CHALLENGE FOUNDATION...

CHARTER SCHOOL RENEWAL REPORT

CHALLENGE FOUNDATION ACADEMY

November, 2012 This Charter School Renewal Report is a summary of the evidence collected by the Mayor’s Office pertaining to the performance, sustainability, and plans for improvement of Challenge Foundation Academy (CFA) during its first six years of operation. The Renewal Report is structured based on the Mayor’s Performance Framework, which is used to determine a school’s success relative to a common set of indicators. For each sub-question in the Performance Framework, this Renewal Report initially summarizes the findings of the school’s Fourth Year Charter Review. During each school’s fourth year of operation, the Mayor’s Office conducts a comprehensive Fourth Year Charter Review relying on multiple sources of evidence. The complete results of the Fourth Year Charter Review for CFA were issued in March 2010 and the report is publicly available online at www.indy.gov/oei. For each area within the Performance Framework, this Renewal Report includes the rating issued at the time of the Fourth Year Charter Review, a new rating based on additional evidence collected by the Mayor’s Office in subsequent years, and information provided by CFA in its Charter School Renewal Application. CFA submitted a Charter School Renewal Petition on August 29, 2012 with additional evidence supporting the school’s performance on the Performance Framework sub-questions 1.2, 3.4, and 4.2. Additionally, the school’s Special Education files were reviewed in May of 2011 to provide more current information on legal compliance for sub-question 3.4. Consistent with the renewal petition framework, these are the areas that the Mayor’s Office required the school to respond to, as CFA was judged to have not fully met standards for these indicators at the time of the Fourth Year Charter Review. The school submitted a plan for how it will sustain success and continue to improve over the next charter term if the charter is renewed, including a proposed five year budget. Information reported by CFA in its Charter School Renewal Petition was considered and incorporated into the Renewal Report when appropriate. CFA was not evaluated on the following sub-questions: Question 1.4 No school-specific educational performance goals have been formally adopted by Mayor-sponsored charter schools for accountability purposes. Question 2.6 No school-specific organizational and management performance goals have been formally adopted by Mayor-sponsored charter schools for accountability purposes. Question 3.5 This sub-question in not applicable to the school, because it does not serve a high proportion of students for whom English is a Second Language. Question 4.3 This sub-question is not applicable, because CFA does not serve secondary students.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. School Overview II. Performance Review III. Plans for Sustainability & Improvement

SECTION I: SCHOOL OVERVIEW

School Name: Challenge Foundation Academy School Address: 3980 Meadows Drive, Indianapolis, IN Mission Statement: The Challenge Foundation Academy aims to provide a

rigorous and relevant college-preparatory program, grounded in our belief in the ability of every child to succeed at high levels. Through well-coordinated support, a strong partnership with families and close attention to results, our students will consistently meet and exceed academic standards, ensuring their success as future college graduates and life-long learners.

School Director: Kelly Herron President, Board of Directors: Rose Mays Current Grades Served: Kindergarten through 5th Grade Current Enrollment: 482 students Socio-Demographic Data (based on 2011-2012 data): <1% Caucasian, <1% Hispanic, 89.5% African American, 8.7% Multiracial -80.6% Free or Reduced Lunch -14% Special Education

SECTION II: PERFORMANCE REVIEW

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS CHALLENGE FOUNDATION ACADEMY

Core Question 1: Is the educational program a success? FOURTH YEAR FINDING

RENEWAL FINDING

1.1. Is the school making adequate yearly academic progress, as measured by the Indiana Department of Education’s system of accountability?

Exceeds Standard

Exceeds Standard

1.2. Are students making substantial and adequate gains over time, as measured using value-added analysis?

Approaching Standard


1.3. Is the school outperforming schools that the students would have been assigned to attend?

Not Evaluated1 Exceeds Standard

1.4. Is the school meeting its school-specific educational goals? Not Applicable2 Not Applicable2 Core Question 2: Is the organization effective and well-run? FOURTH YEAR

FINDING RENEWAL FINDING

2.1. Is the school in sound fiscal health? Meets Standard Meets Standard

2.2. Are the school’s student enrollment, attendance, and retention rates strong? Meets Standard Exceeds Standard

2.3. Is the school’s board active and competent in its oversight? Exceeds Standard

Exceeds Standard

2.4. Is there a high level of parent satisfaction with the school? Exceeds Standard

Exceeds Standard

2.5. Is the school administration strong in its academic and organizational leadership? Meets Standard Exceeds Standard

2.6. Is the school meeting its school-specific organizational and management performance goals?

Not Applicable2 Not Applicable2

Core Question 3: Is the school meeting its operations and access obligations? FOURTH YEAR FINDING

RENEWAL FINDING

3.1. Has the school satisfactorily completed all of its organizational structure and governance obligations?

Meets Standard Meets Standard

3.2. Is the school’s physical plant safe and conducive to learning? Meets Standard Meets Standard 3.3. Has the school established and implemented a fair and appropriate pupil enrollment

process? Meets Standard Meets Standard

3.4. Is the school properly maintaining special education files for its special needs students?


Meets Standard

3.5. Is the school fulfilling its legal obligations related to access and services to students with limited English proficiency?

Not evaluated3 Not evaluated3

Core Question 4: Is the school providing the appropriate conditions for success? FOURTH YEAR FINDING

RENEWAL FINDING

4.1. Does the school have a high-quality curriculum and supporting materials for each grade?


4.2. Are the teaching processes (pedagogies) consistent with the school’s mission? Approaching Standard


4.3. For secondary students, does the school provide sufficient guidance on and support and preparation for post-secondary options?

Not Evaluated4 Not evaluated4

4.4. Does the school effectively use learning standards and assessments to inform and improve instruction?


1 The school was not evaluated in comparison to schools students would have attended in the FYCR. 2 The school did not have school-specific goals that were evaluated for either the FYCR or for renewal. 3 The school was not evaluated on access and services to students with limited English proficiency. 4 The school does not serve high school students.

4.5. Has the school developed adequate human resource systems and deployed its staff effectively?


4.6. Is the school’s mission clearly understood by all stakeholders? Meets Standard Meets Standard 4.7. Is the school climate conducive to student and staff success? Meets Standard Meets Standard 4.8. Is ongoing communication with students and parents clear and helpful? Meets Standard Meets Standard

FINDINGS, INDICATORS AND EVIDENCE

CHALLENGE FOUNDATION ACADEMY Core Question 1: Is the educational program a success?

1.1. Is the school making adequate yearly academic progress (AYP), as measured by the Indiana Department of Education’s system of accountability?

Does not meet standard School has met AYP in less than half of student subgroups for the last two consecutive years. Approaching standard School has met AYP in more than half of student subgroups for one of the last two years. Meets standard School has met AYP across all student subgroups for the last two years. Exceeds standard School has exceeded the AYP target in all student subgroups in at least one of the last

two years. Fourth Year Rating: Exceeds Standard. Renewal Rating: Exceeds Standard Challenge Foundation Academy (CFA) achieved Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) toward statewide academic goals set by the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) in both the 2009-10 and 2010-11 academic years. Student performance exceeded statewide targets for the year in both English/Language Arts and mathematics. The school also achieved attendance and participation rate targets.

School’s AYP History Year Made AYP Number of Categories 2010-11 Y 13 out of 13 2009-10 Y 15 out of 15 2008-09 N 10 out of 13 2007-08 N 11 out of 13

In February 2012, the Indiana State Board of Education voted to approve a new A-F accountability system that would replace the existing Public Law 221 rating system and AYP determinations. According to the IDOE, CFA received a ‘B’ for the 2011-12 school year based on a combination of performance and growth on state standardized tests. In summary, the school exceeded the IDOE’s targets for achieving AYP in all student subgroups, participation categories, and attendance in one of the last two years. Therefore, the school receives and Exceeds Standard rating for this indicator.

1.2. Are students making substantial and adequate gains over time, as measured using value-added analysis?

Does not meet standard Value-added analysis indicates that less than 50% of tested students made sufficient gains. Approaching standard Value-added analysis indicates that 50%-74% of tested students made sufficient gains. Meets standard Value-added analysis indicates that more than 75%-89% of tested students made sufficient

gains. Exceeds standard Value-added analysis indicates that at least 90% of tested students made sufficient gains.

