RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATION - February 28, 2000

 

Charter School Application - Lehigh Valley Academy Regional
Charter School


INFORMATION:

On or about November 15, 1999, the Lehigh Valley Academy Regional Charter School
(LVARCS) submitted a charter school application to the administration of the district. As this
applicant seeks approval as a regional charter school, it had also submitted an application for
approval to the Board of School Directors for the Saucon Valley School District.

Thereafter, the charter school applicant submitted answers to the Hurdle and Additional
Criteria as requested by the district. Subsequently, a public hearing was held on this charter
school application on February 9, 2000, (originally scheduled for January 25, 2000, but
rescheduled due to snow). After reviewing all the information presented and furnished by
LVARCS, the administration submits that the following deficiencies exist in the application
materials and supporting information, thus failing to warrant a positive recommendation of
this charter school to the Board of School Directors:

  1. Demonstrable and Sustainable Community Support: The application and
    proposal lacks demonstrated sustainable support among residents, teachers, and
    students for the charter school plan within the Bethlehem area. With regard to
    demonstrable support within the community, no residents, other than those who
    are members of the charter school founders' group    , spoke in favor of approving
    the application. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to specifically identify any
    potential students within the school district who may enroll in the charter school,
    despite the applicant's estimate of an initial enrollment of 450 students in the first
    year. Finally, no detailed information was offered in support of this calculation,
    or how the applicant arrived at this number.
  1. Description and Address of the Physical Facility:The facility and location for
    the proposed charter school initially identified in the LVARCS application (1050
    Main Street, Hellertown, PA) is no longer available. The applicant purports to
    have obtained another site (the former Lower Saucon Elementary School) at
    which to locate the proposed charter school. However, no documentation has
    been presented to the board or administration in support of the procurement of
    this site, despite specific requests for a copy of the agreement of sale or a copy of
    the lease between the owner and the charter school. Furthermore, no evidence was
    presented to demonstrate that the proposed site was a suitable and appropriate
    facility in which to locate a charter school. Concerns related to the proposed
    facility (the former Lower Saucon Elementary School) are more fully set forth in
    the attached memorandum of Mr. Dominic Villani,director of athletics/plant
    management.
  1. Failure to Demonstrate that the Charter School will be Both Organized and
    Operated as a Public Nonprofit Corporation:    At the February 9, 2000, public
    hearing, a specific request was made for any and all documentation reflecting that
    the LVARCS had been incorporated as a nonprofit entity. To date, no such
    documentation has been provided to the district. In the case of any charter
    school, proof of its nonprofit status is important, however, in light of LVARCS'
    seemingly unified and homogeneous relationship with Mosaica, Inc., proof of this
    kind is of even greater importance. Even if papers of incorporation indicating
    that LVARCS had filed as a nonprofit entity were available, the reality of the
    situation appears to be something much different. It is clear that Mosaica, Inc., ( a
    for-profit entity) controls all aspects of the proposed LVARCS operation--i.e.,
    completing and submitting the application, selecting the faculty and employes
    and quite possibly the board of trustees), developing and providing the
    curriculum, and selecting and running the actual facility. As such, it is a great
    concern of this administration that the proposed charter school is merely a
    "shell" by which the for-profit Mosaica, Inc., can profit from public monies.
    Questions about the charter school's autonomy from Mosaica, Inc., and whether
    they really are two separate entities persist throughout the application presently
    before the board.

  2. Curriculum and Testing Concerns:The administration is concerned with the
    fact that the proposed curriculum, known as the "Paragon©" program, does not
    encourage or necessarily increase learning opportunities for all pupils or
    encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods. Neither the
    proposed charter school nor the "Paragon©" curriculum provides an
    opportunity for teachers to be responsible for the creation of the learning
    program at the school site. Additionally, many specific concerns also surround
    important and detailed aspects of the proposed curriculum. These concerns are
    set forth in the memorandums of Dr. William Nelson, director of elementary
    education, and Mr. Monty Perfetti, director of secondary education, copies of
    which have been attached hereto.
  1. Budget and Financial Plan Concerns:The financial plan is suspect in that all
    budgetary calculations are based on projected enrollment figures, or lump-sum,
    start-up assistance from Mosaica, Inc. As such, the proposed financial plan fails
    to demonstrate the viability of the charter school application in the event
    projected enrollments are not met, or in the event that the Mosaica, Inc., funding
    becomes unavailable. Financial concerns are set forth in the attached
    memorandum of Mr. Stanley Majewski, director of business affairs/board
    secretary.
  1. Special Education:The special education plan within the application is
    inadequate because it does not identify or specify exactly how and by whom
    exceptional children will be provided for or evaluated. Additional concerns
    related to special education are set forth in the attached memorandum of Mr.
    Richard Agretto, director of special education.
  1. Intentions to Comply With All Aspects of the Charter School Law:During its
    presentation, the LVARCS applicant stated that renovations to any facility at
    which the charter school may be located would not have to be done in accordance
    with the statutory requirements governing construction projects and construction-
    related work. The charter school law expressly provides that statutory
    requirements related to construction must be complied with. This raises serious
    concerns about the applicant's intentions to comply with the spirit and
    requirements of the charter school law.

