2019 State Review Panel Progress Monitoring Recommendation ...

© 2019 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Recommendation Form - 1

2019 State Review Panel Progress Monitoring Recommendation Form School/code & District/code: HOPE Online Academy ES / 3863, Douglas County School District / 0900

State Review Panelists: Nick Bucy, Andy Franko, Elizabeth Wall-Macht

Recommendation Meeting Date: October 21, 2019

Current State-directed Action: HOPE contract with an external private or public entity to operate all or part of its program, and that HOPE replace its Board.

Panel’s 2019 Recommendation:

The State Review Panel recommends closure for HOPE Online Learning Academy Elementary School based on an analysis of compiled data and documentation, as well as a site visit conducted October 9-10, 2019.

Evidence and Rationale:

Historical context and actions taken on previously recommended actions: HOPE Online Academy (HOPE) is comprised of three schools (with three school codes). HOPE contracts with Learning Centers and offers elementary, middle, and high school programs at Learning Center sites. The elementary school serves students at 11 learning centers and in 8 Colorado School districts. While many of HOPE Online Learning Academy (HOPE) systems, structures, and central office staff support the K-12 model, the State Review Panel (SRP) conducted a review of the elementary school program (K-5) only.

HOPE elementary school has received ratings of Turnaround (2010-2014) and Priority Improvement (2016-2019) and is entering its 9th year on the CDE Accountability Clock. During this time, the school’s authorizer since 2008, Douglas County School District (DCSD) renewed the school’s charter twice, first in 2013 (as a K-12 school), and again in 2018 (with conditions). Following recommendations from the 2016 SRP, in April 2017, the State Board recommended that HOPE contract with an external private or public entity to operate all or part of its program, and that HOPE replace its Board.

As directed, Hope reconstituted its Board and engaged an external private management partner. Discussion of the effectiveness of the Board and management partner is included below.

The State Review Panel recommends closure. After nine years of underperformance, Board reconstitution, and work with an external partner, students are not making the needed academic gains in the HOPE’s elementary school learning centers. Further, the school does not provide a unique instructional model (i.e., it is a blended learning model like many traditional brick-and-mortar-schools use), and there is a lack of guidance and oversight by the Board and authorizer.

Stakeholders, including parents at multiple learning centers, expressed satisfaction with HOPE, frequently citing the learning centers’ small sizes and positive culture. While results in some learning centers are stronger than others, collectively, as an elementary program, HOPE is underperforming and showing limited and inconsistent positive academic outcomes. Student demographic indicate the school serves some of the State’s most vulnerable and at-risk students (i.e., a high percentage of students who quality for free and reduced-price lunch (FRL), a high percentage of English language learner (ELL) student, and a high mobility rate). However, the SRP did not find evidence that these students could not be served by other schools in their communities. Although some learning centers employ licensed teachers, HOPE’s model mainly relies on serving students with mentors who are not required to have teacher licensure and who have varying academic and educational backgrounds. Learning center directors, although participating in instructional training through the University of Denver’s Design Thinking and Improvement Science professional development program, were frequently acknowledged by HOPE leadership to be primarily business owners rather than instructional leaders. Although HOPE instituted the Pathways Plan to address the education and licensing of mentors, they acknowledged challenges in recruiting and retaining mentors who are highly-qualified or licensed as teachers.

While stakeholders reported in the early years HOPE offered online programming, they stated all students are now required to attend learning centers every day and that the instructional model is based on a combination of direct


instruction and blended learning. HOPE administration stated that online learning occurs in a blended learning model and is predicated by the adaptive tools (e.g., iReady and Dreambox), used daily in the classroom. In summary, the SRP found that students served in HOPE’s elementary school are engaging in similar direct instruction curriculum and similar online tools as students in most traditional brick-and-mortar-schools.

The SRP also did not find evidence that the authorizer has provided effective guidance and oversight to hold the school accountable for improving its academic performance. The authorizer reported that attaining an adequate (i.e., improvement or higher) SPF rating is a requisite for the school to remain in operation, however, they have renewed the school’s charter twice while on the Accountability Clock. Additionally, Board members did not demonstrate the ability to provide effective guidance and oversight to help the school to achieve their goals. For example, the Board meets only quarterly, and in a focus group, demonstrated limited depth of knowledge of academic and financial oversight. The SRP also noted concerns regarding oversight of HOPE’s financial sustainability, specifically in regard to reports of the school’s minimal cash reserves; the SRP recommends there be follow-up re: the school’s financial and cash reserves.

In the CDE Accountability Pathway (2017) both CDE and the SRP highlight the following: “HOPE could be transitioned into a brick-and-mortar-charter-school which would allow the school to receive additional resources for each student through per pupil funding, more accurately reflect its operational structure and develop a more transparent governance and accountability structure”, and that “a brick-and-mortar-charter-model would more accurately reflect the current operations of Hope Online Elementary School and would provide the school with higher amounts of per pupil funding.” The current SRP concurs with these statements.

The State Review Panel does not recommend conversion to a charter school because HOPE is already designated as a charter school. As directed, HOPE reconstituted the Board and now includes members with expertise in education, business, equity, and inclusion. However, despite the Board reconstitution, the SRP did not find evidence the Board is providing effective academic or financial guidance or oversight. Board members did not demonstrate deep understanding of academic goals or improvement strategies and did not demonstrate a deep knowledge of HOPE’s finances. Further, the SRP found gaps in the authorizer’s supervision and support, particularly in regard to operations and financial oversight. The authorizer indicated that Improvement Status or better will be required of HOPE’s elementary school to receive a recommendation for charter renewal. Of significant concern to the SRP is the organization’s financial sustainability; specifically, various stakeholders indicated that the school has less than $400K in cash reserves for an annual budget of $16M.

