March Accountability Committee: Portfolio Office Items March 10th, 2016 Overview: March Accountability Agenda The Portfolio Office is presenting a series of items during this month’s meeting: 1. Annual Reviews for all OPSB-authorized charter schools for the 2014-15 SY, including administrative Intervention placements per OPSB Policy HC provisions 2. Draft Annual Report, including results for all charter schools as required by statute, and (NEW!) also incorporating OPSB network schools 3. OPSB Performance Framework modifications, including minor revisions to charter standards and presentation of (NEW!) Network School Performance Framework 4. Charter Operating Agreement Extensions (Action Item), as required by state law for OPSB-authorized charter schools in the third year of their initial charter term (InspireNOLA – Harte & Karr, Homer A Plessy, and Bricolage) 5. Type 3B Transfer Acceptances (Action Item), accepting jurisdiction and authorizing negotiation & execution of Operating Agreements, for 5 schools (4 charter governing board) seeking to return to OPSB oversight under current BESE policy 6. 2016 OPSB Charter RFA responses and evaluation process overview, as required by state law 7. 2016 OPSB Spring Test Administration Security Protocol Overview 8. Charter Operating Agreement Amendment Request from Bricolage Academy, pursuant to 2015 statutory and BESE policy changes regarding at-risk student enrollment 9. EnrollNOLA 2014-15 Annual Report, to be presented by RSD EnrollNOLA staff 2 2014-15 SY Annual Reviews OPSB Annual Report What Is Considered in Annual Reviews? School performance is evaluated in three domains     Academic: Is the school educating students well? Financial: Is the school financially viable? Organizational: Is the school in compliance with law, policy, and other requirements? Within each domain, schools are evaluated against the measures and standards identified in the OPSB Charter School Performance Framework   4 Available at http://opsb.us/portfolio_office/charter-schoolperformance-framework/ 2014-15 Annual Review Overview: Which Schools Are Rated? Charter schools receiving full 2014-15 Annual Reviews and ratings:   All OPSB-authorized charter schools that have been in operation for more than one full SY Charter schools not receiving 2014-15 Annual Reviews:   OPSB charter schools in their first full year of operation during current (2015-16) SY    Cypress Academy Foundation Preparatory Schools transferred to OPSB for 2015-16, and evaluated by their prior authorizer for 2014-15 SY   Andrew H. Wilson Charter School Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Charter School Network Schools     Final Network School Performance Framework to be presented today Pilot results during Spring 2016 using 2014-15 SY results Full roll-out with evaluative accountability to be implemented during 2016-17 SY OPSB Annual Report    5 Results of the 2014-15 Annual Reviews will be published in the OPSB Annual Report The report will be released publically on March 15, 2016 at the OPSB Board Business meeting, and posted online at the OPSB website 2016 OPSB Annual Review Overview: How Are Overall Ratings Determined? Academic Initial rating based on Measure 1a: State Accountability  Financial & Organizational  Initial rating based on total number of points lost   Rating adjusted only if more than two additional deficiencies noted  Persistent deficiencies may also trigger reduction in overall rating  6  Does Not Meet: 3-5 points Falls Far Below: >5 points Critical Indicator deficiency and/or persistent (>2 year) deficiencies may also trigger reduction in overall rating Academic Rating Financial Rating Organizational Rating Audubon Exceeds Meets Does Not Meet 2014-15 SY Annual Review Summary BFHS Exceeds Meets Meets • Meets Meets Meets Meets Exceeds Standards rating is only available on the Academic Performance Framework Einstein Meets Meets Meets Encore Meets Meets Meets • Hynes Exceeds Meets Meets InspireNola: Exceeds Alice Harte ES Meets Meets No Academic rating is assigned to schools their first two years of operation InspireNola: Exceeds Edna Karr HS Meets Meets • Lake Forest Exceeds Meets Meets Lusher Exceeds Meets Meets Schools rated below “Meets Standard” on any section of the Framework are subject to Intervention Moton Meets Meets Meets Plessy Does Not Meet Meets Meets Meets Meets School Bricolage Meets* Easton Exceeds Sci High Meets 7 *School did not receive SPS for 2014-15; APF rating assigned per School Board-approved alternate measure of student growth Annual Review Summary: Administration Actions – Intervention, per OPSB Policy HC Moton – Exit from Intervention   Deemed to have resolved all conditions of 2015 Intervention placement for Organizational performance deficiencies Plessy – Exit from Intervention   Deemed to have resolved all conditions of 2015 Intervention placement for Financial performance deficiencies Audubon – Placed in Tier 1 Intervention for Financial performance   Persistent failure to submit required financial reports in a timely manner    8 FY15 Audit submitted >45 days late; multiple other required financial reports also submitted late Second consecutive year with findings for late