Charter Renewal Recommendations · statute allows state board to require that the school’s charter be revoked ... Sustainability Student Performance Annual Feedback . ... •School

REGIONAL

RECOMMENDATIONS November 7, 2013

1

Contents of Presentation 1) Overview of November Board Decisions by Region

2) Charter Renewal Criteria & Process Overview

3) Recommendations by Region

I. FNE Recommendations

II. NNE Recommendations

III. NW Recommendations

IV. SW Recommendations

4) Summary and Next Steps

5) Appendix A: Statutory Criteria

6) Appendix B: Prior Decisions

\ 2

November Board Decisions- Overview 3

Region School Decision Type

FNE SOAR Oakland Acknowledgement of Charter Surrender

Oakland New School – Placement of District-Run

School

DSST GVR HS Charter Renewal

Ridgeview Academy Charter Renewal

KIPP Montbello Charter Renewal

NNE Venture Prep HS Charter Renewal

DSST Cole Charter Renewal

Denver Justice Charter Renewal

Pioneer Charter Renewal

University Prep Charter Renewal

NW Escuela Contract Renewal

SW STRIVE Prep Federal Charter Renewal

SE N/A N/A

CHARTER RENEWAL

CRITERIA

4

Renewal Criteria • Defines key criteria for non-renewal:

• Violating charter contract

• Failing to meet or make adequate progress toward academic goals

• Failing to meet standards of fiscal management

• Informs renewal decisions for charter schools rated as turnaround for multiple years:

• Schools on turnaround status for 3 or more years—statute states that the local board may revoke the charter

• Schools on turnaround or priority improvement status for 5 years – statute allows state board to require that the school’s charter be revoked

State Statute (Charter Schools

Act and Education Accountability Act)

• Provides guidance for renewal decisions: • Transparent and rigorous

• Based on a comprehensive, objective body of evidence

• Only granted to schools who meet standards of contract

• Not based on promises of future improvement

State BOE Quality Authorizing Principles

• Defines DPS commitment to quality authorizing in the renewal process: • Maintaining high standards for all schools, including closing schools that

fail to meet standards and targets set forth in law and by contract

• Making merit-based renewal decisions

DPS Board Quality Authorizing Policy

5

Additional detail provided in Appendix A.

Commitment to Three Equities in the Renewal Process

6

Equity of Accountability

Focus on Performance Data

Aligned to SPF

Review of Achievement Gaps

and ELL Performance

Review of School Specific

Performance Benchmarks

Equity of Opportunity

Analysis of Facility Needs

Review of Financial Resources Utilized

by School

Equity of Responsibility

Review of services for special

populations (SPED, ELL)

Review of Enrollment and Attrition Data

Ensuring Equity in Serving All Students: ELL

Charter Schools commit to serving English language learners equitably,

as described in section 9.A. of the charter contract:

• The School shall implement a program for English language learners (ELL)

that uses efficient and effective techniques to provide ELL students with the

English language skills they need to meaningfully and equally participate in

the School’s mainstream English language instructional program. To satisfy

the three-pronged test set forth in Castaneda v. Pickard (1981), the school

must meet the needs of ELL students in several critical areas.

• The District and School will work collaboratively to ensure that the School’s

English Language Acquisition program complies with state and federal law as

well as any court order applicable to the District’s ELL programs, in a manner

that preserves the essential nature of the unique educational program of the

School.

7

Ensuring Equity in Serving All Students: SPED

Charter Schools commit to serving Special Education Students

equitably, as described in section 9.B. of the charter contract:

• Provision of Services for Mild/Moderate Needs Students: The School shall

provide a Free and Appropriate Public Education to students with mild or

moderate needs in accordance with the student’s IEP or 504 plan.

• Provision of Services for Students with Severe Special Needs: If asked by the

District, the School shall work with the District to develop a plan and program

to serve students with severe special needs, as outlined herein. The District

and School shall work jointly to determine if the School is an appropriate host

for one or more programs to serve students with severe special needs

8

CHARTER RENEWAL

PROCESS

9

Charter School Renewal Framework

10

School Quality Framework (SQF)

Systems & Structures

Measures

Academic Performance

relative to SPF and

contract academic

benchmarks

Renewal

Application Site Visit

FPF &

Finance

Teaching Leadership

Education

Program Governance

Culture

Outcomes

Organizational

Sustainability

Student

Performance

Annual

Feedback

Measures of Charter Performance

•A thorough review of the School’s academic data including the School’s track record in SPF ratings, TCAP status, TCAP growth, adequate growth, ACCESS growth, achievement gap, measures of post-secondary success, and school-specific academic outcomes defined by the charter contract.

Review of Academic

Performance Data

•A thorough DPS conducted review of the School’s organizational health including: parent satisfaction, enrollment demands and trend, financial health, including end of year financial statements, audit reports, and budgets.

FPF and Finance

•School developed report on the progress of the charter school in achieving the goals, objectives, pupil performance standards, content standards, and other terms of the contract and initial approved charter application.

•A financial statement that discloses the costs of administration, instruction, and other spending categories.

Renewal Application

•Conducted by DPS staff and external experts, looking at the overall school quality utilizing the School Quality Framework’s comprehensive indicators.

• In addition, external 3rd party reviews for schools rated red or orange on the Traditional SPF.

•While expectations remain constant, duration of site visits and other elements of qualitative analysis are differentiated based on school performance.

Site Visit

11

DPS Staff synthesized outputs from all of the components outlined above to generate the

recommendations included here.

Community Engagement

Parent/Guardian Voice

• Review of Parent/Guardian Satisfaction survey data

• Focus groups at schools that don’t meet expectations for parent/guardian satisfaction

• Review of SAC materials

Student Voice

• Review of Student Satisfaction survey data

• Student focus groups

Broader Community

• Community meetings at red charter schools to gather parent/guardian feedback on school

• Community meetings at red schools for information sharing on school performance and renewal recommendation

12

2013 Charter Renewal Timeline

13

DPS Board Timeline Recommendations

for charter renewal presented to DPS Board

Schools submitted Renewal Application Part B – Reflection on Data

Nov 7

Charter Renewal Process

Renewal site visits

Oct Nov 14

Schools submitted Renewal Application Part A-Program Description

June Nov 21

DPS Board vote on renewal recommendations

Public comment

DPS SPF released

Contract negotiations with schools

Dec - Feb

Negotiations of performance conditions with schools

Sep Mar

DPS Board approves charter contracts

Using the Charter Renewal Framework to

Differentiate Renewal Recommendations

School Profile at

Renewal

Schools with

low

performance

and poor

leading

indicators

Schools with

uneven

performance

trends and leading

indicators

Schools with strong

but limited

performance data

and leading

indicators

Schools with

consistent and

persistent track

records of meeting

academic

expectations

Potential

Renewal

Recommendation

Non-renewal Short term (1-2 year)

renewal with

performance

conditions to define

adequate progress

with opportunity for

extension

Mid length (2-3 years)

renewal with

opportunity for

extension with

sustained performance

5 year contract

Continuum of Differentiated Renewal Recommendations

Academic Performance

relative to SPF and

contract academic

benchmarks

Renewal

Application Site Visit

FPF &

Finance

Factors in

Developing

Recommendations

14

Annual

Feedback

Customizing Contracts to Incent Performance

15

Conditional

Performance

Standards

Note: Schools with limited data (no SPF rating or <3 years of meeting expectations) will also receive short-term

contracts with the opportunity to earn an extension if the school consistently meets SPF expectations.

IF schools are not fully meeting expectations,

and IF the District wants to renew the charter

contract (e.g. yellow schools)

THEN the school is recommended for a shorter

term conditional contract and the contract

articulates interim conditional performance

standards to define adequate progress that the

school must meet each year;

IF these conditions are met

THEN in some cases the school, is eligible for

a contract extension.

All contracts carry standard language that a charter school shall be rated

as “meets” or “distinguished” annually on the Denver SPF, or make

adequate progress towards meeting expectations.

Past Board Decisions: Contract Condition Progress Update

School Condition Status Towards Conditions Contract Implications

KIPP Denver

HS

Rated as Meets or

Above

Met Conditions Initially 2012-2014; Received Extension Through

2015

DSST-GVR

MS

Rated as Meets or

Above

Met Conditions To Date Currently 2013-2016; Opportunity for Extension

Through 2018

STRIVE-

Highland

Rated as Meets or

Above


Through 2018

STRIVE-

Lake

Rated as Meets or

Above


Through 2018

GALS Rated as Meets or

Above

Met Conditions To Date

Currently 2013-2016; Opportunity for Extension

Through 2017

DLS Rated as Meets or

Above


Through 2017

SOAR-GVR Rated as Meets or

Above

Did Not Meet Conditions Currently 2013-2015; Criteria for Extension Through

2017 not met; Will go through renewal in 2014-15

AUL Specific AEC

Conditions

Mixed Performance Towards

Conditions


Through 2016 (if conditions are met)

ACE Specific AEC

Conditions


Conditions


Through 2016 (if conditions are met)

Cesar

Chavez

School Specific

Conditions


Conditions

Currently 2013-2015

Colorado HS Specific AEC

Conditions


Conditions

Currently 2013-2015

SWEC School Specific

Conditions


Conditions

Currently 2013-2015

16

Charter Renewal Is One Part of Ongoing

Quality Assurance Processes

17

QA

Outcomes

• Schools reflecting on their strengths and weaknesses to inform school improvement

• Charter boards being better informed in order to provide oversight to their schools

• Gathering body of evidence for accountability decisions (i.e., renewal)

For Charter Schools, Tiered QA is characterized by heightened

accountability, frequent progress monitoring, and optional

supports.