The State Review Panel does not recommend innovation school status. Stakeholders did not express the need for additional autonomies beyond those the school already retains as a charter school. HOPE operates with a multi-district online charter school designation, and currently leverages State and District waivers that would also be available as a school of innovation. In addition, stakeholders did not provide examples of ways in which their operation or programming is inhibited by any entities including DCSD, other districts in which learning centers operate, or the State Board. While HOPE has various autonomies such as hiring non-certified instructional staff and shifting curriculum away from an earlier focus on online-based programming, these have not resulted in increased academic performance. HOPE elementary school has been on the Accountability Clock for nine years and does not rate “Effective,” as required for innovation status in most of the key criteria, including leadership, capacity of personnel to improve academic performance and the likelihood of positive returns on the state investment of supports and assistance. In summary, the SRP does not believe that Innovation status would improve the likelihood of the reaching improvement status.

The State Review Panel does not recommend management by a private or public entity other than the district. The school has already engaged with partners in order to meet the State Board directive (2017). Stakeholders report that a management plan (2017) was created to address HOPE’s need to: 1) design, implement, and evaluate a three-level approach to develop and strengthen community-based recruitment efforts and professional development practices; 2) restructure and refine staffing within the HOPE organization and Learning Centers; and 3) intensify accountability and support systems. While the partnership with external providers and the management plan were aligned to the school’s broad organizational improvement strategies as defined in the Unified Improvement Plan (UIP), this partnership and


plan did not specifically focus on the improvement of elementary academic performance. Although school leaders reported some benefits from the partnership, specifically in regard to strategic planning and central office reorganization and growth, professional development, an accountability, there is not evidence that the partnership resulted in improved academic outcomes at the elementary level. In addition, school leaders, board members, the authorizer and management partners reported the partnership was not fully effective. Therefore, the SRP does not recommended continued external management and does not have confidence that a different management partner would be able to create significantly better results.

State Review Panel School Progress Monitoring Review

Feedback Form 2019-2020

© 2019 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Progress Monitoring Review 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. For schools and districts that continue to remain on the accountability clock, the SRP will conduct an additional progress

monitoring site visit that will be used to assess the actions the school or district was previously directed to take, the fidelity to which the school has

implemented directed actions, and the amount of time the school has had to implement the actions to achieve results. The expectation is 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. On site at the school, 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’s/district’s capacity levels in relation to the six key areas and a summary of evidence for each.

Reviewer Name(s): Nicholas Bucy, Andrew Franko, Elizabeth Wall-Macht Date: October 9-10, 2019

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

SRP Progress Monitoring Site Visit Summary Capacity

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

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

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




SRP Evaluation based on Progress Monitoring 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

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 has made changes within the organization but does not act as a change agent to drive dramatic achievement gains.

● According to HOPE leadership, HOPE Online Academy (HOPE) is comprised

of three schools (with three school codes). HOPE contracts with Learning

Centers and offers elementary, middle, and high school programs at

Learning Center sites. The elementary school serves students at 11

learning centers and in 8 Colorado School districts.

●

● HOPE leadership stated HOPE elementary school, the focus of this State

Review Panel (SRP) review, includes the HOPE leadership team (Chief

Executive Officer [CEO], academic leadership, community outreach

leadership, and special education leadership), the HOPE Governing Board

(Board), and the authorizer, Douglas County School District (DCSD).

● According to leaders at HOPE, the Board has completed its reconstitution

since the 2016 SRP visit and includes five members with backgrounds that

include business, management, education, psychology, and equity and

inclusion. The Board and leadership stated that the Board meets

quarterly, approves the budget, and has conducted a fundraising event. In

addition, the Board and leadership reported that the Board chair and CEO

have bi-weekly meetings and the Board evaluated the CEO for the first

time, utilizing a more rigorous process, prior to the start of the school

year.

● HOPE leadership stated that learning centers (LCs) contract to operate

with HOPE and are the locations where students attend school. According

to HOPE leadership, LCs are staffed with a learning center director (LCD),

HOPE building resource teachers (BRTs), and LC mentors (mentors). HOPE

leadership and LCDs cited that LCs have one-or-two directors per site,

depending on the grade levels served, and the LCDs’ responsibilities

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.

include providing a safe learning environment, instructional staff, blended

curriculum, and participating in collaborative accountability. However,

HOPE leadership reported that most LCDs do not have to have a degree or

license in education. The HOPE Roles and Responsibilities documents

describes the responsibilities of a HOPE BRT to include coaching mentors

in the effective instruction of offline curriculum, assisting mentors to plan

a schedule that complies with HOPE’s Instructional Day requirements, and

providing small group and whole group instruction, as appropriate, to

meet student needs. LCs have one-or-more BRTs dedicated to the

elementary school, depending on the needs of the elementary site.

● HOPE leadership stated that LC mentors may or may not be licensed

teachers and may or may not have degrees beyond high school education.

HOPE leadership and LCDs stated that mentors’ responsibilities include

following the LC plan for student behavior, engaging in professional

development (PD) activities, designing and implementing a daily plan to

ensure all components outlined in HOPE’s Instructional Day are included,

and implementing offline and online curriculum with fidelity. Additionally,

HOPE leadership stated that mentors are now expected to participate in

the HOPE Pathways Plan and to make progress on their Individual Career

Academic Plans (iCAPs), which lays out their individual path to licensure.

● Leaders at HOPE stated that academic liaisons are part of the leadership

team whose responsibilities include supporting LCDs in the analysis of

center needs; designing PD and long-term planning for staff meetings;

designing and implementing a system for regularly monitoring and

coaching HOPE staff to improve instruction; and supporting LCDs in

observing, coaching, and providing input into mentor evaluations. HOPE

leadership reported that academic liaisons visit sites one-or-two-days per

week.

