in Education Code Section 52064.5, that is reflective of the general population residing within the SCCCBOE’s jurisdiction. RLS should be required to provide this plan via an addendum to the MOU. The Charter Schools Department Staff believes that this section does include a reasonably comprehensive description with the addition of a requirement that by July 1, 2020, RLS shall expand upon these efforts by developing and submitting to SCCOE the means by which RLS will achieve a balance of racial and ethnic pupils, special education pupils, and English learner pupils, including redesignated fluent English proficient pupils, as defined by the evaluation rubrics in Education Code Section 52064.5, that is reflective of the general

http://www.data1.cde.ca.gov/


18

population residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the SCCBOE in accordance with AB 1505.

I. Element Nine: Financial Audits RLS states in the Petition that the audit will be conducted in accordance with Education Code Sections 47605(b)(5)(I) and 47605(m), generally accepted accounting procedures, and with applicable provisions within the California Code of Regulations governing audits of charter schools as published in the State Controller’s K-12 Audit Guide. The Petition states RLS financial audit procedure, which includes how the independent auditor will be selected and retained, the qualifications the independent auditor needs to possess, the timing of the audit, how any deficiencies will be resolved, and how this will be communicated to the necessary outside parties. The duties of the RPS “Business Committee” include the selection of the independent auditor and the oversight of the audit process. It was mentioned last year that RPS was planning on establishing a separate Audit Committee. The Petition does not reflect this development, however verbal communication with RPS representatives indicates that there is an Audit Committee. If applicable, RPS shall comply with all requirements of the Uniform Supervision of Trustees for Charitable Purposes Act (Gov. Code § 12580 et seq.) including, but not limited to, the requirements thereunder governing audit committees.


J. Element Ten: Student Suspension/Expulsion Procedures

RLS’s renewal Petition sets forth its comprehensive suspension and expulsion policies and procedures that are consistent with current law. Some clarification and cleanup is needed to address what appear to be inadvertent contradictions and inconsistencies (e.g. references to appeal to the Academic Affairs Committee, which is the decision-making body so would not receive expulsion appeals). These policies and procedures, as clarified through the terms of the MOU and with the necessary clarifications made through the addendum to the MOU, are consistent with SCCOE’s best practices with the addition through the addendum of a provision providing that if a pupil is expelled, RLS will work with the district of residence and/or SCCOE to assist the student’s parent/guardian in locating an appropriate educational placement. If the SCCOE or the district of residence is obligated to expend additional funding beyond funding received for the student in order to place the student in a community day school or similar placement, or if the student is placed in a SCCOE continuation school or similar placement for which program the SCCOE would charge the school district of residence if that district placed the student in the SCCOE program, RLS should reimburse the SCCOE or district of residence for that actual cost.

The Charter Schools Department Staff believes that this section as updated by the MOU and with the addition described above through the addendum to the MOU, does include a reasonably comprehensive description.

K. Element Eleven: Employee Retirement System All full-time employees of RPS will participate in a qualified retirement plan. All full-time employees will be offered a 403(b) program with a 3% match from RPS. All eligible employees will also participate in the State Teachers’ Retirement System (“STRS”), and all


19

other employees will participate in the federal social security system. Rocketship employees may have access to additional Rocketship-sponsored retirement plans according to policies developed by the board of directors and adopted as Rocketship employee policies. RLS should also confirm through the MOU/addendum that it will provide the notice concerning STRS required by Education Code Section 47611. The Charter Schools Department Staff believes that this section does include a reasonably comprehensive description.

L. Element Twelve: Dispute Resolution System

RLS includes a proposed dispute resolution in the Petition. However, RLS cannot bind the County to any dispute resolution process to which it did not agree. As part of the SCCOE standards of excellence contained in the MOU, RLS has now agreed to the terms which are set forth in the MOU and have replaced language proposed in the Charter.

The Charter Schools Department Staff believes that this section as updated through the MOU does include a reasonably comprehensive description.

M. Element Thirteen: Admissions Policies and Procedures

RLS has articulated student admission policies and procedures. The school is nonsectarian, tuition free, and does not discriminate against any pupil on the basis of protected characteristics.

Admission to the school is not determined by place of residence of pupil, or parent, except in the case of public random drawing. RLS has updated its admissions lottery procedures consistent with the updates to Education Code section 47605.6(b)(5)(M) and (e) of the Charter Schools Act.

