Office of the Superintendent of Schools
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Rockville, Maryland
September 11, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To:
Members of the Board of Education
From:
Jerry D. Weast, Superintendent of Schools
Subject:
Jaime Escalante Public Charter School Application
This memorandum provides my recommendation concerning the establishment of a public
charter school in Montgomery County as proposed for the Jaime Escalante Public Charter
School. I have included a description of the background issues involved in this decision,
especially the findings and recommendations of an independent Blue Ribbon Panel of external
experts and community representatives that reviewed the specific application for the Escalante
School.
Background
On November 10, 1998, the Board of Education adopted Policy CFB on Public Charter Schools.
Following the adoption of the policy, staff developed application guidelines (see Attachment A).
In the fall of 2000, the guidelines were revised. An improved process was implemented that
involved staff, parents, associations, and the community. The first public charter school
application (the Jaime Escalante Public Charter School) was submitted during the spring of 2000.
A panel of reviewers from the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) evaluated the
application and determined that it should not be approved. The application, as you may recall,
was presented to the Board of Education in June 2000 with my initial support. Following the
applicants’ presentation and a discussion with the Board, the application was denied by the
Board of Education.
The application for the Escalante School was revised and resubmitted in March 2001
(see Attachment B). Prior to the submission of their application, the applicants met with me on
February 6, 2001, and I shared my support for the concept of public charter schools and specific
ideas about best practices for establishing such a school in Montgomery County. Following the
submission of the application, a group of staff, employee association, and community
representatives reviewed the application in detail. In addition, an independent Blue Ribbon
Panel of external experts and community representatives was formed to review the application,
and on May 22 the panel met with the applicants. (The detailed results of the application review
by the Blue Ribbon Panel are attached for your information.) The panel conducted an in-depth
dialogue with the applicants, including a formal presentation of their proposal.
Members of the Board of Education
2
September 11, 2001
On June 26, 2001, the applicants for the Escalante School submitted a “supplement” to their
application to address questions raised by the panel. This supplement was not requested by the
panel, which by this time already had completed its final review and had drafted its final report.
However, the panel was asked by me to reconvene in order to review the additional information
submitted by the applicants. On July 18, 2001, the panel met again and reviewed the supplement
to the original application.
Summary of the Findings
Staff/Community/Association Findings
Representatives from 19 offices and groups within the schools (see Attachment C) reviewed one
or more of the four areas in the charter school application—academic design, governance,
facilities and finance, and operations. A rubric of what reviewers should look for was contained
in the application guidelines booklet in order to make expectations clear to all reviewers and
applicants. The detailed results of this review are attached (see Attachment D). In summary,
this review identified multiple questions and concerns about lack of specificity in the application
about academic design and operations. Questions were raised about the lack of uniqueness in the
proposed charter school program, especially in the suggested Middle Years Program since it is
already in one school and other schools are considering its implementation.
There was concern from staff about a lack of understanding by the applicants of legal
requirements and mandates for operating a public school, and these concerns questioned whether
there would be inadequate implementation of several components of the program (i.e., special
education, security support, guidance, and counseling). Comments from the reviewers indicated
that the application lacked an operational plan for the administration of schools, including
transportation, building services and facilities, as well as not providing enough specifics in the
area of safety and security.
In addition, an issue about where to locate the school remained unanswered. During the meeting
on May 22, 2001, the facility issue also was raised by the Blue Ribbon Panel with staff and the
applicants. Staff indicated during the question and answer period that there is little or no room to
collocate with another school/facility in the applicants’ preferred geographical location.
Other concerns raised included funding for staffing for intersessions and summer school, hiring
of “choice” teachers, the use of the MCPS voluntary and involuntary transfer process, and the
limited number of teachers given the extensive course offerings.
Blue Ribbon Panel Summary Report— May 22 and July 18, 2001
The Blue Ribbon Panel was comprised of individuals external to the school system who were
either experts in the field of education or key stakeholders from the community (see Attachment
E). These individuals were charged with providing an independent evaluation of the entire
application and recommendations on whether to approve the application for the establishment of
Members of the Board of Education
3
September 11, 2001
a public charter school. From the beginning, the panel raised issues about the specificity and
content of the application. For example, the panel had difficulty understanding what the
applicants meant by their concept of “ordinary child” and how the Middle Years Program would
be unique. Panel members questioned the applicants several times regarding this issue of
“uniqueness,” especially whether the program would offer unique instructional strategies that are
unavailable elsewhere in the system. In addition, panelists were concerned about the lack of
detail from the applicants about what strategies would be used to improve student achievement,
especially among the children the applicants described as the “ordinary” child. The panel found
nothing in the application submitted, nor did anything surface in the discussion, that identified
any unique characteristics of the school.
Although the panel appreciated the applicants’ commitment, it was unclear how the applicants
were going to achieve the intended level of parent involvement. There also were little data to
support the identification of a target audience of the school, nor was there enough research to
conclude that the school would attract the target population.
