U.S. Department of Education - EDCAPS G5-Technical … · 7/27/17 2:21 PM Page 1 of 7 Status: Submitted Last Updated: 07/07/2017 10:32 AM Technical Review Coversheet Applicant: Voices

U.S. Department of Education - EDCAPS G5-Technical Review Form (New)

7/27/17 2:21 PM Page 1 of 7

Status: Submitted Last Updated: 07/07/2017 10:32 AM

Technical Review Coversheet

Applicant: Voices College-Bound Language Academies (U282M170040) Reader #1: **********

Points Possible Points Scored

Questions Selection Criteria

Quality of the Eligible Applicant 1. Quality of Applicant

45 43

Assisting Educationally Disadvantaged Students 1. Disadvantaged Students

25 25

Quality of the Evaluation Plan 1. Evaluation Plan

10

5

Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel 1. Management Plan/Personnel

20 18 Sub Total 100 91

Priority Questions Competitive Preference Priority

Promoting Diversity 1. CPP 1 3 3

School Improvement through Turnaround Efforts 1. CPP 2

5

0

Sub Total 8 3

Total

108

94

7/27/17 2:21 PM Page 2 of 7

Technical Review Form Panel #1 - Charter Management Organization - 1: 84.282M

Reader #1: **********

Applicant: Voices College-Bound Language Academies (U282M170040) Questions

Selection Criteria - Quality of the Eligible Applicant

1. Comments should support your recommendation according to the Selection Criteria. Please address each section and provide your scores for each section separately.

Reader's Score: 43

Sub Question

1. The degree to which the applicant has demonstrated success in increasing academic achievement, including graduation rates where applicable, for all students and for each of the subgroups of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, attending the charter schools the applicant operates or manages. Strengths: The applicant has thoroughly demonstrated success in increasing academic achievement, including graduation rates where applicable, for all students and for each of the subgroups of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. For example, the applicant provided evidence of academic achievement as early as within the first two years of the administration of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) Assessment. The applicant documented that implementing its dual-immersion model, student proficiency is built year upon year until students graduate 8th grade with proficiency rates far surpassing the district, county, and state rates. (Appendix F - p. 63-65)

Weaknesses: The applicant failed to provide state data for 2015-16 for the purpose of a comparative against the three network schools. (p. 17).

Reader's Score: 13

2. The extent to which the academic achievement results (including annual student performance on statewide

assessments and annual student attendance and retention rates, and where applicable and available, student academic growth, high school graduation rates, college attendance rates, and college persistence rates) for educationally disadvantaged students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have exceeded the average academic achievement results for such students in the State. Strengths: The applicant demonstrated how students have exceeded the average academic achievement results for the State. The applicant provides evidence of academic achievement at Voices Franklin-McKinley (VFM) where the students have attended since the Kindergarten year. The applicant indicated that VFM students reached overall proficiency rates that almost doubled the state average in English Language Arts (ELA), and near triple that in Mathematics on the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) Assessment in each of the first two years of its administration. In 2015-16, 89% of all Voices 8th graders met or exceeded standards in ELA, and 92% in math (Appendix F – p. 66). In addition, the applicant provides evidence for educationally disadvantaged students in the areas of academic achievement results for annual student attendance, retention and student academic growth that

7/27/17 2:21 PM Page 3 of 7

Sub Question

have exceeded the average academic achievement results for such students in the State. (pgs. 8-15, e28-35)

Weaknesses: No weakness noted.

Reader's Score: 15

3. The extent to which charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have not been closed; have not had a charter revoked due to noncompliance with statutory or regulatory requirements; have not had their affiliation with the applicant revoked or terminated, including through voluntary disaffiliation; have not had any significant issues in the area of financial or operational management; have not experienced significant problems with statutory or regulatory compliance that could lead to revocation of the school’s charter; and have not had any significant issues with respect to student safety. Strengths: The applicant provided evidence that the charter schools opened in 2007 continues to be in operation with no closures or revocations. Voices Franklin-McKinley was opened in 2007, renewed for its second term in 2012, and renewed for its third term in February 2019 by unanimous vote. Voices Morgan Hill and Voices Mount Pleasant are in their second years of operation and have upcoming renewal in 2018 and 2020. In addition, the applicant indicated that Voices Academies has had no significant issues in the area of financial or operational management. The CMO has received clean audits with no findings every year since opening, maintains a balanced budget with positive cash flow, has developed strong reserves at its flagship school to mediate times of uncertainty, and maintains an excellent attendance rate of 95% or higher, and currently have a waiting list of 770 students. (p. 19, e39)

Weaknesses: No weakness noted.

