Public Charter School Enrollment Booklet-2004-05 · services; and • 796 LEP/NEP students. Enrollment Our student count as of October 7, 2004, was 15,497 without regard to residency

District of Columbia

Public Charter Schools Enrollment

October 7, 2004

TH O M P S O N, CO B B, BA Z I L I O & AS S O C I AT E S, PC

1101 15th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005PH 202.778.3300 FX 202.296.2684 WWW.tcba.com

Certified Public Accountants & Management, Systems and Financial Consultants

2004

- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

cont

ents

Executive Summary

Observations

Glossary

Attachments

1

5

19

21

THOMPSON, COBB, BAZILIO & ASSOCIATES, PC Page - 1 - 2004

- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio & Associates, PC(TCBA) was retained by the State EducationOffice of the District of Columbia (the SEO) toconduct a full census-type audit of the October 7,2004, student enrollment for the District ofColumbia Public Schools (DCPS) and public char-ter schools. In addition to the enrollment verifica-tion, TCBA reviewed each student file to ensurethat it contained proper documentation to supportresidency, special education, and English languageproficiency designations. This report presents theresults of the census-type audit for only publiccharter schools; DCPS is reported separately.

This was the eighth year that a 100% verificationof student enrollment and residency files for char-ter schools was conducted. As shown in Chart 1,the annual public charter school enrollment isincreasing, while the number of DCPS enrolledstudents is decreasing.

It is the nature of these reports to bring attentionto discrepancies and improper adherence to poli-cies. However, we would like to commend those

schools that had no more than one enrollment orresidency issue remaining after the resolutionprocess, signifying good administrative practicesand cooperation with the census process. Theseschools are:

• Arts & Technology Academy• Barbara Jordan PCS• Capital City PCS• Eagle Academy• E.L. Haynes PCS• Jos-Arz Academy• Marriott Hospitality PCS• Paul PCS• Sasha Bruce PCS• SEED PCS• The Next Step PCS• Two Rivers PCS• The School for Arts in Learning (SAIL)

The SY 2004 - 2005 Enrollment Rosters submittedby the public charter schools (ReportedEnrollment) reflect a total of 15,839 students as of

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

55,000

60,000

65,000

70,000

DCPS

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-20032003-2004 2004-2005

05,000

10,00015,00020,000

Charter Schools

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-20032003-2004 2004-2005

Chart 1: 5-Year Enrollment Trend (based on Reported Enrollment)


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

October 7, 2004, consisting of 4,057 studentsenrolled in schools chartered by the Board ofEducation (BOE) and 11,782 students enrolled inschools chartered by the D.C. Public CharterSchool Board (PCSB). The results of the census-type audit verified:

• 3,942 students enrolled in schools chartered byBOE, and

• 11,555 students enrolled in schools charteredby PCSB.

Of the 15,497 students verified as enrolled incharter school programs, we found:

• 20 students present and attending at October7, 2004, who were not on the EnrollmentRosters;

• 155 students for whom residency verificationwas inadequate;

• 1,437 students who receive special educationservices; and

• 796 LEP/NEP students.

Enrollment

Our student count as of October 7, 2004, was15,497 without regard to residency and 15,342 forstudents with verified residency.

The enrollment count was based primarily on veri-fication of the student's presence in the school.

For students who were not present on the day ofthe count, we relied on the enrollment and atten-dance records provided by the school and assumedthose documents to be accurate and complete.However, we found numerous inconsistenciesbetween the system and manual attendancerecords as well as some evidence that the atten-dance records did not accurately reflect attendance.In an exception-based system, it is not possible todetermine if the inconsistencies are intentional orunintentional misrecordings. The level of incon-sistency makes questionable the reliability of someschools’ attendance records.

The attachments to this report provide a break-down of total enrollment by grade. The NextStep PCS is an ungraded high school. For purpos-es of this audit, the students at The Next StepPCS were categorized based on age as follows:

Table 1 shows the audited enrollment count forpublic charter school students compared to theReported Enrollment. (See Table 2 for the break-down of students' residency status.)