The applicants’ partnership with The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) was viewed by the
panel as a tremendous support. However, projected negative cash flow for the school is an issue.
The panel concluded that MCPS could be responsible for the debt should the school not be
successful.
Issues related to a charter school site or other concerns remain unanswered. As the applicants
stated, it is difficult to move forward on a facility decision without approval of the charter itself.
Nonetheless, collocation with an existing public school program or some other organization was
discussed; but staff indicated that, given the area of the county preferred by the applicants,
facility and grounds are overutilized. Lack of substantive responses to questions raised related to
counseling services, special education, ESOL, and security also were a concern.
The review of the applicants’ supplemental material did not produce any new conclusions and, in
fact, confirmed many of the same concerns raised on May 22. The Blue Ribbon Panel voted
unanimously to deny the application. Details of the panel’s findings and recommendation are
contained in Attachment F.
Recommendation
Starting and opening a new school is a complex, multimillion-dollar enterprise, requiring a great
deal of planning and investment of resources. Although I am very interested in the establishment
of a public charter school in MCPS, I have a responsibility to the Board of Education to ensure
compliance with Board Policy CFA on Charter Schools and that public funds are being spent in
a cost-efficient and meaningful way. I believe there is a place in this system for a public charter
school that could serve targeted groups of children. Indeed, a public charter school could serve
as a laboratory for implementing a unique environment in which best practices for instructional
improvements could be advanced for the benefit of the entire school system. I believe very
strongly that the entrepreneurial aspects of the charter school movement can be of great use to
Members of the Board of Education
4
September 11, 2001
public education, especially in Montgomery County where we need to continually challenge
ourselves to implement rigorous academic programs that include specific strategies to improve
student achievement and close the gap in student performance by race and ethnicity. Certainly, a
public charter school as envisioned by the applicants must meet this challenge as well.
My recommendation to the Board of Education is based on the input received from the staff,
community, and association representatives and the independent Blue Ribbon Panel. I believe a
fair and extensive application review process similar to procedures for reviewing grant proposals
was utilized. Establishing such a panel this year provided me with an independent and valuable
review of the application. As explained in the panel’s summary report, the panel voted
unanimously not to support the Jaime Escalante Public Charter School application.
Based on the information and recommendations discussed above, I concur with the panel’s
decision. I am not convinced that acceptance of the application for the Jaime Escalante Public
Charter School would offer a unique alternative to existing public school programs, nor do I
believe that it would produce an instructional program that would be aligned with educational
and budgetary priorities of the Board of Education. Therefore, I support the Blue Ribbon Panel’s
recommendation to deny this application.
Present for today’s discussion with the Board of Education are Dr. James A. Williams, deputy
superintendent of schools; Mr. Michael Finnegan, Blue Ribbon Panel/Business Partner; Dr.
Gloria Grantham, Blue Ribbon Panel/Dean, Trinity College; Mr. Joseph Hawkins, Chair, Jaime
Escalante Application Team; and Dr. Inez Cifuentes, Escalante team member.
JDW:JAW:rlc
Attachment A – MCPS Charter School Application and Guidelines
Attachment B – Charter Application and Supplementary Material Submitted by Applicant
Attachment C – Names of Staff/Community/Union Reviewers
Attachment D – Staff/Community/Union Reviewers’ Summary Report
Attachment E – Blue Ribbon Panel Members
Attachment F – Blue Ribbon Panel Summary Report
Note
Attachments A and B are not available as PDF files.
Please call the Department of Communications
at 301-279-3853 for paper copies.
Attachment C
Names of Staff /Community/Union Reviewers
Representatives from the following offices, units, and
organizations reviewed the Jaime Escalante
application:
♦ Office of Instruction and Program Development
♦ Office of the Chief Operating Officer (Food
Services, Transportation, Facilities, Budget)
♦ Office of Shared Accountability
♦ Office of School Performance
♦ Office of School and Community Services
♦ Office of Human Resources
♦ Department of Staff Development
♦ Department of Safety and Security
♦ Association Relations
♦ MCCPTA Representative
♦ MCEA Representative (teachers union)
♦ MCASSP Representative (administrators union)
♦ MCSSE/Local 500 Representative (supporting
services union)
ATTACHMENT D
Staff/Community/Union Reviewers’ Summary Report
Background
Nineteen offices/groups reviewed one or more of the four areas in the charter school
application, which are academic design, governance, facilities and finance, and operations.
Three offices/groups reviewed all four areas—School Performance, Shared Accountability,
and MCEA. One office/group reviewed three areas—Local 500 SEIU.
Four
offices/groups reviewed two areas—Association Relations, Student and Community
Services, MCASSP, and MCCPTA. The remaining 11 offices/groups reviewed one
area—OIPD, School Safety and Security, Management Budget and Planning, Planning and
Capital Programming, Facility Management, Transportation, Food and Nutrition Services,
School Plant Operations, Maintenance, Human Resources, and Staff Development.
