Independent Monitor?s Report of Progress for the Corrective Action Plan Between Louisiana Department of Education and the Organization The purpose of this document is to provide the Louisiana Department of Education (DOE) and the school organization with a ?nal report of the progress has made toward the implementation of the agreed upon January, 2016, Corrective Action Plan (CAP). The primary objectives of the CAP were as follows: 1) A strong governing board with high quality governance processes and expertise in relevant areas; 2) a codi?ed organization structure, strong organizational leadership and organizational policies and processes that govern school leader management, academics, ?nance and operations, and 3) resolution of Speci?c de?ciencies in the areas of special education and state testing. These objectives were further explained by the DOE listing speci?c tasks of corrective actions. This report re?ects the independent monitor?s review of the CAP objectives and speci?c corrective actions taken by The document further represents an analysis of evidence submitted by as it reported on each item of the CAP. In an effort to develop a more reliable understanding of the de?ciencies and the corrective action and evidence provided by the monitor conducted school visits to SciTech Academy and interviewed special education faculty, staff, school leaders and the Board President. The monitor also reviewed records of special education students and attended two Board Meetings. This report uses four indicators to assess the corrective actions submitted by These indicators are as follows: 1) Corrective Action Approved with Commendation, 2) Corrective Action Approved, 3) Corrective Action Approved Conditionally and 4) Corrective Action Not Approved. The ?ndings of this report indicate that Renew was asked to respond to 22 areas of the CAP. The monitor reviewed and scored the evidence as follows: Corrective Action Approved with Commendation (1 item- the Special Education Transformation Plan), Corrective Action Approved (20 items), Corrective Acton Approved Conditionally (1 item- extension of time needed to provide more students with compensatory education services). A detailed analysis of the evidence submitted by is enclosed in this report. The Board and school organization has demonstrated a strong commitment to correct the de?ciencies outlined in the CAP. The monitor would like to express appreciation to the school community and the Louisiana Department of Education for their full support in completing this report. I would like to speci?cally thank Board President Brian Weimer, CEO Colleen Mackey and Special Education Coordinator Heidi Melancon for their tireless work on this project, openness and immediate responsiveness to answering numerous questions and providing information to assist with the development of this report. H. 'h-n-f 1. A strong governing board with high quality governance processes and expertise in relevant areas (1, A) By May 1, will ensure that its board is composed of members who have extensive experience in school board governance and/or demonstrated track record in ?elds relevant to charter school governance and operations. will submit documentation to the Department demonstrating that its board has developed expertise in relevant areas as required by Bulletin 126. The Board membership consists of diverse professional occupations and include backgrounds such as, lawyer, accountant, ?nancial strategist, charter school leader, non-pro?t leader and higher education executive and physician. Some of the Board members have served on charter school boards and have specialization in areas of charter school management. Observation of two board meetings indicated the meetings were well organized with rules of order, agenda published and public comment invited before each motion. The Board of Directors meet the requirements of Louisiana Department of Education BuIletin 126. Corrective Action Approved L. B) By May, will review and submit the following documents to the Department (1, B, a) Board by-laws The Board received an extension to complete this task and at its June, 2016, meeting revised and updated their by-laws. Enclosed as evidence are working documents of the Board and ?nal copy of by?laws. Corrective Action Approved (1, B, b) Board Committee Structure. The Board Committees consist of the following: Executive Committee, Governance Committee, Finance Committee, Development and Marketing Committee and Academic Excellence Committee. The general purpose of the committees, appointment and composition, responsibilities and governance of meetings are published. Corrective Action Approved B, c) Evaluation and process including goals for the CEO, timelines and processes for the evaluation. The CEO evaluation consists of a balanced scorecard represented by survey data and performance measures. The surveys are administered twice a year and are completed by the CEO as a self- assessment, personnel who report directly to the CEO and Board Members. The survey instruments assess the performance on prescribed strategic priorities. The performance measures include mission aligned metrics and student achievement