2016 State Review Panel Recommendation Form

© 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Recommendation Form - 1

2016 State Review Panel Recommendation Form School/code & District/code: HOPE Online Learning Academy (Elementary)/3863 & Douglas County School

District/0900

State Review Panelists: Leah Saieg and Amber Whetstine

Recommendation Meeting Date: May 26, 2016

Panel’s Recommendation:

The State Review Panel recommends management by a public or private entity other than the district for HOPE Online Learning Academy (Elementary) based on an analysis of compiled data and documentation, as well as a site visit conducted on April 11-12, 2016.

Evidence and Rationale:

The State Review Panel recommends management by a public or private entity other than the district for HOPE Online Learning Academy (Elementary) because the school has been rated as Developing or Not Effective in the following areas: the leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results; the infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement; and, there is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner. HOPE has experienced a consistent decline in enrollment due to a decrease in learning centers since its inception. The

site visit revealed that the school has reduced the number of learning centers from 80 to 29. Last year, the school

experienced a drop in enrollment of 600 students, which reduced the student body by 25%.

Additionally, the instructional leadership at the learning center level continues to be a concern. Despite efforts to

increase the presence of HOPE leadership at the centers during the 2015-2016 school year, HOPE lacks evidence of

high quality instruction as observed during the site visit. Additionally, although there are teachers of record on staff

at HOPE, their primary role is to coach mentors, the primary adults who are providing instruction and overseeing

students. Further, although teachers reported that mentors are encouraged to become licensed teachers, only 16%

currently hold a Colorado teaching license, and, although several mentors indicated interest in pursuing a teaching

license, no one is currently enrolled in an alternative licensure program. Only 26% of learning center directors hold

teaching licenses. Learning center directors have authority over instruction and the hiring of mentors; HOPE staff do

not have direct authority over mentors. HOPE leaders were observed to have a strong influence, but based on the

current operational model, the HOPE staff do not have authority over the learning center staff ultimately responsible

for educating students on a daily basis.

HOPE staff have demonstrated an openness and capacity to work with external partners. For example, Regis

University is providing consultation on the implementation of English language instructional strategies in the

classroom. Based on their readiness to work with external partners, and the lack of instructional and operational

capacity, the State Review Panel believes that the school would benefit from an external management company to

assist with all areas of operational and instructional leadership and/or a reconstituted Board of Directors. The new

board members and/or management must represent expertise in each major area of operations and instruction at

HOPE, and demonstrate a capacity to provide increased accountability to the school leadership. The school is in need

of an outside partner(s) to hold them accountable to strategically distribute funds and resources to impact student

learning (i.e., salaries, infrastructure, programming, professional development).

© 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Recommendation Form - 2

The State Review Panel does not recommend closure. However, the State Review Panel found that there is not a

necessity that the school remain in operation to serve students. There are other online and brick and mortar

programs that are serving similar students and showing better results. Although the general sentiment from HOPE

staff is that the current students are disenfranchised from the traditional school system, the site visit and document

review provided no data to confirm this. The students who are served by HOPE are not in a remote community, and

majority of students live in geographic areas with a variety of other academic choices. According to an external review

of HOPE completed by Mass Insight, “Admin suggested that HOPE centers are particularly good for students who have

had a difficult time at a neighborhood school, but other than providing a safe and nurturing community the centers

offer little that is different than a district managed school...HOPE and Learning Center management lack a shared

definition of success.” The State Review Panel agrees with this statement. Although there is no evidence that the

school meets a unique need in the community, the State Review Panel does not recommend closure, because the

students could be served by the school if an effective management company and/or governing board was in place.

The State Review Panel does not recommend Innovation School Status because the school is currently a charter

school and therefore currently has access to the autonomies offered through Innovation status.

Finally, the State Review Panel does not recommend conversion to a charter school because the school is currently a

charter school. Although the school would benefit from increased accountability through a stronger governance

board, it is unclear that the current leadership would recruit/hire the most effective people to fulfill this need. It is

therefore recommended that that current leadership have limited involvement in the recruitment of a newly

appointed Board of Directors.

State Review Panel School Site Visit Feedback Form 2015-16

© 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Site Visit Feedback Form - 1

Purpose: The State Review Panel (SRP, or the Panel) was created by the Accountability Act of 2009 to provide a critical evaluation of the state’s lowest-

performing schools and districts’ plans for dramatic action and provide recommendations to the Commissioner and the State Board of Education. The

Panel’s work is informed by a review of documents (e.g., Unified Improvement Plan) and, in some cases, by a site visit. The site visit component was added

in 2013 to strengthen panelists’ understanding of the conditions in the schools and districts that are further along on the accountability clock. The

expectation is that the site visit will inform their recommendations to the Commissioner and the State Board of Education about potential actions at the

end of the accountability clock.

Prior to arriving on site, panelists conducted a document review aligned to the six key areas in the Accountability Act. The results of this review were shared

with all members of the site visit team and helped inform the team’s work during the visit. On site at the school/district, the site visit team used evidence

collected through classroom observations, focus groups, interviews, and document review to come to consensus on capacity levels in relation to the six key

areas. This report presents the school/district’s capacity levels in relation to the six key areas and a summary of evidence for each. Reviewer Name(s): Leah Saieg and Amber Whetstine Date: April 28, 2016

District Name/Code: Douglas County/0900 School Name/Code: HOPE Online Elementary School/3863

SRP Site Visit Summary (complete using ratings from the following pages) Capacity Level:

1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Developing

2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement. Not Effective

3. There is readiness and apparent capacity of personnel to plan effectively and lead the implementation of appropriate action to improve student academic performance.

Developing

4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner. Developing

5. There is likelihood of positive returns on state investments of assistance and support to improve the performance within the current management structure and staffing.

Not Effective

6. There is necessity that the school remain in operation to serve students. No



Capacity Level Rubric

The site visit team will use the following guidance to select a capacity level for each key question. Note that the quality standard for each capacity level is based

on the extent to which the site visit team finds multiple types and multiple sources of evidence related to the adoption and/or implementation of a practice or

system AND the extent to which the site visit team finds evidence of high levels of adoption and/or implementation of a practice or system.

Capacity Level Quality Standard

Not Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is not a practice or system that has been adopted and/or implemented at the school/district, or that the level of adoption/implementation does not improve the school/district’s effectiveness.

Developing Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that is developing at the school/district, but that it has not yet been implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school/district’s effectiveness, OR that the impact of the key action on the effectiveness of the school/district cannot yet be determined.

Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that has been adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school/district’s effectiveness.

Highly Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that has been fully adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has had a demonstrably positive impact on the school/district’s effectiveness.

Exte

nt

to w

hic

h S

PR

Tea

m F

ind

s M

ult

iple

Typ

es a

nd

Mu

ltip

le S

ou

rces

of

Evid

ence

Extent to which SPR Team Finds Evidence of High

Levels of Adoption and/or Implementation

Evidence Relating to Strength of

Adoption/Implementation

Key:

Not Effective:

Developing:

Effective:

Highly Effective



SRP Evaluation based on Site Visit

State Review Panel Criteria Claims & Evidence

1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

1.1 Leadership acts as a change agent to drive dramatic achievement gains.

Leadership communicates a relentless commitment to the school turnaround.

Leadership makes data-driven changes to the academic program and organization to promote dramatic achievement gains.

Leadership conveys clear expectations for performance for all stakeholders, including leadership, teachers, students, and partners.

School leaders distribute leadership responsibilities to appropriate individuals or groups.

Leadership is working to drive achievement gains.

The Board, HOPE leaders and teachers indicated that the recent (2015) restructuring of the leadership team has paved the way for remaining leaders to be more engaged with stakeholders. Now, all teachers and learning centers are divided regionally among four leaders who supervise and support the teachers assigned to their designated learning centers. These leaders also provide support to the learning center director.

Leaders, teachers and mentors reported that this year, all centers are utilizing offline curriculum (Core Knowledge Language Arts {CKLA}, EngageNY {ENY} math and ELA) based on feedback from external reviews.

The leadership team, teachers, mentors and directors all communicated that “shared agreements” implemented across centers have provided more consistency and more clear expectations across the organization (document review confirmed). They consistently described a process in which the school leaders and the advisory team (composed of various stakeholders) presented a draft of the document to the learning center directors (LCD) in part due to an organization-wide survey indicating common expectations were needed. The LCDs went back to their centers, provided the information to their staff and asked for feedback before the advisory made the most recent revisions. At the time of the site visit, the five shared agreements were: o Provide a full instructional day in a safe, caring learning

environment that meets the CDE requirements. o Deliver a consistent and rigorous, blended learning curriculum

for all students.

