CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT

Transcription

1 CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET' CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910' EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH December 1, 2011 Ms. Alma D. Van Nice, Director Leonardo da Vinci Health Sciences Charter School P.O. Box 8830 Chula Vista, CA Dear Ms. Van Nice: Re: Request for Proposition 39 Facilities for the School Year The Chula Vista Elementary School District ("District") received Leonardo da Vinci Health Sciences Charter School's ("LdV") request for facilities for the school year pursuant to Proposition 39 on November 1, For the school year, LdV projects an in-district average daily attendance ("ADA") of , and a total ADA of ' For the reasons stated below, the District objects to LdV's projected in-district and total ADA. Based on the information submitted, the District projects LdV's total ADA as and total in-district ADA as for the school year. Section (c)(1) of Title 5 of the Califomia Code of Regulations provides that a charter school's written facilities request must consist of: (A) (B) (C) Reasonable projections of in-district and total ADA and in-district and total classroom ADA. A description of the methodology for the projections. If relevant (i.e., when a charter school is not yet open or to the extent an operating charter school projects a substantial increase in in-district ADA), documentation of the number of in-district students meaningfully interested in attending the charter school that 1 LdV projects its total ADA and total classroom ADA to be the same. LdV also projects its total in-district ADA and total in-district classroom ADA to be the same. Any reference to LdV's total ADA will therefore include its total classroom ADA. Similarly, any reference to LdV's total in District ADA will include its total in-district classroom ADA. BOARD OF EDUCATION DAVID BEJARANO RUSSELL Y. CORONADO LARRY CUNNINGHAM DOUGLAS E. LUFFBOROUGH, III PAMELA B. SMITH SUPERINTENDENT FRANCISCO ESCOBEDO, Eo.D.

2 is sufficient for the District to determine the reasonableness of the projection. (D) (E) (F) The charter school's operational calendar. Information regarding the District school site and/or general geographic area in which the charter school wishes to locate; and Information on the charter school's educational program, if any, that is relevant to assignment of facilities. LdV's request for facilities has failed to include elements (A), (8), and (C) of Section (c)(1) of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations. Objections Objection to Projected Total and In-District ADA Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, Section (c)(1 )(A), requires a charter school to make reasonable in-district and total ADA projections. The District objects to LdV's projected total ADA of and in-district ADA of as unreasonable. The District considers a reasonable projection for LdV's total ADA to be and total In-District ADA to be The District employed the following methodology to project LdV's total in-district ADA for the school year. The District used LdV's roster to match LdV's current students with the Intent to Re/Enroll forms provided by LdV. In completing its analysis, the District assumed that current students who submitted a valid Intent to Re/Enroll form would move up a grade for the school year. However, the District only received 198 Intent to Re/Enroll forms from LdV. Six (6) students were included on more than one form. Finally, addresses on ten (10) Intent to Re/Enroll forms did not match addresses on the Student Roster List prepared by LdV. The District's internal projections differed from LdV's projections. The District based its projections on the number of valid Intent to Re/Enroll forms the District received from LdV. LdV projects 318 students to enroll during the school year, however, the District's projections place LdV's enrollment at 223. This difference of 95 students equates to 89.3 total ADA and 67 in-district ADA. Please see Figure 1 for a grade-bygrade breakdown of the District's projections and the difference between these projections and LdV's projections. 2

3 Figure 1 LdV' s P rojecte dt ota IE nro II men t!ada Grade Level K Total Projected Enrollment For Projected In-District Enrollment (75%) ADA (Total) ADA (In-District) District's Projected Total Enrollment! ADA-Per Valid Intent to Re/Enroll Forms Received Grade Level K Total Projected Enrollment For Projected In-District Enrollment (75%) ADA (Total) ADA (In-District) D'ff I erence btw e een LdV an d D' IS t ric. t P rojec. f Ions Grade Level K Total Projected Enrollment For Projected In-District Enrollment (75%) ADA (Total) ADA (In-District)

