Pillsbury United Communities – Minnesota Authorizers Performance Evaluation System
(MAPES)
Authorizer Information
Authorizer: Pillsbury United Communities
Authorizer Type: Non-Profit Organization
MDE approved: 2010
Operational Schools: Dugsi Academy, High School for Recording Arts, Jennings Community Learning
Center, Learning for Leadership Charter School, LoveWorks Academy for Visual & Performing Arts, Minnesota
International Middle School, Minnesota Math and Science Academy, Minnesota Online High School,
Minnesota Transitions Charter School, Rochester Math & Science Academy, Sojourner Truth Academy,
Stonebridge World School, Twin Cities International Elementary School, Ubah Medical Academy, Minnesota
Internship Center
Schools approved, but not open: Banaadir College Preparatory
Closed Schools: Quest Academy, Richard Allen Math & Science Academy
Characteristics of the Authorizer


Pillsbury United Communities’ (PUC) mission for authorizing is: “…to offer bold and innovative
educational strategies; provide an environment that promotes respect for all students and their
individual identities; and engage students in academic and authentic learning opportunities, service
learning, and personal development."
The authorizer is a non-profit organization that currently authorizes 15 charter schools. The authorizer
views authorizing as a way to serve disadvantaged families and students. In addition to the charter
schools, the authorizer also operates six community centers throughout the Twin Cities area, which
focus on “…five impact areas: education, youth and family, wellness and nutrition, employment and
training, and asset creation."
Performance Rating Drivers

The authorizer has invested time, effort and resources in developing its infrastructure to increase its
capacity to oversee a growing portfolio of schools largely in alignment with the expectations stated in
MAPES.

PUC has begun to further clarify and systematize its approach to decision making, performance
contracting, and oversight and evaluation. However, to a large extent, these efforts do not meet
required specifications pertaining to timelines stated in MAPES.

There is a lack of full transparency and clarity with regard to all aspects of the authorizer’s renewal
decision-making process; it is unclear whether the decisions are merit-based and aimed to promote
the growth of high-quality charter schools.
Overall Performance Rating
MAPES Overall Performance Rating for Pillsbury United Communities is 2.1 Satisfactory
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
1
Ratings Summary
PERFORMANCE MEASURES A: AUTHORIZER CAPACITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE – 25% Weight of
Overall Rating
Authorizer Mission and Vision
A.1: Authorizer Mission (5%)
4
A.2: Authorizer Vision and Organizational Goals (10%)
3
Authorizer Capacity and Infrastructure
A.3: Authorizer Structure of Operations (15%)
4
A.4: Authorizer Staff Expertise (10%)*
2
A.5: Authorizer Capacity and Skill Development of Leadership and Authorizing Staff (5%)*
3
A.6: Authorizer Operational Budget for Authorizing the Portfolio of Charter Schools (10%)
3
A.7: Authorizer Operational Conflicts of Interest (10%)
4
A.8: Ensuring Autonomy of the Schools in the Portfolio (15%)
4
A.9: Authorizer Self-Evaluation of Capacity, Infrastructure and Practices (5%)*
3
A.10: Authorizer High Quality Authorizing Dissemination (5%)*
3
A.11: Authorizer Compliance to Responsibilities Stated in Statute (10%)
4
Total Performance Measures A Rating:
3.45
PERFORMANCE MEASURES B: AUTHORIZER PROCESSES AND DECISION MAKING– 75% Weight of
Overall Rating
Authorizer Process and Decision making
B.1: New Charter School Decisions (20% / 5%)**
3
B.2: Interim Accountability Decisions (10% / 5%)**
2
Authorizer Performance Contracting
B.3: Contract Term, Negotiation, and Execution (10%)
1
B.4: Performance Standards (10%)
1
Authorizer Ongoing Oversight and Evaluation
B.5: Authorizer’s Processes for Ongoing Oversight of the Portfolio of Charter Schools (10%)
2
B.6: Authorizer’s Standards and Processes for Interventions, Corrective Action and
Response to Complaints (10%)*
1
B.7: Charter School Support, Development and Technical Assistance (5%)*
2
B.8: High Quality Charter School Replication and/or Dissemination of Best School
Practices (5%)*
1
Authorizer Renewal and Decision Making
B.9: Charter School Renewal or Termination Decision (20%)
1
Total Performance Measures B Rating:
1.65
*Continuous Improvement Measure
**Weights adjusted for authorizers not engaged in B.1 and/or B.2 activities
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
2
Evidence to Support the Performance Rating
Using MAPES, the review team considered documentation for Pillsbury United Communities. Following the
review of the authorizer’s evidence of mission, capacity and infrastructure, process and decision making,
performance contracting, ongoing oversight and evaluation, and renewal decision making, the team
determined consensus findings. These findings and the evidence to support them are presented below.
These findings form the basis for the team’s MAPES performance rating.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES A: AUTHORIZER CAPACITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Authorizer Mission and Vision
A.1 - Does the authorizer have a clear and compelling mission for charter school authorizing?
Performance Level Rating: Level 4: Exemplary
Finding: Pillsbury United Communities (PUC) has a clear and compelling mission for charter school
authorizing. According to authorizer staff and the provided narrative report, the mission of PUC is
to have schools that: "offer bold and innovative educational strategies; provide an environment that
promotes respect for all students and their individual identities; and engage students in academic and
authentic learning opportunities, service learning, and personal development." The narrative response
also states that the mission and vision were created in 2008 and have remained consistent since then.
Additionally, authorizer staff stated (and a review of the narrative report confirmed) that PUC has
aligned its mission with the primary and secondary purpose of Minnesota Statute 124E.01 Subd. 1.
For example, Section 2 of the statute states, “Encourage the use of different and innovative teaching
methods.” PUC has aligned that component with their mission to “offer bold and innovative educational
strategies.”
Further, during an interview, school directors stated the mission. Evidence from the PUC School
Directors survey (n=15) showed that 100% of PUC School Directors (15) agree that that they are
aware of the authorizer’s mission. When asked how the authorizer communicates the mission, school
directors stated that the PUC mission and vision are reviewed during their monthly school director
meetings. Authorizer staff and school directors stated the monthly school director meetings are group
meetings facilitated by authorizer staff for all school directors. In addition, school leaders noted on the
survey that the mission is also included on the PUC website, individual school websites, and throughout
documents they receive from PUC. As such, the mission was verified by external references and was
consistent with responses from interviewed individuals.