● The HOPE leaders and LCDs stated that the network has undergone

various changes in the past few years, including adding specialist positions

to the HOPE central office and expecting LCs and mentors to increase their

use of data to inform instruction. LCDs described how the role of the BRT

has shifted to be more in the role of coach and model instructor for the

mentors and that mentors receive evaluations for performance. The Roles

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 the school’s physical environment is

clean, orderly, and safe.




and Responsibilities documents clarify expectations for all staff and the

School Year (SY) 19-20 Instructional Day Expectations details instructional

time, activities, and curriculum expected at all elementary LCs.

● Neither Board member nor HOPE leaders were able to speak to data that

supports how change has been made in student achievement. The CDE

Overall Assessment of Progress Monitoring Summary, 2018, states that

achievement remains well below State expectations and that HOPE

Elementary School is in Year 8 of Priority Improvement.

Leadership has established shared priorities, but have not established clear, targeted, and measurable goals designed to promote student performance or adjust the implementation of the action plan.

● The Board and leadership reported that the school has undertaken various

priorities in recent years, including improving reading and writing

instruction, incorporating the use of English language learner (ELL)

strategies, using data to improve instruction, the addition of evaluation

and observation protocols for mentors, and submitting and reviewing

lesson plans. However, HOPE leadership, when asked, did not present

quantifiable achievement goals.

● The Unified Improvement Plan (UIP) includes three strategic goals as the

focus for the school’s improvement efforts. These include: 1) Improve the

overall quality of classroom instruction; 2) Implement a data-driven

decision-making system HOPE-wide; and 3) Refine HOPE staffing to meet

the needs of each learning center. The UIP states these goals will address:

1) Inconsistent delivery of high-quality instruction; 2) Inconsistent

monitoring of performance; and 3) Lack of learning center instructional

leadership to guide and evaluate performance.

● The UIP indicates that a lack of a comprehensive system for data use was

a barrier to improvement in previous years. HOPE leadership and LCDs

indicated that, this year, they have now moved to a common platform

with iReady. LCDs and mentors explained that the increased use of data is

new in the last two years and stated that, with this change, they believe

they know more about their students’ academic needs.

● HOPE leadership indicated that PD aligns with the school goals. For

example, they cited HOPE engaged a consultant from Learning Sciences




International (LSI) to lead LCDs and BRTs to analyze writing data.

According to HOPE leadership and BRTs, the consultant provided trainings

on the connections between reading and writing and supported LC staff to

evaluate the curriculum for writing opportunities and to supplement

where needed.

Leadership has established strong school culture and student behavior but has not established high expectations for student learning.

● Leaders at HOPE stated that the increase in data use has resulted in an

increase in student academic performance, but the School Performance

Framework (SPF) data indicated that HOPE elementary school students

performed in the 4th percentile rank in reading and at the 5th percentile

rank in math data, indicating that achievement gains have been minimal.

● HOPE leadership stated that Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) and

EngageNY are now being used as core curricula for direct instruction at

LCs and that this represents an improvement from previous years. While

daily class schedules reflected use of CKLA and EngageNY and the SRP only

observed a small sample of classrooms, the consistent use of these

curricula across LCs was not observed.

● Stakeholders were unable to present a common understanding of high

academic expectations and typically referred to using the curriculum to

meet high expectations. All stakeholders also cited the students’ lack of

preparedness for grade-level instruction. The 2016 SRP report states that

the school “lacks evidence of high-quality instruction.” The current SRP

concurs with this statement.

● The SRP site visit team observed minimal student misbehavior at LCs, and

few examples of student misbehavior interfering with instruction.

However, HOPE leaders stated that some LCs have issues with behavior

and that they are using restorative practices to keep students in the

classroom, as well as initiating mental health support and counseling at

some sites.

● LCDs and mentors described using Positive Behavior Interventions and

Supports (PBIS) or a similar system with positive reinforcement through

awards, points, and tickets. Mentors stated that behavior is generally

good and that, due to the close community addressing negative behavior,




is done effectively. The SRP observed the use of PBIS strategies in some

classrooms in some LCs visited.

● The school’s website includes the 2019-20, English and Spanish versions of

the HOPE Code of Conduct and HOPE Parent and Student handbooks.

Together, these handbooks outline policies, including student conduct,

discipline and attendance.

● HOPE leadership and LCDs described that safety protocols at LCs include

locked doors, fingerprinting, secure entry with video, sign-in procedures,

and safety drills. In addition, the board described safety and security as a

priority. The SRP observed safe LC environments. Also, the parents

indicated that they find the LCs to be safe for their students.






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

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

of 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 supports, but has not led intentional, strategic efforts to ensure the effectiveness of the academic program and the sustainability of the organization.

● Leadership at HOPE stated that HOPE is a charter school authorized by

Douglas County School District (DCSD) who, through Memoranda of

Understanding (MOUs), operates multiple learning center sites across the

State. The district and the HOPE leadership reported that DCSD provides

support at multiple levels, including, for example: special education

services and staffing; Title funding; UIP development and review; ELD

programming; written feedback during the renewal process; conditions for

probationary renewal contracts; and initial support for iReady and Alpine

Achievement.

● Leaders from HOPE and DCSD representatives indicated there are plans to

complete a performance framework which will likely include a Board audit

and training through the District or League of Charter Schools but this this

level of support and evaluation has not yet been provided.

● The UIP states that a governance committee from DCSD, along with others,

reviewed HOPE’s PD plan, evaluation tools, quarterly management reports

and the UIP. In the 2019-2020 school year, they will evaluate HOPE’s

progress on the management plan and UIP.

● DCSD stated they base the charter renewal on SPF outcomes. However, the

school has been granted two renewals during the eight years that HOPE has

been at Priority Improvement or Turnaround performance levels and on

the Accountability Clock. HOPE contracts with Learning Centers and offers

elementary, middle, and high school programs (currently, three separate

school codes but at one time existed with one school code) at Learning

Center sites. When asked, DCSD representatives also expressed concern

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 assessible way.




o PD engages teachers in active learning (e.g., leading

instruction, discussing with colleagues, observing

others, developing assessments), and provides follow-

up sessions and ongoing support for teachers’

continued learning.

o The quality of professional development delivery is

regularly monitored, evaluated, and improved.

regarding the effectiveness of the instructional strategies employed by

HOPE teaching and learning center staff.

