BEFORE THE TENNESSEE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

IN RE:
CITY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL BOYS PREPARATORY
Charter School Appeal

)
)
)
)
)
)

State Board of Education Meeting
February 8, 2019

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REPORT
OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated (T.C.A.) § 49-13-122, a charter school that is denied
renewal by the chartering authority may appeal the non-renewal to the State Board of Education (State
Board). On December 14, 2018, City University School Boys Preparatory (City University Boys) appealed
the non-renewal of its charter agreement by Shelby County Schools (SCS) Board of Education to the State
Board.
Based on the following procedural history, findings of fact, and Review Committee Report
attached hereto, I believe that the decision to deny renewal of the City University Boys charter agreement
was not contrary to T.C.A. § 49-13-122. 1 Therefore, I recommend that the State Board affirm the decision
of SCS to deny the renewal of City University Boys charter agreement.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to T.C.A. § 49-13-122 and State Board policy 6.800, State Board staff and an independent
charter application review committee (Review Committee) conducted a de novo, on the record review of
the SCS decision not to renew, including City University Boys renewal application and full record presented
upon appeal. Pursuant to State Board policy 6.800, the Review Committee is required to conduct a
capacity interview with the governing board and school leadership of City University Boys. Finally, the
State Board is required to hold a public hearing in the district where City University Boys has been
operating.2

1
2

T.C.A. § 49-13-122(f).
Ibid.

 In order to overturn the decision of the local board of education, the State Board must find that
the local board’s decision to deny renewal of City University Boys charter agreement was contrary to
T.C.A. § 49-13-122, which states:
(b) A public charter school agreement may be revoked at any time or not
renewed by the final chartering authority if the chartering authority determines that the
school:
(1) Committed a material violation of any conditions, standards, or procedures
set forth in the charter agreement;
(2) Failed to meet or make sufficient progress toward the performance
expectations set forth in the charter agreement; or
(3) Failed to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management. 3
Because City University Boys is located in a school district that contains a school on the current or
last preceding priority school list, the State Board has the ability to approve the renewal, and thereby
authorize the school, or to affirm the local board’s decision to deny. 4
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. On December 18, 2008, the Memphis City Schools Board of Education voted to approve the
charter application for City University Boys.
2. On July 1, 2009, City University Boys entered into a charter agreement with Memphis City Schools
Board of Education, with a charter term of ten academic years. Thereafter, Memphis City Schools
and SCS underwent a merger, and City University Boys was notified that the newly constituted
SCS assumed all rights of Memphis City Schools under the charter agreement.
3. On March 29, 2017, the SCS Director of Charter Schools sent a letter to Tracie Greer, Campus
President of City University Boys and City University School of Liberal Arts outlining the deadline
to submit the charter renewal application, summarizing how SCS will evaluate the school’s
performance for renewal, and providing a link to the school’s annual report per T.C.A. § 49-13121.
4. On February 8, 2018, the SCS Office of Charter Schools notified City University Boys that an
informational webinar on the renewal process would be held on March 2, 2018.
5. At the March 2, 2018 webinar, the SCS Office of Charter Schools notified schools that in order to
be recommended for renewal, a school would be required to receive a score of 3.0 above on each
of the core component scorecards (Academics, Operations, and Finance).

3
4

T.C.A. § 49-13-122(b).
T.C.A. § 49-13-121(b)(2)

2

 6. On April 2, 2018, City University Boys submitted its renewal application to SCS.
7. On August 24, 2018, the SCS Office of Charter Schools provided City University Boys with
performance data on the academic, operational, and financial scorecards, along with an
opportunity to submit a grievance regarding the data provided. Additional data was sent via email on August 30, 2018 along with an extended grievance window.
8. SCS assembled a committee to review the City University Boys renewal application and conduct a
site visit.
9. On October 3, 2018, the SCS committee conducted a site visit at City University Boys and produced
a corresponding Site Visit Report dated October 29, 2018.
10. City University Boys submitted grievances to the site visit report to the SCS Charter School Office.
11. On November 12, 2018, City University Boys submitted grievances regarding the performance
data provided by SCS Office of Charter Schools.
12. On November 16, 2018, the SCS Office of Charter Schools shared the renewal report and
accompanying documents with City University Boys.
13. On December 2, 2018, based on the SCS Office of Charter School’s recommendation, the SCS
Board of Education voted to deny the renewal of City University Boys charter agreement.
14. City University Boys appealed the non-renewal of its charter agreement in writing to the State
Board on December 14, 2018.
15. The State Board’s Review Committee analyzed and scored the City University Boys renewal
application and full renewal record using the State Board’s Charter School Renewal Evaluation
Ratings and Scoring Criteria (scoring rubric).
16. The State Board’s Review Committee conducted a capacity interview with the governing board of
City University Boys and key members of the leadership team on January 23, 2019 in Memphis.
17. On January 24, 2019, the State Board staff held a public hearing in Memphis. At the public hearing,
the Executive Director, sitting as the State Board’s designee, heard presentations from City
University Boys and SCS and took public comment.
18. After the capacity interview, the Review Committee determined a final consensus rating of the
renewal application and renewal record, which served as the basis for the Review Committee
Recommendation Report.

3

 FINDINGS OF FACT
•

District Denial of Application.

City University Boys submitted their renewal application on April 2, 2018. SCS assembled a team
to review the renewal application submitted by City University Boys and participate in a renewal site visit.
This team consisted of the following individuals:
Name
William Haft
Jarita Mitchell
Daphne Robinson
Gwendolyn Williams

Title
President and Managing Partner, Tandem Learning Partners
Assistant Superintendent of Schools, Shelby County Schools
Director of Charter Schools, Shelby County Schools
Office of Strategy and Innovation, Shelby County Schools