Key Evidence:
A.1 Narrative
Charter Dept. Strategy Document
Charter School Leadership Survey, questions I and J
Authorizer Interview – October 27, 2015
School Director Interview - October 27, 2015
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
3
A.2 - Does the authorizer have a comprehensive vision for charter school authorizing with
clear organizational goals and timeframes for achievement that are aligned with the purposes
of Minnesota Law?
Performance Level Rating: Level 3: Commendable
Pillsbury United Communities (PUC) has a comprehensive vision for charter school authorizing with
clear organizational goals and timeframes for achievement that are aligned with the purposes of
Minnesota Law. According to the narrative response provided and the Approved Authorizer Application
(AAA), the vision of PUC states it is “committed to creating communities where students can excel
academically and socially to realize their opportunities and potential for higher education, citizenship,
self-sufficiency and personal fulfillment.” Authorizer staff stated (and the narrative response confirmed)
that the vision of PUC is aligned to Minnesota Statute §124E.01, Subd.1. For example, the Minnesota
Statute reads, “The primary purpose of this section is to improve all pupil learning and all student
achievement.” PUC has aligned the part of their vision that reads “...creating communities where
students can excel academically and socially...” with this section of the Minnesota Statute. Additionally,
authorizer staff stated that the vision, in addition to the mission, is reviewed regularly with staff and
school directors.
Furthermore, authorizer staff stated that their organizational goals and timeframes for achievement
are encompassed in the strategic priorities that align to their mission and vision. The Charter School
Document Progress Update listed the seven strategic priorities for 2012-2017 to be: Broadly articulating
the unique success and niches of our schools; Expanding authorizing capacity; Identifying areas for
internal improvement; Close chronically low-performing schools; Identify 1-2 schools for refresh
interventions; Transfer in existing high-performing schools; Open new, high promise schools. The
Progress Update Document also includes a self-report of their progress as of the summer of 2015 –
the mid-point of their strategic plan. This document outlines the implementation of each of the seven
strategic priorities. For example, regarding their priority to transfer in existing high-performing schools,
they list the progress of "Transferred in Twin Cities International Elementary School, Minnesota
International Middle School, Ubah Medical Academy (effective Fall 2015)." However, while the progress
update document includes the progress on their strategic priorities, it is not a complete self-evaluation
of attainment of their vision and does not include specific action steps necessary to address areas in
need of improvement. Thus, while the authorizer is regularly reviewing most goals, there was no
evidence that they have implemented plans for improvement when they fall short of their mission or
strategic plan.




Key Evidence:
A.2 Narrative
Approved Authorizer Application (2010), Exhibit A2
Charter Strategy Document Progress Update
Authorizer Interview - October 27, 2015
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
4
PERFORMANCE MEASURES A: AUTHORIZER CAPACITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Authorizer Capacity and Infrastructure
A.3 - To what degree does the authorizer operate with a clear structure of duties and
responsibilities and sufficient resources to effectively oversee its portfolio of charter schools?
Performance Level Rating: Level 4: Exemplary
Finding: The authorizer operates with a clear structure of duties and responsibilities, as well as
sufficient resources to effectively oversee its portfolio of charter schools. According to the narrative
response, the authorizer interview and the school director interview, the authorizer staff includes a
director, charter school liaison, operations manager, and a data and evaluation specialist. A review of
the job position descriptions clearly described the role of each employee. For example, review of the
operations manager job description indicated that s/he “administers office and oversight processes,
coordinates project calendars and events and manages communication with schools.” School directors
confirmed these responsibilities during the school director interviews; they provided an example by
stating that the operations manager coordinates the monthly school director meetings and manages the
contract renewal process. Furthermore, 100% of school directors agreed that “…the structure of duties
and responsibilities of the authorizer is clear and at a level adequate to meet the needs to the school.”
Additionally, one school director noted, “Over the past three years, there has been a noticeable
increase in Pillsbury's capacity to help their portfolio of schools network and develop relationships and
share ideas.”
With regard to the use of sufficient resources, authorizer staff stated (and a review of the Past, Present
and Future Staffing Structures document confirmed) that the authorizer staff has grown as the number
of schools in their portfolio has grown to support the needs of the schools. Additionally, authorizer staff
and school directors stated (and a review of the organizational chart showed) that they recently hired,
within the last six months, the data and evaluation specialist based on needs discovered during a
recent review with the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA). The final piece
of the organization is the Advisory Committee. Authorizer staff and school directors stated (and the
organizational chart confirmed), that the Advisory Committee provides support and guidance on the
decisions made by the authorizer staff prior to their submission to the Board of Directors. Authorizer
staff stated that the Advisory Committee includes approximately seven-to-eight educational
professionals, including some current school director, who provide – on major decisions – additional
expertise to authorizer staff. The Advisory Committee Roles and Responsibilities document outlined
the following as possible discussions: contract renewal; authorizer transfer; school closure; new school
development; and school portfolio review. Authorizer staff and school directors stated that the members
of the Advisory Committee are meant to represent diverse levels of expertise, including some current
school directors. Authorizer staff stated they have outlined the roles and responsibilities of the Advisory
Committee members and have recently begun awarding a stipend to members who complete their term
of two years; the stipend was included in the Advisory Committee Roles and Responsibilities document.
Finally, the authorizer has demonstrated clear structures of duties and responsibilities, as well as
evidence of review and updating of staff and responsibilities as the number of charter schools in their
portfolio has increased.
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
5








Key Evidence:
A.3 Narrative Template
Authorizer Interview - October 27, 2015
School Director Interview - October 27, 2015
Operations Manager Job Description
Charter School Leadership Survey, questions K and L
Past, Present and Future Staffing Structure, p. 1
PUC-CAD Organizational Chart, p. 1
Advisory Committee Roles and Responsibilities
A.4 - To what degree does the authorizer have appropriate experience, expertise, and skills to
sufficiently oversee the portfolio of charter schools?
Performance Level Rating: Level 2: Satisfactory
Finding: The authorizer has appropriate experience, expertise and skills to sufficiently oversee the
portfolio of charter schools. According to the narrative response, the authorizer staff, Advisory
Committee, Board of Directors, and regular consultants have experience with charter schools,
curriculum, instruction, management, facilities, finance, and law. For example, according to a review
of résumés, authorizer staff have undergraduate degrees in political science and international
management, as well as Master’s degrees in public administration and region and urban planning.
One member of the authorizer staff also has classroom teaching experience. Authorizer staff and the
narrative response stated that the data and evaluation specialist position is an Innovation in Education
Fellow. This fellowship is a two-year partnership between the NACSA, the Humphrey School of Public
Affairs at the University of Minnesota and PUC. Authorizer staff stated that this fellowship is mutually
beneficial; it allows the staff to benefit from her classroom learning, while at the same time applying her
learning directly to work with the authorizer.
While authorizer staff have diverse experience, expertise and skills, not all of the experience and skills
are documented through licensures or certifications. Authorizer staff and school directors stated that if
the staff do not have the appropriate expertise to support a school, they will work collaboratively with
the school to find additional support. Specifically, school directors noted that the authorizer staff know
who and when to bring in when additional support is needed. On the Charter School Leadership
Survey, school directors agree (9) or strongly agree (6) that “the staffing level of the authorizer is clearly
sufficient to meet the needs of the school.” For example, one school director stated, “Over the years,
Pillsbury saw the need to seek out individual(s) who could meet the needs of the schools and who
could help in the continual growth in our individual areas.” While the evidence suggests that the
authorizer currently has sufficient resources to meet the needs of the portfolio of schools, the resources
and staff have not yet been in place for two years.





