Colocación de los aparatos y simulación del flujo del aire:

commitments,” the brevity leaves room for disagreement about what is promised. The Proposal refers to the need to provide “an academic foundation and ambition to earn a college degree.” (Proposal, p. 4). The Proposal states that LEARN “places a special emphasis on the STEM skills so in demand in today’s economy.” (p. 5). At page 7, LEARN’s mission and core values are explicitly stated. The Contract would be clearer if the key commitments were specified with greater clarity.

LEARN's response:

As is customary in most charter school contracts, the proposed Charter Agreement refers to the mission statement set forth in its Proposal. Nothing more is required under the Law. The proposed contract includes a specific statement that LEARN will operate pursuant to the plans and commitments included in its proposal or application. See also NACSA Core Charter School Contract at 6, 9.2 In addition, the language in the proposed provision is similar to language recently approved by ISBE in charter agreements certified as in compliance with the Charter Schools Law.

Administrative Summary and Recommendations, p. 23

2. 105 ILCS 5/27A-7(a)(2) requires that the Contract include a statement of the minimum number of students the Charter School will serve. This detail is omitted, but low enrollment could be a basis for terminating the Charter. Some floor should be included to comply with the statute. Similarly, there is no discussion of age of the students or age cut-offs for acceptance and enrollment. Although LEARN refers to its lottery, the contract omits the details its representatives mentioned publicly before the Board. 105 ILCS 5/27A-4, effective on January 1, 2015 added new requirements, and the proposal does not include them. (see P.A. 98-783, videotaped, observed by authorizer, date/time stamp, copies provided to authorizer). Participation in additional intake activities, as outlined in the statute, may not be a condition for enrollment. Updated waitlists should be provided quarterly. These limitations and obligations should also be acknowledged, or the amended statute cited expressly. Since the contract is effective on July 1, 2015, the new statute’s terms should apply and be incorporated as material obligations.

2 _{The NACSA Core Charter School Contract is a model charter performance agreement published by the National} Association of Charter School Authorizers.

61 LEARN response:

Minimum Enrollment. Section 7(a)(2) requires applicants to state the minimum and maximum number of students that a proposed school intends to serve. The Charter Schools Law does not mandate that the proposed charter contract explicitly identify a floor of students below which the Charter School would cease to operate. Instead, the majority interpretation of Section 7(a)(2) is that the Law requires applicants to state the proposed enrollment for each year of the charter, assuming that it will increase over time. ISBE has certified contracts in the recent past that do not contain any express statement regarding a minimum enrollment number. In addition, the NASCA Core Charter School Contract does not include any language setting forth the minimum enrollment a school will allow. See NACSA Core Charter School Contract at 15. Accordingly, the notion that an enrollment floor “should be included [in the contract] to comply with the statute” is simply an incorrect statement of the Law.

Age Requirements. Contrary to the District’s contention, the proposed contract need not specifically set forth the age cut-offs for acceptance and enrollment. Instead, Section 27A-5 of the Charter Law expressly provides that “a charter school may limit student enrollment by age or grade level.” LEARN limits enrollment by grade level and in Section 4(b) of the proposed contract, LEARN specifically states that it will provide instruction to 600 students in grades K-8, as provided in its Proposal. The Proposal includes a chart that sets forth the number of students that will be enrolled in grade levels each year from the first year of LEARN’s charter through 2021 and beyond.

Lottery. Contrary to the District’s Report, the language of the proposed contract includes a statement from LEARN that it intends to comply with all requirements of the Charter Schools Law and that includes the provisions imposing new obligations LEARN must follow when it implements its annual lottery in the future. At Section 5(a) of the proposed agreement, LEARN states that “[t]he Charter School shall operate at all times in accordance with the Charter Schools Law and all other applicable federal and state laws from which the Charter School is not otherwise exempt . . . .” Nothing in the Charter Schools Law requires that the amendments to provisions regarding the lottery be expressly mentioned in charter contracts, see 105 ILCS 5/27A-6. Therefore, the language in Section 5(a) should suffice and does not amount to a “deficit” that warrants denial of LEARN’s Proposal.