14/15 years old 9th Grade

16 years old 10th Grade

17 years old 11th Grade

18+ years old 12th Grade

Public CharterSchools BOE PCSB Total Reported

Enrollment Difference

Total Enrollment 3,942 11,555 15,497 15,839 (342)

Enrollment withVerified Residency 3,903 11,439 15,342 15,839 (497)

Table 1: Enrollment Comparison


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

The enrollment total includes 29 students in theCommunity Academy On-Line program. TheSEO has not received documentation that thisprogram is approved for funding.

Residency

Of the 15,497 students found to be enrolled, therewere 155 students for whom proof of residencyprovided to the auditors was inadequate orunavailable.

We reviewed the District Residency VerificationForm (Residency Form) for every student included

in the census, except students for whom no formwas on file. For purposes of the audit, a properlycompleted and signed Residency Form was consid-ered to have been completed in accordance withthe applicable rules. However, there is no evi-dence to support that they had been completed inaccordance with the residency rules, and, in someinstances, we found that the rules were not fol-lowed.

Because the audit process is limited to reviewingonly the Residency Verification Forms, with nosupporting documents by which to determine

validity, we cannot assess the degree with whichthe residency verification rules are complied.However, there is evidence that schools are accept-ing documents that do not comply with the rules.

During the initial review, we identified students forwhom the Residency Form was missing or incom-plete. The principals were given an opportunity toprovide the documentation proving residency.Table 2 summarizes the final results of the resi-dency review. The "Not Verified" column includesstudents for whom we were not provided the nec-essary documentation to make a determination ofresidency status in accordance with the residencyrules issued by the SEO. (See Attachment 9.)

Roots PCS has four non-resident students enrolledwho have been assessed tuition for SY 2004 -2005. One student is in pre-kindergarten, two stu-dents are in kindergarten, and one student is in theeighth grade. The tuition charged for the studentsvaries by grade level. Annual tuition for pre-school and pre-kindergarten is $8,532, and tuitionfor kindergarten is $7,812. For all other grades thetuition is set at $7,111. Parents have the option ofpaying the tuition in one annual payment by the30th of September or installment payments overthe course of the school year. The total tuition tobe collected from these four students is $31,267.

Resident Non-Resident Paying

Tuition Not VerifiedTotal

BOE 3,899 4 39 3,942

PCSB 11,439 - 116 11,555

Total 15,338 4 155 15,497

Table 2: Residency


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

This report includes both quantitative enrollmentdata as well as qualitative observations. Only thosestudents who are District residents, or pay tuition,are considered properly enrolled. Therefore, theenrollment data are presented in two ways - enroll-ment without regard to residency and enrollmentonly for students who have properly proven resi-dency or who pay tuition. The quantitative dataare presented in the attachments to this report.

The qualitative findings are discussed in detail inthe Observations section of this report. Many ofthe anomalies that we discovered during the cen-sus-type audit can be addressed through a fewcomprehensive recommendations. Some of theserecommendations were made last year; based onour review this year, we believe they bear repeat-ing.


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

Residency

Although significant improvements have beenmade each year, residency verification continues tobe an issue at public charter schools. The auditprocess was limited to determining if the schoolhad completed the Residency Form. However, thefact that a completed form is on file does notguarantee that valid proof was provided. After theinitial review, we gave the principals an opportuni-ty to provide the proof of residency for studentsfor whom the Residency Forms were incompleteor missing. In reviewing the documentation pro-vided, we found that the residency requirementsare not being strictly adhered to. For instance,when accepting leases and utility bills as proof ofresidency, the cancelled checks or receipt of pay-ment are often not included. Some principals andstaff appear to be still unaware of this require-ment although it is clearly stated on the ResidencyVerification Form. We also found instances of W-2's being accepted as well as pay stubs that did notshow DC taxes being withheld.

There is no central point of information and train-ing for the charter schools. Therefore, there arevarying levels of understanding of the residencyrules. In meetings held prior to the audit, manycharter schools, primarily BOE schools, expressedthat they had never been informed of a change inthe residency rules nor had received the revisedResidency Verification Form.