Reader's Score: 15

Selection Criteria - Assisting Educationally Disadvantaged Students

1. The significance of the contribution the proposed project will make in expanding educational opportunities for educationally disadvantaged students and enabling those students to meet challenging State academic standards. In determining the significance of the contribution the proposed project will make, the Secretary

Reader's Score: 25

Sub Question

1. The extent to which charter schools currently operated or managed by the applicant serve educationally disadvantaged students, including students with disabilities and English learners, at rates comparable to surrounding public schools; and Strengths: The applicant indicates that Voices Academies was founded with the intent of preparing the educationally underserved students of Santa Clara County for a rigorous high school education, thus preparing students to gain admission and graduate from college. The applicant further documents that since its inception in the year of 2007 Voices Academies has recruited and specifically tailored an educational program to a high population of educationally disadvantaged students. (p. 20, e40) The applicant provides a table that gives comparative student demographics. For example, the Voices schools have students who are socio-economically disadvantaged with an

7/27/17 2:21 PM Page 4 of 7

Sub Question

overall rate of 67% compared to three district schools with rates of 80%, 39%, and 81%. There are 90% to 91% Latino population compared to 50% to 74% for the district schools. [SS1] There are 0% to 3% for Black or African American population compared to 1% to 2% for the district schools. There are 45% to 80% EL students compared to 17% to 49% for district schools, and 7% to 11% Special Education students compared to 8% to 15% for the district schools. (Appendix E, p. 59)

Weaknesses: No weaknesses noted.

Reader's Score: 10

2. The quality of the plan to ensure that the charter schools the applicant proposes to replicate or expand will recruit and enroll educationally disadvantaged students. Strengths: The applicant presents a thorough plan for recruiting and enrolling educationally disadvantaged students. For example, the applicant documented that new markets were identified with a primary focus on communities with high concentrations of traditionally educationally underserved students experiencing low academic achievement. It then considers markets against identified green-lighting metrics to evaluate potential, and to prioritize options. The applicant provides a list of markets currently under research for potential expansion to include Cabrillo Unified, Hayward Unified, Oakland Unified, Pajaro Valley Unified, San Jose Unified, and West Contra Costa Unified (pgs. 28, 29, e48, e49). In addition, the applicant provides the student data that includes the number of students in attendance, free and reduced lunch, English learners, and Latino students in number and percentage. The applicant documents that the recruitment plan focuses heavily on parent-to-parent recruitment with activities that include door knocking, hosting tables at community events and businesses, and church and preschools outreach. (p. 32, e52)


Reader's Score: 15

Selection Criteria - Quality of the Evaluation Plan

1. In determining the quality of the evaluation plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the alignment of the evaluation plan to the logic model for the proposed grant project and the extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the proposed grant project articulated in the applicant’s response to application requirement (c) and will produce quantitative and qualitative data by the end of the performance period. Strengths:

The applicant expresses that it will conduct a quasi-experimental independent evaluation of existing and replicated schools. The applicant indicates that multiple forms of data collection will include formative, summative, diagnostic, internally created assessments, quantitative and qualitative data that will be used consistently to monitor progress. The applicant documents details for the sources of quantitative (academic performance, language development assessments, school and cultural climate) and qualitative data (teacher practice rubric, outreach and dissemination data). (pgs. 36, 37, e56, 57)

Weaknesses:

The applicant failed to provide a Logic Model for the proposed project for determining the alignment of the evaluation plan for the proposed grant project

7/27/17 2:21 PM Page 5 of 7

Reader's Score: 5

Selection Criteria - Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel

1. In determining the quality of the management plan and personnel to replicate or expand high-quality charter schools under the proposed project, the Secretary considers—

Reader's Score: 18

Sub Question

1. The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks Strengths: The applicant provided a comprehensive management plan that demonstrated the project could meet proposed objectives on time and within budget, and includes clearly defined responsibilities, timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks (pgs. 47-51, e67-e71. The chief academic officer will provide oversight to ensure consistency for curriculum, instructional model, assessment, coaching and professional development, and provide research and dissemination of best practices for serving the population of students for the proposed project (pgs. 54, 55, e74, e75). The applicant has provided a budget to align with the comprehensive management plan. (Appendix B)