Academic Design
The following are factors the reviewers will look for:
Clearly articulated vision statement
Consistency among mission, philosophy, goals, and objectives
Curricular program leading to improved educational outcomes
Unique concept design, techniques, and/or practices contrasted to existing programs
Target population description
Service provisions to accommodate students with disabilities
Service provisions to accommodate English language learners
Grading, promotion, and retention policy details
Compliance plan for local/state assessment programs
Corrective action plan for students below achievement standards
Strategies to assess and analyze student interests and needs
Procedures for fulfillment of all prescribed federal, state, and local student requirements
Governance
The following are factors the reviewers will look for:
Names, background, experiences, and references of public charter school organizers and
board members
Description of business arrangement or partnerships with existing schools, businesses,
and/or nonprofit organizations
Description of the governance structure and its impact on the school operation
Board of directors selection process and continuity provision for successors
Explanation of governance board roles and interaction with professional staff members
Administrative management structure with individual job descriptions
Description of the role of parents in the decision-making process
Waiver request forms
Requested duration of the proposed public charter school
Proposed timetable for charter implementation
Description and documentation of community support for the public charter school
Copies of community surveys and communications in appropriate non-English languages
1
Facilities and Finance
The following are factors the reviewers will look for:
Description of proposed facility, including funding, maintenance, and method of
attainment
Types and amounts of insurance coverage: liability, general and personal, workers
compensation for non-MCPS employees, motor vehicle, etc.
Proposed facility compliance with local/state building codes
Outline of steps toward facility acquisition, including financing plans
Description of civil rights, health, and safety policy compliance
Financial management and internal accounting procedures
Detailed school plan to address expenses that will be incurred prior to school opening,
such as capital expenditures, supplies, materials, planning funds, etc.
Extensive four-year budget plan, including projected revenue sources and planned
expenditures
Fund-raising plans to supplement budget revenues
Detailed student recruitment and marketing plans for target population, “hard-to-reach”
families, culturally and linguistically diverse families, disabled students, etc.
Detailed description of property control procedures
Certification of asbestos inspection of the proposed facility
Documentation of radon testing of the proposed facility
Operations
The following are factors the reviewers will look for:
Student admission and dismissal procedures
Student registration and admission guidelines
detailed time line of admission and registration events
admission lottery plan for oversubscription
target population recruitment strategies
Procedures for reporting and monitoring student enrollment and attendance
Employment system for recruiting, hiring, and training professional and supporting
school staff
Detailed staffing plans
Evaluation plan
Detailed student transportation plans
Detailed food services plan
Detailed maintenance plans
Procedures for fulfilling all prescribed federal, state, and local student requirements
2
Summary of Staff/Community/Union Overall Ratings
Number
Office
Academic
Design
Governance
1
School
Performance
MCEA
Partially
Meets
Completely
Meets
Partially
Meets
Partially
Meets
Partially
Meets
Partially
Meets
Partially
Meets
Partially
Meets
Partially
Meets
Partially
Meets
2
3
4
Shared
Accountability
Local 500 SEIU
5
MCASSP
6
8
Student and
Community
Services
Association
Relations
MCCPTA
9
OIPD
10
School Safety
and Security
Management,
Budget and
Planning
Planning and
Capital
Programming
Facility
Management
Transportation
7
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Completely
Meets
Does Not
Meet
Facilities
and
Finance
Partially
Meets
Completel
y Meets
Partially
Meets
Partially
Meets
Operations
Partially
Meets
Completely
Meets
Partially
Meets
Partially
Meets
Partially
Meets
Partially
Meets
Completely
Meets
Does Not
Meet
Partially
Meets
Does Not
Meet
Partially
Meets
Does Not
Meet
Does Not
Meet
Food and
Nutrition
Services
School Plant
Operations
Maintenance
Does Not
Meet
Does Not
Meet
Partially
Meets
Partially
Meets
Partially
Meets
Human
Resources
Staff
Development
3
Ratings
Eight of the 19 offices/groups reviewed the academic design area. Of the eight, two
indicated that the area completely meets the criteria, five indicated that the area partially
meets the criteria, and the remaining one indicated that the area does not meet the criteria.
Seven of the 19 offices/groups reviewed the governance area. Of the seven, one indicated
that the area completely meets the criteria, the remaining six indicated that the area
partially meets the criteria.
Eight of the 19 offices/groups reviewed the facilities/finance area. Of the eight, one
indicated that the area completely meets the criteria, five indicated that the area partially
meets the criteria, and the remaining two indicated that the area does not meet the criteria.
Eleven of the 19 offices/groups reviewed the operations area. Of the 11, one indicated
that the operations area completely meets the criteria, six indicated that the area partially
meets the criteria, and the remaining four indicated that the area does not meet the criteria.