In the event of a public random drawing, RLS specifies its intent to implement the following preferences in the following order:

1. Siblings of students currently admitted to or currently attending RLS 2. Children of staff, teachers, and founders of RLS (not to exceed 10% of

total enrollment) 3. Residents of Santa Clara County 4. Other California residents

Other than the preference for residents of the Santa Clara County, whether to permit the proposed preferences is within the discretion of the SCCBOE. Admission to the school is not determined by place of residence of pupil, or parent, except in the case of public random drawing. While SCCOE is aware that RLS has a formalized procedure for implementing its public random drawing should one become necessary, with changes to the Charter Schools Act since RLS’s most recent renewal, the specifics of the drawing, including the means by which the admissions preferences are implemented, should be included in the Charter. While some basic information on the drawing procedure is identified in the Charter, Charter Schools Office Staff recommends that SCCBOE require the RLS to include the specific and detailed procedures in the addendum to the MOU. The


20

MOU also includes additional protections to ensure legal and nondiscriminatory admission to RLS. During the renewal visit and public hearing, RLS shared that 19 students disenrolled from RLS in 2019-20. Of those 19 students, 9 students moved to a closer school based on transportation issues and 10 students left the city. RLS further shared that of the 19 students, 3 had IEP’s. No indication was provided as to how the local districts were notified of these departures. In the MOU RLS has agreed to provide notice to SCCOE at the same time the districts are notified when a student leaves RLS.

The Charter Schools Department Staff believes that this section does include a reasonably comprehensive description with the addition of the detailed public random drawing procedures in the addendum to the MOU.

N. Element Fourteen: Public School Attendance Alternatives The Charter specifies that no student may be required to attend RLS. Students who reside within Santa Clara County who choose not to attend RLS may attend other district schools or pursue an intra- or inter-district transfer in accordance with existing district enrollment and transfer policies. Parents and guardians of each student enrolled in RLS will be informed on admissions forms that the students have no right to admission to a particular school of any local education agency as a consequence of enrollment in the Charter School, except to the extent that such a right is extended by the local education agency.


O. Element Fifteen: Description of the Rights of An Employee of the County Office of Education, Upon Leaving the Employment of the County Office of Education, to be Employed by the Charter School

RLS states in this element that no employees of the County Superintendent are required to work at the charter school. The discussion in this Element provides that such employees have no automatic rights of return and only such rights as the County Superintendent may choose to provide, and that employment at RLS does not provide any rights of employment at any other entity, including in the case of closure of RLS. This section of the Charter makes several mistaken references to the “school district” rather than the SCCOE/County Superintendent, which should be corrected through the addendum to the MOU.

The Charter Schools Department staff believes that this section does include a reasonably comprehensive description.

P. Element Sixteen: Closure Protocols

RLS outlines a process to be used if the charter school closes. Once documented as official action by RPS Board, there is a process addressing notification of all entities, and to ensure smooth transition of students/records to suitable alternative programs. RLS will provide a final audit, and plans for disposition of assets and liabilities and transfer of public records. On closure the school shall remain solely responsible for all liabilities arising from the operation of the school. As a non-profit public benefit corporation, the RPS board will follow the California Corporations Code should it dissolve the corporate entity and file all necessary filings with appropriate state and federal agencies. As part of the SCCOE


21

standards of excellence contained in the MOU, RLS has now agreed to updated and supplementary closure procedures described in the MOU, and in the case of a discrepancy between the MOU and the closing procedures set forth in the Charter, the MOU shall prevail.

The Charter Schools Department staff believes that this section, as supplemented and updated by the MOU, does include a reasonably comprehensive description.

Required Supplemental Information

Staff reviewed RLS’s renewal Petition, which includes the Budget Narrative and Budget (Fiscal Years (FY) 2019-20 through 2023-24 as requested). Staff has also reviewed additional information from documents and interviews to provide clarification on financial position. This included meeting with the RLS Staff and Board and reviewing Financial Audits, monthly financial statements, mandatory financial reports, annual visits, and the Fiscal Crisis Management Assessment Team (FCMAT) Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Calculator which was re-created by SCCOE Staff to recalculate the LCFF Revenue sources reported on the Petition.

Average Daily Attendance (ADA) RLS projected budget for FY 2019-20 through 2023-24 anticipates slight increase in enrollment from 455 students in FY 2019-20 to 476 by FY 2023-24. RLS reported an Average Daily Attendance (ADA) of 429.93 for Period 2 (P2) FY18-19. Based on historical data analysis RLS projects ADA percentage of 95%. RLS anticipates ADA of 432 for FY 2019 -20 & FY2020-21 and 448 thereafter. Enrollment and attrition rates appear to be reasonable. After verbal communication with RPS and RLS representative during the site visit, it appears RLS has projected reasonable enrollment and ADA projections.