financial submissions, including significantly late audit Audit for most recent FY included significant and material findings regarding weaknesses in the school’s internal controls directly impacting the school’s ability to timely complete required financial reports OPSB School Performance Framework: Network Schools Charter Modifications OPSB Network School Performance Framework  Sets academic and organizational standards to evaluate OPSB Network schools  Academic Framework parallels Charter School Academic Framework  Financial Framework is omitted; at present, standards are not applicable to individual network school sites   Financials for each network school are not separately audited, and so no comparable data source exists Organizational Framework includes most measures from Charter School Organizational Framework, except   10 Measures pertaining to charter governing boards are omitted, and Measures for OPSB Office of Network Schools expectations are added OPSB School Performance Frameworks: Modifications to Measures  For Consideration Today     Financial Measure 2e (Fund Balance): requirement adjusted from 25% to 10%, to align with LDE Performance Compact and to address recent changes to funding methodology Organizational Measure 4b (Attendance): Removed from Performance Framework Academic Measure 4a (ELA & Math Goals): Technical change to separate current measure into two sub-measures (4a – ELA and 4b – Math) – no changes to established standards and targets Proposed Future Modifications, pending additional consultations (target date of Summer 2016 for OPSB consideration)     11 APF Measure 3a: Student Growth – Administration will convene citywide working group to develop appropriate indicator(s) and standards Grant / Regulated Funds Compliance for Charter Schools – pending further clarification of district & charter operator responsibilities for these funds Early Childhood – incorporation of statutory provisions At-Risk – incorporation of statutory, BESE policy, and OPSB Policy HA revisions Third-Year Charter 0A Extensions: InspireNOLA (Harte/Karr), Plessy, Bricolage Renewals and Extensions  Third Year Reviews  By statute, a charter school in its initial term is authorized for an initial term of 4 years; schools in the initial term receive a Third Year Review, which determines extension of the term to a maximum of 5 years  OPSB Policy HAB, Charter Extension & Renewals, establishes the standards for extensions to schools authorized by the school bard in accordance with the school’s performance, as measured by the standards established in policy HB and the OPSB Charter School Performance Framework Summary of OPSB Policy HAB Extension Provisions & Criteria Full Extension Probationary Extension Closure Unconditional extension of two years, to complete the maximum five year initial charter term provided for under state law. One year probationary extension to complete the initial four year charter term, with fifth year subject to additional review Closure of school at the end of the school’s fourth year in operation Criteria: • School has met all Academic Performance Framework standards Criteria: • School has demonstrated academic growth (combination of School Performance Scores, state-mandated assessments, or other standardized tests), but not met standards Criteria: • School fails to meet the standards for either Full or Probationary Extension • School has satisfactory performance on all Financial and Organizational Performance Framework standards 13 • School has met Academic Performance Framework standards, but failed to demonstrate satisfactory performance on Financial and Organizational Performance Frameworks Third Year Extension Review: Alice M. Harte Charter School (InspireNOLA) School Performance Score Recommendation: Full extension Performance Framework Evaluation Academic Performance Exceeds Standards Financial Performance Meets Standards Operational Performance Meets Standards 14 120 100 Student Demographics 10/1/15 Total Enrollment Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch Students with Exceptionalities English Language Learners Gifted/Talented Students Race & Ethnicity Black Hispanic White Asian & Other Races Gender Female students Male students 140 787 78.5% 8.9% 4.7% 8% 106.6 (A) 94.2 (B) 100 (A) 80 60 40 86.1% 6.6% 3.6% 3.43% 49.7% 50.3% 20 0 2013 2014 2015 SPS Note: Harte and Karr share a single operating agreement. Both schools are in the third year of the Initial Operating Term as a Type 3, after previously operating as Type 4 schools. Third Year Extension Review: Edna Karr High School (InspireNOLA) School Performance Score Recommendation: Full extension Performance Framework Evaluation Academic Performance Exceeds Standards Financial Performance Meets Standards Operational Performance Meets Standards 120 100 Student Demographics 10/1/15 Total Enrollment 1113 Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch 83.5% Students with Exceptionalities 7.6% English Language Learners <1.0% Gifted/Talented Students 10% Race & Ethnicity Black 94.7% Hispanic 1.3% White 1.1% Asian & Other Races 2.96% Gender Female students 48.5% Male students 51.5% 15 140 111.1 (A) 93.8 (B) 96.7 (B) 2013 2014 80 60 40 20 0 2015 SPS Note: Harte and Karr share a single operating agreement. Both schools are in the third year of the Initial Operating Term as a Type 3, after previously operating as Type 4 schools. Third Year Extension Review: Bricolage Academy School Performance Score Recommendation: Full extension 150 Performance Framework Evaluation Academic Performance No Rating Assigned Financial Performance Meets Standards Operational Performance Meets Standards Not rated in years 1-3 as school does not yet serve tested grades/subjects. 