January  29,  2016     Brian  Weimer   Board  Chair   ReNEW  –Reinventing  Education   3649  Laurel  Street   New  Orleans,  LA  70115       Dear  Mr.  Weimer,     This  letter  represents  a  Notice  of  Breach  of  the  Charter  School  Performance  Compact  for  failure  to  comply  with   several  Special  Education  critical  indicators  as  outlined  below  and  committed  violations  related  to  state  testing   procedures.       On  June  1st,  2015,  the  Louisiana  Department  of  Education  (LDE)  was  made  aware  that  SciTech  Academy’s   Head  of  School  and  the  Principal  had  resigned  amid  allegations  of  cheating  on  internal  assessments.    On  June   3rd,  2015,  the  Board  Chair  of  ReNEW  –  Reinventing  Education  (ReNEW)  sent  a  letter  to  LDE  officials  discussing   two  possible  testing  violations  related  to  state  assessments.    Additionally,  on  June  3rd,  the  former  CEO  of   ReNEW  Schools  publicly  stated  that,  in  addition  to  issues  with  internal  and  state  assessments,  an  internal   investigation  into  special  education  programming  at  SciTech  revealed  additional  areas  of  concern.         On  June  12th,  2015  the  LDE  informed  the  Board  Chair  and  former  CEO  that  the  LDE  would  be  conducting  a   formal  review  of  any  potential  testing  irregularities  and  IDEA-­‐related  concerns  at  ReNEW  SciTech  Academy.   Since  that  time,  the  LDE  conducted  three  on-­‐site  Special  Education  student  file  reviews,  collected  data  from   various  state  databases,  conducted  nearly  20  interviews  with  several  current  and  former  staff  members,  and   reviewed  over  250  internal  emails  and  school  documents.  This  in-­‐depth  review  resulted  in  a  comprehensive   report  detailing  the  findings,  enclosed  with  this  letter.     The  LDE  review  of  special  education  and  testing  practices  at  SciTech  Academy  found  a  number  of  violations,   which  have  been  outlined  in  the  enclosed  report.    To  address  this  Notice  of  Breach  and  return  to  good   standing,  ReNEW  Schools  must  complete  all  corrective  actions  outlined  in  the  report  by  June  30th,  2016.       Through  these  corrective  actions,  ReNEW  –  Reinventing  Education  (ReNEW)  will  achieve  the  following   objectives:     I. A  strong  governing  board  with  best-­‐in-­‐class  governance  processes  and  expertise  in  relevant  areas;   II. A  codified  organizational  structure,  strong  organizational  leadership,  and  organizational  policies  and   processes  that  govern  school  leader  management,  academics,  finance,  and  operations;  and   III. Resolution  of  specific  deficiencies  noted  in  the  report  in  the  areas  of  special  education  and  state  testing.     Based  on  the  documents  submitted  by  ReNEW  and  reports  submitted  by  the  Independent  Monitor,  the   Department  of  Education  will  assess  ReNEW's  progress  toward  meeting  these  objectives  by  June  30,  2016  to   determine  whether  further  action  is  needed.       All  documentation  must  be  submitted  to  the  Department  of  Education  independent  monitor  by  the  specified   date.  Please  reach  out  to  me  at  laura.hawkins@la.gov  with  any  questions.       Sincerely,           Laura  Hawkins       Cc:     Max  Daigh,  Manager  of  School  Performance,  Louisiana  Department  of  Education   Disha  Jain,  Principal,  SciTech  Academy   Colleen  Mackay,  Chief  Executive  Officer,  ReNEW  Schools   Kunjan  Narechania,  Louisiana  Department  of  Education           ReNEW  –  Reinventing  Education     Corrective  Action  Plan   January  2016     Objectives   Through  a  set  of  extensive  corrective  actions,  ReNEW  –  Reinventing  Education  (ReNEW)  will  seek  the  following   objectives:     I. A  strong  governing  board  with  high-­‐quality  governance  processes  and  expertise  in  relevant  areas;   II. A  codified  organizational  structure,  strong  organizational  leadership,  and  organizational  policies  and   processes  that  govern  school  leader  management,  academics,  finance,  and  operations;  and   III. Resolution  of  specific  deficiencies  noted  in  the  report  in  the  areas  of  special  education  and  state  testing.     External  Parties  to  be  Involved  in  Achieving  Objectives   1. ReNEW  will  engage  a  consultant  approved  by  the  Department  of  Education  with  expertise  in  charter   school  administration  no  later  than  January  31,  2016  in  a  contract  to  last  not  less  than  five  months.   2. The  Department  of  Education  will  appoint  an  Independent  Monitor  to  oversee  progress  toward  the   objectives  and  make  regular  reports  to  the  Department  beginning  in  January  and  continuing  through   June  1,  2016.  ReNEW  will  compensate  the  Department  for  the  Independent  Monitor’s  service.   3. Based  on  the  documents  submitted  by  ReNEW  and  reports  submitted  by  the  Independent  Monitor,  the   Department  of  Education  will  assess  ReNEW's  progress  toward  meeting  these  objectives  by  June  30,   2016  and  determine  whether  further  action  is  needed.       Specific  Corrective  Actions   1. A  strong  governing  board  with  high-­‐quality  governance  processes  and  expertise  in  relevant  areas   A. By  May  1,  ReNEW  will  ensure  that  its  is  board  composed  of  members  who  have  extensive   experience  in  school  board  governance  and/or  a  demonstrated  track  record  in  fields  relevant  to   charter  school  governance  and  operations.    ReNEW  will  submit  documentation  to  the  Department   demonstrating  that  its  board  has  developed  expertise  in  relevant  areas  as  required  by  Bulletin  126.   B. By  May  1,  ReNEW’s  will  review  and  submit  the  following  documents  to  the  Department:   a. Board  bylaws;   b. Board  committee  structure;   c. CEO  evaluation  process  including  goals  for  the  CEO,  timelines  and  processes  for  the   evaluation;  and   d. A  scope  and  sequence  of  board  training  topics  and  an  accompanying  schedule.       2. A  codified  organization  structure,  strong  organizational  leadership,  and  organizational  policies  and   processes  that  govern  school  leader  management,  academics,  finance  and  operations   A. By  May  1,  ReNEW,  in  partnership  with  their  consultant  organization,  will  develop  the  following   structures  related  to  executive  team  management:   a. An  organizational  chart  and  clear  management  lines  for  the  central  office,   b. A  set  of  processes  that  govern  how  decisions  will  be  made  at  the  central  office  level,  and   c. A  set  of  protocols  for  elevating,  investigating  and  resolving  organizational  concerns.     B. By  May  1,  ReNEW,  in  partnership  with  their  consultant  organization,  will  develop  the  following   structures  related  to  school  leader  management:   a. Establish  a  clear  management  line  for  school  leaders  to  (an)  individual(s)  at  the  Executive   level,   b. Establish  a  clear  job  description  for  school  leaders  delineating  the  role  of  the  school  leader   versus  the  role  of  the  central  organization,  and   c. Establish  a  framework  and  set  of  processes  for  school  leader  management  and  evaluation.   C. By  May  1,  ReNEW,  in  partnership  with  their  consultant  organization  will  develop  the  following   structures  related  to  financial  management:   a. Establish  clear  roles  and  responsibilities  for  school-­‐based  staff  versus  central  office  staff  in   the  annual  budgeting  process;   b. Establish  controls  and  guidelines  to  identify  unusual  financial  activity  at  the  school  level  for   the  2016-­‐17  school  year;   c. Submit  a  preliminary  budget  to  the  Department  for  SY16-­‐17  that  inclusive  of  all  revenues   inclusive  of  both  central  organization  and  school  level  spending   D. By  May  1,  ReNEW,  in  partnership  with  their  consultant  organization  will  create  a  plan  for  recruiting   or  developing  chief  executive  talent  capable  of  leading  organization  in  implementing  the  above   structures,  processes,  and  policies.       3.    Resolution  of  specific  deficiencies  noted  in  the  report  in  the  areas  of  special  education,  state  testing,  and   personnel.   A. Special  Education  Deficiencies  at  SciTech   a. By  February  15,  2016,  create  and  share  with  the  Department  of  Education  a  comprehensive   plan  to  provide  compensatory  education  and  services  to  all  2014-­‐15  students  who  did  not   receive  the  number  of  minutes  required  under  their  IEPs.  ReNEW  must  make  all  reasonable   efforts  to  provide  all  compensatory  minutes  to  students,  regardless  of  their  current  school,   by  July  1,  2016  and  provide  on-­‐going  documentation  of  those  efforts.   b. Immediately  communicate  the  need  for  compensatory  minutes  to  all  impacted  families  if   this  has  not  already  occurred.   c. Ensure  all  SciTech  IEPs  and  evaluations  for  current  students  are  up  to  date  and  compliant   with  all  law  and  policy.    Provide  an  update  on  progress  toward  this  goal  by  May  1.    This  is   inclusive  of:     i. Reviewing  all  evaluations  conducted  between  May  2014-­‐June  2015  to  ensure  they   appropriately  identified  student  needs   ii. Reviewing  all  IEPs  whose  minutes  were  increased  or  decreased  between  May  2014   and  June  2015  to  ensure  that  they  are  currently  aligned  with  student  needs   d. By  May  1,  2016,  develop  a  robust  plan  for  on-­‐going  special  education  monitoring  in  its   schools,  which  will  include  specific  procedures  for  more  accurately  tracking  special   education  minutes.     e. For  the  next  two  school  years,  ReNEW  Schools  will  conduct  a  quarterly  meeting  with  the   Department  of  Education  monitoring  team  to  review  the  following:   i. All  results  of  child  find  and  identification  activities   ii. All  services  provided  to  students  with  disabilities   iii. All  re-­‐evaluations  or  adjustments  made  to  student  service  plans   B. Testing  Violations  at  SciTech   a. By  February  1,  develop  and  implement  a  plan  for  all  school-­‐based  instructional  staff  across   all  ReNEW  Schools  to  be  trained  on  state  testing  procedures  for  all  relevant  state-­‐mandated   tests.       b. By  March  1,  develop  and  implement  a  whistleblower  policy  for  all  staff  across  all  ReNEW   Schools  to  report  potential  violations  of  testing  procedure.     c. By  March  1,  hire  a  test  monitoring  organization,  to  be  approved  by  the  Department,  to   monitor  testing  at  every  school  in  the  network.    This  organization  will  prepare  a  report  on   overall  testing  procedures  to  the  ReNEW  board  and  to  the  Department  of  Education.   d. By  May  1,  develop  a  process  for  all  ReNEW  schools  for  identifying  students  that  will  be   retained  at  the  end  of  the  school  year.   C. Personnel   a. The  Department  is  pursuing  measures  to  prevent  former  SciTech  leadership  from  obtaining   employment  in  Louisiana  public  schools  per  BESE  Bulletin  908.     ReNEW  SciTech  Academy  Investigative  Report   January  29,  2016       Executive  Summary   ReNEW  Sci  Tech  Academy  (STA)  is  a  Type  5  charter  school  operating  in  New  Orleans  under  the  Charter   Management  Organization  (CMO)  ReNEW-­‐Reinventing  Education,  Inc.  (ReNEW  Schools).    The  school  opened   in  2010  and  currently  serves  approximately  750  students  in  pre-­‐kindergarten  through  eighth  grade.         In  late  May  2015,  the  Louisiana  Department  of  Education  (LDE)  was  made  aware  by  the  former  ReNEW  CEO   that  SciTech  Academy’s  Head  of  School  and  Principal  had  resigned  amid  allegations  of  improperly   administering  internal  assessments.    On  June  3,  2015,  the  ReNEW  Schools  Board  Chair  sent  a  letter  to  LDE   officials  discussing  two  possible  violations  of  testing  procedure  related  to  state  assessments.    Additionally,  on   June  3,  the  former  CEO  of  ReNEW  Schools  publicly  stated  that,  in  addition  to  potential  issues  with  internal   and  state  assessments,  an  internal  investigation  into  special  education  programming  at  STA  revealed   additional  areas  of  concern.         The  Louisiana  Department  of  Education  and  the  Recovery  School  District  (RSD)  serve  as  the  authorizer  and   oversight  body  for  the  Type  5  charter  schools.    The  LDE  and  RSD  are  responsible  for  ensuring  that  charter   schools  are  achieving  pre-­‐determined  student  achievement  benchmarks,  are  following  agreed  upon   organizational  and  financial  policies,  and  are  appropriately  serving  the  most  vulnerable  students  in   accordance  with  federal  IDEA  law.    Given  the  information  that  had  been  revealed  by  ReNEW’s  former  CEO,   the  LDE  and  RSD  chose  to  pursue  an  in  depth  review  of  the  events  at  ReNEW  SciTech  Academy,  as  is  standard   practice  for  the  LDE  and  RSD  in  such  instances.     On  June  12,  2015,  the  LDE  informed  the  Board  Chair  and  former  CEO  of  ReNEW  Schools  that  the  LDE  and  RSD   would  be  conducting  a  formal  review  of  any  potential  testing  procedure  violations  and  IDEA-­‐related  concerns   at  ReNEW  STA.    Following  the  initial  review  conducted  by  the  LDE  IDEA  monitoring  team,  it  became  apparent   that  a  more  in-­‐depth  investigation  was  necessary.     The  LDE  review  of  special  education  and  testing  administration  at  STA  from  August  2014  –  June  2015   revealed  four  primary  findings.    These  findings  are  limited  to  ReNEW  STA  and  limited  to  the  2014-­‐15  school   year.   I. ReNEW  STA  inappropriately  obtained  funds;   II. ReNEW  STA  failed  to  comply  with  multiple  aspects  of  federal  IDEA  law  including  failure  to  provide   Free  and  Appropriate  Education  (FAPE)  to  students  with  disabilities;   III. ReNEW  STA  committed  a  violation  of  testing  procedure  in  the  2014-­‐15  school  year;  and   IV. Internal  processes  at  ReNEW  failed  to  identify  and  address  these  violations.       These  violations  are  a  result  of  the  willful  neglect  of  a  small  number  of  individuals  and  a  lack  of  strong   internal  monitoring  systems  across  a  large  organization.  At  both  the  individual  level  and  the  organizational   level  the  RSD  and  LDE  are  enacting  consequences  that  are  intended  to  ensure  that  students  at  STA   henceforth  receive  appropriate  services,  that  the  ReNEW  organization  establishes  the  management  systems   necessary  to  prevent  such  violations  in  the  future,  and  that  potential  violations  of  federal  or  state  law  by   individuals  identified  in  the  report  be  referred  to  law  enforcement.         Throughout  this  investigation  the  ReNEW  Board  of  Directors  has  been  cooperative  and  has  chosen  to   proactively  address  many  of  the  violations  cited  in  this  report.       Process  for  Compiling  Report   Since  June  2015,  the  LDE  has  conducted  three  on-­‐site  special  education  student  file  reviews,  collected  data   from  various  state  databases,  conducted  nearly  20  interviews  with  current  and  former  staff  members,  and   reviewed  over  250  emails.  Please  see  the  appendices  for  data  on  ReNEW  schools  as  well  as  supporting   documentation  and  emails  that  were  reviewed.       Since  the  LDE’s  review  began  in  June  2015,  numerous  meetings  have  been  conducted  with  organization  and   board  leadership  to  gather  information  and  discuss  potential  corrective  actions.    ReNEW  has  been  fully   cooperative  throughout  the  process  of  compiling  this  report.    A  number  of  the  corrective  actions  being   required  by  LDE  have  been  underway  since  fall  of  2015.     This  report  and  its  appendices  have  been  supplied  to  all  appropriate  authorities,  including  the  state  Inspector   General  and  the  U.S.  Department  of  Education  Inspector  General  for  additional  investigation  as  warranted.     Findings     I.  STA  inappropriately  adopted  and  modified  student  IEPs  to  justify  staffing  counts  through  ReNEW’s   internal  budgeting  process  for  the  2014-­‐15  school  year.     During  planning  for  the  2014-­‐15  school  year,  STA  over  budgeted  by  approximately  $300,000.00  according  to   internal  budgets.  Former  school  leadership  used  two  tactics  to  inappropriately  enhance  the  school’s  budget   to  make  up  for  the  unfunded  expenditures.    