Fourth Year Rating: Approaching Standard. Renewal Rating: Approaching Standard. Analysis of data on fall-to-spring gains over five years revealed that on average, CFA is approaching the Mayor’s standard of at least 75% of students making sufficient gains. In each of the school’s first four years of operation, analysts examined the amount of progress that each student made on the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA)’s Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) test between the fall and spring. Analysts then determined whether each student had made sufficient gains on the test to become proficient within two years, based on the amount of progress that the student made on the test between fall and spring. In 2010, the IDOE adopted the new Indiana Growth Model to assess individual growth of students within the state. The state compares each student’s growth on ISTEP+ from one year to the next and determines whether students made ‘Low Growth’, ‘Typical Growth’, or ‘High Growth’ compared to their academic peers. Within the context of the Mayor’s Performance Framework, students placed in either the ‘Typical’ or ‘High’ growth categories would have been considered to have made sufficient gains. According to the IDOE, 74.7% of students at CFA demonstrated either ‘Typical Growth’ or ‘High Growth’.

School’s Growth History

Year Average Sufficient Gains 2006-2007 50.3 2007-2008 66.1 2008-2009 67.1 2009-2010 72.7 2010-2011 74.7

The state has not yet released Growth Model data for the 2011-2012 academic year, however based on limited growth data provided thus far, it appears that 38.3% of students demonstrated ‘Low Growth’ in English/Language Arts and 28.6% demonstrated ‘Low Growth’ in Math. Thus, it is unlikely that an average of 75% of students made sufficient gains overall. In summary, data indicates that the percentage of students who have demonstrated sufficient gains has increased each year at CFA, however the school has not yet achieved the threshold necessary to meet the Mayor’s standard. Thus, the school continues to approach the Mayor’s standard for this indicator.

1.3. Is the school outperforming schools that the students would have been assigned to attend? Does not meet standard School’s overall performance in terms of proficiency and/or growth is generally lower than

that of the schools the students would otherwise have been assigned to attend in each of the last three years.

Approaching standard School’s overall performance in terms of both proficiency and/or growth is generally lower than that of the schools the students would otherwise have been assigned to attend in two of the last three years.

Meets standard School’s overall performance in terms of both proficiency and/or growth is generally as good

E

Exceeds stan

Fourth Y The Maycharter sc09 schooassigned When cowould haand grow(ELA) an

How to readif they did nthat school. represents 5located to thperformance

ISTE

P+ E

LA P

rofic

ienc

y, 2

011

ndard

Year Rating

yor’s Office bchools comp

ol years. Thefor this indi

omparing theave been assiwth of studennd Math.

d these figures: not attend CFA. T

The horizontal 50th growth perche right of the vee and improvem

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0

y,

as that of theSchool’s perotherwise h

g: Not Evalu

began condupared to the se rubric callsicator for the

e performancigned to atte

nts at CFA ex

Blue bubbles repThe size of each axis line represeentile. Schools lertical axis show

ment of all assign

20

In

e schools the strformance conave been assig

uated. Rene

ucting analysschools that s for data froe FYCR.

ce of CFA toend, based onxceeded that

present the tradblue bubble is p

ents the average located above thwed, better-than-ned schools. The

40

ndex of School

tudents would nsistently outpgned to attend

ewal Rating

sis of studenstudents wo

om three con

o that of Marn their placet of their pee

ditional public scproportional to t

ISTEP+ performe horizontal axis-average improvorange bubble r

60

l Growth in ELA

otherwise havepaces that of td.

: Exceeds S

nt performanould have othnsecutive yea

rion County e of residencers for both E

chool that studenthe number of CFmance in Indians had better-than

vement. The greerepresents the pe

80

A 2011

e been assignedthe schools the

tandard.

nce in Mayorherwise attenars and thus,

public schooe, the overalEnglish/Lan

nts would have bFA students who

na, while the vertn-average perforen bubble represerformance of C

100

CFoA

AASc

ASc

d to attend. e students wou

r-sponsored nded in the 2, a rating wa

ols students ll proficiency

nguage Arts

been assigned to o would have attetical axis line rmance, while scents the average

CFA students.

hallenge oundation

Academy

Average Assigned

chool

Assigned chools

uld

2008-as not

y

attend ended

chools e

Going baschools sproficien

ISTE

P+M

ath

Prof

icie

ncy

2011

ISTE

PEL

AP

fii

2010

ack to 2009-2students wouncy and grow

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0

ISTE

P+ M

ath

Prof

icie

ncy,

201

1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0

ISTE

P+ E

LA P

rofic

ienc

y, 2

010

2010, the peuld have beewth for both E

20

Ind

20

In

erformance on assigned toEnglish/Lan

40

dex of School G

40

ndex of School

of CFA exceo attend base

nguage Arts (

60

Growth in Mat

60

l Growth in ELA

eeded that ofed on their p(ELA) and M

80

th 2011

80

A 2010

f Marion Couplace of residMath.

100

ChFoAcAvAsScAsSc

100

CFoA

AASc

ASc

unty public dence in both

hallenge oundation cademyverage ssigned hool

ssigned hools

Challenge oundation

Academy

Average Assigned

chool

Assigned chools

h

In 2008-2improvemindividuaimprovemassigned considera

ISTE

PM

thP

fii

2010

ISTE

P+Pr

ofic

ienc

y20

08

2009, the anment was deal student grment of CFAto attend, th

ably more im

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0

ISTE

P+ M

ath

Prof

icie

ncy,

201

0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

‐10% ‐8

ISTE

P+ P

rofic

ienc

y 20

08

nalysis was cefined by theowth was no

A compared he school demmprovement

20

Ind

8% ‐6% ‐4%

IST

conducted bye increase in ot available ato the Mariomonstrated s.

40

dex of School G

‐2% 0% 2%

TEP+ Improvem

y comparing overall profat that time. on County puslightly lowe

60

Growth in Mat

% 4% 6%

ment 2008

overall profficiency from Looking at

ublic schoolser proficienc

80

th, 2010

8% 10% 12%

ficiency, howm the 2007-2t the proficies students w

cy, however

100

CFoA

AASc

ASc

%

The CFoundAcade

Assign

AveraSchoo

wever 2008 year as ency and

would have bdemonstrate

Challenge oundation

Academy

Average Assigned

chool

Assigned chools

Challenge dation emy

ned Schools

age Assigned ol

een ed

In summary, CFA has consistently outpaced comparison schools for each year this indicator has been assessed. Thus, they exceed the Mayor’s standard for this indicator.

1.4. Is the school meeting its school-specific educational goals? Does not meet standard School has clearly not met its school-specific educational goal. Approaching standard School is making good progress toward meeting its school-specific educational goal. Meets standard School has clearly met its school-specific educational goal. Exceeds standard School has clearly exceeded its school-specific educational goal.

Not Applicable. CFA did not have school-specific educational goals that were evaluated for renewal.

Core Question 2: Is the organization effective and well-run?

2.1. Is the school in sound fiscal health? Does not meet standard The school presents concerns in three or more of the following areas: a) its state financial

audits (e.g., presence of “significant findings”); b) its financial staffing and systems; c) its success in achieving a balanced budget over the past three years; d) the adequacy of its projections of revenues and expenses for the next three years; e) its fulfillment of financial reporting requirements under Sections 10 and 17 of the charter agreement.

Approaching standard The school presents significant concerns in one or two of the following areas: a) its state financial audits (e.g., presence of “significant findings”); b) its financial staffing and systems; c) its success in achieving a balanced budget over the past three years; d) the adequacy of its projections of revenues and expenses for the next three years; e) its fulfillment of financial reporting requirements under Sections 10 and 17 of the charter agreement.

Meets standard The school presents significant concerns in no more than one of the following areas: a) its state financial audits (e.g., presence of “significant findings”); b) its financial staffing and systems; c) its success in achieving a balanced budget over the past three years; d) the adequacy of its projections of revenues and expenses for the next three years; e) its fulfillment of financial reporting requirements under Sections 10 and 17 of the charter agreement. In addition, if the school presents significant concerns in one area, it has a credible plan for addressing the concern that has been approved by the Mayor’s Office.

Exceeds standard The school demonstrates satisfactory performance in all of the areas listed in previous levels. Fourth Year Rating: Meets Standard. Renewal Rating: Meets Standard. Challenge Foundation Academy (CFA) has demonstrated strong fiscal health over the first six years of its charter term. The school was audited by the Indiana State Board of Accounts (SBOA) three times throughout its history. Each report included an unqualified opinion from the SBOA regarding the school’s financials and outlined findings related to the school’s financial management and accounting systems, none of which were deemed significant. CFA has established adequate staffing and systems for managing the school’s finances. The school has achieved a balanced budget and substantial reserves each year of operation, with the exceptions of 2010-2011. In 2010-2011, expenses exceed revenue; however the school was able to rely on cash reserves to meet operational expenses. Revenue projections and expenses for the next three years appear to be adequate, and the school has fulfilled all financial reporting requirements of the charter agreement in a timely manner.