After review of the renewal application and completion of the site visit, the SCS team produced a
site visit report dated October 29, 2018. City University Boys was given the opportunity to submit
grievances to the site visit report, which they did. This site visit report did not include a recommendation
regarding renewal or non-renewal, but referenced that the renewal decision would be “based on [an]
assessment of the school’s cumulative record of performance over the current charter term.” 5 A final
renewal report was issued by the SCS Office of Charter Schools, dated November 8, 2018, concluding that
“There is a lack of evidence that suggests that City University Boys Preparatory could close the
achievement gap and move students to higher levels of proficiency if granted a second charter term.” 6
The recommendation of the SCS Office of Charter Schools not to renew the charter agreement
for City University Boys was presented to the SCS Board of Education on December 2, 2018. The
presentation highlighted City University Boys’ performance on the School Performance Scorecard from
2010-2018, including overall academic score averages of 3.00 in 2010-2012, 2.59 in 2013-2015, and 2.44
in 2016-2018. 7 The presentation compared the academic achievement goals from City University Boys
initial charter application to the percentage of students scoring at or above grade level on state tests.
Academic goals were noted as: To allow at least 80% of our scholars to achieve proficiency on state and
national standardized tests, and to develop reading skills to allow at least 75% of our scholars to read at
or above grade level. However, achievement scores in English Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social
Studies reflected that the school had made little progress toward these goals over the course of their
charter term. The presentation also outlined the school’s history of appearing on the Cusp List 8 in 2013,
2015, and 2017, and the Priority List 9 in 2014.

Shelby County Schools Charter School Renewal Site Visit Report, p.3.
Shelby County Schools City University Boys Final Renewal Report, p. 28.
7
SCS November 2018 Charter Renewal PowerPoint Presentation, pg. 8.
8
The Cusp List includes the bottom 10% of schools in the state.
9
The Priority List includes the bottom 5% of schools in the state.
5
6

4

 •

State Board Charter Application Review Committee’s Evaluation of the Application

Following the denial of the City University Boys renewal and their subsequent appeal to the State
Board, State Board staff assembled a diverse Review Committee of experts to evaluate and score the City
University Boys renewal application and renewal record. This Review Committee consisted of the
following individuals:
Name
Ali Gaffey
Nick Getschman
Tess Stovall
Brett Turner
Teneicesia White

Title
Deputy Director of Charter Schools, State Board of Education, Nashville, TN
Executive Director, Veritas College Preparatory Charter School, Memphis, TN
Director of Charter Schools, State Board of Education, Nashville, TN
Director of Policy and Research, Tennessee State Collaborative on Reforming
Education (SCORE), Nashville, TN
Principal, Aurora Collegiate Academy, Memphis, TN

The Review Committee conducted an initial review and scoring of the City University Boys renewal
application and renewal record, a capacity interview with the governing board and school leadership, and
a final evaluation and scoring of the renewal application and record resulting in a consensus rating for
each major section. In accordance with the State Board’s renewal scoring rubric, in order to “overturn a
local district’s decision not to renew a charter agreement, the State Board must find that the local district’s
decision was contrary to T.C.A. § 49-13-122.” 10 The scoring rubric set forth specific criteria that defines
the expectations to “Meet or Exceed Standard” regarding the school’s academic success, operational
stability, financial health, and future planning. The Review Committee’s consensus rating was as follows:
Sections
Academic Success

Rating
Partially Meets Standard

Operational Stability

Partially Meets Standard

Financial Health

Meets or Exceeds Standard

Future Planning

Does Not Meet Standard

The Review Committee recommended that the State Board uphold the non-renewal of City
University Boys because the school failed to meet or make sufficient progress toward the performance
expectations set forth in the charter agreement, a proper ground for non-renewal pursuant to T.C.A. § 4913-122. As evidenced by the renewal record, the review committee found that City University Boys’
academic outcomes over the course of their charter term do not put them in a position to be approved
for renewal. Throughout the school’s first charter term, City University Boys showed minimal growth on
TNReady assessments, on SCS’s school performance framework, and in their Tennessee Value Added
Assessment System (TVAAS) scores. In addition, the school failed to provide evidence that they use data
effectively in analyzing and evaluating their academic program.

10

Tennessee State Board of Education Charter School Renewal Evaluation Ratings and Scoring Criteria, pg. 1.

5

 Moreover, in an evaluation of City University Boys’ operational stability, the review committee
cited evidence of the school’s under-enrollment throughout its charter term. While the school has shown
small growth in enrollment for the 2018-19 school year, the review committee did not find sufficient
evidence that the school will meet and maintain its enrollment targets if granted a new charter term.
The Review Committee found the financial health of the school met or exceeded the standard
because the school has maintained clear financial audits and was able to provide evidence of a strong
financial operation overall.
Finally, the Review Committee found the future plans for the school did not meet the standard
because of a lack of rigorous and specific academic goals. Additionally, the Review Committee did not find
evidence of how the school would track and measure progress toward its goals and, therefore, was unable
to determine if the school’s future plans were realistic or attainable.
In summary, the Review Committee determined that City University Boys did not provide
sufficient evidence to meet the required rubric ratings for renewal. The capacity interview with the school
did not provide further clarification that would have resulted in a higher rating. Therefore, the Review
Committee recommended that the City University Boys non-renewal be upheld.
For additional information regarding the Review Committee’s evaluation of the renewal
application and full renewal record, please see Exhibit A for the complete Review Committee Report,
which is fully incorporated herein by reference.
•

Public Hearing

Pursuant to statute 11 and State Board policy 6.800, a public hearing chaired by the Executive
Director 12 was held in Memphis on January 24, 2019. SCS’s presentation at the public hearing focused on
the minimal academic progress made by the school over the course of its charter term as the primary
reason why the school was recommended for non-renewal. Specifically, SCS noted City University Boys’
performance on the academic section of the school performance scorecard. City University Boys academic
scores fell within the fair range of performance with an overall score of 2.44 out of 5.00 for the most
recent years 2016-2018, and 2.59 in 2013-2015. It was highlighted that City University Boys academic
scorecard scores peaked in 2010-2012 with an overall score of 3.25 out of 5.00, but since that time period,
the school’s scores had dropped. Additionally, SCS highlighted that the school had fallen well short of the
two academic goals it outlined in the charter application when analyzing City University Boys state
assessment data. Finally, the SCS presentation outlined the City University Boys’ history of appearing on
the Cusp List in 2013, 2015, and 2017, and the Priority List in 2014. A copy of the SCS presentation outlining
the performance of City University Boys is attached as Exhibit B.
In response, City University Boys highlighted several legal and contractual issues regarding the
SCS renewal process. They argued that they were unfairly denied services that they were entitled to from
SCS pursuant to the charter agreement that provided for a three percent administrative fee. As a result
11
12

T.C.A. § 49-13-122(f).
The State Board selected the Executive Director as their designee for the public hearing.