Key Evidence:
A.4 Narrative Template
Authorizer Interview - October 27, 2015
School Director Interview - October 27, 2015
Charter School Leadership Survey, questions M and N
Staff Résumés
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
6
A.5 - To what degree does the authorizer build the knowledge and skill base of its authorizing
leadership and staff through professional development? Is professional development aligned
with its operations, vision and goals for overseeing its portfolio of charter schools?
Performance Level Rating: Level 3: Commendable
Finding: The authorizer regularly builds the knowledge and skill base of its authorizing leadership
and staff through professional development. According to authorizer staff and the narrative response,
there is regularly scheduled professional development for staff that is aligned with the vision, goals
and needs of the organization. A review of the PUC-CAD Major Professional Development Tracking
sheet provided documentation for each staff member’s professional development. Listed on this
document were approximately five professional development activities in which staff had participated
from August 2014 - August 2015. For example, the document indicated that authorizer staff regularly
attend both national and state association meetings and conferences for authorizers. More specifically,
authorizer staff reported that they attended the most recent conference of the NACSA in October
of 2015; since they will soon be working with one of their schools on turnaround efforts, their staff
participated in workshops focused on supports for turnaround schools.
Additionally, in order to ensure that professional development is meaningful and completed each year,
authorizer staff stated their performance evaluation forms include their professional development
goals for each year. A review of the template form included the following statement: “Pillsbury United
Communities values the importance of its employees and is committed to their professional
development.... By writing down professional and organizational goals, both the employee and
supervisor have a shared understanding and commitment toward growth and results.” The performance
evaluation forms included a section for the employee and the supervisor to rate the employee as either
exceeds expectations, meets expectations, improvement needed, or unsatisfactory in terms of their
“Development and Learning: Seeks new experiences to develop; solicits and acts on feedback; learns
from experience; coachable; continuous improvement.” Evidence and interview reports showed that
professional development is regular, ongoing and more than once a year; however, no evidence
regarding how professional development was evaluated and measured other than the inclusion in
performance evaluation was presented.




Key Evidence:
A.5 Narrative Template
Authorizer Interview - October 27, 2015
PUC-CAD Major Professional Development Tracking
2014-2015 Performance Evaluation Form (template)
A.6 - To what degree is the authorizer’s actual resource allocation commensurate with its
stated budget, needs, and responsibilities of authorizing the portfolio of charter schools?
Performance Level Rating: Level 3: Commendable
Finding: The authorizer's actual resource allocation is commensurate with its stated budget, needs and
responsibilities of authorizing the portfolio of charter schools. According to the narrative response, the
annual budget is set by the Director of the Urban Institute for Service and Learning, along with the
CEO of Pillsbury United Communities. Furthermore, the narrative response stated that, based on the
proposed budget and the actual expenditures, the budget is reviewed regularly. According to the 2010Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
7
2015 PUC-CAD Authorizing Budget & Actuals document, there has been a net surplus each year from
2011 through 2014, ranging from approximately $3,000 to approximately $54,000. Specifically, based
on the PUC Charter School Income & Expenditures Report, July 2013 to June 2014, which details all
of the incomes and expenses from the year, there was a surplus of $36,139.82. Review of the AAA,
Exhibit A6 Financial Plan showed that, for 2010 and 2011, the actual deficit/surplus was below what
was projected. However, for the previous three years, beginning in 2012, the surplus has been within
$10,000 of the projection included in the AAA. For example, in 2013, the projected surplus was $41,951
and the actual surplus was $51,339; in 2014, the projected surplus was $33,412 and the actual surplus
was $33,412.
Additionally, and as noted in the recent National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA)
review, the Charter School Department is part of the larger PUC organization, minimizing any major
changes in budgeted expenditures. NACSA rated PUC as Approaching Well-Developed for the
established practices of the authorizer's resource allocation commensurate with the stated budget,
needs, and responsibilities of authorizing the portfolio of charter schools. Specifically, the percentage
of PUC’s expenses dedicated to the support of core authorizing staff has ranged between 61%
and 68% in each year, with the exception of 2012, when the percentage of expenses dedicated to
authorizing staff decreased to 45% of the organization’s expenses. Finally, evidence showed that the
authorizer monitors and evaluates their schools’ financial stability and viability.





Key Evidence:
A.6 Narrative Template
2010-2015 PUC-CAD Authorizing Budget & Actuals
PUC Charter School Income & Expenditures Report July 2013 to June 2014
Approved Authorizer Application, Exhibit A6 Financial Plan
NACSA Report for PUC, p. 13
A.7 - To what degree does the authorizer implement a clear policy to address conflicts of
interest in all decision-making processes concerning the portfolio of charter schools?
Performance Level Rating: Level 4: Exemplary
Finding: The authorizer implements a clear policy to address conflicts of interest in all decision-making
processes concerning the portfolio of charter schools. According to the provided narrative document,
“Throughout the past five years, all PUC-CAD employees have a signed conflict of interest policy which
is located within the PUC Employee Handbook.” Further, the narrative document stated that the PUC
Board of Directors and the Advisory Committee members have also signed copies of their Conflict of
Interest Policy from 2012 and, to date, no conflicts of interest have been found. A review of the Conflict
of Interest Policy stated that conflicts are defined as “outside interests, outside activities, and gifts,
gratuities, and entertainment.” Additionally, the first step of the conflict of interest procedure is as
follows: “Prior to Board or committee action on a Contract or Transaction involving a Conflict of Interest,
a director or committee member having a Conflict of Interest and who is in attendance at the meeting
shall disclose all facts material to the Conflict of Interest. Such disclosure shall be reflected in the
minutes of the meeting.”
Authorizer staff stated (and a review of the Conflict of Interest Policy confirmed) that if a potential
conflict is raised, the staff or Advisory Committee member recuses him/herself from the discussion or
decision. For example, according to the narrative document, when the Jennings Community Learning
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
8
Center was reviewed by the Advisory Committee for their contract renewal during the summer of 2014,
the school director, also a member of the Advisory Committee, did not participate in the school review
or the recommendation discussion. Finally, 100% of school directors reported in the Charter School
Leadership Survey that they had not experienced a conflict of interest with the authorizer. A school
director described it as “…an established Policy on Conflicts of Interest that is concise. PUC requires
their schools to sign the policy and agree to follow it.” According to provided examples and interview
responses from authorizer staff and verified by school representatives, the conflict of interest policy has
prevented conflicts of interest in a timely, fair and appropriate manner.