Findings from the SBOA audits have been deemed minor, with the exception of the most recent audit, conducted in 2011. The SBOA cited the school for the structure of its financial relationship with an external vendor contracted to provide special education services. According to SBOA, federal funds must go directly to the school as opposed to an outside entity. Challenge Foundation Academy was allowing their federal special education funds to pass directly to the vendor in question. While this finding was relevant for the period of the examination, CFA no longer relies on an outside contractor and facilitates all special education services internally. Thus, funds are received and managed by the school directly. By maintaining current levels of financial compliance and ensuring that the school adequately attends to findings of the SBOA, Challenge Foundation Academy will continue to experience strong fiscal health.

2.2. Are the school’s student enrollment, attendance, and retention rates strong? Does not meet standard The school’s actual enrollment consistently falls short of target enrollment by 10% or more.

Student attendance and retention rates are consistently below the school’s agreed-upon target rates.

Approaching standard The school’s actual enrollment consistently falls short of target enrollment by 1-9%. Student attendance and retention rates are consistently below the school’s agreed-upon target rates.

Meets standard The school is consistently fully enrolled. Student attendance and retention rates are generally at or above the school’s agreed-upon target rates.

Exceeds standard The school is consistently fully enrolled. Student attendance and retention rates consistently exceed the school’s agreed-upon target rates.

Fourth Year Rating: Meets Standard. Renewal Rating: Exceeds Standard. CFA has been consistently fully enrolled the past four academic years. The following table displays the target enrollment compared with the school’s official fall enrollment reported to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE).

School Year Target Enrollment

Fall Enrollment

Percent Below

2006-2007 264 257 2.7% 2007-2008 355 338 4.8% 2008-2009 378 393 0.0% 2009-2010 408 420 0.0% 2010-2011 438 475 0.0% 2011-2012 468 474 0.0%

Source: Target Enrollment data are from the school’s charter. Fall Enrollment data are from the Indiana Department of Education.

Attendance rates at CFA have consistently been above the IDOE’s target of 95% for each academic year.

School Year Attendance Rate 2006-2007 97.9 2007-2008 96.1 2008-2009 96.9 2009-2010 96.0 2010-2011 95.9 2011-2012 97.0

Source: Indiana Department of Education. No targets have been established for student retention rates for CFA. Retention rates were at their highest from the Fall of 2011 to the Fall of 2012 (83.8%), and have been consistently above 70%.

Years Students Enrolled

Initial Year

Students Re-enrolled

Following Year

Retention Rate

Fall 2006 to Fall 2007 176 125 71.0% Fall 2007 to Fall 2008 221 158 71.5% Fall 2008 to Fall 2009 271 214 79.0% Fall 2009 to Fall 2010 372 297 79.8% Fall 2010 to Fall 2011 402 335 83.3% Fall 2011 to Fall 2012 400 335 83.8%

Source: Mayor’s office analysis of fall enrollment reports submitted by the school. In summary, CFA has been fully enrolled the past four academic years, has been consistently above the state’s target for attendance each year, and has demonstrated an increasing retention rate. Therefore, the school exceeds the Mayor’s standard for this indicator.

2.3. Is the school’s board active and competent in its oversight? Does not meet standard The school appears to lack clear, consistent, and competent stewardship. The board lacks the

number of members specified in the by-laws; it is not well-balanced in member expertise; there has been consistently high turnover on the board unrelated to the term limits stipulated in the board’s by-laws; roles and responsibilities of the board are not clear; it often fails to achieve a quorum.

Approaching standard Board membership is not complete; there has been some unanticipated turnover on the board unrelated to the term limits stipulated in the board’s by-laws; it is reasonably well-balanced in member expertise; roles and responsibilities on the board are reasonably clear; it is difficult to get a quorum; board subcommittees are somewhat active; the board is developing its ability to provide clear, consistent, and competent stewardship.

Meets standard The board’s membership collectively contributes a broad skill set and fair representation of the community; board members are knowledgeable about the school; roles and responsibilities of the board are clearly delineated; board meetings reflect thoughtful discussion and progress in the consideration of issues; overall, the board provides consistent and competent stewardship of the school.

Exceeds standard The board meets the standard for this sub-question AND: displays exceptional expertise and stewardship, as evidenced by significant board actions to enhance the school over time.

Fourth Year Rating: Exceeds Standard. Renewal Rating: Exceeds Standard. The Board at the Challenge Foundation Academy (CFA) is active and knowledgeable regarding its role. The Board has an effective governance structure that is clearly defined in the by-laws. This clear structure the Board enables the Board to be consistent and competent in its stewardship and to remain knowledgeable about the school. The Board is balanced in expertise, is representative of the community, and has had exceptional consistency in membership. The Board has consistently reached a quorum and has active subcommittees. Board minutes show that the Board is knowledgeable about the school behavior plan, Annual Yearly Progress, curriculum, personnel issues, and finances. The Board demonstrates thoughtful discussion and consideration of issues through the well-defined sub committees in the areas of finance, personnel, and building maintenance. Board members invest considerable personal time in the school and community. They are consistently present in the school, are accessible, and are actively engaged with the principal, teachers, other administrators, parents, and students. The Board meets with the principal on a monthly basis to establish school specific goals in the areas of student achievement and curriculum. The Board provides strong evaluation and oversight of the school leader, with an evaluation that takes place every six months. Overall, the Board enhances the mission of the school through oversight of the school principal which is clearly defined with process that focuses on school improvement. Board members have been consistent in their interest in the school evidenced in the fact that they are dedicated to and knowledgeable about the core knowledge curriculum. The considerable time Board members provide in addition to their board roles results in an Exceeds Standard rating for this indicator.

2.4. Is there a high level of parent satisfaction with the school? Does not meet standard Less than 70% of parents surveyed indicate that they are satisfied overall with the school. Approaching standard More than 70% but less than 80% of parents surveyed indicate that they are satisfied overall

with the school. Meets standard More than 80% but less than 90% of parents surveyed indicate that they are satisfied overall

with the school. Exceeds standard At least 90% of parents surveyed indicate that they are satisfied overall with the school.

Fourth Year Rating: Exceeds Standard. Renewal Rating: Exceeds Standard. Averaged across the last six years, 91.5% of parents surveyed indicated that they are satisfied overall with CFA. In the spring of each year, an anonymous survey was administered to all parents and guardians of students enrolled at the school. Of the parents surveyed, between 87% and 96% of parents indicated overall satisfaction (see chart below).

School Year Percent Satisfied 2006-2007 87% 2007-2008 88%

2008-2009 91% 2009-2010 93% 2010-2011 94% 2011-2012 96% Multi-Year

Weighted Average 91.5%

Note: “Percent Satisfied” includes “very satisfied” and “somewhat satisfied” responses which were on a five-point scale that also included “satisfied”, “somewhat dissatisfied”, and “very dissatisfied”. Source: Confidential survey results administered by the University of Indianapolis (2007), Indiana University (2008-2010), and an independent contractor (2011 and 2012).

2.5. Is the school administration strong in its academic and organizational leadership? Does not meet standard The school presents significant concerns in two or more of the following areas with no

evidence of a credible plan to address them: a) the leadership has insufficient academic and/or business expertise; b) turnover in leadership has been high and/or damaging to the school; c) roles and responsibilities among leaders and between leaders and the board are generally unclear; d) the school’s leadership does not appear to actively engage in a process of continuous improvement; it has made few mid-course corrections in response to problems.

Approaching standard The school presents significant concerns in one of the following areas with no evidence of a credible plan to address it: a) the leadership has insufficient academic and/or business expertise; b) turnover in leadership has been high and/or damaging to the school; c) roles and responsibilities among leaders and between leaders and the board are generally unclear; d) the school’s leadership does not appear to actively engage in a process of continuous improvement; it has made few mid-course corrections in response to problems.

Meets standard The school’s leadership a) has sufficient academic and/or business expertise; b) has been sufficiently stable over time; c) has clearly defined roles and responsibilities among leaders and between leaders and the board; d) actively engages in a process of continuous improvement which has led to some mid-course corrections.

Exceeds standard The leadership displays exceptional academic and business expertise. Leadership turnover has been manageable and appropriate. Roles and responsibilities among leaders and between leaders and the board are clear. The leadership has established exemplary processes to engage in continuous improvement which have led to significant enhancements to the school over time.