First,  the  school  manipulated  the  number  of  service  minutes   outlined  in  the  Individualized  Education  Program  (IEPs)  for  49  students  with  disabilities  in  order  to  justify  its   proposed  staffing  model  to  ReNEW  leadership  during  the  budgeting  process  by  leading  leadership  to  believe   that  the  school  was  entitled  to  more  funding  than  it  actually  was.    Additional  state  funds  are  provided  for   students  requiring  more  service  minutes,  which  supports  schools  serving  students  diagnosed  with   exceptionalities  that  have  historically  been  more  costly.  (See  Appendix  B,  Document  1  for  a  description  of   how  schools  are  funded)     Additionally,  STA  attempted  to  identify  new  special  education  students  before  the  official  IDEA  student   count,  taken  on  February  1,  2015,  by  rushing  students  through  the  Response  to  Intervention  (RtI)  process  in   order  to  evaluate  and  identify  students  as  having  a  disability.  The  RtI  process  is  a  multi-­‐tiered  approach  to  the   early  identification  and  support  of  students  with  learning  and  behavior  needs  that  utilizes  several  research-­‐ based  interventions,  increasing  in  intensity,  across  a  span  of  time  in  order  to  identify  struggling  learners  and   tailor  support  to  these  learners  both  through  the  use  of  regular  education  interventions  or  eventual  special   education  referral.    Students  newly  identified  prior  to  this  date  would  result  in  additional  funds  for  the  school   through  the  differentiated  funding  formula.           Budget  Shortage     Former  leadership  at  STA  submitted  several  budgets  to  the  ReNEW  central  office  based  on  inflated  numbers   of  students  with  disabilities  (SWDs)  across  each  tier  of  the  funding  structure.  The  tables  below  summarize   budgets  submitted  by  STA  leadership  over  the  course  of  the  fall  of  2014.     Budget  Projections  vs.  Official  Student  Counts         Budgets  submitted  by  SciTech  to  ReNEW   8/26/14   10/1/14     #  of   Students   Funding   Received   #  of   Students   Funding   Received   Tier  1   Tier  2   Tier  3   Tier  4   Tier  5   Total   40   22   29   18   19   128   $51,925   $163,236   $349,668   $250,420   $352,432   $1,167,681   17   15   29   25   24   110   $22,068   $111,297   $349,668   $347,806   $445,177   $1,276,016   Official  Student  Counts  Collected  by  LDE   10/1/2014  (IDEA   2/1/15  (MFP  Count)   Count)   #  of   Funding   #  of   Funding   Students   Received   Students   Received   17   24   12   8   19   80   $23,987   $193,560   $157,272   $120,976   $383,078   $878,873   19   33   14   6   20   92   $26,809   $266,145   $183,484   $90,732   $403,240   $970,410       In  August  2014,  STA  submitted  a  budget  to  the  ReNEW  central  office  projecting  a  student  body  comprised  of   128  SWD  by  February  1,  2015.    This  would  result  in  the  school  receiving  approximately  $1,167,681.00  above   the  base  amount  per-­‐pupil  for  students  without  disabilities.    The  budget  submitted  to  the  CMO  on  October  1,   2014,  projected  funding  based  on  110  SWDs,  totaling  $1,276,016.00.         According  to  actual  student  counts  collected  by  the  LDE  on  October  1,  2014  and  February  1,  2015,  STA  over-­‐ projected  the  number  of  SWD  it  could  expect  to  enroll  and  would  eventually  experience  a  budgetary  shortfall   of  more  than  $300,000.  (See  Appendix  B,  Document  2  for  a  comparison  of  budgets  submitted  to  the  CMO   between  August  2014  and  October  2014)         Financial  Impact  of  STA  Over-­‐Projection       Tier  1   Tier  2   Tier  3   Tier  4   Tier  5   Total     10/1  Actual  -­‐  10/1  CMO  Budget   Δ  Students   Δ  Funding   0   9   -­‐17   -­‐17   -­‐5   -­‐30    $0      $82,263      $(192,396)    $(226,830)    $(62,099)    $(397,143)   2/1  Actual  -­‐  10/1  CMO  Budget   Δ  Students   Δ  Funding   2   18   -­‐15   -­‐19   -­‐4   -­‐18    $4,741    $154,848    $(166,184)    $(257,074)    $(41,937)    $(305,606)     A  series  of  emails  between  members  of  the  STA  leadership  team  and  ReNEW  central  office  staff,  in  addition   to  staff  interviews,  indicate  that  the  STA  leadership  team  deliberately  developed  budgets  that  included  these   over  projections.       • • A  document  created  by  Employee  A  and  shared  with  ReNEW  central  office  leadership  on  January  31,   2015,  stated  that  the  school’s  priority  was  to  maintain  their  current  staffing  levels.  (Appendix  B,   Document  3)     Excerpts  from  the  same  document,  show  that  school  leadership,  including  the  Head  of  School  and   Principal,  were  well  aware  of  the  potential  budgetary  shortfall  caused  by  over-­‐projecting  and  the   steps  that  were  to  be  taken  by  Employee  A  and  several  other  school  administrators  to  avoid  such  an   outcome.  (Appendix  B,  Document  3)     • An  email  sent  on  May  25,  2015,  by  Employee  A  at  STA  to  two  members  of  ReNEW’s  leadership  team   outlines  specifically  how  the  total  number  of  students  with  disabilities  and  their  associated  funding   tiers  had  been  manipulated  through  the  fall  and  into  January  2015  due  to  budgetary  concerns.   (Appendix  C,  Email  1)     Service  Minute  Inflation     The  review  of  IEPs  conducted  by  the  LDE  during  the  months  of  September  and  October  2015  show  that  there   were  92  IEPs  that  were  funded  through  the  February  1,  2015  MFP  enrollment  count,  as  per  the  Special   Education  Reporting  System.    Of  those  92,  17  were  primarily  for  Speech/Language  impairment  and  16  were   IEPs  newly  created  in  the  2014-­‐2015  school  year.  Those  were  excluded  from  our  analysis,  leaving  59  IEPs  to   analyze  for  inflation  of  minutes  between  2013-­‐14  and  2014-­‐15.     A  closer  review  was  conducted  on  those  59  IEPs  and  the  results  are  as  follows:         • Of  the  59  IEPs  examined,  49  IEPs  (83%)  were  amended  to  increase  the  number  of  service  minutes  to   be  provided  for  the  2014-­‐15  school  year  unilaterally  at  the  start  of  that  same  school  year.     • The  amended  IEPs  resulted  in  27  instances  (55%  of  amended  IEPs)  of  the  school  receiving  additional   funds  for  the  student  than  they  would  have  prior  to  amending.     • The  average  number  of  minutes  added  to  IEPs  was  1,032,  which  amounts  to  about  2  ½  additional   days  of  special  education  instruction  each  week  for  every  one  of  these  49  students.       • The  average  instructional  week  consists  of  2100  minutes.    Thus,  48%  of  a  typical  instructional  week,   according  to  STA’s  amended  IEPs,  should  have  consisted  of  special  education  instruction  and/or   related  services,  in  addition  to  the  service  minutes  on  the  IEP  prior  to  amendment.     The  chart  below  illustrates  the  number  of  IEPs  that  were  amended  and  to  what  extent,  in  terms  of   instructional  days.       Instructional  Days  Added   Minutes  Added   Number  of  IEPs   Percent  of  Total   0  –  1  Days   <420   9   18%   1  –  2  Days   421  –  840   2   4%   2  –  3  Days   841-­‐1260   17   35%   3  –  4  Days   1261  –  1680   20   41%   4  –  5  Days   1681  –  2100   1   2%     In  amending  IEPs  such  that  students  would  qualify  for  increased  funding,  STA  secured  approximately   $180,000.00  in  additional  funding.     An  email  from  Employee  A  at  STA  stated  that  “all  of  our  kids  are  going  to  have  their  minutes  amended  at  the   start  of  the  school  year  for  academic  minutes.”    Employee  A  then  states  that  STA  leadership  was  requesting   information  regarding  the  impact  that  these  increased  minutes  would  have  on  the  school’s  budget  because   there  were  teachers  who  might  possibly  be  laid  off  if  additional  funding  was  not  secured.    Members  of  the   schools  leadership  team  were  considering  adding  services  to  students’  IEPs  to  move  them  to  higher  funding   tiers.  (Appendix  C,  Emails  2  and  3)     In  preparation  for  the  2015-­‐16  school  year,  under  new  school  leadership,  32  of  49  of  previously  amended   IEPs  were  re-­‐amended  to  reflect  much  lower  numbers  of  special  education  minutes,  indicating  that  the  prior   increases  were  largely  not  linked  to  student  need.             The  re-­‐amending  resulted  in  the  following:   • The  average  number  of  service  minutes  by  which  an  IEP  was  reduced  was  1,170.    A  reduction  of   1,170  minutes  is  equivalent  to  reducing  the  instructional  week  by  56%.   • Reducing  the  service  minutes  in  these  IEPs  equates  to  a  loss  of  approximately  $76,000.00  in  special   education  funding.       Initial  IEP  Creation     The  school  also  attempted  to  fill  its  budget  gap  by  newly  identifying  students  as  having  special  needs.    During   the  2014-­‐15  school  year,  the  school  newly  identified  16  students  as  having  disabilities.       Federal  and  state  guidelines  govern  the  processes  that  schools  should  use  to  identify  students  who  have   special  needs.  Identifying  new  students  requires  that  students  receive  applicable  interventions  prior  to  being   referred  for  special  education  services.    This  is  commonly  known  as  the  Response  to  Intervention  process   (RtI)  and  provides  the  baseline  data  that  must  then  be  considered  by  a  School  Building  Level  Committee   (SBLC)  before  the  decision  to  evaluate  a  student  can  be  made.         School  records  show  that  goal  of  STA  leadership  was  to  put  between  70  and  90  students  through  the  RtI  and   evaluation  process  in  the  fall  of  2014  (Appendix  C,  Email  4).    Many  of  these  students  were  not  officially   evaluated  for  disabilities  due  to  missing  RtI  information  or  were  evaluated  and  found  not  to  have  a  disability.   A  series  of  internal  emails  between  former  STA  leadership,  as  well  as  additional  communication  with   independent  evaluators,  suggests  that  students  were  rushed  through  the  RtI  process  and  that  decisions  to   evaluate  students  for  disabilities  were  not  made  with  sufficient  data  or  the  guidance  of  the  School  Building   Level  Committee  (Appendix  C,  Emails  5  and  6).         As  mentioned  previously,  many  students  were  exited  from  the  evaluation  process  because  of  insufficient  RtI   data.    Eventually,  however,  this  effort  to  identify  additional  students  as  having  disabilities  led  to  the  creation   of  16  initial  IEPs  from  June  2014  through  February  1,  2015.    The  following  chart  outlines  the  details  of  these   newly  created  IEPs:         Exceptionality   Service  Minutes   Tier   Funding   Speech/Language  Impairment   60   1   $1400.00   Speech/Language  Impairment   90   1   $1400.00   Specific  Learning  Disability   60   2   $8,000.00   Specific  Learning  Disability   600   2   $8,000.00   Specific  Learning  Disability   615   2   $8,000.00   Specific  Learning  Disability   660   2   $8,000.00   Specific  Learning  Disability   900   2   $8,000.00   Specific  Learning  Disability   1130   2   $8,000.00   Specific  Learning  Disability   1200   2   $8,000.00   Specific  Learning  Disability   1200   2   $8,000.00   Specific  Learning  Disability   1400   2   $8,000.00   Specific  Learning  Disability   1700   2   $8,000.00   Specific  Learning  Disability   1700   2   $8,000.00   Other  Health  Impairments   1430   3   $13,000.00   Other  Health  Impairment   1430   3   $13,000.00   Emotional  Disturbance   2100   5   $21,000.00     The  average  number  of  service  minutes  provided  in  these  newly  created  IEPs  was  1,017  minutes.    Of  students   not  new  to  STA  in  the  2014-­‐2015  school  year,  50%  of  newly  identified  students  had  attended  STA  for  at  least   three  years  prior  to  the  2014-­‐15  school  year.       The  creation  of  these  16  IEPs  resulted  in  an  additional  $137,800.00  in  special  education  funding  for  ReNEW   STA.       STA  had  originally  planned  to  rapidly  push  as  many  students  through  the  evaluation  process  as  possible  in  the   month  of  January  because  school  leadership  had  communicated  that  “thousands  of  dollars  are  on  the  line”     (Appendix  B,  Document  3).     On  January  29,  2015,  Employee  A  met  with  several  members  of  the  ReNEW  leadership  team  and  the  leadership   team  insisted  that  the  school  would  immediately  discontinue  the  holding  of  IEP  meetings  and  submission  of  IEPs   to  the  Special  Education  Reporting  (SER)  database  without  having  complete  and  proper  evaluations  (Appendix  B,   Document  3).     An  internal  email  exchange  from  May,  2015  indicates  that  several  of  these  practices,  namely  referring   students  for  special  education  evaluations  based  on  the  results  of  an  insufficient  RTI  process,  continued   through  the  end  of  the  academic  year    (Appendix  C,  Email  7).     II.            ReNEW  STA  failed  to  comply  with  multiple  aspects  of  federal  IDEA  law  including  failure  to  provide   Free  and  Appropriate  Education  (FAPE)  to  students  with  disabilities.     Most  students  with  disabilities  were  not  provided  their  full  number  of  service  minutes  nor  their  full  scope  of   services  as  outlined  in  their  IEPs.     During  June  through  September  2015,  LDE  Statewide  Monitoring  staff  reviewed  76  available  special   education  files  at  STA.  During  those  file  reviews,  it  was  noted  that  55%  of  the  students  received  only  partial   services  and  25%  received  none  of  the  services  as  outlined  in  their  IEPs,  according  to  service  logs  in  student   folders  for  the  2014-­‐15  school  year.       The  logs  documenting  services  often  indicated  a  brief  daily  objective  as  representation  of  services  provided   on  that  day.  These  objectives  often  did  not  align  with  IEP  goals,  and  service  logs  describing  services  provided   to  students  with  disabilities  showed  identical  instruction  for  all  students  in  any  given  class  suggesting  that   differentiated  services  were  not  provided.    Examples  of  these  logs  can  be  found  in  Appendix  B,  Documents  4  -­‐   7.         These  example  logs,  from  two  different  students,  are  exemplary  of  what  was  found  in  most  student  files  and   demonstrate  that  the  special  education  instruction  provided  was  not  aligned  to  IEP  goals.  One  log  documents   eight  days  on  which  the  log  states    “academic  minutes  not  addressed”  for  the  student  (Appendix  B,   Document  4).  The  student  also  has  logs  that  include  special  education  minutes  for  subject  areas  not   addressed  in  the  IEP  (Appendix  B,  Document  5).  For  example,  there  are  several  log  entries  that  indicate   special  education  minutes  provided  in  science  and  history,  but  the  student’s  IEP  only  includes  goals  for   reading,  writing,  math  and  social  studies  and  therefore  the  services  provided  were  not  aligned  to  the   student’s  IEP.       Another  student’s  logs  show  minutes  spent  on  science  topics,  though  the  IEP  goals  include  math,  English,   writing  and  reading  (Appendix  B,  Document  6).  Additionally,  one  page  of  this  student’s  logs  show  nine   sessions  of  a  very  minimally  described  objective,  not  actual  progress  aligned  to  IEP  goals  (Appendix  B,   Document  7).       Additionally,  STA  had  77  students  in  the  2014-­‐15  school  year  whose  IEPs  required  instruction  in  a  special  class   setting,  and  therefore  should  have  received  pullout  service  minutes;  however  teacher  interviews  suggest   these  services  were  not  provided:     • In  an  interview  conducted  by  the  LDE,  Teacher  A  stated  that  in  2014-­‐15  teachers  were  instructed  by   the  school  leader  not  to  align  small  group  instruction  for  students  with  special  needs  to  IEP  goals,   benchmarks  and  objectives.    The  teacher  stated  that  teachers  were  provided  copies  of  IEPs,  but  did   not  align  their  instruction  to  goals  indicated  on  the  IEP.  According  to  Teacher  A,  there  were  no   pullout  services  provided  during  the  2014-­‐15  school  year  at  all,  which  does  not  align  to  the  needs   outlined  in  student  IEPs.     • In  an  interview  conducted  by  LDE  staff,  Teacher  B,  confirmed  that  the  administrative  team   communicated  to  the  staff  that  special  education  was  to  be  a  secondary  priority  to  students  who   were  more  likely  to  pass  the  state  assessments.    This  teacher  also  confirmed  that  instruction  within   classrooms  was  not  differentiated  per  student  IEPs.  