Area
Academic Design
Governance
Facilities and Finance
Operations
Completely Meets
2 of 8
1 of 7
1 of 8
1 of 11
Partially Meets
5 of 8
6 of 7
5 of 8
6 of 11
Does Not Meet
1 of 8
0 of 7
2 of 8
4 of 11
Strengths and Deficiencies
Academic Design
Strengths of the academic design included its mission and goals, desire for high standards
and the use of the Middle Years Program, commitment of staff, and involvement of the
community.
Deficiencies reported included questionable uniqueness, having no well-defined vehicle for
understanding school and individual student learning needs and for applying a problemsolving process to them to improve the chances of student success; identification of the
“average middle students”; matching of MCPS content standards/curriculum with the core
subject areas; lack of specificity in implementation of an academic design, including a
strategic plan that outlines courses, extracurricular activity, remediation; provisions for
trained school mental heath professionals; and concern that teachers cannot perform all
functions for which school counselors are responsible.
4
Governance
Strengths in the governance area included involvement of stakeholders and community
support, and two partnerships which are in place. Deficiencies in the governance area
included insufficient information about the resumes and references of the founders or the
executive director. Specific questions arose about the qualifications needed for evaluating
staff. Lack of documentation of support from the community was noted. Waivers of
negotiated agreements appeared to be missing. There was concern that a lack of
understanding or consideration of legal requirements and mandates would result in
inadequate implementation of several components of the program (i.e., special education
students, security support, guidance, and counseling). In addition, an unrealistic
assumption that students in the highest quartiles of performance will not find their
program appealing was reported.
Facilities and Finance
Strengths in the facilities/finance area included a willingness to co-locate and seek grants
and fund-raising activities and an identification of two facility options—co-locating and
leasing. Deficiencies included no identification of a facility using either option and
inadequate funding. The application lacks an operational plan for the “business” side,
including transportation, building services, facilities, as well as not enough specifics in the
area of safety and security.
Operations
Strengths reported in the operations area included having a positive goal of diversity,
having staffing and attendance plans, and using MCPS programs and procedures.
Reported deficiencies included the lack of plans for maintenance, food services, and
transportation if co-location does not occur; or how services will be provided on days
when MCPS schools are closed if co-location does occur. Concerns raised about staffing
included funding for staffing for intersessions and summer school, hiring of “choice”
teachers, the use of the MCPS voluntary and involuntary transfer process, and the
insufficient number of teachers with extensive course offerings. Also noted was the
caution against misuse of information from Free and Reduced Price Meals for a lottery.
5
ATTACHMENT E
Blue Ribbon Panel Members
Name
Mr. Fernando Cruz Villalba
Title/Organization
Community/Hispanic
Leadership
Mr. Michael Finnegan
Business Roundtable, Bank
of America
Dr. Gloria Grantham
Dean of Education
Trinity College
Mr. Phil Tajitsu Nash
Professor Asian American
Studies
University of Maryland
Mr. Doug Schiffman
Business Roundtable,
Ninelives Computer
Company
Dr. Sandra G. Yates
Department of Education
Chairperson
University of the District of
Columbia
ATTACHMENT F
Blue Ribbon Panel Summary Report
Jaime Escalante Public Charter School
August 2001
Background
The Jaime Escalante application was submitted on March 30, 2001. On May 22, 2001,
the Blue Ribbon Panel was convened at the request of Dr. James A. Williams, deputy
superintendent of schools, for the purpose of reviewing the Jaime Escalante Public
Charter School application and providing the superintendent with a recommendation.
The review completed by the Blue Ribbon Panel was the next step in the process
following a staff, parent, and union review of the application. The applicants, staff, and
Blue Ribbon Panel were all provided with a rubric of what reviewers would look for in
the evaluation of the application using four categories—Academic Design, Governance,
Operations, and Facilities and Finance. Representatives from MCPS departments/
divisions were asked to respond to the aspects of the application that related to their
specific areas of expertise. Therefore, staff responses are organized according to the
categories of the rubric. In contrast, the Blue Ribbon Panel reviewed the application in
its totality rather that looking at each individual component. This approach is reflected in
the panel’s discussion and recommendation.
The applicants, staff, and union leadership were invited to the first half of the May 22
Blue Ribbon Panel meeting. During this time the applicants provided a brief overview of
their application followed by questions and discussion with the Blue Ribbon Panel. Staff
and union representatives were in the room during this time. Panel members then had the
opportunity to question staff, followed by final comments from the applicants. After a
break, the Blue Ribbon Panel reconvened to discuss their recommendation, which
subsequently would be forwarded to the superintendent.
On June 26, 2001, the Escalante Group submitted a supplement to its initial application.
Although the application process does not call for the filing of supplemental material, the
superintendent asked the Blue Ribbon Panel to reconvene to consider the additional
information provided in the supplement. The panel reconvened on July 18, 2001, to
discuss the supplement and determine what impact, if any, the additional information
would have on the initial recommendation and draft report.
