Charter Renewal Recommendations · statute allows state board to require that the school’s...
Transcript of Charter Renewal Recommendations · statute allows state board to require that the school’s...
REGIONAL
RECOMMENDATIONS November 7, 2013
1
Contents of Presentation 1) Overview of November Board Decisions by Region
2) Charter Renewal Criteria & Process Overview
3) Recommendations by Region
I. FNE Recommendations
II. NNE Recommendations
III. NW Recommendations
IV. SW Recommendations
4) Summary and Next Steps
5) Appendix A: Statutory Criteria
6) Appendix B: Prior Decisions
\ 2
November Board Decisions- Overview 3
Region School Decision Type
FNE SOAR Oakland Acknowledgement of Charter Surrender
Oakland New School – Placement of District-Run
School
DSST GVR HS Charter Renewal
Ridgeview Academy Charter Renewal
KIPP Montbello Charter Renewal
NNE Venture Prep HS Charter Renewal
DSST Cole Charter Renewal
Denver Justice Charter Renewal
Pioneer Charter Renewal
University Prep Charter Renewal
NW Escuela Contract Renewal
SW STRIVE Prep Federal Charter Renewal
SE N/A N/A
CHARTER RENEWAL
CRITERIA
4
Renewal Criteria • Defines key criteria for non-renewal:
• Violating charter contract
• Failing to meet or make adequate progress toward academic goals
• Failing to meet standards of fiscal management
• Informs renewal decisions for charter schools rated as turnaround for multiple years:
• Schools on turnaround status for 3 or more years—statute states that the local board may revoke the charter
• Schools on turnaround or priority improvement status for 5 years – statute allows state board to require that the school’s charter be revoked
State Statute (Charter Schools
Act and Education Accountability Act)
• Provides guidance for renewal decisions: • Transparent and rigorous
• Based on a comprehensive, objective body of evidence
• Only granted to schools who meet standards of contract
• Not based on promises of future improvement
State BOE Quality Authorizing Principles
• Defines DPS commitment to quality authorizing in the renewal process: • Maintaining high standards for all schools, including closing schools that
fail to meet standards and targets set forth in law and by contract
• Making merit-based renewal decisions
DPS Board Quality Authorizing Policy
5
Additional detail provided in Appendix A.
Commitment to Three Equities in the Renewal Process
6
Equity of Accountability
Focus on Performance Data
Aligned to SPF
Review of Achievement Gaps
and ELL Performance
Review of School Specific
Performance Benchmarks
Equity of Opportunity
Analysis of Facility Needs
Review of Financial Resources Utilized
by School
Equity of Responsibility
Review of services for special
populations (SPED, ELL)
Review of Enrollment and Attrition Data
Ensuring Equity in Serving All Students: ELL
Charter Schools commit to serving English language learners equitably,
as described in section 9.A. of the charter contract:
• The School shall implement a program for English language learners (ELL)
that uses efficient and effective techniques to provide ELL students with the
English language skills they need to meaningfully and equally participate in
the School’s mainstream English language instructional program. To satisfy
the three-pronged test set forth in Castaneda v. Pickard (1981), the school
must meet the needs of ELL students in several critical areas.
• The District and School will work collaboratively to ensure that the School’s
English Language Acquisition program complies with state and federal law as
well as any court order applicable to the District’s ELL programs, in a manner
that preserves the essential nature of the unique educational program of the
School.
7
Ensuring Equity in Serving All Students: SPED
Charter Schools commit to serving Special Education Students
equitably, as described in section 9.B. of the charter contract:
• Provision of Services for Mild/Moderate Needs Students: The School shall
provide a Free and Appropriate Public Education to students with mild or
moderate needs in accordance with the student’s IEP or 504 plan.
• Provision of Services for Students with Severe Special Needs: If asked by the
District, the School shall work with the District to develop a plan and program
to serve students with severe special needs, as outlined herein. The District
and School shall work jointly to determine if the School is an appropriate host
for one or more programs to serve students with severe special needs
8
CHARTER RENEWAL
PROCESS
9
Charter School Renewal Framework
10
School Quality Framework (SQF)
Systems & Structures
Measures
Academic Performance
relative to SPF and
contract academic
benchmarks
Renewal
Application Site Visit
FPF &
Finance
Teaching Leadership
Education
Program Governance
Culture
Outcomes
Organizational
Sustainability
Student
Performance
Annual
Feedback
Measures of Charter Performance
•A thorough review of the School’s academic data including the School’s track record in SPF ratings, TCAP status, TCAP growth, adequate growth, ACCESS growth, achievement gap, measures of post-secondary success, and school-specific academic outcomes defined by the charter contract.
Review of Academic
Performance Data
•A thorough DPS conducted review of the School’s organizational health including: parent satisfaction, enrollment demands and trend, financial health, including end of year financial statements, audit reports, and budgets.
FPF and Finance
•School developed report on the progress of the charter school in achieving the goals, objectives, pupil performance standards, content standards, and other terms of the contract and initial approved charter application.
•A financial statement that discloses the costs of administration, instruction, and other spending categories.
Renewal Application
•Conducted by DPS staff and external experts, looking at the overall school quality utilizing the School Quality Framework’s comprehensive indicators.
• In addition, external 3rd party reviews for schools rated red or orange on the Traditional SPF.
•While expectations remain constant, duration of site visits and other elements of qualitative analysis are differentiated based on school performance.
Site Visit
11
DPS Staff synthesized outputs from all of the components outlined above to generate the
recommendations included here.
Community Engagement
Parent/Guardian Voice
• Review of Parent/Guardian Satisfaction survey data
• Focus groups at schools that don’t meet expectations for parent/guardian satisfaction
• Review of SAC materials
Student Voice
• Review of Student Satisfaction survey data
• Student focus groups
Broader Community
• Community meetings at red charter schools to gather parent/guardian feedback on school
• Community meetings at red schools for information sharing on school performance and renewal recommendation
12
2013 Charter Renewal Timeline
13
DPS Board Timeline Recommendations
for charter renewal presented to DPS Board
Schools submitted Renewal Application Part B – Reflection on Data
Nov 7
Charter Renewal Process
Renewal site visits
Oct Nov 14
Schools submitted Renewal Application Part A-Program Description
June Nov 21
DPS Board vote on renewal recommendations
Public comment
DPS SPF released
Contract negotiations with schools
Dec - Feb
Negotiations of performance conditions with schools
Sep Mar
DPS Board approves charter contracts
Using the Charter Renewal Framework to
Differentiate Renewal Recommendations
School Profile at
Renewal
Schools with
low
performance
and poor
leading
indicators
Schools with
uneven
performance
trends and leading
indicators
Schools with strong
but limited
performance data
and leading
indicators
Schools with
consistent and
persistent track
records of meeting
academic
expectations
Potential
Renewal
Recommendation
Non-renewal Short term (1-2 year)
renewal with
performance
conditions to define
adequate progress
with opportunity for
extension
Mid length (2-3 years)
renewal with
opportunity for
extension with
sustained performance
5 year contract
Continuum of Differentiated Renewal Recommendations
Academic Performance
relative to SPF and
contract academic
benchmarks
Renewal
Application Site Visit
FPF &
Finance
Factors in
Developing
Recommendations
14
Annual
Feedback
Customizing Contracts to Incent Performance
15
Conditional
Performance
Standards
Note: Schools with limited data (no SPF rating or <3 years of meeting expectations) will also receive short-term
contracts with the opportunity to earn an extension if the school consistently meets SPF expectations.
IF schools are not fully meeting expectations,
and IF the District wants to renew the charter
contract (e.g. yellow schools)
THEN the school is recommended for a shorter
term conditional contract and the contract
articulates interim conditional performance
standards to define adequate progress that the
school must meet each year;
IF these conditions are met
THEN in some cases the school, is eligible for
a contract extension.
All contracts carry standard language that a charter school shall be rated
as “meets” or “distinguished” annually on the Denver SPF, or make
adequate progress towards meeting expectations.
Past Board Decisions: Contract Condition Progress Update
School Condition Status Towards Conditions Contract Implications
KIPP Denver
HS
Rated as Meets or
Above
Met Conditions Initially 2012-2014; Received Extension Through
2015
DSST-GVR
MS
Rated as Meets or
Above
Met Conditions To Date Currently 2013-2016; Opportunity for Extension
Through 2018
STRIVE-
Highland
Rated as Meets or
Above
Met Conditions To Date Currently 2013-2016; Opportunity for Extension
Through 2018
STRIVE-
Lake
Rated as Meets or
Above
Met Conditions To Date Currently 2013-2016; Opportunity for Extension
Through 2018
GALS Rated as Meets or
Above
Met Conditions To Date
Currently 2013-2016; Opportunity for Extension
Through 2017
DLS Rated as Meets or
Above
Met Conditions To Date Currently 2013-2015; Opportunity for Extension
Through 2017
SOAR-GVR Rated as Meets or
Above
Did Not Meet Conditions Currently 2013-2015; Criteria for Extension Through
2017 not met; Will go through renewal in 2014-15
AUL Specific AEC
Conditions
Mixed Performance Towards
Conditions
Currently 2013-2015; Opportunity for Extension
Through 2016 (if conditions are met)
ACE Specific AEC
Conditions
Mixed Performance Towards
Conditions
Currently 2013-2015; Opportunity for Extension
Through 2016 (if conditions are met)
Cesar
Chavez
School Specific
Conditions
Mixed Performance Towards
Conditions
Currently 2013-2015
Colorado HS Specific AEC
Conditions
Mixed Performance Towards
Conditions
Currently 2013-2015
SWEC School Specific
Conditions
Mixed Performance Towards
Conditions
Currently 2013-2015
16
Charter Renewal Is One Part of Ongoing
Quality Assurance Processes
17
QA
Outcomes
• Schools reflecting on their strengths and weaknesses to inform school improvement
• Charter boards being better informed in order to provide oversight to their schools
• Gathering body of evidence for accountability decisions (i.e., renewal)
For Charter Schools, Tiered QA is characterized by heightened
accountability, frequent progress monitoring, and optional
supports.
Charter Renewal Process - Site Visit Teams Team Member Roles Members
Leadership and Overall
School Quality
• Elizabeth Aybar, Former Principal and External Consultant
• Tom Siegel, Former Principal and External Consultant
• Alyssa Whitehead-Bust, Chief of Innovation and Reform, DPS
• Kurt Dennis, Principal, McAuliffe Middle School
• Jenny Tan, Chief Academic Officer, KIPP Colorado
• Diane Smith, Instructional Superintendent, DPS
• Amy Gile, Founding Principal, High Tech Elementary School
• Pat Hurrietta, Principal, Godsman Elementary School
Governance • Brenna Copeland, Executive Director of Portfolio Management, DPS
• Carol Mehesy, Director of Strategic Support and Accountability, DPS
Education Program - ELL • Nadia Madan, ELA Quality Assurance Manager, DPS
• Rebecca Sinclair, Former ELL Teacher, Curriculum Manager, DPS
Teacher Quality and School
Culture
• Joe Amundsen, Senior Manager of New School Development and
Support, DPS
• Maya Lagana, Senior Manager of Accountability, DPS
• Jennifer Klein, Deputy IS, DPS
• Natalie Hudson, School Support Associate, DPS
• Nivan Khosravi, Manager of Tiered Quality Assurance, DPS
• Megan Hennessey, Senior Project Manager for SCAN, DPS
Finance • Katie Hechavarria, Financial Partner, DPS
• Levar Cypress, Budget Analyst, DPS
Intensive Pathways • Aviva Katz, Transitions Coordinator, DPS
18
Charter Renewal-
Supplemental External Quality Review • DPS utilizes an external vendor to conduct external evaluations
of the lowest-performing schools eligible for renewal.
