Committee of the Whole April 21, 2020 Accountability Updates: Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Monitoring SPLC IDEA Monitoring Child Find IDEA requirement that children with disabilities, and who are in need of special education and related services, are identified, located, and evaluated Related Services Includes physical therapy, occupational therapy, counseling services, orientation and mobility services, speech-language pathology, audiology services, school health/nurse services, special transportation, and adaptive physical education Discipline IDEA requirements for disciplinary procedural protections for students with disabilities Enrollment Federal legal requirements to enroll and serve students with disabilities PUBLIC SCHOOLS Child Find Monitoring Instrument Child Find File Review Yes No Monitoring Protocol Student File Review Protocols 1. The School Building Level Committee that discussed the student's academic needs was comprised of at least a classroom teacher, the teacher who referred the student to the SBLC, and the principal of the school or a designee of the principal. 2_ If the School Building Level Committee referred the student for an initial evaluation, parental consent for an initial evaluation was II II obtained within a I time following the decision to 3. Suf?cient screening, including if appropriate participation in the Response to Intervention process, was conducted to identify the student as suspected of having a disability. 4. If the student?s parent has requested an initial evaluation, the LEA either (1) requested parental consent to conduct the evaluation or (2) noti?ed the parent in writing that the evaluation would not be conducted and the reasons that the LEA believed that an evaluation of the student was 5. If student participated in the RTI process, the school collected suf?cient data to determine the effectiveness of the interventions provided to the student. 6. If student did not maintain expected progress while participating in the Response to II II II Intervention process, the student was referred to the SBLC for consideration of 7 Parental notice was provided describing any evaluation procedures that the agency proposed to conduct. 8. Parental consent was obtained to conductan initial evaluation. 9. A variety of assessment tools and strategies (not the use of a single measure or assessment as the sole criterion) were used to gather relevant functional, developmentaland academic information about the child, including II II '1 information provided by the parent. 10. Existing data (ex: evaluation data and info provided by parent; current classroom based, local or state assessmentdata; classroom observations and related service provider observations) was reviewed to determine continued eligibility. 11. A variety of sources (ex: teacher data, parent data, and related services data) were used to determine student eligibility. 12. For students who are eligible under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the student's educational records indicate that the student does not require ll II II specially Related Services Monitoring Instrument Related Services Yes No File Review Protocol Student File Review Protocol 1. The parents were invited to the Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting. [l l] 2. If neither parent was able to attend the IEP team meeting, there is documentation of attempts to ensure parental participation. 3. The appropriate team members were present at the IEP team meeting (signature . . prowded at IEP Team meeting). 4. The IEP for a school-age studentincludesa statement of present levels of academic achievementand functional performance, including how the student?s disability affects involvementa nd progress in the general education curriculum. 5. The IEP includes measurable, standards-based annual goals, including academic and functional goals. Benchmarks or short?term objectives should be include: for students who take alternate assessments aligned to alternate achievemen [l [l l] standards. 6. The IEP contains related services which are reasonably calculated to enable the student to advance appropriatelytoward attaining annual goals; to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum in accordance with the student?s present levels of academic adiievement and functional performance; to participate in extracurricular and other academic activities; and to be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled d1ildren in amdemic and non-academicschool activities. 7. The IEP contains an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the student will not participate with nondisabled students in the general education class an< the LEA ensured that to the maximum extent possible the student wa [l [l l] educated with nondisabled students. 8. The IEP contains descriptions of how progress toward annual goals will be measured, including how often parents will be regularly informed of their child?s progress. 