6

 of the denial of these services (e.g. access to Discovery Education and Tableau), City University Boys felt
that their scholar’s performance suffered. In addition, the school argued that a March 29, 2017 letter from
the SCS Charter Schools Office did not include any information on the renewal process or criteria and did
not meet the requirements of T.C.A. § 49-13-121 requiring a performance overview. City University Boys
also took issue with what they deemed were changing criteria for renewal. As evidence of this, City
University Boys pointed to a November 2017 webinar for another network school (City University Girls
Preparatory Charter School) regarding the five year interim review. In this webinar, the SCS Charter
Schools Office stated that schools would receive an overall rating on the three core components
(academic, operations, and finance) to determine whether a school will be deemed “on track for renewal”
as required by the interim review process. City University Boys complained that this information changed
in January 2018 when it was communicated that the individual score on each core component would have
to be 3.0 or above to be considered on track for renewal. City University Boys also highlighted in their
presentation at the hearing that after being placed on the Tennessee Department of Education’s Priority
School List in 2014, they were able to move off of the list in 2015 due to their one year success rate.
Finally, the school took issue with the validity of state test data from 2017 due to technical and logistical
errors, although an appeal to the Tennessee Department of Education was ultimately unsuccessful.
In response to questions regarding their minimal academic progress, City University Boys
maintained that they have met the minimum standards for continuation; presenting a recalculated
version of all components of their SCS scorecard scores, arguing that the goals within their charter
application were no longer applicable, and that through NWEA MAP data they were able to show that
scholars were making academic progress, scoring in the 60th and 70th percentile ranges.
A portion of the public hearing was dedicated to taking public comment. A total of four people
made verbal comments in support of City University Boys at the hearing, including one parent, and three
former students. In addition, the State Board received numerous written public comments in support of
City University Boys via email, many from current students.
•

Alignment of Shelby County Schools’ Application Process to State Board Quality Authorizing
Standards

Detailed information regarding SCS’s renewal process was collected and analyzed by State Board
staff to determine alignment with State Board Quality Authorizing Standards as set forth in State Board
policy 6.111. SCS articulated that its renewal process is guided by State Board Quality Authorizing
Standards, specifically Standard 5 which states: “A quality authorizer designs and implements a
transparent and rigorous process that uses comprehensive academic, financial, and operational
performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions, and revokes charters when necessary to
protect student and public interests.” 13
As evidence of this, SCS pointed to the involvement of the National Association of Charter School
Authorizers (NACSA) in the development of their pending renewal policy, which was applied in this
renewal cycle. They noted that upon receipt of charter renewal applications in April 2018, charter schools
13

State Board Policy 6.111 -- Quality Authorizing Standards, pg. 12.

7

 were invited to participate in a webinar that provided an overview of the renewal process and provided
schools with multiple grievance windows for all outputs of the process, including data review and the site
visit and final renewal reports.
While it is clear that SCS has made progress toward a strong renewal process with the help of
NACSA, the process applied to City University Boys missed the mark when it came to Quality Authorizing
Standard 5(d) which states “A quality authorizer . . . clearly communicates to schools the criteria for
charter revocation, renewal, and non-renewal decisions that are consistent with the charter agreement,
including any policy changes thereto.” 14 While there was clear communication regarding the renewal
criteria and renewal process beginning in March 2018, this came merely a month before schools were
required to submit their renewal application in April 2018. City University Boys complained that the
standard for renewal was never made clear to them during their charter term, and changed from what
was communicated to its sister school City University Girls regarding renewal criteria as part of the girls
school five year interim review. In order to work toward better alignment with the Quality Authorizing
Standards, SCS should ensure that it is clearly communicating with schools throughout the charter term
regarding criteria for renewal, so that schools are able to act on that information to improve performance
well in advance of any renewal decision.
ANALYSIS
State law requires the State Board to review the renewal decision of the local board of education
and determine whether the decision to deny renewal of the charter agreement was contrary to T.C.A. §
49-13-122. In making my recommendation to the Board, I have considered the Review Committee Report,
the documentation submitted by both City University Boys and SCS, the arguments made by both the
school and SCS at the public hearing, and the public comments received by State Board staff and conclude
as follows:
The Review Committee’s report and recommendations are thorough, grounded in the State
Board’s standard of review, cite specific examples in the renewal record and reference information gained
at the capacity interview in support of its findings. For the reasons explicated in the report, I agree that
the City University Boys renewal application and documents contained in the renewal record did not rise
to the level of meeting or exceeding the standards required for renewal. Additionally, based on the
information presented in the Review Committee Report and at the Public Hearing, I cannot find evidence
that SCS’s decision to deny renewal of City University Boys charter agreement was contrary to T.C.A. § 4913-122.
Given the great responsibility of educating students and the amount of public funds entrusted to
a charter school that is approved by a local district, the State Board expects that only those schools that
have achieved or made sufficient progress toward the standards and targets stated in the charter
agreement, are organizationally and fiscally viable, and have been faithful to the terms of the contract
and applicable law will be granted renewal. 15 It is readily apparent that City University Boys has a

14
15

Ibid.
Ibid.