• DPS contracted with SchoolWorks, LLC; SchoolWorks is a national educational consulting company with more than 14 years of experience working with clients, both Districts and individual schools, including:
‒ School District of Philadelphia, including charter renewal visits
‒ Baltimore City Schools
‒ Chicago Public Schools
‒ Central Michigan University’s Charter Schools Center
‒ KIPP Foundation
‒ New Leaders for New Schools
• In 2013, SOAR at Oakland was the only school to receive an external evaluation. Escuela received a SchoolWorks evaluation in 2011.
19
REGIONAL DECISIONS:
FNE
20
FNE Regional Decisions
Decision
Type
School Recommendation
Charter
Renewals
SOAR at Oakland Accept School Surrender of Charter
DSST GVR HS 3 Year Renewal with the opportunity
for a 2 Year Extension
Ridgeview Academy 3 Year Renewal with the opportunity
for a 2 Year Extension
KIPP Montbello 3 Year Renewal with the opportunity
for a 2 Year Extension
New Schools Oakland Facility Placement of District Run School
21
FNE School Performance on SPF
22
Overview of SOAR@Oakland History S
OA
R@
Oa
kla
nd
Ch
art
er
Sch
oo
l
Oa
kla
nd
Ele
me
nta
ry
Approved to
open for 2011
Operating
grades E-5 and
autism center
2010-11 2011-12
Opens to serve
K-2; planning
year for autism
center program
Operating ECE,
grades 3-5 and
autism center
Expands to
grades E-5 and
autism center
program
2012-13 2013-14
In 3rd year,
school enters
charter renewal
process
Closed
SOAR@Oakland was approved as a turnaround program for Oakland Elementary,
phasing in while the legacy school phased out.
23
SOAR@Oakland Performance - Status
Year SPF Points
Status
2012 No SPF
2013 9% points
24% 20%
10%
0%
57% 58%
43%
32%
47% 53%
34%
21%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Reading Math Writing Science
% P
rofi
cie
nt
or
Ab
ove
2013 TCAP Status: Similar Schools and District Comparisons
School District* Similar Schools Cluster
2013 was the first year
that SOAR@Oakland
served TCAP tested
grades. TCAP status
was significantly below
similar schools and the
district. DRA2 status
was also lower than
district average.
43% 40%
55% 60%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Spring 2012 Spring 2013
% A
t o
r A
bo
ve G
L
DRA2/EDL2: Spring (Independent Text Level)
School District*
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
24
SOAR@Oakland Academic Growth
48
52
21
53
55
14
50
53
25.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
2013
Median Growth Percentile
TCAP Growth: Similar Schools and District Comparisons
Reading (School)
Reading(District)*
Reading (SimilarSchools Cluster)
Math (School)
Math (District)*
Math (SimilarSchools Cluster)
Writing (School)
Writing(District)*
Writing (SimilarSchools Cluster)
TCAP growth data was
significantly lower than District
elementary schools and similar
schools in 2013. Access growth in
2013 improved as compared to
2012 and was close to District
Elementary School average.
30
49
53 52
0
20
40
60
80
100
2012 (CELA) 2013 (ACCESS)
MG
P
CELA/ACCESS: Growth
School District*NOTE: 2012-2013 was a transition year between CELA and WIDA ACCESS. 2013 MGPs were calculated based on
students' previous CELA performance compared to their current year's ACCESS performance.
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
25
SOAR@Oakland Voluntary Charter Surrender
• Given the academic performance, the SOAR Schools
Board of Directors voted on October 23rd to surrender
their charter at the conclusion of this school year
• To accelerate student achievement in this final year:
‒ SOAR has deployed additional personnel to support intervention at
each grade level
‒ SOAR is contracting with DPS to provide the 4th grade intensive
math tutoring program in both SOAR@Oakland & SOAR@GVR
• OSRI will walk through the standard school closure
protocol with SOAR during this school year
‒ Protocol addresses student records, asset disposition, record-
keeping for HR and legal dissolution of the school
26
Recommendation: Decisions for Board
Approve Oakland Elementary for 2014
Recommend opening a new Oakland Elementary in July 2014 as
a district-run school
Following slides: 1) transition timeline & community engagement, and 2) recommendation rationale.
Acknowledge SOAR@Oakland Charter Surrender
Recommend that the Board adopt a resolution on November 21st
acknowledging the SOAR Schools Board decision to surrender their
charter contract effective June 30, 2014
27
Transition & Community Engagement Overview
Oct 16
Transition Activities
Recommendation for Oakland Elementary in 2014 presented to DPS Board
Nov 7
School and Community Engagement
2nd p/g meeting – Discussed potential charter surrender
1st parent/guardian meeting – Discussed school performance & renewal process
Sept 25 Dec
DPS Board votes on proposed plans for Oakland Elementary
Principal finalist identified
April Nov 4
4th p/g meeting – Introduced DPS plan, DSSN, proposed principal and sought input on plans for school
School design to DPS Board for approval
5th p/g meeting - Discuss school design & plan for next year
Nov 21
6th & 7th p/g meetings – Continue school design & planning process
Jan - Feb Oct 23
SOAR decided to surrender charter
Nov 1
3rd p/g meeting – Introduced principal finalist to school’s accountability committee
School design process (led by principal, supported by DSSN & OSRI)
A minimum of seven parent/guardian meetings will have taken place by March
2014 to discuss concerns and collect input into the plans for next year.
The school design will be grounded in the proven strategies at work in the FNE
and will reflect the principal’s leadership as well as community input.
28
29%
32% 32%
46% 50%
31% 29%
41% 43%
17% 19% 20%
28% 30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
% Proficient or Above Math % Proficient or Above Reading % Proficient or Above Writing
Turnaround Initiative Pre-Turnaround
Rationale for Oakland to Join DSSN: DSSN Creates Results for Children
*Reflects results for elementary schools in DSSN
29
Preliminary Oakland Program Plans Program
Element
Recommendation Rationale
General Ed
Program
• DSSN Five Tenants of Turnaround
as foundation of school design
• Engage parents/guardians in the
school design process
• Proven methodology
• Parents/guardians know their
students’ needs
Autism
Center
Program
• Maintain autism center program at
Oakland
• Collect input on successful program
elements from parents/guardians
• Incorporate unique aspects of the
current program into the program
for next year
• Avoid disruption and minimize
transportation times for
students currently in the
program
• Parents are very supportive of
the existing program and the
unique staffing approaches in
place
Program for
ELLs
• Incorporate TNLI program model as
foundation of program services for
ELL students
• Engage parents/guardians in the
discussion around TNLI
programming
• SOAR at Oakland serves 52%
ELL students and qualifies for
TNLI
30
District Supports for Oakland Transition
Lisa & Oakland
Community
Senior Leadership OSRI & PSR
SOAR Closure Process
OSRI
School Design
Supports
OSRI
Principal Oversight & Leadership
DSSN
Community Engagement
FACE
31
DSST Green Valley Ranch High School Recommendation 3 year renewal with opportunity for 2 year extension
with evidence of sustained performance
Rationale The school has strong performance data for initial 2 years,
but needs to demonstrate sustainability of performance
School Description A college preparatory school with a focus on STEM
education.
Grades 9-11 (Growing to 9-12)
Current Contract Status 2011-14 Year Initial Contract
2013-14 Enrollment 445 (as of 10/1)
Demographics (2012-13) 72% FRL; 21% ELL; 6% SPED
Leadership Jenna Kalin, Principal
Bill Kurtz, DSST Network CEO
Board Steven Halstedt, Board Chair; Board Oversees all DSST
schools
School Performance
Framework Overall
2011-12: 94% of points
earned overall
2012-13: 88% of points
earned overall
32
DSST GVR HS: Performance Benchmarks
33
Initial Contract Term Performance
Conditions
Contract Extension
Opportunity
2014-2017 Rating of “Meets” or
“Distinguished” on
District SPF
2017-2019 IF Then
DSST GVR HS: SPF Summary
34
DSST GVR HS has received an overall rating of Distinguished in both years of
operation, although the overall percentage of points earned did decline slightly
between their 2012 SPF and their 2013 SPF. *-Data Not Available
**-Rating Based on single metric of On Track to Graduation.
2011-2012
Overall Growth Status Student
Engagement Post Secondary
Status
Post Secondary
Growth
94% 96% 92% 83% 67% *
2012-2013
Overall Growth Status Student
Engagement Post Secondary
Status**
Post Secondary Growth**
88% 95% 91% 83% 33% 0%
DSST GVR HS: Academic Performance - Status
DSST GVR HS
outperforms both
District high
schools and
similar schools in
all subjects, and
has done so for
both years of
operation.
Year SPF Points
Status
2012 92% points
2013 91% points
35
70% 71%
60% 64%
50% 53%
72%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2012 2013
% A
t o
r A
bo
ve P
rofi
cien
t
TCAP Status: Historical
Reading Math Writing Science
71% 64%
53%
72%
56%
26%
38% 38%
66%
33%
48% 45%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Reading Math Writing Science
% P
rofi
cien
t o
r A
bo
ve
2013 TCAP Status: Similar Schools and District Comparisons
School District* Similar Schools Cluster
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
DSST GVR HS: Academic Performance – Growth
DSST GVR
outperforms or
matches District
high schools and
similar schools in
growth in all
TCAP subjects.
Year SPF Points
Growth
2012 96% points
2013 95% points
36
53
57
54
56
70
77
49
52
51
54
97
98
57
56
58
54
72
76.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
2013
2012
Median Growth Percentile
TCAP Growth: Similar Schools and District Comparisons
Reading (School)
Reading (District)*
Reading (SimilarSchools Cluster)
Math (School)
Math (District)*
Math (Similar SchoolsCluster)
Writing (School)
Writing (District)*
Writing (SimilarSchools Cluster)
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
DSST GVR HS Academic Performance -Equity
Subgroups at DSST GVR
HS consistently
outperform their District
peers.
37
5%
3%
12%
6%
12%
12%
27%
17%
46%
50%
61%
67%
7%
6%
18%
36%
45%
52%
28%
17%
48%
49%
61%
68%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Wri
tin
gM
ath
Rea
din
g
% At or Above Proficient
TCAP 2013 Status: Subgroups
Minority (School); N==228 Minority (District)*
Non-Exited ELL (School); N==64 Non-Exited ELL (District)*
FRL (School); N==207 FRL (District)*
SpEd (School); N=17 SpEd (District)*
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
DSST GVR HS: Academic Performance-ELL
38
DSST GVR HS has shown ELL growth
significantly above District high schools
both years of operation.