9. Related services are being provided to the studentin the types and frequenq spedfied in the student?s IEP. PUBLIC SCHOOLS Discipline Student File Review es No Monitoring Protocol Student File Review Protocols 1- The Individualized Education Program(lEP) team considered, in the case of a student whose behavior impedes his/her learning, the use of positive behavioral interventions, supports, and/or other strategies to address the behavior. 2. Within ten (10) days of any decision to change the placement of a student with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct, the LEA conducted l] l] a manifestation determination. 3. The LEA noti?ed the parent on the same day as the date of the removal decision of any removal that constituted a change of placement and provided l] l] the parent with a copy of the notice of the procedural safeguards. 4. The IEP team considered relevant information in the student?s file, including the student?s IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parent, to determine whether the behavior was a l] [l l] manifestation of the student's disability. 5. If the IEP team determined that the behavior was not a manifestation of the student?s disability and the suspension/expulsion was applied, the student continued to receive services so as to enable the student to continue to l] participate in the general education curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward meetingthe goals set out in the student?s IEP. 6- If the IEP team determined that the behavior was a manifestation of the student?s disability, the student was returned to the current placement, unless the parent and the LEA agree to a change in placement as part of the behavioral l] intervention plan or unless the behavior is related to weapons, drugs, or serious bodily injury. 7. If the student did not have a functional behavioral assessment developed and a BIP implemented prior to the removal, and the behavior was determined l] by the IEP team to be a manifestation of the disability, the IEP team completed l] the FBA and developed a BIP as soon as practicable. 8- If the student had a BIP, the IEP team reviewed the plan as part of the l] l] manifestation determination process and revised it as needed. PUBLIC SCHOOLS Enrollment Monitoring Instrument (Related Services Instrument Used) Related Services Yes No File Review Protocol Student File Review Protocol 1. The parents were invited to the Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting. l] l] 2. If neither parent was able to attend the IEP team meeting, there is documentation of attempts to ensure parental participation. 3. The appropriate team members were present at the IEP team meeting (signature . . prowded at IEP Team meetlng). 4. The IEP for a school-age studentincludesa statement of present levels of academic achievementand functional performance, including how the student?s disability affects involvementa nd progress in the general education curriculum. 5. The IEP includes measurable, standards-based annual goals, including academic and functional goals. Benchmarks or short?term objectives should be include: for students who take alternate assessments aligned to alternate achievemen l] standards. 6. The IEP contains related services which are reasonably calculated to enable the student to advance appropriatelytoward attaining annual goals; to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum in accordance with the student?s present levels of academic adiievement and functional performance; to participate in extracurricular and other academic activities; and to be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled d1ildren in amdemic and non-academicschool activities. 7. The IEP contains an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the student will not participate with nondisabled students in the general education class an< the LEA ensured that to the maximum extent possible the student wa [l [l l] educated with nondisabled students. 8. The IEP contains descriptions of how progress toward annual goals will be measured, including how often parents will be regularly informed of their child?s progress. 9. Related services are being provided to the studentin the types and frequenq spedfied in the student?s IEP. PUBLIC SCHOOLS Monitoring Outcomes - No systemic findings no further action necessary. - No systemic findings but have student specific findings LEA will have to show evidence of correction within 30 days of receiving monitoring results. LDOE will review the documentation and if no further concerns, the LDOE will send closure letter. - Systemic findings LEA will have a corrective action plan (CAP) to address findings denoted in the monitoring report. LEA will receive a follow-up monitoring visit the next year to verify correction. PUBLIC SCHOOLS Accountability Updates: Notices of Noncompliance Notices of Noncompliance, Level 2 Audubon Uptown Charter School Notice of Non-Compliance, Level 