8

 dedicated board and staff, sincere commitment to the community they currently serve, and has created
a safe and welcoming environment for its students. However, as required by T.C.A. § 49-13-122, the school
has been unable to demonstrate sufficient progress toward its academic goals set forth in the charter
application and agreement over the course of its ten-year charter term. 16 Academic achievement goals
listed in City University Boys charter school application are: “To increase performance in academic areas
as indicated on state and national standardized tests as to allow at least 80% of our scholars to achieve
proficiency” and “To develop reading skills to allow at least 75% of our scholars to read at or above grade
level.”17 In recent years, the school has operated in the bottom 10% of schools in the state and was placed
on the Tennessee Department of Education’s Priority School List in the 2014 academic year. As evidenced
by data provided in Exhibit B, the school’s achievement on state standardized tests has fallen far short of
the goals they set for themselves in their charter application. Additionally, the school’s achievement
scores on the SCS academic performance scorecard have lagged behind the district. The school has also
failed to show sufficient progress in its growth data, as measured by TVAAS. Throughout the first three
years of operation, City University Boys earned a TVAAS Level 4 composite average for growth, but since
2013 has seen a decline, earning most recently a TVAAS Level 2 in 2018. While I understand and
sympathize with the school’s grievances regarding testing challenges experienced in 2017, their appeal to
the Tennessee Department of Education was not successful. Additionally, despite these challenges in
school year 2016-17, low academic achievement on state tests has persisted throughout the charter term.
When asked to provide additional evidence that they were making sufficient academic progress toward
their performance goals, City University Boys shared that 60% of their scholars are performing within the
60th and 70th percentile in MAP for ELA and Math, but did not provide any quantitative evidence to support
this assertion. Raw student data from Fall 2018 was provided by City University Boys; however, when
analyzed by State Board staff, the data did not support this assertion.
During the appeal process, City University Boys raised a number of other arguments regarding the
actions of SCS. Specifically, they argued that the letter sent by the SCS Charter School Office on March 29,
2017 did not comply with the requirements of T.C.A. § 49-13-121(e), as it did not provide a performance
report that directly reflected the renewal evaluation. If the letter did not comply with the law, the school
argues that the denial of renewal was improper. City University Boys also argued that SCS’s failure to
provide access to “VIP services” pursuant to their charter agreement was a breach of the agreement. As
the State Board’s standard of review is limited to whether or not the decision of the local board of
education was contrary to of T.C.A. § 49-13-122, these arguments are outside the State Board’s authority
on appeal.
Therefore, based upon the history of low academic performance over the course of the charter
term and failure to meet or make sufficient progress toward the school’s academic goals set forth in the
charter agreement, I cannot find that SCS’s decision to deny renewal of City University Boys charter
agreement was contrary to T.C.A. § 49-13-122. While City University Boys has made commendable effort
to correct course in recent years, including partnering with a high performing charter school and creating
The charter application is incorporated by reference in the City University Boys Charter Agreement, pg.4.
City University Boys Charter Application, p. 6; The charter application is incorporated by reference in the City
University Boys Charter Agreement, pg.4.
16
17

9

 a Continued Success Action Plan for 2017-18, the need for these changes should have been recognized
years ago, well ahead of a pending nonrenewal decision. While it is clear that the school has experienced
its share of challenges during the charter term, the basis of charter school authorization is autonomy in
exchange for accountability. Holding schools to that accountability bar upon renewal is a critical duty of
authorizers and maintaining high standards is one of the State Board’s three Quality Charter Authorizing
Principles. 18 As such, I cannot find that the academic performance of the school merits renewal for
another ten-year charter term.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, and for the reasons stated in the Review Committee Report attached hereto, I
do not believe that the decision to deny renewal of City University Boys was contrary to T.C.A. § 49-13122. Therefore, I recommend that the State Board affirm the decision of SCS to deny the renewal of City
University Boys.

Dr. Sara Heyburn Morrison, Executive Director
State Board of Education

18

2/5/2019
Date

State Board Policy 6.111 -- Quality Authorizing Standards, pg. 1.

10

 EXHIBIT A
Charter Renewal Appeal Review Committee Recommendation Report
January 29, 2019

School Name: City University School Boys Preparatory
Sponsor: The Influence1 Foundation
Chartering Authority: Shelby County Schools
Evaluation Team:
Ali Gaffey
Nick Getschman
Tess Stovall
Brett Turner
Teneicesia White

 This recommendation report is based on a template from the National Association of Charter School
Authorizers.

© 2014 National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA)
This document carries a Creative Commons license, which permits noncommercial re-use of content when proper attribution is provided. This
means you are free to copy, display and distribute this work, or include content from the application in derivative works, under the following
conditions:
Attribution You must clearly attribute the work to the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, and provide a link back to the
publication at http://www.qualitycharters.org/.
Noncommercial You may not use this work for commercial purposes, including but not limited to any type of work for hire, without explicit
prior permission from NACSA.
Share Alike If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one.
For the full legal code of this Creative Commons license, please visit www.creativecommons.org. If you have any questions about citing or
reusing NACSA content, please contact us

2

 Introduction
Tennessee Code Annotated (T.C.A.) § 49-13-122 allows a charter school to appeal a chartering
authority’s decision to deny renewal of a charter agreement to the State Board of Education (State Board).
In accordance with T.C.A. § 49-13-122, the State Board of Education shall conduct a de novo, on the record
review of the chartering authority’s decision. In order to overturn a chartering authority’s decision to not
to renew a charter agreement, the State Board must find that such decision was contrary to T.C.A. § 4913-122.
The State Board’s charter school renewal appeal process is outlined in State Board policy 6.800 –
Charter School Renewal and aligned to the criteria set forth in T.C.A. § 49-13-122. The State Board
assembled a charter renewal review committee comprised of highly qualified internal and external
evaluators with relevant and diverse expertise to evaluate the renewal record and interview the operator.
The State Board provided training to all review committee members to ensure consistent standards and
fair treatment of all.
The State Board’s appeal process is aligned to the high standards set forth in State Board policy
6.111 – Quality Charter Authorizing Standards and in accordance with T.C.A. § 49-13-108. These standards
ensure the well-being and interests of students are the fundamental values informing all State Board
actions and decisions. The State Board publishes clear timelines and expectations for applicants, engages
highly competent teams of internal and external evaluators to review all applications, and maintains
rigorous criteria for the renewal of a charter school. Annually, the State Board evaluates its work to ensure
alignment with national and state standards for quality authorizing and implements improvement when
necessary.

