Summary of Key Findings in Regard to the Charter Proposal Submitted to

Birmingham City Schools for I3 Academy by Woodlawn Community Charter School

By

Jarett Fields January 10, 2019

Index

Biographies.....................................................................................................................................3

Part 1.................................................................................................................................................4

Part 2.................................................................................................................................................5

Part 3.................................................................................................................................................6

Final Summary..............................................................................................................................7

The findings of this report are in accordance and in full compliance of the rules governing
Birmingham City Schools and its charter application process. These findings are separated
into three parts that cover the entirety of the application and include both initial review
comments and post-capacity interview comments from reviewers.

The evaluation of the application was performed by an external review team in

collaboration with our internal reviewers.
External Review Team Biographies

Jarett Fields is an Assistant Principal for a charter school in Houston, Texas. Previously, he
worked as the Head of Charter School Authorizing for the City of Milwaukee. Mr. Fields sits
on the National Advisory Board for the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
(NACSA) and has read applications for charter school authorizers across the nation.

Dr. Keri Hill is a resident of Atlanta and has a PhD in Curriculum and Instruction. She has
worked with young girls and non-profit organizations on issues regarding health
education. She is an instructor at Kennesaw State University in the Dept. of Health
Promotion and Physical Education. Prior to KSU, she served as Vice President at the Center
for Black Women’s Wellness.

Jeremiah Grace is a resident of Atlanta and has worked on charter school policies around
the country. Mr. Grace has served as a community organizer, strategic thinker, and policy
advocate for nationally recognized education organizations.

Yovira Moroney is the Human Resources Coordinator for Milwaukee Public Schools. She is
a curriculum and bilingual specialist and is responsible for recruiting and onboarding a
diverse staff both nationally and internationally. Ms. Moroney served on the Charter School
Review Committee for the City of Milwaukee as appointed by the Milwaukee Common
Council President.

Internal Review Team


Sharon Roberts, Chief Financial Officer, Birmingham City Schools.

Dr. Pamela Williams, Director of Curriculum, Birmingham City Schools.

Troy Williams, Chief Operations Officer, Birmingham City Schools.

Pamela Wimbish, Interim Director of Special Education, Birmingham City Schools.

The application is divided into three sections:

• Educational Program Design and Capacity

• Operations plan and Capacity
• Financial Plan and Capacity
The findings are as follows:

Section 1: Educational Program Design & Capacity

Assessment: Partially Meets the Standard

Woodlawn Community Charter School proposed I3 Academy, an elementary school based

on a K-12 model, to serve grades K-5. The program design blends STEAM, Project-based
Learning, and Social-Emotional Learning to serve students both inside and outside the
Woodlawn Community. The application and its accompanying materials outlined a
promising frame but did not offer adequate details or explanations on items such as how
Project-Based Learning models would be implemented through professional development,
how student performance standards would be measured, the design and content of student
remediation, the delineation between which Special Education services would be
contracted versus handled by school staff, legal compliance vis-à-vis Special Education
students, or a detailed marketing plan.

After the capacity interview, many of the same concerns remained. The interview revealed
that in order to run the program successfully, more instructional staff will be necessary
and/or finding staff with a unique set of licenses and certificates. In addition, the
remediation plan is still in development and solely based on funds to be raised. I3 has
garnered some institutional support but was lacking support from Woodlawn community
members and parents in its application. Plans to market the school and recruit students
will be contracted out to a marketing firm to be named as plans continue. A number of
issues regarding 504 plans and details concerning appropriate and legal services were
raised and continue after the interview.

Section 2: Operations Plan & Capacity

Assessment: Partially Meets the Standard

The Woodlawn Community Charter Schools was assigned an EIN from the federal
government and should be receiving a formal letter stating its legal designation as a
501(c)(3). The application includes a staffing plan but neglected to include any of the stated
advisory councils on the organizational chart or state the board’s plan for growing to its 11-
member capacity. Of major concern was the absence of a grievance plan as requested in the
application. Employees of the school were determined to be “At-will” but no clear
explanation was given for which goals or measurements might result in dismissal. Further
there were no stated goals or details regarding what might trigger dismissal of the school
leader(s). The application did not explain the adherence to insurance levels or offer a clear
transportation plan.

After the capacity interview, a few of the concerns remained. Of major concern was a clear
transportation plan. Applicants determined that the plan will be complete when enrollment
numbers are clear. Enrollment will also determine the contingency plan if 420 students are
not enrolled. The plan is still being developed as stated in the capacity interview but ideas
included options from not offering one of the stated grade levels to reducing staff. At the
time of the capacity interview, the grievance plan was still in development. Moreover,
student performance standards were still in development. There were no stated roles
within the Advisory Councils, and it remained unclear what their relationship, if any, would
be to the general board. A plan to find a full-time CSFO was missing, given Dr. Lee’s
advisory status. There were no details of a food-service plan, only a single contracted
person for $30,000 annually.

Part 3: Financial Plan & Capacity

Assessment: Partially Meets the Standard

The financial plan for I3 Academy in the application was not in complete or clear alignment
with the school model. A number of grants and funding opportunities were mentioned as
efforts of capacity and not necessarily revenue and others were included in revenue as a
result of intention, not necessarily guaranteed funds. The transportation plan was a
$100,000 line item but no explanation was given for what the total included or how it was
calculated. Given the scope of the school model a number of line items need more
explanation, field trips, technology, food service, and insurance to name a few. In the
application, details for the type of funding from the Goodrich Foundation were unclear
(grant, loan, donation, etc.). The budget addendum was the first mention of school uniforms
and replacement costs for parents. Information surrounding details of replacement or rules
regarding uniforms were not mentioned.

The capacity interview revealed that the Goodrich Foundation would offer significant
funding for the school’s contingency plan; however, a complete plan in case 420 students
were not enrolled was not included. The nature and stipulations of the Goodrich funding
remained unclear. All facilities and renovations will be leased by I3. WF Real Property
Resources will incur costs, according to applicants. Details concerning any specific costs to
I3, other than an annual total, remain unclear. A number of other items relevant to the
budget are in development and have yet to be determined by the board. Specific items
include a salary scale, insurance levels, and additional transportation for Special Education
students.
Final Assessment

All areas of the application were assessed as “Partially Meets the Standards.” As indicated
major areas remain undeveloped such as transportation, student performance standards,
and Special Education services.