● As the authorizer, DCSD representatives stated that they recognize the

need to serve HOPE’s student population and want to provide autonomy to

the school but acknowledged that accountability is necessary to ensure the

quality of the HOPE program. They also indicated that future

reauthorization will be based on HOPE’s ability to provide high quality

instruction.

● When asked about the DCSD’s recommendation for the SRP for HOPE

moving forward, the DCSD representatives expressed concern about the

transition process if the elementary school were to engage with a new

management partner, in particular, if expectations for the management

partner were tied to federal / state funds and significant positive results

were needed to provide return on investment. DCSD representatives

suggested that if the school chooses to continue working with their existing

management partner there is a need to: 1) focus on clear outcomes in a

defined time period; and 2) define the four areas with greater clarity-details

and accountability outcomes.

School leadership is beginning to focus on recruiting and retaining talent; developing effective teachers, evaluating staff, and dismissing those who do not meet expectations.

● Academic liaisons and LCDs reported positive experiences participating in

DU’s PD focused on design thinking and improvement science and consists

of four seminars and monthly coaching. The HOPE Online Academy Equity

DI Proposal 2019-2020 describes the scope of the University of Denver (DU)

PD work to include: 1) DU will design professional development program

for improvement for LCDs and academic liaisons, including seminars and

coaching sessions throughout the 2019-2020 school year focused on design

thinking and improvement science; and 2) DU will set up and conduct

Intercultural Development Inventory and debriefs for HOPE Central leaders

and three half-day equity focused workshops. Included in the document are

PD descriptions, general outcomes, seminar/coaching topics, and the

calendar. The UIP action step to provide learning center directors/

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; there is a plan for long-term financial

sustainability.

● The school leadership effectively manages operations

(e.g., food services, transportation, school facilities).

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, and coordinated both within and 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 that 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, and

represent student data and use tools to help act on

results.

o School leaders ensure that all teachers receive PD 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).

managers with pathways to continue leadership development is “In

Progress.”

● HOPE leadership and LCDs reported the desire to recruit mentors from

their communities (i.e., where their respective LCs are located) but

acknowledged that this sometimes presents challenges in terms of ensuring

that all mentors were highly qualified. HOPE leadership stated that they are

training mentors and paying for licensure through the Pathways Plan and

that mentors agree to a three-year commitment with HOPE after they

receive their license. LCDs stated paying some mentors over the summer to

incentivize mentors to continue with the LC during the school year.

Academic liaisons reported that improving hiring practices and the school’s

interview process have been a focus in recent years. Leadership also cited

challenges in retaining mentors, citing that the job market offers higher

paying work and mentors leave HOPE for other jobs in education after they

are licensed.

● The UIP includes an Implementation Benchmark that 100% of learning

center and HOPE instructional staff will have a professional growth plan to

further their education with the ultimate goal being teacher and/or

administrator licensure, advanced degrees, and/or additional

certifications/endorsements; this has been “Partially Met.” HOPE

leadership cited the Pathways Plan, Revised 2018, to include a teacher-

mentor pipeline improvement strategy with the focus of ensuring that

higher-quality teachers and mentors are recruited, hired, and supported by:

1) Focusing on recruiting licensed staff or staff willing to pursue licensure;

2) Developing licensure pathways and incentive plans for current mentors;

3) Implementing at least one alternative certification program;

4) Supporting mentors through career counseling and outreach to

determine appropriate educational pathways that lead to licensure; and

5) Evaluating the effectiveness of the teacher/mentor pipeline.

● HOPE leadership’s comments added to the Pathways Plan, Revised 2018,

include that in 2018-19, an accountability system will be developed and

implemented to monitor mentor progress on iCAPs and that iCAPs will be

included as a key component of each mentor’s annual performance

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.




evaluation. Per the DCSD quarterly report, 90% of mentors had an iCAP

plan as of August 2019.

● HOPE’s leadership indicated that 9-of-11 elementary site LCDs have been

with the organization for five or more years and also reported the closure

of four low-performing LCs. HOPE leadership stated that highly effective

staff were retained from closed LCs and moved to other centers and also

provided a 2017-18 list of 11 non-renewed mentors that were evaluated

“Not Effective.”

● Leaders from HOPE stated there is a new evaluation system for mentors

that provides them support in areas where needed. BRTs confirmed that

they conduct mentor evaluations and report the outcomes to the LCDs and

academic liaisons. In addition, LCDs also reported co-conducting mentor

evaluations at least quarterly with the academic liaison assigned to the site.

● BRTs and mentors describe that PD is now more often differentiated based

on how long the mentor has been with HOPE. Mentors expressed more

satisfaction with PD and find it more useful than in prior years. HOPE

leadership reported encouraging teaching staff to gain the Culturally and

Linguistically Diverse Education (CLDE) endorsement.

● The UIP and Turnaround Plan, while using slightly different language,

consistently identifies licensure, teacher training, and recruitment as the

elementary school’s greatest area(s) of need and indicate that the school

hired two consultants, one of whom is responsible for talent management.

It is not clear that leadership ensures that the organization has sound financial and operational systems and processes.

● The HOPE Organization Chart includes Board members, the CEO, academic

leadership, special education, community outreach, human resources,

accounting, and nutrition services positions complete with personnel and

titles. The HOPE Roles and Responsibilities documents outline and clarify

the expectations for HOPE staff.

● HOPE leadership reported clean financial audits, was unable to state days’

cash-on-hand and indicated HOPE has $400K in cash reserves

(approximately one week of operating costs) with a total annual budget of

$16MM.