Overview of the Evaluation Process
The State Board’s charter renewal review committee developed this recommendation report
based on three key stages of review:
1. Evaluation of the Record: The review committee independently reviewed the charter school’s
renewal application, the charter school’s annual reports, the local board of education’s
performance reports for the charter school, the local board of education’s annual reports, the
local board of education’s site visit report and any grievances submitted by the charter school
regarding the site visit report’s findings, and correspondence from the local school board to the
governing body regarding the status of the school during the term of the charter. After an
independent review, the review committee collectively identified the main strengths and
weaknesses as well as developed specific questions for the operator based on the renewal record.
2. Capacity Interview: Based on the independent and collective review of the record, the review
committee conducted a 90-minute in-person interview with the operator, members of the
governing board, and the school leaders to address the weaknesses and questions identified in
the record, and to assess if the school’s academic outcomes, operational condition, financial
condition, and goals for the next charter term merit renewal.
3. Consensus Judgment: At the conclusion of the record review and the capacity interview, the
committee submitted a final evaluation rubric and developed a consensus regarding a rating for
each section of the application.
3

 This recommendation report includes the following information:
1. Summary of the school: A brief description of the charter school including its plans for future
goals and achievement in a new charter term.
2. Summary of the recommendation: A brief summary of the overall recommendation for the
renewal record.
3. Analysis of each section of the renewal evaluation rubric: An analysis of the four sections of the
evaluation rubric.
a. Academic Success: school mission and academic program design; progress toward
academic goals; academic achievement and growth results; performance on the local
board’s annual performance evaluation; use of data to inform academic practice;
progress toward closing achievement gaps for all students; demonstrating successful
outcomes for diverse learners; and any notices of concern or other interventions from the
local board of education.
b. Operational Stability: progress toward operational goals; performance on the local
board’s annual performance evaluation; capacity and student attrition; parent and
student satisfaction and community support; capacity of governing board and school
leadership; facility; addressing social, emotional and health needs of students; teacher
retention, professional development and personnel stability; and any notices of concern
or other interventions from the local board of education.
c. Financial Health: school fiscal health; financial audits; performance on the local board’s
annual performance evaluation; alignment between expenditures and mission; fiscal
challenges; and any notices of concern or other interventions from the local board of
education.
d. Future Planning: future goals and plans for achievement; growth plans; alignment to
current standings; and any address of deficits.
The State Board’s charter renewal review committee utilized the State Board’s Charter School
Renewal Evaluation Ratings and Scoring Criteria (the rubric), to evaluate the renewal record. The rubric
states:
A charter school should be renewed if it did not commit a material
violation of its charter agreement, met or made sufficient progress
toward the performance expectations in its charter agreement, and
generally met the accepted standards of fiscal management.
The evaluators used the following criteria and guidance from the scoring rubric to rate the record:
Rating
Meets or Exceeds Standard

Characteristics
The record includes specific and accurate evidence that the
school generally demonstrated success in meeting and upholding
the terms of the charter agreement.

4

 Partially Meets Standard
Does Not Meet Standard

The record meets the criteria in some aspects but lacks sufficient
evidence that the charter school is meeting the terms of the
charter agreement in one or more areas.
The record provides evidence that the charter school committed
a violation of tis charter agreement, failed to meet or make
sufficient academic progress, and/or failed to meet generally
accepted standards of fiscal management.

5

 Summary of the Charter School
School Name: City University School Boys Preparatory
Sponsor: The Influence1 Foundation
Chartering Authority: Shelby County Schools
Year Charter Awarded: 2009
Year Charter Expires: 2019
Mission: 1 City University School Boys Preparatory will prepare its students with the necessary skills to be
twenty-first century scholars and citizens. As a secondary/college preparatory middle school with an
emphasis on the (educational and communal) development of male scholars, City University Boys Prep
will provide academically rigorous and socially enriching educational opportunities for its scholars. Upon
graduation, these student scholars will be better prepared to enter secondary education as intellectually
sophisticated citizens with vigor and learning.
Number of Schools Currently in Operation:
Memphis: Four (4)—City University School of Liberal Arts, City University School of Independence,
City University School Boys Preparatory, City University School Girls Preparatory
Proposed Enrollment for Next 10-Year Term: 2
Year following renewal
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10

Grade Levels
6-8
6-8
6-8
6-8
6-8
6-8
6-8
6-8
6-8
6-8

Total Student Enrollment
100
150
200
250
300
350
350
350
350
350

Brief Description of the Charter School:
City University School Boys Preparatory (City University Boys) is a public charter school located in
the Whitehaven neighborhood of Memphis, Tennessee. Founded in 2009, City University Boys serves 65
male students in grades 6 through 8. 3 The school is one of four City University schools, all of which coPublic Hearing 1/25/10 City University Boys PowerPoint Presentation, pg. 2.
City University School Boys Preparatory Renewal Application, Applicant Information Cover Page.
3
Ibid, Application Narrative.
1
2

6

 locate on one campus. City University Boys is sponsored by a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, The
Influence1 Foundation. City University Boys is a college preparatory middle school which emphasizes
“building better scholars and contributing citizens”. 4

4

City University School Boys Preparatory Renewal Application, Application Narrative.

7

 Summary of the Evaluation
The review committee recommends that the State Board uphold Shelby County School’s decision
to not renew City University Boys for a second charter term because the school failed to meet or make
sufficient progress toward the performance expectations set forth in the charter agreement. As evidenced
by the renewal record, the charter school’s academic outcomes over the course of their charter term do
not put them in a position to be approved for renewal.
With a history of academic performance that lags behind the local school district, City University
Boys’ academic success does not provide sufficient evidence that the school should be renewed for a
second ten-year term. Throughout the school’s first charter term, City University Boys has shown minimal
growth on the TNReady assessments, on Shelby County School’s school performance framework, and in
their Tennessee Value Added Assessment System (TVAAS) scores. In addition, the school failed to provide
evidence that the school uses data effectively in analyzing and evaluating their academic program.
In an evaluation of City University Boys’ operational stability, the review committee found
evidence of the school’s under-enrollment throughout its charter term. While the school has shown small
growth in enrollment for the 2018-19 school year, the review committee did not find sufficient evidence
that the school will meet and maintain its enrollment targets if granted a new charter term.
City University Boys’ financial health is a strength for the organization; the school has maintained
clear financial audits without findings throughout its history. Additionally, the operator acquired a new
shared facility for each of its four schools and expects to complete payments on the $3.6 loan within the
next five years. The review committee found evidence of a strong financial operation for the charter
school.
As the final piece within the charter school renewal application, City University Boys included a
future planning document that laid out the performance expectations and action steps for a new charter
term. Named the “Continued Success Action Plan”, the document revealed academic goals that lacked
rigor and specificity. The review committee did not find evidence of how the school would track and
measure progress toward its goals and, therefore, was unable to determine if the school’s future plans
were realistic or attainable.
Summary of Section Ratings
In accordance with the State Board’s Charter School Renewal Evaluation Ratings and Scoring
Criteria (scoring rubric), in order to “overturn a local district’s decision not to renew a charter agreement,
the State Board must find that the local district’s decision was contrary to T.C.A. § 49-13-122”. 5 The scoring
rubric set forth specific criteria that defines the expectations to “Meet or Exceed Standard” regarding the
school’s academic success, operational stability, financial health, and future planning. The review
committee’s consensus ratings for each criteria within the renewal record are as follows:

5

Sections
Academic Success

Rating
Partially Meets Standard

Operational Stability

Partially Meets Standard

Financial Health

Meets or Exceeds Standard

Tennessee State Board of Education Charter School Renewal Evaluation Ratings and Scoring Criteria, pg. 1.