4 Objection to Methodology Used Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, Section (c)(1 )(B) requires a charter school to provide a description of the methodology for its in-district and total ADA projections. The District objects to the methodology used to project the total ADA and in District ADA. The District bases this objection on the large discrepancy between (1) LdV's projected ADA in grades K, 2, 3, and 6 in ; and (2) the District's reasonable projections of total ADA and in-district ADA for these grades. The District is also specifically concerned with LdV's projected increases in total and in-district ADA in Grades 2 and 3. LdV did not adequately explain the methodology used to generate its Grade 2 projections for the school year. Between and , LdV's Grade 2 total ADA increased from to This represents a year-to-year gain of 61 %. Between and , LdV projected Grade 2 total ADA to increase from to This represents a year-to-year gain of 67%. LdV did not explain the methodology behind this substantial projected increase in Grade 2 total ADA. LdV's proposal points to strong community interest, increased public visibility owing to Western Association of Schools and Colleges ("WASC") accreditation, API growth, and recruitment efforts. However, LdV does not explain why these efforts would result in a 67% increase in total ADA for, specifically, Grade 2 in LdV also does not explain the sizeable increase (41 %) in the projected in-district ADA for Grade 2. The District is particularly concerned with LdV's Grade 2 projection because the large number of Grade 4 students on LdV's waitlist indicates that the school would likely experience some growth in Grade 4 or 5, not Grade 2. LdV also did not adequately explain the methodology used to generate its Grade 3 projections for the school year. Between and , LdV's Grade 3 total ADA decreased from to Yet, LdV projected Grade 3 total ADA to increase from to between and This represents a year-toyear gain of 79%. LdV did not explain the methodology behind the substantial projected increase in Grade 3 total ADA. This is especially troublesome given the decrease in total ADA from to Again, LdV points to strong community interest, increased public visibility owing to WASC accreditation, API growth, and recruitment efforts. However, LdV does not explain why these efforts would result in a 79% increase in Grade 3 total ADA for LdV also does not explain the sizeable increase (87%) in the projected in-district ADA for Grade 3. 4

5 Finally, the District also objects to the methodology used to project LdV's Kindergarten and Grade 6 total ADA and in-district ADA. Based on the number of valid Intent to Re/Enroll forms received by the District, the District projects LdV to enroll seven (7) students in Kindergarten. Similarly, the District expects LdV to enroll nineteen (19) Grade 6 students based on the valid I ntent to Re/Enroll forms submitted to the District. Considering that LdV currently has twenty-eight (28) Grade 5 students and only has six (6) Grade 5 students on its waitlist, LdV did not explain the methodology by which it determined thirty-one (31) Grade 6 students will enroll for the school year. Objection to Supporting Documentation Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, Section (c)(1)(C), requires a charter school to provide, when relevant, documentation of the number of in-district students meaningfully interested in attending the charter school that is sufficient for the District to determine the reasonableness of the projection. Such documentation IS relevant when a charter school projects a substantial increase in in-district ADA. The District believes LdV projects a substantial increase in total and in-district ADA for the school year. Therefore, LdV is required to provide supporting documentation that is sufficient for the District to determine the reasonableness of the projections. LdV has failed to provide sufficient documentation of the in-district students who are meaningfully interested in attending LdV. LdV's proposal states an enrollment of 318, yet the student roster provided to the District shows 278 students. LdV's proposal also states that the school provided 241 Intent to Re/Enroll forms to the District. However, the District received only 198 Intent to Re/Enroll Forms. Six (6) students were submitted on more than one form. Finally, LdV submitted only seven (7) forms for children that will be Kindergarten students in This contrasts with the fifty (50) children LdV projects will enroll in Kindergarten during the school year. Similarly, although LdV projects an enrollment of 22 students in Grade 6, only nineteen (19) current Grade 5 LdV students submitted Intent to Re/Enroll forms. LdV also failed to provide sufficient documentation of the in-district Grade 2 and Grade 3 students who are meaningfully interested in attending LdV. As discussed in Objection 2, LdV projects sizeable increases in in-district ADA for Grade 2 (41 %) and Grade 3 (87%). However, LdV's proposal does not provide adequate documentation explaining these large projected increases. LdV must provide the District with supporting documentation that may include, but is not limited to, additional completed Intent to Re/Enroll forms or other similar forms that indicate the number of in-district students who are meaningfully interested in attending LdV next school year. LdV should pay particular attention to providing supporting documentation for Kindergarten, Grade 2, Grade 3, and Grade 6. 5

6 Conclusion Pursuant to Section (d), the District objects to the LdV's request for facilities. LdV provided the District with unreasonable projections of in-district and total ADA for the school year. Additionally, LdV did not provide an adequate description of the methodology for its in-district and total ADA projections. Finally, LdV did not provide documentation of the number of total and in-district students meaningfully interested in attending LdV that is sufficient for the District to determine the reasonableness of LdV's projections. In the event that LdV fails to respond to the District's objections on or before January 2, 2011, pursuant to Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, Section (e), the District's projections are no longer subject to challenge and the District will base its offer of facilities on the District's projection of total in-district ADA and total ADA. Thank you for your attention to these matters. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Oscar Esquiv Assistant Superintendent for Business Services and Support OE:cd By Hand Delivery and 6