*District rate calculated by ed level.
70.5 76
46 57
0
20
40
60
80
100
2012 (CELA) 2013 (ACCESS)
MG
P
CELA/ACCESS: Growth
School District*
NOTE: 2012-2013 was a transition year between CELA and WIDA ACCESS. 2013 MGPs were calculated based on students' previous CELA
DSST GVR HS: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence
School
Quality
Framework
Teaching Meets
Expectations
• Teachers are annually evaluated by school leadership.
• Observed lessons were grade level appropriate, however the school is still working
to ensure the majority of tasks promote higher order thinking.
• Observed lessons showed inconsistent differentiation based on student
performance levels.
Leadership Meets
Expectations
• The school leadership has set clear goals around student achievement, and these
goals were shared by all members of the team.
• The School has the flexibility to alter the network model in order to meet the needs
of their students and has done so in some areas, most notably separating 9th
grade literacy into separate reading and writing classes.
Education
Program
Meets
Expectations
• Network staff have begun aligning curriculum guidance materials to the Common
Core in key subjects.
• Teachers reported using the interim assessments to drive their planning and
instruction.
• The School outperforms the District in ELL ACCESS growth and disaggregated
ELL TCAP and the School follows the District’s procedures for identifying,
assessing and exiting English language learners, consistent with state and federal
law.
School
Culture
Meets
Expectations
• The school has a SAC in place to gather parent voice.
• There are clear expectations around parent-teacher communication. Parents are
required to review both academic and behavioral data on a weekly basis.
• The School has a clear ladder of consequences aligned with the DPS discipline
policy.
Governance Meets
Expectations
• The Board has a range of expertise and structures in place to provide effective
oversight.
• The Board regularly monitors key academic, operational, and financial metrics at
both the individual school and the organization level.
39
DSST GVR HS: Organizational Sustainability School Culture and Demand DSST Performance
Parent Survey Response Rate 86.8%
Parent Satisfaction Rate 80.6%
Student Satisfaction Rate 89.2%
Student Attendance Rate 95.1%
Re-Enrollment 85.11%
Demand (Preferences per Entry Grade Seat
Offered) 14.2
Financial Performance Framework Metric Benchmark FY 13 Performance
Private Contributions as a % of Total Expenditures 10% or less 0%
Occupancy Expenses as a % of Total Expenditures 10.014% or less 8%
Total Instructional Expenses as a % of Total
Expenditures 50% or greater 62%
Months Unreserved Fund Balance On Hand 1.0 or greater 0.54
Debt to Asset 0.9 or less 0.277
Operating Margin 3% or greater 6.8%
40
Ridgeview Academy Recommendation 3 year renewal with opportunity for 2 year
extension with evidence of sustained
performance
Rationale The school has met District AEC expectations each of
the last two years but needs to demonstrate
sustainability of performance
School Description An Alternative Education Campus serving
incarcerated youth through a partnership with the
Department of Youth Corrections
Grades 9-12
Opening Year 2001-02
Current Contract Status 2009-2014 Subsequent Contract
2013-14 Enrollment 219 (as of 10/1)
Demographics (2012-13) 72% FRL; 21% ELL; 6% SPED
Leadership Ed Cope, Principal
Board Judy Morton, Chair
School Performance
Framework Overall
2011-12: 59% of points
earned overall
2012-13: 51% of points
earned overall
41
Ridgeview: Performance Benchmarks
42
Initial Contract Term Performance
Conditions
Contract Extension
Opportunity
2014-2017 Rating of “Meets” or
“Distinguished” on
District Alternative SPF
2017-2019 IF Then
Ridgeview Academy: SPF Summary
43
Ridgeview Academy is rated against the DPS Alternative SPF, which looks at 3
years of data for many key metrics. In 2013 the school was the highest rated
AEC in the District, receiving a rating of Meets Expectations for the second
consecutive year. *-Response Rate Not Sufficient For School to Receive a Rating
Ridgeview: Academic Performance - Status
Ridgeview’s
TCAP status over
the last three
years has
matched or
surpassed
District AECs in
Reading, Math,
and Writing.
Year SPF Points
Status
2012 42%
2013 42%
44
*District schools rated on the Alt Ed SPF
34%
5%
15%
8%
26%
5% 10% 9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Reading Math Writing Science
% P
rofi
cien
t o
r A
bo
ve
TCAP Status: Aggregated Last Three Years
School District*
Ridgeview: Academic Performance – TCAP Growth Year SPF Points
Growth
2012 67%
2013 56%
45
Ridgeview’s
TCAP growth
over the last
three years has
surpassed
District AECs as
well as state
expectation in all
subjects.
*District schools rated on the Alt Ed SPF
64
55
68
49
40 47
0
20
40
60
80
100
Reading Math Writing
MG
P
TCAP Growth: Aggregated Last Three Years
School District*
Ridgeview: Academic Performance- MAP Growth
Ridgeview’s rates of MAP growth have lagged behind District AECs
over the last three years.
46
*District schools rated on the Alt Ed SPF
40%
50% 47% 52% 55%
51%
37% 40% 42%
54% 49% 49%
34%
48% 46%
54% 57% 55%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2011 2012 2013
% S
tud
ents
Me
t G
row
th T
arge
ts
MAP Growth Reading (School) Reading (District*)
Math (School) Math (District*)
Language Use (School) Language Use (District*)
Ridgeview: Academic Performance-
Post-Secondary Readiness
47
• Ridgeview’s graduation rates across all cohorts
have outpaced District AECs.
• In 2012 their dropout rate was higher than
District AECs.
• ACT scores have been either above or
comparable to District AECs.
*District schools rated on the Alt Ed SPF
Ridgeview: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence
School
Quality
Framework
Teaching Partially
Meets
Expectations
• Teachers are evaluated on an annual basis by school leadership.
However, there is limited coaching around instructional practices.
• Most observed lessons had posted learning targets that were grade-
level appropriate. However, asks were consistently low level.
• Teachers in most classrooms consistently utilized strategies to
promote student engagement, including cold calls and turn and talks.
Leadership Meets
Expectations
• While the organizational structure is complex due to the school’s
unique environment, there were clear lines of accountability.
• The School has set clear goals around student achievement which are
shared by all stakeholders.
Education Program Meets
Expectations
• Curriculum and objectives are aligned with Common Core Standards.
• The School monitors data on an ongoing basis and uses it to inform
interventions.
• The School follows the District’s procedures for identifying, assessing
and exiting English language learners, consistent with state and
federal law.
School Culture Meets
Expectations
• The School has a SAC in place to gather parent voice.
• The School has a clearly articulated code of conduct and ladder of
consequences that are understood by students and staff.
• The School has many structures in place to promote a positive school
culture and student investment.
Governance Meets
Expectations
• The Board regularly reviews key academic, operational, and financial
metrics.
• The Board has a variety of expertise, as well as a clear process for
recruiting new board members.
48
Ridgeview: Organizational Sustainability School Culture and Demand Ridgeview Performance
Parent Survey Response Rate N/A (response rate not high enough to be included)
Parent Satisfaction Rate N/A (response rate not high enough to be included)
Student Satisfaction Rate 79%
Student Attendance Rate 98%
Attendance Improvement Rate N/A (schools already meeting expectations on attendance are not
included in this rating)
Truancy Rate 2%
Financial Performance Framework Metric Benchmark FY 13 Performance
Private Contributions as a % of Total Expenditures 55% or less 3%
Occupancy Expenses as a % of Total Expenditures 15% or less 5%
Total Instructional Expenses as a % of Total
Expenditures 55% or greater 54%
Months Unreserved Fund Balance On Hand 2.0 or greater 2.19
Debt to Asset 0 to 0.9 0.213
Operating Margin 5% to 8% -8%
49
KIPP Montbello Recommendation 3 year renewal with opportunity for2 year
extension with evidence of sustained
performance
Rationale The school has strong performance data for initial 2
years, but needs to demonstrate sustainability of
performance.
School Description A college preparatory school with a focus on
character education
Grades 5-7 (growing to 5-8)
Current Contract Status 2011-14 Initial Contract
2013-14 Enrollment 292 (as of 10/1)
Demographics (2012-13) 90% FRL; 38% ELL; 14% SPED
Leadership Danielle D’Acenzo, Principal
Kimberlee Sia, KIPP Colorado CEO
Board Nina Garcia, Board Chair; Board Oversees all KIPP
Colorado schools
School Performance
Framework Overall
2011-12: 67% of points
earned overall
2012-13: 71% of points
earned overall
50
KIPP Montbello: Performance Benchmarks
51
Initial Contract Term Performance
Conditions
Contract Extension
Opportunity
2014-2017 Rating of “Meets” or
“Distinguished” on
District SPF
2017-2019 IF Then
KIPP Montbello: SPF Summary
52
KIPP Montbello has received an overall rating of Meets Expectations both
years of operation, increasing the percentage of points earned from Year 1 to
Year 2.
2011-2012
Overall Growth Status Student
Engagement Re-Enrollment
Parent Satisfaction
67% 75% 29% 83% 100% 100%
2012-2013
Overall Growth Status Student
Engagement Re-Enrollment
Parent Satisfaction
71% 82% 42% 67% 75% 75%
KIPP Montbello: Academic Performance - Status
KIPP Montbello
outperformed its
similar schools cluster
in all subjects in 2013,
but only outperformed
District middle schools
in Math and Science.
Proficiency rates
increased from 2012 to
2013 in all subjects
except math which
saw a very small
decline.
Year SPF Points
Status
2012 29% points
2013 42% points
53
35%
51%
47% 48%
24%
46%
20%
37%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2012 2013
% A
t o
r A
bo
ve P
rofi
cien
t
TCAP Status: Historical
Reading Math Writing Science
51% 48% 46%
37%
53% 47% 47%
35%
50% 44%
35%
22%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Reading Math Writing Science
% P
rofi
cien
t o
r A
bo
ve
2013 TCAP Status: Similar Schools and District Comparisons
School District* Similar Schools Cluster
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
KIPP Montbello: Academic Performance – Growth
KIPP Montbello’s
2013 TCAP
growth
outperformed or
matched District
middle schools
and similar
schools in
growth in all
TCAP subjects.
Year SPF Points
Growth
2012 75% points
2013 82% points
54
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
54
52
56
59
76
42.5
53
51.5
57
52
73
76.5
49
56
52
53
70.5
53
0 20 40 60 80 100
2013
2012
Median Growth Percentile
TCAP Growth: Similar Schools and District Comparisons
Reading (School)
Reading (District)*
Reading (Similar SchoolsCluster)
Math (School)
Math (District)*
Math (Similar SchoolsCluster)
Writing (School)
Writing (District)*
Writing (Similar SchoolsCluster)
KIPP Montbello: Academic Performance- Equity
Subgroups at KIPP
Montbello in 2013
consistently
outperformed their
District peers.