According  to  the  teacher,  there  were  no  pullout   services  provided  students  and  objectives  were  not  changed  for  special  education  students.   • A  statement  from  Employee  A  states  that  at  a  fall  meeting,  Employee  A  is  made  aware  that  teachers   were  told  directly  and  repeatedly  by  school  leadership  to  stop  running  small  group  sessions  with  the   lowest  students  in  the  class  (mostly  special  education)  because  they  would  not  pass  PARCC  and   should  instead  spend  time  with  everyone  else.  These  instances  would  still  be  documented  as   inclusion  minutes.  (Appendix  B,  Document  3)   • Staff  at  ReNEW  indicated  to  LDE  IDEA  monitoring  staff  during  an  interview  on  June  18,  2015  that  they   were  made  aware  in  January  2015  that  over  half  of  the  students  with  disabilities  at  STA  had  not  been   receiving  their  full  IEP  minutes.  Some  services,  mostly  those  conducted  by  outside  contractors  were   being  provided,  but  the  content  did  not  align  to  IEP  goals,  mostly  for  instructional  minutes,  according   to  the  interviewees.           Additionally,  STA  leadership  claimed  to  staff  their  school  with  special  education  teachers.  However,   documents  obtained  suggest  that  these  teachers  may  not  have  been  focused  on  educating  the  special   education  students  in  the  school.     On  August  4,  2014,  ReNEW’s  central  office  requested  that  STA  provide  a  list  of  individuals  that  were  to  be   specifically  special  education  teachers  or  paraprofessionals  (Appendix  C,  Email  8).    STA  responded  with  the   names  of  twenty-­‐five  individuals.    When  compared  to  data  obtained  through  the  Louisiana  Profile  of  Educational   Personnel  (PEP)  database,  of  the  25  people  designated  by  STA  as  special  education  staff,  only  information  for   five  teachers  were  reported  to  the  PEP  database,  all  of  which  were  coded  as  regular  education  teachers  and  not   specific  to  the  special  education  program.       Many  of  these  teachers  were  unaware  that  they  were  filling  the  role  of  special  educators  and  these  individuals   were  expected  to  do  nothing  different  than  those  teachers  that  were  considered  regular  education  teachers   (Appendix  B,  Document  3;  Appendix  C,  Email  9).     III.                  ReNEW  STA  committed  a  procedural  testing  violation  during  the  2014-­‐15  school  year.   A  procedural  testing  violation  occurred  at  STA  during  the  2014-­‐15  school  year,  in  which  the  school  leadership   requested  that  teachers  review  secure  testing  materials  in  violation  of  policy.    ReNew  leadership  self-­‐ reported  these  violations  to  the  Department.  Additionally,  student  retention  and  promotion  decisions  were   made  with  the  intention  of  improving  school-­‐wide  test  performance.   LDE  and  RSD  investigation  into  these  procedural  testing  concerns  uncovered  no  evidence  of  systemic  testing   violations  or  cheating  on  state  assessment  at  STA  or  across  the  ReNEW  network  of  schools.  All  evidence  has   been  supplied  to  the  state  Inspector  General  for  any  further  review  warranted  by  that  agency.   Several  teachers  were  asked  by  school  leadership  to  review  secure  testing  materials  in  violation  of  testing   policy.     In  a  letter  dated  June  3,  2015,  addressed  to  the  LDE  Director  of  Assessments,  ReNEW  Employee  B  notified  the   LDE  of  a  potential  testing  procedure  violation  committed  during  the  2014-­‐15  school  year.  According  to  this   letter,  the  Head  of  School  had  directed  four  teachers  to  examine  completed  test  booklets,  after  tests  had   been  administered  in  order  to  prepare  for  the  following  year’s  test,  in  violation  of  test  security  standards   (Appendix  B,  Document  8).  In  response,  the  LDE  conducted  several  interviews  with  CMO  and  school  level   staff  members.     In  an  interview  with  Employee  B  on  June  17,  2015  conducted  by  LDE  staff,  Employee  B  indicated  the  situation   was  described  in  a  departing  staff  member’s  exit-­‐survey.  This  staff  member  had  referenced  adults  seeing   secure  test  materials  after  the  completion  of  student  testing.  According  to  Employee  B,  the  ReNEW   organization  conducted  an  investigation  and  learned  that  three  teachers  had  been  asked  to  view  testing   material  and  two  complied.  In  addition  to  the  teacher  who  originally  notified  ReNEW,  Employee  B  spoke  with   another  teacher  who  confirmed  that  the  Head  of  School  asked  this  teacher  to  review  test  materials  to   become  more  comfortable  with  the  content,  and  the  teacher  complied.     In  interviews  with  LDE  staff,  these  three  teachers  confirmed  the  above:   • • •       Teacher  C  stated  that  she  administered  the  8th  grade  LEAP  exam  to  5  students  with  read-­‐aloud   accommodations.    Teacher  C  was  told  by  the  Head  of  School  that  the  Head  of  School  was  thinking  about   placing  the  teacher  in  6th  grade  science  for  the  following  year.  The  Head  of  School  told  the  teacher  to   take  a  look  at  the  6th  grade  iLEAP  test  the  day  after  students  had  taken  the  exam.  The  Head  of  School   asked  the  teacher  to  look  at  a  completed  test  for  10  minutes  during  homeroom,  and  then  turn  the  test   back  in.  The  teacher  stated  that  they  did  not  discuss  the  test  with  anyone  else.     Teacher  D  was  assigned  to  be  a  hall  monitor  during  the  PARCC  math  test.  Teacher  D  was  asked  twice   by  the  Head  of  School  to  review  the  secure  testing  materials  in  the  classroom  in  which  the  Head  of   School  was  the  test  administrator.  The  first  time,  Teacher  D  was  asked  to  check  on  student  testing  by   looking  over  the  students’  shoulders  as  they  tested.  The  second  time,  the  teacher  was  asked  by  the   Head  of  School  to  look  through  a  completed  math  booklet  exam  for  the  purpose  of  knowing  what  to   focus  on  for  next  year.     Teacher  E,  who  had  planned  to  leave  after  the  2014-­‐15  school  year,  stated  that  the  Head  of  School   had  asked  Teacher  E  to  assist  a  new  teacher  who  was  going  to  teach  the  same  subject  and  grade  level   next  year  by  reviewing  the  test  booklet  with  the  new  teacher.  Teacher  E  refused.   ReNEW  STA  retained  a  disproportionate  number  of  students,  potentially  to  increase  school-­‐wide  test   performance.     The  average  rate  of  retention,  retaining  a  student  in  the  same  grade  for  a  subsequent  year,  for  Type  5  charter   schools  from  the  2013  to  2014  school  year  was  5.2%.  The  rate  for  the  same  years  for  STA  was  significantly   higher  at  15.3%  (Appendix  A).     A  similar  disproportionality  is  evidenced  by  an  average  retention  rate  between  the  2013-­‐14  and  2014-­‐15   school  years  for  students  with  disabilities.  At  STA,  10.3%  of  students  with  disabilities  were  retained  compared   to  a  5.1%  average  for  all  Type  5  charter  schools  (Appendix  A).     A  series  of  emails  and  documents  indicate  that  retention  and  promotion  decisions  may  have  been  made   based  on  the  likelihood  of  a  student  passing  the  test  in  the  next  grade.  This  is  in  violation  of  school  promotion   policy  (Appendix  C,  Emails  10,  11,  and  12;  Appendix  B,  Document  3).     IV.  Internal  processes  failed  to  identify  and  address  the  problems  at  STA       The  documentation  collected  to  support  the  previous  three  findings  suggest  that  ReNEW’s  leadership  was  aware   of  many  of  violations  described  in  this  report  during  the  2014-­‐15  school  year.     By  October  31,  2014  as  evidenced  by  an  email  exchange  between  members  of  ReNEW’s  leadership  team  and   Employee  A,  the  leadership  was  aware  of  the  discrepancy  between  the  special  education  population  actually   enrolled  at  STA  and  the  population  that  STA  submitted  in  budget  documents  to  the  CMO  (Appendix  C,  Email  13).         Additionally,  in  January  2015,  Employee  A  shared  information  with  ReNEW’s  leadership  outlining  the  series  of   events  that  occurred  leading  up  to  the  February  1,  2015  student  membership  count  (Appendix  B,  Document  3;   Appendix  C,  Emails  14,  15,  and  16).       Conclusion     Through  the  LDE’s  inquiry  into  special  education  and  testing  practices  at  ReNEW  STA,  the  LDE  has  uncovered   four  significant  concerns  with  ample  evidence:     I. STA  inappropriately  adopted  and  modified  student  IEPs  to  justify  staffing  counts  through   ReNEW’s  internal  budgeting  process  for  the  2014-­‐15  school  year;   II. STA  failed  to  comply  with  multiple  aspects  of  federal  IDEA  law  including  failure  to  provide  Free   and  Appropriate  Education  (FAPE)  to  students  with  disabilities;     III. STA  committed  a  violation  of  testing  procedure  in  the  2014-­‐15  school  year;  and     IV. Failed  oversight  of  school-­‐level  leadership  by  the  former  CEO  led  to  the  identified  problems  at  STA.                     Appendices:     Appendix  A:  School/CMO  data     Appendix  B:  Other  supporting  documentation     Appendix  C:  Emails           Appendix  A   General  Demographics  for  ReNEW  Schools   Renewal/   Extension   School  Name   2015  1st  Renewal   Delores  T.  Aaron   Enrollment  (10/1/2014)   Year   Opened   Grades   %   %  ELL   Poverty   %   SWD   %  Tier  3-­‐5   SWD   2011-­‐12   PK-­‐8   >95%   <5%   11%   <5%   st 2011-­‐12   9-­‐12   86%   <5%   18%   7%   rd 2018  3  Renewal   2015-­‐16   K-­‐8   90%   <5%   8%   <5%   2017  2nd  Renewal   2010-­‐11   PK-­‐8   88%   10%   14%   5%   2016  Extension   2013-­‐14   PK-­‐8   93%   <5%   15%   6%   nd 2010-­‐11   PK-­‐8   95%   <5%   11%   5%   RSD   92%   <5%   13%   <5%   New  Orleans   84%   <5%   11%   NA   Accelerated  HS*   2015  1  Renewal   McDonogh  28   Cultural  Arts   Academy   Schaumburg   SciTech   2020  2  Renewal   *Alternative  School ReNEW  School  Performance  Scores   2012-2013 100 SPS 75 64.4 (T) 62.5 (D) 60.1 (D) 2013-2014 75.0 (C) 55.0 (D) 81.6 (C) 55.7 (T) 71.9 (C) 71.2 (C) 83.4 (C) 83.4 (C) 50 25 0 Aaron RCAA Schaumburg SciTech RSD NOLA  Year  over  Year  Retention  Rates  (students  retained  in  the  same  grade  level  from  one  year  to  the  next)   2011  to   2012   Retention   Rate  –  All   Students   2011  to   2012   Retention   Rate  –  Sped   Students   2012  to   2013   Retention   Rate  –  All   Students   2012  to   2013   Retention   Rate  –  Sped   Students   2013  to   2014   Retention   Rate  –  All   Students   2013  to   2014   Retention   Rate  –  Sped   Students   SciTech   8.7%   6.0%   8.4%   6.8%   15.2%   10.3%   ReNEW  Average   10.5%   10.7%   8.9%   9.2%   9.5%   9.4%   Type  5  Average   6.2%   6.6%   5.8%   5.9%   5.2%   5.1%   Appendix B: Other Supporting Documentation Document Name Document Number Differentiated Funding Description Budget documents Employee A Statement Student Logs Student Logs Student Logs Student Logs Re EW Com mu nication News Article Document 1 Differentiated Funding Description In the 2012-2013 school year, the Recovery School District began implementing an alternative method of funding special education programming. In essence, the Recovery School District reallocates the state per-pupil allocation to RSD charter schools based on the population of students with disabilities that each school serves. The first iteration of this differentiated funding formula provided funding to schools based upon a three-tiered system. Exceptionalities were ranked in order of perceived severity and fell into one of the three tiers. Funding was allocated to schools according to the number of students falling into each tier as determined by the student?s given exceptionality. This model did not, however, take into account the spectrum of needs and related services that may exist within a given exceptionality. For instance, two students with autism may fall at extremely different ends of the spectrum and, thus, have a completely different set of corresponding needs and required services. As such, a standard per pupil amount based solely on exceptionality could be overfunding one school while drastically underfunding another even though both students share the same exceptionality. The most recent iteration of the differentiated funding formula, however, takes this into account. A five-tiered system has been developed that considers student exceptionality in addition to the student-specific needs and requirements that may accompany that exceptionality. The current model provides individualization on a student basis by taking into account the student?s exceptionality as well as the number of service minutes that a student requires. For example, under the first iteration of the differentiated funding formula, a student with a diagnosis of "Emotional Disturbance? would be funding at the highest tier of funding, regardless of the actual intensity of the student?s needs. Under the current funding formula, the same student could fall into tiers three, four or five, depending upon the number of service minutes stipulated in the student?s Individualized Education Plan (IEP). More specifically, a student with an "Emotional Disturbance? classification that receives less than 421 minutes per week would fall into tier three and be funded at approximately $13,000.00. A student receiving more than 1,261 minutes would fall into tier five and receive the maximum amount of funding, approximately $21,000.00. This system is designed to ensure that schools serving students with the greatest needs are being funded equitably and appropriately. Document 2 Budget Documents Compared if of Students Total SS Received of Students Total SS Received of Students Total SS Received if of Students Total SS Received 4! of Students Total SS Received Tier I 40 54,906 36 49,415 36 49,415 40 51,925 40 51,925 Tier II 54 444,934 59 486,132 59 486,132 22 163,236 22 163,236 Tier 17 256,793 29 438 059 27 407,848 27 325,553 29 349,668 Tier IV 15 208,684 18 250,420 Tier 16 296,785 19 352,432 Total 111 756,633 124 973 606 1,046,183 1,167,681 *Before 5-tiered funding formula went into effect. if of Students Total SS Received of Students Total SS Received of Students Total SS Received of Students Total SS Received of Students Total SS Received Tier I 17 22,068 17 22,068 17 23,987 19 26600 Tier II 15 111,297 15 111,297 21 155,816 177,430 33 264000 Tier 29 349,668 29 349,668 29 349,668 14 182000 22 - Tier IV 25 347,806 25 347,806 25 347,806 - TierV 24 445,177 24 445,177 24 445,177 12 241,944 20 420000 Total 110 1,276,016 110 1,276,016 1,308,852 63 606,681 92 982,600 Budgets submttied by SciTech Leadership to CMO Internal SciTech Document Reflecting Student Pop. As of 1/8/15 Of?cial MFP Count Collected by LDOE Document 3 The following is a list of incidences that have taken place at SciTech Academy since accepting my role as last May. I acknowledge that many of these incidences were made as a team. - May 22nd sends an email requesting all completed RTI folders are turned in for summer evaluations. predicted 60-70 students who have completed all 3 tiers network wide and offered to bring in extra outside help. 0 and are asked to ?rst submit the names and complete the RTI folders for all of the ren ?agged K-8 by the next day. It is over 75 students. This is our only job. .and are then tasked to immediately begin to ?nish/create RTI folders for the 13-14 school year. The list would be pulled from the retention doc conversations. begins the process of creating these folders while I ?gure out how tiering could work with the current kids in our population. We coordinate collection of surveys, the nurse, etc. - I?m asked to project total number of students with all of the RTI kids and sped population, with their tiers based on why they were referred, or why they should be. 0 May 2014 0 October 2014 0 June 2014 0 November 2014 0 August 2014 0 January 2015 0 September 2014 0 Each time I am projecting from folders that I believe are turned in already. I also add the ones that I?ve been told would be completed within that month. - On 5/16 I spend the day creating a prospective ?sped budget?. For the ?rst projection of what our budget could look like, I?m asked to take a snapshot of the building which includes all current 8'h graders, RTP, CBI, though they would not count in our budget because we would likely ?ll those seats with new students. 0 I explained via email that we would actually lose money or just barely break even in this tier system (at that time our current plan did not include co-teachers for all 4 subjects). - At leadership retreat in June, the ?rst updated budget re?ects the extra students who are going to eval and additional kids mentioned above. 