Key Evidence:
A.7 Narrative Template
Conflict of Interest Policy - 2012
Authorizer Interview - October 27, 2015
Charter School Leadership Survey, questions O and P
A.8 - To what degree does the authorizer preserve and support the essential autonomies of
the portfolio of charter schools?
Performance Level Rating: Level 4: Exemplary
Finding: The authorizer preserves and supports the essential autonomies of the portfolio of charter
schools. Authorizer staff stated they recognize the individual School Board as the decision makers for
each of the schools. The Authorizing Charter Schools at Pillsbury United Communities document
confirmed their policy and standard practice of authorizing, stating, “School Boards are responsible for
governing the school and ensuring performance expectations outlined in the contract are being met,
while the authorizer monitors this and acts as a conduit between the school and the Minnesota
Department of Education.” For example, authorizer staff and school directors stated that schools have
a choice in the type of assessments used and data reported in the performance framework. The
narrative document stated, “All schools in our portfolio have independent Boards, complete control
over personnel, school vision and culture, budget, and instructional program, design, and use of time.
As demonstrated by the flexibility built into the Performance Framework, Pillsbury’s schools are held
accountable for their outcomes, rather than the process they utilize to obtain said outcomes."
Additionally, during interviews, authorizer staff and school directors stated that schools are held to their
contract terms and there is a clear understanding of the roles of the school and the authorizer. Further,
according to the Charter School Leadership Survey, 100% of school directors reported they have
never experienced any situation in which they felt the authorizer overstepped their responsibility to
preserve autonomy. For example, one school director stated, “PUC does not interfere with the school’s
leadership team decisions, Board personnel committee decisions or staffing decisions. They check
to make sure evaluations are done, and that compliance items are followed, but allow schools the
autonomy of those decisions, so long as they are in compliance.” Another school director stated, “They
[PUC] are very respectful of individuals schools’ focus and support the differences within all the
schools.” Finally, a review of the recent NACSA report showed that the authorizer was rated WellDeveloped in terms of its established practices to preserve and support the essential autonomies of the
portfolio of charter schools.
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
9






Key Evidence:
A.8 Narrative Template
Authorizer Interview - October 27, 2015
School Director Interview - October 27, 2015
Charter School Leadership Survey, questions M and N
Authorizing Charter Schools at Pillsbury United Communities
NACSA Report for PUC, p. 42
A.9 - To what degree does the authorizer self-evaluate its internal ability (capacity,
infrastructure, and practices) to oversee the portfolio of charter schools?
Performance Level Rating: Level 3: Commendable
Finding: The authorizer regularly self-evaluates its internal ability to oversee the portfolio of charter
schools. Authorizer staff stated (and the narrative document confirmed) that the authorizer underwent
a formal review with the NACSA during the summer of 2014 to examine their practices and policies
against nationally recognized practices and policies. Authorizer staff described the process as highly
beneficial to the department and lasting approximately four months. The final product of the review
was the NACSA Report for PUC that includes ratings and recommendations on five key areas:
organizational capacity; application decision making; performance management systems; performancebased accountability; and autonomy. Following the receipt of the report and recommendations,
authorizer staff stated they created a work plan that included the recommendations and their action
steps. Authorizer staff stated they review and update the work plan (NACSA Authorizer Evaluation
Report) on a weekly basis during their staff meetings. A review of this document showed that staff
classified each of the NACSA recommendations by the effort level (easy, medium, difficult) and priority
level (low, medium, high). The document also includes action steps for each of the recommendations
and a progress update. For example, one NACSA recommendation was to “…expand the capacity of
PUC staff... with administrative support and expertise in assessment and analysis of student academic
performance.” According to the report document, this recommendation was a medium effort level
and a high priority; it has been completed through the hiring of an operations manager with previous
experience as an academic data analyst. The recent actions and progress are also noted in the Charter
Strategy Document Progress Update, which includes progress updates for each of their Seven
Strategies for Stronger Schools. Finally, while the authorizer has developed continuous improvement
plans to address the findings of the NACSA review, their authorizing practices are still in the process of
improvement and have not yet been externally recognized.





Key Evidence:
A.9 Narrative Template
Authorizer Interview - October 27, 2015
NACSA Report for PUC, September 30, 2014
NACSA Authorizer Evaluation Report - Pillsbury United Communities
Charter Strategy Document Progress Update
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
10
A.10 - To what degree does the authorizer disseminate best authorizing practices and/or
assist other authorizers in high quality authorizing?
Performance Level Rating: Level 3: Commendable
Finding: The authorizer regularly disseminates best authorizing practices and/or assists other
authorizers in high-quality authorizing. According to the narrative (and confirmed by authorizer staff),
the authorizer is an active participant in the NACSA and the Minnesota Association of Charter School
Authorizers (MACSA). More specifically, authorizer staff stated they regularly host MACSA meetings;
one of their staff members is on the MACSA executive committee. A review of MACSA meeting
agendas showed a meeting on January 9, 2015 that was held at PUC with three members of the PUC
staff in attendance. During this meeting, the authorizers discussed alternative measures for alternative
high schools, examples of recent revisions to Approved Authorizer Applications and different examples
of annual reports.
Additionally, as previously noted, one staff member is funded through a partnership with NACSA and
the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. According to the narrative
template (and confirmed by the authorizer) as part of this partnership, the staff member participates
in bi-monthly check in meetings with NACSA staff and other fellows. During these meetings, the staff
member has an opportunity to share and learn about best practices from other authorizers around
the country. Finally, authorizer staff stated they worked closely with another authorizer recently when
they made changes to their performance framework. A review of email communication from May 2015
confirmed that Pillsbury staff shared ideas and suggestions with staff from Novation Education
Opportunities (NEO) when they were in the design phase of their own performance framework. Finally,
this example showed that the authorizer was sought out for support and ideas in the previous year.
However, it was not clearly shown that the authorizer had been proactive about reaching out to other
authorizers to offer their own guidance and support.





