I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grant Application Package
Opponun?y11?ei loffice of Innovation and Improvement Charter 
Offering Agency: '0 . . Department: of Education I
CFDANumber: a 4 282
CFDA Description: Charter Schools I
Opportunity Number: 
Competition ID: 
Opportunity Open Date: 06/15/2015
Opportunity Close Date: 07/16/2015
Agency coma?: Meeley

Management and Program Analyst
E?mail: 
Phone: 202-453?6818

 

 

 

 

This opportunity is only open to organizations. applicants who are submitting grant applications on behalf of a campany, state, local or
tribal government, academia, or other type of organization. A

 

Application Filing Name: OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CHARTER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRANT

 

 

 

ISeleCt Forms to Egm?lete

Mandatory

 

Application for Federal Assistance 

 

 

US. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BUDGET NON-CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAMS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proiect Narrative Attachment Form

 

 

Budget Narrative Attachment Form

 

 

Other Attachments Form

 

 

Optional

 

[Instructions

Show Instructions 

 

Thiselectronic grants application is intended to be used to apply for the specific Federal funding opportunity referenced here.

Elf the Federalfunding opportunity listed is not the opportunity for which you want to apply, close this application package by clicking on the
"'C'a'ncel" button at the top of this screen. You will then need to locate the correct Federal funding opportunity, download its application and
i then apply. v- i 

 

 

 

OMB Number: 4040-0004
Expiration Date: 8131I2016

 

Application for Federal Assistance SF-424

 

1. Type of Submission:

2. Type of Application:

Preapplication New

Application

 

Continuation
Changedi?Corrected Applcation Revision

If Revision. select appropriate Ietter(s):

 

 

 

Other (Specify):

 

 

 

 

3. Date Received:

4. Applicant Identi?er:

 

 

07/16/2015 I I

 

 

5a. Federal Entity Identi?er:

5b. Federal Award Identi?er:

 

 

 

State Use Only:

 

6. Date Received by State: I:

 

7. State Application Identi?er: 

 

 

8. APPLICANT INFORMATION:

 

 

Legal Namei ISTATE 0F OF EDUCATION

 

b. EmployerfTaxpayer Identi?cation Number IN):

c. Organizational DUNS:

 

31?1334820

 

 

8091743780000

 

d. Address:

 

 

*Street1: I25 FRONT STREET

 

Street2: I

 

City: ICOLUMBUS

 

 

County/Parish: I

 

State: I

OH: Ohio

 

Province: I

 

Country: 

USA: UNITED STATES

 

Zip I Postal Code: [43215?433

 

e. Organizational Unit:

 

Department Name:

Division Name:

 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION



 

IQUALITY SCHOOL CHOICE

 

f. Name and contact information of person to be contacted on matters involving this application:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MiddleName: I I

'Last Name: ITATE I
Suf?x: 

Title: ISOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCHER

Organizational Af?liation:

IOHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION I

*Telephone Number: gnaw?2250 Fax Number: I

 

 

 

 

 

Email: ISTEVEN . TATEGEDUCAT ION . OHIO .

GOV

 

 

 

 

Application for Federal Assistance SF-424

 

9. Type of Applicant 1: Select Applicant Type:

 

 

A: State Government

 

Type of Applicant 2: Select Applicant Type:

 

Type of Applicant 3: Select Applicant Type:

 

Other (specify):

 

 

 

 

10. Name of Federal Agency:

 

IU.S. Department of Education

 

11. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:

 

 84.282

 

CFDA Title:

 

Charter Schools

 

 

 

 

12. Funding Opportunity Number:

 



 

Title:

 

Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII): Charter Schools Program (CSP): Grants for State
Educational Agencies (SEAS) CFDA Number 84.282A

 

 

 

 

13. Com petition Identification umber:

 

84-282A2015-3

 

Title:

 

 

 

 

 

14. Areas Affected by Project (Cities, Counties. States. etc.):

View Attachmenth

 

 

 

 

15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project:

 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION -- APPLICATION FOR THE CHARTER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRANT

 

 

 

 

 

Attach supporting documents as speci?ed in agency instructions.

lifYEeMt??b?E

 

 

 

 

 

Application for Federal Assistance SF-424

 

16. Congressional Districts Of:

a. Applicant b. Program/Project

 

Attach an additional list of ProgramlProject Congressional Districts if needed.