0 Each time the Budget comes out, l?m asked to email ?nance to back up the in?ated sped numbers because the students are in the process, we expect them to be evaluated, etc. Admittedly, i don't check them against my predictions every time. The goal is to keep the biggest staff possible. - At leadership retreat, We work as a team to craft our vision for sped that includes intervention time as a time for the lowest readers to work with their Sped teachers. We ?gure out which teams need more people based on the kids on that ?oor but aim to ut two in every class/subject k-8. - In June, I wrote a grant for High Risk Funding that lists with a pa rofessional or one-to-one special education teacher. mother does not want this changed 0 IEP and requests the 1:1 teacher remain. 0 Later in June, informs me will be -s teacher in the class with G-T and . Tha ill also have some co-teaching responsibilities. or tells to hire as a co-teacher, never as a one-to-one mm the eam unaware a IS responsible for- and frustrated because. thought. was a cc-teacher. is told not to spend too much time with - and that-focus should be on the 40+ students currently in I class. Document 3 cont'd Beginning October 18?, we have weekly discussions in leadership, and discussions begin with teachers about which kids ?don?t count" and how to make sure dozens of failing students? scores do not count for SciTech In November I apply for the CityWide grant. I list several staff members as 1:1 or 1:2 teachers with hope that we can hire an extra interventionist. It is suggested that if I raised enough money (over $100,000) then we could talk about hiring someone for K-2. Leading up to Thanksgiving at data day, it's reported to me for the first time from my teachers that they are receiving mixed messages in leadership check ins. They?re told directly and repeatedly to stop running so many small groups with lowest kids in class (mostly students with disabilities) because they will not pass PARCC. They need to maximize their time with everyone else. These are still documented as inclusion minutes. 0 ?Tier 1 instruction is only for Tier 1. An should not make a child special.? 0 It is described to me a few times over the next few weeks that a child with an should not be able to take extra ?me away from a child who might have an someday. The of paper does not set them apart. begin moving several students into different grade levels mid-year because they .and would not pass PARCC in that grade (or because their scores would not count) 0 Two of them. I did agree with. who was on a STEP Pre in 3rd grade and an ELL student, who couldn?t read or write in Spanish or English. 0 There is a ate at leadership about whether to move some kids to 2nd grade without telling their parents. It?s decided parents should know, so the list is cut down. Requesting that code everyone as high in Tiers as possible even if we know there are no interventions for that child and we would make it work. Kindergartner.) December, leadership begins insisting that numerous students receive 504 read-alouds when teachers disagreed and refused to sign. Several senior hall teachers came to me to voice concern. They then had to meet with. where.insisted again that these would bene?t them even if it did label them with suspected dyslexialADHD. On January 5, I and I meet for a while and talk out some of our differences. We resolve to spend more time together in order to reconnect. On the evening of Wednesday January 14, I and. called me in to discuss ?ring as many as 15 people because we were short on the bud et. Stated that one or all of us may have to resign. I suggested we recruit help from sinceiis a diagnostician and school could do the heaviest ones. On Wednesday January 14, it is decided (through cognitive testing) LAA1 in new re-eval. is IDMI. then suggests through email that PARCC. then insults for ?con atrng law with morality? 0 At leadership meeting on January 23rd. alsuggests coding Hyinto 2ncl grade so that I would not have to take an argued about the egai and morality for a moment, the conversation was stopped and it was tabled for later. and send several members of team are sent out to get consent forms and family interviews for eve one who is currently in the RTI stack or will be in the RTI stack soon. 0 I?iexplains this must stop immediately and that all folders need to go throughl. No consent should come before. approval. We ?nd out there is a legal commitment to honor after consent is given. On Thursday 1/15 morning. and- RTI folders to turn into will not qualify for test-for begin textinc a ?Magic Number? of Tier 4 and Tier 5 before February 1st. comes to me and says the magic number Document 3 cont'd (about 29 kids in tier 4 and tier 5) will get our budget to zero. When I tell-we do not have that population at SciTech, I?m encouraged to ?scrape? the bottom and come up with as many as we can and that it is our only hope. 0 At this point, I remove myself from the RTI referral process and focus my time back on current sped paperwork and interpreting the information coming from the evaluators. The magic number Ian uage goes away after they meet with-. (see below) At the 1/15 leadership meeting, says they met with - and we would not have to ?re anyone because it would look bad for the organization. We should try to get as much as we can and then project again, anything over that projection next year will go to CMO budget. 0 We also discuss tiering all new qualifying students as high as we can for Feb. 1 and then ?guring out the minutes and services later. 0 Note: this has not happened On Friday 1/17, I was not present for morning meeting, It is reported to me that. and. tell the entire Std-81h team that these evaluations have to go through because hundreds of thousands of dollars are on the line. On Friday 1/17 I met with to le know I would not be coming back to SciTech next year. On Tuesday 1/20 I met with to tell I was not coming back. 0 I said ?this is the best action for both of us" because we don't see to any more. 0 Then said would likely take my place. asked what positions I was abblving for ecaus ew I talked to When mentioned the position, said nWell I doubt you cou take that position now. er ow IS month has done." tells me I can probably go back to my regular job soon. I left because and other CMO members came in for a budget meeting. 0 followed up in text asking me not to tell anyone about my decision. Thursday January 22?, At leadership meeting we discuss: 0 Which ELL students will now ?count for us." suggests "exploiting" the dates in which they entered the country so that they would no count. and are tasked to work on getting two students into Tulane and RISE Which students we could also code as 2nd graders. LAA1 decision, should I go to 2nd grade? How to respond to that hit. 0 Follow-up email sent with all of the above Monday after school on 1/26, I meet with my Sped team to tell them we will not submit lEPs without evaluations. I apologize that they are writing in the blind and assure them that this is unfortunate and unusual but we will get through it. I encourage them to get as much IEP goal data as they can get and to begin putting it in the tracker and entering more modi?ed assessment grades so that GPAs would go up and retention conversations would be easier at the end of the year. They had questions about whether we would be trying to retain SpEd kids and I told them I would try my best to prevent it with their help. After SEC meeting Monday 1/26, I am told that we are going to have to submit lEPs with incomplete evals because it is what. and want. says she was clear about diagnosticians and doctors being jeopardized, and was met with gratitude for taking the risk. Monday-Wednesday 1/28 Special Ed team repeatedly texts and emails asking for evaluations so that they can write lEPs. Document 3 cont'd Tuesday 1/27 three teachers come to me and tell me that the leadership team has started talking to them about which Sped kids should be retained for their own good. ?So that they can pass PARCC on their own next year? Wednesday 1/28, meeting for takes place without eval. Thursday 1/29, I meet with and- and they inform me we are putting a stop to submitting or holding IEP meetings without an eval. They will also talk to. about the relationship between I and l, and that no retaliation should take place. 0 cancel all IEP meetings for the day and inform teachers we are holding. I requests to meet me at 1:40 and decline to work off campus. 0 I do not attend leadership meeting that night. Friday 1/30 at midnight. .sends out weekly email to 3-8 staff with repetitive language about trusting our mission and each other, and warning against ?those who try to dismantle what is commonly good to advance their own position and reputation.? 0 Numerous staff members approach and text me to say they will speak up if needed. Document 4 Manager-1r Name - Teacher: mg Minutes Objective 5/1/2015 Regular EU fiction: plot details and evidence 5/1/2015 Regular 75 math - multiplication and addition; reading/writing - nonfiCtion research project 5/4/2015 Regular 300 PARCC EOY 5/5/2015 Regular 300 PARCC EOY 5/6/2015 Regular 300 PARCC EOY 5/11/2015 Regular 60 fiction - plot details and evidence 5/11/2015 Regular 75 nonfiction research project 5/12/2015 Regular 60 fiction - plot details and evidence 5/12/2015 Regular 75 nonfiction research project 5/13/2015 Regular 60 fiction - plot details and evidence 5/13/2015 Regular 75 nonfiction research project 5/14/2015 Regular 60 star testing 5/14/2015 Regular 75 nonfiction research project 5/15/2015 Regular 60 fiction - plot details and evidence 5/15/2015 Regular 75 nonfiction research project 5/18/2015 Regular 0 academic minutes not addressed 5/19/2015 Regular 0 academic minutes not addressed 5/20/2015 Regular 0 academic minutes not addressed 5/21/2015 Regular 0 academic minutes not addressed Document 4 cont'd @mw Na_me_ Teacher: mg Minutes Obiective 5/1/2015 Regular 60 Review Day 5/4/2015 Regular 80 PARCC TESTING 5/5/2015 Regular 80 PARCC TESTING Regular 80 PARCC TESTING 5/7/201l3 Regular 0 Make Up Testing Day: No School for Students 5/8/201?5 Regular 60 Field Day 5/11/20135 Regular 60 SWBAT identify and explain addition and subtraction patterns. 5/12/2015 Regular 60 SWBAT identify and explain multiplication patternsl. 5/13/2015 Regular 60 SWBAT solve problems involving place value 5/ 14/ 2015 Regular 60 Testing Day 5/15/2015 Regular 60 STAR Testing 5/18/2014 Regular 0 Last week of school. Academic minutes not addressed 5/19/2015 Regular 0 Last week of school. Academic minutes not addressed 5/20/2015 Regular 0 Last week of school. Academic minutes not addressed- . 5/21/2015 Regular 0 Last week of school. Academic minutes not addressed Document 5 EW (hw'rv ~33 Unis;- Teacher: we ?y Minutes Objective 4/7/2015 Regular 60 nonfiction science review 4/7/2015 Regular 75 nonfiction history review 4/8/2015 Regular 60 nonfiction science review 4/8/2015 Regular 75 nonfiction history review 4/9/2015 Regular 60 nonfiction science review 4/9/2015 Regular 75 nonfiction history review 4/10/2015 Regular 60 nonfiction science review 4/10/2015 Regular 75 nonfiction history review 4/13/2015 Regular 60 introduction to state research project 4/13/2015 Regular 75 history/science review 4/14/2015 Regular 300 - Science test 4/15/2015 Regular 300 - History test 4/15/2015 Regular 60 fiction plot details and evidence 4/16/2015 Regular 75 math - comparing fractions; reading/writing - nonfiction research project 4/17/2015 Regular 60 fiction plot details and evidence 4/17/2015 Regular 75 math - comparing fractions; reading/writing - nonfiction research project 4/20/2015 Regular 60 fiction - plot details and evidence 4/20/2015 Regular 75 math - solving for unknown; reading/writing - nonfiction research project 4/21/2015 Regular 60 fiction - plot details and evidence 4/21/2015 Regular 75 math multiplication and addition; reading/writing - nonfiction research project 4/22/2015 Regular 60 fiction - plot details and evidence 4/22/2015 Regular 75 math - multiplication and addition; reading/writing - nonfiction research project 4/23/2015 Regular 60 fiction plot details and evidence 4/23/2015 Regular 75 math - multiplication and addition; reading/writing nonfiction research project 4/24/2015 Regular 60 fiction practice assessment 4/24/2015 Regular 75 math - multiplication and addition; reading/writing - nonfiction research project 4/27/2015 Regular 60 nonfiction practice assessment 4/27/2015 Regular 3/15/1900 math - multiplication and addition; reading/writing - nonfictlon research project 4/28/2015 Regular 2/29/1900 fiction plot details and evidence 4/28/2015 Regular 3/15/1900 math - multiplication and addition; reading/writing nonfiction research project 4/29/2015 Regular 2/29/1900 fiction - plot details and evidence Document 5 cont'd ate-Mawmwm Muck - Teacher: Minutes Obiective 3/2/2015 Regular 60 literary analysis passage and questions 3/2/2015 Regular 75 math - multiplication (grouping and arrays); writing - prompt blitz 3/3/2015 Regular 60 literary analysis - write essay 3/3/2015 Regular 75 math - multiplication (grouping and arrays); writing - prompt blitz 3/4/2015 Regular 60 research task passages and questions 3/4/2015 Regular 75 math - multiplication (grouping and arrays); writing - prompt blitz 3/5/ 2015 Regular 60 research task - write essay 3/5/2015 Regular 75 math multiplication (grouping and arrays); wri ng - prompt blitz 3/6/2015 Regular 60 research task - read and write 3/6/2015 Regular 75 math multiplication (gr0uping and arrays); writing - prompt blitz 3/9/2015 Regular 60 literary analysis read and answer questions 3/9/2015 Regular 75 math - multiplication (grouping and arrays); writing - prompt blitz 3/10/2015 Regular 60 literary analysis - write essay 3/10/2015 Regular 75 math - multiplication (grouping and arrays); wri ing - prompt blitz 3/11/2015 Regular 60 research task - passages and questions 3/11/2015 Regular 75 math multiplication (grouping and arrays); writing - prompt blitz 3/12/2015 Regular 60 research task - write essay 3/12/2015 Regular 75 math - multiplication (grouping and arrays); writing - prompt blitz 3/13/2015 Regular 60 narrative 3/13/2015 Regular 75 math - multiplication (grouping and arrays); writing - prompt blitz 3/16/2015 Regular 300 PARCC testing 3/17/2015 Regular 300 PARCC testing 3/18/2015 Regular 300 PARCC testing 3/19/2015 Regular 300 PARCC testing 3/20/2015 Regular 300 PARCC testing 3/23/2015 Regular 60 non?ction science review 3/23/2015 Regular 75 non?ction history review 3/24/2015 Regular 2/29/1900 non?ction science review 3/24/2015 Regular 3/15/1900 non?ction history review Document 6 Name - Teacher: mg Minutes Obiective 8/20/2014 Regular 60 SWBAT identify different types of energy 8mm so 8/25/2014 Regular 60 SWBAT identify natural resources that can produce energy 8/26/2014 Regular 60 SWBAT design a system that produces electricity from a renewable source 8/27/2014 Regular 60 SWBAT design a system that produces electricity from a renewable source 8/28/2014 Regular 60 SWBAT explain why humans should limit our use of fossil fuels 8/29/2014 Regular 60 SWBAT reflect on week?s activities and respond to essential questions. 9/2/2014 Regular 60 SWBAT reflect on week?s activities and respond to essential questions. 