Fall 2017 OPSB Charter School RFA: Updates & Independent Evaluation Accountability Committee November 14th, 2017 1 Fall 2017 OPSB Charter School RFA: Timeline and Process Overview Fall 2017 OPSB Charter School RFA: Summary Timeline  Charter RFA Materials    Submission Review    Part 1 (Notice of Intent & Eligibility Determination) were due on August 7, 2017 Part 2 (Common Charter Application and OPSB-specific supplemental materials) were due Monday, September 5 at 12:00 p.m. (Noon) CT Part 1 submissions are reviewed to confirm applicants meet requirements for eligibility to apply Part 2 submissions are reviewed to confirm completeness of submissions, to redact personal information, and to screen documents to ensure they represent original submissions Evaluation Process & Final Decisions    Applications are reviewed by both an independent evaluation team, and an OPSB staff review team Neither the Superintendent nor the School Board are bound in their decisions by the recommendation of the independent evaluation team School Board Review Timeline:   R.S. 17:10.7.1 provides for the Superintendent to present his recommendations to the Board, and grants authority to implement recommendations unless rejected by a two-thirds vote of the full school board membership School Board action to reject a recommendation must occur by not later than the next Board meeting following the presentation of recommendations 3 2017 OPSB RFA Process: Applicant Summary Notice of Intent & Eligibility 9 applicants •Type 1: 7 applicants •Type 3: 2 applicants Complete Applications 8 applicants •Type 1: 6 applicants •Type 3: 2 applicants District Review & Independent Evaluation: 8 applicants •Type 1: 6 applicants •Type 3: 2 applicants Final Decisions: 8 applicants •Type 1: 6 applicants •Type 3: 2 applicant 4 2017 OPSB Charter RFA: What Happens During the Evaluation Stage? Primary Application Reading, for both Independent Evaluation Team & OPSB District Staff Request for Clarification Presented by Independent Evaluation Team to Applicants Capacity Interview Conducted by Independent Evaluation Team Independent Evaluation Team Presents Recommendation to OPSB and Applicant OPSB Conducts Public Hearing Superintendent’s Recommendations Presented to School Board 5 2017 OPSB Charter RFA Evaluation: Key Dates for Final Decisions  November 16th: Public Hearing   December 14th: School Board Meeting   State law requires OPSB to hold a public hearing for the purposes of receiving comment prior to consideration of charter applications Superintendent’s Recommendations presented January (date TBA): School Board Meeting  Pursuant to R.S. 17:10.7.1, rejection of a Superintendent’s Recommendation requires a two-thirds vote of the full School Board (5 votes) by the next meeting following the presentation of recommendations 6 Fall 2017 OPSB Charter School RFA: What Happens After Approval?  Statutory standard for approval (R.S. 17:3983(A)(4)(a)) “A local school board may enter into any charter it finds valid, complete, financially well-structured, and educationally sound…”  Approved applicants enter the OPSB Pre-Opening Process, in preparation for final administrative approval of the execution of a charter contract, which constitutes the formal legal authority to operate a public school under OPSB’s jurisdiction  During the Pre-Opening Process, all applicants are required to compete certain actions, including but not limited to    Recruitment of remaining charter governing board members, in accordance with OPSB Policy HA requirements Securing of a facility suitable for use as a public school, either through the OPSB Facility Assignment process for district buildings, or by securing a private facility Additional Statutory Provisions (R.S. 17:3983)   Approved charters may not open until 8 months after approval, without the permission of the chartering authority for a lesser time period Approved charters are automatically revoked if not used within 24 months of initial decision, unless an extension of this deadline is granted by the chartering authority 7 Fall 2017 OPSB Charter School RFA: Independent Evaluation Results Independent Evaluation Process  Teams are composed of three members, which collectively have substantive areas of experience/expertise aligned to the key domains of charter school oversight:     The Evaluation Team utilizes the following process in reviewing all applications        Educational program Organizational plan Financial/business operations plan Individual review & team debrief Request for clarification Capacity Interviews Recommendation Review applicant response Rebuttal Final report is presented to the Superintendent and School Board   Analysis of strengths and concerns regarding the proposal, aligned to application plan elements The independent evaluation recommendation is not a final decision: the findings of the independent review are not binding on either the Superintendent or the School Board 9 Summary of Independent Evaluation Reports Organization Type, # of Schools, Grade Levels Overall Center for Resilience (Querencia) Type 1 New Start 1 School (PK-8) APPROVE Lyceum Schools Type 1 New School 1 School (K-12) Young Audiences Charter Association School People