Key Evidence:
A.10 Narrative Template
Authorizer Interview - October 27, 2015
15 Jun-12 Fellowship Agreement- Pillsbury Finalized
MACSA_Minutes_01 09 2015
NEO & PUC Correspondence on Performance Framework
A.11 - To what degree does the authorizer comply with reporting, submissions, and deadlines
set forth in Minnesota Statute?
Performance Level Rating: Level 4: Exemplary
Finding: The authorizer is consistently compliant with reporting, submissions and deadlines set forth
in the Minnesota Statute. The narrative document provided stated that PUC has been consistently
compliant over the last three years, with requirements for income and expenditures reporting,
authorizer annual report and required trainings. A review of data provided confirmed the authorizer
was compliant with their Income and Expenditures Report from 2011-12 through 2014-2015, and also
compliant with their Authorizer Annual Report for 2014-2015. Additionally, authorizer staff attended the
required annual report training on 11/07/14. Finally, according to the evidence provided for at least the
last four years, the authorizer was 100% compliant in all stated areas.
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
11




Key Evidence:
A.11 Narrative Template
Authorizer Interview - October 27, 2015
School Director Interview - October 27, 2015
15.10-09 PUC Measures A.11 and B.3 Data
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
12
PERFORMANCE MEASURES B: AUTHORIZER PROCESSES AND DECISION MAKING
Authorizer Process and Decision Making
B.1 - To what degree does the authorizer have clear and comprehensive approval criteria and
process standards to rigorously evaluate new charter school proposals? To what degree did
the authorizer’s decisions and resulting actions align to its stated approval and process
standards and promote the growth of high quality charter schools?
Performance Level Rating: Level 3: Commendable
Finding: The authorizer has approval criteria and comprehensive process standards to evaluate new
charter school proposals, and the authorizer's decisions and resulting actions align to its stated
approval and process standards. The NACSA report described the authorizer as Approaching WellDeveloped in their established practices for making new charter school decisions. Authorizer staff
stated (and a review of the New Charter School Application Process document showed) that the
application is consistent with the new school application submitted in their AAA. Additionally, the
AAA and the New Charter School Application Process document show that the first step in the new
charter school proposal process is an introductory meeting between the PUC staff and the new school
representatives. Authorizer staff stated that, as a result of the feedback from the NACSA review, they
have recently formalized this meeting by establishing set questions included in the PUC-CAD New
School Interview Questions document. For example, one questions asks, “How does your proposed
mission and vision align with PUC and PUC-CAD's mission and vision?” According to the New School
Application, this meeting is designed to allow the new school developers a chance to ask questions and
receive feedback from authorizer staff prior to the submission of their application.
In interviews, authorizer staff reported that if the school decides to move forward, the proposed school
team follows the New Charter School Application Process that includes the following steps: letter of
intent; submission of application; Advisory Council review; interview of founders /leadership; Advisory
Council recommendation; PUC Board consideration; and notification to applicant and submission of
affidavit. School directors, who also serve on the Advisory Committee, stated they review each new
school application individually and complete the New School Advisory Council Review Rubric document
prior to attending a meeting with the full Advisory Committee. The New School Advisory Council
Review Rubric asks members to evaluate the application as Excellent, Adequate or Inadequate on
the following areas: vision and mission; expectations for student performance; educational program;
evaluation plan; and applicant capacity, governance, financial plan, administrative plan, and operations
plan. A review of a completed rubric for a new school application indicates that there is specific
evaluation criteria to guide the scoring of the responses for each of the six sections, in addition to an
overall reviewer recommendation of either: No, the application is incomplete; Yes, with additional
information; Yes, with conditions; or Yes, unconditionally.
The next step in the process is for the Advisory Committee to meet and discuss the applications and
determine, based on the rubric scores, if the proposals will move forward to the PUC Board with
additional information, conditions or unconditionally, or not move forward. Following the decision by
the Advisory Committee, authorizer staff stated they complete a recommendation document to share
with the PUC Board for their final approval. A review of the Minnesota Math and Science Academy
Executive Summary and Approval Recommendation document showed that it includes: a narrative
overview of the proposed school; the reviewer summary assessment and recommendation that
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
13
includes overall strengths, concerns, and the rubric scores and averages for each of the reviewed
areas of the application; and a final recommendation for the PUC Board to consider. Finally,
the authorizer’s application processes are aligned with their Approved Authorizer Application;
comprehensive with clear application questions and guidance; and include fair, transparent procedures
and rigorous criteria.










Key Evidence:
B.1 Narrative Template
NACSA Report for PUC, p. 20
Approved Authorizer Application, B1 New School Application
Authorizer Interview - October 27, 2015
School Director Interview - October 27, 2015
New Charter School Application Process
PUC-CAD New School Interview Questions
15 Mar- 31 New School Advisory Council Review Rubric
BCP Reviewer Rubrics
MMSA Advisory Council Recommendation
B.2 - To what degree does the authorizer have clear and comprehensive approval criteria and
process standards to rigorously evaluate proposals of existing charter school expansion
requests and other interim changes? To what degree do the authorizer’s decisions and
resulting actions regarding charter school expansion and other interim changes align to its
stated approval and process standards and promote the growth of high-quality charter
schools?
Performance Level Rating: Level 2: Satisfactory
Finding: The authorizer has approval criteria and process standards to evaluate proposals of existing
charter school expansion requests and other interim changes. The authorizer's decisions and resulting
actions regarding charter school expansion and other interim changes align to its stated approval and
process standards. According to authorizer staff and the narrative template, PUC staff has experience
with supporting schools through different types of interim changes, including change in authorizer,
grade expansion, site expansion, and readiness to open from May 2011 through May 2015. A review
of the AAA Charter School Transfer Requests document showed the current process is in alignment to
the process described in their original application. A review of the Transfer School Application Rubric
showed that schools wishing to transfer must submit several documents: an executive summary;
demonstration of alignment with PUC Vision, Mission, and Values; two school reviews; audits from the
last two fiscal years; a current lease; demonstration of implementation of a balanced budget over time;
demonstration of financial obligations in good standing; and demonstration of proper completion for all
financial reporting.
Similar to the process outlined for new school applications, Advisory Committee members then
evaluate the Transfer School Application based on the submitted materials and determine if each area
is demonstrated, partially demonstrated or not demonstrated. A review of the rubric showed that
reviewers respond to six statements, including “Transfer school has demonstrated a fit of vision,
mission, and values of Pillsbury United Communities Authorized Charter School”. Following the
completion of the Transfer School Application Rubric, Advisory Committee members also then
recommend if the school should be transferred or not, and the full PUC Board makes the final decision.
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
14
A review of the Grade Expansion and Evaluation document showed that school leaders must submit
to the PUC Board the request for changes, including academic data, parental support and information
on the changes to the budget, facilities and other affected changes to the school. A review of the
Grade Expansion Application and Evaluation does include some criteria, including an application
completion checklist, as well as three statements with responses of either yes, somewhat, or no. The
three statements included are: “Plan is founded in realistic enrollment and budget projections. Plan
demonstrates realistic, positive impact on student achievement. Plan demonstrates overall benefit to
community, families and students. A school director who within the past three years went through a
grade expansion stated that the PUC staff supported them and reported, “There was a process for
expansion that we were made aware of and followed;” however, the director provided no further details.
A review of correspondence documents confirmed that if schools do not follow the process, they are not
able to move forward with the interim change. For example, in February 2012, a school did not submit
their executive summary within the timeframe and, therefore, were not allowed to move forward in the
change in authorizer process. Finally, the authorizer’s application processes are comprehensive and
include clear application questions and guidance, and consistently include fair, transparent procedures
and rigorous criteria for evaluation interim changes.