IImmpprroovvee tthhee RReessiiddeennccyy VVeerriiffiiccaattiioonn PPrroocceessssWe recommend that the SEO undertake a projectto revamp the process used to verify residency.The current process is burdensome to the schoolstaff and the parents. It can also be circumventedand is not strictly adhered to by all schools. Asrecommended in previous years, we believe that

the objectives of residency verification can beachieved more efficiently and thoroughly throughone, or a combination, of the following:

1. Automated matching of files available insystems throughout the District, such asthe Office of Tax and Revenue, theDepartment of Human Services, or theDepartment of Motor Vehicles;

2. Establishing central centers for residencyverification; and

3. Outsourcing to reduce the burden onschools and strengthen controls.

If these methods cannot be implemented, werecommend that:

1. Schools maintain copies of the documentsused to prove residency; and

2. The Chartering Authorities conduct peri-odic audits of the residency files to ensurecompliance with the residency verificationrules.

We also suggest that the charter schools requestthe parent's social security number for the purposeof automating the residency verification processby matching the number with other District ofColumbia databases. Parents would be asked toprovide this information on a voluntary basis;however, it is believed that most will comply inorder to reduce the burden of having to produceresidency documentation annually. For those whorefuse to provide this information, residencywould be verified through the current process;however, the process would be strengthened if theverification were performed by an independentparty.

OBSERVATIONS


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

EEssttaabblliisshh PPoolliicciieess ffoorr AAcccceeppttiinngg NNoonn-RReessiiddeenntt SSttuuddeennttssThere are currently no policies that govern charterschools accepting students who are not Districtresidents, other than the requirement that tuitionbe paid. In addition, there are no documentedprocedures for reporting students for whomtuition has been assessed in order to ensure thatthey are not funded by the District.

Charter schools were established to provide theresidents of the District with schooling alterna-tives. Therefore, District residents should haveadmission priority over non-resident students. Asmentioned previously, Roots PCS currently hasfour non-resident, tuition paying students enrolled.There is no evidence that these students are notproperly enrolled; however, it has highlighted thefact that there is a need for a documented policyto address, among other things:

• Under what circumstances charter schools mayenroll non-resident students;

• Whether District students have priority;• Whether District students on a waiting list

should replace non-resident students; and• The procedures for reporting students for

whom tuition is assessed.

PPrrooooff ooff RReessiiddeennccyy MMiissssiinngg ffoorr SSoommee EEnnrroolllleedd SSttuuddeennttssOf the 15,497 students included in TCBA's enroll-ment count of students in pre-school, pre-kinder-garten, kindergarten, grades 1-12, and non-gradelevel programs in public charter schools, the resi-dency status of 155 students was classified as "notverified". In some cases, Residency Forms wereon file but missing vital information, such as thecheck-off for the required proof or the schoolofficial's signature. Students for whom adequatedocumentation was not provided during the reso-lution process remained as "Not Verified".

PPoolliiccyy NNoott AAddhheerreedd ttoo ffoorr WWiitthhddrraawwiinngg SSttuuddeennttssThe guidelines require that students for whom therequired proofs of residency are not obtainedprior to the official membership date, or within 10days after enrollment, be withdrawn from schooland excluded from the count. In our initial review,we found several hundred students for whom theResidency Form lacked the proper number ofproofs or had not been completed. Therefore,under the guidelines, these students should havebeen withdrawn.

Attendance

More consistency in attendance reporting withinpublic charter schools would be advantageous toavoid confusion and misinterpretation of data.Standards would provide a control for properlydocumenting student attendance. We recognizethat as individual local education agencies (LEAs),charter schools establish their own policies andprocedures. However, we noted repeatedinstances of inconsistency within a school. It waseven not unusual to see teachers being inconsistentin their own attendance documentation.

An accurate enrollment count is necessary forfunding. While a census-type audit is currentlymandated, one objective is to be able to modifythe audit to place more reliance on the informa-tion systems. In order for this approach to be suc-cessful, controls would have to be in place andoperating to ensure data integrity. Such controlswould include standardization of procedures, auto-mated attendance tracking, and periodic auditingof attendance records. Presently, the BOE charterschools are in the process of implementing theSTARS system and the PCSB schools are imple-menting their own student information system.Along with implementation of these systems, we


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

urge development of standard practices and con-trols.