Mammal? i Eels-ls derailment 

     

 

 

-YIEW 

 

17. Proposed Project:

Start Date: 07/01/2015 b. End Date: 06/30/2021

 

18. Estimated Funding 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Federal I 71, 058, 320 . 
b. Applicant I . 
c. State I . 00I
Local I o.oo 
e. Other I . 00I
f. Program Income I 0 . 00'
TOTAL I 

 

 

19. Is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process?

a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on 
b. Program is subject to EC. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review.

c. Program is not covered by ED. 12372.

 

20. Is the Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt? (If "Yes," provide explanation in attachment.)

Yes No

If "Yes", provide explanation and attach

I I  Add  ?Delete ?\Tiew Attachment 

 

 

 

21. *By signing this application. I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications" and (2) that the statements
herein are true. complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances" and agree to
comply with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may
subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (US. Code, Title 218. Section 1001)

I AGREE

The list of certi?cations and assurances, or an internet site where you may obtain this list. is contained in the announcement or agency
speci?c instructions.

 

Authorized Representative:

 

 

 

Pre?x: I01: . I First Name: IRICHARD I

 

 

 

Middle Name: I I

 

 

Last Name: IROSS I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suf?x: Iph I I
?"31 ISUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION I
Telephone Number: 9 Fax Number: I

 

 

 

 

Email: IRICHARD. . OHIO. GOV

 

 

 

 

 

Signature of Authorized Representative: Deneice Cooper

 

Date Signed: I07115r2015

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
BUDGET INFORMATION
NON-CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS

OMB Number: 1894-0008

Expiration Date: 0413012014

 

Name of Institution/Organization

 

STATE OF OF EDUCATION

 

 

 

Applicants requesting funding for only one year should complete the column under
I "Project Year Applicants requesting funding for multi-year grants should complete all
applicable columns. Please read all instructions before completing form.

 

SECTION A - BUDGET SUMMARY
US. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FUNDS

 

Project Year 1 Project Year 2

Budget (8) 

Categories

Project Year 3



Project Year 4


Project Year 5

(8)

Total


 

1. Personnel 224,400.00] 238, 986.00]

254, 520.00]

271, 064 .00]

288, 683.00]

1,277, 653.00]

 

 

2. Fringe Bene?ts 74,052.00] 78, 865.00]

83, 992.00]

89,451.00]

95,265.00]

421, 625.00]

 

 

 

3. Travel 11,000.00] 11,000.00]

11, 000 . 00]

11,000.0?

11, 000.00]

55, 000.00]

 

 

 

 

4. Equipment 3, 750.00] 0.00]

0.9]

0.00]

0.00]

3,75013]

 

 

5. Supplies 4, 920.00] 4,920.00]

4, 920.00]

4, 920.00]

4,920.00]

24,600.00]

 

 

 

 

6. Contractual 224, 500.00] 124,500.00]

124, 500.00]

124, 500.00]

124, 500.00]

722, 500. 00]

 

 

 

 

7. Construction 0 . 00] 0. 00]

0.00]

0.00]

0.00]

0.00]

 

 

 

8. Other 6,545,375.00] 13,395, 375.00]

16, 145,375.00]

16,145, 375.00]

16, 145, 375.00]

68, 376, 875.00]

 

 

 

9. Total Direct Costs
(lines 1-8)

7,087,997.00] 13,853,646.00]

16, 624, 307.00]

16, 646, 310.00]

16,669,74100]

70, 882,003.00]

 

 

 

10. Indirect Costs? 30, 967.00] 32,980.00]

35,124.00]

37,407.0?

39, 838.00]

176,316.00]

 

 

 

 

11. Training Stipends 0.00] 0.00]

0%

0.00]

0.00]

so

 

 

12. Total Costs
(lines 9-11)

7,118,964.00] 13,886,626.2]

16,659,431.00]



16, 683,717.00]

 

71.058.319.00]

 

 

 

 

 

*lndirect Cost Information (To Be Completed by Your Business Office):

(1) Do you have an Indirect Cost Rate Agreement approved by the Federal government?

From: 07/01/2015

ED Other (please specify): 

The indirect Cost Rate is 

(2) If yes, please provide the following information:

Period Covered by the Indirect Cost Rate Agreement:

Approving Federal agency:

Is included in your approved Indirect Cost Rate Agreement? or,

 

If you are requesting reimbursement for indirect costs on line 10, please answer the following questions:

Yes

(3) For Restricted Rate Programs (check one) - Are you using a restricted indirect cost rate that:

]:]Complies with 34 CFR 

 

ElNo



 

16, 709, 581.00]

The Restrictedlndirect Cost Rate is 

 

ED Form No. 524

 

 

Name Of '"Stitmionlorganizauon Applicants requesting funding for only one year
STATE OF OF complete the COlumn under Year
Applicants requesting funding for multi-year
grants should complete all applicable columns.
Please read all instructions before completing
form.