Key Evidence:
B.2 Narrative Template
Authorizer Interview - October 27, 2015
Charter School Leadership Survey, questions AA and AD
Approved Authorizer Application, B19 Charter School Transfer Requests
Transfer Application
Transfer School Application Rubric
New Site Application and Evaluation
Pine Grove Academy - Denial of Transfer
Grade Expansion Application and Evaluation
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
15
PERFORMANCE MEASURES B: AUTHORIZER PROCESSES AND DECISION MAKING
Authorizer Performance Contracting
B.3 - To what degree does the authorizer execute contracts that clearly define material terms
and rights and responsibilities of the school and the authorizer?
Performance Level Rating: Level 1: Approaching Satisfactory
Finding: The authorizer is beginning to execute contracts that define material terms and rights and
responsibilities of the school and the authorizer. Authorizer staff stated (and the narrative template
confirmed) that the contract negotiation process is an iterative process between the authorizer staff,
school directors and School Board Chair. The narrative response states, “The process utilized in
contract negotiations builds trust and improves the relationship between PUC-CAD and our charter
schools. The charter contract is the binding force enabling PUC as an authorizer and the roles/
responsibilities of the charter school.” A review of twelve sample contracts from 2015, including the
Stonebridge Amended Contract, confirmed that the contract process has been followed throughout
the past year. Finally, in the Charter School Leadership Survey, 100% of school directors agree (3)
or strongly agree (12) that their contracts include clear material terms and rights, as well as
responsibilities of the school and the authorizer. Specifically, one school director stated, “Our current
contract (as well as the past one) have clear and concise language that lays out the compliance,
financial, academic, and social-emotional goals for the school, as well as the process and grounds
for any interventions. As well, the evaluation framework is clear and aligns with expectations of a
charter school.”
A review of provided data showed there was insufficient compliance information for FY 2013, and in FY
2014 and FY 2015, the authorizer was not in compliance for all renewal and new school contract
submissions to the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE). Additionally, a review of the MDE
Statutory Compliance Letter to PUC showed there were seven FY 2015 renewal contracts with
deficiencies. For example, based on provided data for the seven contract renewals whose contract was
executed on 7/1/2014, four contracts (High School for Recording Arts, Jennings Community Learning
Center, LoveWorks Academy for Visual and Performing Arts, and Minnesota Online High School) were
submitted to MDE over three months later (10/28/2014) and three contracts (Dugsi Academy, Learning
for Leadership, and Minnesota Transitions Charter School) were submitted to MDE over nine months
later (3/31/15). However, for FY 2016, there were three renewal contracts submitted that complied with
MDE timelines. Authorizer staff stated (and the narrative response confirmed) that with the addition of
staff capacity, the FY 2016 renewal contracts were fully compliant and in good standing with Minnesota
Statute. School directors stated that, with the addition of the operations manager, the contract process
has improved. A review of the Operations Position Description showed that one of the Core Job
Functions includes Oversight Support and Environmental Monitoring, including the task of maintain[ing]
due dates for authorizer requirement. Thus, the authorizer’s contracting practices are consistent across
the portfolio, contracts meet the current statutory requirements, and contracts were submitted within
MDE timelines, but only within the last twelve months, which results in the rating of Approaching
Satisfactory.
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
16







Key Evidence:
B.3 Narrative Template
Authorizer Interview - October 27, 2015
15 Aug-17 Stonebridge Amended Contract
15.04-16 MDE Statutory Compliance Letter to PUC
Charter School Leadership Survey, questions AH and AI
15.10-09 PUC Measures A.11 and B.3 Data
Operations Position Description - Charter Department
B.4 - To what degree does the authorizer execute contracts with clear, measureable and
attainable performance standards?
Performance Level Rating: Level 1: Approaching Satisfactory
Finding: The authorizer has begun to execute contracts with clear, measureable and attainable
performance standards. Authorizer staff, school directors and the narrative response stated that the
contract performance standards include academic and non-academic goals and the performance
framework that – based on the results of their school quality review and other academic, operation
and finance information – are individually created for each school contract. A school director who had
previously gone through renewal outlined the process in the following way: “Contract renewal process
begins with a review and evaluation of the overall school performance. During the contract discussion,
the school works with the authorizer to determine academic and non-academic goals that best fit the
school in the pre-determined areas set out in contract. Schools are able to determine the assessment
they will utilize, pick the socio-emotional survey from two choices and then determine three comparable
schools to be measured against.”
The narrative response stated that the authorizer has been requiring both academic and non-academic
goals each year, as included in their AAA, Exhibit B2. A review of the AAA, Exhibit B2 confirmed that
schools include two academic and five non-academic goals in their initial contract with the authorizer.
For example, a review of the most recent academic goals included: “At least 50% of [school's] students
who are continuously enrolled from October 1 will meet or exceed their growth targets on the Measures
of Academic Progress (MAP) test in Reading.” An example of a non-academic goal was: “At least 80%
teacher retention each year.” Furthermore, the narrative response, authorizer staff and school directors
stated that a uniform performance framework was implemented in the summer of 2015 (and, therefore,
has not been in place longer than 12 months). The narrative response stated the performance
framework was designed to drill deeper into the essential performance standards for a high-quality
charter school. Additionally, a review of the NACSA report showed one of their recommendations to the
authorizer was to establish a performance framework to serve as a consistent performance review for
schools in the portfolio. As a result of the NACSA feedback, the authorizer’s performance framework
focuses on reading by grade three, closing economic and racial performance gaps, college and career
readiness, and high school graduation. In the Charter School Leadership Survey, all school directors
agreed (5) or strongly agreed (10) that their contract has clear, measurable and attainable performance
standards. Specifically, one school director commented, “The contract defines performance standards
through the type of assessment, desired performance to be reached, and a timeline for goals to be
completed.” However, because the performance framework has been established within the past year,
there is insufficient evidence to move this rating to a higher level.
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
17