Reader's Score: 5

2. The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director, chief executive officer or organization leader, and key project personnel, especially in managing projects of the size and scope of the proposed project; and Strengths: The applicant provided thorough information that demonstrates that the key personnel that will provide project and financial oversight for the proposed project are qualified by education and experience to implement the tasks and effectively carry out the activities for the proposed project. The applicant provided CMO and School Size Organizational Charts that displayed the key personnel for the proposed project (pgs. 44, 45, e64, e65). The applicant provided roles and responsibilities for key staff (pgs. 54-56, e74-76). The applicant provided a detailed table that provided task, milestones, person responsible, timeline, and project years for each task provided (pgs. 47- 50, e67-e70). In addition, the applicant provided resumes/curriculum vitae for the CMO leadership team, grant manager, school site principles, and board of directors that align with the proposed Management Plan. In addition, a review of the budget indicated reasonable projected costs based upon the proposed project. (Appendix B)

Weaknesses: The applicant failed to provide evidence of grant manager’s prior experience managing a comparative grants award. (pgs. 56, e76, Appendix B, pgs. 17, 18)

Reader's Score: 8

3. The ability of the applicant to sustain the operation of the replicated or expanded charter schools after the grant has ended, as demonstrated by the multi-year financial and operating model included in the applicant’

7/27/17 2:21 PM Page 6 of 7

Sub Question response to application requirement (g).

Strengths: The applicant provided a comprehensive management plan that demonstrated the project could meet proposed objectives on time and within budget, and includes clearly defined responsibilities, timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks (pgs. 47-51, e67-e71. The chief academic officer will provide oversight to ensure consistency for curriculum, instructional model, assessment, coaching and professional development, and provide research and dissemination of best practices for serving the population of students for the proposed project (pgs. 54, 55, e74, e75). The applicant has provided a budget to align with the comprehensive management plan in Appendix B. In addition, the applicant provides a multi-year financial model for the project that includes an overview of the use of the requested funds of $2,700,000 over five years. The applicant proposes to allocate approximately 81% ($2,240,063) for school site plan (implement, execute) that includes the opening of three new TK through 8th grade. The remainder of 19% ($540,964) will be allocated for central office. The applicant proposes to sustain the project beyond the grant period primarily through the use of state and federal revenue, and additionally with targeted fundraising. (pgs. 56, 57, e76, e77)


Reader's Score: 5

Priority Questions

Competitive Preference Priority - Promoting Diversity

1. This priority is for projects that will provide for the replication or expansion of high-quality charter schools that have an intentional focus on recruiting and retaining racially and socioeconomically diverse student bodies (see Section 4305(b)(5)(A) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA).

Note: For information on permissible ways to meet this priority, please refer to the joint guidance issued by the Department’s Office for Civil Rights and the U.S. Department of Justice entitled, “Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid Racial Isolation in Elementary and Secondary Schools” (www2.ed. gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/guidance-ese-201111.pdf).

Strengths:

Strengths

Voices College-Bound Language Academies (applicant) Replicate the Voices Academies TK-8th grade dual-immersion model to create three new schools of 504 students (1512 new seats) each in high needs communities. The applicant documents evidence of promoting socio-economic diversity as indicated by 67% of Voices Academies students being from low-income families, with the remaining 33% bringing the diversity of not being socio-economically disadvantaged. The applicant indicates the promotion of diversity through the offering of bi-literate education for students attracts families across economic backgrounds. In addition, the applicant implements a lottery preference for students from low-income families that is permissible under state and federal law, and utilized to prioritize service to these students. The applicant’s student demographics consist of 92% Latino students, 59% EL students, 10% SPED students. (pgs. 3, 5, e23, 25)

Weaknesses:

No weaknesses noted.

7/27/17 2:21 PM Page 7 of 7

Reader's Score: 3

Competitive Preference Priority - School Improvement through Turnaround Efforts

1. This priority is for applicants that both:

(a) Demonstrate past success in improving the academic performance of one or more academically poor- performing public schools by taking over the operation of the school or restarting the school as a charter schooand

(b) Propose to use CMO funds to restart as a charter school one or more academically poor-performing public schools during the project period, to do so by replicating a successful charter school model for which the applicant has provided evidence of success, and to do so by targeting a similar student population in the replicated charter school as was served by the academically poor-performing public school. In accordance with section 4310(2)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, students who are enrolled in the academically poor- performing public school at the time of restart are exempt from the charter school’s lottery.