Charter Renewal Process - Site Visit Teams Team Member Roles Members

Leadership and Overall

School Quality

• Elizabeth Aybar, Former Principal and External Consultant

• Tom Siegel, Former Principal and External Consultant

• Alyssa Whitehead-Bust, Chief of Innovation and Reform, DPS

• Kurt Dennis, Principal, McAuliffe Middle School

• Jenny Tan, Chief Academic Officer, KIPP Colorado

• Diane Smith, Instructional Superintendent, DPS

• Amy Gile, Founding Principal, High Tech Elementary School

• Pat Hurrietta, Principal, Godsman Elementary School

Governance • Brenna Copeland, Executive Director of Portfolio Management, DPS

• Carol Mehesy, Director of Strategic Support and Accountability, DPS

Education Program - ELL • Nadia Madan, ELA Quality Assurance Manager, DPS

• Rebecca Sinclair, Former ELL Teacher, Curriculum Manager, DPS

Teacher Quality and School

Culture

• Joe Amundsen, Senior Manager of New School Development and

Support, DPS

• Maya Lagana, Senior Manager of Accountability, DPS

• Jennifer Klein, Deputy IS, DPS

• Natalie Hudson, School Support Associate, DPS

• Nivan Khosravi, Manager of Tiered Quality Assurance, DPS

• Megan Hennessey, Senior Project Manager for SCAN, DPS

Finance • Katie Hechavarria, Financial Partner, DPS

• Levar Cypress, Budget Analyst, DPS

Intensive Pathways • Aviva Katz, Transitions Coordinator, DPS

18

Charter Renewal-

Supplemental External Quality Review • DPS utilizes an external vendor to conduct external evaluations

of the lowest-performing schools eligible for renewal.

• DPS contracted with SchoolWorks, LLC; SchoolWorks is a national educational consulting company with more than 14 years of experience working with clients, both Districts and individual schools, including:

‒ School District of Philadelphia, including charter renewal visits

‒ Baltimore City Schools

‒ Chicago Public Schools

‒ Central Michigan University’s Charter Schools Center

‒ KIPP Foundation

‒ New Leaders for New Schools

• In 2013, SOAR at Oakland was the only school to receive an external evaluation. Escuela received a SchoolWorks evaluation in 2011.

19

REGIONAL DECISIONS:

FNE

20

FNE Regional Decisions

Decision

Type

School Recommendation

Charter

Renewals

SOAR at Oakland Accept School Surrender of Charter

DSST GVR HS 3 Year Renewal with the opportunity

for a 2 Year Extension

Ridgeview Academy 3 Year Renewal with the opportunity


KIPP Montbello 3 Year Renewal with the opportunity


New Schools Oakland Facility Placement of District Run School

21

FNE School Performance on SPF

22

Overview of SOAR@Oakland History S

OA

R@

Oa

kla

nd

Ch

art

er

Sch

oo

l

Oa

kla

nd

Ele

me

nta

ry

Approved to

open for 2011

Operating

grades E-5 and

autism center

2010-11 2011-12

Opens to serve

K-2; planning

year for autism

center program

Operating ECE,

grades 3-5 and

autism center

Expands to

grades E-5 and

autism center

program

2012-13 2013-14

In 3rd year,

school enters

charter renewal

process

Closed

SOAR@Oakland was approved as a turnaround program for Oakland Elementary,

phasing in while the legacy school phased out.

23

SOAR@Oakland Performance - Status

Year SPF Points

Status

2012 No SPF

2013 9% points

24% 20%

10%

0%

57% 58%

43%

32%

47% 53%

34%

21%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Reading Math Writing Science

% P

rofi

cie

nt

or

Ab

ove

2013 TCAP Status: Similar Schools and District Comparisons

School District* Similar Schools Cluster

2013 was the first year

that SOAR@Oakland

served TCAP tested

grades. TCAP status

was significantly below

similar schools and the

district. DRA2 status

was also lower than

district average.

43% 40%

55% 60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Spring 2012 Spring 2013

% A

t o

r A

bo

ve G

L

DRA2/EDL2: Spring (Independent Text Level)

School District*

*-District rate calculated by ed level.

24

SOAR@Oakland Academic Growth

48

52

21

53

55

14

50

53

25.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

2013

Median Growth Percentile

TCAP Growth: Similar Schools and District Comparisons

Reading (School)

Reading(District)*

Reading (SimilarSchools Cluster)

Math (School)

Math (District)*

Math (SimilarSchools Cluster)

Writing (School)

Writing(District)*

Writing (SimilarSchools Cluster)

TCAP growth data was

significantly lower than District

elementary schools and similar

schools in 2013. Access growth in

2013 improved as compared to

2012 and was close to District

Elementary School average.

30

49

53 52

0

20

40

60

80

100

2012 (CELA) 2013 (ACCESS)

MG

P

CELA/ACCESS: Growth

School District*NOTE: 2012-2013 was a transition year between CELA and WIDA ACCESS. 2013 MGPs were calculated based on

students' previous CELA performance compared to their current year's ACCESS performance.


25

SOAR@Oakland Voluntary Charter Surrender

• Given the academic performance, the SOAR Schools

Board of Directors voted on October 23rd to surrender

their charter at the conclusion of this school year

• To accelerate student achievement in this final year:

‒ SOAR has deployed additional personnel to support intervention at

each grade level

‒ SOAR is contracting with DPS to provide the 4th grade intensive

math tutoring program in both SOAR@Oakland & SOAR@GVR

• OSRI will walk through the standard school closure

protocol with SOAR during this school year

‒ Protocol addresses student records, asset disposition, record-

keeping for HR and legal dissolution of the school

26

Recommendation: Decisions for Board

Approve Oakland Elementary for 2014

Recommend opening a new Oakland Elementary in July 2014 as

a district-run school

Following slides: 1) transition timeline & community engagement, and 2) recommendation rationale.

Acknowledge SOAR@Oakland Charter Surrender

Recommend that the Board adopt a resolution on November 21st

acknowledging the SOAR Schools Board decision to surrender their

charter contract effective June 30, 2014

27

Transition & Community Engagement Overview

Oct 16

Transition Activities

Recommendation for Oakland Elementary in 2014 presented to DPS Board

Nov 7

School and Community Engagement

2nd p/g meeting – Discussed potential charter surrender

1st parent/guardian meeting – Discussed school performance & renewal process

Sept 25 Dec

DPS Board votes on proposed plans for Oakland Elementary

Principal finalist identified

April Nov 4

4th p/g meeting – Introduced DPS plan, DSSN, proposed principal and sought input on plans for school

School design to DPS Board for approval

5th p/g meeting - Discuss school design & plan for next year

Nov 21

6th & 7th p/g meetings – Continue school design & planning process

Jan - Feb Oct 23

SOAR decided to surrender charter

Nov 1

3rd p/g meeting – Introduced principal finalist to school’s accountability committee

School design process (led by principal, supported by DSSN & OSRI)

A minimum of seven parent/guardian meetings will have taken place by March

2014 to discuss concerns and collect input into the plans for next year.

The school design will be grounded in the proven strategies at work in the FNE

and will reflect the principal’s leadership as well as community input.

28

29%

32% 32%

46% 50%

31% 29%

41% 43%

17% 19% 20%

28% 30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

% Proficient or Above Math % Proficient or Above Reading % Proficient or Above Writing

Turnaround Initiative Pre-Turnaround

Rationale for Oakland to Join DSSN: DSSN Creates Results for Children

*Reflects results for elementary schools in DSSN

29

Preliminary Oakland Program Plans Program

Element

Recommendation Rationale

General Ed

Program

• DSSN Five Tenants of Turnaround

as foundation of school design

• Engage parents/guardians in the

school design process

• Proven methodology

• Parents/guardians know their

students’ needs

Autism

Center

Program

• Maintain autism center program at

Oakland

• Collect input on successful program

elements from parents/guardians

• Incorporate unique aspects of the

current program into the program

for next year

• Avoid disruption and minimize

transportation times for

students currently in the

program

• Parents are very supportive of

the existing program and the

unique staffing approaches in

place

Program for

ELLs

• Incorporate TNLI program model as

foundation of program services for

ELL students

• Engage parents/guardians in the

discussion around TNLI

programming

• SOAR at Oakland serves 52%

ELL students and qualifies for

TNLI

30

District Supports for Oakland Transition

Lisa & Oakland

Community

Senior Leadership OSRI & PSR

SOAR Closure Process

OSRI

School Design

Supports

OSRI

Principal Oversight & Leadership

DSSN

Community Engagement

FACE

31

DSST Green Valley Ranch High School Recommendation 3 year renewal with opportunity for 2 year extension

with evidence of sustained performance

Rationale The school has strong performance data for initial 2 years,

but needs to demonstrate sustainability of performance

School Description A college preparatory school with a focus on STEM

education.

Grades 9-11 (Growing to 9-12)

Current Contract Status 2011-14 Year Initial Contract

2013-14 Enrollment 445 (as of 10/1)

Demographics (2012-13) 72% FRL; 21% ELL; 6% SPED

Leadership Jenna Kalin, Principal

Bill Kurtz, DSST Network CEO

Board Steven Halstedt, Board Chair; Board Oversees all DSST

schools

School Performance

Framework Overall

2011-12: 94% of points

earned overall

2012-13: 88% of points

earned overall

32

DSST GVR HS: Performance Benchmarks

33

Initial Contract Term Performance

Conditions

Contract Extension

Opportunity

2014-2017 Rating of “Meets” or

“Distinguished” on

District SPF

2017-2019 IF Then

DSST GVR HS: SPF Summary

34

DSST GVR HS has received an overall rating of Distinguished in both years of

operation, although the overall percentage of points earned did decline slightly

between their 2012 SPF and their 2013 SPF. *-Data Not Available

**-Rating Based on single metric of On Track to Graduation.

2011-2012

Overall Growth Status Student

Engagement Post Secondary

Status

Post Secondary

Growth

94% 96% 92% 83% 67% *

2012-2013


Engagement Post Secondary

Status**

Post Secondary Growth**

88% 95% 91% 83% 33% 0%

DSST GVR HS: Academic Performance - Status

DSST GVR HS

outperforms both

District high

schools and

similar schools in

all subjects, and

has done so for

both years of

operation.