Fourth Year Rating: Meets Standard. Renewal Rating: Exceeds Standard. The administration and leadership at CFA demonstrate exceptional academic and business expertise, had been relatively stable over time, and roles and responsibilities among leaders and between leaders and the Board were clearly defined. The Executive Director, Principal, Assistant Principal, and Business Manager provide competent leadership at the school. The administration provides focused leadership to staff in areas of curriculum alignment, data analysis, and implementing standards-based, data-driven instruction. Overall, school leadership has been effective in creating, promoting, and meeting school goals. They provide competent leadership in academic, business, and operational elements at the school. The school’s continuous improvement processes have led to a number of mid-course corrections, particularly around curriculum modifications and data analysis, which have significantly enhanced the school’s performance.

The administration has provided competent leadership in academic, business, and operational elements at the school and successfully established high expectations for all stakeholders. Leadership has remained stable over the past few years, and a clear succession plan exists as the school plans to grow and replicate in the future. Therefore, the school exceeds the Mayor’s Office standard in this indicator.

2.6. Is the school meeting its school-specific organizational and management performance goals? Does not meet standard School has clearly not met its school-specific organizational goal. Approaching standard School is making good progress toward meeting its school-specific organizational goal. Meets standard School has clearly met its school-specific organizational goal. Exceeds standard School has clearly exceeded its school-specific organizational goal.

Not Applicable. CFA did not have school-specific organizational and management performance goals that were evaluated for the purposes of renewal.

Core Question 3: Is the school meeting its operations and access obligations?

3.1. Has the school satisfactorily completed all of its organizational and governance obligations? Does not meet standard School presents significant concerns in two or more of its organizational and governance

obligations as specified in the Compliance and Governance Handbook, with no evidence of a credible plan to address them: a) maintenance of adequate “compliance and governance binder” containing all required documents; b) completion of criminal background checks on all board members; c) transparency of meetings and decision-making in accordance with open meetings obligations; d) maintenance of adequate board minutes.

Approaching standard School presents significant concerns in one of its organizational and governance obligations as specified in the Compliance and Governance Handbook, with no evidence of a credible plan to address it: a) maintenance of adequate “compliance and governance binder” containing all required documents; b) completion of criminal background checks on all board members; c) transparency of meetings and decision-making in accordance with open meetings obligations; d) maintenance of adequate board minutes

Meets standard School has substantially completed all of its organizational and governance obligations as specified in the Compliance and Governance Handbook, including: a) maintenance of adequate “compliance and governance binder” containing all required documents; b) completion of criminal background checks on all board members; c) transparency of meetings and decision-making in accordance with open meetings obligations; d) maintenance of adequate board minutes. Any concerns are minor and the school presents a credible plan to address them.

Fourth Year Rating: Meets Standard. Renewal Rating: Meets Standard. CFA has substantially completed all of its organizational and governance obligations as specified in the Compliance and Governance Handbook. The Mayor’s Office’s internal systems have not indicated any significant concerns related to these obligations. The school executes compliance related activities in a timely manner, submitting required materials on time and maintaining an orderly compliance binder. CFA complies with all public access and open door policies. Public meeting notices are posted appropriately, and board meeting minutes are always kept and have

been sent to the Mayor’s Office in a timely manner. Thus, the school continues to meet the Mayor’s standard for this indicator.

3.2. Is the school’s physical plant safe and conducive to learning? Does not meet standard The facility requires much improvement in order to provide a safe environment that is

conducive to learning. Significant health and safety code requirements have not been met AND/OR the school lacks many conditions such as the following: a design well-suited to meet the curricular and social needs of its students, faculty, and community members; a size appropriate for the enrollment and student-teacher ratios in each class; adequate maintenance and security; well-maintained equipment and furniture that match the educational needs of the students; and accessibility to all students.

Approaching standard Significant health and safety code requirements are being met, but the facility needs some improvement in order to provide a safe environment that is conducive to learning. It partially – but not fully – provides conditions such as the following: a design well-suited to meet the curricular and social needs of its students, faculty, and community members; a size appropriate for the enrollment and student-teacher ratios in each class; good maintenance and security; well-maintained equipment and furniture that match the educational needs of the students; and accessibility to all students.

Meets standard Significant health and safety code requirements are being met AND the facility generally provides a safe environment that is conducive to learning, based on conditions such as: a design well-suited to meet the curricular and social needs of its students, faculty, and community members; a size appropriate for the enrollment and student-teacher ratios in each class; good maintenance and security; well-maintained equipment and furniture that match the educational needs of the students; and accessibility to all students.

Fourth Year Rating: Meets Standard. Renewal Rating: Meets Standard. The CFA facility meets all the health and safety code requirements and provides a safe environment conducive to learning. The facility’s design, size, maintenance, security, equipment, and furniture are all adequate to meet the school’s needs. The school is accessible to all including people with physical disabilities.

3.3. Has the school established and implemented a fair and appropriate pupil enrollment process? Does not meet standard The school’s enrollment process does not comply with applicable law AND/OR the school

exhibits one or both of the following deficiencies a) a substantial number of documented parent complaints suggest that it is not being implemented fairly or appropriately; b) the school has not engaged in outreach to students throughout the community.

Approaching standard The school’s enrollment process complies with applicable law but exhibits one or both the following deficiencies: a) a substantial number of documented parent complaints suggest that it is not being implemented fairly or appropriately; b) the school has not engaged in outreach to students throughout the community.

Meets standard The school’s enrollment process complies with applicable law; there are minimal documented parent complaints suggesting that it is not being implemented fairly or appropriately; AND the school has engaged in outreach to students throughout the community.

Fourth Year Rating: Meets Standard. Renewal Rating: Meets Standard.

The admission and enrollment practices of CFA meet the requirements of Indiana’s charter school law. The Mayor’s Office has received no complaints from parents regarding the school’s enrollment practices. The school conducts extensive outreach to parents, including advertisement, community fairs, a website, and yard signs throughout the community. The Mayor’s Office receives copies of CFA’s enrollment policies and marketing plans. The school has implemented a lottery system and gives preference to siblings of current students, as required by law. Thus, the school continues to meet the Mayor’s standard for this indicator.

3.4. Is the school properly maintaining special education files for its special needs students? Does not meet standard The school is not fulfilling its legal obligations regarding proper maintenance of special

needs students’ files, and requires substantial improvement in order to achieve compliance such as the following: individualized education plans are up-to-date, student evaluations or re-evaluations have occurred within the appropriate timeframe, files contain the relevant required information, such as, file log sheet, parent consent form, documentation of case conference notification to parents and other conference participants and signatures of attendees at case conferences. A school does not meet the standard if any individual education plans have not been updated within the appropriate timeframe.

Approaching standard The school is not yet completely fulfilling all of its legal obligations regarding proper maintenance of special-needs students’ files, and requires some (but not considerable) improvement to fully achieve conditions such as the following: individualized education plans are up-to-date, student evaluations or re-evaluations have occurred within the appropriate timeframe, files contain the relevant required information, such as, file log sheet, parent consent form, documentation of case conference notification to parents and other conference participants and signatures of attendees at case conferences.

Meets standard The school is fulfilling its legal obligations regarding special-needs students, as indicated by conditions such as the following: individualized education plans are up-to-date, student evaluations or re-evaluations have occurred within the appropriate timeframe, files contain the relevant required information, such as, file log sheet, parent consent form, documentation of case conference notification to parents and other conference participants and signatures of attendees at case conferences.

Fourth Year Rating: Approaching Standard. Renewal Rating: Meets Standard. Challenge Foundation Academy (CFA) was found to be approaching the standard established for proper maintenance of students’ special education files during the Fourth Year Charter Review. A full special education file review was conducted in March, 2010. Review files revealed that the dates of creation on three IEPs were later than the end dates on these students’ prior IEPs. This suggests that the process of reestablishing IEPs led to lapses in legal documentation. Additionally, three files contained evaluations that indicated they were completed before the notices of evaluation were sent and signed – indicating that evaluations may have occurred before the school had written permission to do so. As a follow up to the Fourth Year Charter Review, the Mayor’s Office required that CFA to participate in an additional file review in May, 2011. Reviewers found that issues related to IEPs and timing of evaluations had been resolved. A total of 62 files, including 18 students receiving specialist speech support, were scrutinized for compliance. No issues were identified. All documents were signed and dated appropriately. During the site visit, the opportunity was also taken to monitor work with students who were pulled-out to the resource room to receive targeted support. The activities in which the students

were engaged directly reflected the specific needs and targets established in their IEPs. Support was sensitive and encouraging, as well as well focused and targeted. In summary, the 2011 review found that special education files are well organized and well managed, with no concerns regarding compliance. Further, the support and interventions provided are having a positive impact on addressing the specific needs identified and ensuring that students make good growth towards their goals. Thus, the school now meets the Mayor’s standard for this indicator.