Administrative Summary and Recommendations, p. 23

3. There is no explanation of the relationship that will exist between the charter schools and its

employees, except with respect to teacher certification issues. Very little was stated about wage and working conditions, employee and employer rights. The statute [5/27A-7(a)(11)] refers to terms and conditions of employment and any bargaining unit representatives. This topic is ignored, and is notable given the failure to explicitly incorporate the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act [115 ILCS 5/1 et. seq.] as required by 105 ILCS 5/27A-5(g). The failure to expressly acknowledge the Charter’s obligations under the IELRA makes the application non-conforming with express statutory

62 requirements.

LEARN response:

The Charter Law requires only that the proposal include a general explanation of the terms and conditions of employment. LEARN’s description amply satisfies the Law’s requirement by referring to its discussion of personnel in the Proposal, which includes a detailed explanation of LEARN’s expectations of its employees and how it intends to recruit and hire them. The

LEARN staffing model is set forth in detail at pages 39-40 of the Proposal. The staff recruitment and hiring process is also described in the Proposal at pages 40-42. LEARN also explains the relationship it will have with its employees as part of its discussion of its educational program at pages 30, School Calendar and Schedule (extended school day and school year and 10

professional learning days); 31, Professional Development (describing goals of professional development for teachers); 31, Induction Period (two weeks of professional development for new teachers and one week for returning teachers); 31-32, Professional Learning Schedule and Plan (describes use of professional learning communities); 32, Teacher Evaluation (describes cycle of teacher evaluation). The Charter Law does not mandate that a charter applicant repeat all of this information in a proposed Charter Agreement. By referencing the Proposal and its explanation of the terms and conditions of LEARN employees, LEARN has satisfied the requirement under Section 7(a)(11).

In addition, the Charter Law does not require that any particular statute be addressed expressly. LEARN’s obligation to comply with the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act, 115 ILCS 5/1 et seq., (IELRA) is covered by Section 5(a) of the proposed agreement, which states “The Charter School shall operate at all times in accordance with the Charter Schools Law and all other applicable federal and state laws from which the Charter School is not otherwise exempt . . . .” Prior to the General Assembly’s decision to make the IELRA applicable to Illinois charter schools, LEARN would have been exempt from complying with the law. Now that the IELRA is incorporated into the Charter Law under 105 ILCS 5/27A-5(g), LEARN is no longer exempt and as indicated in Section 5(a) of the proposed agreement, LEARN warrants that it will comply with all such applicable laws. Therefore, the contract’s failure to state explicitly its intention to comply with the IELRA does not render LEARN’s Charter Proposal “non-conforming” with the Charter Law’s “express statutory requirements.”

63 Administrative Summary and Recommendations, p. 23

4. Paragraph 5 lists federal and state statutes with which the Charter School will comply. There are aspects to this portion of the Proposal that are troubling. First, the application lists statutes with which the Charter School will comply if it is “not otherwise exempt.” This implies that the Charter School will first seek to find an exemption and further that it will limit itself to the laws it has identified. It would be preferable to state that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations and then stop. Second, the applicant indicates that it will comply with all constitutional provisions prohibiting discrimination. Does that include federal regulations implementing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well? Finally, the most recent amendments to 105 ILCS 5/27A-5 (P.A. 98-1102,

effective August 26, 2014, and P.A. 98-669, effective June 26, 2014) added Illinois statutes to the mix of applicable state law. They are not identified in the Proposed Contract and their absence creates a legal deficit. The statutes are: a) Section 10-17a of the School Code regarding school report cards; b) The P-20 Longitudinal Education Data System Act; c) Section 2-3.160 of the School Code regarding student discipline reporting; and d) Section 27-23.7 of the School Code regarding bullying prevention. The number of recent amendments begs the question whether the enumeration of statutes is the best approach. Again, it might be better for the Charter to simply indicate that it will comply with all applicable requirements of the Charter Schools Law, as amended from time to time. That will assure that both the District and the Charter School remain in compliance with the law during the term of the Charter.