1.2 Leadership establishes clear, targeted and measurable goals designed to promote student performance.

Leadership communicates clear and focused goals that are understood by all staff.

Educators understand their responsibilities for achieving goals.

Leadership maintains school-wide focus on achieving established goals.

Leadership allocates resources in alignment with goals and critical needs.

Leadership has established systems to measure and report interim results toward goals.

1.3 Leadership analyzes data to identify and address high priority challenges, and to adjust implementation of the action plan.

Leadership communicates data trends and issues, ensures timely access to data, and models and facilitates data use.

Leadership openly shares results and holds staff accountable for results and effective use of data.

Leadership first concentrates on a limited number of priorities to achieve early, visible wins.

There is regular progress monitoring of performance and implementation data and, as appropriate, results lead to elimination of tactics that do not work.

Benchmarks are used to assess progress toward goals; goals are adjusted as progress is made.

Data on progress toward goals drives organizational and instructional decision making



1.4 Leadership establishes high expectations for student learning and behavior.

The school holds high expectations for academic learning.

Educators set high expectations for learning and clearly convey these to students.

Educators convey that students are responsible for raising their performance and encourage their participation in learning.

The school provides a safe environment to support students’ learning and, in the case of a virtual school, ensures that students’ interactions between and among themselves and school staff are respectful and supportive.

Leadership ensures that school’s physical environment is clean, orderly, and safe.

o Ensure that every child has qualified and caring staff that are teaching them.

o Create a collaborative community by including all staff, students and families in the decision-making process and shared responsibilities.

o Individualize instructional programming for the diverse learners in our classrooms.

When asked, the Board of Directors were not able to articulate goals or expectations of the HOPE Leadership Team. The site visit team asked for specific goals relating to academics and the board explained that reading and math scores needed to improve. They said that 50% of students “needed help” at the beginning of the year and now only 24% do.

Leadership is beginning to establish clear, targeted and measurable goals designed to promote student performance.

Teachers and mentors reported that their main goals include increasing attendance to 95%, increasing DIBELS scores to 68% of students at benchmark, and increasing Acuity scores to 40%. Additionally, 65% of students must demonstrate proficiency on each ENY end of unit assessment. However, when most center directors were asked about specific academic goals they were unable to articulate them, both in focus groups and on-site.

When asked, teachers and mentors were unable to articulate any systems used to measure and report interim results toward goals.

Leadership analyzes data to identify and address high priority challenges.

Teachers reported that data team meetings occur every six weeks and are led by HOPE leadership.

Directors reported that during each director meeting with HOPE staff they go over their learning center performance data and compare it to HOPE-wide data (DIBELS, Acuity and attendance) (A review of two LCD’s printout confirmed). However, when asked



about their role in adjusting instructional strategies or responding to shifts in achievement, most LCDs did not demonstrate depth of academic or instructional understanding to participate in this manner. For example, one LCD was asked about specific adjustments to elementary grade instruction if a student was not meeting grade level standards. In response, the LCD referred to the HOPE teacher as the primary source of insight on these matters.

One director reported that he/she asked a HOPE leader to come into his/her learning center to share the data with teachers and mentors to ensure they understood the significance of the student performance.

Although staff provide a safe environment for students, educators do not establish high expectations for student learning.

According to teachers and staff, the school provides a safe environment to support students with special needs; there are four mental health professionals, two licensed counselors and two social workers serving the HOPE community. The four mental health professionals are divided among geographic regions.

According to leaders and LCDs, HOPE leadership is not responsible for the physical environment or facilities within the learning centers. The learning center directors independently manage their lease and facilities. HOPE contracts with learning centers to provide a facility and mentors (review of HOPE sample contract confirmed). HOPE provides the teacher, curriculum, technology and technology support. The learning centers are funded $3700 per student and paid on a monthly basis based on the number of students currently enrolled at the LC.

During center site visits, facilities and classrooms were generally observed to be clean, orderly and safe.

The school does not hold high expectations for student learning. During center visits, although the ENY curriculum was used in instruction, mentors relied heavily on the use of worksheets, read aloud from the scripted notebook, asked low-level questions, and rarely provided opportunities for student choice. Additionally,



several mentors were observed missing opportunities to extend student learning through questioning, or to engage the majority of students in higher order thinking through challenging tasks. Several students were able to opt out of answering questions by the teacher or a peer.

Visitors observed transitions between subjects ranging from 5 to 20 minutes in some classrooms.





2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [ ] Developing [X] Not Effective

Considerations:

2.1: The district leads intentional, strategic efforts to ensure the effectiveness of the academic program and the sustainability of the organization.

The district/superintendent ensures ongoing leadership development for emerging and current school leaders with a focus on building leadership capacity to lead turnaround efforts and sustain improvement.

The district/superintendent provides adequate oversight in schools’ work to deliver the curriculum, monitors instruction on a regular basis, and provides adequate support and feedback to principals to improve instruction.

The district provides adequate systems by which to capture and store data, report it to schools, and make it accessible for instructional staff to utilize.

The district provides some capacity-building support of the academic

programming.

Within a focus group, the district representatives stated that the district approved a five-year renewal contract in 2013 re-authorizing HOPE as a charter school within Douglas County. At that point, the school was entering into the fourth year with a priority improvement or turnaround designation, according to the CDE SchoolView dashboard.

According to district representatives and school leaders, the district currently provides support with grant requests and management of grant funds (e.g., Title I, II and III, ELAT).

Per teachers, leaders and district representatives, the district provides professional development for special education staff, which is then brought back and shared with other HOPE mentors and teachers. The district also provides support and training on current strategies for teaching English language learners (ELL). According to CDE’s SchoolView dashboard, overall, the district currently enrolls 5% ELL students district-wide.

The district provides a teacher induction program for teachers and mentors with an initial teaching license. Of the teachers and mentors interviewed, one teacher indicated that he/she participated in the induction program.

Leaders, teachers and mentors reported that HOPE uses a variety of assessment and data management tools (GoogleDrive, Amplify, Core 5, Acuity) to store, report and share data with schools.

School leadership does not focus on recruiting and retaining talented educators who can drive dramatic student gains.

2.2: School leadership has a strong focus on recruiting and retaining talent; creates and implements systems to select, develop, and retain effective teachers and staff who can drive dramatic student gains; evaluates all staff; and dismisses those who do not meet professional standards and expectations.

Leadership has created and/or implemented an organizational and staffing structure that will drive dramatic student gains.

Leadership recruits and hires teachers with commitment to, and competence in, the school’s philosophy, design, and instructional framework (e.g., trained and experienced with curriculum, certified/licensed to teach, qualified to teach subject area).

Trained mentors provide beginning teachers with sustained, job-embedded induction.

Leadership ensures the evaluation of all staff, and dismisses those who do not meet standards and expectations.

Leadership provides teachers with active, intense, and sustained professional development (PD), including guidance on data analysis and instructional practice, aligned to school improvement efforts. o PD is informed by ongoing analysis of student performance,

instructional data, and educators’ learning needs. o PD requires teachers to demonstrate their learned

competency in a tangible and assessable way. o PD engages teachers in active learning (e.g., leading

instruction, discussing with colleagues, observing others, developing assessments), & provides follow-up sessions and ongoing support for teachers’ continued learning.

o The quality of professional development delivery is regularly monitored, evaluated, and improved.



2.3: School leadership ensures that the school has sound financial and operational systems and processes

School leadership ensures that the organizational structure supports essential school functions, and that roles and responsibilities of all individuals at the school are clear.

School leadership has established effective means of communicating with school staff.

School leadership ensures that the school meets all compliance requirements and deadlines set by the state, including the submission of school improvement plans, financial statements, school audit, calendar, and student attendance.

School leadership effectively manages the school budget and cash flow, and there is a plan for long-term financial sustainability.

The school leadership effectively manages operations (e.g., food services, transportation, school facilities).

Teachers and mentors reported that teachers serve as coaches to provide support to mentors (who serve as the primary instructor). Most teachers are licensed; however, 84% of mentors are not (document review confirmed).

Mentors and teachers reported receiving job-embedded coaching and training (modeling and feedback) from HOPE leaders and teachers.

Teachers communicated that HOPE is not responsible for hiring learning center mentors or directors, but is responsible for hiring teachers.

Mentors reported receiving professional development formally (4 times per year) and additional support which varied by learning center.

Leaders reported that teachers and mentors are paid a small stipend to attend PLCs through Title II funds. The funds are mentioned below re: district funding.

The Board, directors and leaders reported that HOPE Leadership does not hire, evaluate or dismiss staff who do not meet professional standards, due to the unique structure of the school (mentors are hired by and report to the center directors).