8

 a 
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

 

 

 

Future Planning Does Not Meet Standard

 

 

Analysis of the Academic Success
Rating: Partially Meets Standard

Weaknesses Identified by the Committee:
City University Boys’ Academic Success partially meets the standard for renewal because the
school has not made sufficient progress toward its academic goals over the course of its 10-year charter
term. In recent years, the school has operated in the bottom 10% of schools in the state and was placed
on the Tennessee Department of Education’s Priority School List in the 2014 academic year. The scoring
rubric clearly states that a charter school must “demonstrate strong academic achievement and growth
results” as measured by state assessments and TVAAS scores, must “consistently meet or exceed
expectations on the local board’s annual performance evaluation”, and provide “sufficient evidence that
the school uses data to evaluate the effectiveness of its academic program”. While the school has
experienced its share of challenges and, within the last two to three years, appears to be in the early
stages of making changes that will support the school’s academic program, the review committee did not
find sufficient evidence to determine the academic outcomes of the school over the first charter term
merit renewal of the charter.
According to both City University Boy’s renewal application and Shelby County’s performance
scorecards, City University Boys’ academic achievement data, as measured by Shelby County’s school
performance framework (SPF), lagged behind the district throughout the 2012-2015 academic years and
again during the 2017 academic year. During the capacity interview, City University Boys stated that the
SPF results were incorrect, issuing the committee a revised SPF scorecard encompassing the length of the
charter term. Upon review of the revised SPF scorecard, the review committee found minimal differences
between the new and original data in totality. There were no discrepancies within the achievement scores
during any year of the charter term.
City University’s SPF achievement scores have ranged between a 1.0 and a 2.5 out of 5 between
the 2010 and 2018 academic years. The school’s performance on state assessments in 2013 and 2014
contributed to low achievement scores on the SPF (1.00 and 1.67, respectively) and the school’s
appearance on the Priority School List in 2014. In 2015, the school rebounded with an increase in their
academic achievement on the TNReady assessment. This increase in assessment scores resulted in a 3.67
SPF achievement overall and removed them from the Priority School List. However, since the 2015 results,
City University has been on an academic decline, as outlined in Table 1.
Table 1. City University Boys School Performance Framework for Achievement, 2010-2018 6
Assessment Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
6

SPF Achievement Score
2.5*
2.5*
2.5*
1.0
1.67
3.67
Statewide Testing Halted

Shelby County Schools’ School Performance Framework Academic Scorecard

10

 2017
2018

2.33
1.75

*Three year average

In addition to the lagging SPF achievement data, the school has failed to show sufficient progress
with its growth data, as measured by TVAAS. Throughout City University Boys’ first three years of
operation, the school earned a TVAAS Level 4 composite average for growth, but has since seen a decline
between 2013 and 2018, most recently earning a TVAAS Level 2 in 2018 (Table 2). During the capacity
interview, City University Boys cited several reasons for the lagging academic proficiency and student
growth ranging from testing logistics issues during the 2017 school year, to a lack of contractually
promised resources from the chartering authority between the 2013 and 2014 academic years.
Table 2. City University Boys TVAAS Scores, 2010-2018 7
Assessment Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018

TVAAS Level
Level 4*
Level 4*
Level 4*
Level 1
Level 3
Level 3
Statewide Testing Halted
Level 1
Level 2

*Three year average

Given the school’s grievances regarding their TVAAS and SPF data, the review committee inquired
about any additional measures of data to support the school’s claim that they have made progress toward
their performance goals. The leaders of City University Boys explained that within the last two to three
years the school has initiated two new assessment initiatives: implementation of NWEA’s Measures of
Academic Progress (MAP) assessments and benchmark testing. They shared that 60% of their scholars are
performing within the 60th and 70th percentile in MAP for ELA and Math, but did not provide any
quantitative evidence to support this assertion. The operator detailed a newly founded partnership with
a high performing local charter school which provides academic support and resources for City University
Boys. However, no written agreement outlining the partnership was provided, and the operator stated
there is no written agreement in place. The leaders further explained that one of the agreed upon services
provided through the partnership is for the high performing charter school to review City University Boys’
benchmark assessments, score their assessments, analyze their data, and provide City University Boys
with specific recommendations for key areas in need of support.
As stated in the scoring rubric, a school must provide “sufficient evidence that the school uses
data to evaluate the effectiveness of its academic program”. However, the review committee did not find
evidence of this within the renewal record. With City University Boys’ decision to outsource all of its data
analysis to another school, the fact that the school has only recently begun benchmark testing, a lack of
7

Shelby County Schools’ School Performance Framework Academic Scorecard

11

 evidence beyond TNReady and TVAAS results to demonstrate sufficient progress, and the academic scores
consistently lagging behind the local district throughout the charter term, the review committee did not
find the evidence necessary across the school’s academic outcomes to merit renewal of the charter.
Strengths Identified by the Committee:
While the school’s Academic Success partially meets the standard of the scoring rubric because
of the lack of sufficient evidence described above, the review committee did find evidence of strengths as
well. Specifically, in recent years, the school’s efforts to partner with a high performing local charter
school, assess students on benchmark and nationally-normed assessments, and intentionally focus on
evaluating, coaching, and supporting their teachers through the TEAM Model are positive changes.
Additionally, the school’s renewed efforts after being marked for closure as a result of the 2014 Priority
School List is especially admirable as they were able to move off the Priority School List and earn the
school’s highest academic SPF scores to date in one year’s time.