Operations Finance Addenda Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets DENY Approaches Approaches Approaches Approaches Approaches Type 1 Transformation 1 School (K-8) DENY Meets w/Reservations Meets w/Reservations Approaches Approaches Approaches Meets w/Res. InspireNOLA Charter Schools Type 1 Transformation 1 School (PK-8) APPROVE Meets Meets Meets Meets (x2) Meets FirstLine Schools Type 1 Transformation 2 Schools (PK-8) APPROVE Meets Meets Meets Meets (x2) Meets Crescent City Schools Type 1 Transformation 1 School (PK-8) DENY Meets Meets w/Reservations Meets Meets (x2) Meets w/Reservations Significant Educators (Bethune Elem.) Type 3 Conversion 1 School (PK-8) DENY Meets w/Reservation Approaches Approaches Meets w/Reservations Meets w/Reservations Legacy of Excellence (Ben Franklin Elem.) Type 3 Conversion 1 School (PK-8) DENY Meets Approaches Meets Meets Meets 10 Fall 2017 Transformation Operator Siting Process Accountability Committee November 14th, 2017 11 Addressing Schools Subject to Nonrenewal: The District’s Approach Key Factors (previously shared) Portfolio & Planning 1.  Current Work & Next Steps (Updated)   Does adequate capacity exist within schools currently operating? Can we ensure that students are able to access higherquality school choices in their community?     Is there another operator available that demonstrates potential to provide a highquality educational experience to students?     Bridge Operator  Is there an interim operator (“bridge operator”) that can maintain performance and create conditions for sustainable, long-term transformation?  Process Update today, including independent evaluations Superintendent’s Recommendations in December 2017 Transformation Siting Process  3. Presentation today Enrollment & Demographic Update in December New School Development Priorities by Jan 2018 Fall 2017 Charter RFA cycle  Charter RFA & Transformation Siting Process 2. OPSB Authorization Approach Process launch today Addendum materials due by Dec 15th Siting Determinations by Jan 30th Bridge Operator RFQ    Materials live now Submissions for 2018-19 SY sitings due by Dec 15th Rolling review for future years’ siting 12 2017-18 OPSB Transformation Operator Siting Process  OPSB is launching the 2017 Transformation Siting Process, to solicit interest from prospective operators of school sites where current operators may be subject to nonrenewal  In preparation for Unification, OPSB has assumed the lead role in this phase of the renewal cycle, and will make all siting determinations and issue all contracts for transformation operators  Applicants will submit school-specific proposals, which will be reviewed by district administration and a community review panel, and will also participate in a public hearing before the School Board  Siting determinations will be presented to the School Board by Jan 30th, 2018, in order to provide families with clarity before the end of the OneApp Main Round, and to provide time for selected operators to begin community engagement, recruitment, staffing/budgeting, and other start-up activities  The launch of the Transformation Siting Process is NOT  A final determination on charter contract renewal for the existing school operator: OPSB will present Superintendent’s Recommendations on renewals during Thursday’s Board Business meeting, with decisions finalized (pending School Board review period pursuant to R.S. 17:10.7.1) in December RSD will present renewal recommendations to BESE for consideration during the week of December 11th  A final decision on 2017 Fall OPSB Charter RFA cycle applications: Superintendent’s Recommendations for Type 1 Transformation & New Start applicants will be presented during the December Board Business Meeting, currently set for Thursday, December 14th 13 2017 Transformation Operator Selection Process: Timeline & Outcomes This Week •OPSB School-Specific Transformation Addendum released Dec 12th -14th •BESE Meetings: Type 5 renewal final decisions •OPSB Meetings: Superintendent’s Recommendations for Type 1 Transformation applicants Fri Dec 15th •Bridge Operator RFQ deadline for 2017 consideration •School-Specific Transformation RFA Materials due  Who is eligible to be selected for transformation? 1. 2. 3.  What are the changes from last year’s process? 1. Dec 18th – Jan 5th 2. •Winter Break •School-Specific materials reviewed 3. 4. Jan 8th – 19th Jan 23rd – 25th (TENTATIVE) By Tues, Jan 30th •Superintendent’s Community Review Panel meetings •School Board Community Public Hearings (1 meeting of Accountability Committee at each impacted school site) •Superintendent’s Siting Determinations presented to School Board for approval  Organizations currently holding OPSB charter approval 2017 Fall RFA cycle applicants, pending final decisions (December 14th) Bridge Operators, pending qualification via RFQ process (submission deadline of December 15th) OPSB-led process, in preparation for Unification Concurrent charter RFA cycle (December final decisions) Addition of bridge operator RFQ component Addition of School Board community meetings at each impacted school site (mid-January) What are the possible outcomes for each school site?    