Jaime Escalante Public Charter Application Review Meeting
May 22, 2001
The following is a summary of notes taken by staff at the May 22 meeting.
Opening Presentation: Jaime Escalante Public Charter Group
The key points of the opening presentation of the Escalante Group are included in the
Executive Summary of the application.
ƒ
The proposed Escalante School is a combined middle and high school to be
located in the Silver Spring area, served by the Einstein, Blair, and BethesdaChevy Chase clusters.
The Escalante School focuses on reaching
underachieving, mid-level students in danger of not realizing their full
potential—the “ordinary” child, as described by the Escalante Group. The
2
school is designed to challenge students and enable them to reach their
greatest academic potential through a unique combination of close
home/school interaction, a rigorous academic program, small school size,
small classes, school and class schedules more in tune with the adolescent
biology, and enriching after-school programs.
ƒ
Opening is proposed for fall 2002, with Grades 6 and 7. By fall 2007, the
school is expected to have 400 students in Grades 6 through 12.
ƒ
The mission of the Escalante School is “to engage the fullest intellectual
energy of grade-level, so that all may aspire to excellence and meet or exceed
every relevant county, state, national, and international educational
standard.”
ƒ
The Escalante School proposes that the following features support the
accomplishment of the mission:
¾ Size: Small school and classes
¾ Ambition and Challenge: All students immersed in a challenging
program and environment
¾ Governance: Shared by parents and teachers
¾ Time and Attention:
Changes in schedules and after-school
enrichment programs
¾ Partners: Affiliation with the National Council of La Raza (NCLA)
ƒ
The Escalante School will be marketed primarily to children in the clusters
where the school will be physically located. A diverse student population is
expected—one-third Hispanic, one-third African American, and one-third
white and Asian. Any student within MCPS is eligible for admission;
however, details regarding transportation issues have not yet been determined.
ƒ
The Escalante Group pointed out that this school will provide an excellent
opportunity for MCPS to pilot many of its proposed strategies to “raise the bar
and close the gap” in a small, controlled environment—a “laboratory.” The
Escalante School is dedicated to improving the academic achievement of its
students. As is the case with all other schools in the MCPS system, it will be
responsible to the Board of Education for producing results.
The Escalante Group identified partnerships with several groups within the community,
but placed special significance on its relationship with the National Council of La Raza
(NCLA). The NCLA has committed to providing financial support, start-up expertise,
and ongoing advice to the Escalante School.
Question & Answer Period Among Blue Ribbon Panel, Applicants, and Staff
Questions asked of the Escalante Group during the first half of the meeting covered a
wide range of topics; however, the majority were related to program design. Highlights
of this discussion are described below and categorized according to the four key areas of
the application—academic design, governance, facilities and finance, and operations.
3
Academic Design
During the opening presentation, the Escalante Group identified the target population
for the school as “ordinary children.” When asked by the panel to define the term, the
Escalante Group said that “ordinary children” are those not typically exposed to “top
shelf” programs. These children are currently not working up to their potential, but if
given a challenge, they will perform well.
The next question dealt with the accomplishment of the school’s mission and how it
would be brought to fruition. The Escalante Group responded by saying, “We know
that what we want to do is possible as evidenced by the 90/90/90 schools. If it can be
done in those districts and in those schools, it can be done in MCPS. The following
features will help us achieve success. These are identified in the Executive Summary
of our application and are fully explained throughout the body of the document.
¾ Rigorous, strong core curriculum (Middle Years Program)
¾ Small school, small class environment
¾ Planning time and collaboration time for teachers
¾ Performance data used to support/inform instruction
¾ Support for students who are falling behind
¾ Powerful sense of community among students, faculty, partners
¾ Innovative scheduling”
The mission-related question lead to one of the key points of the discussion—the
uniqueness of the school. The Blue Ribbon Panel had difficulty understanding what
characteristic of the Escalante School made it unique (they questioned the applicants
several times). In essence, what made it a charter school? The response of the
Escalante Group was a restatement of what had been previously stated. They stated
that smaller classes, a smaller school, an energized environment, and a willingness to
work with the kids until they “get it” would all contribute to the accomplishment of
the mission. The applicants continued, “This is all feasible in a smaller classroom.
Although we will not have guidance counselors, the students will have academic
advisors who will meet with students once a week. This model has been successful in
Japan and Russia. We think this approach will be very successful here as well. The
environment for successful instruction is described starting on page 15 of our
application. Although the Escalante School curriculum is not unique, the school is.
Teachers will be the instructional leaders. They will have six hours a week to plan
and reflect. After-school activities will get students involved and keep them
interested. The combined effect of the success factors will help us reach and succeed
with all children.”