For purposes of this priority, academically poor-performing public schools may include, but are not limited to, persistently lowest-achieving schools, as defined in this notice and the final requirements for the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program under Title I of the ESEA (https://www.federalregister. gov/articles/2015/02/09/2015-02570/final-requirements-school-improvement-grants-title-i-of-the-elementary-and- secondary-education-act); and priority schools in States that exercised flexibility1 under the ESEA, as amendedby the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (see the Department’s June 7, 2012 guidance entitled, “ESEA Flexibility,” at www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility, and the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s December 12015 Dear Colleague Letter at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/transition-dcl.pdf).

Note: For applicants proposing to use CMO grant funds to replicate a high-quality charter school by restarting aa charter school one or more academically poor-performing public schools, the CMO’s proposed charter schoolmust be newly created and operating under a separate charter and governance than the academically poor- performing public school.

Footnote 1: As of August 1, 2016, States may no longer exercise flexibility, except in the limited circumstances where they implemented interventions previously in priority schools under the SIG program. For additional information related to ESEA flexibility and interventions in priority schools, see section B of the Department’s June 29, 2016 guidance entitled, “Transitioning to the Every Student Succeeds Act – Frequently Asked Questions,” at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essafaqstransition62916.pdf. Strengths:

The applicant did not address this priority.

Weaknesses:


Reader's Score: 0

l;

8,

s

Status: Last Updated:

Submitted 07/07/2017 10:32 AM

http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essafaqstransition62916.pdf

7/27/17 2:21 PM Page 1 of 7

Status: Submitted Last Updated: 07/06/2017 08:37 PM





Quality of the Eligible Applicant 1. Quality of Applicant

45 42


25 25


10

7


20 20 Sub Total 100 94




5

0

Sub Total 8 3

Total

108

97

7/27/17 2:21 PM Page 2 of 7


Reader #2: **********




Reader's Score: 42

Sub Question

1. The degree to which the applicant has demonstrated success in increasing academic achievement, including graduation rates where applicable, for all students and for each of the subgroups of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, attending the charter schools the applicant operates or manages. Strengths: The applicant demonstrates some evidence of success in increasing academic achievement for all students and for each of the subgroups currently in operation. For example, 2015-16 math (92%-school, 36%-state) and ELA (89%- school, 48%-state) aggregate Franklin-McKinley scores for students who met or exceeded standards was above state-wide performance on the Smarter Balance assessment (p10).

Weaknesses: The decision to only include data on the cohort that has fully completed the K-8 cycle does not provide a convincing rationale for not including data on other cohorts currently enrolled in the program (p9). Given other grades are enrolled, data should have been provided on them to demonstrate the ability to move students regardless of how long they've been enrolled in the model.

Reader's Score: 14

2. The extent to which the academic achievement results (including annual student performance on statewide

assessments and annual student attendance and retention rates, and where applicable and available, student academic growth, high school graduation rates, college attendance rates, and college persistence rates) for educationally disadvantaged students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have exceeded the average academic achievement results for such students in the State. Strengths: The applicant provides academic achievement results on annual student attendance, retention and student academic growth for educationally disadvantaged students that have exceeded the average academic achievement results for such students in the State. For example, cohort growth data shows an increase in state assessment ELA and math performance from 2014-15 to 2015-16 and performance levels above the state for both years (p15-16). Performance above the state level was also clearly indicated for CMO students receiving free or reduced priced lunch and special education services (SPED), and those noted as Latino and English Language Learners (ELL) (p12). The applicant also provides attendance data for 2015-16 with rates above 92% for both years (p17). Data is

7/27/17 2:21 PM Page 3 of 7

Sub Question

provided for its oldest site and the two sites in their second year of operation. In 2015-16, mobility rates are between 1.23% and 7.43% (p18).

Weaknesses: The applicant provides mobility data as a proxy for student retention data, without clearly explaining why retention data is not provided (p18). The applicant provides comparative state attendance data for 2014-15 (87.7%) but does not provide data for the only network school open at the time. No comparative data is provided for 2015-16 or 2016- 17, and a comparative analysis against state data for the three network schools cannot be conducted in those years (p74).