100 50 0 2013 Student Demographics 10/1/15 Total Enrollment Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch Students with Exceptionalities English Language Learners Gifted/Talented Students Race & Ethnicity Black Hispanic White Asian & Other Races Gender Female students Male students 16 241 44% 8.3% <1 % <5.0% 38.2% 3.3% 51.9% 6.64% 2014 SPS Student Academic Performance (RIT scores) Reading 200 172.05 163.6 200 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 42.7% 57.3% 2015 Math 170.6 162.6 0 2013-14 2014-15 Reading 2013-14 2014-15 Math Third Year Extension Review: Homer A. Plessy Community School School Performance Score Recommendation: Probationary extension Performance Framework Evaluation Academic Performance Does Not Meet Standards Financial Performance Meets Standards Operational Performance Meets Standards 140 Student Demographics 100 10/1/15 Total Enrollment 244 Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch 81.3% Students with Exceptionalities 7.5% English Language Learners 6.7% Gifted/Talented Students 4% 80 Not rated in years 1-2 as school did not yet serve tested grades/subjects. 60 49.1 (D) 40 Race & Ethnicity Black 56.6% Hispanic 11.9% White 25.4% Asian & Other Races 6.15% Gender 20 0 2013 Female students 45.8% Male students 54.2% 17 120 2014 SPS 2015 Type 5 Transfer Process: OPSB Acceptance of Jurisdiction & Authorization to Negotiate Charter Contracts Overview: Type 5 Transfer Process  By state law, schools transferred to the Recovery School District must remain under its jurisdiction for an initial term of not less than five years   Orleans Parish schools transferred to the RSD in 2005-’06, pursuant to Act 35 (La. R.S. 17:10.7) first began to be eligible to return at the conclusion of the 2010-’11 school year BESE Bulletin 129, §505 lays out the current standards schools must achieve in order to be eligible to exit the RSD, as well as the current process by which schools meeting these standards may transfer (return) to their previous governing authority 19 2015-16 Type 5 Transfer Process Timeline October 29 High School Letter Grade Release 2015 HS Letter Grades and School Performance Scores are released; shortly thereafter RSD and OPSB notify high schools that are eligible to choose to transfer to OPSB. December 2015 Elementary & Combination School Letter Grade Release Charter Board Meetings 2015 Letter Grades and School Performance Scores are released; shortly thereafter RSD and OPSB notify elementary and combination schools that are eligible to choose to transfer to OPSB. Eligible charter schools hold charter board meetings in accordance with open meetings laws to make decision whether to seek to transfer to OPSB. Deadline for eligible schools to notify BESE, in writing, of their intent to remain in the RSD, or to transfer to OPSB Deadline for OPSB to notify BESE that it officially commits to accept the transfer of one or more specific schools to OPSB. BESE considers and approves requests from eligible schools to transfer to OPSB. School officially transfers to OPSB and new OPSB charter contracts are in effect. December – February March 1, 2016 Charter Deadline March 25, 2016 OPSB Deadline April 12/13 BESE Meeting – Baton Rouge Official Transfer July 1, 2016 20 2015-16 Type 5 Schools Eligible to Transfer (33 schools, 15 charter operators/governing boards) Algiers Charter School Association •Eisenhower ES •Behrman ES •McDonogh #32 ES •L.B. Landry-O.P. Walker HS A Better Choice Foundation •Mary D. Coghill ES Collegiate Academies •Sci Academy HS Choice Foundation •Esperanza ES •Lafayette Academy ES •McDonogh #42 ES Crescent City Schools •Akili Academy ES •Harriet Tubman ES C.L.A.S.S. •Fannie C. Williams ES FirstLine Schools •Arthur Ashe ES •Phillis Wheatley Community ES •Langston Hughes ES •Samuel J. Green ES Institute of Academic Excellence •Sophie B. Wright Combo 21 KIPP New Orleans •KIPP Believe College Prep ES •KIPP Central City Primary ES •KIPP Central City Academy ES •KIPP McDonogh #15 School for the Creative Arts ES •KIPP Renaissance HS Morris Jeff •Morris Jeff ES New Beginnings •Lake Area New Tech Early College HS •Pierre A. Capdau Learning Academy New Orleans College Preparatory •Crocker College Prep ES •Cohen College Prep HS ReNEW •RCAA @ Live Oak ES •Dolores T. Aaron ES •SciTech @ Laurel ES •Schaumberg ES Success Preparatory •Success Prep ES Spirit of Excellence Academy •E.P. Harney ES Type 5 Transfer Process: Status Update & Requested Board Actions  4 eligible governing boards have elected to pursue the transfer of a total of 5 schools to OPSB oversight      The Board is requested to accept jurisdiction of each school, and to authorize the Administration to negotiate and the Board President to execute charter contracts (operating agreements) with each school operator   New Beginnings (2 schools): Capdau ES, Lake Area HS KIPP: Renaissance HS C.L.A.S.S.: Fannie C. Williams ES A Better Choice: Mary D. Coghill ES The agreements will then be submitted to BESE for final approval of the transfer, which will be effective on July 1st 2016 All three governing boards also included a contingency related to addressing concerns on property insurance costs – the OPSB Administration remains committed to working with all schools to find a fair, citywide resolution to these issues. 