8/8/2014 Special 100 Writer's workshop, math intervention, guided reading fiction in small groups 8/11/2014 Special 100 Writer's workshop, math intervention, guided reading fiction In small groups 8/12/2014 Special 100 Writer's workshop, math intervention, guided reading fiction in small groups 8/13/2014 Special 100 Writer's workshop, math intervention, guided reading fiction in small groups 8/14/2014 Special 100 Writer's workshop, math intervention, guided reading fiction in small groups 8/15/2014 Special 100 Writer's workshop, math intervention, guided reading fiction In small groups 8/18/2014 Special 100 Writer's workshop, math intervention, guided reading fiction in small groups 8/19/2014 Special 100 Writer's workshop, math intervention, guided reading fiction in small groups 8/20/2014 Special 100 Writer's workshop, math intervention, guided reading fiction in small groups 8/21/2014 Special 100 Writer's workshop, math intervention, guided reading fiction in small groups 8/25/2014 Special 100 Writer's workshop, math intervention, guided reading fiction in small groups 8/26/2014 Special 100 Writer's workshop, math intervention, guided reading fiction in small groups 8/27/2014 Special 100 Writer's workshop, math intervention, guided reading fiction in small groups 8/28/2014 Special 100 Writer's workshop, math intervention, guided reading fiction in small groups 8/29/2014 Special 100 Writer's workshop, math intervention, guided reading fiction in small groups i: w" Name Date Setting Minutes Abigale 4/7/2015 Regular 60 Native Americans 4/8/ 2015 Regular 60 Great American Leaders 4/9/2015 Regular 60 Major symbols of Democracy 4/13/2015 Regular 60 Practice test 4/20/2015 Regular 60 Non Fiction English practice 4/21/2015 Regular 60 Non Fiction English practice 4/22/2015 Regular 60 non Fiction English practice 4/23/2015 Regular 60 non Fiction English practice 4/ 24/ 20 15 Regular 60 non Fiction English practice 4/ 27/ 2015 Regular 60 non Fiction English practice 4/28/2015 Regular 60 non Fiction English practice 4/29/2015 Regular 60 non Fiction English practice 4/ 30/ 2015 Regular 60 non Fiction English practice Document 7 Document 8 June 3, 2015 Dear Ms. Bradford: in the past week, our organization has reviewed feedback from confidential end-of?service staff surveys that were administered after state testing in May. Several irregularities at SciTech Academy not documented during spring state testing have been brought to my attention. Our investigation has concluded that?chool leader of SciTech Academy who resigned last week amid questions about internal testing procedures, directed some teachers to examine completed test booklets in violation of test security protocol. My understanding is that these requests were made for the purposes of planning for the 2015-16 school year in order for teachers assigned to new subjects to determine whether they felt comfortable with the content. At least two teachers complied and examined completed booklets not signed out to them for approximately ten minutes and had a follow?up discussion with _While these two teachers demonstrated poor judgment in not reporting these irregularities, given this directive came at the behest of their school leader, we believe these young staff members were put in a compromising position and taken advantage of. At this point, we have no evidence that these actions compromised the integrity of assessment results. Additionally, the resignation of school leadership has led us to perform an internal audit, and in the process we have uncovered emails that describe more potential SciTech irregularities that were not properly documented at the time. In one case, the first day of PARCC testing school leaders were made aware of student management issues in the cafeteria, which was not a testing location. These issues were addressed but were not documented on an Irregularity Form and passed along to the DTC. In the other, teachers who had proctored assessments with the read-aloud accommodation discussed the type of questions seen after the test had been completed. I have attached two related emails here for your review. Similar to the conclusion stated above, at this point we have no evidence that the integrity of assessment results was compromised. As our internal audit proceeds, we will report any further such irregularities that may be discovered. I understand this communication may prompt additional questions or concerns on your team?s end, so please know that I am available to speak at your convenience. Our organization is already planning corrective action measures to avoid such irregularities in the future; we await your response for any necessary follow-up and appreciate your continued support. Sincerely, Document 8 cont'd -- Forwarded messa From: Date: Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:32 PM SubjeCt; Cafeteria Logistics - Please read for clarity for tomorrow Hey Guys, Wanted to give you a quick heads up about the cafeteria from today. After seeing you two, I went to go grab some kids to take home and saw some things that could be red flags if state monitors walked into the building. You all are systems guys, so I figured I would give you what I saw and i know y'all will be able to make adjustments. 1. Students who have not tested in the same room as students who have. This cannot happen unless it is absolutely silent (it could lead to voided test if a monitor walked in and someone explained who was in that room). I would collapse a prek-Z room so that you can have a holding place for all kids who are waiting to test. I also think this will help keep them in the right mindset to test. it was really rowdy down there. 2. What were the expectations for adults and kids in the cafeteria? I saw some adults walking around kids, I saw some sitting at tables. I saw some kids reading, I saw some kids on their phones, I saw some kids walking around, and most were talking. You all have some really strong behavior folks, I think they just need very clear expectations. You want to be careful with the cell phone thing in case kids use social media during the school have been 3 articles about social media in other states who also have PARCC. Let me know if there is anything more I can do to help support. I tried to think of quick solutions you could implement, and I wouldn't send this email out to you two if I wasn't genuinely concerned about the state of the cafeteria today. Your kids and your team have worked to hard for this week. With you two also testing, worry about a small broken window leading to a bigger one. Document 8 cont'd Attached are the Monday Tuesday lesson plans-and have made a new system where one week one of us writes the plans. then the other person writes the CFU's, that way we're both accountable and feeling strong about the upcoming week's plans. I'll be printing the Wednesday and Thursday tasks separately next week. and our Thursday plan is in the air based on some stuff Cassie wants. What I was wondering about from you: 1. Can you give me feedback on the two open response questions have for these articles? I chose main idea, and then point of view, but I'm not sure if I should prioritize something else instead-? feeling pretty uncertain on this one. 2. Can you give me feedback on the very last part a part question in the packet? (from The Miser). It's modeled off the reversed Part question we saw on the PARCC for ?fth, but I'm curious if you have feedback on my phrasing. Thanks! Document 9 The Lens 20 15/ 06/ 03/ ?home/ Schools SciTech charter leader let students take tests for each other and at home By Marta Jewson, Staff writer June 3, 2015 5:05pm 8 Comments The two top SciT ech Academy charter school leaders who abruptly resigned last week let students take tests for one another and allowed other testing irregularities, the head of the school?s charter network said today. Administrators with Schools believe the problems were limited to a test used only by the network, but they can?t be certain yet, Schools? said in an interview. ech?s Head of School_ Principal-resigned last week (htth r? thelensn 01a. org! 2015i 06;? 0 1f scitech? academys?two?leaders?quit? amid questions about the in?house STAR test . Administrators are unsure of the number of times children tested in place of other students,- said.- also tested children more than once and let students test at home,-said. .said.has no reason to believe the problems happened during state accountability testing, but the network is still investigating the possibility. uses the test to benchmark students? progress across its five schools. The test is given multiple times throughout the year and lets administrators tailor instruction to students needs-said. -administered the last round of STAR testing at SciTech hastily,-said. .did, in the computer lab, allow a student to log on to take the test [for another ?We?re not sure how many times, but .did.? He said it?s impossible to know who really took an exam if a student was allowed to test outside the building. ?You shouldn?t have a kid take a test at -said the network alerted the state Education Department to the situation on Tuesday. The state did not return request for comment on Monday when The Lens first inquired about any investigation into the school or again on Wednesday. The STAR exam followed weeks of state testing. Students had already taken the LEAP, the state?s standardized test, and PARCC, the Common Core?aligned exam the state is phasing in to replace the LEAP. ?We don?t feel like there?s anything like this that happened with PARCC and said. Based on concerns raised by others, The Lens asked- about special education instruction, and.said there are some issues. .did push the limits with special ed stuff too; nothing was illegal or out of compliance,?- said. When asked to elaborate,.said some students may need to have special?education minutes made up. DOCU nt 9 con t. Students with special needs have Individualized Education Programs that require different amounts of instructional minutes or additional pro grams, such as speech or physical therapy. ?We did our investigation into IEP folders,?- said. ?There were de?nitely some things that needed to be fixed.? -resigned May 27. ?.knew.were digging into.and.sent in the letter of resignation,?- said. ?So we just accepted-letter of resignation,?- said. ?Would we have moved to termination? Probably.? -esigned the next day. Neither- no r- could be reached for comment. Help us report this story Report an error The Lens' donors and partners may be mentioned or have a stake in the stories we cover. Appendix  C:  ReNEW  and  SciTech  Academy  Emails   Email   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   Gmail - Fwd: STA Budget, Updated https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 1 Fwd: STA Budget, Updated 3 messages Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:06 PM To: ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Date: Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:13 PM Subject: STA Budget, Updated To: K Attached. Linked up to this email if you have any questions about our SPED numbers. Thanks for the feedback, and thanks for working with us. -- SciTech 2014-15 Budget.xlsx 159K Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:26 PM To: ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Date: Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:26 PM Subject: Fwd: STA Budget, Updated To: This is first time the budget starts to look different. The overall numbers are higher because of the kids on this google doc. I'll forward that next. You can see the last edit is June 4th on it. The back budget is April 2014 and the 2nd one is June 6, 2014 while we are at leadership retreat. After the hires. 1 of 3 10/20/15, 12:49 AM Gmail - Fwd: STA Budget, Updated https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 1 cont'd This is after the full staff is hired. The thing that I did not know at the time is that numbers were being plugged in at random to make the total meet the budget needed to keep our full staff. I would then email and to say that the budget reflected how many kids we thought would go through RTI, but I wouldn't sit and cross-check them. If you look, in April and June it's randomly a ton of speech only kids. Then in June, the Tier III column shoots up. STA RTI 2014 Summer Read [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] SciTech 2014-15 Budget.xlsx 159K Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:08 PM To: ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Date: Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 3:22 PM Subject: Fwd: STA Budget, Updated To: ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Date: Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:13 PM Subject: STA Budget, Updated To: , , >, Attached. Linked up to this email if you have any questions about our SPED numbers. Thanks for the feedback, and thanks for working with us. 2 of 3 10/20/15, 12:49 AM Gmail - Fwd: STA Budget, Updated https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 1 cont'd -- SciTech 2014-15 Budget.xlsx 159K 3 of 3 10/20/15, 12:49 AM Gmail - Fwd: Budgets https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 2 Fwd: Budgets 1 message Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:08 PM To: ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Date: Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:34 PM Subject: Re: Budgets To: Ah. Bubble popped. That would have been an insane amount of money. ha On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:31 PM, wrote: You used the right line. The “approximate total per pupil funding received” line includes the MFP. That is accounted for differently in the budget that has. ---- ReNEW Dolores T. Aaron Academy w: www.renewschools.org Achieve Reflect Collaborate Innovate Celebrate On May 16, 2014, at 1:14 PM, wrote: Wait, sorry I may have used the wrong funding! In the proposed model, I used the top line "approximate supplemental funding" but should I be using the "approximate total per pupil funding received" 1 of 7 9/21/15, 2:40 PM Gmail - Fwd: Budgets https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 2 cont'd On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:12 PM, wrote: In the end, we broke even. But for a good amount of SLD kids and students that became Tier 4 instead of we lost some. Once all of the minutes actually go in, maybe the formula will look different. On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:08 PM, wrote: That’s interesting. We actually end up about 8 thousand ahead. I am glad you were able to work it out. ---- ReNEW Dolores T. Aaron Academy w: www.renewschools.org Achieve Reflect Collaborate Innovate Celebrate On May 16, 2014, at 1:06 PM, wrote: Done for now. Thanks again. It actually makes you end up losing money in most cases. So that's pretty bad. If SLD could go up based on minutes it'd be a whole different story. Well... we'll see who shows up :) On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:14 AM, wrote: You should delete 8th. As long as you feel confident about the new kids getting IEPs, then that should not be a problem. ---- ReNEW Dolores T. Aaron Academy w: www.renewschools.org 2 of 7 9/21/15, 2:40 PM Gmail - Fwd: Budgets https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 2 cont'd Achieve Reflect Collaborate Innovate Celebrate On May 16, 2014, at 10:13 AM, wrote: Last question for now, I should delete all of the 8th graders and add in the new evals for 6th and 7th that I know of right? On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Good deal. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. wrote: ---- ReNEW Dolores T. Aaron Academy w: www.renewschools.org Achieve Reflect Collaborate Innovate Celebrate On May 16, 2014, at 10:10 AM, > wrote: Cool thank you. He needs to know if he can keep the 4 TFA teachers that are currently slated to be let go of. There was a budget error but this could really make up some ground. I asked for new Power School access so that I could sit with and pull the Sped report you mentioned On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:03 AM, wrote: If you want to sit down and look at the numbers, I have time after 1. I think that for these purposes, the leaders just need an estimate for the total count on October 1. 3 of 7 9/21/15, 2:40 PM Gmail - Fwd: Budgets Email 2 cont'd https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... The IEPs do not actually need to be updated yet. If you are able to make estimates, you are probably good. ---- ReNEW Dolores T. Aaron Academy w: www.renewschools.org Achieve Reflect Collaborate Innovate Celebrate On May 16, 2014, at 10:01 AM, > wrote: I could drive to the east also, but I don't know what your day looks like. We would amend all the minutes because they're all getting many many more next year. said inclusion minutes count too now, so it'd be a huge underestimation for next year. Or I could just guess based on what I think will happen. On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:54 AM, wrote: I’m confused by the question. Why would you amend the academic minutes for the IEPs? To find the funding tiers, just look at the sheet I sent. You will see the total number of minutes and the exceptionality. You can use that information to determine which tier they would fall into. ---- ReNEW Dolores T. Aaron Academy w: www.renewschools.org Achieve Reflect Collaborate Innovate Celebrate 4 of 7 9/21/15, 2:40 PM Gmail - Fwd: Budgets Email 2 cont'd https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... On May 16, 2014, at 9:36 AM, wrote: Does that mean I'd need to go in and amend every IEP for academic minutes now to pull the report again? wants this today but I may need to see it done... On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:33 AM, wrote: Related Service minutes are included in the numbers that I sent you. Pull the Report of Services in SER as an excel, calculate total weekly minutes in a new column, then on a separate tab, insert your SPED roster from power school. Make sure you include SSN, since that is the only common number between SER and PowerSchool. Then you can just a Sumif function to sum all the various service minutes for each student. I would be happy to show y’all how to do this, if you are interested. ---- ReNEW Dolores T. Aaron Academy w: www.renewschools.org Achieve Reflect Collaborate Innovate Celebrate On May 16, 2014, at 9:30 AM, wrote: is there a simplified way to pull the amount of total minutes a kid receives for related services? All of our kids are going to have their minutes 5 of 7 9/21/15, 2:40 PM Gmail - Fwd: Budgets Email 2 cont'd https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... amended at the start of the school year for academic minutes, but I don't know how to pull related services without going kid by kid? Thank you if you know! On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 2:04 PM, wrote: All, Before the end of the year, I am going to need you to work with leaders to revise their budgets based on the new special education funding formula, which considers both service minutes and disability categories. , I know you already did this for DTA - is there a fast and easy way you did this through pulling SER reports in Excel, or did you comb through every student's minutes? Just a heads up that this is coming, and trying to think proactively about how to streamline this process - -- www.renewschools.org Achieve Innovate Reflect Collaborate Celebrate This transmission contains information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. 