Reader's Score: 13

3. The extent to which charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have not been closed; have not

had a charter revoked due to noncompliance with statutory or regulatory requirements; have not had their affiliation with the applicant revoked or terminated, including through voluntary disaffiliation; have not had any significant issues in the area of financial or operational management; have not experienced significant problems with statutory or regulatory compliance that could lead to revocation of the school’s charter; and have not had any significant issues with respect to student safety. Strengths: The applicant clearly indicates that the three network schools are currently in operation and will be up for charter renewal in 2018 (Morgan Hill), 2019 (Franklin McKinney) and 2020 (Mt Pleasant) (p19). All schools are currently Voices network schools and the attached audit indicated no material findings. Each school is in good standing with its LEA authorizer and a 97% satisfaction family rate was noted with respect to student safety (p19).

Weaknesses: None noted

Reader's Score: 15



Reader's Score: 25

Sub Question

1. The extent to which charter schools currently operated or managed by the applicant serve educationally disadvantaged students, including students with disabilities and English learners, at rates comparable to surrounding public schools; and Strengths: The applicant currently operates three schools that serve educationally disadvantaged students, including economically disadvantaged and ELL students, at rates that exceed the county average. For example, network data exceeds the state rate for students receiving free or reduced priced lunch (67%, 37%), and ELL (59%, 23%). Network schools serve the same percentage of SPED students as the county (10%, 10%) (p20). When compared to local school districts, school demographics exceed district data in 7 of 12 distirct/subgroup comparisons and post comparable rates in areas where the district exceed the CMO.

7/27/17 2:21 PM Page 4 of 7

Sub Question

Weaknesses: No weaknesses noted

Reader's Score: 10

2. The quality of the plan to ensure that the charter schools the applicant proposes to replicate or expand will recruit and enroll educationally disadvantaged students. Strengths: The applicant has a sound plan to recruit and enroll educationally disadvantaged students. Recruitment activities that involve direct outreach (e.g., door knocking, hosting tables at community events, preschool outreach, and support from the Community Engagement Strategist and Parent Engagement Manager will likely ensure families of educationally disadvantaged students are informed.


Reader's Score: 15



The methods of evaluation include two project goals clearly related to the intended outcomes of the proposed grant project. Methods will involve state and local assessments (e.g., Smarter Balance assessment, California Standards Test, Measures of Academic Progress), climate/satisfaction surveys, Teacher Practice rubrics, and report card data that are appropriate for the objectives are written. The evaluation will include quantitative and qualitative data collection through academic assessments, surveys, rubric feedback and a quasi-experimental independent evaluation that will assess development and impact indicators (p38-39). Project-based evaluation efforts will be guided by the network data manager.

Weaknesses:

The applicant does not include comprehensive logic model. The applicant provides broad statements of intent, project goals and measures but does not clearly connect them to distinct inputs. The inclusion of a logic model graphic may have highlighted intended alignment of input, activities and short- and long-range outcomes (p2-4). Moreover, the applicant does not include a measure to assess the language immersion component, given it links to major project strategies regarding recruitment and for the project.

7/27/17 2:21 PM Page 5 of 7

Reader's Score: 7



Reader's Score: 20

Sub Question

1. The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks Strengths: The management plan is sound and will likely achieve the proposed project objectives of on time and within budget. For example, the organizational chart depicts varied support for school operation, including operations, special populations, finance and outreach. The timeline is appropriately detailed with milestones, due dates and persons responsible for executing tasks (p47-51). Given the first school under this proposed project is scheduled to open in 2018-19 and the school has submitted a charter application and has a plan to ensure on-time building occupancy, the applicant will likely meet its facility and staff targets (p29, 31). The Board of Directors will be responsible for managing the project timeline and budget(p53).


Reader's Score: 5

2. The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director, chief executive officer or organization leader, and key project personnel, especially in managing projects of the size and scope of the proposed project; and Strengths: The identified grant manager, who previously guided network fundraising and donor efforts, has experience needed to guide the project. She has a background in education, served as grade level chairperson, and has a Master’s degree in Urban Education Administration. Varied supports will also be carried out by network staffers (p56). Key personnel slated for the project are equally capable. For example, the community engagement specialist has experience working with faith communities and schools in the target area. She has experience with parental outreach, strategic planning and garnering support for new charter schools (p55-56).


Reader's Score: 10

3. The ability of the applicant to sustain the operation of the replicated or expanded charter schools after the grant has ended, as demonstrated by the multi-year financial and operating model included in the applicant’ s response to application requirement (g).