Although teachers reported that mentors are encouraged to become licensed teachers, only 16% currently hold a CO teaching license and although several mentors indicated interest in pursuing a teaching license no one is currently enrolled in an alternative licensure program. Several stakeholder groups referenced the unique model, and the value someone with HOPE experience can add as a teacher if they advance from mentor to teacher during their employment within the organization.

School leaders reported that 84% of learning center directors have earned an associate’s or bachelor’s degree, and that 26% of LCDs hold a CO teaching license.

School leadership has some financial and operational systems and processes. Board members, directors and leaders reported the loss of two

learning centers (approximately 600 students) within the last year.

2.4: School leadership provides effective instructional leadership.

School leaders ensure that the school implements a coherent, comprehensive, and aligned curriculum. o School leaders ensure that curriculum, instruction, and

assessments are aligned with state standards, aligned with each other, & coordinated both within & across grade levels.

o School leaders ensure that instructional materials are selected and/or developed in accordance with a school-wide instructional framework and aligned with established curriculum standards.

o School leaders ensure the curriculum is periodically reviewed and revisions are made accordingly.

School leaders provide meaningful feedback on teachers’ instructional planning and practice. o Leaders regularly provide meaningful feedback on

instructional planning. o Leaders regularly observe instruction and provide

meaningful, timely feedback that helps teachers improve their practice.

School leaders provide conditions that support a school-wide data culture. o Teachers have easy access to varied, current, and accurate

student and instructional data. o Teachers are provided time to collect, enter, analyze, &

represent student data & use tools to help act on results. o School leaders ensure that all teachers receive professional

development in data use (e.g., how to access, read, and interpret a range of data reports; frame questions for inquiry; analyze data, assessment literacy, use data tools and resources).



2.5: The school provides high quality instruction.

Classroom interactions and organization ensure a classroom climate conducive to learning.

Classroom instruction is intentional, engaging, and challenging for all students.

The school identifies and supports special education students, English language learners, and students who are struggling or at risk.

Stakeholders stated that learning centers were “poached” by other online platforms, based on potential financial gain. Consequently, a restructuring of leadership has taken place due to the loss of PPR, which included the dismissal of the Chief Academic Officer and Chief Financial Officer.

Leaders explained that HOPE is responsible for managing admissions and coordinating food service for learning centers, but learning center facilities and transportation needs are overseen by learning center staff. During site visits, learning center directors reported that they are responsible for financial management of the site, including rent and payroll.

Stakeholders reported that HOPE staff are supportive when LC staff need support in negotiating contracts or solving problems with their facilities such as lease agreements, internet or transportation services.

The long-term financial sustainability of HOPE was not clear; leaders and board members reported that over the course of HOPE’s existence it has reduced the number of learning centers from 80 to 29, and cited that the recent drop in enrollment of 600 students last year reduced the student body by 25%.

School leadership is beginning to provide effective instructional leadership.

HOPE leaders implemented a comprehensive curriculum across the elementary (Reading AtoZ, Lexia, DreamBox, EngageNY and CKLA) and Middle School (EngageNY, Edgenuity) (document review confirmed these resources are currently employed).

Leaders and teachers reported that due to the recent restructure, HOPE leaders are on-site at learning centers more often this year to monitor the implementation of the curriculum.

According to teachers, leaders and LCDs, HOPE leaders provide professional development, on-going feedback to teachers and directors; each leader is responsible for coaching a specific group of teachers and directors, and teachers are responsible for coaching mentors.



The site visit team observed, and teachers reported, that leaders facilitate the collection of data through the use of a googledoc that is populated by instructional staff with assessment data such as DIBELS.

Mentors reported that observations of their instructional practices vary by learning center (daily to once a week) and teacher/mentor meetings occur at least weekly.

The Board, leaders, teachers and directors reported that the CEO is visible in the learning centers, along with the leadership team, to provide direct feedback and support.

The school does not consistently provide high quality instruction.

During classroom visits, mentors were observed using the EngageNY, Edgenuity, CKLA, A-Z Learning, Lexia and BrainWise Character Education Curriculum.

Many of the mentors relied on worksheets and whole group instruction delivery model, as observed during site visits. The level of rigor of questions varied between mentors when they were observed providing instruction (as opposed to observations of online modules). Additionally, all students were not held accountable to completing challenging tasks or persevering to complete a task.

When observed, HOPE teachers were seen working one-on-one or with small intervention groups of students using BURST curriculum, which included some multi-sensory activities.

Although students were observed to be polite and compliant, some were generally not engaged in learning (students were observed with heads down on the table, tipping and climbing in chairs, playing with each other’s hair, using online time to browse non-curricular websites).

Language development strategies were observed in some classrooms (word walls, vocabulary definitions defined).

Teachers reported that they are required to complete specific forms to refer a student through the MTSS process. One person in the special education department checks to ensure all interventions have been implemented with fidelity, before initiating testing for special education services. One teacher mentioned that there are more



“initial evaluations” compared to years past. When asked, teachers could not communicate any changes to instruction or curriculum for students on IEPs.

Leaders, teachers and specialists indicated that HOPE works with the district to provide special education services and staffs specialists such as reading interventionists and ELD support.

Leaders indicated that of the nearly 2500 applications they received from students last year, 74 were declined overall. Student services reviewed 400 of these applications and declined 20 based on the level of identified student needs and the services that HOPE said they were able to provide.





3. There is readiness and apparent capacity of personnel to plan effectively and lead the implementation of appropriate action to improve student academic performance. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

3.1: Educators’ mindsets and beliefs reflect shared commitments to students’ learning.

Educators convey shared vision and values about teaching and learning and reference these to guide their instructional decision making.

Educators convey a shared commitment to the learning of all students in the school.

Educators convey a belief that students’ learning is their collective responsibility, regardless of students’ personal or home situations.

Educators convey that it is important not to give up on any students, even if it appears that they do not want to learn.

Educators convey commitment to, and hold each other accountable for, collaboratively established improvement goals and tasks.

Educators’ mindsets and beliefs do not yet reflect shared commitments to students’ learning.

Leaders, directors and board members reported that HOPE’s student performance levels are low due to inadequate instruction at the “sending” schools, and the challenges of meeting the needs of ELL students.

Leaders and teachers reported that they specifically seek to support a student population which has been unsuccessful in a traditional school model. They stated a collective belief that the HOPE model will facilitate access to learning for these students; since the learning centers are anchored within communities across Colorado, transient students can access one even when they move. However, information was not provided regarding the number of students who currently take advantage of this aspect of their model.

Teachers and mentors shared that students have multiple adults who can support them academically or behaviorally; there are several mentors, a teacher and the director at each center to support students.

Leaders communicated a belief that all students at HOPE should be making adequate academic gains. When discussing the option of pursuing AEC status, leadership explained that AEC qualifiers should be different at elementary, middle and high school level. AEC for elementary students should support them around their social emotional needs, and ultimately these students should be going to good high schools and colleges.

3.2: The school has established conditions that support educators’ learning culture.

Communications among all stakeholder groups are constructive, supportive and respectful.

Communications between leadership and staff are fluid, frequent, and open.

School leaders model and convey well-defined beliefs about teaching and learning, and convey value for innovation, learning from mistakes, and risk-taking.

School leaders ensure that staff and team meeting discussions are structured and facilitated to support the staff’s reflective dialogue around data and instruction (e.g., attend to explicit group norms, use protocols).

School leaders provide guidance to teacher teams (e.g., help to establish meeting routines; model and promote use of discussion protocols; ensure systematic monitoring of student progress; create focus on linking results to instruction) and ensures that teachers utilize tools and time well.

School leaders participate in formal and informal professional learning, including their own leadership development about how to improve curriculum and instruction in a leadership context (i.e., elementary or secondary; high- or low-poverty; large or small schools).



3.3: Educators collaborate regularly to learn about effective instruction and students’ progress.

Educators meet frequently, during regularly scheduled, uninterrupted times (e.g., staff, department, grade level meeting times) to collaborate, establish improvement goals, and make data-informed instructional decisions.

Educators‘ collaborative meetings have a clear and persistent focus on improving student learning and achievement.

Educators describe sharing knowledge and expertise among colleagues as essential collaborative activity for job success.

Teachers are willing to talk about their own instructional practice, to actively pursue and accept feedback from colleagues, and to try new teaching strategies.

The school has created a performance-driven classroom culture in which teachers effectively use data to make decisions about daily instruction and the organization of students.

During the site visit, a director stated that students are promoted to the next grade-level regardless of academic performance or progression because it would be too hard emotionally to keep them at the grade level they were achieving within (e.g., third grader who demonstrated proficiency at kindergarten level was continually promoted).

The school has established conditions that support educators’ learning culture.