22 2016 OPSB Charter School RFA: Responses Evaluation Process 2016 OPSB Charter School RFA: Application Evaluation Process  By law, OPSB is required to receive applications for new Type 1 and Type 3 charter schools each year, according to the timeline and application developed by the Louisiana Department of Education   OPSB has received a total of 4 complete applications, which will each be reviewed by both district administration and an independent evaluation team, in accordance with state law and established district procedures    The statewide deadline for charter applications to local districts was Friday, March 4th at 12:00pm Evaluation teams include individuals with expertise in academic, organizational, and financial domains, as well as New Orleans & Louisiana experience Evaluation team members have provided a full disclosure of any potential conflicts, and will be required provide a certification statement indicating they have no actual or perceived conflicts prior to reviewing applications Final recommendations will be brought to the Board for a public hearing and final decisions during the May meeting cycle – by law, the School Board must act on all applications submitted by not later than June 2, 2016 24 2016 OPSB Charter RFA: Applications Advancing to Evaluation Stage Nonprofit Name/ School Name Program Model Applicant Track & Partners Primary Contact/ School Leader The 1881 Research Institute & 9-12 Charter School/ The 1881 Research Institute CTE; STEM New Bahiy Watson/ Pamela Randall Élan Academy Inc./ K-5 Élan Academy Charter School Blended Learning; New College Prep; Other (Classical) Melanie Askew JCFA/ JCFA-NOLA West; JCFA-NOLA East 2 schools, each serving grades 9-12 New (Experienced) Millie M. Harris Pathways in Education – New Orleans Inc./ Pathways in Education New Orleans I, II & III 3 schools, each serving grades 9-12 Alternative; Blended Learning; Career & Technical Education Alternative; Blended Learning; College Prep New (Experienced) Martin McGreal 25 Number of Schools & Grades Served State Assessments: Overview of OPSB Test Security Protocols Test Security  OPSB will continue to provide monitoring and oversight of test administration procedures, pursuant to LEA obligations and charter operating agreement provisions  All schools are also welcomed to implement additional test security measures at their discretion  Violations of test security are defined in BESE Bulletin 118 and include:       27 Administering tests in a manner that that would give examinees an unfair advantage or disadvantage Examining any test item at any time (except for providing certain accommodations as required by an IEP or other plan) At any time reproducing or discussing all or part of any secure materials Coaching or interfering with examinees in any manner during testing Altering or interfering with examinees’ responses in any manner Participating in, encouraging, or failing to report any violation Consequences of Test Security Violations  Tests voided for test security violations or administrative error result in “0” being assigned for school accountability purposes  Retesting required due to test administration errors will result in a $350.00 fee per student, per content area being assessed to the school  Schools with repeated or significant test security findings may be required to develop a corrective action plan, and/or may result in adverse findings pursuant to the OPSB Performance Framework and/or charter operating agreements  Violations of test security may also result in the revocation of an individual’s teaching or leadership certificate, as defined in Bulletin 746, in addition to potential civil or criminal liability. 28 Summary of Protocols OPSB’s full district test administration security procedures can be found at http://opsb.us/departments/accountability-assessment/  Test materials will released to school sites 3 working days prior to testing. All precoding will be completed by school test coordinators at OPSB Central Office.  Access to each school’s Locked, Secure Storage Area is required to be restricted, especially when test materials are present on-site.  Central office monitors will be assigned to each testing location to verify compliance with state and district protocols, as in past years.  Electronic devices are prohibited from the testing environment – including for all test monitors  Test Read Aloud Accommodations for LEAP will be administered using prerecorded CDs provided by LDE & OPSB, unless a student-specific exemption request is submitted and approved 29