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION - BUDGET SUMMARY
NON-FEDERAL FUNDS

 

Project Year 1 Project Year 2 Project Year 3 Project Year 4 Project Year 5 Total

Budget Categories 

 

1. Personnel I I
2. Fringe Bene?ts I I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Travel I I

 

 

 

 

 

I

. Equipment I I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





_l



. Supplies I I

. Contractual I I

 

 

 

 

 

i
I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Construction I I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Other I I

 

 

(D h- 030')

 

. Total Direct Costs I I
ines 1-8)

 

 

1D. Indirect Costs I I

 

 

 

 

 

 

11. Training Stipends 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 








 
r?il 

12. Total Costs I I
(lines 9-11)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION - BUDGET NARRATIVE (see instructions)

 

 

 

ED Form No. 524

OMB Number: 4040-0007
Expiration Date: 06/30/2014

ASSURANCES - NON-CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS

 

 

Public reporting burden for this collection of inforrnatlon is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including time for reviewing
instructions. searching existing data sources. gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information. including suggestions for
reducing this burden. to the Of?ce of Management and Budget. Papenrvork Reduction Project (0348-0040), Washington, DC 20503.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. SEND
IT TO THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE SPONSORING AGENCY.

 

Certain of these; assurances may not be applicable to your project or program. If you have questions. please contact the
awarding agency. Further, certain Federal awarding agencies may require applicants to certify to additional assurances.
If such is the case, you will be noti?ed.

As the duly authorized representative of the applicant. I certify that the applicant:

 

1.

Has the legal authority to apply for Federal assistance
and the institutional, managerial and ?nancial capability
(including funds suf?cient to pay the non-Federal share
of project cost) to ensure proper planning. management
and completion of the project described in this
application.

Act of 1973. as amended (29 U.S.C. ?794), which
prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicaps; 
the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. as amended (42 U.
8.0 which prohibits discrimination on
the basis of age; the Drug Abuse Of?ce and
Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-255). as amended.
relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug

2. Will give the awarding agency. the Comptroller General abuse; the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and
of the United States and, if appropriate. the State. Alcoholism Prevention. Treatment and Rehabilitation
through any authorized representative. access to and Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-616), as amended. relating to
the right to examine all records. books, papers. or nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or
documents related to the award; and will establish a alcoholism; ??523 and 527 of the Public Health
proper accounting system in accordance with generally Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. ??290 dd-3 and 290
accepted accounting standards or agency directives. ee? 3). as amended. relating to- con?dentiality of alcohol
A and drug abuse patient records; Title of the Civil
3. Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from Rights AC1 Of 1953 (42 U-SC- ??3501 9t 599-). as
using their positions for a purpose that constitutes or amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale.
presents the appearance of personal or organizational renta' 0r ?nanCing 0f ?005mg; (0 any other
con?ict of interest or personal gain. nondiscrimination provisions in the speci?c statute(s)
under which application for Federal assistance is being
4. Will initiate and complete the work within the applicable mad? at?: (J) me requ'rements, 0f any Other
time frame after receipt of approval of the awarding "0?9'Scf'mmt'0? saunas) Wh'Ch may apply to the
agency. application.
5. Will comply with the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of Sogpgilggiasrardc?rgll?g' [image
1970 (42 ??47284763) relating to prescribed Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Standards f?r merit SyStems f?r ng'amsfund?d Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provide for
2222:5215; of fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced or
Personnel Administration (5 C.F.R. 900 Subpart F). Whose preperty '3 acqu'red as a resu" 0f. Federal or
federally-assusted programs. These requrrements
6. Will comply with all Federal statutes relating to apply to 8" lntereStS In real pmpeny aoqmrEd for

nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to:
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88?352)
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race. color
or national origin; Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972. as amended (20 
1683. and 1685-1686). which prohibits discrimination on
the basis of sex; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

Previous Edition Usable

Authorized for Local Reproduction

project purposes regardless of Federal participation in
purchases.

. Will comply. as applicable. with provisions of the

Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. ??1501-1508 and 7324-7328)
which limit the political activities of employees whose
principal employment activities are funded in whole
or in part with Federal funds.