In addition, we recommend that the CharteringAuthorities explore the possibility of attendancebeing taken on-line in the classroom. This wouldeliminate manual error and duplication of effort.

SSttuuddeennttss AAbbsseenntt oonn tthhee DDaayy ooff tthhee CCoouunnttAbsenteeism continues to be high in some of theschools. The public charter schools have adoptedDCPS policy to withdraw any student who isabsent for 20 consecutive days. However, ourfindings indicate that this policy was not alwayscomplied with.

Table 3 summarizes the absentee rate for schoolson the day that we performed the student counts.

AAtttteennddaannccee EExxcceeppttiioonn BBaasseedd Some of the attendance tracking systems areexception-based, that is, only days when a studentis other than "Present" are captured. Therefore, ifa student has perfect attendance, the attendancerecord will be blank. This does not provide theschools with adequate information to monitorattendance. For instance, a blank record could

indicate that the student was never included onany attendance rosters (not assigned a count loca-tion) or that the student was a "no-show".Accuracy of attendance data is absolutely neces-sary in determining whether a student is actuallyenrolled at a given school.

SSttuuddeennttss EEnnrroolllleedd iinn MMoorree TThhaann OOnnee SScchhoooollDuplicate students, i.e. students reported asenrolled at more than one school, will continue tobe a problem so long as public charter schools andDCPS are not on an integrated system. Inaccuratedata, misspellings, etc. compound the difficulty inidentifying duplicate students. Upon combiningthe enrollment rosters provided by the public char-ter schools and the DCPS enrollment data, wefound the following duplicate records (not mutual-ly exclusive):

• 4,177 students with matching names, i.e., atleast 2 students have exactly the same name;

• 983 students with matching student ID num-bers; and

• 234 students with a combination of matchingname and date of birth.

Total inEnrollment Data

Absent on the Day ofthe Count Percentage

BOE 4,057 705 17%

PCSB 11,782 1,691 14%

Total Charter Schools 15,839 2,396 15%

Table 3: Absenteeism Rates

Note: Abstentee rates are based on the Enrollment Data as provided rather than the final census


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

In conducting the census, we had to determine, tothe extent possible, those students from the abovepopulations who were in fact the same studentbeing shown as enrolled at two or more differentschools. Because enrollment and withdrawal datesdo not always reflect the actual dates that a studentbegan and stopped attending a school, the atten-dance records are the primary source for deter-mining which school a student attended at a par-ticular date. However, because of inaccuracies inthe attendance records, compounded by someattendance records being exception based, it ispossible for students to appear to be attending twodifferent schools.

SSttuuddeenntt IIDD NNuummbbeerrss nnoott PPrrooppeerrllyy AAssssiiggnneeddOf the 983 students with matching Student IDnumbers, we determined that 512 were, in fact,different people. The public charter schools havemade significant improvements over the past fewyears in obtaining DCPS student ID numbers;however, it seems that incorrect numbers are beingassigned. The 512 students include students whoappear to have been assigned a DCPS numberalready assigned to another student and studentsassigned the same number by the same charterschool.

SSttuuddeennttss nnoott WWiitthhddrraawwnn ffoorr EExxcceessssiivvee AAbbsseenncceeAside from the role that attendance plays in stu-dent performance, there are funding issues.District policy requires that students absent for 20consecutive days be withdrawn. This policy is notenforced because, in part, attendance records maynot be providing a true record of absences.Students are being carried in enrollment who haveactually transferred to other schools. Of the 2,396students absent on the day of the count, we deter-mined that 308 were not enrolled on October 7th,either because they were found to have withdrawn

(or stopped attending) prior to October 7th, werefound to be attending another school, or atten-dance documentation, if provided, did not provideclear evidence of enrollment. In the absence of aconsolidated student information system, there iscurrently no means for detecting students whotransfer to another school. When we combinedthe DCPS enrollment records with the enrollmentrosters provided by the public charter schools, weidentified over 260 pairs of students listed asenrolled in both DCPS and public charter schoolsor two charter schools.

