We respectfully, but strongly disagree with the recommendation of Dr. Nixon and believe that it oversteps legitimate authority to review charter decisions by local boards of education (TCA 49-13-108(a)(3)).
TCA 49-13-108(a)(3) states that the state board’s decision to remand must be based on “objective reasons.” The main reason given for remanding the decision (that MNPS did not follow our own policies/process) is factually incorrect. MNPS did follow all written policies regarding the role of the review committee and the Office of Innovation. Because Dr. Nixon’s decision was based on a false premise, this decision does not meet the “objective reasons” standard. Dr. Nixon’s recommendation relies on mischaracterization of the published review process. The process in its entirety is aligned with NACSA Principals and Standards and is followed by the Achievement School District.
Left unaddressed are the statements by Great Hearts that they cannot open a school in 2013 and that “in an email to supporters, Great Hearts Academy CEO Daniel Scoggin and President Peter Bezanson said they would like to open their first of five schools in 2014. Great Hearts will submit its appeal to the state this week, Scoggin and Bezanson said” (Tennessean, July 5, 2012). Since the application cycle for schools to open in 2014 is not held until April of 2013, action to remand for approval pre-judges and future application. TN Charter Law 49-13-107(b) states: “On or before October 1 of the year preceding the year in which the proposed charter school plans to begin operation, the sponsor seeking to establish the public charter school shall prepare and file with the chartering authority an application…”
This recommendation has been issued two years prior to “the year in which the proposed charter school plans to begin operation.” It remands a school proposal for approval that has not yet been through the proper application cycle for schools that will open in 2014. We welcome this application through our regular review process at our 2014 application deadline of April 1, 2013.
The recommendation validates three substantial and objective reasons for denial as important to the best interests of students, the district, and the community and affirms that the school should not be opened unless and until these reasons can be overcome.
- The recommendation requires the school to employee certified teachers. The application says it will be impossible to maintain the quality teacher pipeline they use in Phoenix if such a requirement is made.
- The recommendation limits the school to opening a single site. The application says they will be unable to execute their business plan without a guarantee of five schools.
- The recommendation requires a diversity plan using the “blind, lottery process” that MNPS uses in its choice schools. This is the process that the applicant claims to use in Phoenix, and the resulting segregation is unacceptable.
The Great Hearts application went through the same review process, using the same standards as four other charter schools that were approved this year. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to find the district acted contrary to its best interests, those of the students, or the community it serves. Dr. Nixon’s recommendation replaces a thoughtful, transparent and rigorous review with a less thorough, less effective process. It also penalizes local, elected school boards for seeking to hear from all sides in making important decisions.
We respect Dr. Nixon and appreciate the gravity of the challenge he faces in trying to evaluate a three month process on the basis of a 1-hour hearing and a mountain of documents filed less than 24 hours before his recommendation was due. Deciding the case under such constraints, it is difficult to make a clear-eyed assessment of the facts.
If the recommendation disagreed with the reasons for denial instead of validating them, there might be a reason for the state board to intervene. Accepting this recommendation does substantial damage to the accountability relationship with the authorizer that lies at the very heart of the charter school bargain (autonomy for accountability).
Based on the recommendation affirming our objective reasons for denial, we sincerely hope that you will vote to maintain the balance of decision-making authority that this opinion threatens to upend.