  2. Insurance Concerns:The charter school applicant fails to identify what
    insurance coverage it plans on purchasing or provide any price quotes for said
    coverage. In fact, during the applicant's presentation at the public hearing, the
    presenter stated that "they had not looked into obtaining insurance at this
    juncture." Furthermore, the applicant did not indicate whether the insurance
    would be procured by LVARCS or Mosaica, Inc., and whether either party would
    be named as an additional insured. In light of the vast degree of control and
    interaction that Mosaica, Inc., maintains in the day-to-day operation of the charter
    school, concerns must be raised as to what insurance coverages Mosaica, Inc.,
    maintains. Absolutely no evidence of insurance coverage for Mosaica, Inc., was
    presented by the applicant. Related questions also concern whether or not any
    indemnification clauses or hold harmless clauses exist between Mosaica, Inc., and
    LVARCS and what affects these clauses may have on the insurance to be obtained
    by LVARCS.
  1. Failure to Serve as a Model:For the foregoing reasons, this application does not
    serve as a model for other public schools.
  1. Failure to Conform to the Legislative Intent:For the foregoing reasons, this
    application does not conform to the legislative intent of the charter school law.


It is now time for the Board of School Directors to vote on whether or not to grant the
submitted charter school application of the Lehigh Valley Academy Regional Charter School,
pursuant to the Charter School Law, Act 22 of 1997.


RECOMMENDATION:

That the Board of School Directors (approve/disapprove) the application of the Lehigh Valley Academy Regional Charter School, pursuant to the Charter School Law, Act 22 of 1997.

 

 

Minutes

Director Venanzi commented concerning both of the charter schools.  She will not
be voting in favor of these.  Neither have shown her personally that they do
anything different that we don't already do in our district.

Director Williams stated she found it particularly disconcerting that Mr. Hackett
was unable to answer some of the questions during the hearing and that it was, in
fact, the chief operator from Mosaica who handled most of the questions.  In
addition, regarding the parental requirement, she is concerned that the parents
who may be able to afford the time and travel to invest the personal effort in
the school may seem to limit the scope of the enrollment to certain
socio-economic and racial profiles.  She is also very concerned that the
district's specific and very reasonable and relevant requests for information
were only met today and so the board received information very late, even though
it was clearly stated that information was due on the 21st.  Finally, our own
focus in the Bethlehem Area School District is driven by the New Standards
Initiative and insists on curriculum and instructional requirements that equal or
outperform what the Mosaica and Paragon purport to offer.  We, too, are very
focused on raising the test scores.  Unlike the example score in Bensalem, our
district can show some improvement.

Director Leeson stated she had a concern about public money going into a
"for-profit organization."  She asked if their priorities would be with the child
or with profit.

Director Amato stated that Mr. Villani has provided the board with information on
the facility that the Lehigh Valley Academy is going to operate out of, planning
to have it ready for next September.  He asked how they were going to accomplish
all the renovations because when we do something with our facilities, the
district must bring plans before the state for approval.  At the hearing, their
representatives stated they did not have to go through that because Mosaica will
buy the property, renovate it, and lease it back to the Academy.  In other words,
they will not operate under the same rules as in the public school system. 
Director Amato stated he had asked, if the district buildings were owned by a
foundation and we leased the buildings from it, if the district could circumvent
that approval process, the same way the charter schools could circumvent the
process.  Mr. Stevens had replied that the district could not do that.  Director
Amato asked if the charter schools are able to do that.  Mr. Stevens replied that
he did not look into the question of whether the charter schools can do this.  He
did, however, answer the question the board raised as to whether it could, by
leasing from a nonprofit group, avoid the bid procedure.  The answer is that the
board can lease facilities from a nonprofit.  However, if it does so, it is still
subject to the bidding requirements as set forth in section 700 of the Public
School Code.  Mr. Stevens offered to research whether the charter schools do not
have to follow the bidding requirements.  Mr. Blake added that this issue has
never been addressed by any rule-making body to date.  The position which appears
to have been taken by Mosaica is still up to dispute and will probably play out
for the next couple months or years before the Charter Schools Appeal Board.  The
Charter School Law does not grant that authority.  Director Amato commented that,
as Mrs. Leeson also touched upon, 12-1/2% of taxpayers' money will be going to
the Mosaica operation.  This raises the question of our taxpayers' money going to
an organization that is in business for a profit.  For every dollar, 12-1/2 cents
will be going out of the educational process.  It is a shame that our tax dollars
will be lost in the process. Director Craig commented that these are all valid
concerns.  He stated he was very concerned when he heard the two presentations. 
One dealt with the fact that guidance counselors are not important for elementary
schools.  That was opposite his point of view because guidance counselors are not
provided in that budget.  The second concern is that by mixing gifted students
with students one or two grade levels below the grade level they are enrolled in
within the same classroom, relying on a computer to basically teach the gifted
student and expect that student to get the same kind of an education as he or she
would get in our school district with our gifted teachers.  Those are the two
primary reasons why he will not be supporting this.

President Koch stated she also agrees that there are too many unanswered
questions.  She thanked the school district administrators who contributed their
summaries of reasons why they feel as they do about a particular charter school: 
Mr. Villani, Dr. Nelson, Mr. Perfetti, Mr. Majewski, and Mr. Agretto.  The
summary statements were very helpful to the board.


ROLL CALL RECOMMENDATION 15

Director Venanzi made a motion to DISAPPROVE the application for Lehigh Valley
Academy Regional Charter School.  Director Williams seconded the motion.  The
question was called and roll call was as follows:  Yea, Directors Williams, Koch,
Amato, Craig, Gallagher, Leeson, and Venanzi - 7.  Motion passed 7 - 0. 
[an error occurred while processing this directive]