Year SPF Points

Status

2012 92% points

2013 91% points

35

70% 71%

60% 64%

50% 53%

72%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013

% A

t o

r A

bo

ve P

rofi

cien

t

TCAP Status: Historical


71% 64%

53%

72%

56%

26%

38% 38%

66%

33%

48% 45%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


% P

rofi

cien

t o

r A

bo

ve




DSST GVR HS: Academic Performance – Growth

DSST GVR

outperforms or

matches District

high schools and

similar schools in

growth in all

TCAP subjects.

Year SPF Points

Growth

2012 96% points

2013 95% points

36

53

57

54

56

70

77

49

52

51

54

97

98

57

56

58

54

72

76.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

2013

2012



Reading (School)

Reading (District)*


Math (School)

Math (District)*

Math (Similar SchoolsCluster)

Writing (School)

Writing (District)*



DSST GVR HS Academic Performance -Equity

Subgroups at DSST GVR

HS consistently

outperform their District

peers.

37

5%

3%

12%

6%

12%

12%

27%

17%

46%

50%

61%

67%

7%

6%

18%

36%

45%

52%

28%

17%

48%

49%

61%

68%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wri

tin

gM

ath

Rea

din

g

% At or Above Proficient

TCAP 2013 Status: Subgroups

Minority (School); N==228 Minority (District)*

Non-Exited ELL (School); N==64 Non-Exited ELL (District)*

FRL (School); N==207 FRL (District)*

SpEd (School); N=17 SpEd (District)*


DSST GVR HS: Academic Performance-ELL

38

DSST GVR HS has shown ELL growth

significantly above District high schools

both years of operation.

*District rate calculated by ed level.

70.5 76

46 57

0

20

40

60

80

100


MG

P

CELA/ACCESS: Growth

School District*

NOTE: 2012-2013 was a transition year between CELA and WIDA ACCESS. 2013 MGPs were calculated based on students' previous CELA

DSST GVR HS: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence

School

Quality

Framework

Teaching Meets

Expectations

• Teachers are annually evaluated by school leadership.

• Observed lessons were grade level appropriate, however the school is still working

to ensure the majority of tasks promote higher order thinking.

• Observed lessons showed inconsistent differentiation based on student

performance levels.

Leadership Meets

Expectations

• The school leadership has set clear goals around student achievement, and these

goals were shared by all members of the team.

• The School has the flexibility to alter the network model in order to meet the needs

of their students and has done so in some areas, most notably separating 9th

grade literacy into separate reading and writing classes.

Education

Program

Meets

Expectations

• Network staff have begun aligning curriculum guidance materials to the Common

Core in key subjects.

• Teachers reported using the interim assessments to drive their planning and

instruction.

• The School outperforms the District in ELL ACCESS growth and disaggregated

ELL TCAP and the School follows the District’s procedures for identifying,

assessing and exiting English language learners, consistent with state and federal

law.

School

Culture

Meets

Expectations

• The school has a SAC in place to gather parent voice.

• There are clear expectations around parent-teacher communication. Parents are

required to review both academic and behavioral data on a weekly basis.

• The School has a clear ladder of consequences aligned with the DPS discipline

policy.

Governance Meets

Expectations

• The Board has a range of expertise and structures in place to provide effective

oversight.

• The Board regularly monitors key academic, operational, and financial metrics at

both the individual school and the organization level.

39

DSST GVR HS: Organizational Sustainability School Culture and Demand DSST Performance

Parent Survey Response Rate 86.8%

Parent Satisfaction Rate 80.6%

Student Satisfaction Rate 89.2%

Student Attendance Rate 95.1%

Re-Enrollment 85.11%

Demand (Preferences per Entry Grade Seat

Offered) 14.2

Financial Performance Framework Metric Benchmark FY 13 Performance

Private Contributions as a % of Total Expenditures 10% or less 0%

Occupancy Expenses as a % of Total Expenditures 10.014% or less 8%

Total Instructional Expenses as a % of Total

Expenditures 50% or greater 62%

Months Unreserved Fund Balance On Hand 1.0 or greater 0.54

Debt to Asset 0.9 or less 0.277

Operating Margin 3% or greater 6.8%

40

Ridgeview Academy Recommendation 3 year renewal with opportunity for 2 year

extension with evidence of sustained

performance

Rationale The school has met District AEC expectations each of

the last two years but needs to demonstrate

sustainability of performance

School Description An Alternative Education Campus serving

incarcerated youth through a partnership with the

Department of Youth Corrections

Grades 9-12

Opening Year 2001-02

Current Contract Status 2009-2014 Subsequent Contract



Leadership Ed Cope, Principal

Board Judy Morton, Chair

School Performance

Framework Overall

2011-12: 59% of points

earned overall

2012-13: 51% of points

earned overall

41

Ridgeview: Performance Benchmarks

42


Conditions

Contract Extension

Opportunity



District Alternative SPF

2017-2019 IF Then

Ridgeview Academy: SPF Summary

43

Ridgeview Academy is rated against the DPS Alternative SPF, which looks at 3

years of data for many key metrics. In 2013 the school was the highest rated

AEC in the District, receiving a rating of Meets Expectations for the second

consecutive year. *-Response Rate Not Sufficient For School to Receive a Rating

Ridgeview: Academic Performance - Status

Ridgeview’s

TCAP status over

the last three

years has

matched or

surpassed

District AECs in

Reading, Math,

and Writing.

Year SPF Points

Status

2012 42%

2013 42%

44

*District schools rated on the Alt Ed SPF

34%

5%

15%

8%

26%

5% 10% 9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


% P

rofi

cien

t o

r A

bo

ve

TCAP Status: Aggregated Last Three Years

School District*

Ridgeview: Academic Performance – TCAP Growth Year SPF Points

Growth

2012 67%

2013 56%

45

Ridgeview’s

TCAP growth

over the last

three years has

surpassed

District AECs as

well as state

expectation in all

subjects.


64

55

68

49

40 47

0

20

40

60

80

100

Reading Math Writing

MG

P

TCAP Growth: Aggregated Last Three Years

School District*

Ridgeview: Academic Performance- MAP Growth

Ridgeview’s rates of MAP growth have lagged behind District AECs

over the last three years.

46


40%

50% 47% 52% 55%

51%

37% 40% 42%

54% 49% 49%

34%

48% 46%

54% 57% 55%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2011 2012 2013

% S

tud

ents

Me

t G

row

th T

arge

ts

MAP Growth Reading (School) Reading (District*)

Math (School) Math (District*)

Language Use (School) Language Use (District*)

Ridgeview: Academic Performance-

Post-Secondary Readiness

47

• Ridgeview’s graduation rates across all cohorts

have outpaced District AECs.

• In 2012 their dropout rate was higher than

District AECs.

• ACT scores have been either above or

comparable to District AECs.


Ridgeview: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence

School

Quality

Framework

Teaching Partially

Meets

Expectations

• Teachers are evaluated on an annual basis by school leadership.

However, there is limited coaching around instructional practices.

• Most observed lessons had posted learning targets that were grade-

level appropriate. However, asks were consistently low level.

• Teachers in most classrooms consistently utilized strategies to

promote student engagement, including cold calls and turn and talks.

Leadership Meets

Expectations

• While the organizational structure is complex due to the school’s

unique environment, there were clear lines of accountability.

• The School has set clear goals around student achievement which are

shared by all stakeholders.

Education Program Meets

Expectations

• Curriculum and objectives are aligned with Common Core Standards.

• The School monitors data on an ongoing basis and uses it to inform

interventions.

• The School follows the District’s procedures for identifying, assessing

and exiting English language learners, consistent with state and

federal law.

School Culture Meets

Expectations

• The School has a SAC in place to gather parent voice.

• The School has a clearly articulated code of conduct and ladder of

consequences that are understood by students and staff.

• The School has many structures in place to promote a positive school

culture and student investment.

Governance Meets

Expectations

• The Board regularly reviews key academic, operational, and financial

metrics.

• The Board has a variety of expertise, as well as a clear process for

recruiting new board members.

48

Ridgeview: Organizational Sustainability School Culture and Demand Ridgeview Performance

Parent Survey Response Rate N/A (response rate not high enough to be included)

Parent Satisfaction Rate N/A (response rate not high enough to be included)

Student Satisfaction Rate 79%

Student Attendance Rate 98%

Attendance Improvement Rate N/A (schools already meeting expectations on attendance are not

included in this rating)

Truancy Rate 2%



Occupancy Expenses as a % of Total Expenditures 15% or less 5%




Debt to Asset 0 to 0.9 0.213

Operating Margin 5% to 8% -8%

49

KIPP Montbello Recommendation 3 year renewal with opportunity for2 year

extension with evidence of sustained

performance

Rationale The school has strong performance data for initial 2

years, but needs to demonstrate sustainability of

performance.