● The Board and school leadership reported willingness to engage in

discussions regarding finances and reported using some of the cash reserve

to support the elementary academics at the LCs (e.g., Yoga tablets, iReady,

iPad touch screens).

● When asked, DCSD stated they provide limited financial and operational

oversight or fiscal health analysis. The DSCD/HOPE Charter Contract 2013-

2018 document outlines financial matters including guidelines for revenues

and for disbursement of per-pupil revenues and requires that HOPE

prepares and provides four quarterly financial reports to the district.

● HOPE leadership described that HOPE works with LCs/LCDs to explain the

contract arrangement, provide a budget template, and review completed

template with LC director. However, HOPE leadership stated HOPE does not

provide direct financial oversight of LCs outside of the contractual

agreement. Additionally, they reported willingness to advance LCs one

month’s operating expenses, if needed. Directors reported that there is

negotiation regarding repayment of those funds to HOPE.

School leadership is beginning to provide instructional leadership.

● HOPE Administration, BRTs, and LC staff reported having both a non-

negotiable instructional day schedule and a curricula directive to use

EngageNY and CKLA during face-to-face instruction. Leadership stated that

online time must adhere to a minimum of 30 minutes daily, but there is no

single defined online curriculum. BRTs and mentors reported that students

primarily use iReady during online time. The SRP observed, and the LC staff

reported, that students use adaptive and intervention programs during

online time, but do not use a virtual curriculum. A review of SY 19-20

Instructional Day Expectations outlines basic expectations, such as length of

the instructional day to be a minimum of six hours: 90 min. math, 3 hrs.

literacy, 30 min. intervention, 30 min. special education, 30 min. physical

education (PE), and the curriculum to be used (i.e., EngageNY math,

Dreambox, iReady). However, while this document outlines the use of time

and curricula, it does not address instructional strategies.

● LCDs stated that academic liaisons support has improved and this

connection has increased the academic focus of the site. Additionally, LCDs




reported collecting and reviewing mentors’ lesson plans and then

completing walk-through observations to check the fidelity to the plans.

● Mentors described receiving helpful feedback and coaching from the BRTs.

The BRTs reported they are providing feedback and support through

modeling, coaching, conversation, and co-teaching. LCDs described that the

coaching protocols and tools originate from HOPE staff and include

conversations about student learning and instruction. Some mentors

reported that the coaching work with BRTs is the most useful PD that they

receive. The SRP observed some BRTs working with students and mentors

in some classrooms. However, the SRP observed the main instruction and

majority of instruction was being delivered to the at-risk population of

learners by mentors who may not have licensure or degrees beyond high

school.

● All stakeholders discussed the new focus on and use of data. Liaisons, LCDs,

BRTs, and mentors reported meeting regularly/weekly in PLCs to analyze

data from sources such as Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills

(DIBELS), iReady, unit assessments, and exit tickets. All stakeholders

reported receiving support with data analysis from the strategic partners,

DU and Learning Sciences International (LSI).

The school does not consistently provide high-quality instruction.

● In 100% of classrooms, the SRP observed clear behavior expectations and

students who behaved throughout the lesson. For example, students were

following directions and completing the task given; instances of

misbehavior were not observed.

● In 71% of classrooms, the SRP noted an effectively structured learning

environment. In these classrooms, students transitioned quickly from one

activity to the next and time used during the observation was filled with

activities. In addition, teachers were prepared, technology was set up and

running, and students spent the majority of the observation engaged in the

activities. In 29% of classrooms, the learning environment was not

effectively structured. For example, teachers were not always fully

prepared and students spent some idle time and took longer to transition

from one activity to the next.




● In 93% of classrooms visited, the SRP observed that teachers had effectively

established a supportive learning environment in which students were

smiling, teachers were making personal connections to students,

comforting students, using humor, and conversing with students in their

native languages.

● In 85% of classrooms, the SRP observed ineffective or partially ineffective

use of higher-order thinking skills. Instead, students were engaged in low-

level, single-step tasks – for example, completing fill-in-the-blank

worksheets, reviewing finished work, reciting basic facts, and answering

multiple choice questions.

● In 31% of classrooms, assessments were effectively used to understand

student learning. For example, adults were circulating checking students’

work or reviewing the work of students collaborating in a small group. In

69% of classrooms, there was limited use of assessment strategies. In these

classrooms, students were either not assessed or checks for understanding

were focused on directions or previously learned material.

● The UIP indicates that reading and math status achievement continue to be

well-below expectations and lists as a root cause inconsistent delivery of

high-quality instruction because HOPE and Learning Center staff may lack

content knowledge, pedagogy, and instructional practice needed to ensure

consistent, high quality instruction.

● Stakeholders expressed varying understandings of what high-quality

instruction looks like. Some examples/terms listed by focus groups include

interaction, engagement, achievement, aligned to standards, data-driven,

rigor, wait time, clean and safe environment, and classroom management.

HOPE leadership stated that the quality of instruction differs greatly based

on the classroom instructor, and that there must be high expectations,

challenging curriculum, and increased level of rigor.

● HOPE leadership described using the Sheltered Instruction Observation

Protocol (SIOP) strategies to support ELL students and that some sites have

a large percentage of newcomers using Rosetta Stone. They acknowledged

that students do not always participate in high-quality or frequent

conversation with peers – in particular, when they are engaged with

computers.




● Leaders at HOPE indicated they have a small percentage of students

identified with disabilities at the elementary school level. They indicated

they work to not over-identify students with disabilities due to language

acquisition needs. In addition, leaders reported DSCD provides support for

students with disabilities through an itinerant model, but that this

responsibility is in the process of shifting to HOPE.






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

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

Most educators’ mindsets and beliefs reflect shared commitments to students’ learning.