Full transformation (new operator, serving all students/grades) Bridge Operation, including partial transformation (serving only some grade levels) or phase-out Full Closure 14 2017 OPSB Transformation Operator Selection Process: Community Voice & Engagement  Direct Support to Impacted Families   Superintendent’s Community Review Panel    OPSB is partnering with community organizations to provide support to impacted families at each school site through the transformation process Citywide representatives: to be selected and announced during December OPSB Board meeting cycle School community representatives: to be selected in December, pending final BESE renewal determinations *NEW* Accountability Committee Public Hearings  To be scheduled at each impacted school site during the third week of January, exact dates/locations TBA pending final BESE renewal determinations 15 2017 Transformation Siting Process: School-Specific Considerations Overview: 2017-18 SY Renewal Cycle  The following schools have met the applicable policy standards to qualify for renewal of their charter contract            The following schools have NOT met applicable policy standards for renewal     InspireNOLA: Alice Harte ES, Edna Karr HS (OPSB) Bricolage Academy (OPSB) Homer A. Plessy Community School (OPSB) Akili Academy (RSD) Crocker Arts & Technology School (RSD) ReNew Schaumberg ES (RSD) Mildred Osborne ES (RSD) Paul B. Habans ES (RSD) KIPP: New Orleans Leadership Academy (RSD) KIPP: East Community Primary (RSD) Sylvanie Williams College Prep (RSD) ReNew Cultural Arts Academy at Live Oak ES (RSD) Dwight D. Eisenhower ES (RSD) Final renewal determinations for each school will be made by either BESE (for Type 5 schools currently under the jurisdiction of the RSD) or OPSB 17 2017 Transformation Operator Siting Process: PRELIMINARY District Analysis & Considerations  Quantity/Capacity      Quality/School Performance    ES enrollment patterns: preliminary analysis continued decrease in new K entrants, smaller cohorts through grade 3, but “bulge” of larger cohorts in upper ES (grades 5-8) HS enrollment growth: leading edge of 5-7 years of projected growth in total HS cohort sizes, due to exit of smaller post-Katrina cohorts and transition of larger ES cohorts Geographic considerations: significant excess program capacity in Zone 5 (Central City/LGD), tight capacity in Zone 7 (Westbank), continued facility & program under-capacity in Zone 1 (N.O. East) NOTE: full enrollment & demographic update to be provided to Accountability Committee in December, pending release of official 10/1/17 student count data 2017 SPS & Letter Grade Results Multi-year view: 23 schools are subject to renewal review in the next two years (13 in 2018, 10 in 2019), including several not currently on track to meet applicable policy standards for renewal Diversity   Geographic distribution of school operators, schools earning A or B letter grades: Central City/Lower Garden District, Westbank, Downtown (St. Claude corridor) Opportunities for new school development: Alignment with outcomes from district vision and strategic goals process 18 2017 Transformation Siting Process: Factors Considered in Determining Eligibility for Siting  Do we have sufficient slack capacity to absorb these students at higher-performing school options? 1. 2. 3.  Is there a projected long-term need for these (program) seats? 1. 2.  Is there sufficient excess capacity within the zone to absorb the closure in the majority of grades? For the grades where there is not enough excess capacity, is there enough excess capacity citywide? If we close this school, do we have the capacity to absorb the students in schools that are better performing (defined here as SPS >= 5 points higher)? Is there sufficient quantity of seats to available for these students to attend in their “home” catchment? Are these seats needed, based on citywide and neighborhood enrollment projections? Are there alternate ways to expand seat availability in the short run? What is the condition of the facility? 1. 2. Is the facility better in absolute terms to the other facilities in our portfolio (top 2 quartiles)? Is the facility better than schools not on track for renewal in the next 2 renewal cycles? Would this facility be one that we would prefer keep students in, compared to future schools?19 2017 Transformation Siting Process: Sites Eligible for Transformation Operator Placement  Based on the district’s preliminary analysis against identified planning factors, determinations regarding site eligibility for transformation have been made   OPSB will to accept transformation proposals for the following sites:    These determinations are subject to revision, based on the potential for additional school portfolio actions, as well as pending the final decisions of OPSB and BESE with respect to renewals for current operators Dwight D. Eisenhower ES – priority for full transformation ReNew Cultural Arts Academy (at Live Oak ES) – priority to serve MS grades OPSB will not accept transformation proposals for the following sites:   Mahalia Jackson ES – direct-run, subject to separate facility partnership process Sylvanie Williams ES – facility condition, citywide & catchment area ES oversupply 20