School Description A college preparatory school with a focus on

character education

Grades 5-7 (growing to 5-8)

Current Contract Status 2011-14 Initial Contract



Leadership Danielle D’Acenzo, Principal

Kimberlee Sia, KIPP Colorado CEO

Board Nina Garcia, Board Chair; Board Oversees all KIPP

Colorado schools

School Performance

Framework Overall

2011-12: 67% of points

earned overall

2012-13: 71% of points

earned overall

50

KIPP Montbello: Performance Benchmarks

51


Conditions

Contract Extension

Opportunity



District SPF

2017-2019 IF Then

KIPP Montbello: SPF Summary

52

KIPP Montbello has received an overall rating of Meets Expectations both

years of operation, increasing the percentage of points earned from Year 1 to

Year 2.

2011-2012


Engagement Re-Enrollment

Parent Satisfaction

67% 75% 29% 83% 100% 100%

2012-2013



Parent Satisfaction

71% 82% 42% 67% 75% 75%

KIPP Montbello: Academic Performance - Status

KIPP Montbello

outperformed its

similar schools cluster

in all subjects in 2013,

but only outperformed

District middle schools

in Math and Science.

Proficiency rates

increased from 2012 to

2013 in all subjects

except math which

saw a very small

decline.

Year SPF Points

Status

2012 29% points

2013 42% points

53

35%

51%

47% 48%

24%

46%

20%

37%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013

% A

t o

r A

bo

ve P

rofi

cien

t



51% 48% 46%

37%

53% 47% 47%

35%

50% 44%

35%

22%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


% P

rofi

cien

t o

r A

bo

ve




KIPP Montbello: Academic Performance – Growth

KIPP Montbello’s

2013 TCAP

growth

outperformed or

matched District

middle schools

and similar

schools in

growth in all

TCAP subjects.

Year SPF Points

Growth

2012 75% points

2013 82% points

54


54

52

56

59

76

42.5

53

51.5

57

52

73

76.5

49

56

52

53

70.5

53

0 20 40 60 80 100

2013

2012



Reading (School)

Reading (District)*

Reading (Similar SchoolsCluster)

Math (School)

Math (District)*


Writing (School)

Writing (District)*

Writing (Similar SchoolsCluster)

KIPP Montbello: Academic Performance- Equity

Subgroups at KIPP

Montbello in 2013

consistently

outperformed their

District peers.

55


7%

8%

9%

#N/A

#N/A

#N/A

37%

37%

43%

41%

45%

46%

20%

26%

23%

45%

54%

45%

38%

38%

44%

42%

45%

47%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wri

tin

gM

ath

Rea

din

g



Minority (School); N=72 Minority (District)*

Non-Exited ELL (School); N=43 Non-Exited ELL (District)*

FRL (School); N=70 FRL (District)*

SpEd (School); N<16, can't report SpEd (District)*

KIPP Montbello: Academic Performance- ELL

56

KIPP Montbello has shown ELL growth

above District middle schools in both years

of operation.

*District rate calculated by ed level (MS).

60

69

56 53

0

20

40

60

80

100


Me

dia

n G

row

th P

erc

en

tile

CELA/ACCESS: Growth

School District*

NOTE: 2012-2013 was a transition year between CELA and WIDA ACCESS. 2013 MGPs were calculated

based on students' previous CELA performance compared to their current year's ACCESS performance.

KIPP Montbello: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence

School

Quality

Framework

Teaching Meets

Expectations

• Teachers are annually evaluated by school leadership

• Objectives were posted consistently in all classrooms and in most

cases, objectives were aligned to the curriculum and standards.

• Most lessons were grade level appropriate; however, many did tasks

not promote higher order thinking.

• Observed lessons demonstrated inconsistent differentiation based on

student performance levels.

Leadership Meets

Expectations

• There are high expectations for both student achievement and

mission and vision alignment, and these are evident across contexts.

• The delineation of roles and responsibilities between members of the

leadership team are clear and promote effective operation of the

School.

Education Program Meets

Expectations

• The School has aligned its curriculum with the Common Core

Standards.

• There is a clear data cycle and time allocated for data analysis and

action planning.

• The School outperforms the District in ELL ACCESS growth and

disaggregated ELL TCAP and the School follows the District’s

procedures for identifying, assessing and exiting English language

learners, consistent with state and federal law

School Culture Meets

Expectations

• The School has a SAC in place to gather parent voice.

• There are clear expectations around parent-teacher communication.

Parents are required to review both academic and behavioral data on

a weekly basis.

• The school handbook has a clear ladder of consequences aligned

with the DPS discipline policy.

Governance Meets

Expectations

• The Board’s expertise and committee structure allows it to provide

effective oversight to the School.

• The Board regularly monitors key academic, financial, and operational

metrics.

57

KIPP Montbello: Organizational Sustainability School Culture and Demand KIPP Performance

Parent Survey Response Rate 83.8%

Parent Satisfaction Rate 80.6%



Re-Enrollment 84%


Offered) 0.3

58



Occupancy Expenses as a % of Total Expenditures 9.815% or less 7.7%


Expenditures 50% or greater 69.9%



Operating Margin 3% or greater 8.5%

REGIONAL DECISIONS:

NNE

59

NNE Regional Decisions

Decision

Type


Charter

Renewals

Venture Prep HS 2 Year Renewal with the opportunity


DSST Cole MS 3 Year Renewal with the opportunity


Denver Justice HS 2 Year Renewal with the opportunity


University Prep 2 Year Renewal with the opportunity


Pioneer 2 Year Renewal with the opportunity


60

NNE School Performance on SPF

61

Venture Prep High School Recommendation 2 year renewal with opportunity for 3 year

extension if the school consistently meets SPF

expectations

Rationale School has had inconsistent performance but has

either met or come within 2% of Meeting Expectations.

School Description A college preparatory school with a focus on project-

based learning

Grades 9-12


Current Contract Status 2012-2013 Conditional Contract; Met Conditions for

Extension Through 2014



Leadership Ken Burdette, Principal

Board Kayla A. McGannon, Board Chair

School Performance

Framework Overall

2011-12: 52% of points

earned overall

2012-13: 49% of points

earned overall

62

Venture Prep HS: Performance Benchmarks

63


Conditions

Contract Extension

Opportunity



District SPF

2016-2019 IF Then

Venture Prep HS: SPF Summary

64

Venture Prep HS has an inconsistent track record of performance, meeting

expectations in 2012 but not in 2013. In 2013 their growth scores increased

but their post-secondary readiness performance declined. 3-In 2011, the overall rating was a combination of MS and HS. If rated individually, the HS would have met expectations.

Venture Prep HS: Academic Performance - Status

Venture Prep HS has

seen their TCAP

proficiency rates

increase over the last

three years. However,

they still do not match

District high school or

similar schools cluster’s

proficiency rates in any

subjects.

Year SPF Points

Status

2012 33% points

2013 33% points

65

39% 41% 51%

9% 15% 14% 23%

24% 32%

22% 20%

30%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2011 2012 2013

% A

t o

r A

bo

ve P

rofi

cien

t



51%

14%

32% 30%

56%

26%

38% 38%

54%

24%

36% 33%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


% P

rofi

cie

nt

or

Ab

ove




Venture Prep HS: Academic Performance – Growth

Venture Prep HS TCAP MGPs have

consistently matched those of

District high schools over the course

of the contract; they also

outperformed their similar schools

cluster in reading and math in 2013.

Year SPF Points

Growth

2012 51% points

2013 70% points

66


55

61

52

54

56

54

54

62

54

51

55

55

51

54

53

67

85

57

60

55

57

58

54

55

63

55

47

0 20 40 60 80 100

2013

2012

2011



Reading (School)

Reading (District)*


Math (School)

Math (District)*


Writing (School)

Writing (District)*


Venture Prep HS: Academic Performance-Equity

Subgroups at Venture

Prep HS consistently

match their District

peers’ performance in

reading, but not in math.

In writing, students

outperform their peers

with the exception of

ELL students.

67


5%

3%

12%

6%

6%

33%

27%

17%

46%

28%

13%

50%

7%

6%

18%

4%

0%

21%

28%

17%

48%

28%

10%

48%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wri

tin

gM

ath

Rea

din

g






SpEd (School); N17 SpEd (District)*

Venture Prep HS: Academic Performance- ELL

68

Venture Prep HS has historically had ELL

growth below District expectations but in

2013 showed growth that surpassed District

high school performance and SPF

expectations.


28

41.5

74

49 46 57

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 (CELA) 2012 (CELA) 2013 (ACCESS)

MG

P

CELA/ACCESS: Growth

School District*


Venture Prep HS: Academic Performance-


69

• 2012 was the first year Venture Prep had a graduation class; their 4 year

graduation rate lagged surpassed the District. Other graduation rates are

not yet available.*

• The school’s ACT performance lagged behind the District and similar

schools in all subjects. *-2013 Graduation Rates Not Yet Available

Graduation Rates

2012

school District1

4 year 68.0% 58.8%

5 year * 61.9%

6 year * 60.8%%

7 year * 56.7% 1District rate calculated for traditional high

schools only. *No data available

COACT: % Students Above Benchmark

English Math Reading Science

20

12

School 41% 15% 25% 10%

Similar Schools 29% 14% 15% 5%

District1 40% 22% 26% 13%

20

13

School 32% 8% 16% 3%

Similar Schools 38% 15% 25% 9%

District1 41% 22% 32% 17%

Venture Prep HS: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence

School

Quality

Framework

Teaching Partially

Meets

Expectations

• Teachers are evaluated annually by school leadership.

• All classrooms had posted objectives but lessons were not consistently

implemented to ensure objectives were met.

• Classrooms had routines and procedures in place, but pacing was consistently

slow in observed classrooms which impacted the use of instructional time

Leadership Meets

Expectations

• The School has a clear organizational structures with well-defined roles and

responsibilities.