● HOPE leadership expressed the belief that all kids can learn within HOPE’s

blended model and reported that they believe the majority of staff have this

belief as well. However, they also acknowledged that some administrative

staff and LC staff may have lower expectations for ELL students. Leaders

described the school gets really tough kids who have already cycled through

a number of schools.

● Leaders at HOPE reported that LCDs hold each other accountable for

academic performance. LCDs reported the focus is on the students and they

look to hire individuals who share this belief.

● Learning center directors and instructional staff stated that the students

who stay with the LC are more successful in the long-run and that students

who arrive later to the school have a hard time fitting in to the model

initially but acclimate within the year.

● BRTs/specialists and mentors described a feeling of a strong sense of

collaboration among those who work at the LC and stated that a strength of

the LC staff is the commitment to kids and community. The LC staff

expressed that they use a team approach to support students with what

they need (i.e., special education, English language development [ELD],

counseling). BRTs/specialists and mentors described a shift toward talking

about student learning and student data more often. When asked to

describe what this means or what the discussions are specifically about, they

cited discussions of turn-and-talk strategies and using DIBELS data to create

interventions.

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).

The school is beginning to establish conditions that support educators’ learning culture.

● HOPE leadership described in the past two years culture among the entire

organization has improved in becoming more collaborative and cooperative.

Further, they described having more candid conversations about the reality

of student learning and progress leading to an increased sense of urgency.

The LCDs reported the academic liaison support was not effective at first but

has recently been more connected with the LCs.

● The UIP lists a lack of learning center director instructional leadership to

guide and evaluate performance and states a need exists for continued

development of leadership skills at the learning center level.

● LCDs described that HOPE leadership is providing a new level of support to

the mentors through regular meetings and data analysis. The BRTs and

mentors reported open-door communication with LCDs and described a high

level of respect for each other’s instructional expertise and commitment to

students. BRTs and mentors cited engaging in frequent communication

about learners, data, curriculum, and planning for instruction. The mentors

reported excitement for support from BRTs especially in the area of

modeling of lessons.

Educators collaborate regularly but it is not clear if it is impacting the quality of instruction and students’ progress.

● HOPE’s leadership reported participating in the DU Turnaround Leadership

Cohort and working with other education leaders to develop the skills of

turnaround leadership. Academic liaisons and LCDs described participating in

the DU Turnaround PD consisting of four seminars and monthly coaching.

● Leaders at HOPE noted monthly PD for BRTs. LCDs, BRTs, and mentors stated

that regular/weekly PLCs allowed mentors and BRTs to collaborate on

planning lessons and discuss instructional approaches. Mentors cited that

PLCs are scheduled by LCs. HOPE provided the 2019-20 Month by Month PLC

PD schedule. The schedule outlines the Date, Content focus, Teach Like A

Champion (TLAC) chapter readings, Data Analysis focus, PD Follow up, and

Accountable Actions for each month. Five of nine months have topics for the

content focus, TLAC chapter readings, and data analysis focus (i.e., DIBELs,

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 an 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.

3.4: 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.




iReady). The month of September lists the PD follow up and accountable

actions.

The school provides opportunities for families to engage with the school in support of students’ learning and improvement efforts.

● HOPE leadership noted that parents and the School Accountability

Committee (SAC) are very important. The SAC meeting minutes are posted

on the website but minutes do not include specifics or details of the topics of

discussion. For example, the topic Parent Engagement included, “Parent

Communication was discussed with the SAC committee. Members gave

examples of what worked well at their own Learning Centers. The DAC

guidelines were shared with the group.”

● HOPE leadership, BRTs, LCDs, and mentors stated that LCs host family

academic events (i.e., Science Technology Engineering, Mathematics [STEM],

Literature, Cultural, Make-and-Take, Moms and Muffins) and HOPE

facilitates sport events (soccer, volleyball, kickball). HOPE administration

reported the sport events are well-attended by families. The school’s

website has a Community area with links to the HOPEOnlineLearning

YouTube Channel, the Voices of HOPE Community e-Newsletters, the

Bulletin Board area with community events and opportunities, and the

student activities and events calendar for 2019/2020.

● LCDs, BRTs, and mentors reported that parent participation at conferences

varied by site and grade level, ranging from few to the majority of parents

attending. Mentors report that in some cases, they will conduct telephone

conferences and home visits for parents who do not come to the LC for the

conference.

● Some LCDs and BRTs/specialists stated the school has a few local community

partners. Cited as an example is fire and police department personnel

visiting LCs to read to students and to conduct safety checks. One LCD stated

the example of a legislator coming to the LC to read to students.

● Mentors indicated that family communication occurs in the weekly folder,

monthly newsletter, and through LC/Mentor notification of celebrations and

events. BRTs report that some LCs use ClassDojo and Remind to

communicate with families.




● Parents interviewed at one LC reported they feel welcome in the school and

experience a high level of communication with the LCs through weekly

bulletins, pamphlets, ClassDojo, and the HOPE website. Parents also

discussed their attendance at Back-to-School-Night, fall celebrations, and

sport events, depending on when events occur.






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

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.

Although the school has collaborated with their external management partner, the outcomes of this relationship have not yielded high returns in student outcomes.

● The 2017 Hope Management Plan Proposal cites the management partner’s

Role will assist HOPE to: 1) Design, implement, and evaluate a three-level

approach to develop and strengthen community-based recruitment efforts

and professional development practices. Efforts include supporting HOPE

leadership in the DU Turnaround program, BRTs attending HOPE leadership

monthly PDs, mentors attending weekly PLCs and receiving regular coaching

from BRTs, recruiting highly qualified mentors from the community, and

supporting pathways for community members to attain teacher licensure. 2)

Restructure and refine staffing within the HOPE organization and Learning

Centers. Efforts include adding additional positions, such as ELD specialist

and liaisons, to the HOPE staff in support of LC instruction. The HOPE

organization chart and Roles and Responsibilities document outlines

expectations at each position. 3) Intensify accountability and support

systems. Efforts include liaisons meeting with LCDs and providing more

intensive supports as needed, using data in meetings, and evaluating the

performance of centers and classrooms.