7/27/17 2:21 PM Page 6 of 7

Sub Question

Strengths: The applicant provides sound evidence that it will sustain the proposed charter schools after the grant has ended. All network schools are still in operation, including the newest schools in their second year of operation. Schools will be located near Santa Clara County, which should facilitate access to network supports. The addition of one site per year and the addition of one grade each year per site will likely provide time for school and network staff to onboard sites efficiently(p56-58). The applicant also provides a strategic plan financial model, which highlights its multi-year network growth and financial model for each school and the consolidated CMO for the next ten years.

Weaknesses: No weaknesses noted

Reader's Score: 5

Priority Questions




Strengths:

The applicant intends to replicate its current model by opening three additional charter schools with a Spanish dual- language model. The proposed focus on Spanish, preferred school locations in underserved areas of Santa Clara Countybroad community outreach used in 2017-18 recruitment (e.g., social media, website, radio, direct mailing) and support from staff (e.g., Parent and Community Engagement Manager) create a focused approach to recruit and retain a racially and socioeconomically diverse student population (p30, 184, budget). Data since opening in 2012 further demonstrates that CMO schools have served students who vary socioeconomically (65%-75%) and by race (appendix E).

Weaknesses:

No weaknesses noted

Reader's Score: 3

,



(a) Demonstrate past success in improving the academic performance of one or more academically poor- performing public schools by taking over the operation of the school or restarting the school as a charter school; and

(b) Propose to use CMO funds to restart as a charter school one or more academically poor-performing public schools during the project period, to do so by replicating a successful charter school model for which the applicant has provided evidence of success, and to do so by targeting a similar student population in the replicated charter school as was served by the academically poor-performing public school. In accordance with

7/27/17 2:21 PM Page 7 of 7

the time of restart are exempt from the charter school’s lottery.

For purposes of this priority, academically poor-performing public schools may include, but are not limited to, persistently lowest-achieving schools, as defined in this notice and the final requirements for the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program under Title I of the ESEA (https://www.federalregister. gov/articles/2015/02/09/2015-02570/final-requirements-school-improvement-grants-title-i-of-the-elementary-and- secondary-education-act); and priority schools in States that exercised flexibility1 under the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (see the Department’s June 7, 2012 guidance entitled, “ESEA Flexibility,” at www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility, and the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s December 18, 2015 Dear Colleague Letter at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/transition-dcl.pdf).

Note: For applicants proposing to use CMO grant funds to replicate a high-quality charter school by restarting as a charter school one or more academically poor-performing public schools, the CMO’s proposed charter school must be newly created and operating under a separate charter and governance than the academically poor- performing public school.

Footnote 1: As of August 1, 2016, States may no longer exercise flexibility, except in the limited circumstances where they implemented interventions previously in priority schools under the SIG program. For additional information related to ESEA flexibility and interventions in priority schools, see section B of the Department’s June 29, 2016 guidance entitled, “Transitioning to the Every Student Succeeds Act – Frequently Asked Questions,” at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essafaqstransition62916.pdf.

Strengths:


Weaknesses:


Reader's Score: 0


Submitted 07/06/2017 08:37 PM

http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility


7/27/17 2:21 PM Page 1 of 7

Status: Submitted Last Updated: 07/10/2017 05:37 PM





Quality of the Eligible Applicant 1. Quality of Applicant 45 45


25 25


10

9


20 19 Sub Total 100 98




5

0

Sub Total 8 3

Total

108

101

7/27/17 2:22 PM Page 2 of 7


Reader #3: **********




Reader's Score: 45

Sub Question

1. The degree to which the applicant has demonstrated success in increasing academic achievement, including graduation rates where applicable, for all students and for each of the subgroups of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, attending the charter schools the applicant operates or manages. Strengths: The applicant provided data that compared subgroup performance to district. Addressed in tables and the narrative. A description of awards that Voices has achieved is on e21, a description of how the target population has been historically underserved, and the narrative on e29 describes how the students from the first two graduating classes, “reached overall proficiency rates nearly double the state average in English Language Arts (ELA) and nearly triple that in Mathematics on the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) Assessment in each of the first two years of its administration.5 In 2015-16, 89% of all Voices 8th graders met or exceeded standards in ELA and 92% did so in math. This was an increase over the previous year’s already strong performance, in which 79% of all 8th graders met or exceeded standards in ELA and 83% did so in Math.” Actual data tables are shown on e30.