target goals. Since ?nal state test data periodically lags behind the evaluation time frame the Board will use benchmark test data to serve as student achievement data. has indicated that historically, benchmark data positively correlates with state test data. reports that its balanced scorecard was created to produce high level organizational goals to ultimately hold the CEO accountable. Corrective Action Approved (ix (1, B, d) A scope and sequence of board training topics and an accompanying schedule. The Board has used outside consultants to offer a series of training topics throughout the year. In particular, Special Education compliance training was conducted by two nationally recognized experts. Other topics of training included empowerment of employees, decision making processes and Board operations. Corrective Action Approved 2. A codi?ed organization structure, strong organizational leadership, and organizational policies and processes that govern school leader management, academics, ?nance and operationspartnership with their consultant organization, will develop the following structures related to executive team management: (2, A, a) An organizational chart and clear management lines for the central of?ce. A chart has been submitted by that depicts an organizational structure for the central of?ce. The central of?ce consists of the CEO and four reports including, the Chief Academic Of?cer, Chief Financial Of?cer, President, and Chief of School Leadership. The Chief Academic Of?cer primarily oversees the Deputy Chief Academic Of?cer, the Executive Director of Early Childhood, and the Executive Director of Data and Assessment. The position calls for 3 direct reports and 30 team members. The Chief Financial Of?cer oversees the Financial Controller, the Financial Analyst, the Director of Extended Day and Parental Involvement Programs. The position calls for 4 direct reports and 13 team members. The President position provides executive leadership for the Chief Talent Officer, Executive Director of Student Services, Executive Director of Operations, Executive Director of Information Technology and Director of Communications and Public Relations. The position calls for 5 direct reports and 33 team members. The ?nal executive position that reports directly to the CEO is the Chief of School Leadership. This position supervises the director of school leadership and school directors. The positon calls for 7 direct reports and 8 team members. This organizational scheme allows for a fair distribution of duties and responsibilities. Lines of authority and responsibilities are clearly identi?able. These areas are further clari?ed in job descriptions. One area that appears to be overlapping are the multiple hosts of multiple information -. systems. These data appear at three different executive levels, the CAO, President and the Chief of School Leadership. The CFO also must be tied into one or more of these databases. It is recommended that be mindful that marinating a uni?ed relational data management system is essential for separate departments to be able to produce specialize reports. Corrective Action Approved (2, A, b) A set of processes that govern how decisions will be made at the central of?ce level. Working with a consultant, developed a decision?making model and process. The model consists of key decisions and a chart of who shall make decisions in following areas: 1) curriculum and instruction, assessment and professional development, 2) staf?ng, 3) operations and scheduling, 4) ?nance, 5) special education and RTI and 6) branding and marketing. The decision making model and process were presented to school leaders and executive staff. The monitor observed a presentation to the Board by the consultant that was highly organized, very interactive and well received by participants in the training. Corrective Action Approved (2, A, c) A set of protocols for elevating, investigating and resolving organizational concerns. developed a policy statement that represents protocols for elevating, investigating, and resolving organizational concerns. The policy calls for Human Resources to write a summary of events and make recommendations to the CEO or President. Corrective Action Approved partnership with their consultant organization will develop the following structures related to school leader management: (2, B, a) Establish a clear management line for school leaders to (an) individual at the Executive level. has established the role of Chief of School Leadership (CSL) who is responsible for the management, coaching, and development of School Leaders. School Leaders of six schools report to the CSL. The CSL reports to the CEO and serves as a member of the executive team. Corrective Action Approved fr? (2, B, b) Establish a clear job description for school leaders delineating the role of the school leader versus central of?ce administration. has prepared and published job descriptions that delineate the role of school leader versus the role of central of?ce. Corrective Action Approved (2, B, c) Establish a framework and set of processes for school leader management and evaluation. has established an