● The District and HOPE leadership reported a deficit of the management

partners’ work was a lack of urgency and clear timeline. Leadership

described that the management partner provided an initial needs

assessment, observed PD, and visited each site once, but did not drive nor

implement PD. Leadership indicated the management partner was “hands

off” and that HOPE was frustrated with the slow progress on the identified

actions. Additionally, HOPE leadership noted that there was significant value

in the management partners’ strategic support, but that lack of doing/action

diminished the value.

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.




● The Board reported that they did not choose the management partners for

the partnership. The Board also acknowledged a lack of oversight in terms of

partners’ timeline. The Board and HOPE leadership reported a desire to have

more flexibility with partnerships moving forward.

● While the BRTs recalled having support from an external partner two years

ago with site visit observations and PD support, the LC staff (LCDs, BRTs, and

mentors) were not able to describe the defined partnership with the

assigned or approved management partner.

● The management partner stated they have not supported HOPE since June

2019. When asked, the partner stated they conducted site visits to all but

three LCs and provided support and feedback about developing

differentiated PD. Both HOPE leadership and management partner

acknowledged a lack of clarity regarding the level of management partners’

hands-on involvement and improvement efforts, and in each party’s roles

and responsibilities.

The school has leveraged external partners in support of teaching and student

learning.

● HOPE leadership stated they are partnered with DU. HOPE leadership and

other leadership report participating in the DU Turnaround Leadership

program and LCDs and Liaisons report participating in DU’s PD seminars and

coaching experiences. LCDs reported that DU’s PD with both a business and

educational focus has been very useful. BRTs stated that taking part in the

DU PD has increased the instructional focus at their sites. The 2018 CDE End

of Year Reflection states HOPE has completed Year 1 of the University of

Denver’s Turnaround Leadership Program to provide LCDs with aligned,

focused PD opportunities around turnaround leadership strategies. The UIP

states HOPE continued their partnership with the DU Turnaround Success

Program.

● HOPE leadership stated that mentors agree to take part in the Pathways Plan

in order to reach HOPE’s goal to improve the overall quality of classroom

instruction. The Revised Jan. 2019 HOPE Pathways Plan Summary lists the

following strategies: 1) Recruit and retain quality educators from the

community; 2) Create Licensure and Leadership Pathways for all staff;

3) Design PD to address the specific learning and engagement needs of




students with multiple risk factors; 4) Restructure staffing patterns within

Learning Centers; and 5) Enhance accountability and governance structures.

The revision comments include: HOPE met the Spring 2017 benchmark of

100% of mentors hired in 2017 without teaching degrees agreed to seek

teacher licensure through continuing education. However, there was not a

mechanism to track their progress. In 2018/19, an accountability system will

be developed and implemented to monitor mentor progress on iCAPs. iCAPs

will be included as a key component of each mentor’s annual performance

evaluation. HOPE will develop a comprehensive educational Pathways Plan

that is designed to address the individual needs of mentors on their paths to

become professional educators. The educational Pathways Plan will

incorporate PD provided by HOPE, as well as external partners, community

colleges, and four-year institutions.

● BRTs reported the PD facilitated by a consultant was valuable in improving

the schools’ focus on writing.

Leadership is beginning to receive and respond to feedback.

● HOPE leadership cited the Board recently completed her first evaluation in

2018-19. This evaluation included a self-evaluation. Additionally, HOPE

leadership reported the Board supported her participation in the DU

Turnaround program.

● HOPE leadership indicated regular and as-needed conversations with the

District. HOPE leadership reported taking feedback from the District, such as

being challenged to engage with Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) in

LCs and to look at the school curriculum differently. HOPE leadership also

described receiving support and feedback from the District with grants, ELD,

Special Education (SpEd), Alpine Achievement, and iReady. HOPE leadership

reported participating in monthly charter leadership meetings with the

District.

● HOPE leadership stated taking feedback from the management partners to

restructure the central office, the accountability systems for schools, and the

Pathways programs.

● The consultant reported that the leadership sought out data support and

then provided this information through HOPE-wide PD. HOPE leadership and

LC staff reported this was effective and useful.




● The UIP states HOPE administers an annual student affiliation survey and a

parent satisfaction survey, which are both made available in English and

Spanish and that the three-year trend data indicate high satisfaction with

their child’s experience at HOPE.

● The UIP indicates the HOPE mentor evaluation tool has been updated based

on feedback gathered from LC Directors after first year implementation.






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

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.

It is not clear how leadership monitors the return on investment of specific improvement initiatives and uses data to inform-decision-making.

● HOPE leadership stated that HOPE made the decision to close four learning

centers based on low academic achievement.

● Leaders at HOPE stated the math pilot of the Envisions curriculum is

occurring at two LC locations – one with high math performance and one

with low math performance. This decision was based on lessons learned

from previously piloting curriculum at only high-performing sites. Following

the pilot, HOPE leadership will complete a cost-benefit analysis to determine

if this program is adopted by all LC locations.

● HOPE leadership stated they have four academic liaisons who oversee and

visit one-to-five LCs at least once a week. Learning center site-based staff

indicated having the academic liaison has been very helpful so far. HOPE

leadership cited purchasing iReady to have a shared data set across LCs.

HOPE leadership and learning center leadership indicated that this is early in

implementation, but that it has been a valuable investment. LCDs stated

they are now able to get the resources they need, such as curriculum and

classroom equipment by contacting the HOPE central office. BRTs reported

setting goals with students and described various ways for tracking progress

on goals by using notebooks and google doc.