WWiitthhddrraawwaall aanndd TTrraannssffeerr DDaatteess nnoott AAccccuurraatteeThe student population is transient. As a result,student records at any given point in time will havea degree of inaccuracy. To some extent, theseinaccuracies are not errors on the part of theschool staff. One contributing factor to the differ-ences noted between the Reported Enrollment andthe Audited Enrollment as of October 7, is thefact that the audit is conducted subsequent toOctober 7. Therefore, the audit has the benefit ofinformation not available to the school. Frequently,a student will be absent for some number of daysbefore the parent officially withdraws the student.In some cases, the student is never officially with-drawn but is dropped from the roster after exces-sive absences. In either case, the school may nothave enough information on October 7 to knowthat the student will not be returning.

Because the objective of the audit is to determinethe number of students enrolled as of October 7,we consider subsequent information to make thatdetermination. Because the audit has access to theenrollment records for all District public schools,we are able to determine if a student had, in fact,withdrawn or transferred prior to October 7.


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

Several instances were noted where a student’swithdrawal form was altered to make it appear thatthe date of withdrawal or transfer was afterOctober 7. We also found numerous instances ofstudents being withdrawn within days of October7, many transferring to Maryland schools. We rec-ommend that the Chartering Authorities reviewthese transfers to determine which of these stu-dents may not have been District residents as ofOctober 7.

Special Education

Under the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula(UPSFF), the funding level for special education isbased on weekly service hours. It should be notedthat the UPSFF was amended in 2004, as shown:

IInnddiivviidduuaall EEdduuccaattiioonn PPllaann RReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnssTraining and written policies are needed regardingpreparation of IEPs. These policies shouldinclude guidelines for:

• calculating the number of weekly serviceshours

• showing hours in the General EducationSetting

• updating IEPs for transfer students, bothanother DCPS school, a charter school, or anout-of-state school

• amending, modifying, and correcting IEPs• obtaining parental approval

We noted a number of instances in which thehours of service included a minimal number ofhours, e.g., 30 minutes per month, of counselingwhich caused the total hours to reach the nexthighest funding level. These may be properassessments that happen to coincide with thefunding level breakpoints, but it may be an area forreview.

System Maintenance

In past audits reports, we have cited the need for acentral system to consolidate information regard-ing students attending public charter schools

and/or combining that information with DCPS.Information concerning students in the District isfragmented between those attending DCPS andthose attending individual public charter schools.Because there is no comprehensive system incor-porating the public charter school students, theDistrict continues to have no means to track andmonitor all of the students served by the District.This impacts the District's ability to determine atrue enrollment number, including special educa-tion students and English Language Learners; aschool's ability to know whether a transferring stu-

Funding Level Weekly Service Hours

Level 1 Less than 6 hours

Level 2 > 6 hours and <= 15 hours

Level 3 More than 15 hours

Level 4 Separate School

Level 5 Residential

Previous Funding Formula

Funding Level Weekly Service Hours

Level 1 8 hours or less



Level 4 > 24 hours

Level 5 Residential

Current Funding Formula


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

dent requires special education or language servic-es; and a school's ability to schedule a transferringstudent appropriately.

A system that consolidates the public charterschools and DCPS would facilitate District-widereporting, track student enrollment and enrollmentchanges, and minimize the risk that students arecounted as "enrolled" in more than one school.DCPS has begun to convert its schools to theSTARS student information system. The BOEcharter schools are also in the process of convert-ing to the STARS system. However, these recordsare not currently integrated. Integration of thesystems will greatly improve the consistency andavailability of information. We also understandthat the PCSB is in the process of implementing anew system to be used by all of its schools fortracking student information. Having the publiccharter schools move to a uniform system is amajor step toward more reliable enrollment infor-mation. The next step should be to explore thepossibility of integrating the systems.

DDiissccrreeppaanncciieess EExxiisstt BBeettwweeeenn AAuuttoommaatteedd aanndd MMaannuuaallAAtttteennddaannccee RReeccoorrddssWe noted many discrepancies between the atten-dance information in a school's automated atten-dance records and the teacher's attendance cards.These discrepancies include instances where criti-cal dates had been altered (either erased and leftblank or replaced with tardy) on some attendancecards. Also, in a few instances, we received twoteachers' attendance cards for the same studentwith significantly different information. Severalschools also provided blank attendance cards forstudents.