Teachers reported that HOPE leadership meets with them regularly to provide feedback and review data. Teachers can also request that leadership joins the teacher at a learning center to communicate with LCDs when they are responding to and acting upon teacher feedback.

The Board, HOPE leaders and teachers all described a collaborative partnership between HOPE and learning centers as it related to hiring decisions and shared responsibilities between directors and HOPE leaders.

Teachers and mentors reported formal, weekly meetings with all learning center staff and referenced informal access to the centers and HOPE staff whenever they needed anything.

School leaders explained the primary source of their own professional development is attending conferences related to blended learning or training along with teachers provided by curriculum companies (e.g., Amplify, CBOL).

Teachers and mentors reported, and observation confirmed, that teachers model instruction for mentors.

Educators collaborate regularly to learn about instruction and students’ progress.

Teachers and mentors reported that they informally communicate daily regarding curriculum, instruction and student needs.

3.4: Staff members demonstrate the capacity to implement appropriate action to support student achievement and school improvement.

Teachers use results from interim or summative assessments to make adjustments to the organization of students in the classroom, pace of instruction, or content being taught.

Teachers use results from interim or summative assessments to identify students in need of remediation or acceleration, and assign students to appropriate supports.

Qualified staff deliver instruction and provide the necessary supports for ELL students or students with special needs.

Leaders involve faculty and staff in planning and implementation of school policies.

Leaders provide opportunities for faculty and staff to make or provide input on important decisions.

3.5: The school engages the community and families in support of students’ learning school improvement efforts.

The school includes parents/guardians in cultivating a culture of high expectations for students’ learning and their consistent support of students’ efforts.

The school invites family participation in school activities (e.g., volunteering in classrooms or on committees; attendance at performances, sports events, organizational meetings) and regularly solicits their input.

The school offers workshops and other opportunities for parents/guardians to learn about home practices that support student learning.

Educators communicate with parents/guardians about instructional programs and students’ progress.



Teachers and mentors stated that they attend professional development formally on a quarterly basis, and receive ongoing embedded PD through coaching and modeling.

Mentors reported sharing their experience in implementing curriculum with HOPE staff in hopes of informing future revisions to the curriculum. Additionally, they mentioned that PLC’s are often a forum to share best practices with one another (e.g., model anchor charts).

Directors, teachers and mentors communicated that data walks occur every six weeks. Teachers and mentors share student achievement goals that are aligned with the goals of the center and school, and discuss progress toward goal attainment.

Staff members do not consistently demonstrate the capacity to implement appropriate action to support student achievement and school improvement.

Mentors reported adjusting groups of students based on Acuity data, and from informal assessment of students. Students were observed to be grouped based on ability level during the site visits. However, the pace of instruction was slow for all students in most offline instruction.

Teachers, mentors and specialists reported that results from assessments (DIBELS, End of Unit and Acuity) are used to identify students for remediation or RTI.

According to teachers and leaders, all special education providers hold Colorado teaching licenses. HOPE leaders reported that they are working to endorse all teachers in Culturally & Linguistically Diverse Education (CLD).

As stated previously, mentors are the primary instructors in all classrooms, and 84% do not hold a Colorado teaching license.

Teachers and mentors reported that they have input into school-wide decisions (e.g., adjusting the math curriculum, developing common agreements).

During an observation, one student who had recently moved from Mexico, and had limited English language proficiency, was offered a



printout of the text being used in class in Spanish. However, the assignment that all students were asked to complete was in English and provided to the student without language modification or additional support.

The school engages the community and some families in support of students’ learning school improvement efforts.

Leaders, teachers, mentors and LCDs stated that HOPE sponsors a variety of parent engagement events including literacy and math nights and parent appreciation breakfasts. A cultural night was held in conjunction with student conferences to increase parent participation.

Leaders reported that HOPE’s model is deliberately community-based and aimed to empower local community leaders in support of students within their neighborhoods. LCDs reported, and observation confirmed that learning center staff believe the students enrolled at their learning centers are “their kids”.

During the site visit, directors reported that they rely on “word of mouth” between families to recruit future students.





4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

4.1: The school collaborates effectively with existing external partners.

The school seeks expertise from external partners, as appropriate (i.e., for professional development, direct support for students).

The school ensures that roles and responsibilities of existing partners are clear.

There are designated school personnel to coordinate and manage partnerships.

The school collaborates effectively with existing external partners.

According to leaders and external partners, Regis University is providing consultation on the implementation of EL strategies in the classroom. Per the external partner, classroom observations have been conducted and feedback provided to teachers and mentors.

Leaders reported, and a review of a sample contract confirmed, that HOPE requires a contractual agreement with all learning centers that is auto-renewed annually for up to 5 years, with an option for annual renegotiation from either party.

Leaders and district representatives reported that HOPE staff has an internal Title I Coordinator who is designated to coordinate and manage partnerships and grants.

The school is beginning to leverage existing partnerships to support of student learning.

Leaders and teachers communicated that professional development is provided by an external resource to support teachers and mentors to incorporate EL strategies in classroom instruction. PD was observed on site; the facilitator taught mentors and teachers how to use sentence stems and kinesthetic learning (e.g. cluster shown with hands).

Leaders reported, and the consultant confirmed, that a consultant (recently retired from the Douglas County School District) was hired to support the teacher quality pipeline, including licensure support for current mentors who are not licensed teachers.

Leaders reported that they participate in International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNacol), Conference on Blended and Online Learning (CBOL) and reach out to other districts to learn about best-practices in blended and online learning.

4.2: The school leverages existing partnerships to support of student learning.

The school maximizes existing partners’ efforts in support of improvement efforts.

All externally provided professional development is aligned to improvement efforts.

4.3: Leadership is responsive to feedback.

Leadership seeks feedback on improvement plans.

Leadership seeks feedback from key stakeholders

Leadership integrates feedback into future improvement efforts.



Leadership is responsive to some feedback.

The Board and leadership team explained that two external reviews (Mass Insight and CDE State Review Panel) informed changes which have taken place within the last year (e.g., advisory team creation and increased HOPE leadership presence at learning centers).

HOPE leaders provided the site visit team copies of a parent survey which was implemented to solicit input (document review confirmed). However, the number of parents who completed the survey was not representative of a majority of the student body.





5. There is likelihood of positive returns on state investments of assistance and support to improve the performance within the current management structure and staffing. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [ ] Developing [X] Not Effective

Considerations:

5.1: Leadership monitors the return on investment of specific improvement initiatives, and uses that data to inform decision-making.

Leadership identifies turnaround strategies and implements programs/initiatives designed to improve student performance.

Leadership assesses the cost and impact (effect on student achievement and number of students served) of each program/initiative to determine its academic return on investment.

Leadership makes decisions regarding continuation or discontinuation of programs/initiatives based on this analysis.

Leadership establishes systems and structures to support regular and ongoing monitoring.

Leadership is making some effort to monitor the return on investment of specific improvement initiatives, and uses that data to inform decision-making.

Leaders and learning center directors explained that the HOPE leadership team evaluates the progress and growth of students at learning centers, and counsels or eliminates partnerships with learning centers that are not successful. However, the most recent partnership that was dissolved was not due to student performance but the learning center’s decision to work with another online vendor. Additionally, the current academic performance of learning centers does not indicate that this practice is executed with fidelity.

All stakeholders reported that a monthly data walk protocol is used to monitor academic and non-academic goals at each learning center. The data is largely provided by HOPE leadership, but discussed at each learning center during staff meetings with learning center directors, mentors and sometimes HOPE teachers. With student performance data from online curriculum, the staff discuss low performing students and possible interventions for these students.

Leadership has not demonstrated an ability to produce positive returns on state investment and use resources effectively.

Teachers, mentors and leaders reported that teachers and mentors receive professional development aligned with school goals (e.g., EL strategies, literacy) and communicate that they are implementing new strategies in their classrooms (sentence stems, and turn talk, vocab walls) as a result of the training.

District representatives and school leaders outlined additional resources that are provided to HOPE, and aligned to school goals. For

5.2: Leadership has demonstrated an ability to produce positive returns on state investment and uses resources effectively.

Programs and initiatives are designed to support turnaround efforts and have demonstrated results.

Leadership seeks resources aligned to its improvement efforts and programs/initiatives with high academic return on investment.

Any additional resources received (i.e., specialized grant funding) are aligned, strategic, and showing evidence of results.

Leadership treats resources flexibly, and implements focused improvement efforts with a focus on early wins.

5.3: Students demonstrate academic progress over time.

Students demonstrate progress on internal measures linked with the school’s promotion or exit standards.

The performance of student subgroups on state assessments demonstrates that the school is making progress toward eliminating achievement gaps.

Students meet proficiency and grade-level targets across subjects and grade levels on norm-referenced benchmark assessments and state assessments.