3.5. Is the school fulfilling its legal obligations related To access and services to English as a Second Language (ESL) students?

Does not meet standard The school is not fulfilling its legal obligations regarding ESL students, and requires substantial improvement in order to achieve conditions such as the following: appropriate staff have a clear understanding of current legislation, research and effective practices relating to the provision of ESL services; relationships with students, parents, and external providers that are well-managed and comply with law and regulation.

Approaching standard The school is not yet completely fulfilling all of its legal obligations regarding ESL students, and requires some (but not considerable) improvement to fully achieve conditions such as the following: appropriate staff have a clear understanding of current legislation, research and effective practices relating to the provision of ESL services; relationships with students, parents, and external providers that are well-managed and comply with law and regulation.

Meets standard The school is fulfilling its legal obligations regarding ESL students, as indicated by conditions such as the following: appropriate staff have a clear understanding of current legislation, research and effective practices relating to the provision of ESL services; relationships with students, parents, and external providers that are well-managed and comply with law and regulation.

Not Evaluated. CFA was not evaluated on this indicator, as they do not serve a large enough ESL population.

Core Question 4: Is the school providing the appropriate conditions for success?

4.1. Does the school have a high-quality curriculum and supporting materials for each grade?

Does not meet standard

The school presents significant concerns in two or more of the following areas: a) the curriculum does not align with the state standards; b) the school does not conduct systematic reviews of its curriculum to identify gaps based on student performance; c) the school does not regularly review scope and sequence to ensure presentation of content in time for testing; d) the sequence of topics across grade levels and content areas does not focus on core (prioritized) learning objectives; e) the staff lacks understanding and/or consensus as to how the curriculum documents and related program materials are used to effectively deliver instruction; f) there is a lack of programs and materials available to deliver the curriculum effectively.

Approaching standard

The school presents significant concerns in one of the following areas: a) the curriculum does not align with the state standards; b) the school does not conduct systematic reviews of its curriculum to identify gaps based on student performance; c) the school does not regularly review scope and sequence to ensure presentation of content in time for testing; d) the sequence of topics across grade levels and content areas does not focus on core (prioritized) learning objectives; e) the staff lacks understanding and/or consensus as to how the curriculum documents and related program materials are used to effectively deliver instruction; f) there is a lack of programs and materials available to deliver the curriculum effectively.

Meets standard

The school: a) curriculum aligns with the state standards; b) conducts systematic reviews of its curriculum to identify gaps based on student performance; c) the school regularly reviews scope and sequence to ensure presentation of content in time for testing; d) has a sequence of topics across grade levels and content areas that is prioritized and focuses on the core learning objectives; e) the staff understands and uniformly uses curriculum documents and related program materials to effectively deliver instruction; f) programs and materials are available to deliver the curriculum effectively.

Fourth Year Rating: Meets Standard. Renewal Rating: Meets Standard. In the FYCR, CFA was found to have a quarterly curriculum map aligned with state standards. Additionally, Core Knowledge Curriculum was found to be linked to state standards and the scope and sequence of Core Knowledge Curriculum existed across grade levels. The FYCR found that the data-driven decision making was led by the administration. The instructional leaders discussed the curriculum and its use consistently. It was clear to reviewers that that the school had prioritized curriculum planning from simply viewing the information and data present on the school’s walls. Additionally, there were data graphs and curriculum maps present in multiple rooms. Programs and materials were available to deliver the curriculum effectively. In summary, the school was found to have had a high-quality curriculum and supporting materials for each grade during the FYCR. Curriculum modification and adjustment, and using student achievement data to make curriculum modifications in a comprehensive and deliberate manner were found to be hallmarks for CFA. In the subsequent years, the Mayor’s Office has not found any evidence to suggest the school’s performance in this area has faltered. Additionally, the school’s academic performance suggests that students continue to make gains and outpace their peers. Thus, the school continues to meet the Mayor’s standard in this indicator.

4.2. Are the teaching processes (pedagogies) consistent with the school’s mission?


The school presents significant concerns in two or more of the following areas: a) the curriculum is not implemented in the majority of classrooms according to its design; b) as delivered, instruction is not focused on core learning objectives; c) the pace of instruction/lessons and content delivery lacks the appropriate rigor and challenge; d) instructional activities lack variety and/or limited use of differentiated strategies to engage a wide range of student interests, abilities and learning needs; e) staff do not receive feedback on instructional practices.


The school presents significant concerns in one of the following areas: a) the curriculum is not implemented in the majority of classrooms according to its design; b) as delivered, instruction is not focused on core learning objectives; c) the pace of instruction/lessons and content delivery lacks the appropriate rigor and challenge; d) instructional activities lack variety and/or limited use of differentiated strategies to engage a wide range of student interests, abilities and learning needs; e) staff do not receive feedback on instructional practices.

Meets standard

The school exhibits the following characteristics: a) the curriculum is implemented in the majority of classrooms according to its design; b) as delivered, instruction is focused on core learning objectives; c) the pace of instruction/lessons and content delivery possesses the appropriate rigor and challenge; d) instructional activities possess variety and/or use of differentiated strategies to engage a wide range of student interests, abilities and learning needs; e) supplies sufficient feedback to staff on instructional practices.

Fourth Year Rating: Approaching Standard. Renewal Rating: Approaching Standard. The FYCR highlighted two areas of concern related to this indicator. It found that the school had not yet provided the appropriate level of pace and rigor and did not rely on differentiated instructional strategies, with instructional variety also found to be lacking. As a follow up, the Mayor’s Office required CFA to participate in a site visit in May of 2011. The follow up review found that the adoption of the Core Knowledge Program provides a clear outline of the content to be learned grade by grade to support the cumulative building of knowledge, language and skills. There is some variation between classrooms in the fidelity with which the curriculum is implemented. Support has been provided to collaborative teacher groups by the school’s master teachers, helping to bring greater consistency and implementation that is more in line with intention and planning. Consequently, there is sufficient correlation between design and implementation in the majority of classrooms. The design of the curriculum ensures that instruction remains focused on core learning objectives. However, there remains potential for growth in the way that objectives are utilized to drive student learning. At times, objectives could be expressed more clearly in ways that students readily understand and also define what the intended outcome is, in terms of both quality and quantity. Further, checking for progress towards the objectives during and at the end of a lesson could also be strengthened. Nevertheless, the use of core learning objectives to focus instruction remains sufficient to meet expectations. There is much evidence of teachers increasing their repertoire of instructional strategies, with a move toward more student centered activities. This has often been achieved with the support and guidance of the school’s master teachers. Increased use of intervention teachers has resulted in more focused and individualized support for students in small groups, so that their needs are more effectively met. The use of technology has increased. Interactive whiteboards are in common use and some teachers are sufficiently skilled and confident to enable their students to use them to support learning. Elements of the workshop approach are also more in evidence. This strategy is providing increased opportunities for students to work collaboratively and for teachers to differentiate activities and provide more focused support. Students are generally interested in their work and engage willingly in the activities presented. In general, lessons flow with an acceptable pace and have sufficient variety of elements to maintain student interest. However, there remain concerns with the rigor and consistency with which some activities are implemented in ensuring that all students are challenged at an appropriate level and engage intellectually in the learning process. The school entered into the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) during the 2010-2011 academic year. As a result, the school strengthened the scope of feedback to staff on their instructional practices and increased the direct support that they receive to help them develop. Teachers welcomed the increased visits that have taken place through the work of master teachers and the additional feedback that they have received, as well as the more focused dialogue around teaching and learning.

In their application for renewal, the school indicated that they have improved in this area through a variety of ways. Like the reviewers the school highlighted the benefit of their TAP participation. In the application, the school suggest that through TAP, they have identified two team members to serve as Lead Teachers, supporting teachers throughout the building. Additionally, the school has implemented the TAP rubric to evaluate teacher effectiveness, allowing greater uniformity and consistency of evaluation. The number of classroom observations has increased and an Instructional Leadership Team has been created to support teachers. Based on the feedback received from the May, 2011 review, CFA have identified six core areas on which they plan to focus their improvement efforts: Curriculum, Instruction, Intervention, Culture, Enrichment, and Parent Involvement. The school has developed plans under each of the area to improve outcomes and strengthen the quality of teaching. The school has aligned resourced and structured the team in a way that supports these efforts. In summary, progress has been made in this aspect of the school’s performance, however there remains room for improvement. Consequently the school continues to approach the Mayor’s standard for this indicator.

