Rethink Forward and NEI face detailed questions from Rutherford County reviewers on special‑education capacity, staffing and finances

Rethink Forward representatives and staff from the Noble Education Initiative told Rutherford County’s application review panel on April 15 that their proposed Rutherford Prep charter would follow a research‑based “community” K–12 model emphasizing small‑group instruction, phonics and project‑based learning, while acknowledging gaps in the written application the panel asked them to fix.

Tom Lee, an attorney representing the Rethink Forward board, and NEI officials described their approach to building the school — from recruiting teachers to financing a 62,000‑square‑foot facility — and said the design is intended to “provide a high quality, rigorous K–12 educational experience” that includes family engagement, differentiated instruction and additional supports for English learners and students with disabilities. "This is not a gotcha moment," said Jeff McCann, Rutherford County’s choice and charter schools coordinator, as he opened the interview.

The review panel’s questions focused on several recurring areas. On special‑education services and English‑learner (EL) minutes, panelists sought clarity about the application’s wording that suggested the local educational agency (LEA) might provide highly specialized services. NEI representatives said the school accepts students who live in the district and will evaluate Individualized Education Programs at registration. "It is our job as a public school ... to make sure that our students have what they need," an NEI official said, explaining that most students are supported through the school’s inclusion model while higher needs would be met by a mix of in‑house services and contracted specialists (for example, speech, occupational or physical therapists).

Panelists pressed the applicant to document how the school will meet the 60‑minute EL service requirement. NEI staff said the published daily schedule includes a 30‑minute "success block" plus wraparound time and an EL language lab; they promised to clarify scheduling in the application and ensure students receive the required minutes.

Recruitment and retention were another major concern. Reviewers noted Rutherford County’s competitive labor market and questioned how NEI would attract staff. NEI described a multi‑pronged approach: national and local recruiting pipelines, partnerships with universities to sponsor endorsements, an extended pre‑service orientation and a mentoring and coaching structure once teachers are hired. NEI also said it budgets merit and attendance bonuses and uses a network model to provide operational support.

Panelists asked for more detail on curriculum choices after spotting inconsistencies in the application’s Table 23. Dr. Loveless said curricular descriptors (for example, for writing and science) appeared to be mis‑labelled; NEI acknowledged a typo and agreed to submit a corrected chart and additional rationale for K–2 materials, which NEI listed in the interview as I‑Ready (math/foundations), Ready Reading and a phonics component for early grades.

Members of the panel also questioned the operator’s academic track record. NEI leaders acknowledged a low initial state grade at one school and a federal designation for targeted support for a subgroup of students. "No one is more aware of that than we are,” an NEI leader said, adding that the organization has increased coaching, instructional supports, and benchmark‑driven interventions and that early internal measures show improvement.

Governance and operational transparency were raised repeatedly. The panel requested evidence of audit reports, insurance schedules (including fidelity/bonding), and clearer staff‑benefits line items in the year‑one budget (several benefits columns in the submitted spreadsheet were zeroed). NEI agreed to provide missing attachments, purchasing/payroll policies and an updated budget that populates benefits and employer tax lines.

NEI also described a contingency plan if facility or enrollment timelines slip: they would initially house up to 100 ninth‑grade students at the existing Rutherford Collegiate Prep facility under the same governing board, using a gross lease for shared services and clarified reporting to the authorizer. Panel members said they would want a transparent financial accounting for any shared services and a written lease that delineated costs.

Safety and health services drew specific questions. NEI said school resource officers are provided through local law enforcement (Murphy’sboro Police for the current site) with state reimbursement going to agencies, and that a network RN oversees clinic assistants at K–8 while a school nurse is budgeted for a high‑school campus.

The panel concluded by asking NEI to supplement the application with corrected curricular tables, clearer budget and benefits data, resumes for team members, evidence of audits and insurance, and a clarified parent‑representation plan for the governing board. McCann told applicants the review committee will revise scoring and make a recommendation to the Rutherford County board on April 21; the board is scheduled to vote on authorization April 23.

The interview produced a mix of constructive praise and pointed concerns: reviewers complimented the facility tour and small‑group instruction they observed in the existing NEI school, but pressed NEI to provide clearer documentary evidence on curriculum, special‑education capacity, and finances before the county makes a final recommendation.