Matched cohorts of students who score proficient or advanced (or equivalent) on state assessments maintain or improve performance levels across continuous enrollment years.



The percentage of all students performing at proficient or advanced (or equivalent) on state assessments increases over time.

Students demonstrate academic growth as measured by value-added or state growth percentile measures.

Students demonstrate progress toward attaining expected knowledge and skills as measured by interim assessments.

example, they receive Title I, II and III grant funds and use the dollars toward school goals (e.g., teacher and mentor PLCs, EL strategy training). Teachers and mentors also receive a stipend for attending PLCs. Additionally, the school received the ELAT and Reading Ignite grants, and used the funds to support intensive literacy intervention. A review of the Amplify DIBELS Next Report indicates that the ELAT Grant support is exhibiting early wins in grades K-3.

Leaders reported that their approach to grant funds are guided by a mindset of maximizing impact with the limited dollars available, and that they regularly re-evaluate the use of resources to be most effective.

As illustrated by the following section, although resources are directed strategically, the investments have not resulted in significant achievement gains.

Students in K-3 grades demonstrate slight academic progress over time on some measures.

According to the Early Literacy Assessment Tool (ELAT) report provided by CDE, grades K-3 made “well above average progress” as measured by the DIBELS assessment over the course of the current school year, and in comparison to other ELAT granted schools.

The School Performance Framework and School Percentile Rank Report indicate that students are not making progress over time.

The School Percentile Rank Report compares changes in a school or district's relative performance across the transition from TCAP to CMAS-PARCC, and shows how the mean scale scores for an individual school or district compare to the means of all other schools in the state at a particular level: according to this report, HOPE elementary school increased in their state rank from 3 to 4% in ELA-Reading, 1 to 4% in ELA Writing and from 1 to 5% in Math. The disaggregated data on this report does not compare student subgroups to one another and is therefore not included in this report. Although this data represents a slight improvement, the gains are not significant enough to indicate that students do or will achieve grade-level standards.



Students identified as Hispanic and ELL demonstrate the greatest achievement gaps and growth gaps according to the UIP. Teachers and mentors explained that there have been targeted supports for this subgroup, but neither stakeholder group could articulate growth or specific progress monitoring for these particular students as a result of the ELD professional development or additional reading specialists hired.





6. There is necessity that the school remain in operation to serve students. [ ] Yes [X] No

Considerations:

6.1: The school is mission-driven and its mission and vision meet a unique need.

All stakeholders share an understanding of, and commitment to, the mission and vision.

School programs reflect the mission and vision.

The mission and vision guide decisions about teaching and learning.

The mission and vision meet the needs of an identified student population.

School programs do not reflect the mission.

All stakeholders referenced four pillars that guide HOPE; attendance, achievement, affiliation and aspiration. Evidence of the attendance goal through grade level and schoolwide attendance charts and implementation of sports and clubs was observed during site visits.

Stakeholders did not articulate a consistent mission or vision for HOPE. Some stakeholders said their mission was to graduate kids and others stated the mission was to improve test scores. Some stakeholders referenced a mission to support students who weren’t successful in traditional brick and mortar schools.

As mentioned previously, leaders stated that their learning centers are intentionally community based, empowered and led, and this is central to their model. However, learning center directors stated that due to available facility space or lease disputes they have relocated - sometimes more than once - to a location several miles away. Additionally, several directors explained that they provide transportation services for students who live up to 20 miles from the learning center, which in turn positively impacts student attendance.

Several stakeholder groups expressed a belief that their current model and implementation is unlike any other and therefore best practices are difficult to find and replicate. However, through observation, the primary differentiator of the HOPE model is the community-based learning center. Blended learning, as it is implemented at HOPE, is similar to approaches implemented throughout Colorado brick and mortar schools.

There are other viable options for enrolled students that could lead to better outcomes.

6.2 There are no other viable options for enrolled students that will likely lead to better outcomes.

There are limited other school options available (e.g., online, charter, district).

The school serves an isolated and/or remote community.

Closure would have a significant negative impact on the community.

Comparison schools do not promote better student outcomes.



Mentors, teachers, leaders and board representatives explained that the students served at HOPE Learning Centers have not been successful at their neighborhood schools because of bullying, behavior or lack of English language acquisition support; information they gained through conversations with students and outlined in an annual parent survey (document review confirmed). With this in mind, they believe school closure would have a negative impact on their current student population. During classroom visits, several students reported that they thought HOPE was the only school that would enroll them due to their history of suspensions at previous schools.

The students who are served by HOPE are not in a remote community, and the majority of students live in geographic areas with a variety of other academic choices. According to an external review of HOPE completed by Mass Insight, “Admin suggested that HOPE centers are particularly good for students who have had a difficult time at a neighborhood school, but other than providing a safe and nurturing community the centers offer little that is different than a district managed school...HOPE and Learning Center management lack a shared definition of success.”

State Review Panel School Document Review

Feedback Form 2015-16

© 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Document Review Feedback Form - 1

Purpose: To critically evaluate the district’s plan (i.e., Unified Improvement Plan) and performance. This report will be used as one element of a body of evidence to inform actions that may be undertaken by the Commissioner of Education and the State Board of Education.

Reviewer Names: Leah Saieg and Amber Whetstine Date: Friday, April 1, 2016 Form: [ ] Individual [ X ] Consensus

District Name/Code: Douglas County School District/0900 School Name/Code: HOPE Online Learning Academy (Elementary)/3863

SRP Summary (complete using ratings from the following worksheets) Capacity Level:

1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Developing

2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement. Developing


Developing

4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with, and benefit from, the assistance provided by an external partner. Developing


Developing

6. There is necessity that the school remain in operation to serve students. No

Based on your professional judgment, will the plan result in dramatic enough change to pull the school/district off the accountability clock if it is implemented as written?

[X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Not sure, more information is needed. Specify the additional information required.

Based on your professional judgment, what is your overall level of concern regarding this school/district’s ability to significantly improve results?

Level of Concern: [ ] High [ ] Moderate [ ] Low [X] Cannot determine. Specify the additional information required.

Additional information regarding the progress to date of the implementation of strategies described, as well as the fidelity and impact they’ve had on students. Although indicated as a priority, there is limited evidence of an aligned curriculum being utilized across learning centers. Any evidence consistency between learning centers on all strategies outlined would be helpful.




Overall Comments:

HOPE Leadership, teachers and learning center staff have developed plans to impact academic improvement in the areas of English language acquisition and math instruction. Additionally, four major improvement strategies have been identified after external reviews were conducted by the State Review Panel and Mass Insight in 2015: Create a system of accountability across all Learning Centers to ensure and reinforce a systemic educational program for all students, enhance teacher and mentor quality through professional development, strengthen fidelity of implementation of the Core Knowledge Language Arts and Engage NY English Language Arts (ELA) and math curriculums, and increase home/school partnership and communications. Additionally, with high-mobility rates and an increasing population of English language learners, both factors correlated to lower performance on standardized tests, the school’s Root Cause Analysis and Major Improvement Strategies don’t clearly address this concern.

Although the current UIP appears to continue major improvement strategies from last year there is no indication that those strategies have been successful in improving student performance. For this reason, we are not certain the strategies and overall plan is able to create the dramatic change needed to move the school network off of the accountability clock.

Areas that should be explored more deeply through an on-site visit:

Doc Review: o Percentile Rank Report. o Agendas and progress monitoring from data teams, data walks and PLC’s o Mass Insight “School Readiness Assessment”? o Docs indicating whether the school meets all state compliance requirements: financial statements, audit, calendar, and attendance o Long-term financial sustainability: school budget and cash flow o Docs indicating whether the school meets operation requirements: food services, transportation, school facilities.

What are the “major changes” that were made to the HOPE administration in 2015-2016?

Progress monitoring data on each action step (i.e., How many walkthroughs have been conducted, how many videos are currently produced, view agenda from UIP committee six-week meetings, etc.).

How are educators held accountable when expectations for curricular implementation are not met?

How does the school ensure high quality instruction is delivered at each learning center?

Title 1 funding provided funds to hire additional reading teachers and paras – what was the “measurable impact on DIBELS scores and decrease number of students needing READ Plans?” p 10 UIP

What was the impact of Turnaround Support Manager (see UIP p10 – May 2015 Turnaround Network application)

Who is the “recognized educational researcher” hired to analyze data for elementary (p11)?




Capacity Level Rubric

The site visit team will use the following guidance to select a capacity level for each key question. Note that the quality standard for each capacity level is based on

the extent to which the site visit team finds multiple types and multiple sources of evidence related to the adoption and/or implementation of a practice or system

AND the extent to which the site visit team finds evidence of high levels of adoption and/or implementation of a practice or system.