Weaknesses: None

Reader's Score: 15

2. The extent to which the academic achievement results (including annual student performance on statewide assessments and annual student attendance and retention rates, and where applicable and available, student academic growth, high school graduation rates, college attendance rates, and college persistence rates) for educationally disadvantaged students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have exceeded the average academic achievement results for such students in the State. Strengths: The application describes how students served have outperformed similar demographics of students statewide. The discussion begins on e29 and is well supported by data tables and narrative describing the students standardized assessment results. The past two years of data that are described well show that these students are achieving at nearly twice the state average in English Language Arts and Math and are performing nearly as high as non economically disadvantaged students. The attendance rates described on page e37 and retention on e38 are also very strong.

7/27/17 2:22 PM Page 3 of 7

Sub Question

Weaknesses: None

Reader's Score: 15

3. The extent to which charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have not been closed; have not had a charter revoked due to noncompliance with statutory or regulatory requirements; have not had their affiliation with the applicant revoked or terminated, including through voluntary disaffiliation; have not had any significant issues in the area of financial or operational management; have not experienced significant problems with statutory or regulatory compliance that could lead to revocation of the school’s charter; and have not had any significant issues with respect to student safety. Strengths: Voices has no closures or compliance issues, and it has had unanimous votes for renewal. This discussion is on e39.

Weaknesses: None

Reader's Score: 15



Reader's Score: 25

Sub Question

1. The extent to which charter schools currently operated or managed by the applicant serve educationally disadvantaged students, including students with disabilities and English learners, at rates comparable to surrounding public schools; and Strengths: The proposal provides evidence that Voices servers a higher percentage of English Learners, and economically disadvantaged students, and Latino students than surrounding district and county averages, and it demonstrates that Voices in aggregate serves a higher number of Students with Disabilities. (p. e46). Depending on the district, Voices serves either a similar but lower, or a higher number of economically disadvantaged students.

Weaknesses: None

Reader's Score: 10

2. The quality of the plan to ensure that the charter schools the applicant proposes to replicate or expand will recruit and enroll educationally disadvantaged students. Strengths: On page e48, the proposal begins the description of how the expansion will continue to serve educationally disadvantaged students. The proposal describes that Voices will focus on communities with high concentrations of traditionally educationally underserved students

7/27/17 2:22 PM Page 4 of 7

Sub Question

that are within driving distance from the Central office and in which parents have mobilized for additional and better educational options, and those that meet the established "green-lighting metrics." (p. e50). The green lighting metrics include, by percent: (25%) Need: 30 pt+ Achievement Gap and overall low achievement; (20%) Demographics: High numbers of English Language Learners and economically disadvantaged in the district/community; (15%) Political Climate: Favorable with respect to potential authorizers, other charters, legally, etc; (10%) Parent Demand: Existing organized parent base; (10%) Human Capital: Teacher pipeline; and (5%) Competition: Presence of other charter schools, other dual language schools, competition for funding and philanthropy. The plan is thoughtful and feasible, and it demonstrates a strong understanding of the important role that mobilized parents and community partners are, and how scalable expansion works.

Weaknesses: None

Reader's Score: 15



On page 2, the proposal describes two specific and measurable goals in that guided the development of their project and that are tied to their theory of action. On page e55, the proposal describes the formal evaluation plan, which includes quantitative and qualitative measures, and which look at student, teacher, and network performance. The plan is thoughtful and broad to consider the various data sources, including academic performance, English language development, school culture, stakeholder satisfaction, teacher performance, and other measurable data on student, teacher, and network performance. (p. 255-57). The plan is also strong because it looks at data throughout the year and not only summative data once a year.

While a “visual” depiction is not used to describe the relationships and connections, this reviewer believes that the theory of action that is described, in combination with the goals, provide a sufficient description of the connection between the theory of action (pages e22 and e23) and the two key goals (pages e23 and e24), and the connection between the theory and the goals and measures to fulfill the logic model requirements.

Weaknesses:

While the evaluation plan indicates that they will have interim data and surveys, the timing of surveys is not specified.

Reader's Score: 9



7/27/17 2:22 PM Page 5 of 7

Reader's Score: 19

Sub Question

1. The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks Strengths: Page e 57 provides a five-year timeline with key milestone and the organizational department who is responsible. Page e70 has a row designated to “Evaluation” and provides specific months in which the responsibility person shall “Conduct analysis of financial health for CMO and individual school sites.” The plan describes that the director of finance is a CPA who has experience with public accounting includes managing audits of colleges/universities, nonprofits, and small companies. This is on page e75.