55
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
7%
8%
9%
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
37%
37%
43%
41%
45%
46%
20%
26%
23%
45%
54%
45%
38%
38%
44%
42%
45%
47%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Wri
tin
gM
ath
Rea
din
g
% At or Above Proficient
TCAP 2013 Status: Subgroups
Minority (School); N=72 Minority (District)*
Non-Exited ELL (School); N=43 Non-Exited ELL (District)*
FRL (School); N=70 FRL (District)*
SpEd (School); N<16, can't report SpEd (District)*
KIPP Montbello: Academic Performance- ELL
56
KIPP Montbello has shown ELL growth
above District middle schools in both years
of operation.
*District rate calculated by ed level (MS).
60
69
56 53
0
20
40
60
80
100
2012 (CELA) 2013 (ACCESS)
Me
dia
n G
row
th P
erc
en
tile
CELA/ACCESS: Growth
School District*
NOTE: 2012-2013 was a transition year between CELA and WIDA ACCESS. 2013 MGPs were calculated
based on students' previous CELA performance compared to their current year's ACCESS performance.
KIPP Montbello: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence
School
Quality
Framework
Teaching Meets
Expectations
• Teachers are annually evaluated by school leadership
• Objectives were posted consistently in all classrooms and in most
cases, objectives were aligned to the curriculum and standards.
• Most lessons were grade level appropriate; however, many did tasks
not promote higher order thinking.
• Observed lessons demonstrated inconsistent differentiation based on
student performance levels.
Leadership Meets
Expectations
• There are high expectations for both student achievement and
mission and vision alignment, and these are evident across contexts.
• The delineation of roles and responsibilities between members of the
leadership team are clear and promote effective operation of the
School.
Education Program Meets
Expectations
• The School has aligned its curriculum with the Common Core
Standards.
• There is a clear data cycle and time allocated for data analysis and
action planning.
• The School outperforms the District in ELL ACCESS growth and
disaggregated ELL TCAP and the School follows the District’s
procedures for identifying, assessing and exiting English language
learners, consistent with state and federal law
School Culture Meets
Expectations
• The School has a SAC in place to gather parent voice.
• There are clear expectations around parent-teacher communication.
Parents are required to review both academic and behavioral data on
a weekly basis.
• The school handbook has a clear ladder of consequences aligned
with the DPS discipline policy.
Governance Meets
Expectations
• The Board’s expertise and committee structure allows it to provide
effective oversight to the School.
• The Board regularly monitors key academic, financial, and operational
metrics.
57
KIPP Montbello: Organizational Sustainability School Culture and Demand KIPP Performance
Parent Survey Response Rate 83.8%
Parent Satisfaction Rate 80.6%
Student Satisfaction Rate 89.6%
Student Attendance Rate 94.9%
Re-Enrollment 84%
Demand (Preferences per Entry Grade Seat
Offered) 0.3
58
Financial Performance Framework Metric Benchmark FY 13 Performance
Private Contributions as a % of Total Expenditures 10% or less 0%
Occupancy Expenses as a % of Total Expenditures 9.815% or less 7.7%
Total Instructional Expenses as a % of Total
Expenditures 50% or greater 69.9%
Months Unreserved Fund Balance On Hand 1.0 or greater 2.25
Debt to Asset 0.9 or less 0.125
Operating Margin 3% or greater 8.5%
REGIONAL DECISIONS:
NNE
59
NNE Regional Decisions
Decision
Type
School Recommendation
Charter
Renewals
Venture Prep HS 2 Year Renewal with the opportunity
for a 3 Year Extension
DSST Cole MS 3 Year Renewal with the opportunity
for a 2 Year Extension
Denver Justice HS 2 Year Renewal with the opportunity
for a 1 Year Extension
University Prep 2 Year Renewal with the opportunity
for a 2 Year Extension
Pioneer 2 Year Renewal with the opportunity
for a 3 Year Extension
60
NNE School Performance on SPF
61
Venture Prep High School Recommendation 2 year renewal with opportunity for 3 year
extension if the school consistently meets SPF
expectations
Rationale School has had inconsistent performance but has
either met or come within 2% of Meeting Expectations.
School Description A college preparatory school with a focus on project-
based learning
Grades 9-12
Opening Year 2009-10
Current Contract Status 2012-2013 Conditional Contract; Met Conditions for
Extension Through 2014
2013-14 Enrollment 249 (as of 10/1)
Demographics (2012-13) 72% FRL; 21% ELL; 6% SPED
Leadership Ken Burdette, Principal
Board Kayla A. McGannon, Board Chair
School Performance
Framework Overall
2011-12: 52% of points
earned overall
2012-13: 49% of points
earned overall
62
Venture Prep HS: Performance Benchmarks
63
Initial Contract Term Performance
Conditions
Contract Extension
Opportunity
2014-2016 Rating of “Meets” or
“Distinguished” on
District SPF
2016-2019 IF Then
Venture Prep HS: SPF Summary
64
Venture Prep HS has an inconsistent track record of performance, meeting
expectations in 2012 but not in 2013. In 2013 their growth scores increased
but their post-secondary readiness performance declined. 3-In 2011, the overall rating was a combination of MS and HS. If rated individually, the HS would have met expectations.
Venture Prep HS: Academic Performance - Status
Venture Prep HS has
seen their TCAP
proficiency rates
increase over the last
three years. However,
they still do not match
District high school or
similar schools cluster’s
proficiency rates in any
subjects.
Year SPF Points
Status
2012 33% points
2013 33% points
65
39% 41% 51%
9% 15% 14% 23%
24% 32%
22% 20%
30%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2011 2012 2013
% A
t o
r A
bo
ve P
rofi
cien
t
TCAP Status: Historical
Reading Math Writing Science
51%
14%
32% 30%
56%
26%
38% 38%
54%
24%
36% 33%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Reading Math Writing Science
% P
rofi
cie
nt
or
Ab
ove
2013 TCAP Status: Similar Schools and District Comparisons
School District* Similar Schools Cluster
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
Venture Prep HS: Academic Performance – Growth
Venture Prep HS TCAP MGPs have
consistently matched those of
District high schools over the course
of the contract; they also
outperformed their similar schools
cluster in reading and math in 2013.
Year SPF Points
Growth
2012 51% points
2013 70% points
66
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
55
61
52
54
56
54
54
62
54
51
55
55
51
54
53
67
85
57
60
55
57
58
54
55
63
55
47
0 20 40 60 80 100
2013
2012
2011
Median Growth Percentile
TCAP Growth: Similar Schools and District Comparisons
Reading (School)
Reading (District)*
Reading (SimilarSchools Cluster)
Math (School)
Math (District)*
Math (Similar SchoolsCluster)
Writing (School)
Writing (District)*
Writing (SimilarSchools Cluster)
Venture Prep HS: Academic Performance-Equity
Subgroups at Venture
Prep HS consistently
match their District
peers’ performance in
reading, but not in math.
In writing, students
outperform their peers
with the exception of
ELL students.
67
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
5%
3%
12%
6%
6%
33%
27%
17%
46%
28%
13%
50%
7%
6%
18%
4%
0%
21%
28%
17%
48%
28%
10%
48%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Wri
tin
gM
ath
Rea
din
g
% At or Above Proficient
TCAP 2013 Status: Subgroups
Minority (School); N=107 Minority (District)*
Non-Exited ELL (School); N=24 Non-Exited ELL (District)*
FRL (School); N=104 FRL (District)*
SpEd (School); N17 SpEd (District)*
Venture Prep HS: Academic Performance- ELL
68
Venture Prep HS has historically had ELL
growth below District expectations but in
2013 showed growth that surpassed District
high school performance and SPF
expectations.
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
28
41.5
74
49 46 57
0
20
40
60
80
100
2011 (CELA) 2012 (CELA) 2013 (ACCESS)
MG
P
CELA/ACCESS: Growth
School District*
NOTE: 2012-2013 was a transition year between CELA and WIDA ACCESS. 2013 MGPs were calculated based on students' previous CELA
Venture Prep HS: Academic Performance-
Post-Secondary Readiness
69
• 2012 was the first year Venture Prep had a graduation class; their 4 year
graduation rate lagged surpassed the District. Other graduation rates are
not yet available.*
• The school’s ACT performance lagged behind the District and similar
schools in all subjects. *-2013 Graduation Rates Not Yet Available
Graduation Rates
2012
school District1
4 year 68.0% 58.8%
5 year * 61.9%
6 year * 60.8%%
7 year * 56.7% 1District rate calculated for traditional high
schools only. *No data available
COACT: % Students Above Benchmark
English Math Reading Science
20
12
School 41% 15% 25% 10%
Similar Schools 29% 14% 15% 5%
District1 40% 22% 26% 13%
20
13
School 32% 8% 16% 3%
Similar Schools 38% 15% 25% 9%
District1 41% 22% 32% 17%
Venture Prep HS: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence
School
Quality
Framework
Teaching Partially
Meets
Expectations
• Teachers are evaluated annually by school leadership.
• All classrooms had posted objectives but lessons were not consistently
implemented to ensure objectives were met.
• Classrooms had routines and procedures in place, but pacing was consistently
slow in observed classrooms which impacted the use of instructional time
Leadership Meets
Expectations
• The School has a clear organizational structures with well-defined roles and
responsibilities.
• The school culture promotes college readiness, although the school is also working
to develop supports for non-college bound students, including vocational school
relationships.
• The School has a comprehensive financial policies and procedure document that is
reviewed annually and revised as needed.
Education
Program
Partially
Meets
Expectations
• There are thorough scope and sequence documents in place aligned to the
Common Core.
• The School offers regular interim assessments, but it was unclear how data was
used to differentiate instruction.
• The School outperforms the District in ELL ACCESS growth and disaggregated
ELL TCAP and the School follows the District’s procedures for identifying,
assessing and exiting English language learners, consistent with state and federal
law
School
Culture
Meets
Expectations
• There is a SAC and PTA in place to encourage parent voice.
• There is a clear discipline ladder in place that is aligned with the DPS discipline
policy.
• Most observed classrooms had clear routines and procedures.
Governance Meets
Expectations
• The Board has robust membership with members from a variety of backgrounds
including education, business, and the community.
• The Board regularly reviews academic and financial data.
• There is a clear process for budget creation that involves the school leader and
external business manager with input from the Finance Committee and staff.
70
Venture Prep HS: Organizational Sustainability School Culture and Demand Venture Prep Performance
Parent Survey Response Rate 47%
Parent Satisfaction Rate 87%
Student Satisfaction Rate 85.5%
Student Attendance Rate 89.6%
Re-Enrollment 75.7%
Demand (Preferences per Entry Grade Seat
Offered) 1.1
71
Financial Performance Framework Metric Benchmark FY 13 Performance
Private Contributions as a % of Total Expenditures 10% or less 0%
Occupancy Expenses as a % of Total Expenditures 9.815% or less 9.4%
Total Instructional Expenses as a % of Total
Expenditures 55% or greater 50.8%
Months Unreserved Fund Balance On Hand 1.5 or greater 5.4
Debt to Asset 0.9 or less 0.035
Operating Margin 5-10% 6%
DSST Cole Middle School Recommendation 3 year renewal with opportunity for 2 year extension
with evidence of sustained performance
Rationale The school has strong performance data for initial
2years, but needs to demonstrate sustainability of
performance
School Description A college preparatory school with a focus on STEM
education.