Capacity Level Quality Standard

Not Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is not a practice or system that has been adopted and/or implemented at the school/district, or that the level of adoption/implementation does not improve the school/district’s effectiveness.

Developing Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that is developing at the school/district, but that it has not yet been implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school/district’s effectiveness, OR that the impact of the key action on the effectiveness of the school/district cannot yet be determined.

Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that has been adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school/district’s effectiveness.

Highly Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that has been fully adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has had a demonstrably positive impact on the school/district’s effectiveness.

Evidence Relating to Strength of

Adoption/Implementation

Key:

Not Effective:

Developing:

Effective:

Highly Effective

Exte

nt

to w

hic

h S

PR

Tea

m F

ind

s M

ult

iple

Typ

es a

nd

Mu

ltip

le S

ou

rces

of

Evid

ence

Extent to which SPR Team Finds Evidence of High

Levels of Adoption and/or Implementation




SRP Evaluation Based on Unified Improvement Plan and Other Available Documents

1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results.

Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective [ ] Unable to Assess

State Review Panel Criteria Look-Fors Evidence

1.1 Leadership acts as a change agent to drive dramatic achievement gains.

Leadership communicates a relentless commitment to the school turnaround.

Leadership makes data-driven changes to the academic program and organization to promote dramatic achievement gains.

Leadership conveys clear expectations for performance for all stakeholders, including leadership, teachers, students, and partners.

School leaders distribute leadership responsibilities to appropriate individuals or groups.

Evidence of leadership driving impactful change. (Major Imp. Strategies & Action Plan)

The degree to which leadership has been continuous over time or change(s) in leadership utilized to activate change. (see HR data)

Although the specific administrative changes were not provided, the UIP stated that the school leadership utilized feedback from the State Review Panel and an outside assessment by Mass insight to initiate “major changes” to the HOPE administration team for the 2015-16 school year. The results included staff participation in redesigning the system of support, coaching and accountability of Learning Center (LC) directors and HOPE teachers.

According to the Executive Summary, Leadership allocated resources in alignment with goals and needs of the learning centers; Colorado Department of Education (CDE) approved a pilot of Title I funding that allowed HOPE to increase the level of reading intervention and HOPE hired additional reading teachers and paraprofessional interventionists.

According to the Major Improvement Strategies section, leadership adopted a number of strategies that were identified by the Educational Resource Partners and Partners in Education Center: 1) ensuring access to aligned curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development; 2) restructuring teaching to foster individual and team effectiveness and professional growth; 3) supporting schools (centers) in organizing talent, time, and money to maximize learning; 4) building school and center leader capacity; 5) redesigning central roles for empowerment, accountability, and efficiency; and, 6) partnering with families and communities.

The UIP states that assessments are used to monitor student progress, including DIBELS, BURST, ACUITY, Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) and Engage NY.

1.2 Leadership establishes clear, targeted and measurable goals designed to promote student performance.

Leadership communicates clear and focused goals that are understood by all staff.

Educators understand their responsibilities for achieving goals.

Leadership maintains school-wide focus on achieving established goals.

Leadership allocates resources in alignment with goals and critical needs.

Leadership has established systems to measure and report interim results toward goals.

High, but realistic goals are set.

Benchmarks are identified throughout the year.

Plan and narrative convey a sense of urgency.

Clear roles and ownership of action steps are identified.




1.3 Leadership analyzes data to identify and address high priority challenges, and to adjust implementation of the action plan.

Leadership communicates data trends and issues, ensures timely access to data, and models and facilitates data use.

Leadership openly shares results and holds staff accountable for results and effective use of data.

Leadership first concentrates on a limited number of priorities to achieve early, visible wins.

There is regular progress monitoring of performance and implementation data and, as appropriate, results lead to elimination of tactics that do not work.

Benchmarks are used to assess progress toward goals; goals are adjusted as progress is made.

Data on progress toward goals drives organizational and instructional decision making

Evidence that goals are based on data re: past performance. (see data analysis/narrative)

Focus on a limited number of changes. (see Priority Perf. Challenges)

Resources are allocated for new programs or identified action steps.

Structures for sharing and using data are present. (see Action Plan)

Data walks have been identified as an action step within the UIP, however, it is unclear how often these are occurring at each LC and who is included in the walks.

The school provides counselors and mental health staff to support students’ individual needs and learning centers are staffed with mentors to provide student support.

There was not enough information to assess whether the school provides a safe environment to support students’ learning and to ensure that students’ interactions between and among themselves and school staff are respectful and supportive. The UIP states that students receive on and off-line instruction at various learning centers (LCs).

Performance targets outlined in the UIP demonstrate low expectations for students; Grades 3-5 students will score in the 10th percentile on the 2016 CMAS math assessment, 15th percentile on the 2017 math assessment. Additionally, the 2016 and 2017 ELA CMAS goals do not increase over time; both goals are: grade 3-5 students will score in the 15th percentile.

1.4 Leadership establishes high expectations for student learning and behavior.

The school holds high expectations for academic learning.

Educators set high expectations for learning and clearly convey these to students.

Educators convey that students are responsible for raising their performance and encourage their participation in learning.

The school provides a safe environment to support students’ learning and, in the case of a virtual school, ensures that students’ interactions between and among themselves and school staff are respectful and supportive.

Leadership ensures that school’s physical environment is clean, orderly, and safe.

Elements of climate and culture are identified and addressed in the plan(s). (see Data Narrative, Root Cause Analysis, Action Plan, TELL data)




2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school/district improvement.



2.1: The district leads intentional, strategic efforts to ensure the effectiveness of the academic program and the sustainability of the organization.

The district/superintendent ensures ongoing leadership development for emerging and current school leaders with a focus on building leadership capacity to lead turnaround efforts and sustain improvement.

The district/superintendent provides adequate oversight in schools’ work to deliver the curriculum, monitors instruction on a regular basis, and provides adequate support and feedback to principals to improve instruction.

The district provides adequate systems by which to capture and store data, report it to schools, and make it accessible for instructional staff to utilize.

Evidence of district involvement. (see

Data Narrative, Action Plan)

As outlined in the Major Improvement Strategy #2, the district provided the school additional Title II funds and consultation to coach/monitor mentors in curriculum implementation and instructional practices.

According to page 6 of the UIP, the school is participating in the CDE School Improvement Support grant (SIS) and Early Literacy Assessment Tool Project grant to support improvement efforts.

The UIP reflects an effort by school leadership to focus on building leadership capacity to lead turnaround efforts and sustain improvement. For example, a group comprised of HOPE Advisory Committee, teachers and Learning Center Directors meets every six weeks to review progress toward eliminating gaps in achievement as outlined by the root cause analysis, and providing ongoing feedback and direction to the HOPE administrative team.

The school’s UIP includes a strategy which provides high quality, job embedded professional development and coaching aligned with the instructional program, collaboratively developed and designed with all instructional staff to ensure each is equipped with the content knowledge and pedagogical strategies to appropriately scaffold instruction. The school has also created an induction program to better support licensed mentors, however, data does not yet indicate that teachers are implementing the strategies learned in PD consistently in instruction.

The UIP specifies that HOPE has implemented Engage NY core ELA and Math curricula which is delivered on and off-line, and is aligned with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

2.2: School leadership has a strong focus on recruiting and retaining talent; creates and implements systems to select, develop, and retain effective teachers and staff who can drive dramatic student gains; evaluates all staff; and dismisses those who do not meet professional standards and expectations.

Leadership has created and/or implemented an organizational and staffing structure that will drive dramatic student gains.

Leadership recruits and hires teachers with commitment to, and competence in, the school’s philosophy, design, and instructional framework (e.g., trained and experienced with curriculum, certified/licensed to teach, qualified in subject area).

Trained mentors provide beginning teachers with sustained, job-embedded induction.

Leadership ensures the evaluation of all staff, and dismisses those who do not meet standards and expectations.

Leadership provides teachers with active, intense, and sustained professional development (PD), including guidance on data analysis and instructional practice, aligned to school improvement efforts. o PD is informed by ongoing analysis of student

performance, instructional data, and educators’ learning needs.

o PD requires teachers to demonstrate their learned competency in a tangible and assessable way.

o PD engages teachers in active learning (e.g., leading instruction, discussing with colleagues, observing others, developing assessments), & provides follow-up sessions and ongoing support for teachers’ continued learning.

Indication of strategic staff changes, particularly at the supervisory level, to support dramatic improvement efforts. (See HR data)

Evidence of professional development activities aligned to priorities. (see Data

Narrative, Action Plan, TELL data)




The quality of professional development delivery is regularly monitored, evaluated, and improved.

The school has also implemented interventions in ELA (BURST) and math (DreamBox) to provide additional support to low performing students.