The proposal shows that there have been strong role designations and establishment of an organizational chart that is feasible to complete the expansion given the current and projected network. Page e63 provides a chart of which duties are the school's versus the central office of the network. Pages e64-65 provide a reasonable organizational chart. The organizational chart is followed by descriptions of each role, which are thorough. And, page e67 begins the list of milestone, and the timelines are reasonable and show significant thought and attention to detail.

Weaknesses: The proposal raises concerns about distributed leadership. There is not a school-level executive director, only network level.

Reader's Score: 4

2. The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director, chief executive officer or organization leader, and key project personnel, especially in managing projects of the size and scope of the proposed project; and Strengths: The biographical sketches of the administrative team begin on page e73, and the resumes begin in Appendix A on page 6. Each individual is highly qualified both in terms of training and years of professional experience. The breadth of responsibilities are reasonable (individuals are not overloaded). The grant manager has been a teacher and has personal experience that will help her connect to the work. (p. e76).

Weaknesses: None.

Reader's Score: 10

3. The ability of the applicant to sustain the operation of the replicated or expanded charter schools after the grant has ended, as demonstrated by the multi-year financial and operating model included in the applicant’ s response to application requirement (g). Strengths: Page e73 describes how the school will continue to support itself financially after the grant, which is student tuition support and federal dollars and fundraising for facilities. The existing school financials were strong and the cash on hand was positive, and the assumptions were fair. The past data provides support that the plans are credible. (Past audits and financials begin on page 79). Page e76 provides a five year financial model that describes plans

7/27/17 2:22 PM Page 6 of 7

Sub Question

to sustain the program after the grant dollars, and describes “The majority of operating expenses will be covered by state and federal public revenue, with targeted fundraising to support select expenses such as facilities.” The application also provides a copy of the 2015-16 audit on page e158.

Weaknesses: None

Reader's Score: 5

Priority Questions




Strengths:

The application provides a detailed plan for how the school will serve high numbers of racially and socioeconomically diverse students (p e25). The dual-language model itself along with the existing strong reputation that Vision schools have for strong performance, make its schools attractive to a broad range of constituents. Vision has open enrollment policies and lottery practices that are designed to provide equitable access for all students, and has a strong plan to market to students who are English Learners and locate in areas in which there are high populations of English Learners and strong parent engagement.

Weaknesses:

None

Reader's Score: 3



(a) Demonstrate past success in improving the academic performance of one or more academically poor- performing public schools by taking over the operation of the school or restarting the school as a charter school; and

(b) Propose to use CMO funds to restart as a charter school one or more academically poor-performing public schools during the project period, to do so by replicating a successful charter school model for which the applicant has provided evidence of success, and to do so by targeting a similar student population in the replicated charter school as was served by the academically poor-performing public school. In accordance with section 4310(2)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, students who are enrolled in the academically poor- performing public school at the time of restart are exempt from the charter school’s lottery.

For purposes of this priority, academically poor-performing public schools may include, but are not limited to, persistently lowest-achieving schools, as defined in this notice and the final requirements for the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program under Title I of the ESEA (https://www.federalregister. gov/articles/2015/02/09/2015-02570/final-requirements-school-improvement-grants-title-i-of-the-elementary-and- secondary-education-act); and priority schools in States that exercised flexibility1 under the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (see the Department’s June 7, 2012 guidance entitled, “ESEA

7/27/17 2:22 PM Page 7 of 7


Submitted 07/10/2017 05:37 PM

2015 Dear Colleague Letter at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/transition-dcl.pdf).

Note: For applicants proposing to use CMO grant funds to replicate a high-quality charter school by restarting asa charter school one or more academically poor-performing public schools, the CMO’s proposed charter school must be newly created and operating under a separate charter and governance than the academically poor- performing public school.

Footnote 1: As of August 1, 2016, States may no longer exercise flexibility, except in the limited circumstances where they implemented interventions previously in priority schools under the SIG program. For additional information related to ESEA flexibility and interventions in priority schools, see section B of the Department’s June 29, 2016 guidance entitled, “Transitioning to the Every Student Succeeds Act – Frequently Asked Questions,” at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essafaqstransition62916.pdf.

Strengths:


Weaknesses:


Reader's Score: 0


Documents

U.S. Department of Education - EDCAPS G5-Technical … · 7/27/17 2:21 PM Page 1 of 7 Status: Submitted Last Updated: 07/07/2017 10:32 AM Technical Review Coversheet Applicant: Voices