Grades 6-8
Current Contract Status 2011-13 Initial Contract
2013-14 Enrollment 416 (as of 10/1)
Demographics (2012-13) 77% FRL; 28% ELL; 8% SPED
Leadership Jeff Osborne, Principal
Bill Kurtz, DSST Network CEO
Board Steven Halstedt, Board Chair; Board oversees all DSST
schools
School Performance
Framework Overall
2011-12: 93% of points
earned overall
2012-13: 82% of points
earned overall
72
DSST Cole: Performance Benchmarks
73
Initial Contract Term Performance
Conditions
Contract Extension
Opportunity
2014-2017 Rating of “Meets” or
“Distinguished” on
District SPF
2017-2019 IF Then
DSST Cole MS: SPF Summary
74
DSST Cole MS has received an overall SPF rating of Distinguished both years
of operation, although the overall percentage of points earned did decline
slightly.
2011-2012
Overall Growth Status Student
Engagement Re-Enrollment
Parent Satisfaction
93% 93% 92% 83% 100% 100%
2012-2013
Overall Growth Status Student
Engagement Re-Enrollment
Parent Satisfaction
82% 84% 82% 67% 100% 75%
DSST Cole: Academic Performance - Status
DSST Cole MS
outperforms both
District middle
schools and
similar schools in
all subjects, and
has done so for
both years of
operation.
Year SPF Points
Status
2012 92% points
2013 82% points
75
67%
61% 64% 63%
55% 55%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2012 2013
% A
t o
r A
bo
ve P
rofi
cien
t
TCAP Status: Historical
Reading Math Writing
61% 63% 55% 53%
47% 47%
60%
51% 54%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Reading Math Writing
% P
rofi
cie
nt
or
Ab
ove
2013 TCAP Status: Similar Schools and District Comparisons
School District* Similar Schools Cluster
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
DSST Cole MS: Academic Performance – Growth
DSST Cole’s TCAP growth
exceeds District middle
schools in all subjects and
exceeded their similar
schools cluster in reading
and math.
Year SPF Points
Growth
2012 93% points
2013 84% points
76
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
59
57
56
59
58.5
70
61
53
57
52
78
83
53
53
52
53
60
68
0 20 40 60 80 100
2013
2012
Median Growth Percentile
TCAP Growth: Similar Schools and District Comparisons
Reading (School)
Reading (District)*
Reading (Similar SchoolsCluster)Math (School)
Math (District)*
Math (Similar SchoolsCluster)Writing (School)
Writing (District)*
Writing (Similar SchoolsCluster)
DSST Cole MS: Academic Performance- Equity
Minority and FRL
students at DSST Cole
outperformed their
District peers in all
subjects. However, ELL
students lagged behind
their peers in all subjects
77
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
7%
8%
9%
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
37%
37%
43%
47%
52%
55%
37%
40%
41%
20%
26%
23%
38%
38%
44%
49%
54%
57%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Wri
tin
gM
ath
Rea
din
g
% At or Above Proficient
TCAP 2013 Status: Subgroups
Minority (School); N=124 Minority (District)*
Non-Exited ELL (School); N=68 Non-Exited ELL (District)*
FRL (School); N=113 FRL (District)*
SpEd (School); N<16, can't report SpEd (District)*
DSST Cole MS: Academic Performance- ELL
78
DSST Cole showed ELL growth above
District middle schools in 2013, after not
having done so in 2012.
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
44
65.5
56 53
0
20
40
60
80
100
2012 (CELA) 2013 (ACCESS)
Me
dia
n G
row
th P
erc
en
tile
CELA/ACCESS: Growth
School District*
NOTE: 2012-2013 was a transition year between CELA and WIDA ACCESS. 2013 MGPs were calculated
DSST Cole MS: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence
School
Quality
Framework
Teaching Meets
Expectations
• Teachers are annually evaluated by school leadership.
• Observed lessons were consistently grade level appropriate, however the school
is still working to ensure the majority of tasks promote higher order thinking.
• Observed lessons showed inconsistent differentiation based on student
performance levels.
Leadership Meets
Expectations
• The School has set clear goals around student achievement, and these goals
were shared by members of the team.
• The School has the flexibility to alter the network model in order to meet the
needs of their students and has done so in some areas, most notably family
involvement.
Education
Program
Partially
Meets
Expectations
• Network staff have begun aligning curriculum guidance materials to the Common
Core in key subjects.
• Teachers reported using the interim assessments to drive their planning and
instruction.
• The School outperforms the District in ELL ACCESS growth and disaggregated
ELL TCAP and the School follows the District’s procedures for identifying,
assessing and exiting English language learners, consistent with state and
federal law
School
Culture
Meets
Expectations
• The School has a SAC to gather parent voice.
• There are clear expectations around parent-teacher communication, with
advisors a key conduit for this communication. Parents are required to review
both academic and behavioral data on a weekly basis.
• The handbook has a clear ladder of consequences aligned with the DPS
discipline policy.
Governance Meets
Expectations
• The Board has a range of expertise and structures in place to provide effective
oversight.
• The Board regularly monitors key academic, operational, and financial metrics at
both the individual school and the organization level.
79
DSST Cole MS: Organizational Sustainability School Culture and Demand DSST Cole Performance
Parent Survey Response Rate 77%
Parent Satisfaction Rate 81%
Student Satisfaction Rate 87.4%
Student Attendance Rate 93.6%
Re-Enrollment 89.1%
Demand (Preferences per Entry Grade Seat
Offered) 2.7
80
Financial Performance Framework Metric Benchmark FY 13 Performance
Private Contributions as a % of Total Expenditures 10% or less 0.002%
Occupancy Expenses as a % of Total Expenditures 9.829% or less 15.7%
Total Instructional Expenses as a % of Total
Expenditures 50% or greater 53%
Months Unreserved Fund Balance On Hand 1.0 or greater 0
Debt to Asset 0.9 or less 0.426
Operating Margin 3% or greater 6%
Denver Justice Recommendation 2 Year Renewal With the Opportunity for a 1 Year
Extension
Rationale The School has improved SPF rating by one level;
the school agrees to meet the key benchmarks,
outlined in performance conditions.
School Description An Alternative Education Campus serving students
previously imprisoned or otherwise at risk
Grades 9-12
Opening Year 2009-10
Current Contract Status 2012-2013 Conditional Contract; Met Conditions for
Extension Through 2014
2013-14 Enrollment 81 (as of 10/1)
Demographics (2012-13) 95% FRL, 9% ELL, 16% SPED
Leadership Gary Losh, Principal
Board TJ Cole, Board Chair
School Performance
Framework Overall
2011-12: 32% of points
earned overall
2012-13: 34% of points
earned overall
81
Denver Justice: Benchmarks Based on the School’s program and past performance, the following areas are high leverage areas for growth aligned with the School’s mission. Improving performance in these areas will allow the school to improve overall SPF performance to a rating of Meets Expectations within three years.
82
Metric SPF
Benchmark
2013
Performance
2014
Benchmark
2015
Benchmark
2016
Benchmark
MAP Growth-Reading
(As Measured by SPF) 60% 51% 55% 57% 60%
MAP Growth-Math (As
Measured by SPF) 60% 43% 48% 53% 60%
Dropout Rate <11.4 11.4 (2012) Meet SPF expectations
Attendance Rate 86.2% 86% Meet SPF expectations
Denver Justice: SPF Summary
83
Denver Justice is rated against the DPS Alternative SPF, which looks at 3 years
of data for many key metrics. In 2013 the school improved its overall rating
from Accredited on Probation to Priority Watch, continuing a multi-year upward
trend.
Denver Justice: Academic Performance - Status
Denver Justice’s
TCAP Status over
the last 3 years
has lagged
behind District
AECs in all
subjects.
Year SPF Points
Status
2012 0%
2013 0%
84
*District schools rated on the Alt Ed SPF
16%
1% 2% 4%
26%
5% 10% 9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Reading Math Writing Science%
Pro
fici
ent
or
Ab
ove
TCAP Status: Aggregated Last Three Years
School District*
Denver Justice: Academic Performance – TCAP Growth
Year SPF Points
Growth
2012 39%
2013 33%
85
Denver Justice’s
TCAP Growth has
not met
expectations
over the last
three years,
although they
have surpassed
District AECs in
math and writing.
*District schools rated on the Alt Ed SPF
42 49 48 49
40 47
0
20
40
60
80
100
Reading Math WritingM
GP
TCAP Growth: Aggregated Last Three Years
School District*
Denver Justice: Academic Performance-MAP Growth
Denver Justice’s MAP growth over the last two years has
matched the District AECs in reading and come close in
writing. Their growth rates lagged in math in 2013.
86
*District schools rated on the Alt Ed SPF
36%
66%
51% 52% 55% 51%
34%
49% 43%
54% 49% 49% 46%
58% 54% 54% 57% 55%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2011 2012 2013
% S
tud
ents
Me
t G
row
th T
arge
ts
MAP Growth Reading (School) Reading (District*)
Math (School) Math (District*)
Language Use (School) Language Use (District*)
Denver Justice: Academic Performance-
Post-Secondary Readiness
87
• Justice’s best-of graduation rates have been above
those of the District AECs in each of the last three years.
• Their dropout rate has been on par with the District
AECs.
• ACT scores at Justice have been slightly lower than
District AECs over the last three years.
Denver Justice: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence
School
Quality
Framework
Teaching Partially
Meets
Expectations
• The school leader formally evaluates teachers on an annual basis.
• Some classes, most notably English classes, were appropriate for the student
population. However, some classes lacked rigor and students appeared
unchallenged by the presented material.
• In most observed classrooms students were generally compliant with teacher
direction but not actively engaged in lessons.
Leadership Partially
Meets
Expectations
• The school leadership has a strong understanding of their population and
students’ needs in many areas.
• There is a clear organization structure, however school leaders are often taken
away by culture issues and unable to focus sufficiently on academics.
Education
Program
Partially
Meets
Expectations
• The School follows the DPS curriculum, but does not adjust instruction to meet
the needs of students..
• The School does not utilize assessment data to drive instruction.
• The School has certified special education staff that provide push in and pull out
services in compliance with student IEPs.
• The School follows the District’s procedures for identifying, assessing and exiting
English language learners, consistent with state and federal law.
School
Culture
Meets
Expectations
• The School has a SAC to gather parent voice.
• The School has a clear ladder of consequences aligned with the DPS discipline
policy.
• The School’s discipline policy is focused around positive incentives and designed
to ensure students do not miss learning time.
Governance Partially
Meets
Expectations
• The Board has experienced consistent membership from a small group that is
dedicated to the mission.
• The Board has members with experience with the population and with business
experience but lacks members with direct academic experience
• The Board reviews budgets to actuals regularly, but leaves the majority of
financial oversight to the school leader and external finance consultant.