Key Evidence:
B.4 Narrative Template
Authorizer Interview - October 27, 2015
Charter School Leadership Survey, questions AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, and AP
Approved Authorizer Application, Exhibit B2 - September 2010
15 Jun-30 Academic & Non-Academic Goals
NACSA Report for PUC, p. 38
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
18
PERFORMANCE MEASURES B: AUTHORIZER PROCESSES AND DECISION MAKING
Authorizer Ongoing Oversight and Evaluation
B.5 - To what degree does the authorizer monitor and oversee the charter schools in the areas
of academics, operations and finances according to the processes outlined in the contract
and approved authorizer application?
Performance Level Rating: Level 2: Satisfactory
Finding: The authorizer monitors and provides competent oversight over the charter schools in the
areas of academics, operations and finances according to the processes outline in the contract and the
approved authorizer application. A review of the Approved Authorizer Application showed the initial plan
included general criteria for monitoring schools on the basis of academic performance, fiscal
management, and legal and contractual compliance. The narrative response states that the authorizer
has been monitoring schools in the following ways for the past three years: observing Board meetings;
reviewing each school’s annual report; reporting on the performance framework per the annual report;
reviewing Board meeting minutes and monitoring school policy revisions; observing via periodic site
visits; reviewing school compliance; reviewing monthly financial statements and the annual budget;
reviewing the annual financial audit; providing feedback to school leadership regularly; and identifying
any areas of concern based on provisions in the contract agreement. Authorizer staff, school directors
and the narrative response stated that, since 2013, the use of the Epicenter software program has
supported schools in the submission and tracking of documents, including Board meeting minutes,
notes and financial statements throughout the school year. All school directors, via survey responses,
confirmed the authorizer’s monitoring and oversight of the school’s academic, operational and financial
performance as outlined in the charter contract. Regarding academic oversight, one school director
stated, “We report on academic progress in monthly [School] Directors’ meetings, and in writing
annually.” Another school director stated, “Pillsbury has steadily been improving their monitoring and
oversight of schools and shows a strong commitment to establishing a process that works for schools
as well. They have increased the staffing in the charter area significantly with extremely competent
staff. The contract has been improved and is very clear. I have seen a dramatic increase in overall
monitoring and oversight. I think Epicenter has helped with organization and overall management of
paperwork.” In order to enhance their capacity for oversight, the Operations Position has been added to
the authorizer staff in the past year, according to authorizer staff, school directors and the Operations
Position Description. A review of the Operations Position Description showed that the core tasks are:
“administer[s] office and oversight processes, coordinates project calendars and events, and manages
communication with schools.” School directors reported that, as a result, there has been greater
consistency in PUC’s oversight activities. Based on the provided evidence, the authorizer’s oversight
and monitoring practices over the past year are beginning to show consistency across the portfolio of
charter schools.





Key Evidence:
B.5 Narrative Template
Authorizer Interview - October 27, 2015
School Director Interview - October 27, 2015
Charter School Leadership Survey, questions AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, and AW
Approved Authorizer Application, Exhibit B6, Accountability Plan - September 2010
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
19



Epicenter Timeline of Compliance Tasks
Annual Report 2013-2014
Operations Position Description-Charter Department
B.6 - To what degree does the authorizer have clear and comprehensive standards and
processes to address complaints, intervention and/or corrective action?
Performance Level Rating: Level 1: Approaching Satisfactory
Finding: The authorizer has clear and comprehensive standards and processes to address complaints,
intervention and/or corrective action. The narrative response described the Stakeholder Grievance
Process – the process for remediating complaints from stakeholders. This process is the general
guidance “…for whom the complaint should go through, as well as timelines for how long PUC-CAD will
investigate concerns and provide a decision.” A review of email correspondence showed an example of
a school director following the Stakeholder Grievance Process by notifying authorizer staff of claims
brought against the school. There is also evidence of PUC notifying the school when concerns about
one of its programs were raised by a parent to MDE. In the latter case, a representative from PUC met
with the school director to inform them of the school’s obligations with regard to transportation for the
kindergarten program.
Regarding interventions and corrective actions, according to the AAA, the authorizer has established
the Range of Possible Interventions. When asked about interventions and corrective actions, 93% of
school directors reported in the Charter School Leadership Survey that if there is a problem or concern
about the school’s academic, operational and/or financial performance, the school receives clear
feedback from the authorizer. One school director stated, “Through data review and analysis, site visits
and Board meetings, the authorizer provides frequent feedback in regards to academic, operational and
financial performance.” Authorizer staff described the interventions used with schools as presented in
their documented Range of Possible Interventions. The interventions increase in severity from Notice of
Concern, Notice of Deficiency, Notice of Probationary Status, Charter Review, and Charter Revocation.
The Range of Possible Interventions includes a chart with the status, concern, and action steps.
An example of a concern that would result in a Notice of Concern is: “…signs of weak performance
identified by routine monitoring; through implementation, compliance, or performance reviews; or by
other means, or repeated failure to submit required documents on a timely basis.” School
representatives verified the authorizer’s implementation of interventions. For example, a school director
whose school has gone through an intervention described the process: “[The] authorizer reviewed
school data and met with [the] entire School Board to discuss their concerns and requested the School
Board put a plan together to address their concerns with Board and administrative leadership and how
the Board was going to address academic improvement. [The] authorizer then set deadlines for
implementation of the plan.”
Finally, a review of the NACSA report rated the authorizer's established policy for Intervention,
Corrective Action, and Response to Complaints as Well-Developed. However, the report also noted
that in practice, many of their schools have low academic achievement and there were no clear,
documented academic improvement plans and/or evidence of improvement based on the intervention
plans. Based on the evidence presented, the authorizer inconsistently implements standards and
processes for corrective action and interventions across the portfolio of charter schools.
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
20









Key Evidence:
B.5 Narrative Template
15 Jan-16 MTS Continuation of Complaint
Approved Authorizer Application, B7 Range of Possible Interventions Stand Alone
Authorizer Interview - October 27, 2015
Charter School Leadership Survey, questions AX, AZ, BA, and BB
Range of Possible Interventions
14 Jan-27 MTS Notice of Complaint
Stakeholder Grievance Process
NACSA Report for PUC, p. 31
B.7 - To what degree does the authorizer support its portfolio of charter schools through
intentional assistance and development offerings?
Performance Level Rating: Level 2: Satisfactory
Finding: The authorizer supports its portfolio of charter schools through intentional assistance and
developmental offerings. The narrative response stated that the authorizer support is “…regularly
offered, promotes excellence, proactive and prevents problems, and preserves autonomy.” Continuing,
the narrative response stated that school directors’ monthly meetings have focused on the following
topics: mission alignment and efficiency, racial equity in the classroom, after-school programs, and high
quality chartering. A review of a school directors meeting agenda from March 3, 2015 showed the
following agenda topics: check-ins/updates; school presentation; policy update; academic framework;
data dive; and small group conversations. Additionally, school directors reported (and the narrative
response confirmed) that since 2013, the authorizer has held charter school staff forums for school
leadership and Board members. Furthermore, this year, the Charter School Staff Forum was open to
all staff and was entitled, “Creating Choice, Change and Connection.” According to evidence submitted
by PUC, the purpose of the forum is to “…embrace student success through the increasing role of
charter schools in social equity reform and advocacy. The professional forum will cross-cultivate
knowledge and ideas between approximately 500 school directors, administrators, PK-12 teachers,
paraprofessionals, and Board of Directors.” Prospective topics included, among others, developing a
school culture around social equity; defining diversity, equity, racism and inclusion; and utilizing rigor,
high expectations, and data to obtain remarkable results.
Finally, authorizer staff stated they work to preserve the autonomy of individual schools while
supporting each school’s unique mission. The narrative response stated, “Charter School Board of
Directors are autonomous decision-making governing bodies that choose their own course of curricular,
operational, and academic models.” The evaluation team did not collect evidence that the autonomy of
schools authorized by PUC is compromised in any aspect of the work. In conclusion, the provided
evidence showed the authorizer provided technical assistance in a variety of areas and in a manner to
preserve school autonomy. However, it was not clearly demonstrated how the authorizer provided the
technical assistance according to a clear, comprehensive plan based on data or demonstrated need
and designed to prevent problems.
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
21