LEARN response:

Again, counsel for the District misconstrues the plain language of LEARN’s proposed contract. Section 5(g) of the Charter Schools Law provides that “A charter school is exempt from all other State laws and regulations in the School Code governing public schools and local school board policies, except” certain enumerated laws set forth in the Law. Accordingly, in an effort to make clear its intention to comply with applicable law, regulations and policy, in Section 5(a) of the proposed agreement, LEARN states that “[t]he Charter School shall operate at all times in accordance with the Charter Schools Law and all other applicable federal and state laws from which the Charter School is not otherwise exempt . . . .” It also lists a number of laws that are commonly considered not-exempt.

A plain reading of this language indicates that LEARN is re-stating its commitment to comply with those laws and regulations that are specifically enumerated in Section 5(g) of the Charter Law, as well as any other any applicable law or regulation, whether in existence at the time or later adopted by a federal or state governing body, that the Law does not provide an exemption for. By including the statement, “shall operate at all times in accordance with the Charter Schools Law and all other applicable federal and state laws from which the Charter Schools is not otherwise exempt,” LEARN has proposed precisely the type of language the District counsel recommends when it suggests “it might be better for the Charter to simply indicate that it will comply with all applicable requirements of the Charter Schools Law, as amended from time to time.” Ultimately, LEARN warrants that it will comply with any applicable laws and

regulations, and any amendments to those laws and regulations, whether enumerated or not, as required to ensure compliance with the Charter Schools Law. The fact that LEARN did not

64 propose the precise contract language that District’s counsel would have used does not warrant denying the charter proposal or “create a legal deficit.”

Finally, ISBE has certified contracts in the recent past that contain the precise language used in Section 5(a) noting compliance with all applicable federal and state laws and then enumerating a sample of applicable statutes. In addition, the NASCA Core Charter School Contract includes a similar provision. See NACSA Core Charter School Contract at 13 (“The School shall be deemed a public school subject to all applicable provisions of local, state and federal law and regulation specifically including but not limited to health and safety, civil rights, student assessment and assessment administration, data collection, reporting, grading, and remediation requirements, except to the extent such provisions are inapplicable to charter schools or the School has obtained waivers, in accordance with §7 below”).

Administrative Summary and Recommendations, p. 24

5. In Section 5.d, LEARN agrees to provide a list of its employees and those of its subcontractors. We suggest that salary information and other non-exempt data should also be provided, as the data are records subject to FOIA. WPS60 may be obligated to provide such data in accordance with the requirements of 5 ILCS 140/7(2), as LEARN will be performing a governmental function under a contract with a public body. A second concern in this section relates to the issue of teacher certification. In LEARN’s proposal and in its public statements to the Board of Education on December 10, 2014, it was unequivocally stated that all teaching staff would be certificated and highly qualified. In this section, LEARN permits itself the option of engaging teaching staff that “is otherwise qualified to teach, as set forth in Section 27A-10 of the Charter Schools Law.” The Charter Schools Law does not require teachers to be certificated under Article 21 and highly

qualified. Thus, the proposed contract departs materially from the Proposal and public presentation. See also, the discussion in 5.f regarding instructional providers.

LEARN response:

Whether or not LEARN agrees to provide a list of its employees and subcontractors

automatically, or upon the presentation of a proper request submitted under the Freedom of Information Act should have been a matter of negotiation and is not a basis for denying LEARN’s Charter Proposal.