88
Denver Justice: Organizational Sustainability School Culture and Demand Justice Performance
Parent Survey Response Rate 53%
Parent Satisfaction Rate 97%
Student Satisfaction Rate 91%
Student Attendance Rate 86%
Attendance Improvement Rate 75%
Truancy Rate 8%
Financial Performance Framework Metric Benchmark FY 13 Performance
Private Contributions as a % of Total Expenditures 10% or less 0%
Occupancy Expenses as a % of Total Expenditures 15% or less 10%
Total Instructional Expenses as a % of Total
Expenditures 55% or greater 43%
Months Unreserved Fund Balance On Hand 1.5 or greater 0.610
Debt to Asset 0.9 or less 0.397
Operating Margin 5% to 10% 6%
89
University Prep Charter School Recommendation 2 Year Renewal With the Opportunity for a 2 Year
Extension if Academic Benchmarks Are Met
Rationale The School has limited data; in two years the School
will have an official SPF to guide contract extension
decisions
School Description A college-preparatory elementary school
Grades K-3 (Growing to K-5)
Current Contract Status 2011-2014 Year Initial Contract
2013-14 Enrollment 243 (as of 10/1)
Demographics (2012-13) 81% FRL; 22% ELL; 11% SPED
Leadership David Singer, Principal
Board David Scanavino, Board Chair
School Performance
Framework Overall
The school has not yet received an official SPF.
90
University Prep Benchmark Slide
• While the School will not have an Official SPF until 2015,
annual targets have been set to determine if the School is
eligible for a contract extension.
91
Year Benchmark
2014 Meets Status Expectations on SPF (Will Include 3rd
Grade TCAP)
2015 Meets Overall Expectations on SPF (Will Include 1
Year of TCAP Growth)
If benchmarks are met in both years, the school will have the
opportunity for a 2 year contract extension (2015-2017)
University Prep: Early Literacy
UPrep saw its reading proficiency
rate on STEP go from 25% to 68%
in K and 23% to 30% in 2nd Grade;
proficiency in 1st grade declined.
However at all grade levels the
number of students above grade
level increased significantly.
92
75%
32%
20%
27%
5%
41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
August May
2012-13READINGGROWTHKindergartenSTEPData(%below,atorabovegradelevel)
AboveGradeLevel
AtGradeLevel
BelowGradeLevel
37%47%
47%
11%
16%
42%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
August May
2012-13READINGGROWTH1stGradeSTEPData(%below,atorabovegradelevel)
AboveGradeLevel
AtGradeLevel
BelowGradeLevel
77%
50%
21%
30%
2%
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
August May
2012-13READINGGROWTH2ndGradeSTEPData(%below,atorabovegradelevel)
AboveGradeLevel
AtGradeLevel
BelowGradeLevel
University Prep administers the STEP assessment for early literacy, which is then converted to DRA scores for accountability purposes. The Strategic Teaching and Evaluation of Progress (STEP) Reading Assessment is produced by the University of Chicago’s Urban Education Institute. STEP defines the pathway and tracks the progress of pre-kindergarten through third grade students as they learn to read using research-based milestones.
University Prep: Terra Nova 2013 Status
93
In 2013, 76% of UPrep scholars had overall scores (reading and math
combined) that exceeded the national norm (the 50th percentile), suggesting
the UPrep students are outperforming their national peers despite having a
poverty rate that is 4 times that of the population taking the Terr aNova.
K"through"2nd"Grade""(%"of"Scholars"Scoring"Above"Na; onal"Median)""
K" 1st$ 2nd$
! K!through!2nd!Grade!(%!of!Scholars!Scoring!Above!Na; onal!Median)!
K" 1st$ 2nd$
University Prep administers the Terra Nova to all students annually. The Terra Nova is a nationally norm-
referenced assessment taken by nearly 350,000 children across the country.. The test is not designed as an
absolute measure of grade level performance, but instead demonstrates how children are performing against
their peer group at the national level.
University Prep: TerraNova Growth
94
0%#
10%#
20%#
30%#
40%#
50%#
60%#
70%#
80%#
90%#
100%#
Class#of#2028#Over#Time#(K#$#2011$12,#1st#$#2012$13)#
READING( MATH% TOTAL%0%#
10%#
20%#
30%#
40%#
50%#
60%#
70%#
80%#
90%#
100%#
Class#of#2027#Over#Time#(1st%&%2011&12,%2nd%&%2012&13)%
READING( MATH% TOTAL%
UPrep scholars who took the Terra Nova both years saw their performance
increase. The original K cohort from 2011-12 went from a Median National
Percentile (MNP) of 75% to 80% in 1st grade, and the original 1st grade
cohort from 2011-12 went from a MNP of 51% to 65% in 2nd grade.
University Prep administers the Terra Nova to all students annually. The Terra Nova is a nationally norm-
referenced assessment taken by nearly 350,000 children across the country. The test is not designed as an
absolute measure of grade level performance, but instead demonstrates how children are performing against
their peer group at the national level.
University Prep: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence
School
Quality
Framework
Teaching Meets
Expectations
• Teachers are annually evaluated by the school leader.
• Objectives were consistently grade-level appropriate and lessons were designed
to ensure students mastered grade level material.
• The School offers significant small group instruction, particularly in literacy,
which allows for differentiation. There was less consistent differentiation in other
subjects where instruction was primarily whole group.
Leadership Meets
Expectations
• There are clearly defined roles and responsibilities for members of the
leadership team. There is a schoolwide focus on data, with data posted
throughout the School and both staff and students able to discuss data.
• The financial policies and procedures are comprehensive and include a process
for review and update of the document on an annual basis.
Education
Program
Meets
Expectations
• The School utilizes the Common Core standards to guide their planning.
• There are regular interim assessments and a clear cycle around using data to
inform instruction.
• The School follows the District’s procedures for identifying, assessing and
exiting English language learners, consistent with state and federal law.
School
Culture
Meets
Expectations
• The School has a SAC to gather parent voice.
• There is a family council with regular meetings as well as regular parent
education meetings.
• There is a well-defined ladder of consequences aligned with the DPS discipline
ladder.
Governance Meets
Expectations
• The School’s college preparatory mission is evident in the visual culture of the
school as well as routines and procedures.
• The Board has a range of expertise, including finance, legal, and community..
• The Board regularly monitors academic, operational, and financial metrics.
95
University Prep: Organizational Sustainability School Culture and Demand University Prep Performance
Parent Survey Response Rate 79%
Parent Satisfaction Rate 91%
Student Satisfaction Rate 91%
Student Attendance Rate 95.6%
Re-Enrollment 78%
Demand (Preferences per Entry Grade Seat
Offered)
1.6
Financial Performance Framework Metric Benchmark FY 13 Performance
Private Contributions as a % of Total Expenditures 10% or less 13%
Occupancy Expenses as a % of Total Expenditures 10.014% or less 8%
Total Instructional Expenses as a % of Total
Expenditures 50% or greater 56%
Months Unreserved Fund Balance On Hand 1.0 or greater 0.85
Debt to Asset 0.9 or less 0.178
Operating Margin 3% or greater 3%
96
Pioneer Charter School Recommendation 2 Year Renewal With the Opportunity for a 3 Year
Extension if School Consistently Meets
Expectations
Rationale School has had inconsistent performance but came
within 1% of meeting expectations in the most recent
year
School Description Focused on rigorous academics while also preparing
students to be strong community members.
Grades ECE-8
Opening Year 2005-06
Current Contract Status 2011-2014 Subsequent Renewal Contract
2013-14 Enrollment 501 (as of 10/1)
Demographics (2012-13) 98% FRL; 73% ELL; 9% Sped
Leadership Rich Barrett, Principal
Board Jason Munoz, Board Chair
School Performance
Framework Overall
2011-12: 52% of points
earned overall
2012-13: 50% of points
earned overall
97
Pioneer Charter School: Performance
Benchmarks
98
Initial Contract Term Performance
Conditions
Contract Extension
Opportunity
2014-2016 Rating of “Meets” or
“Distinguished” on
District SPF
2016-2019 IF Then
Pioneer: SPF Summary
99
Pioneer has had inconsistent performance on the SPF, rating as Meets
Expectations in 2012 but not 2011 or 2013. The school has not met expectations
on growth in any of the last 3 years.
Pioneer: Academic Performance - Status
Pioneer’s proficiency rates
have fluctuated over the last
three years, going up
slightly from 2011 to 2013
with the exception of
science. In 2013, their
performance lagged behind
the District (Grades 3-8) in
all subjects, and behind
their similar schools in
reading and science.
Year SPF Points
Status
2012 53%
2013 41%
100
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
28% 37% 33% 37%
39% 39%
22% 31% 29%
18% 15% 11%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2011 2012 2013
% A
t o
r A
bo
ve P
rofi
cien
t
TCAP Status: Historical
Reading Math Writing Science
33% 39%
29%
11%
57% 58%
43%
32% 37% 37%
28%
18%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Reading Math Writing Science
% P
rofi
cien
t o
r A
bo
ve
2013 TCAP Status: Similar Schools and District Comparisons
School District* Similar Schools Cluster
Pioneer: Academic Performance – Growth Year SPF Points
Growth
2012 47%
2013 50%
101
Pioneer’s TCAP growth in
2013 surpassed its similar
school cluster in math and
reading. However, writing
growth lagged behind the
District (Grades 4-8) and
similar schools
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
51
57
49
52
56
51
49
60.5
38
53
50
53
55
54
53
55
53.5
43.5
51
52
48
53
56
49
52
57
35
0 20 40 60 80 100
2013
2012
2011
Median Growth Percentile
TCAP Growth: Similar Schools and District Comparisons
Reading (School)
Reading (District)*
Reading (SimilarSchools Cluster)
Math (School)
Math (District)*
Math (Similar SchoolsCluster)
Writing (School)
Writing (District)*
Writing (SimilarSchools Cluster)
Pioneer: Academic Performance-Equity
In 2013, subgroups at
Pioneer lagged behind
their District peers in
most areas, with the
exception of ELL
students in writing.
102
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
7%
15%
13%
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
32%
48%
46%
26%
32%
23%
25%
45%
38%
30%
43%
33%
32%
48%
46%
29%
40%
33%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Wri
tin
gM
ath
Rea
din
g
% At or Above Proficient
TCAP 2013 Status: Subgroups
Minority (School); N=100 Minority (District)*
Non-Exited ELL (School); N=95 Non-Exited ELL (District)*
FRL (School); N=31 FRL (District)*
SpEd (School); N<16, can't report SpEd (District)*
Pioneer: Academic Performance- ELL
103
ELL growth at Pioneer has fluctuated over
the last three years. In 2011 and 2012, ELL
growth was below the District but in 201 the
growth of ELL students at Pioneer
surpassed the District (Grades K-8).
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
27
48
59 51 53
52
0
20
40
60
80
100
2011 (CELA) 2012 (CELA) 2013 (ACCESS)
MG
P
CELA/ACCESS: Growth
School District*
NOTE: 2012-2013 was a transition year between CELA and WIDA ACCESS. 2013 MGPs were calculated based on students' previous CELA
performance compared to their current year's ACCESS performance.