6 of 7 9/21/15, 2:40 PM Gmail - Fwd: Budgets https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 2 cont'd II 7 of 7 9/21/15, 2:40 PM Gmail - Fwd: Sped Budget Update https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 3 Fwd: Sped Budget Update 3 messages Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:08 PM To: ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Date: Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:03 PM Subject: Sped Budget Update To: >, So unless they are a 1, moving from 2 to 3 or 3 to 5, we lose money. I apologize that this news was misinterpreted. It sounded like the state said they were giving more money when in the end, in most cases they are giving less or breaking even. I'm attaching the budget I worked on today. I think it's worth taking a look at 3rd and 4th grade. Perhaps when their classmates are doing Sci/Soc, a coteacher could be pulling for failure free or something. If it would put them in range to be a level 5. We could also work with and help push them over the hump of the last 60 or so minutes. I'm going to leave it for now, but it's something to think about after we see new kids and start amending. The silver lining to this is that it proves our model is right. If we weren't providing all of these minutes, we would be losing LOTS of money on Tier 2s and 3s. -- 1 of 2 9/21/15, 2:45 PM Gmail - Fwd: Sped Budget Update https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 3 cont'd Service Minutes by School.xlsx 41K Mon, May 25, 2015 at 11:22 AM To: Here is original "sped budget" in which they're told they will likely lose money. ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: [Quoted text hidden] Service Minutes by School.xlsx 41K Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:11 PM To: I'd note that this is the snapshot of the building as it stood. It includes 8th graders who were promoting, RTP, kids we knew were going to specialty programs, etc. [Quoted text hidden] 2 of 2 9/21/15, 2:45 PM Gmail - Fwd: Summer Evaluations https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 4 Fwd: Summer Evaluations 1 message Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:06 PM To: ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Date: Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:48 PM Subject: Re: Summer Evaluations To: Cc: Thanks > , the table is just copied from our master doc. Sorry if there is additional info in there that you don't need (2015 Testing, AAG Level, etc.) On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Hi I am forwarding this information to to > wrote: so she can review those students you listed below who are up for re-evaluation, but may have a change in classification. , please review the information in the table below concerning current special education students who may need a full re-evaluation due to a change in classification. Please reach out directly and T if you need any additional information. Thanks! On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Hi wrote: Once we signed on, we combined all of the Tier 3 paperwork that was not finished yet. finished the pieces for about 70 students (academic and behavior) because got the go-ahead on outside evaluators. I just want to make sure these guys are included. We want to be sure that every kid is set up for success and that we understand as an RTI team, where each student stands this summer. was on it for all of the kids that were submitted! But per 's request, we now have many more. So I'm glad will have extra help. of these students should be able to come in if scheduled. Except is coming from RISE, we may want r to come in with parent. may be able to start coming back in for diagnostic tests but is not in summer school : All paperwork was completed by : We don't understand the note. I can get this to you ASAP. has received a vision screening several times, says. I'm not sure if this is the place for these, but I want to make sure they're not forgotten! There are also a few Re-Eval requests based on conversations with PK-5 teachers, sped teachers, and admin. They are up for re-eval in 2014 so I wanted to make sure they were not waived. One was re-evaluated by for speech and continues to qualify for Speech, but his whole team is very concerned that there is something much more serious going on. Re-Evals Needed Grade Comment Pre-Found/Pre-Found, Reads at Step 4 Last Eval Disability AAG Level Case Manager 2014 Test 2014 ELA 2014 Math 2015 Testing Status 9/9/2011 OHI Pre-Found/Pre-Found, Reads at Step 5 12/9/2011 SLD Re-evaluated by in 2014, but problems are much more significant. All teachers very concerned. 1/10/2014 SLI/Soc 3 LAA2 Pre-Found Pre-Found LAA2 2 LAA2 Pre-Found 1 iLEAP Unsat LAA2 May STEP/ F&P level Testing accoms/mods RA, SG, ET, Calc 4 (close to 5) 5 AR, RA, SG, I, ET, Calc. Unsat Please let me know if there are questions. I can get all of the paperwork needed to you guys this week. Here is the google doc we are working from: RTI Doc Thank you, On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:25 AM, wrote: Hi Guys, I hope you are having a great summer! As you are aware, we have the 'go ahead' to contract with outside evaluators to get some of our evaluations done. You guys really didn't have a back log ( is great). Below are some notes left about a few referrals. If any of these students are coming to summer school OR if you think they would come to your school for a scheduled appointment, let me know. We would need the paperwork referenced (see below). If you have any of the paperwork completed, let me know, we can begin their evaluation process. You also have the option of letting STA pick these up in July. Notes On hold until returns from homebound. Please complete preeval checklist spoke with . needs all incident reports/behavior plan/interventions to justify emergency evaluation Incomplete referral packet-failed vision 1 of 2 11/9/15, 10:57 AM Gmail - Fwd: Summer Evaluations https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 4 cont'd -Sincerely, www.renewschools.org Achieve Reflect Collaborate Innovate Celebrate This transmission contains information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. -Sincerely, www.renewschools.org Achieve Reflect Collaborate Innovate Celebrate This transmission contains information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. 2 of 2 11/9/15, 10:57 AM Email 4 cont'd Name Current Grade Current IEP or Age 504? Current RTI Tier ELA Math 504 3 Unsat AB 504 3 Basic Unsat 504 3 AB Basic 504 3 AB Basic 504 3 AB Basic 3 Basic Unsat 504 3 AB Basic 504 3 Unsat AB 504 3 AB Basic 504 3 Unsat Basic 3 AB Unsat 504 3 Basic Unsat 504 3 Unsat Basic 504 In process with with vision test 3 Basic AB 504 3 Unsat Unsat 3 AB AB 3 Unsat Unsat 504- ADHD Out of state IEP, needs re-eval, in process with 3 3 Unsat Unsat 3 Unsat Unsat 3 Unsat Basic 3 Unsat Unsat 3 Unsat Unsat Email 4 cont'd Name Admin notes Current Grade Age 3 Current IEP or Current 504? RTI Tier ELA Math Repeating Status No/ 3 Unsat Approaching Repeating 3rd No/ 3 Unsat Unsat Repeating 3rd No/ 3 Unsat Approaching Retained 3rd No/ 3 Unsat Approaching Retained 3rd No/ 3 Unsat Unsat Retained 3rd No/ 3 Unsat Approaching Retained 3rd No/ 3 Unsat Approaching Promoted to 4th, Retained Several Times No/ 3 low u u Promoted to 4th on Probation No/ 3 low u u Promoted to 4th on Probation No/ 3 u ab Promoted to 4th on Probation Unsat 4th No/ 3 Unsat mom requests eval--fighter (17 suspension days) Paperwork is far along No/ 3 Approac Approach Double repeater. Been in 5th but took LEAP. Told if gets approaching she'd go to 5th, basic go to 6th No/ 3 Unsat Basic 5th first time 4th grader, was 4 unsats in 3rd grade too No/ 3 Unsat Unsat 4th Double repeater. Been in 5th but took LEAP No/ 3 Approac Approach 5th May have done 4th before (call mom) No/ 3 Approac Approach ? 5th first year in 4th struggling reader IEP from 1st gra 3 Unsat Basic 4th will likely get approaching in summer No/ 3 Unsat Basic 4th double repeater, struggling reader No/ 3 Unsat Basic 5th Super priority, came this year, repeated several times No/ 3 Unsat Unsat 5th Came from Laffy, expelled in Feb. Behavioral and motivational issues. Structure and support No/ 3 Unsat Basic 4th Low reader, first time 4th grader, very low reader No/ 3 Unsat Unsat 4th issues No/ 3 Unsat Basic 4th Double repeater, repeated 4th so needs to move on. ADHD meds consistent but still hurts No/ 3 Approac Unsat 5th came from Texas, Double repeater 4th grader, did not show up for testing, move to 5th. Mom claims IEP texas with no backup. ADHD meds No/ 3 Unsat Unsat 5th Double repeater, time to move on. Low double unsat last year, matured a ton. Needs lots of support No/ 3 Unsat Basic 5th Double repeater, moving on, still struggling reader No/ 3 Unsat Basic 5th First time in 4th, struggling reader started as a Fountas & Pinnell C last year. No/ 3 Unsat Basic 4th Double repeater, headed to 5th No/ 3 Approac Unsat 5th Double repeater, headed to 5th, needs immediate Eval. Thick file almost complete No/ 3 Unsat Unsat 5th 3 Mastery Basic 5th 4th sister, low reader, repeated s not 4th, lots of attendance At RISE, Unsat all year but somehow mastery during testing....paranoid, defensive, ED n: 3 Email 4 cont'd Current Grade Age Current IEP or Current RTI 504? Tier ELA Math Email 4 cont'd RTP RTP RTP Begin observations for this. Hitting, biting, kicking, tantrums has been doing observations of him All RTI paperwork filled out already Gmail - Fwd: RTI Going Forward and New Tier 3 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 5 Fwd: RTI Going Forward and New Tier 3 2 messages > Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:47 PM To: ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Date: Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:03 PM Subject: Re: RTI Going Forward and New Tier 3 To: > Hi Sorry I just saw this. I'm reading this and it sounds perfect. I will work this weekend on coming up with systems that are user friendly for teachers. Let's please meet one-on-one Monday so we can hash this out. There won't be any to do on Monday because I'm just waiting for the nurse on the rest of the old turn ins. Thanks for the email. I think this makes a lot of sense. On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Hey > wrote: I was thinking a lot yesterday about RTI. For all of the new kids that we are not turning in, I would like the teachers to fill out those RTI packets, even if they're already completed by you. Throw those out when you get the new ones back. I think it's important that your role is not doing hundreds of packets meant for teachers, you know? Rather, I'm going to help you going forward in making sure teachers actually complete their due outs within 24 hours. Some of the kids we are still working from behind on from summer, we absolutely have to get in. But these newly identified ones should be authentic. Real teacher comments, real interventions. I think that when we come back we tell teachers whole group, RTI means Response to Intervention. If you refer a kid for RTI and you are given recommended interventions, you need to implement them because it's part of your job. If you try something on your own (like fluency every day for instance) that's excellent! If something does not work, tweak it and document that. If you are given paperwork to fill out, complete it in detail. Otherwise, there is no RTI, just a system of tracking kids through a normal school day. No excuses. And from then on, packets get emailed with , , , and I cc'd with a due date. If they're late on returning it, they get a follow up email. If they're not tracking what they need to, follow up email. Each time with leaders CCd. Example: Hi , here is the RTI paperwork for . Please fill it out by 10/22 at 4pm and return to the crate in the fishbowl. There is also a hard copy on your desk. Please add details so that knows exactly what to look like. Please contact me with any questions, thank you. I think we need to let people know that RTI is teacher based and it should be unacceptable to wait around for solutions without effort or research. But it is even worse if you reach out and then you don't do 1 of 3 9/18/15, 11:58 AM Gmail - Fwd: RTI Going Forward and New Tier 3 Email 5 cont'd https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... implement it. We are here as a resource for these kids. However, we also need to recognize that this organization starts with us-- with you primarily. So you've got to come back strong after the intersession with having very specific suggestions for each type of behavior or academic area. If you're plate is being overloaded with non-RTI stuff, take a step back and ask to prioritize. can help you with the physical paper work but some filings systems need to be in place so that they're the same every time. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. I'm happy to sit down one morning or all day Monday after this batch of turn-ins are done. I'm happy to help you with this as much as I can now that compliance has started to slow. Our jobs as coordinators are to be organized and efficient above all, so that the teachers can do the real creative and innovative work. I've had to think about that for myself this fall break as well. Let's re-center here before the focus is simply on getting it done. Let's get it done right! Thanks, -- -- This transmission contains information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. -- 2 of 3 9/18/15, 11:58 AM Gmail - Fwd: RTI Going Forward and New Tier 3 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 5 cont'd Sat, May 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM To: [Quoted text hidden] 3 of 3 9/18/15, 11:58 AM Gmail - Fwd: Data you provided is not connected to interventions https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 6 Fwd: Data you provided is not connected to interventions 1 message Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:10 PM To: ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: > Date: Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:58 PM Subject: Fwd: Data you provided is not connected to interventions To: >, " and , As said and is saying below, just continue with Tier 3 interventions and administer STAR at least once per week for the next four weeks. Make sure no accommodations are given. ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: > Date: Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:39 PM Subject: Re: Data you provided is not connected to interventions To: Can't you all just pull the documentation of Tier 3 intervention, reinstate those and continue to use the Star reading assessment? That would provide the continuity to demonstrate some measure of treatment fidelity, right? From:   1 of 9 9/21/15, 4:09 PM Gmail - Fwd: Data you provided is not connected to interventions https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 6 cont'd Sent:  Wednesday,  February  4,  2015  3:36  PM To:   Cc:   ;   ;   Subject:  Re:  Data  you  provided  is  not  connected  to  intervenOons I don't have a copy of folder with me, but tell me the primary concern and I will recommend a more specific intervention and I will send you AIMSweb probes to monitor. On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:29 PM, > wrote: Ok sounds good. Everyone will be step testing this week. We can grab another data point for Star Reading each week. Should there be a more specific intervention that you guys would recommend? Oral Reading Fluency Tests, pre-reading activities, etc. Let me know! On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:14 PM, and , > wrote: We need at least 2 more STAR data points and continual implementation of Tier 3 interventions to determine progress for this student. To make sure we are getting accurate results, do not allow any accommodations when administering the test. If STAR results indicate adequate growth, the student will not qualify for services, as he is responding to the interventions. If you prefer to use paper-based monitoring tool, can provide you with reading prompts. We would need weekly monitoring to ensure we have enough data by the time the evaluation is due. Please let her know. Thanks, On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:46 PM, wrote: ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: " > Date: Feb 4, 2015 11:19 AM Subject: Data you provided is not connected to interventions 2 of 9 9/21/15, 4:09 PM Gmail - Fwd: Data you provided is not connected to interventions https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 6 cont'd To: Cc: For referral to special education evaluations, Louisiana Bulletin 1508 requires: Data that "indicate that the student is not responding to the intervention" See (page 13, Bulletin 1508): "307 REFERRAL PROCESS 1. The SBLC provides documentation that the RTI process addressing academic and/or behavioral concerns, or the speech or language interventions(s) addressing communication concerns have included: a. scientifically research based intervention(s) implemented with fidelity as evidenced by data sheets, computer generated records, or other permanent products; b. monitoring of the students progress relative to peers, at reasonable intervals; and c. graphed evidence that the student's rate of progress relative to peers was not adequate. " The only exception to the above is for students suspected of having low incidence disabilities. I have been instructed to use your Star math and reading data, which is reportedly used as your progress monitoring tool while the interventions are in place. The data you have provided - while interesting and undoubtedly useful for instructional planning - does not document the implementation of Tier 3 interventions with fidelity and cannot be used in conjunction with the Star data. I have completed the testing and this student has incredibly deficit skills in reading 3 of 9 9/21/15, 4:09 PM Gmail - Fwd: Data you provided is not connected to interventions https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 6 cont'd (about 3 SD below the mean in basic reading, fluency and comprehension). IF ALL DATA WERE IN PLACE would qualify as a child with a learning disability. As I see it we have two options at this time. Option 1. You can reinstitute the Tier 3 intervention for 4 weeks (document and deliver with integrity) and monitor at the end of each week and provide me with that four weeks of Star reading data and I can complete the report and the child will qualify for services. (the 60 day time line ends 3-14-15). NOTE: Although math was also a referral concern, I am not going to ask you to complete additional interventions for that since his standardized test scores are not going to allow him to qualify for any math services. Option 2. I can complete the report as it stands without RtI data to document his progress with intervention with fidelity, and the child will be found to have "no exceptionality". The report is virtually complete given the information provided and the data I gathered through testing, so please let me know at your earliest convenience which option you will take? If you choose Option 2 I can submit the No Exceptionality report this week. Thanks, 4 of 9 9/21/15, 4:09 PM Gmail - Fwd: Data you provided is not connected to interventions https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 6 cont'd From:   Sent:  Tuesday,  February  3,  2015  2:52  PM To:   Cc:   ;   Subject:  Re:  RtI  data  for Hi All, Here are all the grades has received this year. This includes Exit Tickets, Benchmarks, and MLQ's. Please let me know if you have any questions. They are broken down by quarter. On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:29 AM, wrote: I took the RTI packet already. I have already reached out to teachers and asked if we can pull that kind of data direct from school runner. I will let everyone know as soon as I know. We will get the data some how, some way. On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:26 AM, wrote: Hi I left 's RTI packet in the mailbox outside of my door for you. I also spoke to . I explained to that s STAR data suggests that is making progress. clarified that he is definitely a student who would benefit from services, so is looking into getting Benchmark data and maybe Exit Ticket data. On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:41 PM, > wrote: Hi , let me ask about it. is there a copy of the folder here so that I can maybe show him and see what we are looking for? On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, wrote: I have completed the testing but the folder that was given to me has no RtI data ( I have copies of forms but no progress monitoring data). I asked to share what was in the electronic system, and 5 of 9 9/21/15, 4:09 PM Gmail - Fwd: Data you provided is not connected to interventions https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 6 cont'd did so, but there are only 2 data points for one intervention and 3 for the other - this is not going to meet 1508 compliance for the report. Please let me know if you have additional data? If not, we should not have gotten the referral and I am being asked to do something that is not legally acceptable. -- -Sincerely, 6 of 9 9/21/15, 4:09 PM Gmail - Fwd: Data you provided is not connected to interventions https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 6 cont'd This transmission contains information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. -- This transmission contains information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. -- This transmission contains information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately 7 of 9 9/21/15, 4:09 PM Gmail - Fwd: Data you provided is not connected to interventions https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 6 cont'd contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. -- This transmission contains information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. -- -Sincerely, www.renewschools.org 8 of 9 9/21/15, 4:09 PM Gmail - Fwd: Data you provided is not connected to interventions https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 6 cont'd This transmission contains information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. -Sincerely, www.renewschools.org This transmission contains information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. -- 9 of 9 9/21/15, 4:09 PM Gmail - SciTech RTI Meeting Wednesday https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 7 SciTech RTI Meeting Wednesday 1 message > To: Cc: Bcc: Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:05 AM , Hi I hope this message finds you well. and I sat down on Friday and sifted through a portion of the stack of RTI files that was just turned in for eval. To give a little bit of context, we found all of them to be incomplete but also filled out by only 1 person very quickly. Which meant many errors. Also, the interventions listed in many cases were not actually happening (or they were the same interventions every kid gets.) In hindsight, I watched all of these files being made very quickly over the course of a week by RTI team for next year ( and ) and I am afraid that they now too believe this is how RTI works. There are a few in that stack that are students who would likely need services, but they're buried in with many who do not. For over 60 new to RTI names to have been turned in for full evals this late in the year, it is clear that this is more about budgeting than intervention. These students were placed on the CMO Budget Sped doc but I asked them to be removed until their folders were approved. Almost all of them are PreK-2 students: where there is unfortunately the least amount of experience and support... so kids are not performing as high as we would hope. People are working very hard down there. This doesn't mean that they all need special education, however. We are having a follow up meeting with and end up involving or and on Wednesday. and I anticipate this will likely be contentious is going to attend the meeting and thought it would be a good idea if you were there. Would you be able to make it? We have not yet picked a time. Please let me know! -- 1 of 1 9/21/15, 4:16 PM Gmail - Fwd: SPED Teachers and Paras https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 8 Fwd: SPED Teachers and Paras 1 message Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:59 PM To: k ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Date: Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:22 PM Subject: Re: SPED Teachers and Paras To: Hi , All of the people below are listed as Special Education teachers for us. Sorry there was initial confusion with the labeling with co-teacher/interventionist. We hired one for every content area in K-8. Special Ed Teachers Pre-K: TBD Kindergarten 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 1 of 4 9/21/15, 1:32 PM Gmail - Fwd: SPED Teachers and Paras https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 8 cont'd 6th Grade 7th/8th Other Interventionists On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Mind hitting this? ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Date: Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 11:30 AM Subject: SPED Teachers and Paras To: wrote: > >, Cc: Hi We're working on our federal funding allocations, there are some teachers and paras labeled as academic interventionists in your budget - could you tell us which teachers and paras are specifically special education teachers or paras below? You can just put a note by their name. Thank you! 2 of 4 9/21/15, 1:32 PM Gmail - Fwd: SPED Teachers and Paras https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 8 cont'd -- www.renewschools.org Finance Forms Click Here!!! Achieve Innovate Reflect Collaborate Celebrate ----------------------------------------This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify the sender immediately by return email and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- 3 of 4 9/21/15, 1:32 PM Gmail - Fwd: SPED Teachers and Paras https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 8 cont'd -- 4 of 4 9/21/15, 1:32 PM Gmail - Fwd: Minutes Tracking for Sci/Soc Co-Teachers https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 9 Fwd: Minutes Tracking for Sci/Soc Co-Teachers 1 message Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:25 PM To: ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Date: Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 9:35 AM Subject: Minutes Tracking for Sci/Soc Co-Teachers To: Hey I'd like to pull co-teachers for History and Science next week to just show them the minutes doc. They're going to be labeled sped so that their intervention and content minutes count. Basically, tracking those is part of their job and the reason they'll still have a job after Oct. 1 if we get enough kids. haha Because those minutes push us some of the Tier 3 into 4/5 and 2 into 3 with the new system. That will be the only "sped" responsibility they have aside from obviously co-teaching to provide the best instruction to every kid. Wanted to give a heads up in case there's any grumbling! Let me know if there's any questions. This was a caffeine fueled email if it doesn't make any sense. -- Proposed Model 12-11-13.pdf 186K 1 of 1 9/21/15, 3:43 PM Gmail - Fwd: Quarter 2 Decision (Response Required b... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 10 Fwd: Quarter 2 Decision (Response Required by Thursday at 3pm!) 1 message Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:33 PM To: ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:58 PM Subject: Quarter 2 Decision (Response Required by Thursday at 3pm!) Hey Guys, Looking through stuff. met at least 3 out of the 4 goals we outlined. The only one I don't know about is the effort tracker because I need to loop up with met: 30% of IEP goals ended with a 2.2 GPA took 8th math 1 absence after intersession late shift is not tracked in schoolrunner but I'll ask I sat down with about it for a few minutes and we decided that your input as a hall is most valuable here. We'd like you to fill in this template that asks what score you would predict at this point in the year on your 7th and 8th grade tests. , you haven't had her in science yet but you know the test very well. Promotion Decision There are, of course, potential pros and cons to maintaining or promoting that are beyond grades. Keep in 7th Potential Pros: may continue to keep upward trajectory in the content. This sets up for true 8th grade next year. Potential Cons: May lose motivation altogether. Loses trust in our teaching team. Starts sleeping again. 1 of 2 9/18/15, 11:21 AM Gmail - Fwd: Quarter 2 Decision (Response Required b... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 10 cont'd Promote Potential Pros: We follow through with contract. trusts our team and works hard to catch up. (If she's been busting it with effort all year) Potential Cons: The material may not feel as successful and could set back momentum/ chances of graduating. Please take your time on this and complete by Thursday at 3pm so we can talk during leadership about it. Thanks! -- Q2 Contract.docx 368K 2 of 2 9/18/15, 11:21 AM Gmail - Promotion Decision Post IEP Meeting https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 11 Promotion Decision Post IEP Meeting Thu, May 14, 2015 at 5:18 PM To: >, , , , and I just finished IEP meeting (it was a long one) and we need to discuss being promoted to 8th this Spring. I'll be pretty quick with it. Please excuse the bullets, I just figured if more is needed we can talk in person and I want it to reach it's positive ending. For now, only the four of us are on here but we need to bring it to (and potentially and ) and have a decision by Monday when (mom) will be coming back in. She will come in ready if the decision is to retain. Here's the quick rundown: met the requirements that we all signed during Quarter 2 and had even higher grades in Q3. Although does have an F in PE again... We can't retain a student for any reason without written agreement/ meeting with their parent. But... mom was never told that was still in 7th grade. We met about the contract last spring but we don't have that contract. Then we met again Q2 and sent home a copy (attached). thought that when met the requirements in Q2, she was in 8th. She never signed anything about the retention and came in today wanting to discuss high school. When moved it all into SchoolRunner in late January, there was a comment about SciTech not letting CMO know. and I emailed about this in February. But we don't have that documentation for . TRANSFER COMMENT Student retained at end of 13-14 but CMO not informed until January 2015SciTech has supporting documentation The decision to retain was because teachers did not think would pass the PARCC, so would end up repeating 8th anyhow. But no 8th graders are repeating now so it means was left behind... We need to see if: There is a time to meet and talk with the four of us if you think this is necessary. We can 9T transfer OR Could put back in 8th anyhow and goes on to high school, fills in OneApp before this round is over, etc. (Mom says if we can directly link to RAHS, she likes the sound of that guarantee rather than taking a chance on OneApp) But if isn't old enough, maybe she could do a regular 1 of 2 10/8/15, 7:19 PM Gmail - Promotion Decision Post IEP Meeting https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 11 cont'd enrollment, since was in 8th... doesn't turn 15 until June 11. I am not sure if this is old enough to enroll at RAHS. Although they did say they take 15 year olds under very special circumstances, I think this might be one of them. will be 15 by the start of the school year at least. I've attached all the documentation and the IEP that lays out what happened (not the CMO communication) with the contract. Ultimately, family was never told. also didn't know was staying back until last month. said hadn't asked, but nobody ever told And that's on us. But I think we can fix this! Trying to stay positive here and work as a team. This way mom does not need to come in upset with the school. She understands the contract and rights with special ed but I told we could fix this together. says we have done a lot of good for She really respects how much SciTech has helped grow and wants to stay in the ReNew Network. Please hit me back with questions. Let's work together on this one like we've been able to for our others! Thank you, Promotion Decision -- 4 attachments Screen Shot 2015-05-14 at 4.45.51 PM.png 225K 0870_001.pdf 762K (7th) Schoolrunner STA.pdf 409K 2015.pdf 208K 2 of 2 10/8/15, 7:19 PM Gmail - Fwd: is 5th Grader https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 12 Fwd: is 5th Grader Mon, May 25, 2015 at 10:33 AM To: ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:15 PM Subject: Re: is 5th Grader To: Do we have to promote ? 5th grade is so fucking packed and there is no LAA-2 this year. Let's be real. On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Hey in going through for testing accommodations, I found that wrote: was 4th last year. Took the LAA2 for 4th grade last year, so if they passed , passed. I don't know they didn't come with all of stuff from AP Tureaud that mom brought in. scores because is age...let me check... 