• The school culture promotes college readiness, although the school is also working

to develop supports for non-college bound students, including vocational school

relationships.

• The School has a comprehensive financial policies and procedure document that is

reviewed annually and revised as needed.

Education

Program

Partially

Meets

Expectations

• There are thorough scope and sequence documents in place aligned to the

Common Core.

• The School offers regular interim assessments, but it was unclear how data was

used to differentiate instruction.



assessing and exiting English language learners, consistent with state and federal

law

School

Culture

Meets

Expectations

• There is a SAC and PTA in place to encourage parent voice.

• There is a clear discipline ladder in place that is aligned with the DPS discipline

policy.

• Most observed classrooms had clear routines and procedures.

Governance Meets

Expectations

• The Board has robust membership with members from a variety of backgrounds

including education, business, and the community.

• The Board regularly reviews academic and financial data.

• There is a clear process for budget creation that involves the school leader and

external business manager with input from the Finance Committee and staff.

70

Venture Prep HS: Organizational Sustainability School Culture and Demand Venture Prep Performance

Parent Survey Response Rate 47%

Parent Satisfaction Rate 87%



Re-Enrollment 75.7%


Offered) 1.1

71





Expenditures 55% or greater 50.8%



Operating Margin 5-10% 6%

DSST Cole Middle School Recommendation 3 year renewal with opportunity for 2 year extension

with evidence of sustained performance

Rationale The school has strong performance data for initial

2years, but needs to demonstrate sustainability of

performance

School Description A college preparatory school with a focus on STEM

education.

Grades 6-8

Current Contract Status 2011-13 Initial Contract



Leadership Jeff Osborne, Principal

Bill Kurtz, DSST Network CEO

Board Steven Halstedt, Board Chair; Board oversees all DSST

schools

School Performance

Framework Overall

2011-12: 93% of points

earned overall

2012-13: 82% of points

earned overall

72

DSST Cole: Performance Benchmarks

73


Conditions

Contract Extension

Opportunity



District SPF

2017-2019 IF Then

DSST Cole MS: SPF Summary

74

DSST Cole MS has received an overall SPF rating of Distinguished both years

of operation, although the overall percentage of points earned did decline

slightly.

2011-2012



Parent Satisfaction

93% 93% 92% 83% 100% 100%

2012-2013



Parent Satisfaction

82% 84% 82% 67% 100% 75%

DSST Cole: Academic Performance - Status

DSST Cole MS

outperforms both

District middle

schools and

similar schools in

all subjects, and

has done so for

both years of

operation.

Year SPF Points

Status

2012 92% points

2013 82% points

75

67%

61% 64% 63%

55% 55%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013

% A

t o

r A

bo

ve P

rofi

cien

t



61% 63% 55% 53%

47% 47%

60%

51% 54%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


% P

rofi

cie

nt

or

Ab

ove




DSST Cole MS: Academic Performance – Growth

DSST Cole’s TCAP growth

exceeds District middle

schools in all subjects and

exceeded their similar

schools cluster in reading

and math.

Year SPF Points

Growth

2012 93% points

2013 84% points

76


59

57

56

59

58.5

70

61

53

57

52

78

83

53

53

52

53

60

68

0 20 40 60 80 100

2013

2012



Reading (School)

Reading (District)*

Reading (Similar SchoolsCluster)Math (School)

Math (District)*

Math (Similar SchoolsCluster)Writing (School)

Writing (District)*


DSST Cole MS: Academic Performance- Equity

Minority and FRL

students at DSST Cole

outperformed their

District peers in all

subjects. However, ELL

students lagged behind

their peers in all subjects

77


7%

8%

9%

#N/A

#N/A

#N/A

37%

37%

43%

47%

52%

55%

37%

40%

41%

20%

26%

23%

38%

38%

44%

49%

54%

57%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wri

tin

gM

ath

Rea

din

g







DSST Cole MS: Academic Performance- ELL

78

DSST Cole showed ELL growth above

District middle schools in 2013, after not

having done so in 2012.


44

65.5

56 53

0

20

40

60

80

100


Me

dia

n G

row

th P

erc

en

tile

CELA/ACCESS: Growth

School District*


DSST Cole MS: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence

School

Quality

Framework

Teaching Meets

Expectations

• Teachers are annually evaluated by school leadership.

• Observed lessons were consistently grade level appropriate, however the school

is still working to ensure the majority of tasks promote higher order thinking.

• Observed lessons showed inconsistent differentiation based on student

performance levels.

Leadership Meets

Expectations

• The School has set clear goals around student achievement, and these goals

were shared by members of the team.

• The School has the flexibility to alter the network model in order to meet the

needs of their students and has done so in some areas, most notably family

involvement.

Education

Program

Partially

Meets

Expectations

• Network staff have begun aligning curriculum guidance materials to the Common

Core in key subjects.

• Teachers reported using the interim assessments to drive their planning and

instruction.



assessing and exiting English language learners, consistent with state and

federal law

School

Culture

Meets

Expectations

• The School has a SAC to gather parent voice.

• There are clear expectations around parent-teacher communication, with

advisors a key conduit for this communication. Parents are required to review

both academic and behavioral data on a weekly basis.

• The handbook has a clear ladder of consequences aligned with the DPS

discipline policy.

Governance Meets

Expectations

• The Board has a range of expertise and structures in place to provide effective

oversight.

• The Board regularly monitors key academic, operational, and financial metrics at

both the individual school and the organization level.

79

DSST Cole MS: Organizational Sustainability School Culture and Demand DSST Cole Performance





Re-Enrollment 89.1%


Offered) 2.7

80


Private Contributions as a % of Total Expenditures 10% or less 0.002%




Months Unreserved Fund Balance On Hand 1.0 or greater 0


Operating Margin 3% or greater 6%

Denver Justice Recommendation 2 Year Renewal With the Opportunity for a 1 Year

Extension

Rationale The School has improved SPF rating by one level;

the school agrees to meet the key benchmarks,

outlined in performance conditions.

School Description An Alternative Education Campus serving students

previously imprisoned or otherwise at risk

Grades 9-12


Current Contract Status 2012-2013 Conditional Contract; Met Conditions for

Extension Through 2014


Demographics (2012-13) 95% FRL, 9% ELL, 16% SPED

Leadership Gary Losh, Principal

Board TJ Cole, Board Chair

School Performance

Framework Overall

2011-12: 32% of points

earned overall

2012-13: 34% of points

earned overall

81

Denver Justice: Benchmarks Based on the School’s program and past performance, the following areas are high leverage areas for growth aligned with the School’s mission. Improving performance in these areas will allow the school to improve overall SPF performance to a rating of Meets Expectations within three years.

82

Metric SPF

Benchmark

2013

Performance

2014

Benchmark

2015

Benchmark

2016

Benchmark

MAP Growth-Reading

(As Measured by SPF) 60% 51% 55% 57% 60%

MAP Growth-Math (As

Measured by SPF) 60% 43% 48% 53% 60%

Dropout Rate <11.4 11.4 (2012) Meet SPF expectations

Attendance Rate 86.2% 86% Meet SPF expectations

Denver Justice: SPF Summary

83

Denver Justice is rated against the DPS Alternative SPF, which looks at 3 years

of data for many key metrics. In 2013 the school improved its overall rating

from Accredited on Probation to Priority Watch, continuing a multi-year upward

trend.

Denver Justice: Academic Performance - Status

Denver Justice’s

TCAP Status over

the last 3 years

has lagged

behind District

AECs in all

subjects.

Year SPF Points

Status

2012 0%

2013 0%

84


16%

1% 2% 4%

26%

5% 10% 9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Reading Math Writing Science%

Pro

fici

ent

or

Ab

ove

TCAP Status: Aggregated Last Three Years

School District*

Denver Justice: Academic Performance – TCAP Growth

Year SPF Points

Growth

2012 39%

2013 33%

85

Denver Justice’s

TCAP Growth has

not met

expectations

over the last

three years,

although they

have surpassed

District AECs in

math and writing.


42 49 48 49

40 47

0

20

40

60

80

100

Reading Math WritingM

GP

TCAP Growth: Aggregated Last Three Years

School District*

Denver Justice: Academic Performance-MAP Growth

Denver Justice’s MAP growth over the last two years has

matched the District AECs in reading and come close in

writing. Their growth rates lagged in math in 2013.

86


36%

66%

51% 52% 55% 51%

34%

49% 43%

54% 49% 49% 46%

58% 54% 54% 57% 55%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2011 2012 2013

% S

tud

ents

Me

t G

row

th T

arge

ts

MAP Growth Reading (School) Reading (District*)

Math (School) Math (District*)

Language Use (School) Language Use (District*)

Denver Justice: Academic Performance-


87

• Justice’s best-of graduation rates have been above

those of the District AECs in each of the last three years.

• Their dropout rate has been on par with the District

AECs.

• ACT scores at Justice have been slightly lower than

District AECs over the last three years.

Denver Justice: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence

School

Quality

Framework

Teaching Partially

Meets

Expectations

• The school leader formally evaluates teachers on an annual basis.

• Some classes, most notably English classes, were appropriate for the student

population. However, some classes lacked rigor and students appeared

unchallenged by the presented material.

• In most observed classrooms students were generally compliant with teacher

direction but not actively engaged in lessons.

Leadership Partially

Meets

Expectations

• The school leadership has a strong understanding of their population and

students’ needs in many areas.

• There is a clear organization structure, however school leaders are often taken

away by culture issues and unable to focus sufficiently on academics.

Education

Program

Partially

Meets

Expectations

• The School follows the DPS curriculum, but does not adjust instruction to meet

the needs of students..

• The School does not utilize assessment data to drive instruction.