As described above, the school utilizes a variety of assessment systems to monitor academic progress, but no information was provided to indicate how the data is stored and communicated to staff.

An action step identified in the UIP states that HOPE will identify operating agreements and a process for decision-making that all LC and HOPE staff will engage in together and continually communicate, however, it is not clear if they have been implemented or how they have impacted instruction.

The school has completed the required Title I Addenda within the UIP, however, additional information is needed to determine whether leadership ensures that the school meets all compliance requirements and deadlines set by the state, if the school leadership effectively manages the school budget and cash flow, and there is a plan for long-term financial sustainability. Additional information is also needed to determine if the school leadership effectively manages operations.

The UIP indicates that developing ELA and Math professional learning communities (PLC) is an action step, and data is reviewed with the school improvement team every six weeks. However, the UIP did not include evidence that these meetings led to teachers analyzing, representing student data or using tools to act on results.

The UIP did not indicate professional development priorities that specifically addressed challenges that arise as a result of HOPE’s highly mobile population, as outlined in the data narrative, or strategies to meet the needs of English Language Learners. Students who re-enrolled at HOPE after their first year, and students who scored lower on their ACCESS assessment (indicator of English language proficiency) were found to perform higher on TCAP according to an independent study of HOPE’s contribution to student achievement.

2.3: School leadership ensures that the school has sound financial and operational systems and processes

School leadership ensures that the organizational structure supports essential school functions, & roles and responsibilities of all at the school are clear.

School leadership has established effective means of communicating with school staff.

School leadership ensures that the school meets all compliance requirements and deadlines set by the state, including the submission of school improvement plans, financial statements, school audit, calendar, and student attendance.

School leadership effectively manages the school budget and cash flow, and there is a plan for long-term financial sustainability.

The school leadership effectively manages operations (e.g., food services, transportation, school facilities).

Evidence of school communication with staff. (see Data Narrative, Target Setting, Action Plan, TELL data)

Record of compliance.

2.4: School leadership provides effective instructional leadership.

School leaders ensure that the school implements a coherent, comprehensive, and aligned curriculum. o School leaders ensure that curriculum, instruction, and

assessments are aligned with state standards, each other, & coordinated within/across grade levels.

o School leaders ensure that instructional materials are selected and/or developed in accordance with a school-wide instructional framework and aligned with established curriculum standards.

o School leaders ensure the curriculum is periodically reviewed and revisions are made accordingly.

School leaders provide meaningful feedback on teachers’ instructional planning and practice. o Leaders regularly provide meaningful feedback on

instructional planning. o Leaders regularly observe instruction and provide

meaningful, timely feedback that helps teachers improve their practice.

School leaders provide conditions that support a school-wide data culture. o Teachers have easy access to varied, current, and

accurate student and instructional data. o Teachers are provided time to collect, enter, analyze,

represent student data & use tools to act on results.

School leaders ensure that all teachers receive professional development in data use (e.g., how to access, read, and interpret a range of data reports; frame

Instructional needs and associated curricula and assessments are identified as a mechanism to address performance needs. (see Action Plan)

Organizational routines are established that include ongoing data analysis to improve student learning. (Evidence of interim measures and how they will be used to monitor results.) (see Data

Narrative, Target Setting, Action Plan, TELL data)




questions for inquiry; analyze data, assessment literacy, use data tools and resources).

2.5: The school provides high quality instruction. n/a

Not possible to assess from Document Review alone.







3.1: Educators’ mindsets and beliefs reflect shared commitments to students’ learning.

n/a

Not possible to assess from Document Review alone.

HOPE has dedicated personnel to coaching and training staff. For example, within Major Improvement Strategy #2 Resources section there are Title II and SIS grant funds earmarked for two consultants to support coaching mentors and training teachers.

The UIP includes action steps that are currently in progress that outline formal and informal professional learning as well as leadership development focused on how to improve curriculum and instruction in a leadership context. Some benchmarks include LC director discussions to increase instructional quality and bi-weekly walk-throughs of classrooms using the HOPE Instructional Monitoring checklist.

The UIP indicates an action step to create and communicate clear indicators of instruction and monitor implementation across LCs. Although the benchmark target states 100% of LC staff and HOPE teachers report full implementation, progress to date indicates that two working groups have been created. The UIP does not outline how many staff and teachers are included in the two groups or what percentage of staff the two groups represent.

In service of expanding data walks and systematizing data analysis structures, the UIP indicates a benchmark that mentors and teachers meet weekly to review formative and benchmark assessments and adjust subsequent lessons or instructional groupings as needed based on findings. However, the status of the action step is limited to a data dashboard being created and does not include information on whether the mentors and teachers are meeting and whether lessons and groupings are adjusted accordingly.

An implementation benchmark within the UIP states an expectation that at least 80% of mentors report positive coaching interactions with HOPE teachers on the 2016 Mentor

3.2: The school has established conditions that support educators’ learning culture.

Communications among all stakeholder groups are constructive, supportive and respectful.

Communications between leadership and staff are fluid, frequent, and open.

School leaders model and convey well-defined beliefs about teaching and learning, and convey value for innovation, learning from mistakes, and risk-taking.

School leaders ensure that staff and team meeting discussions are structured and facilitated to support the staff’s reflective dialogue around data and instruction (e.g., attend to explicit group norms, use protocols).

School leaders provide guidance to teacher teams (e.g., help to establish meeting routines; model and promote use of discussion protocols; ensure systematic monitoring of student progress; create focus on linking results to instruction) and ensures that teachers utilize tools and time well.

School leaders participate in formal and informal professional learning, including their own leadership development about how to improve curriculum and instruction in a leadership context (i.e., elementary or secondary; high- or low-poverty; large/small schools).

Evidence of development for leaders. (see Action

Plan) Structures for

collaborative activities are present. (see Action Plan, TELL data)

Roles are dedicated to supporting teams of teachers. (see Action Plan, TELL data)

Communication structures are referenced. (see

Data Narrative, Action Plan, TELL data)

3.3: Educators collaborate regularly to learn about effective instruction and students’ progress.

Educators meet frequently, during regularly scheduled, uninterrupted times (e.g., staff, department, grade level meeting times) to collaborate, establish improvement goals, and make data-informed instructional decisions.

Educators collaborative meetings have a clear and persistent focus on improving student learning and achievement.

Collaborative meeting times and their purposes are referenced. (see

Data Narrative, Action Plan, TELL data)




Educators describe sharing knowledge and expertise among colleagues as essential collaborative activity for job success.

Teachers are willing to talk about their own instructional practice, to actively pursue and accept feedback from colleagues, and to try new teaching strategies.

The school has created a performance-driven classroom culture in which teachers effectively use data to make decisions about daily instruction and the organization of students.

Survey; however, evidence of attainment of this goal is not provided.

The school utilizes a variety of assessments and interventions to identify and address the needs of students who are not making adequate growth; however, there is no evidence that the school is accelerating students who have mastered standards.

Over the past 3 years, HOPE has hired 17 licensed mentors and 20 alternative licensure candidates through a partnership with Douglas County School District and the University of Northern Colorado. There is no evidence that students receiving special education or English language services are supported by licensed teachers.

The HOPE Advisory (Accountability) Leadership Committee includes parents, mentors and directors, reading, general education, special education teachers, English learner specialists, community membership, and school administrative personnel representing elementary, middle, and high school levels, and meets every six weeks using data to inform a recursive cycle of improvement

The Title I Addendum states that HOPE is providing communication in families’ native language to assist their understanding of curriculum and assessment results; parents will be trained to support their child in the literacy and math curriculum, and materials and books will be made available to families to be able to do this; and that ESL classes will be offered to families to better advocate for their child. The UIP did not include any information on progress toward this goal to date.

The Title I Addendum indicates that although leadership would like to formalize a process for outreach to preschool students before attending kindergarten, they have not completed this project to date.

3.4: Staff members demonstrate the capacity to implement appropriate action to support student achievement and school improvement.

Teachers use results from interim or summative assessments to make adjustments to the organization of students in the classroom, pace of instruction, or content being taught.

Teachers use results from interim or summative assessments to identify students in need of remediation or acceleration, and assign students to appropriate supports.

Qualified staff deliver instruction and provide the necessary supports for ELL students or students with special needs.

Leaders involve faculty and staff in planning and implementation of school policies.

Leaders provide opportunities for faculty and staff to make or provide input on important decisions.

Evidence of internal and external stakeholder involvement in development and implementation of UIP – for example PLC’s, building leadership teams. (see Data Narrative, TELL data)

Structures for remediation, RTI, tutoring, or other data-driven supports are present. (see Action

Plan)

3.5: The school engages the community and families in support of students’ learning school improvement efforts.