12

 Analysis of the Operational Stability
Rating: Partially Meets Standard

Weaknesses Identified by the Committee:
City University Boys’ Operational Stability partially meets the standard of the scoring rubric
because of the school’s historic under-enrollment and a lack of sufficient evidence in the school’s capacity
to meet its enrollment targets for a new charter term.
As stated in City University Boys’ charter school renewal application, the school was originally
approved for a maximum capacity of 350 students. 8 City University Boys opened its doors in 2009 with 52
students in its freshman class and had grown to 65 students across three grade levels by the 2017-18
school year. 9 When asked about the school’s historic under-enrollment and the cascading impact a low
student count can have on a school operationally, the school leaders cited multiple moves in location for
the school and their Priority School List status as cause of the low enrollment. City University stated that
the shared campus and staff across all four schools provides stability for City University Boys, shielding
the school from the negative operational and financial impact of low enrollment. Additionally, the leaders
explained that a new neighborhood canvasing plan is currently in use and has shown positive recruitment
and enrollment results. According to the operators, the school’s enrollment count for the 2018-19
academic year increased from 65 to 89 students as a result of these efforts.
While the committee found evidence of increased enrollment at the school during 2018-19 school
year, they lacked substantial evidence that the school would have the capacity to meet its enrollment
targets over the new charter term. A table provided within the renewal application, included on page 6 of
this report, projects that the school will reach their proposed capacity of 350 students by its sixth year of
the renewed charter term, 10 though a comprehensive recruitment plan beyond neighborhood canvasing
was not presented. Moreover, Shelby County Schools’ Site Visit Report cited a similar question regarding
the school’s ability to expand. Adding on to the lack of evidence in the school’s capacity to meet
enrollment targets, the site visit report also noted a lack of “instructional capacity for significantly
increasing enrollment”. 11 The school’s historic under-enrollment and a lack of evidence that the school
could meet its projected enrollment targets for a new charter term kept the review committee from being
able to feel confident that the current operational stability warrants a renewed charter agreement.
Strengths Identified by the Committee:
While the Operational Stability partially meets the standard because of the deficiencies described
above, the review committee did find evidence of strengths within the shared leadership model across
the schools to increase teacher support, and clearly defined roles and responsibilities of its leaders. City
University Boys has made intentional efforts among the leadership team to norm on teacher evaluation
processes and feedback and conducts frequent classroom walk-throughs. Additionally, the school leaders
were able to clearly articulate the expectations of their roles and speak to the strengths within their area
of focus within the schools.

City University School Boys Preparatory Renewal Application, Section II – Operational Stability
Ibid, Application Narrative
10
Ibid, Applicant Information Cover Page
11
Charter School Renewal Site Visit Report, pg. 8.
8
9

13

 Analysis of the Financial Health
Rating: Meets or Exceeds Standard

Strengths Identified by the Committee:
City University Boys’ Financial Health meets or exceeds the standard because of the school’s high
scores on the local board of education’s financial performance scorecard and an effective budgeting plan
to make timely and complete payments for a large facility loan.
As presented in the renewal record, City University Boys has maintained strong financial health
throughout its charter term. According to City University Boys’ charter renewal application, the school has
remained fiscally sound, receiving “clear audits, without findings” over the course of its charter term. 12 In
addition, during the 2016-17 school year, Shelby County Schools scored City University Boys a 4.16
average out of 5 for its finance and audits, a contributing factor in the school’s overall operations
performance. 13 Shelby County Schools also included an itemized financial report for the school, outlining
specific measures for the 2016 and 2017 fiscal years. Each of these fiscal years showed the school in strong
financial standing with no audit findings or an on-going concern. 14 Furthermore, while discussing the
school’s financial standings in the capacity interview, the school leaders echoed the district’s reports,
stating that they have never missed a financial obligation and are always meeting budgets and fiscal
deadlines.
According to City University Boys’ charter school renewal application, one of the financial goals
for the school was to move into a new facility which would comfortably house all four of the City University
schools on one campus. With the help of their sponsor, The Influence1 Foundation, City University was
able to obtain $3.6 million loan to acquire a 140,000 square foot facility on a thirteen acre campus. 15 Using
the per-student BEP facility payment provided by the state, City University has been able to make each of
its mortgage payments and plans to have the facility paid off completely within the next five years.
Through the renewal record and the capacity interview, the review committee found evidence for
a strong financial standing for the school and the network which meets or exceeds the standard for
Financial Health.

City University School Boys Preparatory Renewal Application, Section III – Financial Health
SCS-Authorized Charter Schools Annual Report, January 2018
14
FY2016-17 Charter School Fiscal Oversight Report, City Boys Prep 6-8
15
City University School Boys Preparatory Renewal Application, Section III – Financial Health
12
13

14

 Analysis of the Future Planning
Rating: Does Not Meet Standard

Weaknesses Identified by the Committee:
City University Boys’ Future Planning does not meet the standard because of a lack of evidence
that the school will achieve its academic goals in a new charter term. As stated in the scoring rubric, a
school’s goals and plans for goal achievement must be “rigorous, measurable and attainable” with
“comprehensive and realistic” plans to address any past academic deficits. The future planning document
presented by City University Boys in their charter school renewal application did not meet these standards
and therefore did not provide the review committee with evidence that their goals, if renewed, were likely
to be achieved.
The Tennessee Department of Education’s charter school renewal application requests that
applicants “provide an overview of the charter school’s future goals and plans for goal achievement”
including plans for “academics and updated academic benchmarks” and a “plan for addressing any past
academic deficits”. 16 Included within the renewal application, City University Boys submitted a “Continued
Success Action Plan” for the 2017-18 school year. Within the plan, several goals, action steps, and
implementation descriptions were included. However, the review committee was unable to determine
which goals were specific to the middle school, how the academic goals would be measured, and how the
action plan would translate beyond the 2017-18 school year. When asked for more specifics regarding the
school’s academic goals for the next charter term, the leadership team explained their goal of a 10%
increase on the percentage of on-track or mastered on the TNReady in each subject each year as well as
boosting ACT scores at the high school level. While a growth goal is important, the goals in totality lacked
specificity and presented no clear evidence of data analysis to track progress and adjust goals in the future.
Additionally, the review committee did not have clear evidence for how the school would respond if they
did not meet their target goals. As a result, the review committee found an absence of sufficient evidence
that the goals outlined in the “Continued Success Action Plan” were likely to be achieved.