In addition, the fact that the proposed contract leaves open the possibility that the report submitted to the District on or before September 15 might classify a teacher as “otherwise qualified to teach” does not amount to a material departure from any commitment to hire and retain teaching staff that would be certificated and highly qualified. It merely enables LEARN to ensure that it will not be unduly penalized if a person hired at the time the list is provided is in the process of obtaining certification or if there are other circumstances that warrant use of the other qualification. As the District notes, LEARN is not required to hire only certificated teachers. Therefore, as long as LEARN hires the required number of certificated and highly

65 qualified instructional providers stated in the Law, it would not be out of compliance. Further, if the District wanted LEARN to commit to hiring and retaining only certificated and highly

qualified instructional providers, that could have been a point for discussion and negotiation. It does not serve as a basis to deny LEARN’s Charter Proposal.

Administrative Summary and Recommendations, p. 24

6. There are some apparent errors in the Contract Proposal’s discussion of Financial Operations that require modification. First, paragraph 6a discussions funding procedure. The first sentence is incomplete or incorrect. It concludes with the phrase “whichever number is greater;” however, the preceding portion of the sentence only refers to one number, i.e., 100% of the District’s then per capita student tuition rate. Second, in the next sentence, there is no context for the figure $10,132. Is that an amount that LEARN regards as a guarantee? In its presentation to the Board, LEARN disavowed any claim to 125 percent of the District’s per capita student tuition rate. If a ceiling on funding is being set, the phrasing is awkward. Third, in subpart i of subparagraph d, LEARN sets a date of August 20, 2012 for submission of its pre-enrollment report. Clearly the year is erroneous, but the date creates additional problems. If the payment is to based on the report, then the report must be delivered before the payment is due. In Year One, and despite the inconsistent language in the preceding section [6(c), calling for payment by July 1, 2015], LEARN seeks the first quarterly payment not later than August 1, 2015. WPS60 asks that the contract language conform to a consistent payment date and that the pre-enrollment report be provided at least 15 days before the payment is due. Finally, WPS60 objects to the proposed refund methodology. The language proposed is consistent with 5/27A-11(b), which calls for refunds to be made on a quarterly basis. If funding follows the student, then upon a transfer or dismissal from the Charter School, WPS60 submits that it would be clearer to state that any refund due should be paid in full as an offset in the next quarterly funding cycle.

Section 6 Typographical Errors. The District incorrectly points to Section 6a as the provision which sets out the proposed funding procedure. Instead, Section 6d contains the language for the proposed funding procedure. However, the District has correctly identified certain typographical errors. The first paragraph of provision 6d should instead read:

d. Funding Procedure. Beginning in the 2015-2016 school year and for each subsequent year of the Term of this Agreement, the District shall calculate each quarter the per capita student tuition payment for each pupil enrolled at the Charter School at the rate of 100 percent of the District's then per capita student tuition rate. For purposes of this Section, "the per capita student tuition" rate refers to the rate on the most recent Annual Financial Report for the Waukegan Community School District 60, as calculated by the Illinois State Board of Education.

In addition, Section 6d(i) contains an additional typo in its reference to “August 20, 2012” which should instead read “August 20, 2015, and in each year thereafter no later than July 1 . . .”

66 With the correction of these typographical errors, the provision presents a proposed funding procedure that asks for funding at the rate of 100 percent of the District’s per capita student tuition, enables total funding to be calculated based upon a pre-enrollment report that LEARN submits no later than August 20, 2015 and then in subsequent years, calculated based upon pre- enrollment reports submitted no later than July 1 and enrollment reports submitted prior to installment payments made in October, January and April of each year.

Refund Methodology. The District objects to the language of Section 6d(v) of the proposed agreement and instead proposes that it would be preferable to have any refunds be provided to the District “in full as an offset in the next quarterly payment.” However, as the District

acknowledges, the language in the proposed contract is consistent with the Charter Schools Law. More critically, changing the provision to reflect the District’s preferred language would render it inconsistent with the Law. Section 11(b) of the Law uses precisely the same language