Revenues SCCOE Staff reviewed an Excel version of RLS’s multiyear budget, LCFF calculations and other additional documents. Overall revenue has been projected at 93%-95% ADA to enrollment. The supplemental and concentration grant revenue is calculated based on unduplicated populations of 92% and 86% respectively. State revenue source provide 90% of RLS funding. RLS also receives reimbursement under SB740 facilities grant program. It seems likely that RLS will continue to receive this reimbursement. Fiscal Staff recalculated and confirmed the RLS apportionment revenue using the FCMAT LCFF Calculator. It appears RLS has projected realistic revenue projections indicating all anticipated revenue sources including state, federal, local and donations. Revenue projections seem to align with Charter Schools Fiscal Staff projections.

Expenses RLS presents a balanced five-year budget for Fiscal Years 2020 through 2024 with detailed reasonable expenditure projections addressing major operating expenses including staffing benefits, professional development, facility costs, materials, equipment and other services. RLS is conservative in its expenditure projections. Spending plans align with projected revenues. Salaries and benefits are approximately 51% of the total expenditures and


22

appear comparatively constant (51%) over four years. Staffing financial projections appear to be reasonable. The projected expenditure costs seem to be accurately stated and demonstrate satisfactory ability to meet RLS’s financial obligations.

Fiscal Staff is not aware of any significant financial concerns for RLS.

Cash Flow RLS’s petition provides reasonable cash flow projections and assumptions pertaining to cash flow timings for major revenue sources required for financial solvency and sustainability. Multiyear cash flow projections show that RLS will be positive. Cash flow closely aligns with all financial documents including bank statements and reconciliation reports. As of June 30, 2019, RLS had an audited reserve balance of 26.3%. The projected reserve balance for June 30, 2020, is approximately 22.9%. In the event there is an unforeseen financial crisis, RLS’s reserves should adequately suffice unfavorable budget variances.

Potential Civil Liability Effects on the School and County Office

RLS is in compliance with its current MOU. There is no reason to believe that RLS will not continue to abide by SCCOE’s requirements and the MOU and addendum. There is currently no pending litigation or other liability concern with RLS.

5. Exclusive Public Employer

As required by the Charter Schools Act, the Charter specifies that the Rocketship Education, Inc. shall be deemed the exclusive public employer of the employees of the Charter School for the purposes of Educational Employment Relations Act (“EERA”).

6. Requirements for Grade-Levels Served, Facility Location, and Students Served RLS currently serves TK-5. It is located in ARUSD at 331 S. 34th Street in San Jose, CA. The Charter Schools Department Staff found that the Petitioners are able to meet the requirements for grade levels served, facility location and students served.

7. Any Other Criteria Set Forth in the Statute The Governor has signed into law AB 1505, AB 1507, AB 1219, and SB 126 which enact broad changes to the Charter Schools Act and either are already in effect or become operative contemporaneously with the commencement of the renewal term sought by RLS. As such, RLS will need to comply with the changes to the law.

CONCLUSION The Charter Schools Department Staff reviewed the renewal Petition for RLS utilizing the criteria for charter approval set forth in Education Code Sections 47605.6 and 47607 and California Code of Regulations, Title 5 Section 11966.5.

It is the recommendation of the Charter Schools Department Staff that the RLS Charter be renewed with the addition of the requirement that RLS and RPS enter into an Addendum to the MOU to address Staff’s concerns, including those specifically reviewed in the Staff Analysis and Proposed Findings of Fact, as well


23

as any additional requirements identified by the SCCBOE, and adopt the Board Resolution Conditionally Approving the Charter Renewal for Rocketship Los Sueños Academy Charter School with the Addition of Requirements Pursuant to Education Code Section 47605.6(b), and, Alternatively, Making Written Factual Findings Supporting Denial & Denying the Rocketship Los Sueños Academy Charter School Charter Renewal if the Requirements Are Not Met, for the period of July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2025.

Student Impact

The Charter School office provides oversight and monitoring for 22 County Board of Education authorized charter schools. RLS was authorized in 2009 and currently serves approximately 450 students.

STAFF ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ......Rocketship Los Sueños Academy Charter School...

Documents

Transcript of STAFF ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ......Rocketship Los Sueños Academy Charter School...