4.3. For secondary students, does the school provide sufficient guidance on and support preparation for post-secondary options?


The school presents significant concerns in two or more of the following areas: a) the school’s academic program lacks challenging coursework (e.g., Advanced Placement courses, internships, independent study) to prepare students for rigorous post-secondary opportunities; b) lack of high expectations to motivate and prepare students for post-secondary academic opportunities; c) insufficient material resources and personnel guidance available to inform students of post-secondary options; d) limited opportunities for extracurricular engagement and activities (e.g., athletics, academic clubs, vocational) to increase post-secondary options; e) the school does not meet Indiana Core 40 graduation standard requirements.


The school presents significant concerns in one of the following areas: a) the school’s academic program lacks challenging coursework (e.g., Advanced Placement courses, internships, independent study) to prepare students for rigorous post-secondary opportunities; b) lack of high expectations to motivate and prepare students for post-secondary academic opportunities; c) insufficient material resources and personnel guidance available to inform students of post-secondary options; d) limited opportunities for extracurricular engagement and activities ( e.g., athletics, academic clubs, vocational) to increase post-secondary options; e) the school does not meet Indiana Core 40 graduation standard requirements.

Meets standard

The school: a) has challenging coursework (e.g., Advanced Placement courses, internships, independent study) to prepare students for rigorous post-secondary opportunities; b) has high expectations to motivate and prepare students for post-secondary academic opportunities; c) has sufficient material resources and personnel guidance available to inform students of post-secondary options; d) presents opportunities for extracurricular engagement and activities (e.g., athletics, academic clubs, vocational) to increase post-secondary options; e) meets or exceeds Indiana Core 40 graduation standard requirements.

Not Applicable. The Challenge Foundation Academy does not serve secondary students.

4.4. Does the school effectively use learning standards and assessments to inform and improve instruction? Does not meet standard The school presents significant concerns in two or more of the following areas: a)

standardized and/or classroom assessments are not accurate or useful measures of established learning standards/objectives; b) assessment results are not received by classroom teachers in a timely or useful manner to influence instructional decisions; c) assessments lack sufficient variety to guide instruction for a wide range of student learning abilities; d) there is limited frequency or use of assessments to inform instructional decisions effectively; e) assessment results are not used to guide instruction or make adjustments to curriculum.


The school presents significant concerns in one of the following areas: a) standardized and/or classroom assessments are not accurate or useful measures of established learning standards/objectives; b) assessment results are not received by classroom teachers in a timely or useful manner to influence instructional decisions; c) assessments lack sufficient variety to guide instruction for a wide range of student learning abilities; d) there is limited frequency or use of assessments to inform instructional decisions effectively; e) assessment results are not used to guide instruction or make adjustments to curriculum.

Meets standard

The school: a) standardized and/or classroom assessments are accurate and useful measures of established learning standards/objectives; b) assessment results are received by classroom teachers in a timely and useful manner to influence instructional decisions; c) assessments have sufficient variety to guide instruction for a wide range of student learning abilities; d) there is sufficient frequency or use of assessments to inform instructional decisions effectively; e) assessment results are used to guide instruction or make adjustments to curriculum.

Fourth Year Rating: Meets Standard. Renewal Rating: Meets Standard. In their FYCR, CFA was found to be effectively using learning standards and assessments to inform and improve instruction on a systematic basis. The review found that CFA collected a wide variety of assessment data to inform instruction. Teachers described a comprehensive, continuous improvement process where benchmark assessments are given to students every quarter. The review found that teachers met within and across grade levels to plan every week in order to conduct systematic reviews of curriculum to identify gaps based on student performance and met with administrators about data on weekly basis. The FYCR found that CFA was not only extremely conscientious about collecting data, but also used it consistently to guide instruction. All key stakeholders including administrators, teachers, parents, and students, participated in data analysis. Furthermore, all stakeholders are well-versed in assessment procedures and benefits. In the subsequent years, the Mayor’s Office has not found any evidence to suggest the school has wavered in their commitment to using data to drive instruction and ensure student outcomes. Thus, the school continues to meet the Mayor’s standard for this indicator.

4.5. Has the school developed adequate human resource systems and deployed its staff effectively?


The school presents significant concerns in two or more of the following areas: a) hiring processes are not organized to support the success of new staff members; b) inefficient or insufficient deployment of faculty and staff limits instructional time and capacity; c) faculty and staff are not certified/trained in areas to which they are assigned; d) professional development (PD) does not relate to demonstrated needs for instructional improvement; e) PD is not determined through analyses of student attainment and improvement; f) the teacher evaluation plan is not explicit and regularly implemented with a clear process and criteria.

Approaching standard The school presents significant concerns in one of the following areas: a) hiring processes are not organized to support the success of new staff members; b) inefficient or insufficient deployment of

faculty and staff limits instructional time and capacity; c) faculty and staff are not certified/trained in areas to which they are assigned; d) professional development (PD) does not relate to demonstrated needs for instructional improvement; e) PD is not determined through analyses of student attainment and improvement; f) the teacher evaluation plan is not explicit and regularly implemented with a clear process and criteria.

Meets standard

The school exhibits the following characteristics: a) hiring processes are organized and used to support the success of new staff members; b) the school deploys sufficient number of faculty and staff to maximize instructional time and capacity; c) faculty and staff are certified/trained in areas to which they are assigned; d) professional development (PD) is related to demonstrated needs for instructional improvement; e) PD opportunities are determined through analyses of student attainment and improvement; f) the teacher evaluation plan is explicit and regularly implemented with a clear process and criteria.

Fourth Year Rating: Meets Standard. Renewal Rating: Meets Standard. The FYCR found that CFA had developed adequate human resource systems and deployed its staff effectively. It had a well-developed structure to ensure that professional development is aligned to identified areas of improvement and determined through student achievement needs. The review found that the school had deployed a sufficient number of faculty and staff to maximize instructional time and capacity. Teachers reported that they receive support from the Board and the school leadership. The review also found that professional development aligned with overall school improvement needs. In the subsequent years, the Mayor’s Office has not found any evidence to suggest the school’s performance in this area has decreased in any way. Thus, the school continues to meet the Mayor’s standard for this indicator.

4.6. Is the school’s mission clearly understood by all stakeholders?

Does not meet standard The school presents significant concerns in both of the following areas: a) significant disagreements exist among stakeholders about the school’s mission; b) there is a lack of widespread knowledge and commitment to the intentions of the school’s mission.

Approaching standard The school presents significant concerns in one of the following areas: a) significant disagreements exist among stakeholders about the school’s mission; b) there is a lack of widespread knowledge and commitment to the intentions of the school’s mission.

Meets standard The school: a) has a mission that is shared by all stakeholders; b) has stakeholders possessing widespread knowledge and commitment to the intentions of the school’s mission.

Fourth Year Rating: Meets Standard. Renewal Rating: Meets Standard. The FYCR found that the school’s mission was understood by all stakeholders and that all had widespread knowledge and commitment to the intentions of the school’s mission of “equipping students with the knowledge, wisdom, core values, and behaviors to be successful in life”. In the subsequent years, the Mayor’s Office has not found any evidence to suggest the school’s performance in this area has decreased in any way. Thus, the school continues to meet the Mayor’s standard for this indicator.

4.7. Is the school climate conducive to student and staff success?


The school presents significant concerns in two or more of the following areas with no evidence of a credible plan to address them: a) The school does not have clearly stated rules that enforce positive behavior; b) the school’s discipline approach does not possess high expectations for student behavior; c) interactions between faculty and students are disrespectful and/or unsupportive and there are non-existing or unclear processes for resolution of conflicts; d) interactions between faculty and administration are unprofessional and/or unproductive.


The school presents significant concerns in one of the following areas with no evidence of a credible plan to address it: a) The school does not have clearly stated rules that enforce positive behavior; b) the school’s discipline approach does not possess high expectations for student behavior; c) interactions between faculty and students are disrespectful and/or unsupportive and there are non-existing or unclear processes for resolution of conflicts; d) interactions between faculty and administration are unprofessional and /or unproductive.

Meets standard

The school exhibits the following characteristics: a) the school has clearly stated rules that enforce positive behavior; b) the school’s discipline approach possesses high expectations for student behavior; c) interactions between faculty and students are respectful and supportive and faculty and students are clear about processes for resolution of conflicts; d) interactions between faculty and administration are professional and constructive.