Pioneer: Academic Performance- DRA
104
Early literacy rates at Pioneer, as measured
by the DRA2, have lagged behind the
District each of the last 3 years.
44% 36%
42%
54% 55% 60%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Spring 2011 Spring 2012 Spring 2013
% A
t o
r A
bo
ve G
L
DRA2/EDL2: Spring (Independent Text Level)
School District*
Pioneer: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence
School
Quality
Framework
Teaching Partially
Meets
Expectations
• Teachers are formally evaluated three times per year with written feedback.
Objectives were consistently posted in observed lessons and were largely
grade-level appropriate.
• In most observed lessons, up to 50% of students were not actively engaged in
whole class instruction.
Leadership Meets
Expectations
• There is a clear delineation of responsibilities amongst members of the
leadership team.
• The school leader can clearly articulate the needs of the student population
and how the program addresses these goals. However, high expectations for
all students were not evident in conversations with some teachers.
• The financial policies and procedures are comprehensive and include a
process for review of the document on an annual basis.
Education
Program
Partially
Meets
Expectations
• The School has aligned curriculum resources to Common Core.
• There are clear data cycles around school developed interim assessments.
• The School follows the District’s procedures for identifying, assessing and
exiting English language learners, consistent with state and federal law.
School
Culture
Meets
Expectations
• The School has regular parent meetings, including a SAC to gather parent
voice.
• The School has a clear ladder of consequences aligned with the DPS
discipline policy that is shared with all stakeholders.
Governance Meets
Expectations
• The Board has a variety of expertise and committees in place.
• The Board regularly monitors academic and operational data.
105
Pioneer: Organizational Sustainability School Culture and Demand Pioneer Performance
Parent Survey Response Rate 82%
Parent Satisfaction Rate 88%
Student Satisfaction Rate ES-82% MS-88%
Student Attendance Rate ES-96% MS-97%
Re-Enrollment ES-87% MS-92%
Demand (Preferences per Entry Grade Seat
Offered) 2.1
Financial Performance Framework Metric Benchmark FY 13 Performance
Private Contributions as a % of Total Expenditures 5% or less 0%
Occupancy Expenses as a % of Total Expenditures 9.815% or less 8%
Total Instructional Expenses as a % of Total
Expenditures 60% or greater 58%
Months Unreserved Fund Balance On Hand 2.0 or greater 4.098
Debt to Asset 0.9 or less 0.082
Operating Margin 5%-8% 6.9%
106
NW REGIONAL DECISIONS
107
NW Regional Decisions
Decision
Type
School Recommendation
Contract
Renewals
Escuela Tlatelolco 1 Year Renewal
108
NW School Performance on SPF 109
Escuela Tlatelolco Recommendation 1 Year Renewal
Rationale The school has consistently not met expectations and
is in Year 4 on the CDE Turnaround clock.
School Description A K-12 public contract school preparing students for
public service through Montessori and dual language
programming.
Grades K-12
Current Contract Status Year 2 of 2 Year Conditional Contract
2013-14 Enrollment 129 (as of 10/1)
Demographics (2012-13) 73% FRL; 57% ELL; 4% SPED
Leadership Nita Gonzalez, Executive Director
Board Joseph Salazar, Chair
School Performance
Framework Overall
2011-12: 17% of points
earned overall
2012-13: 18% of points
earned overall
110
Escuela Tlatelolco: Contract History
Year of Decision Contract Type Contract Term
2003 1 Year Initial Contract 2004-2005
2004 2005-2008
2007 2 Year Probationary
Contract
2008-2010
2009 2 Year Probationary
Contract
2010-2012
2012 2 Year Conditional
Contract
2012-2014
Escuela Tlatelolco: SPF Summary
112
Escuela Tlatelolco has consistently not met District expectations on the
SPF, receiving a rating of Accredited on Probation each of the last two
years. They are currently in Year 4 on the CDE turnaround clock based
on their consistently low performance.
*-Please note that due to small N sizes Esuela’s performance can fluctuate significantly from year to year on individual metrics.
Escuela Tlatelolco: Academic Performance -
Status
Escuela’s TCAP
proficiency rates have
consistently lagged
behind the District
and their similar
schools cluster, most
notably in math and
science. They have
also declined over the
last 3 years.
Year SPF Points
Status
2012 12%
2013 9%
113
34% 30% 30%
3% 6%
2%
20% 20% 16%
3% 3%
0% 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2011 2012 2013
% A
t o
r A
bo
ve P
rofi
cien
t
TCAP Status: Historical
Reading Math Writing Science
30%
2%
16%
0%
55%
47% 44%
35%
51%
37% 37%
28%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Reading Math Writing Science
% P
rofi
cien
t o
r A
bo
ve
2013 TCAP Status: Similar Schools and District Comparisons
School District Similar Schools Cluster*
Escuela Tlatelolco: Academic Performance –
Growth Year SPF Points
Growth
2012 23%
2013 13%
114
Escuela’s TCAP growth
rates have consistently
lagged behind the
District and state. This
indicates that students
at Escuela are not
keeping pace with their
peers statewide.
52
57
51
54
57
53
39
31
48
54
52
52
55
53
54
22
25
42
53
53
51
54
54
52
46
33.5
48
0 20 40 60 80 100
2013
2012
2011
Median Growth Percentile
TCAP Growth: Similar Schools and District Comparisons
Reading (School)
Reading (District)
Reading (SimilarSchools Cluster*)
Math (School)
Math (District)
Math (Similar SchoolsCluster*)
Writing (School)
Writing (District)
Writing (Similar SchoolsCluster*)
Escuela Tlatelolco: Academic Performance-
Equity
Subgroups at Escuela
lagged behind their
District peers in 2013 as
measured by TCAP
proficiency rates.
115
15%
2%
29%
33%
37%
46%
0%
0%
15%
21%
33%
30%
11%
37%
4%
33%
37%
45%
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
7%
10%
11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Writing
Math
Reading
% At or Above Proficient
TCAP 2013 Status: Subgroups
SpEd (District) SpEd (School); N<16, can't report FRL (District)
FRL (School); N=27 Non-Exited ELL (District) Non-Exited ELL (School); N=47
Minority (District) Minority (School); N=82
Escuela Tlatelolco: Academic
Performance-ELL
116
The growth of ELL students at Escuela, as
measured by CELA and ACCESS, has
consistently lagged behind that of ELL
students District-wide.
22
44 47
51 53 53
0
20
40
60
80
100
2011 (CELA) 2012 (CELA) 2013 (ACCESS)
MG
P
CELA/ACCESS: Growth
School District
NOTE: 2012-2013 was a transition year between CELA and WIDA ACCESS. 2013 MGPs were calculated based on students'
previous CELA performance compared to their current year's ACCESS performance.
Escuela Tlatelolco: Academic Performance-
DRA
117
Early literacy proficiency rates at Escuela,
as measured by DRA2, have consistently
lagged behind the District.
44% 36%
42%
54% 55% 60%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Spring 2011 Spring 2012 Spring 2013
% A
t o
r A
bo
ve G
L
DRA2/EDL2: Spring (Independent Text Level)
School District*
Escuela Tlatelolco: Post-Secondary Readiness
118
• The School’s graduation rates increased considerably in 2012, outpacing the
District’s 4 year rate after lagging significantly behind each of the two previous
years.*
• The School did not have a sufficient number of students taking the ACT test
in 2013 to have data, but in 2012 their performance significantly lagged
behind the district. *-Please note that due to small N sizes (8 total graduates in 2012) Escuela’s data can fluctuate considerably from year to year.
Graduation Rates Over Time
2010 2011 2012
school District1 school District1 school District1
4 year 33.3% 51.8% 25.0% 56.1% 88.9% 58.8%
5 year 46.7% 53.2% 41.7% 58.5% 60.0% 61.9%
6 year 54.6% 51.5% 50.0% 55.8% 50.0% 60.8%
7 year 45.5% 45.8% 54.6% 53.0% 53.8% 56.7%
NOTE: District rate calculated for traditional high schools only.
COACT: % Students Above Benchmark
English Math Reading Science
20
12
school 13% 0% 6% 0% Similar Schools 49% 26% 31% 15%
District1 40% 22% 26% 13%
20
13
school * * * * Similar Schools 39% 15% 25% 10%
District1 41% 22% 32% 17%
NOTE: District rate calculated for traditional high schools only. *No data available
Escuela Tlatelolco: Financial Performance
119
Financial Performance Framework Metric Benchmark FY 13 Performance
Private Contributions as a % of Total Expenditures 5% or less 13%
Occupancy Expenses as a % of Total Expenditures 15% or less 16.9%
Total Instructional Expenses as a % of Total
Expenditures 50% or greater 47%
Months Unreserved Fund Balance On Hand 2.0 or greater (0.420)
Debt to Asset 0.9 or less 1.154
Operating Margin 5% to 8% 0.742%
Escuela Tlatelolco has consistently not met financial expectations. The School
is overly reliant on private fundraising, and current spending does not meet
district expectations of spending at least 50% of revenue on the core academic
program. In addition, the School has significant debts and lacks reserves to
ensure future financial sustainability.
Escuela Tlatelolco: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence
School
Quality
Framework
Teaching Does Not Meet
Expectations
• Teachers are annually evaluated by the school leader but there are not clearly
defined criteria for evaluations.
• While most classrooms had posted objectives, these were not consistently
communicated and students were unable to articulate. In addition, objectives
were consistently low level for the grade.
• Student engagement varied, but in most classes fewer than 50% of students
were engaged.
Leadership Partially Meets
Expectations
• There is an organization chart in place with delineated roles and
responsibilities, but implementation was uneven.
• There is a comprehensive financial policies and procedures document in place.
Education
Program
Partially Meets
Expectations
• Teachers are given a scope and sequence document which they use to create
syllabi and lesson plans. The School is beginning to align materials to
Common Core.
• The School utilizes student portfolios for assessment, but grading was not
standardized.
• The School follows the District’s procedures for identifying, assessing and
exiting English language learners, consistent with state and federal law
School
Culture
Meets
Expectations
• The School has a SAC to gather parent voice.
• The School has multiple venues for parent involvement, including a Council,
volunteer opportunities, and Parent Education events.
Governance Partially Meets
Expectations
• The Board has a variety of expertise.
• The Board does not regularly monitor academic performance data, and is
unfamiliar with key metrics.
• The annual financial audit for Escuela raises concerns around the deficit in the
school's fund balance and with the school not meeting its mortgage loan
requirements to maintain a specific debt to net worth and debt service
coverage ratio. In addition, revenue assumptions used in the budgeting
process are not realistic.