2: LDOE Corrective Action Plan (CAP) per SPLC Re: Enrollment Letter Date: October 31, 2019 Closure Date: Pending LDOE Resolution OPEN Better Choice Foundation Notice of Non-Compliance, Level 2: Financial Management Letter Date: June 28, 2019 Additional Required Actions: July 26, 2019 Follow-Up Communication: November 12, 2019 OPEN Mary D. Coghill Charter School Notice of Non-Compliance, Level 2: LDOE Corrective Action Plan (CAP) per SPLC Re: Enrollment Letter Date: March 12, 2020 Closure Date: Pending LDOE Resolution OPEN Notices of Noncompliance, Level 2 Einstein Village de L’Est Notice of Non-Compliance, Level 2: LDOE Corrective Action Plan (CAP) per SPLC Re: Enrollment Letter Date: March 12, 2020 Closure Date: Pending LDOE Resolution OPEN Fredrick Douglass High School Notice of Non-Compliance, Level 2: LDOE Corrective Action Plan (CAP) per SPLC Re: Related Services Letter Date: March 12, 2020 Closure Date: Pending LDOE Resolution OPEN Notices of Noncompliance, Level 2 ENCORE Academy Notice of Non-Compliance, Level 2: LDOE Corrective Action Plan (ICAP) per SPLC Re: Enrollment Letter Date: June 03, 2019 Closure Date: Pending LDOE Resolution OPEN James A. Singleton Charter School Notice of Non-Compliance, Level 2: LDOE Corrective Action Plan (ICAP) per SPLC Re: Related Services Letter Date: June 03, 2019 Closure Date: Pending LDOE Resolution OPEN Notices of Noncompliance, Level 2 Lusher Charter School Notice of Non-Compliance, Level 2: LDOE Corrective Action Plan (CAP) per SPLC Re: Related Services Letter Date: October 28, 2019 Closure Date: Pending LDOE Resolution OPEN New Beginnings School Foundation Notice of Non-Compliance, Level 2: Contractual Obligations Letter Date: June 7, 2019 Additional Required Actions: June 25, 2019 Closure Date: June 30, 2020 OPEN John F. Kennedy High School Notice of Non-Compliance, Level 2: LDOE Corrective Action Plan (CAP) per SPLC Re: Related Services Letter Date: March 12, 2020 Closure Date: Pending LDOE Resolution OPEN Notice of Noncompliance, Level 2 KIPP Central City Notice of Non-Compliance, Level 2: LDOE Corrective Action Plan (CAP) per SPLC Re: Child Find Letter Date: March 12, 2020 Closure Date: Pending LDOE Resolution OPEN Lake Forest Elementary School Notice of Non-Compliance, Level 2: LDOE Corrective Action Plan (CAP) per SPLC Re: Related Services Letter Date: March 12, 2020 Closure Date: Pending LDOE Resolution OPEN Dr. King Charter School Notice of Non-Compliance, Level 2: LDOE Corrective Action Plan (CAP) per SPLC Re: Enrollment Letter Date: March 12, 2020 Closure Date: Pending LDOE Resolution OPEN Notice of Noncompliance, Level 2 Mildred Osborne Charter School Notice of Non-Compliance, Level 2: LDOE Corrective Action Plan (CAP) per SPLC Re: Discipline Letter Date: March 12, 2020 Closure Date: Pending LDOE Resolution OPEN New Orleans Charter Science and Math High School Notice of Non-Compliance, Level 2: LDOE Corrective Action Plan (CAP) per SPLC Re: Related Services Letter Date: March 12, 2020 Closure Date: Pending LDOE Resolution OPEN ReNew Accelerated High School Notice of Non-Compliance, Level 2: LDOE Corrective Action Plan (CAP) per SPLC Re: Related Services Letter Date: March 12, 2020 Closure Date: Pending LDOE Resolution OPEN Notice of Noncompliance, Level 2 Walter L. Cohen College Preparatory Notice of Non-Compliance, Level 2: LDOE Corrective Action Plan (CAP) per SPLC Re: Child Find Letter Date: October 31, 2019 Closure Date: Pending LDOE Resolution OPEN Accountability Updates: Financial Compliance PUBLIC Annual Audit Financial Health Expectations (FY19) Long-Term Financial Stability: Schools are prepared Unrestricted Net Assets?'otal Expenses Y1: lorunloreseeable events such that those events do Y1: >31 not result in a signilicant fiscal crisis. (Using Audited Financials] T3: Y4: >62 Y5: >81 Fiduciary Management: Schools eflectively manage Unqualified annual auditwith no findings deemed their fiduciary responsibilities and maintain clean audits as a result. to be significant, material or internal control weaknesses. PUBLIC CSAF Metric: Long-Term Stability The following organizations has requested an extension of submission of their audit from the Louisiana Department of Education, and thus have not submitted to NOLA Public Schools as of current: 1. Better Choice Foundation CSAF Metric: Fiduciary Management The following organizations did not meet the Charter School Accountability Framework Audit Metric for LongTerm Stability: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Firstline Schools InspireNOLA James Singleton Charter School New Beginnings School Foundation New Orleans College Prep The following organizations did not meet the Charter School Accountability Framework Audit Metric for Fiduciary Management: 1. ARISE 2. Firstline Schools 3. New Beginnings School Foundation 4. New Orleans Charter Science and Math 5. Robert R. Moton Charter School 6. Warren Easton Charter School *OPSB LEA Schools submitted their Annual Audits in