The school includes parents/guardians in cultivating a culture of high expectations for students’ learning and their consistent support of students’ efforts.

The school invites family participation in school activities (e.g., volunteering in classrooms or on committees; attendance at performances, sports events, organizational meetings) and regularly solicits their input.

The school offers workshops and other opportunities for parents/guardians to learn about home practices that support student learning.

Educators communicate with parents/guardians about instructional programs and students’ progress.

Strategies for community and family involvement are incorporated throughout the plan.

Parent Involvement Plan is present (for Title I Schools only) and details strategies for involving families to advance student learning.




4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner.



4.1: The school collaborates effectively with existing external partners.

The school seeks expertise from external partners, as appropriate (i.e., for professional development, direct support for students).

The school ensures that roles and responsibilities of existing partners are clear.

There are designated school personnel to coordinate and manage partnerships.

Articulation of roles/responsibilities with external entities (e.g., district level staff, BOCES staff, vendors, CDE) is evident. (see Action

Plan)

The UIP cites that HOPE sought feedback to improve from organizations such as Mass Insight, who provided a School Readiness Assessment, as well as the State Review Panel and other external consultants and reviewers.

HOPE Leadership indicated partnering with CDE for the ELAT project and grant, Reading Ignite Literacy Grant and SIS grant. Although the partnerships through the ELAT grant and Title I pilot may be contributing to early improvements in ELA grades K-3, they are not yet impacting the greater scope of student achievement school-wide.

HOPE partnered with a “recognized educational researcher” to analyze elementary performance data and assess what HOPE’s contribution to student achievement was. The study took into consideration student mobility, diversity, comparison of ACCESS scores, TCAP scores prior to HOPE and after enrolling.

Externally provided PD is aligned with improvement efforts. For example, an outside trainer was hired to support the Reading Ignite and SIS grant initiatives to ensure all teachers and mentors are trained in coaching and co-teaching strategies.

The current UIP integrated feedback from previous year’s State Review Panel findings such as prioritizing consistent communication and distributed decision-making among all stakeholders across learning centers. Leadership seeks feedback from key stakeholders, as evidenced by the representation of all stakeholders, described above, on the HOPE Advisory Committee.

4.2: The school leverages existing partnerships to support of student learning.

The school maximizes existing partners’ efforts in support of improvement efforts.

All externally provided professional development is aligned to improvement efforts.

Activities of external entities align with major improvement strategies and performance needs of the school/district (not just a list of services the entity provides). (see Action Plan)

4.3: Leadership is responsive to feedback.

Leadership seeks feedback on improvement plans.

Leadership seeks feedback from key stakeholders

Leadership integrates feedback into future improvement efforts.

Feedback from CDE on UIP is integrated into subsequent UIPs (i.e. feedback is not repeated for multiple years) (see CDE feedback, previous UIPs, updated UIPs, TELL data)







5.1: Leadership monitors the return on investment of specific improvement initiatives, and uses that data to inform decision-making.

Leadership identifies turnaround strategies and implements programs/initiatives designed to improve student performance.

Leadership assesses the cost and impact (effect on student achievement and number of students served) of each program/initiative to determine its academic return on investment.

Leadership makes decisions regarding continuation or discontinuation of programs/initiatives based on this analysis.

Leadership establishes systems and structures to support regular and ongoing monitoring.

Additional resources provided through specialized grant funding are aligned, strategic and show evidence of positive results. (for districts/schools that have received additional funds.) (see Action Plan)

Leadership seeks resources aligned to its improvement efforts and programs/initiatives with high academic return on investment. For example, as mentioned previously, Leadership received the SIS Grant from CDE, and it was used to revise, print, train, and implement Engage NY; an offline ELA and math curriculum fully aligned with the Common Core and PARCC assessment frameworks.

HOPE was also approved for the Early Literacy Grant (CDE) and approved to use Significant Reading Deficiency (SRD) funds to purchase the full Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) materials for K-3 core reading program. Mentors implemented a portion of this curriculum as part of the Engage NY. There is not yet enough data to indicate whether these programs have impacted student achievement toward stated goals.

There is no evidence that the school has made decisions regarding continuation or discontinuation of programs/initiatives based on internal or external evaluation or analysis of the return on investment.

HOPE’s elementary school has shown some evidence of its ability to improve student achievement, though this is limited and varies across grade levels. Specifically, students demonstrated some academic progress in ELA on DIBELS, Acuity and Engage NY unit tests; however, the progress demonstrated is still well below state standards in most cases. Performance varies across the elementary grade levels, with above to well-above progress observed in reading for grades K-3; however, PARCC scores demonstrate extremely low levels of student achievement in reading and math. On the reading assessment 9% of 3rd graders scored proficient, 16% of 4th graders and 9% of 5th graders. Additionally, in math only 15% of 3rd graders scored proficient, 7% of 4th graders and 4% of

5.2: Leadership has demonstrated an ability to produce positive returns on state investment and uses resources effectively.

Programs and initiatives are designed to support turnaround efforts and have demonstrated results.

Leadership seeks resources aligned to its improvement efforts and programs/initiatives with high academic return on investment.

Any additional resources received (i.e., specialized grant funding) are aligned, strategic, and showing evidence of results.

Leadership treats resources flexibly, and implements focused improvement efforts with a focus on early wins.

Evidence of the results of previous initiatives. (see Data

Narrative, Target Setting, data dashboard, TELL data)

5.3: Students demonstrate academic progress over time.

Students demonstrate progress on internal measures linked with the school’s promotion or exit standards.

The performance of student subgroups on state assessments demonstrates that the school is making progress toward eliminating achievement gaps.

Students meet proficiency and grade-level targets across subjects and grade levels on norm-referenced benchmark assessments and state assessments.

Matched cohorts of students who score proficient or advanced (or equivalent) on state assessments maintain or improve performance levels across continuous enrollment years.

The percentage of all students performing at proficient or advanced (or equivalent) on state assessments increases over time.

Achievement and growth data trend up. (see Data Narrative, Target Setting, data dashboard)

Results of interim assessments show progress. (see Data

Narrative, Target Setting)




Students demonstrate academic growth as measured by value-added or state growth percentile measures.

Students demonstrate progress toward attaining expected knowledge and skills as measured by interim assessments.

5th graders. Additionally, Reading TCAP growth from 2012 to 2014 demonstrated upward trends although the AGP was not met and math achievement and growth continues to be well below expectation, as described by the UIP.

Students who are ELL demonstrate the greatest gaps across all grade levels; students identified as Hispanic and ELL demonstrate the greatest achievement gaps and growth gaps. Additionally, language growth for students moving from L3 to L4 and L4 to L5 and L5 to 5+ is below the state growth performance as measured by the ACCESS assessment.




6. There is necessity that the school remain in operation to serve students.

[ ] Yes [X] No [ ] Unable to Assess


6.1: The school is mission-driven and its mission and vision meet a unique need.

All stakeholders share an understanding of, and commitment to, the mission and vision.

School programs reflect the mission and vision.

The mission and vision guide decisions about teaching and learning.

The mission and vision meet the needs of an identified student population.

Population of students served is clearly identified. (see Data Narrative)

Mission/Vision are evident in plan or publically available information. (see

website, Data Narrative)

The mission of HOPE is to provide a student-focused K-5 educational program through a blended learning environment for students who are historically underrepresented in the online education system due to access issues (e.g., language, motivation, home supervision, etc.).

HOPE’s programs reflect the mission as it relates to delivery of content through face-to-face instruction, core programing and direct-instruction intervention. However, the UIP does not define students who are historically underrepresented in the online education system or include information about how their model specifically targets and supports these students.

There is no evidence that there are limited options available to meet the needs of HOPE students should the school close. HOPE serves students from 11 districts statewide, many of which offer blended learning options for students.

In addition to the various Brick and Mortar school options within the 11 districts in which HOPE schools live, a variety of higher performing online/blended learning schools accept students from across the state of Colorado. None of the following schools are currently on the Accountability Clock for performance or Turnaround ratings: Great Plains Academy (K-8), Monte Vista Online Academy (4-8), Springs Studio for Academic Excellence (K-12) and Vilas Online (K-8).

6.2 There are no other viable options for enrolled students that will likely lead to better outcomes.

There are limited other school options available (e.g., online, charter, district).

The school serves an isolated and/or remote community.

Closure would have a significant negative impact on the community.

Comparison schools do not promote better student outcomes.

Number of other available district, online, or charter options and their performance. (see data dashboard, websites)

Performance of neighboring districts (see data dashboard, websites)

Performance of comparison schools. (see data

dashboard, websites)

2016 State Review Panel Recommendation Form

Documents

Transcript of 2016 State Review Panel Recommendation Form