• The School has certified special education staff that provide push in and pull out

services in compliance with student IEPs.

• The School follows the District’s procedures for identifying, assessing and exiting

English language learners, consistent with state and federal law.

School

Culture

Meets

Expectations


• The School has a clear ladder of consequences aligned with the DPS discipline

policy.

• The School’s discipline policy is focused around positive incentives and designed

to ensure students do not miss learning time.

Governance Partially

Meets

Expectations

• The Board has experienced consistent membership from a small group that is

dedicated to the mission.

• The Board has members with experience with the population and with business

experience but lacks members with direct academic experience

• The Board reviews budgets to actuals regularly, but leaves the majority of

financial oversight to the school leader and external finance consultant.

88

Denver Justice: Organizational Sustainability School Culture and Demand Justice Performance





Attendance Improvement Rate 75%

Truancy Rate 8%








Operating Margin 5% to 10% 6%

89

University Prep Charter School Recommendation 2 Year Renewal With the Opportunity for a 2 Year

Extension if Academic Benchmarks Are Met

Rationale The School has limited data; in two years the School

will have an official SPF to guide contract extension

decisions

School Description A college-preparatory elementary school

Grades K-3 (Growing to K-5)

Current Contract Status 2011-2014 Year Initial Contract



Leadership David Singer, Principal

Board David Scanavino, Board Chair

School Performance

Framework Overall

The school has not yet received an official SPF.

90

University Prep Benchmark Slide

• While the School will not have an Official SPF until 2015,

annual targets have been set to determine if the School is

eligible for a contract extension.

91

Year Benchmark

2014 Meets Status Expectations on SPF (Will Include 3rd

Grade TCAP)

2015 Meets Overall Expectations on SPF (Will Include 1

Year of TCAP Growth)

If benchmarks are met in both years, the school will have the

opportunity for a 2 year contract extension (2015-2017)

University Prep: Early Literacy

UPrep saw its reading proficiency

rate on STEP go from 25% to 68%

in K and 23% to 30% in 2nd Grade;

proficiency in 1st grade declined.

However at all grade levels the

number of students above grade

level increased significantly.

92

75%

32%

20%

27%

5%

41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

August May

2012-13READINGGROWTHKindergartenSTEPData(%below,atorabovegradelevel)

AboveGradeLevel

AtGradeLevel

BelowGradeLevel

37%47%

47%

11%

16%

42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

August May

2012-13READINGGROWTH1stGradeSTEPData(%below,atorabovegradelevel)

AboveGradeLevel

AtGradeLevel

BelowGradeLevel

77%

50%

21%

30%

2%

20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

August May

2012-13READINGGROWTH2ndGradeSTEPData(%below,atorabovegradelevel)

AboveGradeLevel

AtGradeLevel

BelowGradeLevel

University Prep administers the STEP assessment for early literacy, which is then converted to DRA scores for accountability purposes. The Strategic Teaching and Evaluation of Progress (STEP) Reading Assessment is produced by the University of Chicago’s Urban Education Institute. STEP defines the pathway and tracks the progress of pre-kindergarten through third grade students as they learn to read using research-based milestones.

University Prep: Terra Nova 2013 Status

93

In 2013, 76% of UPrep scholars had overall scores (reading and math

combined) that exceeded the national norm (the 50th percentile), suggesting

the UPrep students are outperforming their national peers despite having a

poverty rate that is 4 times that of the population taking the Terr aNova.

K"through"2nd"Grade""(%"of"Scholars"Scoring"Above"Na; onal"Median)""

K" 1st$ 2nd$

! K!through!2nd!Grade!(%!of!Scholars!Scoring!Above!Na; onal!Median)!

K" 1st$ 2nd$

University Prep administers the Terra Nova to all students annually. The Terra Nova is a nationally norm-

referenced assessment taken by nearly 350,000 children across the country.. The test is not designed as an

absolute measure of grade level performance, but instead demonstrates how children are performing against

their peer group at the national level.

University Prep: TerraNova Growth

94

0%#

10%#

20%#

30%#

40%#

50%#

60%#

70%#

80%#

90%#

100%#

Class#of#2028#Over#Time#(K#$#2011$12,#1st#$#2012$13)#

READING( MATH% TOTAL%0%#

10%#

20%#

30%#

40%#

50%#

60%#

70%#

80%#

90%#

100%#

Class#of#2027#Over#Time#(1st%&%2011&12,%2nd%&%2012&13)%

READING( MATH% TOTAL%

UPrep scholars who took the Terra Nova both years saw their performance

increase. The original K cohort from 2011-12 went from a Median National

Percentile (MNP) of 75% to 80% in 1st grade, and the original 1st grade

cohort from 2011-12 went from a MNP of 51% to 65% in 2nd grade.

University Prep administers the Terra Nova to all students annually. The Terra Nova is a nationally norm-

referenced assessment taken by nearly 350,000 children across the country. The test is not designed as an

absolute measure of grade level performance, but instead demonstrates how children are performing against

their peer group at the national level.

University Prep: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence

School

Quality

Framework

Teaching Meets

Expectations

• Teachers are annually evaluated by the school leader.

• Objectives were consistently grade-level appropriate and lessons were designed

to ensure students mastered grade level material.

• The School offers significant small group instruction, particularly in literacy,

which allows for differentiation. There was less consistent differentiation in other

subjects where instruction was primarily whole group.

Leadership Meets

Expectations

• There are clearly defined roles and responsibilities for members of the

leadership team. There is a schoolwide focus on data, with data posted

throughout the School and both staff and students able to discuss data.

• The financial policies and procedures are comprehensive and include a process

for review and update of the document on an annual basis.

Education

Program

Meets

Expectations

• The School utilizes the Common Core standards to guide their planning.

• There are regular interim assessments and a clear cycle around using data to

inform instruction.

• The School follows the District’s procedures for identifying, assessing and

exiting English language learners, consistent with state and federal law.

School

Culture

Meets

Expectations


• There is a family council with regular meetings as well as regular parent

education meetings.

• There is a well-defined ladder of consequences aligned with the DPS discipline

ladder.

Governance Meets

Expectations

• The School’s college preparatory mission is evident in the visual culture of the

school as well as routines and procedures.

• The Board has a range of expertise, including finance, legal, and community..

• The Board regularly monitors academic, operational, and financial metrics.

95

University Prep: Organizational Sustainability School Culture and Demand University Prep Performance





Re-Enrollment 78%


Offered)

1.6








Operating Margin 3% or greater 3%

96

Pioneer Charter School Recommendation 2 Year Renewal With the Opportunity for a 3 Year

Extension if School Consistently Meets

Expectations

Rationale School has had inconsistent performance but came

within 1% of meeting expectations in the most recent

year

School Description Focused on rigorous academics while also preparing

students to be strong community members.

Grades ECE-8


Current Contract Status 2011-2014 Subsequent Renewal Contract


Demographics (2012-13) 98% FRL; 73% ELL; 9% Sped

Leadership Rich Barrett, Principal

Board Jason Munoz, Board Chair

School Performance

Framework Overall

2011-12: 52% of points

earned overall

2012-13: 50% of points

earned overall

97

Pioneer Charter School: Performance

Benchmarks

98


Conditions

Contract Extension

Opportunity



District SPF

2016-2019 IF Then

Pioneer: SPF Summary

99

Pioneer has had inconsistent performance on the SPF, rating as Meets

Expectations in 2012 but not 2011 or 2013. The school has not met expectations

on growth in any of the last 3 years.

Pioneer: Academic Performance - Status

Pioneer’s proficiency rates

have fluctuated over the last

three years, going up

slightly from 2011 to 2013

with the exception of

science. In 2013, their

performance lagged behind

the District (Grades 3-8) in

all subjects, and behind

their similar schools in

reading and science.

Year SPF Points

Status

2012 53%

2013 41%

100


28% 37% 33% 37%

39% 39%

22% 31% 29%

18% 15% 11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2011 2012 2013

% A

t o

r A

bo

ve P

rofi

cien

t



33% 39%

29%

11%

57% 58%

43%

32% 37% 37%

28%

18%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


% P

rofi

cien

t o

r A

bo

ve



Pioneer: Academic Performance – Growth Year SPF Points

Growth

2012 47%

2013 50%

101

Pioneer’s TCAP growth in

2013 surpassed its similar

school cluster in math and

reading. However, writing

growth lagged behind the

District (Grades 4-8) and

similar schools


51

57

49

52

56

51

49

60.5

38

53

50

53

55

54

53

55

53.5

43.5

51

52

48

53

56

49

52

57

35

0 20 40 60 80 100

2013

2012

2011



Reading (School)

Reading (District)*


Math (School)

Math (District)*


Writing (School)

Writing (District)*


Pioneer: Academic Performance-Equity

In 2013, subgroups at

Pioneer lagged behind

their District peers in

most areas, with the

exception of ELL

students in writing.

102


7%

15%

13%

#N/A

#N/A

#N/A

32%

48%

46%

26%

32%

23%

25%

45%

38%

30%

43%

33%

32%

48%

46%

29%

40%

33%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wri

tin

gM

ath

Rea

din

g







Pioneer: Academic Performance- ELL

103

ELL growth at Pioneer has fluctuated over

the last three years. In 2011 and 2012, ELL

growth was below the District but in 201 the

growth of ELL students at Pioneer

surpassed the District (Grades K-8).


27

48

59 51 53

52

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 (CELA) 2012 (CELA) 2013 (ACCESS)

MG

P

CELA/ACCESS: Growth

School District*


performance compared to their current year's ACCESS performance.

Pioneer: Academic Performance- DRA

104

Early literacy rates at Pioneer, as measured

by the DRA2, have lagged behind the

District each of the last 3 years.