The logic behind the implementation of another Middle Years Program (MYP) and
International Baccalaureate (IB) Program was questioned. The Escalante Group
explained their program selection by pointing out that there are not enough spots in
the existing programs to accommodate all of the children who could benefit. The
population that the Escalante School will serve typically is not targeted for these
programs. It was explained that the school anticipates its children being the mid-tolow achievers who need the extra push and challenge in order to achieve their
potential. The MYP and the IB will offer the challenges and the supports that these
children need.
4
Along a similar vein, the group was asked what it would do if the Escalante School
population was the same as in MCPS—running the entire spectrum of children from
low to high achievers? The response was, “We feel that parental involvement and the
motivation of the children are critical to success no matter what the achievement
level. Interviews with children and their parents will help identify the level of
motivation and commitment. No matter what the achievement level of the child, if
we have committed and motivated students and parents, every child will be able to
succeed.”
The last question related to academic design dealt with the intermediate session of the
school—summer school. The Escalante Group was asked to explain how their
summer school would be structured and how it might be different from the MCPS
summer school program. The response was, “School will be held year round.
Children who need additional help and support will attend summer school, which will
be different from the MCPS summer school. We don’t feel that standards in the
typical MCPS summer school are as high as during the regular school year. We will
make sure that the Escalante summer school is consistently rigorous. Also, our
partners will help. Inter-ages is ready to provide senior citizen support to the students
by tutoring, for example. In addition, we will ask parents to be our partners in
helping children achieve.”
Governance
A member of the Blue Ribbon Panel made reference to the CEO of an organization.
He/she is the person who develops a vision, sets direction, and energizes the staff.
The question was, “Who will assume the role of the CEO in the charter school?” It
was stated that the school’s executive director, Bob Mathis, will also be in the
classroom with his finger on the pulse of the school. Bob has been a supporter of the
Escalante School concept since its inception and has a strong commitment to the
success of this school. It was also mentioned that the executive director will have the
complete support of the Board and the NCLR. The NCLR has committed to
providing assistance during the start-up period, a critical time in the life of a charter
school.
When asked about the teacher evaluation system, the Escalante Group said that
teachers will be evaluated under the same processes used by MCPS—the Organizing
and Analyzing Teaching process.
Facilities and Finance
Issues related to the school building were difficult for the Escalante Group to address.
Without charter approval, it is difficult to move forward with plans for the facility.
Therefore, many of the responses related to this topic were hypothetical and depend
on market conditions when the Escalante Group is ready to finalize location and
building space.
The Escalante Group was asked to define “co-location.” It was stated that this term
means that two schools would exist at one location, perhaps with some of the classes
in trailers. The common areas of the school (the cafeteria, for example) would be
shared. The Escalante Group pointed out that it is also considering leasing property
and that the NCLR has offered funding alternatives for this.
5
The Blue Ribbon Panel then asked MCPS staff about the process for gaining funding
for facilities for the school system. The response was that this is part of the capital
budget process. It was also pointed out that MCPS is growing quite rapidly at the
moment. With 50 percent of schools currently over capacity, the probability of a colocation scenario is very low, particularly in the geographic area of Silver Spring,
identified by the Escalante Group.
With this in mind, a follow-up question was posed to the Escalante Group. The
question was, “If this is the case, how could you share space with MCPS? It doesn’t
seem as if there is any space available. Also, commercial properties (offices) don’t
seem feasible for a school. And, it would be extremely expensive to convert a
warehouse. What will you do?” The Escalante Group responded by again pointing
out the chicken-and-the-egg issue. Although several options for facilities have been
explored, none have been pursued to any great degree because of the uncertainty
regarding the approval of the application.
A panel member pointed out that the cash flow projections show a deficit. It was
asked how the Escalante Group was asked how they plan to address this. The
Escalante Group explained that the balance statements were reconfigured with
different scenarios and now show a more positive cash flow position; however, the
new pages were not included in the application.
Operations
A question related to operations focused on the issue of the recruitment of students.
The Blue Ribbon Panel wanted to know from where the Escalante School will draw
its students and how the school will be marketed. The response was as follows. “We
don’t anticipate a problem getting children to apply. A survey conducted at Rolling
Terrace Elementary School indicated that there is quite a bit of interest in the school
and our approach. We plan to draw students from the surrounding neighborhood, and
we plan to market the school in the traditional ways—meetings at schools, through
the PTA, brochures, school newsletters, etc. We realize that if we draw students from
outside of the surrounding community, transportation may be an issue. It seems
premature to discuss this at this point. It will be addressed after our charter is
granted.”
The next question asked was, “How do you plan to get the support of the Hispanic
parent community?” The Escalante Group was pleased to say that it has the support
of the parent outreach coordinator at Rolling Terrace Elementary School, who has a
proven track record of being able to reach parents. She goes to the places where
parents are—the churches, community centers, etc. In addition to the support of the
coordinator, the Escalante Group identified several ideas to expand outreach—
brochures in multilanguages and brochures for students. Also, the reasons that
Hispanic parents are reluctant to get involved will be explored, and strategies to
eliminate the barriers to involvement will be developed.