● HOPE leadership stated that $275K from the general fund was used for the

Management Partners, Title 1 monies were used for literacy specialists or

para-educators, READ Act monies were used to support literacy, EL

Proficiency Act funds were used to support English Language Development,

and Title 2 and Title 3 funds were used for PD. Additionally, HOPE leadership

stated that HOPE was awarded a Pathways Grant to support tuition

assistance and PD. HOPE leadership stated HOPE is its own food authority

and provides free breakfast and lunch for all students.

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.

● The District expressed concern that they will allocate resources that will not

result in significant positive outcomes.

Students do not demonstrate significant academic progress over time.

● The UIP indicated mixed results regarding academic growth with 56% of

students in grades 3-5 having met Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)

English language arts (ELA) goals and 53% of students having met MAP math

goals. However, math and ELA median growth percentiles (MGPs) were each

just 41, indicating that students at the school are falling behind their peers.

The UIP stated that both reading and math achievement continue to be well

below expectations as HOPE elementary school students performed in the

4th percentile rank in reading and at the 3rd percentile rank in math. The

UIP indicated that English Learner (EL) students received a rating of

“Approaching,” scoring at the 46th percentile on Assessing Comprehensive

and Communication in English State-to-State (ACCESS), but that language

acquisition of students must be accelerated to move students to the

“Meets” level of growth.

● The 2019 MGP data from Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS)

for ELA among 15 LCs reports: low growth in 6 LCs (19%-34%), low typical

growth in 2 LCs (39% and 44%), typical growth in 7 LCs (51%-65%), and no

schools with high growth. The 2019 MGP data from CMAS for Math among

15 LCs reports: low growth in 7 LCs (18%-34.5%), low typical growth in 7 LCs

(36%-47%), and typical growth in 1 LC (61%), and no schools with high

growth. While the 2019 MPG data reported typical growth in some

instances, it is unclear if the growth was sufficient for the student to be at

grade level.

● HOPE leadership reported the variance in academic progress is due to the

culture and the instructional experience of LC staff, including LCDs and

mentors.






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

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.

The school is mission-driven but its mission and vision no longer meet a unique need.

● The Governing Board and HOPE’s leadership reported the vision had been

updated last year with input from the mentors and center-based

stakeholders to include the importance of community involvement. In focus

groups, learning center directors, mentors and BRTs referenced the four

pillars that guide HOPE: attendance, achievement, affiliation, and aspiration,

and that the mission is to provide the best educational program in a blended

environment, give students a foundation, reach out to the community, and

emphasize a safe and caring environment where students can succeed. The

UIP and school’s website includes the mission statement and vision.

● HOPE leadership described HOPE as a blended learning school and

acknowledged HOPE has moved away from a heavy focus on online learning

to a blended learning environment in the LCs, indicating students do not

have access to curriculum and technology or have a safe/supported

environment to do online learning at home (which has increased since the

school’s inception), so they come to the LC for this environment.

● The first sentence of the HOPE mission states, “HOPE’s mission is to provide

a student-focused K-12 educational program through a blended learning

environment for students who are historically underrepresented in the

online/blended education system.” The SY 19-20 Instructional Day

Expectation provides prescribed curriculum for direct and online instruction

and timeframes for online and offline interactions.

● The core curricula for ELA and Math, while aligned with Colorado Academic

Standards, CKLA, Envision and EngageNY, are not online based curriculum

and do not have online components. iReady and DreamBox are not for

virtual learning but are computer-accessed adaptive learning tools designed

to complement the teacher’s instruction. The combination of the core

curricula and computer-accessed adaptive learning tools are not unique and

are being used in brick and mortar schools across the country.

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.




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

● The CDE report, 2017, stated that HOPE has 26 learning centers and that two

centers serve only high school students. HOPE leadership reported that the

network has 11 remaining elementary sites, having closed a number of sites

due to performance concerns. Leadership stressed that declines in

enrollment are the result of strategically closing LCs, rather than declining

demand for HOPE’s programming. The elementary LCs are located in the

Denver, Westminster, Brighton, Lakewood, Federal Heights, Mountain View,

Commerce City, Aurora, Greeley, and Pueblo communities.

● LCDs reported, depending on the site, that that they serve a very high

proportion of students who are ELL students (95%+), newcomers, students

who are homeless, and students who have left districts because they feel

unsafe. According to the HOPE Elementary Enrollment Demographics

document for 2019-2020 HOPE elementary students are reflected in the

following demographics for the elementary enrollment of 853 students:

Ethnicity- 85.2% Hispanic, 8.9% White, 4.2% Black; Free-Reduced-Price

Lunch- Free 88.2%, Reduced 3.5%; Homeless- 9.14%; IEP- 5.16%; and English

Language Learners- 52.87%. The demographic slides provided by the school

indicate this year the elementary school serves just over 5% of students with

special needs/IEPs, far less than the district or other charters.

● The 2016 SRP reported, “There are other online and brick and mortar

programs that are serving similar students and showing better results,” and

“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.” The SRP finds that this report remains accurate and

believes that the 853 students, (HOPE Elementary Enrollment Demographics

document), attending the learning center locations could likely be supported

and enrolled in other surrounding schools.

● According to the CDE website, Colorado Connections Academy @ Durango, a

Certified Multi-District Online School, provides online learning with an SPF of

Performance with low participation, “Meets” in achievement and

“Approaching” in growth categories at the elementary level. In addition, PSD

Global Academy, a Certified Multi-District Online School, authorized by




Poudre School District RE-1, provides blended learning on PSD campus and

online with an SPF of Performance with low participation, “Exceeds” in

achievement and “Meets” in growth categories at the elementary level.

Additionally, there are various brick and mortar schools in the HOPE

Learning Centers areas that are higher performing.

● The SRP concurs with the findings of the 2016 State Review Panel that

“there is no evidence that there are limited options available to meet the

needs of HOPE students should the school close.”

Date post:	03-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

2019 State Review Panel Progress Monitoring Recommendation ...

Documents