44% 36%

42%

54% 55% 60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Spring 2011 Spring 2012 Spring 2013

% A

t o

r A

bo

ve G

L


School District*

Pioneer: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence

School

Quality

Framework

Teaching Partially

Meets

Expectations

• Teachers are formally evaluated three times per year with written feedback.

Objectives were consistently posted in observed lessons and were largely

grade-level appropriate.

• In most observed lessons, up to 50% of students were not actively engaged in

whole class instruction.

Leadership Meets

Expectations

• There is a clear delineation of responsibilities amongst members of the

leadership team.

• The school leader can clearly articulate the needs of the student population

and how the program addresses these goals. However, high expectations for

all students were not evident in conversations with some teachers.

• The financial policies and procedures are comprehensive and include a

process for review of the document on an annual basis.

Education

Program

Partially

Meets

Expectations

• The School has aligned curriculum resources to Common Core.

• There are clear data cycles around school developed interim assessments.


exiting English language learners, consistent with state and federal law.

School

Culture

Meets

Expectations

• The School has regular parent meetings, including a SAC to gather parent

voice.

• The School has a clear ladder of consequences aligned with the DPS

discipline policy that is shared with all stakeholders.

Governance Meets

Expectations

• The Board has a variety of expertise and committees in place.

• The Board regularly monitors academic and operational data.

105

Pioneer: Organizational Sustainability School Culture and Demand Pioneer Performance



Student Satisfaction Rate ES-82% MS-88%

Student Attendance Rate ES-96% MS-97%

Re-Enrollment ES-87% MS-92%


Offered) 2.1








Operating Margin 5%-8% 6.9%

106

NW REGIONAL DECISIONS

107

NW Regional Decisions

Decision

Type


Contract

Renewals

Escuela Tlatelolco 1 Year Renewal

108

NW School Performance on SPF 109

Escuela Tlatelolco Recommendation 1 Year Renewal

Rationale The school has consistently not met expectations and

is in Year 4 on the CDE Turnaround clock.

School Description A K-12 public contract school preparing students for

public service through Montessori and dual language

programming.

Grades K-12

Current Contract Status Year 2 of 2 Year Conditional Contract



Leadership Nita Gonzalez, Executive Director

Board Joseph Salazar, Chair

School Performance

Framework Overall

2011-12: 17% of points

earned overall

2012-13: 18% of points

earned overall

110

Escuela Tlatelolco: Contract History

Year of Decision Contract Type Contract Term

2003 1 Year Initial Contract 2004-2005

2004 2005-2008

2007 2 Year Probationary

Contract

2008-2010

2009 2 Year Probationary

Contract

2010-2012

2012 2 Year Conditional

Contract

2012-2014

Escuela Tlatelolco: SPF Summary

112

Escuela Tlatelolco has consistently not met District expectations on the

SPF, receiving a rating of Accredited on Probation each of the last two

years. They are currently in Year 4 on the CDE turnaround clock based

on their consistently low performance.

*-Please note that due to small N sizes Esuela’s performance can fluctuate significantly from year to year on individual metrics.

Escuela Tlatelolco: Academic Performance -

Status

Escuela’s TCAP

proficiency rates have

consistently lagged

behind the District

and their similar

schools cluster, most

notably in math and

science. They have

also declined over the

last 3 years.

Year SPF Points

Status

2012 12%

2013 9%

113

34% 30% 30%

3% 6%

2%

20% 20% 16%

3% 3%

0% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2011 2012 2013

% A

t o

r A

bo

ve P

rofi

cien

t



30%

2%

16%

0%

55%

47% 44%

35%

51%

37% 37%

28%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


% P

rofi

cien

t o

r A

bo

ve


School District Similar Schools Cluster*

Escuela Tlatelolco: Academic Performance –

Growth Year SPF Points

Growth

2012 23%

2013 13%

114

Escuela’s TCAP growth

rates have consistently

lagged behind the

District and state. This

indicates that students

at Escuela are not

keeping pace with their

peers statewide.

52

57

51

54

57

53

39

31

48

54

52

52

55

53

54

22

25

42

53

53

51

54

54

52

46

33.5

48

0 20 40 60 80 100

2013

2012

2011



Reading (School)

Reading (District)

Reading (SimilarSchools Cluster*)

Math (School)

Math (District)

Math (Similar SchoolsCluster*)

Writing (School)

Writing (District)

Writing (Similar SchoolsCluster*)

Escuela Tlatelolco: Academic Performance-

Equity

Subgroups at Escuela

lagged behind their

District peers in 2013 as

measured by TCAP

proficiency rates.

115

15%

2%

29%

33%

37%

46%

0%

0%

15%

21%

33%

30%

11%

37%

4%

33%

37%

45%

#N/A

#N/A

#N/A

7%

10%

11%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Writing

Math

Reading



SpEd (District) SpEd (School); N<16, can't report FRL (District)

FRL (School); N=27 Non-Exited ELL (District) Non-Exited ELL (School); N=47

Minority (District) Minority (School); N=82

Escuela Tlatelolco: Academic

Performance-ELL

116

The growth of ELL students at Escuela, as

measured by CELA and ACCESS, has

consistently lagged behind that of ELL

students District-wide.

22

44 47

51 53 53

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 (CELA) 2012 (CELA) 2013 (ACCESS)

MG

P

CELA/ACCESS: Growth

School District

NOTE: 2012-2013 was a transition year between CELA and WIDA ACCESS. 2013 MGPs were calculated based on students'

previous CELA performance compared to their current year's ACCESS performance.

Escuela Tlatelolco: Academic Performance-

DRA

117

Early literacy proficiency rates at Escuela,

as measured by DRA2, have consistently

lagged behind the District.

44% 36%

42%

54% 55% 60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Spring 2011 Spring 2012 Spring 2013

% A

t o

r A

bo

ve G

L


School District*

Escuela Tlatelolco: Post-Secondary Readiness

118

• The School’s graduation rates increased considerably in 2012, outpacing the

District’s 4 year rate after lagging significantly behind each of the two previous

years.*

• The School did not have a sufficient number of students taking the ACT test

in 2013 to have data, but in 2012 their performance significantly lagged

behind the district. *-Please note that due to small N sizes (8 total graduates in 2012) Escuela’s data can fluctuate considerably from year to year.

Graduation Rates Over Time

2010 2011 2012

school District1 school District1 school District1

4 year 33.3% 51.8% 25.0% 56.1% 88.9% 58.8%

5 year 46.7% 53.2% 41.7% 58.5% 60.0% 61.9%

6 year 54.6% 51.5% 50.0% 55.8% 50.0% 60.8%

7 year 45.5% 45.8% 54.6% 53.0% 53.8% 56.7%

NOTE: District rate calculated for traditional high schools only.

COACT: % Students Above Benchmark

English Math Reading Science

20

12

school 13% 0% 6% 0% Similar Schools 49% 26% 31% 15%

District1 40% 22% 26% 13%

20

13

school * * * * Similar Schools 39% 15% 25% 10%

District1 41% 22% 32% 17%

NOTE: District rate calculated for traditional high schools only. *No data available

Escuela Tlatelolco: Financial Performance

119



Occupancy Expenses as a % of Total Expenditures 15% or less 16.9%



Months Unreserved Fund Balance On Hand 2.0 or greater (0.420)


Operating Margin 5% to 8% 0.742%

Escuela Tlatelolco has consistently not met financial expectations. The School

is overly reliant on private fundraising, and current spending does not meet

district expectations of spending at least 50% of revenue on the core academic

program. In addition, the School has significant debts and lacks reserves to

ensure future financial sustainability.

Escuela Tlatelolco: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence

School

Quality

Framework

Teaching Does Not Meet

Expectations

• Teachers are annually evaluated by the school leader but there are not clearly

defined criteria for evaluations.

• While most classrooms had posted objectives, these were not consistently

communicated and students were unable to articulate. In addition, objectives

were consistently low level for the grade.

• Student engagement varied, but in most classes fewer than 50% of students

were engaged.

Leadership Partially Meets

Expectations

• There is an organization chart in place with delineated roles and

responsibilities, but implementation was uneven.

• There is a comprehensive financial policies and procedures document in place.

Education

Program

Partially Meets

Expectations

• Teachers are given a scope and sequence document which they use to create

syllabi and lesson plans. The School is beginning to align materials to

Common Core.

• The School utilizes student portfolios for assessment, but grading was not

standardized.


exiting English language learners, consistent with state and federal law

School

Culture

Meets

Expectations


• The School has multiple venues for parent involvement, including a Council,

volunteer opportunities, and Parent Education events.

Governance Partially Meets

Expectations

• The Board has a variety of expertise.

• The Board does not regularly monitor academic performance data, and is

unfamiliar with key metrics.

• The annual financial audit for Escuela raises concerns around the deficit in the

school's fund balance and with the school not meeting its mortgage loan

requirements to maintain a specific debt to net worth and debt service

coverage ratio. In addition, revenue assumptions used in the budgeting

process are not realistic.