When asked about special preparation and training for teachers, it was stated that
Escalante teachers will have the same opportunities to attend staff development
offerings as MCPS teachers. In addition, the Escalante Group expects the leadership
6
of the school to be strong and to encourage the staff. The positive energy in the
school and collaboration among the staff, administration, and community partners
also will be a support to teachers.
Questions were raised regarding the roles of counseling, special education, and
security. It was asked how all of these functions will be addressed. The Escalante
Group explained that it will rely on specialized MCPS personnel and their expertise
as needs arise with Escalante students. Also, parents and partners have expressed a
willingness to provide support when needed.
Related to the previous question, the role of the counselor was discussed in more
detail by MCPS staff. Staff pointed out that counselors deal with much more that is
outlined in the Escalante application. Prevention and mental health, critical in today’s
environment, are a significant part of the counselor’s job. The question posed was,
“How can the teachers provide all that is needed by our student population?” In
response, it was reinforced that Escalante students will receive a full range of
services. In the design of the school, teachers are not responsible for providing all of
the services children might need. The school will rely on experts through
partnerships (especially the partnership with MCPS) to help with specialized issues
and needs.
Blue Ribbon Panel Discussion
This part of the meeting included Blue Ribbon Panel members only and two facilitators.
A quick pre-vote was taken before any discussion began. Panel members were asked to
identify where they stood with respect to a recommendation. Responses were based on a
1 to 5 scale:
ƒ 1 = No way
ƒ 3 = Could go either way
ƒ 5 = Absolutely
The results are represented in the chart below.
Blue Ribbon Panel Recommendations
Number of Responses
4
3
2
3
2
1
1
0
1
No way
2
3
3.5
Could go
either way
Absolutely
7
4
5
Prior to the discussion, it seemed evident that the group was leaning toward
recommending the approval of the application. However, as the members discussed the
application in terms of its strengths and weaknesses, the implications for MCPS, and the
reasons “for” and “against” approval of the charter, the collective opinion of the group
changed.
Highlights of the discussion follow:
ƒ
The strengths of the application were identified as follows:
¾ There is a clearly stated mission for the Escalante School
¾ Parental involvement is a key element for success
¾ This school would function as a “laboratory” for MCPS
¾ The team seems dedicated to the mission of the school
¾ Smaller classes provide the opportunity for more differentiated instruction
¾ The partnership with the NCLR is a tremendous support
¾ The “energized environment” described in the application has its merits.
The newness would create an exciting atmosphere for students, staff,
parents, and others.
ƒ
Because this would be the first charter school in Montgomery County, it is critical
that the implementation be successful.
ƒ
Although panel members agreed that a charter school could be a positive addition
to MCPS, the Escalante School does not seem to be a model that would be sure to
succeed. The reasons being as follows:
¾ There is nothing in the application (nor did anything surface in the
discussion) that identified the unique characteristic of the school.
Although the strategies have merit, none of them truly represent the
innovation and creativity typical of a charter school. It appears as if the
Escalante School will simply be replicating the strategies and practices
that will be implemented throughout the school system.
¾ There is no compelling argument to move resources from MCPS to the
Escalante School. Since the Escalante School plans to duplicate existing
programs in MCPS, why dedicate resources to this small group when
economies of scale can be realized in an MCPS school.
¾ The school focuses on closing the gap, but there is little attention paid to
raising the bar. Specific strategies have not been articulated.
¾ There seems to be little data to support the identified target audience for
this school. Not enough research has been done to conclude that the
school will actually draw its target population.
¾ Although small school and class size were often identified as success
factors, data does not support the hypothesis that a smaller class alone
increases the academic achievement of students. The instructional
strategies along with lower class size needed to be described in detail.
¾ Success of the school seems to rely too heavily on parental support.
Although parental support has a tremendous impact on the student, the
Escalante School cites parents as resources for tutors, mentors, and other
duties that may be needed—a seemingly unrealistic expectation.
8
¾ There is little evidence of strong community, business, or parental support.
¾ There appears to be a heavy reliance on the NCLR for support, assistance,
and funding. Although the panel applauds this partnership, there are no
contingency plans should this partnership weaken or dissolve.
¾ Real passion is lacking in the application and in the presentations of the
Escalante board.
¾ The negative cash flow projections are an issue. MCPS could be
responsible for the debt should the school not be successful.
There is nothing unique about offering the Middle Years Program (MYP) in MCPS; it
exists at Julius West Middle School and we are informed that Gaithersburg Middle
School is exploring that program as well. With Julius West implementing the MYP, an
opportunity already exists to determine whether this program impacts student
achievement. Smaller class size is already a systemwide initiative and summer school
remediation exists right now.