120
Escuela Tlatelolco: School Culture School Culture and Demand Escuela Performance (ES/MS/HS)
Parent Survey Response Rate 21%
Parent Satisfaction Rate 87%
Student Satisfaction Rate 91% 93% 92%
Student Attendance Rate 94% 95% 93%
Re-Enrollment 74% 82% 69%
Demand (Preferences per Entry Grade Seat
Offered) No K Seats Offered; 26 Preferences
121
SW REGIONAL DECISIONS
122
SW Regional Decisions
Decision
Type
School Recommendation
Charter
Renewals
STRIVE Prep Federal 5 Year Renewal
123
SW School Performance on SPF
124
STRIVE Prep-Federal Charter School Recommendation 5 Year Unconditional Renewal
Rationale The school has consistently demonstrated an ability
to exceed District expectations, warranting a 5 year
contract
School Description College Preparatory middle school
Grades 6-8
Opening Year 2006-07
Current Contract Status 2009 to 2014 Subsequent Contract
2013-14 Enrollment 312 (as of 10/1)
Demographics (2012-13) 92% FRL; 70% ELL, 8% SPED
Leadership Libby Miller, Principal
Chris Gibbons, Network ED
Board Mowa Haile, Board Chair; Board Oversees al STRIVE
Prep schools
School Performance
Framework Overall
2011-12: 84% of points
earned overall
2012-13: 81% of points
earned overall
125
STRIVE Federal: SPF Summary
126
STRIVE Prep Federal has consistently achieved an overall rating
of Distinguished on the SPF, earning over 80% of points each of
the last 3 years. The school has also exceeded status
expectations each of the last 3 years.
STRIVE Federal: Academic Performance - Status
STRIVE Federal has
seen its proficiency
rates decline slightly
over the last three
years. However, in
2013 they still
outperformed their
similar schools cluster
in all subjects and
District middle schools
in all subjects except
reading.
Year SPF Points
Status
2012 85%
2013 82%
127
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
57%
52% 52%
69% 64% 65%
55% 55% 50% 54%
39% 38%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2011 2012 2013
% A
t o
r A
bo
ve P
rofi
cien
t
TCAP Status: Historical
Reading Math Writing Science
52%
65%
50%
38%
53% 47% 47%
35%
44% 41% 37%
25%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Reading Math Writing Science
% P
rofi
cien
t o
r A
bo
ve
2013 TCAP Status: Similar Schools and District Comparisons
School District* Similar Schools Cluster
STRIVE Federal: Academic Performance – Growth Year SPF Points
Growth
2012 81%
2013 77%
128
STRIVE Federal has
had consistently high
growth, outpacing both
District middle schools
and similar schools
cluster in all subjects
each of the last three
years.
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
59
58
50
56
59
55
66.5
73
78
63
54
52
57
52
55
78
75
77
54
52
49
52
53
53
61.5
69
72
0 20 40 60 80 100
2013
2012
2011
Median Growth Percentile
TCAP Growth: Similar Schools and District Comparisons
Reading (School)
Reading (District)*
Reading (Similar SchoolsCluster)
Math (School)
Math (District)*
Math (Similar SchoolsCluster)
Writing (School)
Writing (District)*
Writing (Similar SchoolsCluster)
STRIVE Federal: Academic Performance- Equity
STRIVE Prep Federal
subgroups outpaced
their peers in all subjects
in 2013.
129
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
7%
8%
9%
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
37%
37%
43%
50%
65%
51%
20%
26%
23%
50%
65%
51%
38%
38%
44%
50%
65%
52%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Wri
tin
gM
ath
Rea
din
g
% At or Above Proficient
TCAP 2013 Status: Subgroups
Minority (School); N=225 Minority (District)*
Non-Exited ELL (School); N=197 Non-Exited ELL (District)*
FRL (School); N=213 FRL (District)*
SpEd (School); N<16, can't report SpEd (District)*
STRIVE Federal: Academic Performance-ELL
130
ELL growth at STRIVE Federal has
consistently outpaced middle school ELL
growth District wide as measured by both
CELA and ACCESS.
*-District rate calculated by ed level.
63
71 64
52 56 53
0
20
40
60
80
100
2011 (CELA) 2012 (CELA) 2013 (ACCESS)
Me
dia
n G
row
th P
erc
en
tile
CELA/ACCESS: Growth
School District*
NOTE: 2012-2013 was a transition year between CELA and WIDA ACCESS. 2013 MGPs were calculated
STRIVE Federal: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence
School
Quality
Framework
Teaching Meets
Expectations
• Teachers are annually evaluated by school leaders.
• Observed lessons were consistently grade level appropriate, although many
lessons did not promote higher-order thinking.
• In observed classrooms, the majority of students were compliant but in many
classrooms a large majority of students were not actively engaged in lessons.
Leadership Meets
Expectations
• There are clearly delineated roles and responsibilities for the members of the
leadership team; stakeholders were able to articulate these.
• Network staff provide coaching to leaders through both one on one coaching
and cohort sessions.
• School leaders were able to articulate the school’s achievement gaps and the
steps being taken to better serve all students.
Education
Program
Meets
Expectations
• Teachers utilize network resources to guide their planning; these materials
were recently aligned to the Common Core State Standards.
• There is a clear data cycle around the network-wide interim assessments,
including time for data analysis and expectations around reteaching.
• The School outperforms the District in ELL ACCESS growth and disaggregated
ELL TCAP and the School follows the District’s procedures for identifying,
assessing and exiting English language learners, consistent with state and
federal law
School
Culture
Meets
Expectations
• There is a Parent Council and a SAC in place to involve parents in the school
and gather parent voice.
• The school has a clear ladder of consequences aligned to the DPS discipline
policy.
Governance Meets
Expectations
• The Board has a variety of expertise to fulfill its responsibilities, although they
are seeking add additional members.
• The Board regularly monitors key academic, financial, and operational metrics
at both the individual school and organization level.
131
STRIVE Federal: Organizational Sustainability School Culture and Demand STRIVE Federal Performance
Parent Survey Response Rate 58%
Parent Satisfaction Rate 93%
Student Satisfaction Rate 92%
Student Attendance Rate 96%
Re-Enrollment 97%
Demand (Preferences per Entry Grade Seat
Offered) 3.9
Financial Performance Framework Metric Benchmark FY 13 Performance
Private Contributions as a % of Total Expenditures 5% or less 0%
Occupancy Expenses as a % of Total Expenditures 15% or less 11%
Total Instructional Expenses as a % of Total
Expenditures 60% or greater 53%
Months Unreserved Fund Balance On Hand 2.0 or greater 2.031
Debt to Asset 0.9 or less 0.142
Operating Margin 5% to 8% 3.372%
132
SE REGIONAL DECISIONS
133
SE Regional Decisions
134
• No Decisions At this Time
SE School Performance on SPF
135
Summary of All Decisions By Region 136
Region Decision Type School Recommendations
FNE Charter Renewals SOAR at Oakland Acceptance of School Surrender
DSST GVR HS 3 Year Renewal with the opportunity for a 2 Year
Extension
Ridgeview Academy 3 Year Renewal with the opportunity for a 2 Year
Extension
KIPP Montbello 3 Year Renewal with the opportunity for a 2 Year
Extension
New Schools Oakland Placement of District School at Oakland
NNE Charter Renewals Venture Prep HS 2 Year Renewal with the opportunity for a 3 Year
Extension
DSST Cole MS 3 Year Renewal with the opportunity for a 2 Year
Extension
Denver Justice HS 2 Year Renewal with the opportunity for a 1 Year
Extension
University Prep 2 Year Renewal with the opportunity for a 2 Year
Extension
Pioneer 2 Year Renewal with the opportunity for a 3 Year
Extension
NW Contract Renewal Escuela Tlatelolco 1 Year Renewal
SW Charter Renewals STRIVE Prep Federal 5 Year Renewal
APPENDIX A: RENEWAL
CRITERIA
137
Colorado Charters Schools Act Criteria for non-renewal 22-30.5-110
(3) A charter may be revoked or not renewed by the local board of education if
such board determines that the charter school did any of the following:
(a) Committed a material violation of any of the conditions, standards, or procedures
set forth in the charter contract;
(b) Failed to meet or make adequate progress toward achievement of the goals,
objectives, content standards, pupil performance standards, targets for the
measures used to determine the levels of attainment of the performance indicators,
applicable federal requirements, or other terms identified in the charter contract;
(c) Failed to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management; or
(d) Violated any provision of law from which the charter school was not specifically
exempted.
‒ (3.5) If a charter schools is required to implement a turnaround plan…for a second consecutive school year …If the local board of education finds that the charter school’s evidence of improvement is not sufficient or if the charter school is required to implement a turnaround plan for a third consecutive year, the local board of education may revoke the school’s charter.*
138
*Revised 2012
Colorado State Board of Education
Quality Authorizing Principles • According to the “Principles and Standards for Quality Authorizing”
adopted by the Colorado State Board of Education, 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.
‒ Bases the renewal process and renewal decisions on thorough analyses of a comprehensive body of objective evidence defined by the performance framework in the charter contract.
‒ Grants renewal only to schools that have achieved the standards and targets stated in the charter contract, are organizationally and fiscally viable, and have been faithful to the terms of the contract and applicable law.
‒ Does not make renewal decisions, including granting probationary or
short-term renewals, on the basis of political or community pressure or solely on promises of future improvement.
139
Denver Public Schools Quality Authorizing Policy
According to the Denver Public Schools Quality Authorizing Policy
(Board Policy AF), adopted by the DPS Board in June 2012:
• Denver Public Schools maintains high standards for all schools. This
includes setting high standards for approving charter applicants; maintaining
high standards for all of the schools the district oversees; effectively
cultivating quality charter schools that meet identified educational needs of
the district; overseeing charter schools that, meet the performance standards
and targets set forth in their charter contracts through established measures
and metrics including contractual benchmarks defining reasonable progress;
and closing schools that fail to meet standards and targets set forth in
law and by contract.
• DPS Renewal Decision Making: DPS designs and implements a
transparent and rigorous process that uses comprehensive academic,
financial, and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal
decisions, establishes clear criteria for renewal and revocation, and revokes
charters when necessary to protect student and public interests.
140
Renewal Process: Alignment with Denver Plan
• Analysis of education program and classroom observations
Focus on Instructional Core
• Consideration of teacher and leader hiring and retention
Great People to Drive Outcomes
• Integration of parent and community voice into recommendations
Family and Community Engagement
• Analysis of financial performance as well as policies and procedures
Strategic Management of Financial Resources
• Analysis of school culture and ability to accelerate student achievement
A Culture of High Expectations, Service, Empowerment, and
Responsibility
141
APPENDIX B: PRIOR
RENEWAL DECISIONS
142
Prior Renewal Decisions 143
2012-13
School Decision
ACE 2+1
AUL 2+1
Cesar Chavez 2 Year
Colorado HS 2 Year
SWEC 2 Year
STRIVE-Lake 3+2
STRIVE-Highland 3+2
DSST Stapleton MS 5 Year
DSST Stapleton HS 5 Year
DSST GVR MS 3+2
DLS 2+2
SOAR-GVR 2+2
GALS 2+2
Northeast Academy Surrender
2011-12
School Decision
Highline 5 Year
STRIVE-Westwood 5 Year
KIPP Sunshine Peak 5 Year
KIPP Denver
Collegiate
2+1 (Conditions Met)
Venture Prep 1 Year
Life Skills Non-Renewal
Cesar Chavez 1+1 (Conditions
partially met)
Colorado HS 1+1 (Conditions
partially met)
Denver Justice 1+1 (Conditions met)