16

Tennessee Department of Education’s Charter School Renewal Application, pg. 6.

15

 Evaluation Team
Ali Gaffey serves as the Deputy Director of Charter Schools for the Tennessee State Board of Education.
In this role, Ali oversees the charter school appeals process in addition to several other authorization
duties of the State Board. Prior to joining the State Board staff, Ali was the 7th and 8th grade Academic
Dean at STEM Prep Academy, a charter school serving our largely immigrant population in Southeast
Nashville. Ali is a former middle and high school English teacher and a 2009 Greater New Orleans Teach
For America alum with ten years of experience in education. Ali has taught and led in charter schools in
Nashville and New Orleans and loves the innovative opportunities charter schools provide. Ali earned her
B.A. at the University of Florida.
Nick Getschman is the Executive Director at Veritas College Preparatory Charter School. Veritas College
Prep is a public charter school in South Memphis serving scholars in grades sixth through eighth. A
member of the 2006 Teach For America charter corps in Memphis, Nick taught and coached in Memphis
City Schools before joining Veritas in 2010 as a founding science teacher. He holds a Bachelor of Science
degree in Exercise Science from The University of Iowa.
Tess Stovall serves as the Director of Charter Schools for the Tennessee State Board of Education. In this
role, she manages the charter school application process and authorization duties of the State Board, and
she was a member of the 2015 National Association of Charter School Authorizer’s Leaders Program. Prior
to joining the staff of the board, she served as the Transformation Facilitator at Cameron Middle School,
the first district-led conversion of a traditional public school to a charter school in Metropolitan Nashville
Public Schools. While in Washington, DC, Tess worked for Congressman Jim Cooper (TN-05) and a centrist
think tank, Third Way, on economic and education policy. She is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of The George
Washington University earning a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science and Sociology and a graduate
of the London School of Economics with a Master of Science Degree in Political Sociology.
Brett Turner manages the policy and research work at Tennessee SCORE to ensure that the organization’s
recommendations are informed by research and national best practice. Prior to joining SCORE, Brett led
the blended and personalized learning efforts at both the New Mexico Public Education Department and
Tennessee Department of Education. Brett earned a bachelor’s degree in business administration from
Texas A&M University and a master’s degree in public policy from the University of Texas at Austin.
Teneicesia White is the instructional leader at Aurora Collegiate Academy. Aurora Collegiate Academy is
a tuition-free public elementary school serving students in kindergarten through fifth grade in South
Memphis. Previously, Teneicesia served at the Dean of Students at Aurora. A former social studies teacher
and district instructional coach for Memphis City and Shelby County schools, she holds a Bachelor of Arts
degree from University of Memphis, a Master’s in Education from Union University, and an Educational
Specialist degree from Cambridge College. She is a wife, mother and woman of Alpha Kappa Alpha
Sorority, Incorporated.

16

 Exhibit 

Shelby County Schools Appeal Hearing Presentation

City nive rsity Boys

Appeal Hearing

 

RENEWAL PROCESS BACKGROUND

Shelby County Schools is guided by the Tennessee State Board of Education Policy
6.111 Quality Authorizing Standards. Standard 5 states:
A quality authorizer designs and implements a transparent and rigorous process that
uses comprehensive academic, financial, and operational performance data to make
merit-based renewal decisions, and revokes charters when necessary to protect
student and public interests.

2

 Performance Summary

CITY UNIVERSITY BOYS PREPARATORY
School Performance Scorecard
2010-12

2013-15

2016-18 (2yr)

Overall

3.25

2.59

2.44

Achievement

2.50

2.00

1.75

Growth

4.00

2.48

2.19

Climate

n/a

4.00

4.33

3

 Detailed Achievement

CITY UNIVERSITY BOYS PREPARATORY

Academic Achievement Goals from City University Boy’s Initial Charter
Application:
 To increase performance in academic areas as indicated on state and national
standardized tests as to allow at least 80% of our scholars to achieve
proficiency.
 To develop reading skills to allow at least 75% of our scholars to read at or
above grade level.

ELA
Math
Science
Social Studies

2009-10
20.0%
0.0%
9.8%
52.5%

Achievement
Proficient + Advanced
On Track + Mastered
2017-18
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2016-17
12.3%
24.0% 25.0% 12.7% 16.4% 31.8%
15.9%
3.0%
9.0% 18.3%
6.4% 25.8%
10.1%
9.2%
19.8% 36.0% 22.2% 38.2% 60.6%
23.2%
27.7%
59.4% 53.2%
7.7%
4

 State Designations

CITY UNIVERSITY BOYS PREPARATORY

Release Year

State Designation

2013

Cusp List

2014

Priority School List & slated to be closed

2015

Cusp List

2016

No list was provided by the State due to testing complications.

2017

Cusp List

Priority School List: a list that identifies schools based on a three year success rate that would
have been identified as in the bottom 5 percent of schools in the state
Cusp List: schools in the bottom 10 percent of schools in the state.

5

 Performance Ranking

CITY UNIVERSITY BOY’S PREPARATORY

Compared to other schools in SCS, City Boy’s did not rank at or above the 25th percentile when
comparing School Performance Scorecard results with other SCS or only SCS charters over the
last 5 years.
Overall SPS All K8 SCS
Level
Ranking
Year
2016 - 2018 (2-year)
2.44
116/145
2013 - 2015 (3-year)
2.59
126/154

All K8 SCS
Percentile
20.00
18.18

Charter Only
K8 Ranking
25/30
21/26

Charter Only
K8 Percentile
16.67
19.23

Achievement All K8 SCS
Level
Ranking
2016 - 2018 (2-year)
1.75
127/145
2013 - 2015 (3-year)
2.00
136/154

All K8 SCS
Percentile
12.41
11.69

Charter Only
K8 Ranking
24/30
21/24

Charter Only
K8 Percentile
20.00
12.50

All K8 SCS
Percentile
16.55
22.93

Charter Only
K8 Ranking
25/30
20/26

Charter Only
K8 Percentile
16.67
23.08

2016 - 2018 (2-year)
2013 - 2015 (3-year)

Growth
Level
2.19
2.48

All K8 SCS
Ranking
121/145
121/157

6