September and thus, the Portfolio Innovation and Accountability Team has already held the fiscal health conversation with Warren Easton Charter School. Quarterly Financial Health Expectations (QFR2) CSAF Metric: Near Term Fiscal Health All Charter Management Organizations and Single-Site Schools met the Charter School Accountability Framework QFR Metric for Near Term Fiscal Health. Accountability Updates: Charter Board Governance Authorizer-Led Charter Board Training Upon completion of the March 1, 2020 Authorizer-Led Charter Board Training, 75 charter board members have attended thus far. The Authorizer-Led Charter Board Training held on April 1, 2020 @ 5:00PM took place virtually, and May 8, 2020 @5:30PM will be held virtually as well. Accountability Updates: Charter School Renewals 2020-2021 Renewal Schools School Operator 2018-2019 SPS Letter Grade 2018-2019 Growth Quartile ArthurText Ashe Charter School FirstLine Schools C Second Benjamin Franklin High Schools Advocates for Academic Excellence in Education, Inc. A N/A*** Lawrence D. Crocker College Prep New Orleans College Prep F Fourth Homer A. Plessy Community School Citizens’ Committee for Education C First KIPP Believe College Prep KIPP New Orleans Schools C Third Booker T. Washington High School KIPP New Orleans Schools D Third KIPP Central City KIPP New Orleans Schools C Second KIPP Morial KIPP New Orleans Schools C First Lake Forest Elementary Charter School Council for Quality Education A N/A*** 2020-2021 Renewal Schools School Operator 2018-2019 SPS Letter Grade 2018-2019 Growth Quartile Livingston Collegiate Academy Collegiate Academies C Second Lusher Charter School Advocates for Arts-Based Education Corporation A N/A*** Mildred Osborne Charter School ARISE Schools D First Morris Jeff Community School Morris Jeff Community School C Third, K-8 First, 9-12 Paul B. Habans Elementary Crescent City School C First Phillis Wheatley Community School FirstLine Schools D Second Pierre A. Capdau Learning Academy New Beginnings School Foundation D Third ReNEW Schaumburg Elementary School ReNEW Schools F Fourth ReNEW SciTech Academy at Laurel Elementary ReNEW Schools D Fourth Robert Russa Moton Charter School Advocates for Innovative Schools, Inc. D Fourth 2018-2019 SPS Letter Grade 2018-2019 Growth Quartile Text 2021-2022 Renewal Schools School Operator Dr. Martin TextLuther King Jr. Charter School Friends of King Schools D 3rd: K-8 4th: High School Einstein Charter @ Sherwood Forest Einstein Group, Inc. D 3rd Einstein Charter High School @ Sarah T. Reed Einstein Group, Inc. C 1st Einstein Charter Middle School @ Sarah T. Reed Einstein Group, Inc. D 2nd Einstein Charter School @ Village De L’Est Einstein Group, Inc. D 2nd Elan Academy Elan Academy, Inc. N/A N/A Eleanor McMain Secondary School InspireNOLA Charter Schools B 2nd Fannie C. Williams Charter School Community Leaders Advocating Student Success, Inc. (C.L.A.S.S.) D 3rd Harriet Tubman Charter School Crescent City Schools D 2nd 2021-2022 Renewal Schools School Operator 2018-2019 SPS Letter Grade 2018-2019 Growth Quartile Text James M. Singleton Charter School Dryades YMCA F 4th Esperanza Charter School Choice Foundation, Inc. C 1st Martin Behrman Charter Academy of Creative Arts and Science Algiers Charter School Association C 2nd McDonogh 42 Charter School InspireNOLA Charter Schools C 1st Rooted School Rooted School C 3rd The NET 2 Charter High School Educators for Quality Alternatives C* N/A ARISE Academy ARISE Schools F 2nd * The Net 2’s SPS letter grade is from Louisiana’s Alternative School formula. Portfolio Innovation: Charter Request for Application Process Charter RFA Process Upcoming Actions Action Timeline Full Application due March 6th Public hearing meeting April 23rd (Rescheduled) Capacity Interviews April 21st Initial Memo sent to applicants April 28th Factual Clarification Memo sent to applicants May 5th Final Independent Evaluation sent to applicants May 11th Superintendent’s Recommendation May 14th Charter RFA Process Spring 2020 Charter RFA cycle: • Six organizations met the eligibility requirements and were eligible to complete the full application for the request for charter applications. • One organization withdrew their application prior to application submission. • Two organizations submitted an application on March 6th. • Both organizations passed the initial completeness check, demonstrating their submission of a complete application. Charter RFA Process Applicants Type Preferred School Type Completed Application? Community Academies of New Orleans PreK - 8 Type 1 Turnaround Yes Generation Success 6-12, slow growth Type 1 New Start Yes Carmouche Performing Arts Academy 6-12, starting with 6 and Type 1 9 New Start Withdrawn Jackson Lewis Schools 9-12, slow growth Type 1 New Start Did Not Submit Urban Excellence Schools PreK - 8 Type 1 Turnaround Did Not Submit Women Advocating for STEAM 6-8 slow growth Type 1 New Start Did Not Submit Non-Profit Organization Grades