Key Evidence:
B.7 Narrative Template
Authorizer Interview - October 27, 2015
School Director Interview - October 27, 2015
15 Mar-3 Director’s Agenda
Oct. Staff Forum Call to Action
B.8 - To what degree does the authorizer plan and promote, within its portfolio, the model
replication and dissemination of best practices of high-performing charter schools?
Performance Level Rating: Level 1: Approaching Satisfactory
Finding: The authorizer is beginning to plan and promote, within its portfolio, model replication and
dissemination of best practices of high-performing charter schools. According to the narrative response,
“There are three main avenues in the past five years that PUC-CAD has utilized to replicate and
disseminate best practices: the monthly director’s meetings, connecting similar schools with one
another and replicating a high-quality math and science academy.” With regard to dissemination,
authorizer staff and school directors described the monthly school directors’ meetings as the way
to share best practices, review relevant data and make connections to outside resources. During
interviews, school directors agreed that when they approach the authorizer with questions about best
practices, the authorizer will recommend they discuss with another school in the portfolio that is
effectively implementing that practice. A review of the 15-16 Director’s Meeting Year Plan showed that
each month’s meeting is planned in advance with a general topic overview. For example, during the
December meeting, they are planning to have small group discussions on school financing and, as well,
discuss attendance data. However, the 15-16 Director’s Meeting Year Plan did not include details about
meeting facilitation, meeting objectives, or for how best practices were shared among schools.
Additionally, the plan did not include information or discussions about model replication.
In addition, authorizer staff also stated they encourage high-performing schools to expand either grade
level or their locations. For example, the narrative response stated that PUC encourages elementary
schools that achieve Celebration and/or Reward status to expand grade levels and/or sites. Currently,
Minnesota Transitions and Rochester Math and Science Academy both have distinction within the
K-8 settings. Quality school review and ongoing oversight conversations encourage expansion,
replication of best practices and dissemination of high-performing tactics. In addition, PUC indicates
that they have replicated a high quality math and science academy in partnership with Concept Schools
(The Minnesota Math and Science Academy). Although there is a structure for dissemination of best
practices through the Director’s meetings, there is no evidence of an intentional plan for successful
model replication.




Key Evidence:
B.8 Narrative Template
Authorizer Interview - October 27, 2015
School Director Interview - October 27, 2015
15-16 Director’s Meeting Year Plan
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
22
PERFORMANCE MEASURES B: AUTHORIZER PROCESSES AND DECISION MAKING
Authorizer Renewal and Decision Making
B.9 - To what degree does the authorizer have clear and comprehensive standards and
processes to make high stakes renewal and termination decisions? To what degree do the
authorizer’s renewal and termination decisions align to its stated renewal standards and
processes and promote the growth of high-quality charter schools?
Performance Level Rating: Level 1: Approaching Satisfactory
Finding: The authorizer has some standards and processes to make high stakes renewal and
termination decisions; the authorizer’s renewal and termination decisions align to its stated renewal
standards and processes. A review of the AAA B14 Renewal Decisions showed that the renewal
decision is based on five main areas: 1) mission, goals of the school program and model; 2) Board
governance responsibilities; 3) student and school performance; 4) financial competence; and 5)
administrative operations of the school. However, the provided information and responses included only
narrative information and not comprehensive academic, financial, operational, and student performance
data. Additionally, authorizer staff stated that the performance framework has been recently
implemented in the past year; prior to this year, PUC did not have transparent and rigorous standards
to make merit-based renewal decisions. The narrative response stated that the authorizer believes the
renewal process has two main objectives: “to inform the renewal recommendations presented to the
PUC board of directors to renew or not renew a charter school contract and to provide the charter
school an opportunity to evaluate their effectiveness and provide an opportunity for the school to set
new goals and priorities.”
With regard to PUC’s renewal process, authorizer staff stated (and the narrative response confirmed)
that the renewal process begins with a quality school review. Authorizer staff and school directors
stated that the qualitative review usually lasts for approximately two days and includes stakeholder
interviews, classroom observations and a review of historical documentation. Furthermore, authorizer
staff stated the results of the school quality review are discussed with school leadership. Examples
provided by PUC indicate that, upon completion of the quality standards review (QSR) report, the
Advisory Council will meet to review the data and make a recommendation regarding the school’s
renewal or non-renewal. In the event of a favorable recommendation, the narrative response indicates
that PUC will work with the school to begin drafting the new charter contract and goals (based on the
results of the QSR), while the PUC Board of Directors simultaneously considers the school’s renewal.
A review of the narrative response showed that since 2013, twelve schools have been renewed with
contracts ranging from two-to-five years. However, PUC has not provided evidence that clearly defines
the level of performance that is required in order to earn a contract of a particular length.
The narrative response also stated there have been two closures within the past five years – one in
2011 and one in 2013. The authorizer follows the Charter School Closure Plan and Process when the
PUC Board decides to non-renew and close a school.
Finally, in the Charter School Leadership Survey, 100% agreed (5) or strongly agreed (10) that they
have a good understanding of where they stand with respect to performance expectations and their
status for renewal. Specifically, one school director stated, “We receive [an] annual evaluation on a
performance framework based on our academic and non-academic goals. PUC has made it clear how
annual scoring relates to where a school might expect to end up in the contract renewal process.”
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
23






Key Evidence:
B.9 Narrative Template
Authorizer Interview - October 27, 2015
School Director Interview - October 27, 2015
Charter School Leadership Survey, questions BE and BF
Charter School Closure Plan and Process
Approved Authorizer Application, B14 Renewal Decisions
Pillsbury United Communities – MAPES Report Fall 2015
24