Fourth Year Rating: Meets Standard. Renewal Rating: Meets Standard. The FYCR found that the school climate at CFA was positive and strong relationships are exhibited throughout the school community. There were clearly stated, school-wide rules and high expectations for student behavior. The review found that interactions between faculty and students were respectful and supportive and that interactions between faculty and administration were professional and constructive. The review noted a general calmness in the school environment, which seemed to be based on mutual respect between all stakeholders. In the subsequent years, the Mayor’s Office has not found any evidence to suggest the school’s performance in this area has decreased in any way. Thus, the school continues to meet the Mayor’s standard for this indicator.

4.8. Is ongoing communication with students and parents clear and helpful?


The school presents significant concerns in two or more of the following areas: a) there is a lack of active and ongoing communication between the school and parents; b) school communication is neither timely nor relevant to the parental concerns; c) student academic progress and achievement reports are not clearly reported and/or misunderstood; d) the school’s communication methods are not well-designed to meet the needs of a diverse set of parents (e.g., not communicating in parents’ native languages, communicating only in writing when many parents cannot read, holding meetings at inconvenient times for parents).


The school presents significant concerns in one of the following areas: a) there is a lack of active and ongoing communication between the school and parents; b) school communication is neither timely nor relevant to the parental concerns; c) student academic progress and achievement reports are not clearly reported and/or misunderstood; d) the school’s communication methods are not well-designed to meet the needs of a diverse set of parents (e.g., not communicating in parents’ native languages, communicating only in writing when many parents cannot read, holding meetings at inconvenient times for parents).

Meets standard The school: a) has active and ongoing communication between the school and parents; b) utilizes communications that are both timely and relevant to the parental concerns; c) communicates student academic progress and achievement in reports that are understood

by parents; d) the school’s communication methods are designed to meet the needs of a diverse set of parents (e.g., communicating in parents’ native languages, not communicating only in writing when many parents cannot read, holding meetings at convenient times for parents).

Fourth Year Rating: Meets Standard. Renewal Rating: Meets Standard. The FYCR found that communication with students and parents at CFA was clear and helpful, and that there existed strong communication between the school, parents, and students. The reviewers found the board had prioritized a focus on parental engagement and involvement at CFA. One theme that repeated across interviews was the benefit of having parents come to pick up their children from school. Teachers report that they enjoy daily interaction with parents and/or guardians. The FYCR found that CFA used a variety of communication techniques to reach parents, including report cards, informal discussions, open houses, parent-teacher conferences and an automated call system. In the subsequent years, the Mayor’s Office has not found any evidence to suggest the school’s performance in this area has decreased in any way. Thus, the school continues to meet the Mayor’s standard for this indicator.

Section III. Plans for Sustainability & Improvement

Although pleased with our progress and honored with the opportunity to help so many intelligent, hard-working children, the team at the Challenge Foundation Academy is, by no means, satisfied with our success. We aim to be a school in which at least 90% of our students consistently reach proficiency and our students are roundly regarded as some of the kindest, most community-minded, academically-prepared young people in our city. In the space below, we share the strategies through which we aim to accomplish our goals for students and for our organization. In keeping with the format of the Mayor’s Application for Renewal, we have divided the steps we have taken as well as those we aim to take into five important areas. They are:

• Governing Board

• Leadership Team

• Teaching Staff

• Academic Achievement

• Other Issues

Governing Board The Board at the Challenge Foundation Academy has been one of the strongest aspects of our school for some time; in fact, our evaluators in the school’s fourth year judged CFA to be “exceeding standard” in the involvement and competence of our Board (Criteria 2.3). CFA currently retains six of the eight of its original Board members and six of the seven members with us at the time of the Fourth Year Review. They include:

• Rose Mays, PhD. (Board Chair): Professor of Nursing, IUPUI (Retired)

• Charlie Garcia: CEO, Garcia Construction Group

• Lois Johnson: Educator, Camp Director and CFA Grandparent

• Owen (Bud) Melton: CEO First Indiana Bank (Retired)

• William (BJ) Steinbrook: Executive Director, Challenge Foundation

• Darrel (Gene) Zink: CEO, Strategic Capital Partner

Today, our Board continues to exercise a deep commitment to the long-term success of our school as well as a diversity of representation in terms of both professional background and community connections. Over the last two years, we have added five additional members to our Board and, thus, currently operate with an 11-member Board of Directors. Our additions include:

• John Ackerman: Managing Director, Cardinal Equity Partners

• Tracy Banker: Partner, Warren & Banker PLC; Advisory Board, Challenge Foundation

• Judith Hall: Veteran Educator and Coach in IUPUI’s Teacher Preparation Program

• Anne Knall: Philanthropist with extensive experience in K-12 education.

• Shirley Thomas: Environmental Health Specialist, PTO Executive and CFA parent

Together, the eleven individuals who sit on the Challenge Foundation Academy Board represent a broad array of skills, interests and connections to our school. Yet, it is their commitment to CFA that may be their strongest commonality. The CFA Board consistently maintains a strong record of attendance at our Board Meetings.5 They are also regularly in attendance at various school and community events, ensuring they are accessible to parents and other stakeholders in the life of our school. As a school, we are especially proud of our association with the redevelopment of the Avondale Meadows and its connection with Purpose Built Communities (PBC). Gene Zink, a founding CFA Board Member, has devoted countless hours and considerable funds to CFA and the redevelopment of the area in which our school resides. Through his leadership and that of the Meadows Community Foundation, we believe that CFA - along with its friends at the Excel Center and the Charles A. Tindley Accelerated School, across the street - will provide for the country a model of holistic neighborhood development, centered on great schools. Finally, through the years, the Board has also convened an annual retreat during which we’ve identified strategic organizational priorities, including Board Development. At our most recent retreat, we identified three important areas - marketing, technology and fundraising - in which we aim in the coming years to add additional capacity to our Board. With these areas in mind, the CFA Board expects to rely on our community partners as well as the diverse networks of our current Board to help us identify great Board candidates. Once identified, the CFA Board expects to follow a well-established process through which our Board Chair interviews each potential candidate, invites him/her to tour the school and meet with CFA’s leadership team. Based on these meetings, an explanation of the responsibilities of Board Members and the required background check, the Board Chair may present a new candidate’s qualification to the full Board for a vote. If selected, the principal and Board Chair provides each new member an orientation to the school and the Board before the new member’s first meeting. Leadership Team In February 2012, Kelly Herron began as the School Director of the Challenge Foundation Academy. Following four years as a public school teacher in Cincinnati, Ms. Herron joined the staff at CFA in July 2006 as one of its founding teachers. Two years later, she was named Assistant Director, and, in July 2011, she became the Principal Fellow – a position funded through the generous support of the Challenge Foundation. Based on this experience, Herron comes to the role of School Director with deep knowledge of CFA’s academic program and operations as well as especially strong relationships with the CFA faculty, students and families we serve. Ms. Herron also has two children at CFA – a second grader and a kindergartener. Herron oversees a close-knit, well-coordinated Administrative Team – over half of whom have been with the school for four or more years. The team includes:

• Anne Brown, our Office Manager and Assistant to the Director, oversees all office operations, basic finances and state reporting. She first joined CFA in November 2007.

• Joe Burleson, the newest member of CFA’s Administrative Team, joined CFA in July 2012. Funded through the Challenge Foundation, Joe assumes responsibility for several

5 CFA has lacked a quorum at our monthly Board Meetings just twice since July 2008.

operational aspects of our school, while simultaneously developing the skills and experience he needs to start a new school and become its first leader.

• Tay Cantrell serves as our Registrar and Director of Communications. A CFA parent, Tay joined our team in July 2011 and oversees enrollment, our database and overall communications.

• Tara Gustin*, CFA Curriculum Director, assumes responsibility primarily for CFA’s academic program, including its curricula and assessments of student growth.

• Carvis Herron*, CFA’s Director of School Culture, who oversees all aspects of CFA’s culture, discipline and supports for students and families.