Administrative Practices

NNoonn-SSttaannddaarrdd AAddmmiinniissttrraattiivvee PPoolliicciieess oorr PPrroocceedduurreessThere are no standard administrative policies andprocedures for public charter schools. While eachcharter school is unique, the administrative policiesand procedures should be uniform to avoid criticaldecisions being resolved on a school-by-schoolbasis and resulting in possible conflicts. Consistentadministrative procedures among charter schools ishighly encouraged in the following areas:

• Enrollment: Not all schools include the enroll-ment date on the school forms. This informa-tion is critical for accurate system documenta-tion. In reviewing the enrollment and residen-cy documentation, we noted inconsistencies inthe dates that are used. In order to maintainthe integrity of the documentation, all formsshould be accurately dated.

We understand that parents "school shop", i.e.,apply for admission in multiple schools.Therefore, it is possible to have multipleadmission forms all dated before October 7.The actual day the student starts attendingclasses at a particular school should be record-ed.

• Admission: Some schools were inconsistentwith the date entered in the system. Someused the date the student enters/starts, thefirst day of school, or the date the applicationwas completed/submitted. Ideally, it should bethe date the child started the school year at aparticular school, but this is not always thecase.


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

• Withdrawal: As with admission dates, there isno consistency in the date used as the with-drawal date. Often, the school does not knowthat a student has withdrawn; he or she simplystops attending. Because of the significantnumber of students reported as enrolled inmore than one school, accurate withdrawaldates are necessary to determine where thestudent is enrolled at a particular date. Wesuggest that charter schools record two dates -the student's last date of attendance and thedate that the withdrawal was processed. Thiswould eliminate the confusion regarding thedefinition of withdrawal date.

• Attendance: There are many inconsistencies inthe attendance process, such as how oftenattendance is taken, how attendance is docu-mented (slashes, blanks, letters, dates, checkmarks), the policy for withdrawing studentswith repeated absences, the process for docu-menting transfers/withdrawals, the date usedfor transfers/withdrawals and updates to theenrollment system. As stated earlier, we foundthat not all schools follow or enforce the 20-day rule for withdrawal.

Students Enrolled in MultiplePrograms

The Uniform Per Student Funding Formula pro-vides the definitions for determining the annualpayments to public charter schools and the DCPSfor the funding of students in adult education pro-grams and ungraded students in high school pro-grams. However, it does not address students whoattend multiple programs. This affects the BookerT. Washington Public Charter School. Currently,students who attend a day school program and an

evening program are included in the enrollmentcount of only the day school. We recommendthat the SEO review the policies regarding fundingfor students in multiple programs to ensure fund-ing is fairly dispersed.

Following are examples of documents provided bythe schools that demonstrate the attendance recor-dation problems discussed above, as well as otherdocument integrity issues. These are only a few ofthe many examples we have seen of inconsistentand modified documents. They are meant to beillustrative of system-wide issues. Names of stu-dents are not shown, but each example is for aparticular student.

THOMPSON, COBB, BAZILIO & ASSOCIATES, PC Page - 12 -

2004

- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

Attendance records for the same student at a DCPS school anda charter school.

DCPS

Charter


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

Attendance records from two different charter schools for thesame student.

Enrollment form for this charter school shows that student camefrom Edison. Attendance record shows student attending duringthe period 10/4/04 - 10/29/04.

10/4/04 - 10/8/04

10/11/04 - 10/15/04

10/18/04 - 10/22/04

10/25/04 - 10/29/04

Attendance record from Edison is exception-based and alsoshows student attending during the period 10/4/04 - 10/29/04.

Week of:


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

Teacher’s record differs with system record.

Teacher's attendance record shows the student as a "No Show" - absent every day from 9/20/04.

System record shows student attending between 9/20/04 and 10/13/04, primarily missing only first period.


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

Records provided by the school at the initial audit were differentthan records later provided at the exit conference.

Student had no record of attendance on the documents providedat the initial audit.

Attendance activity appeared on the record provided at the finalexit conference.


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

Principal advised that the student was a "No Show", which con-flicts with the attendance record.


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

Inconsistent method for recording attendance used by the sameteacher in the same classroom.