evaluation framework for school leaders which is based on the Measure of Instructional Leadership Excellence (MILE) rubric. The evaluation design assesses leadership performance through the use of surveys and performance data. Twice a year a leader will receive a rating based on a sta?' survey, school management and the MILE rubric. Periodically, test data results lag the evaluation cycle, therefore will use benchmark test data as an indicator of student performance. has indicated that historically there is positive correlation between benchmark data and ?nal test data. School leader student performance data also aligns with the target goals in the evaluation creating a system of vertical accountability. Corrective Action Approved (partnership with their consultant organization will develop the following structures related to ?nancial management: 3) Establish clear roles and responsibilities for school-based staff versus central of?ce annual budgeting process; b) Establish controls and guidelines to identify unusual ?nancial activity at the school level for the 2016-17 school year; c) Submit a preliminary budget to the Department for SY16-17 that is inclusive of all revenues of both central organization and school level spending. has established policies that re?ect roles and responsibilities for central office and school based staff in the budgeting process. The CEO, CFO and budget play important roles in providing guidance and oversight in developing the budget. School leaders are able to staff buildings and allocate funds to discretionary expenses line items appropriately. has published a handbook of Financial and Accounting Policies. indicates the policies and procedures set forth in this document are designed to: 1) protect the assets of Renew and 2) ensure the maintenance of accurate records and ensure compliance with the federal, state and local legal and reporting requirements. Furthermore, has establish polices to identify unusual ?nancial activity at the school level. Finally, has submitted an annual budget with a list of all positions in the organization. Corrective Action Approved (2, D) By May 1, in partnership with their consultant organization will create a plan for recruiting or developing chief executive talent capable of leading an organization in implementing the above structures, processes and policies. The Board has contracted with a consulting ?rm, Bellweather Education Partners, to conduct a search to replace the current CEO who is voluntarily vacating her positon at the end of SY 16-17. Corrective Action Approved 3. Resolution of speci?c de?ciencies noted in the report in the area of special education, state funding, state testing, and personnel. A. Special Education De?ciencies at SciTech a) By February 15, 2016 create and share with the Department of Education a comprehensive plan to provide a compensatory education and services to all 2015-15 student who did not receive the number of minutes required under their IEPs. must make all reasonable efforts to provide all compensatory minutes to students, regardless of their current school, by July 1, 2016 and provide ongoing documentation of those efforts. has developed a plan and submitted a report to respond to the de?ciencies noted in the CAP in the areas of special education compensatory services owed. The report indicates that a total of 62 students were owed compensatory minutes at the start of SY 2015-16. The number of students that have completed compensatory minutes is 38 or approximately 61.3 To account for the 24 students who have not completed services, is projecting that an additional 4 students will complete their minutes by December 31, 2016 and 4 more students are on schedule to complete services by May 31, 2017. also reports that 8 student are located at non- schools and meetings are being developed to provide compensatory services in school year 2016-17. has also indicated 7 students are not on track to complete all compensatory instructional minutes by July 1, 2017 as numerous attempts to reach them have been unsuccessful. Finally, documentation for one student reported that parents did not want additional services for their child. The Leadership has worked tirelessly in making an effort to deliver compensatory services to the students. Progress has been made. However, they were not able to ?ll] achieve this goal during the SY15-16 school year. Corrective Action Approved Conditionally. Although has not provide services to all 62 students in SY 16-17, with an extension of time to May 31, 2017 they will have provided services to 54 of 62 students or 87% of the total population. With this effort and time extension, will have made every reasonable effort to provide all compensatory minutes to students. (3, A, b) Immediately communicate the need for compensatory minutes to all impacted families if this has not already occurred. Notice to parents: sent letters to all parents of students who were owed compensatory services letters. Teachers and staff made telephone calls to parents. Corrective Action Approved m. (3, A, c) Ensure all Sci-Tech IEPs and evaluations for current students are up to date and compliant with all law and