120

Escuela Tlatelolco: School Culture School Culture and Demand Escuela Performance (ES/MS/HS)



Student Satisfaction Rate 91% 93% 92%

Student Attendance Rate 94% 95% 93%

Re-Enrollment 74% 82% 69%


Offered) No K Seats Offered; 26 Preferences

121

SW REGIONAL DECISIONS

122

SW Regional Decisions

Decision

Type


Charter

Renewals

STRIVE Prep Federal 5 Year Renewal

123

SW School Performance on SPF

124

STRIVE Prep-Federal Charter School Recommendation 5 Year Unconditional Renewal

Rationale The school has consistently demonstrated an ability

to exceed District expectations, warranting a 5 year

contract

School Description College Preparatory middle school

Grades 6-8


Current Contract Status 2009 to 2014 Subsequent Contract


Demographics (2012-13) 92% FRL; 70% ELL, 8% SPED

Leadership Libby Miller, Principal

Chris Gibbons, Network ED

Board Mowa Haile, Board Chair; Board Oversees al STRIVE

Prep schools

School Performance

Framework Overall

2011-12: 84% of points

earned overall

2012-13: 81% of points

earned overall

125

STRIVE Federal: SPF Summary

126

STRIVE Prep Federal has consistently achieved an overall rating

of Distinguished on the SPF, earning over 80% of points each of

the last 3 years. The school has also exceeded status

expectations each of the last 3 years.

STRIVE Federal: Academic Performance - Status

STRIVE Federal has

seen its proficiency

rates decline slightly

over the last three

years. However, in

2013 they still

outperformed their

similar schools cluster

in all subjects and


in all subjects except

reading.

Year SPF Points

Status

2012 85%

2013 82%

127


57%

52% 52%

69% 64% 65%

55% 55% 50% 54%

39% 38%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2011 2012 2013

% A

t o

r A

bo

ve P

rofi

cien

t



52%

65%

50%

38%

53% 47% 47%

35%

44% 41% 37%

25%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


% P

rofi

cien

t o

r A

bo

ve



STRIVE Federal: Academic Performance – Growth Year SPF Points

Growth

2012 81%

2013 77%

128

STRIVE Federal has

had consistently high

growth, outpacing both


and similar schools

cluster in all subjects

each of the last three

years.


59

58

50

56

59

55

66.5

73

78

63

54

52

57

52

55

78

75

77

54

52

49

52

53

53

61.5

69

72

0 20 40 60 80 100

2013

2012

2011



Reading (School)

Reading (District)*

Reading (Similar SchoolsCluster)

Math (School)

Math (District)*


Writing (School)

Writing (District)*


STRIVE Federal: Academic Performance- Equity

STRIVE Prep Federal

subgroups outpaced

their peers in all subjects

in 2013.

129


7%

8%

9%

#N/A

#N/A

#N/A

37%

37%

43%

50%

65%

51%

20%

26%

23%

50%

65%

51%

38%

38%

44%

50%

65%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wri

tin

gM

ath

Rea

din

g







STRIVE Federal: Academic Performance-ELL

130

ELL growth at STRIVE Federal has

consistently outpaced middle school ELL

growth District wide as measured by both

CELA and ACCESS.


63

71 64

52 56 53

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 (CELA) 2012 (CELA) 2013 (ACCESS)

Me

dia

n G

row

th P

erc

en

tile

CELA/ACCESS: Growth

School District*


STRIVE Federal: Summary of Evidence Domain Rating Summary of Evidence

School

Quality

Framework

Teaching Meets

Expectations

• Teachers are annually evaluated by school leaders.

• Observed lessons were consistently grade level appropriate, although many

lessons did not promote higher-order thinking.

• In observed classrooms, the majority of students were compliant but in many

classrooms a large majority of students were not actively engaged in lessons.

Leadership Meets

Expectations

• There are clearly delineated roles and responsibilities for the members of the

leadership team; stakeholders were able to articulate these.

• Network staff provide coaching to leaders through both one on one coaching

and cohort sessions.

• School leaders were able to articulate the school’s achievement gaps and the

steps being taken to better serve all students.

Education

Program

Meets

Expectations

• Teachers utilize network resources to guide their planning; these materials

were recently aligned to the Common Core State Standards.

• There is a clear data cycle around the network-wide interim assessments,

including time for data analysis and expectations around reteaching.



assessing and exiting English language learners, consistent with state and

federal law

School

Culture

Meets

Expectations

• There is a Parent Council and a SAC in place to involve parents in the school

and gather parent voice.

• The school has a clear ladder of consequences aligned to the DPS discipline

policy.

Governance Meets

Expectations

• The Board has a variety of expertise to fulfill its responsibilities, although they

are seeking add additional members.

• The Board regularly monitors key academic, financial, and operational metrics

at both the individual school and organization level.

131

STRIVE Federal: Organizational Sustainability School Culture and Demand STRIVE Federal Performance





Re-Enrollment 97%


Offered) 3.9








Operating Margin 5% to 8% 3.372%

132

SE REGIONAL DECISIONS

133

SE Regional Decisions

134

• No Decisions At this Time

SE School Performance on SPF

135

Summary of All Decisions By Region 136

Region Decision Type School Recommendations

FNE Charter Renewals SOAR at Oakland Acceptance of School Surrender

DSST GVR HS 3 Year Renewal with the opportunity for a 2 Year

Extension

Ridgeview Academy 3 Year Renewal with the opportunity for a 2 Year

Extension

KIPP Montbello 3 Year Renewal with the opportunity for a 2 Year

Extension

New Schools Oakland Placement of District School at Oakland

NNE Charter Renewals Venture Prep HS 2 Year Renewal with the opportunity for a 3 Year

Extension

DSST Cole MS 3 Year Renewal with the opportunity for a 2 Year

Extension

Denver Justice HS 2 Year Renewal with the opportunity for a 1 Year

Extension

University Prep 2 Year Renewal with the opportunity for a 2 Year

Extension

Pioneer 2 Year Renewal with the opportunity for a 3 Year

Extension

NW Contract Renewal Escuela Tlatelolco 1 Year Renewal

SW Charter Renewals STRIVE Prep Federal 5 Year Renewal

APPENDIX A: RENEWAL

CRITERIA

137

Colorado Charters Schools Act Criteria for non-renewal 22-30.5-110

(3) A charter may be revoked or not renewed by the local board of education if

such board determines that the charter school did any of the following:

(a) Committed a material violation of any of the conditions, standards, or procedures

set forth in the charter contract;

(b) Failed to meet or make adequate progress toward achievement of the goals,

objectives, content standards, pupil performance standards, targets for the

measures used to determine the levels of attainment of the performance indicators,

applicable federal requirements, or other terms identified in the charter contract;

(c) Failed to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management; or

(d) Violated any provision of law from which the charter school was not specifically

exempted.

‒ (3.5) If a charter schools is required to implement a turnaround plan…for a second consecutive school year …If the local board of education finds that the charter school’s evidence of improvement is not sufficient or if the charter school is required to implement a turnaround plan for a third consecutive year, the local board of education may revoke the school’s charter.*

138

*Revised 2012

Colorado State Board of Education

Quality Authorizing Principles • According to the “Principles and Standards for Quality Authorizing”

adopted by the Colorado State Board of Education, a Quality Authorizer:

‒ Designs and implements a transparent and rigorous process that uses comprehensive academic, financial, and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions, and revokes charters when necessary to protect student and public interests.

‒ Bases the renewal process and renewal decisions on thorough analyses of a comprehensive body of objective evidence defined by the performance framework in the charter contract.

‒ Grants renewal only to schools that have achieved the standards and targets stated in the charter contract, are organizationally and fiscally viable, and have been faithful to the terms of the contract and applicable law.

‒ Does not make renewal decisions, including granting probationary or

short-term renewals, on the basis of political or community pressure or solely on promises of future improvement.

139

Denver Public Schools Quality Authorizing Policy

According to the Denver Public Schools Quality Authorizing Policy

(Board Policy AF), adopted by the DPS Board in June 2012:

• Denver Public Schools maintains high standards for all schools. This

includes setting high standards for approving charter applicants; maintaining

high standards for all of the schools the district oversees; effectively

cultivating quality charter schools that meet identified educational needs of

the district; overseeing charter schools that, meet the performance standards

and targets set forth in their charter contracts through established measures

and metrics including contractual benchmarks defining reasonable progress;

and closing schools that fail to meet standards and targets set forth in

law and by contract.

• DPS Renewal Decision Making: DPS designs and implements a

transparent and rigorous process that uses comprehensive academic,

financial, and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal

decisions, establishes clear criteria for renewal and revocation, and revokes

charters when necessary to protect student and public interests.

140

Renewal Process: Alignment with Denver Plan

• Analysis of education program and classroom observations

Focus on Instructional Core

• Consideration of teacher and leader hiring and retention

Great People to Drive Outcomes

• Integration of parent and community voice into recommendations

Family and Community Engagement

• Analysis of financial performance as well as policies and procedures

Strategic Management of Financial Resources

• Analysis of school culture and ability to accelerate student achievement

A Culture of High Expectations, Service, Empowerment, and

Responsibility

141

APPENDIX B: PRIOR

RENEWAL DECISIONS

142

Prior Renewal Decisions 143

2012-13

School Decision

ACE 2+1

AUL 2+1

Cesar Chavez 2 Year

Colorado HS 2 Year

SWEC 2 Year

STRIVE-Lake 3+2

STRIVE-Highland 3+2

DSST Stapleton MS 5 Year

DSST Stapleton HS 5 Year

DSST GVR MS 3+2

DLS 2+2

SOAR-GVR 2+2

GALS 2+2

Northeast Academy Surrender

2011-12

School Decision

Highline 5 Year

STRIVE-Westwood 5 Year

KIPP Sunshine Peak 5 Year

KIPP Denver

Collegiate

2+1 (Conditions Met)

Venture Prep 1 Year

Life Skills Non-Renewal

Cesar Chavez 1+1 (Conditions

partially met)

Colorado HS 1+1 (Conditions

partially met)

Denver Justice 1+1 (Conditions met)

Documents

Charter Renewal Recommendations · statute allows state board to require that the school’s charter be revoked ... Sustainability Student Performance Annual Feedback . ... •School