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

Same Withdrawal Form for the same student from the file at twodifferent schools. The date was altered by one school to appearthat the student withdrew after 10/7/04.


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

Absent - Not in attendance on the day of thecount. Students arriving during the physical countwere not recorded as absent.

Audit Period - The census-type audit was conduct-ed between October 7, 2004 and December 30,2004, including the resolution period.

Census-type Audit - Determination of: the numberof students enrolled in pre-school, pre-kinder-garten, kindergarten, grades 1 through 12, andnon-grade level programs in public charterschools; the number of students who are Districtresidents; the number of tuition-paying non-resi-dent students; and the number of special educa-tion and English minority students as of October7, 2004, based upon a physical headcount of stu-dents and review of applicable student records.This was not an audit conducted in accordancewith generally accepted auditing standards.

Chartering Authorities - D.C. Board of Education(BOE) and D.C. Public Charter School Board(PCSB)

Count Location - Where a student is scheduled atthe time of the physical audit count.

Enrollment Classifications - For purpose of theaudit, students were classified as:

Enrolled - A student was included in the enroll-ment count if he or she was:

• In the October 7, 2004, enrollment dataand present during the physical count;

• In the October 7, 2004, enrollment dataand absent on the day of the physicalcount but documentation provided evi-dence of enrollment and attendance; or

• Not in the October 7, 2004, enrollmentdata but present during the count, anddocumentation provided evidence ofenrollment on October 7.

Not Enrolled - A student was in the October7, 2004, enrollment data, but documentationprovided showed evidence that the studenthad withdrawn or stopped attending or ade-quate documentation was not provided.

Enrollment Date - All data presented in this reportis as of October 7, 2004.

LEP/NEP - Limited English Proficiency/NoEnglish Proficiency

Residency Classifications -

Verified - During the initial on-site file review,the student had a completed DistrictResidency Verification Form, or applicablewaiver, on file that had been properlyapproved. Otherwise, adequate proof of resi-dency was provided during the resolution peri-od.

Not Verified - There was no DistrictResidency Verification Form on file or theform was incomplete, and adequate proof wasnot provided during the resolution period.

Resident Student - A student enrolled in a publiccharter school who is 1) a minor whose parent,guardian, or other primary caregiver resides in theDistrict of Columbia or 2) an adult who resides inthe District of Columbia.

GLOSSARY


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

Residency Verification Rules - Rules for establish-ing residency verification requirements for publicschools and public charter schools, as issued bythe State Education Office and included in the2004 Budget Support Act for Fiscal Year 2005.

Resolution Period - Period after completion of theheadcount and file reviews during which principalswere provided an opportunity to resolve any out-standing issues.

STARS - Students Tracking and Reporting System.

Weekly Service Hours - The number of hours ofspecialized education provided to a student eachweek in accordance with the Individual EducationPlan (IEP).


- 20

05Pu

blic

Char

ter S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent C

ensu

s SY

200

4 -2

005

1. Summary of Audited Enrollment by SchoolType and Grade.

2. Audited Enrollment by School and Grade

3. Summary by School Type and Grade: AuditedEnrollment vs. Reported Enrollment

4. Summary by School and Grade: AuditedEnrollment vs. Reported Enrollment

5. Summary of Students for Whom Enrollmentand Residency were Verified By School Typeand Grade

6. Summary of Students for Whom Enrollmentand Residency were Verified By School andGrade

7. Summary of Students for Whom Enrollmentand Residency were Verified by School Typeand Grade: Audited Enrollment vs. ReportedEnrollment

8. Summary of Students for Whom Enrollmentand Residency were Verified by School andGrade: Audited Enrollment vs. ReportedEnrollment

9. Summary of Residency Verification by School

10. Summary of Students with IEPs, IncludingStudents for Whom Residency was notVerified

11. Summary of LEP/NEP Students, includingStudents for Whom Residency was notVerified

12. Summary of Students with IEPs for WhomEnrollment and Residency were Verified

13. Summary of LEP/NEP Students for whomEnrollment and Residency were Verified

ATTACHMENTS

Documents

Public Charter School Enrollment Booklet-2004-05 · services; and • 796 LEP/NEP students. Enrollment Our student count as of October 7, 2004, was 15,497 without regard to residency