The Blue Ribbon Panel commends the Escalante Group for bringing to light an issue that
MCPS must address—the engagement and achievement of minority students, specifically
Hispanic students. Despite its commitment and dedication to the issue, the Escalante
Group has left too many critical questions unanswered. What really makes this school
unique? What instructional strategies will be used to move the “ordinary child” to the
extraordinary? How will special education, counseling, and security needs be met?
What are the plans regarding student transportation? What about the facility? Does the
plan make it worth the financial risk? The details were not present in order to ensure that
the operational aspects of the school would run smoothly.
Recommendation
At the conclusion of the discussion, panel members were asked to vote regarding
approval of the application of the Jaime Escalante Public Charter School. They cast their
votes for one of the following categories:
ƒ Accept without hesitation
ƒ Accept with conditions
ƒ Decline
The panel voted unanimously to decline the application.
Blue Ribbon Panel Meeting
July 18, 2001
The following is a summary of notes taken by staff at the July 18 meeting to review the supplemental
material:
On July 18, 2001, the Blue Ribbon Panel reconvened to discuss the supplement to the
Jaime Escalante Public School Charter application. Many of the topics discussed at the
May 22 meeting were revisited and several additional insights were brought to light. Key
issues with discussion summaries follow:
9
Uniqueness: Despite the additional information provided in the supplement, Blue
Ribbon Panel members still view the “uniqueness” issue as one of the major weaknesses
of the plan. There is nothing about the proposed approach that is innovative and new,
thus begging the question, “How will this school be different from others in MCPS?”
MCPS is very interested in exploring different approaches and fresh ideas that may be
replicated throughout the system if successful. None of the concepts proposed by the
Escalante Group were different enough to warrant replication since MCPS is already
implementing many of these same strategies.
Strategies to Address Poor Performance: The Escalante Group points to extended day
and summer school programs as two of the solutions to address poor performance.
Research tells us, however, that additional time spent in programs such as extended day
and summer school are not effective remediation strategies. The implementation of
alternative instructional strategies during the traditional school day is a more effective
approach to underachievement. The Escalante application does not identify any such
approaches/strategies.
Financial Viability: Even with the support of the NCLR, there is doubt as to whether the
Escalante School could achieve financial stability. This could put a considerable
financial burden on MCPS that would take funds from the focused strategies of Our Call
to Action.
Audience: The Escalante Group is proposing a middle and high school in the Silver
Spring area that focuses on mid-level underachievers who are in danger of not realizing
their full potential. One of the entry requirements is parental involvement.
The panel sees several flaws with this approach. First, if these students already have the
involvement and support of their parents, it is probable that they would be successful in
the traditional setting. Second, the panel believes that the school would have greater
opportunity for success if it were focused on the early years and on a smaller group of
students that would be consistent with superintendent and Board priorities. Also, a focus
on a smaller group would allow the Escalante Group to open “a school within a school”
and negate many of the issues related to facilities and financing. Third, the panel does
not feel that a compelling case has been made for the location of the school. More data is
needed to determine the most appropriate location.
Leadership: Strong leadership is required to implement a project of this scope and
magnitude. There will be many difficult issues, especially during the early years, that
will require the focus and driving force of a dynamic and unified administration.
Although the dedication of the Escalante Group is evident, the leadership characteristics
required to successfully open this school are not as apparent.
The panel feels that the Escalante Group’s dedication to the implementation of its vision
is to be commended. Additionally, the panel points out that this application speaks to a
greater issue than the creation of a charter school. The Escalante Group’s persistence in
the process indicates that there is a need among members of the Latino/Hispanic
community that MCPS must address. The application highlights a group of students—
specifically, underachieving, middle school, Latino students—who would benefit from
10
additional support and/or some type of alternative educational experience. The continued
attempts to create this charter school are a message to the system that there are issues
related to “nonmainstream” children that still need additional attention and focus.
The focus of the school system’s strategic plan, Our Call to Action, is on “closing the gap
and raising the bar” for all children. It addresses some of the Escalante Group’s concerns
through its Early Success, Literacy, and Partnerships initiatives. Cognizant of the issues,
MCPS welcomes innovative approaches to closing the gap that will support those
initiatives that are already under way. Unfortunately, even with the supplemental
information, the Escalante School’s application does not outline an approach that will
make an extraordinary difference in the lives of children.
Recommendation
At the conclusion of the discussion, panel members were again asked to vote regarding
the approval of the application of the Jaime Escalante Public Charter School. The five
panel members in attendance voted unanimously to decline the application. Phil Nash
voted in absentia to decline the application.
Dr. Gloria Grantham, Dean, Trinity College
Phil Tajitsu Nash, Asian American Studies, University of Maryland
Fernando Cruz Villalba, Hispanic Community
Mr. Doug Schiffman, Business Partner, Ninelives Computer Company
Mr. Michael Finnegan, Business Partner, Bank of America
Dr. Sandra Yates, Chairperson, University of the District of Columbia
11