11. Wanted to let you know! We can ask mom for scores for if you like. -- -- 1 of 1 10/15/15, 1:41 PM Gmail - Fwd: Question about SPED counted at STA https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 13 Fwd: Question about SPED counted at STA > Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:40 PM ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: > Date: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:11 AM Subject: Re: Question about SPED counted at STA To: > Cc: Hi , The 99 kids includes the evals that have been submitted to for review. We have submitted over 40 so far (those were the ones who started RTI last year) and there are about 40 more in Tier 3 from K-5. We will meet again before Thanksgiving to see the end of Tier 3 data. Not all of those Tier 3 will be submitted because the interventions are working. But the majority of those remaining are still significantly behind and will still need to be submitted during or before Thanksgiving break. This traces back to our conversations with and from May about having extra evaluators in to help out. This is something has been working with us on. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Thank you! Happy Halloween. On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Hi all- > wrote: I neglected to include on this email. , please see the question regarding SPED enrollment at STA below. It looks like there are only 63 non-speech only kids in SER. Furthermore, and I looked at the SPED numbers in s budget and in budget and it seems there should be around 24 kids in RTP and 99 kids in PK-8 classrooms for a total of 123 kids. Thank you all, On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Thank you, 1 of 3 > wrote: 11/11/15, 12:31 PM Gmail - Fwd: Question about SPED counted at STA https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 13 cont'd On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:51 PM, > wrote: Hi I don't have my computer at this moment (I am sitting outside of Academy Sports waiting for my niece to get off work), but I do recall the SPED numbers at SciTech being lower than all of our schools. In fact, some students were transferred to other schools within the network because those schools may have had specialty programs that could better meet the needs of the students. On Oct 29, 2014 11:46 PM, Hi all- > wrote: I'm reviewing the SPED IDEA count for 10/1/2014 at STA and it looks like there's only 63 students that are non-speech only. I could be reading this report wrong, but Is that correct? I say this because there are supposed to be over 20 students in RTP with disabilities and it seems really low when there are 84 non speech only kids at RCAA, 67 at DTA, and 95 at Schaumburg. I would think the number at STA would be closer to that at Schaumburg given RTP. Thank you and please let me know. -- Finance Forms Click Here!!! www.renewschools.org/ftf This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify the sender immediately by return email and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- 2 of 3 11/11/15, 12:31 PM Gmail - Fwd: Question about SPED counted at STA https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 13 cont'd Finance Forms Click Here!!! www.renewschools.org/ftf This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify the sender immediately by return email and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- Finance Forms Click Here!!! www.renewschools.org/ftf This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify the sender immediately by return email and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- 3 of 3 11/11/15, 12:31 PM Gmail - Fwd: Read Tomorrow and Have Fun Tonight https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 14 Fwd: Read Tomorrow and Have Fun Tonight > Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:15 PM To: ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Date: Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 4:01 PM Subject: Read Tomorrow and Have Fun Tonight To: Hi I am attaching a pdf of a document that gives the account of the things that little by little pushed me to come forward over the course of this year. I understand that I had a role in all of this too (active or passive), but I think it is most important to expose it all head on. I fear that sending it could open months of personal conflict. However, I know that the alternative--letting the momentum of this team's celebrated success lead to its own downfall for teachers and students--is something I could not walk away from. Everyone is working too hard for that and many kids and teachers are truly finding success! Tim is owed that success. As much of the staff knows about our recent meetings (largely in thanks to the cryptic weekly email sent out Friday morning that made them all begin talking) I encourage you guys to do something that sets a tone for the way a principal, a leadership team, and an organization should function. There is a way to save face for the organization, turn the year around for ALL learners, and keep a good team together. I am sure you will find it. I really care about this school, its high school mission, its students, and my team--including my leadership team (however misguided). I guess this is my funny way of showing it. Maybe we can find our way again. I am still weighing my decision about returning for the remainder of the year. You will be the first to know. Enjoy the parade! I'll be signing off for the night. Take care, Scitech.Documentation 1.30 .pdf 94K 1 of 1 11/11/15, 12:31 PM Gmail - Fwd: Coffee Today https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 15 Fwd: Coffee Today > Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:23 PM To: ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Date: Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:54 PM Subject: Re: Coffee Today To: > > Hi I re-read your response about ground talk and I wanted to reassure you that nobody has talked about any of that this week. That article made things resurface last week. But everyone's minds are on PARCC. I mostly look forward to talking this all out so that you guys are able to work with and next year to make sure that STA is set up for success. Maybe it can aid, not in a "gotcha!" but in a first draft of growth goals for RTI and Sped next year. Knowing that things are being corrected this Spring, it could outline how to help the Summer and Fall (BOY) run smoothly between Sped teachers/Coordinator, principals, and CMO without miscommunication. I think it could be good for everyone to frame it that way, instead of a trial. Let me know if you'd like to see any ideas beforehand. I hope to be solutions oriented right with you. It's what's best for kids. Thanks! On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Absolutely. Thanks so much, On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:55 PM, wrote: We'll all be moving forward in the meantime. Talk to you soon! > wrote: Thanks I appreciate you being so open to talk. I am a big believer that addressing things head on is best for any organization which in turn will be best for kids. Lots of back ground talk about preceived issues can create an unhealthy adult environment which is not good for kids. My goal is to figure out exactly what happened here and make the proper adjustments to systems and consequences for anyone deserving them. Looking forward to clearing all of this up after the first part of PARCC. On Mar 10, 2015 4:54 PM, > wrote: Thank you for meeting with me and hearing some of this out today. I appreciate your faith in me as an educator and a leader throughout my journey with Renew. I've been given a lot of valuable and innovative opportunities with the organization and I am grateful to have grown so much. I apologize if I was inarticulate about everything that happened this year. I think I was a little caught off guard about bringing it all up in that moment. There are more clear and detailed points I've written out and shared with earlier last month. I only submitted those instances that I have substantial digital proof of or those that involve the same story from several people. I also want to reiterate that I 1 of 3 11/11/15, 12:31 PM Gmail - Fwd: Coffee Today https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 15 cont'd do not blame TI) at all. He did what was asked to make it work. The simplest way to put it is this: This year at SciTech, there was an overwhelming deemphasis of meaningful intervention and quality special education-- except when it came to paperwork and funding. In many cases, students' most significant needs were knowingly sacrificed (with time, differentiated instruction, and allocation of funding and human resources) for the benefit of the whole group. There has also been a culture of fear and loyalty that you brought up that discourages people from speaking up. That is not to discount SciTech's success with a large number of its students, but it is too significant to excuse. I think that if there are STA teachers coming to me worried that we could be the next story, we ought to be as well. I, too, am worried; not for myself, but for the students and the city. This is not the Renew way, but unfortunately, it became the SciTech way. And I'm glad to hear that you are all taking measures to end that. I would like you to know again that I am grateful to Renew and the brave vision you have set forth. Also, that I could have stayed at SciTech next year, and would have stayed if things turned out differently. There is understandably no place for me on s team now. I will continue to love and look out for these kids and our teaching team. Honestly, it has been disappointing to be job hunting right now, even if the prospects are incredibly positive. However, I believe it is best for me to get a fresh start. I look forward to meeting after PARCC to face many of these points head on. I'll bring notes so that I do not get side-tracked or forget things that could create more miscommunication or require further meetings. In the meantime, I'll continue working with and to help make strides towards all kids receiving services. I will also work with and to document ideas for next year's supervision and restructuring of SpEd, 504s, and RTI to prevent this from happening again. I'm committed to doing this. For instance, it would be great if part of the Sped DCI's role would be to check in weekly with coordinators and ensure that individual growth areas are gaining traction. Occasionally, they could spot check with teachers to see how things are going from another view. This could expand the capacity of this Sped Leader, as well as open communications between coordinators and the organization's leaders. Just a suggestion, as you hunt for this person. Not only as a watchdog for prevention, but also as a true support and thought partner. Thank you again for today. I know you're very busy and it was nice to get some time to talk. Have a great week. Take care, -- 2 of 3 11/11/15, 12:31 PM Gmail - Fwd: Coffee Today https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 15 cont'd -- -- 3 of 3 11/11/15, 12:31 PM Gmail - Documentation On the Way https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 16 > Documentation On the Way > Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:38 AM To: Bcc: Hi , I will start sending things to this personal email with a description when I can. Some of them will be instances when the law was broken, or some are just s leadership/treatment of staff. I will add context where I can and send ones that seem most important. Some of it will take time to put together so you can match up RTI projections against budget drafts, for instance. Some of them are easy to read. If I am sending them, however, it is with hope that there is action taken. I know you will not be able to say. Should SciTech continue on this path, which it seems to be doing so far then I will speak with someone outside. It feels strange to say that. I don't want to see ReNEW in the negative news or bring SciTech shame because it's a huge network that involves thousands of families. I've thought about this a lot this Spring. It's caused a lot of anxiety. I've talked to people with different levels of knowledge within the organization or outside of us for advice. School psychologists, SpEd experts, SpEd lawyers from college--and they generally say that sometimes the only way to bring major change is by making an example. Or it will continue happening. I've been reading into it and I regret not sending all of this sooner. I always made it clear that I had it, which makes me believe didn't actually want it because 'd have to use it. It was a relief when Lagniappe article came out because I thought it could throw light on many of those same issues happening at our school. It was sad to see New Orleans in the news that way but it was important. Same for Atlanta. I don't like the idea of my teachers or students looking for new schools but I thought reporting in February would put a stop to it. Teachers may be afraid to take a survey but I would bet that if you put everyone in a room to write, with or without their names, you would get a lot of information. Which I understand is not an ideal way to run an organization. There are a dozen TFA kids, and a dozen more teachers, and who would like someone to come in and ask specific questions so that they can answer without having to come forward because they're afraid of being mistreated like or . Next year, there is a chance all of them leave but they waited too long to job hunt this year. Everyone who wasn't a second year teacher said they are only staying so that the students wouldn't be left to 1st year teachers who would be on their own. I'm not going to work at STA either way, but we would all like someone (or several people) to be held accountable. Teachers openly speak about being surprised wasn't let go this year. Yesterday services and that even text me from another network asking if SciTech was not providing sped thought Lagniappe would be warning enough. Whether it is an incompetence (It's not. They're very smart and detailed.) or abuse, I'm not sure that ReNEW would want either type of person running its flagship school. Again, I'd like to work with you here. I've always respected you and I hope you know that. I realize this puts you in a difficult position, but it is also better to know than not to know. 1 of 2 11/11/15, 12:32 PM Gmail - Documentation On the Way https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=05b6325980&view... Email 16 cont'd Thank you and I'll be in touch. For now, it's time for breakfast! 2 of 2 11/11/15, 12:32 PM   ReNEW Schools • 3649 Laurel Street • New Orleans • LA • 70115 • www.renewschools.org   January 28, 2016 Dear Superintendents White and Dobard, Since 2010, ReNEW Schools has been advancing its mission of providing a rigorous college preparatory education to historically underserved students in New Orleans. The organization is very proud of the accomplishments of its 4,200 students and dedication of its 650 faculty and staff members. ReNEW takes very seriously the wellbeing of all of its students and strives to ensure that each of their needs are served. ReNEW appreciates the opportunity to address the findings at ReNEW SciTech Academy (STA) from the review conducted by the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE). From the time ReNEW discovered issues at STA in the spring of 2015, the organization immediately took actions to address the needs of individual students even prior to the LDOE beginning its review - as follows: 1. Special Education: a. Directed a systematic review of all special education policies and practices, including bringing in consultants with expertise to review programs and oversight and provide recommendations on systems and best practices going forward. b. Implemented a comprehensive plan to provide compensatory minutes. c. Hired additional staff, including a specialist specifically for providing compensatory minutes and a compliance manager. d. Conducted internal and external auditing of special education files to ensure regulatory compliance and excellence in the service ReNEW provides to its students. 2. Testing: a. Committed to ensuring the highest level of test security by investigating and self-reporting identified instances of any violations. b. Conducted comprehensive review and revision of the testing security plan, which has been approved by the LDOE. c. Provided extensive professional development to faculty, staff, and administration. d. Instituted monitoring. 3. Management: a. Committed to continuing to work with an outside consultant experienced in charter school management, reporting structures, and oversight systems, to further strengthen the organization and do what is right for students and families. b. Dedicated to a close working relationship with the Recovery School District (RSD) and LDOE to ensure this never happens again. As you know, this was an isolated incident at one school involving two administrators acting on their own and not in accordance with ReNEW’s values. We do not want this incident to overshadow the incredible achievements of ReNEW’s students, as well as the invaluable efforts of our dedicated faculty and staff. Today, ReNEW is on stronger footing than ever, as is evidenced by ReNEW’s marked success in turning around failing schools. We are focused on moving forward as a strong network of schools serving the students and families of New Orleans. We appreciate the support the RSD and LDOE provided to resolve these issues in the best interests of ReNEW students. Sincerely, Brian Weimer Chair, ReNEW Schools Board of Directors Colleen Mackay CEO, ReNEW Schools