Ms. Herron and her team also work closely with two additional members of CFA’s Leadership Team. Charlie Schlegel served as CFA’s School Director from July, 2008 until February, 2012, at which time he took on the role of Director of Network Development. In this capacity, Schlegel supports Herron and her team as well as the principals of Fall Creek Academy and Fountain Square Academy – two schools with whom CFA has partnered to lend academic assistance and school improvement support. In July 2012, CFA hired Kyle Rouse to serve as the Director of Operations, coordinating business and operations at all three schools. Schlegel and Rouse work closely with CFA’s leadership team to improve not only its academic program but also the operational efficiencies that may emerge from working with multiple schools. The transition in School Directorship between Dr. Schlegel and Ms. Herron has proven especially smooth. In fact, last year the two worked closely together to help prepare Herron to assume responsibility for CFA’s overall program. CFA has also benefited from a structure that involves a broad-based team, invested in the long-term success of the school and involved in its overall leadership and direction. For instance, CFA employs “Team Leaders” at each grade, who coordinate curriculum and assessment as well as alignment in various classroom rituals and management strategies. As mentioned elsewhere in this application, CFA also has an Instructional Leadership Team, which includes Lead and Mentor teachers as well as the administrative team. Members of this team evaluate classroom instruction, conduct regular professional development and coordinate support for each classroom teacher. On whole, these teams are an example of the ways in which the structure of leadership at CFA offers ample opportunities for teachers to assume responsibilities outside the classroom and build skills that support leadership development while lending support for CFA’s overall program. Finally, the Challenge Foundation has proven to be an especially powerful partner in this endeavor. Last year, Ms. Herron served as the Challenge Foundation Fellow, allowing her the opportunity to further her skills, particularly in areas (like budgeting and board relations) in which she had limited experience as an assistant principal. With the continuing support from the Challenge Foundation, we also expect the fellowship will continue to be an important source of leadership training for aspiring school leaders and a crucial resource in sustaining leadership capacity at CFA. Teaching Staff

The Leadership Team as well as Board at the Challenge Foundation Academy believes the quality of our school and the success we expect to sustain rests squarely on the quality of classroom instruction and, in turn, student learning. Our capacity to recruit, develop and retain great teachers will determine the extent to which we can continue to improve as a school and reach our ambitious performance goals. Over the past two years, CFA has taken a number of steps to ensure we are continuously equipped with the strongest possible teachers. In July 2009, CFA brought on its first two teachers that came to us through the Teach For America program. Since this time, we have hired seven other TFA teachers - three of whom have remained with us beyond their regular two-year commitment. Each has assumed a leadership role within our instructional team. T0day, CFA maintains strong partnerships with Teach For America as well as the Indianapolis Teaching Fellows, as both serve as important sources of talent through which to provide our students with the strongest possible instruction. In August 2010, CFA began to implement the TAP system for student and teacher development.6 As mentioned elsewhere in our application, the TAP system has four core pieces.

1) Multiple Career Paths

2) Performance-Based Compensation

3) Instructionally-Focused Accountability

4) Ongoing, Applied Professional Development

We rely primarily on our Instructional Leadership Team to implement the TAP program with fidelity. For instance, we employ two teacher leaders – we call “Lead Teachers” – who oversee the supervision, evaluation and overall support of our classroom teachers. Our Lead Teachers also provide on-going, applied professional development through weekly cluster meetings at each grade as well as the ten professional development days, strategically placed throughout our school year. They work in tandem with our Mentor Teachers, who also have teacher evaluation and support responsibilities in addition to their classroom teaching duties. Together, our Lead and Mentor teachers work closely together to support our faculty and hold them to high standards of performance. In fact, often times our Instructional Leadership Team uses evaluation data (like that which is included in Appendix B) to determine the areas of greatest need or to differentiate support for teachers, based on areas of reinforcement or refinement. Finally, to help provide incentives for strong performance each of our teachers can earn a performance bonus (paid out in November of the following year), based upon a combination of classroom evaluations, student growth measures and student performance school-wide. On whole, we see TAP as an important part of our program and resource in our capacity to recruit, support, develop and retain strong teachers. In fact, the opportunity to offer teachers multiple career paths has been especially powerful in both the support we lend teachers new to

6 CFA was the first school in Indiana to use the TAP system to support its teachers and help them grow in ways that facilitate students’ academic growth; today, there are over 40 TAP schools in Indiana and hundreds across the country.

our school but also in the help we provide veterans, who are often interested in looking for opportunities outside their specific classroom that still allow them to stay connected and develop as educators. Finally, in addition to the steps we take to retain and help develop our teachers, we also track closely basic data measuring teacher retention rate. We must never be hesitant to let an ineffective teacher go; yet, among those who do meet our high standards, we must continue to work hard to retain them as teachers and/or leaders. Figure Six below relays our retention rates since we first opened.

Figure 6: Teacher Retention Rates Since 2006

School Year Total Staff Returning Staff Retention Rate 2006-2007 17 13 76.4% 2007-2008 23 17 73.9% 2008-2009 32 23 71.8% 2009-2010 38 28 73.7% 2010-2011 45 39 86.7% 2011-2012 48 34 70.8%

Multi-Year Ave. 33 25 75.7% Although rates did drop this past year, we do not believe it to be cause for concern. Life circumstances dictated most of last year’s departures. In two other cases, teachers left our team to assume leadership responsibilities at another school, a predictable consequence of recruiting and developing strong teacher leaders. Nonetheless, we will continue to track this data closely. We remain committed to employing a rigorous system of teacher recruitment and selection to ensure the strongest possible teachers join our team. We are equally committed to continuous growth, including the valuable lessons we glean from those who leave our team as well as those stay with us and continue as critical members of our instructional team. Academic Achievement As detailed earlier in our application, the Challenge Foundation Academy has an increasingly strong track record of improved student achievement. Over the last three years, CFA students have consistently achieved higher than average growth on both ISTEP reading and math. Our students have demonstrated equal levels of improvement on the NWEA test, growing more at every grade level than what is typical for students nationwide. In Figure Seven, we present our average growth data in reading, based on NWEA results for ’11-’12.

Figure Seven: NWEA Results

NWEA Growth Reading

Grade Level CFA Growth Typical Growth

Kindergarten 22.4 pts. 13 pts. First Grade 22.4 pts. 16 pts. Second Grade 15.6 pts. 13 pts

Third Grade 13.8 pts. 9 pts. Fourth Grade 11.5 pts. 6 pts. Fifth Grade 7 pts. 5 pts.

Predictably, better than average growth has helped improve reading and math proficiency. Students with us multiple years are consistently demonstrating higher than average growth. Although many may have started behind, with hard work and focused support, they eventually reach proficiency. As is evident in Figure Eight below, the percentage of students who score proficient on the ISTEP has actually doubled since 2008. This year, our students equaled the overall state average and exceeded the proficiency rates among African-American students state-wide by over 15 percentage points.7

Figure Eight: CFA’s Average ISTEP Proficient Rates Over Time

Note: The “Overall ISTEP Proficiency Rates” is the average proficiency rates at grades 3-5 in both Math and Reading. The steps described in Part A: Standard 4.3 (and outlined in detail in Appendix A) relay each of the pieces of our plan to sustain and improve in ways that support student achievement. As a school, we are committed to achieving 90% or greater ISTEP proficiency in reading and math each year – equaling proficiency rates among our city’s elite suburban schools with a far more affluent student base. As we implement the TAP system, refine our basic reading instruction through the Challenge Block and encourage deeper levels of family involvement through Parent University, we expect student achievement to surpass the 90% threshold. (See Appendix A for a detailed list of our improvement priorities.) The final piece in our plan to sustain and improve upon our academic results pertains to assessment and the close attention we must pay to learning results. Of course, we cannot be sure

7 Source: www.inors.turnleaf.com, disaggregation summary.

45.4% 46.3%

39.4%

48.8%

65.2%

72.5%

80.0%

Fall '06 Fall '07 Fall '08 Spr. '09 Spr. '10 Spr. '11 Spr. '12

ISTE

P Pr

ofic

ienc

y Ra

tes,

Gr.

3‐5

Overall ISTEP Proficiency Rates

that the steps we are taking to improve our school academically will be successful without a well-coordinated plan to assess student growth and performance throughout the school year. In Appendix C, we include the CFA Assessment Calendar for the current school year. It is our road map we use to measure students’ progress school-wide. These tools, coupled with teachers’ on-going, formative assessments, help us allocate instructional resources for interventions, make mid-course corrections in each student’s academic plan and assess the overall impact of our program on student achievement. Conclusion With the submission of this application, it is our wish to continue to be a Mayor’s-sponsored charter school. We are truly honored with the opportunity the Mayor’s office has afforded our team to know and help educate the highly intelligent, exceptionally energetic children and dedicated families that come through our doors each day. We are pleased with the progress our students have made under our guidance, and we are even more excited about the possibility of helping more students achieve at high levels. Provided further chance to work with the young people of Indianapolis, we believe the Challenge Foundation Academy will not only serve as a keystone in the resurgence of the Avondale Meadows community but also a powerful part of the success of public education across Indianapolis. Thank you for the opportunity to share with you our progress and the consideration given to the renewal of our charter.

CHALLENGE FOUNDATION...

Documents

Transcript of CHALLENGE FOUNDATION...