policy. Provide an update or progress toward this by May 1. This is inclusive of the following: i) review all evaluations conducted between March 2014-2015 to ensure they appropriately identi?ed student needs and ii) review all IEPs whose minutes were increased or decreased between May 2014 and June 2015 to ensure that they are currently aligned with student needs. through the use of outside consultants conducted a review of 52 student records to ensure IEPs and evaluations for current students were up to date and in compliance with law and policy. The ?ndings of this review indicated that 17 records had missing signatures, 9 had missing eligibility forms, 15 were missing evaluation components and 13 records had incomplete evaluations. The monitor also reviewed a sample of student records particularly those students who were owed a very high number of compensatory minutes. The ?ndings of the monitor?s review indicated that most students due triennial evaluations received waivers without parental or guardian consent. Overall the results of the reviews indicated that there is a need to improve alignment of IEP with student needs in accordance with Louisiana Department of Education Bulletin 1508. Given the ?ndings, has launched several initiative to correct this problem. increased pupil appraisal staff and Speci?ed that all evaluations will at a minimum include an educational diagnostician, and social worker. also held IEP meetings to immediately and speci?cally address the needs of STA students in accordance with Barnett}: 1508. Based on the results received STA student evaluations and student records, has taken corrective action on 36 cases, and is scheduled to address de?ciencies by December 31, 2016. Furthermore, has begun a review of existing evaluations of all students to ensure they are up-to- date and legally compliant by December 31, 2017. Corrective Action Approved (3, A, d) By May 1, 2016, develop a robust plan for on-going special education monitoring to its schools, which will include speci?c procedures for more accuracy in tracking special education minutes. Through the joint effort of special education consultants, Department staff and staff, has developed a robust comprehensive plan for special education monitoring and tracking of special education minutes. The Board approved this plan called the Transformation Plan. indicates that the goal of the plan is to build operational frameworks for compliant and effective service delivery systems. Renew has published three major documents to support this transformation and to speci?cally address role and responsibilities and procedures. These documents are l) SPED Service Delivery Handbook, 2) MT Handbook, previously mentioned and 3) the Clinical ServicesfPupil Appraisal Handbook. should be commended for work in making changes to meet the expectations of this goal. has scheduled SPED professional development this summer and through the school year to implement the Transformation Plan. If is success?il in fully implementing this bold and comprehensive reorganization of Special education it will be a model program that will greatly bene?t the students and families of all schools. Corrective Action Approved with Commendation (3, A, e) For the next two years, Schools will conduct a quarterly meeting with the Department of Education monitoring team to review the following: i) All results of child ?nd and identi?cation activities ii) All services provide to students with disabilities All re?evaluations or adjustments made to student service plans Renew has agreed to comply with this request, reporting began in April, 2016. Corrective Action Approved B. Testing Violations at Sci-Tech (B, a) Be March 1 develop and implement a plan for all school-based instructional staff across all schools to be trained on state testing procedures for all relevant state- mandated tests. developed and implemented a plan for all school personnel to be trained on state testing procedures. Corrective Action Approved (3, B, b) By March 1, develop and implement a whistle blower policy for all staff across all RENEW schools to report potential violations of testing procedures. developed and the Board approved a whistle blower policy. The plan was implemented across all schools. Corrective Action Approved (3, B, c) By March I, 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 Board and to the Department of Education. has contracted with Caveon to assist with test monitoring. A copy of the contract is attached. Cavcon was used to monitor state testing, spring, 2016. Corrective Action Approved .develop a process for all schools for identifying students that will be retained at the end of the school year. has developed a process for grade level retention. The document provides a detailed outline of for teachers, families and school administrators to use to determine if retention is an appropriate support for students who are struggling academically. IEP teams will play a major role in the discussion of retention of special education students. Students classi?ed as 504 will be reviewed by School Building Level Committees with parental or guardian participation. Corrective Action Approved