Standard Form 4243 (Rev. 7-97)
Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102

9. Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Davis-

Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. ??276a to 276a-7), the Copeland Act
(40 U.S.C. ?276c and 18 U.S.C. ?874), and the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. ??327-
333), regarding Iabc-r standards for federally-assisted
construction subagreements.

10. Will comply, if applicable, with ?ood insurance purchase

11.

12.

requirements of Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973 (PL. 93-234) which requires
recipients in a special ?ood hazard area to participate in the
program and to purchase flood insurance if the total cost of
insurable construction and acquisition is $10,000 or more.

Will comply with environmental standards which may be
prescribed pursuant to the following: institution of
environmental quality control measures under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL. 91 -190) and
Executive Order (E0) 11514; noti?cation of violating
facilities pursuant to E0 11738; protection of wetlands
pursuant to E0 11990; evaluation of ?ood hazards in
?oodplains in accordance with E0 11988; assurance of
project consistency with the approved State management
program developed under the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. ??1451 et seq); conformity of
Federal actions to State (Clean Air) Implementation Plans
under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of 1955, as
amended (42 U.S.C. ??7401 et seq); (9) protection of 
underground sources of drinking water under the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended (PL. 93-523);
and, protection of endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (PL. 93-
205).

Will comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of
1968 (16 U.S.C. ??1271 et seq.) related to protecting
components or potential components of the national
wild and scenic rivers system.

13. Will assist the awarding agency in assuring compliance

with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. ?470), EO 11593
(identi?cation and protection of historic properties), and
the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of
1974 (16 U.S.C. ??469a-1 et seq).

14, Will comply with PL. 93-348 regarding the protection of

human subjects involved in research, development. and
related activities supported by this award of assistance.

15, Will comply with the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of

1966 (PL. 89-544, as amended, 7 U.S.C. ??2131 et
seq.) pertaining to the care, handling, and treatment of
warm blooded animals held for research, teaching, or
other activities supported by this award of assistance.

16. Will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning

Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. ??4801 et seq.) which
prohibits the use of lead-based paint in construction or
rehabilitation of residence structures.

17. Will cause to be performed the required ?nancial and

compliance audits in accordance with the Single Audit
Act Amendments of 1996 and OMB Circular No. A-133,
"Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Pro?t
Organizations."

18, Will comply with all applicable requirements of all other

Federal laws. executive orders. regulations. and policies
governing this program.

19, Will comply with the requirements of Section 106(9) of

the Traf?cking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, as
amended (22 U.S.C. 7104) which prohibits grant award
recipients or a sub-recipient from (1) Engaging in severe
forms of traf?cking in persons during the period of time
that the award is in effect (2) Procuring a commercial
sex act during the period of time that the award is in
effect or (3) Using forced labor in the performance of the
award or subawards under the award.

 

 

SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICIAL

TITLE

 

lDeneice Cooper

ISUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 

 

APPLICANT ORGANIZATION

DATE SUBMITTED

 

OF OF EDUCATION

 07/16/2015 

 

 

 

Standard Form 4243 (Rev. 7-97) Back

 


I

I CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING

Certi?cation for Contracts. Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements

The undersigned certi?es, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
i

(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any
person for in?uencing or attempting to in?uence an of?cer or employee of an agency, a Member of
Congress, an of?cer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with
the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the
entering into} of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation. renewal, amendment, or
modi?cation of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.

(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for
in?uencing or attempting to in?uence an of?cer or employee of any agency. a Member of Congress, an
of?cer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal
contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard
"Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions.

(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certi?cation be included in the award documents
for all subavvards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and
cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certi?cation
is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or
entered into: Submission of this certi?cation is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction
imposed by section 1352, title 31, US. Code. Any person who fails to ?le the required certi?cation shall be
subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

Statement for Loan Guarantees and Loan Insurance

The undersigned states, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:

If any funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for in?uencing or attempting to in?uence an of?cer
or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an of?cer or employee of Congress, or an employee of
a Member of Congress in connection with this commitment providing for the United States to insure or
guarantee a; loan, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard "Disclosure of Lobbying
Activities," in accordance with its instructions. Submission of this statement is a prerequisite for making or
entering into' this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, US. Code. Any person who fails to ?le the
required statement shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000
for each such failure.

 

ORGANIZATION

 

ISTATE OF OF EDUCATION

 

 

PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

 

pre?x. Name. memo

 

I Middle Name: I

 

 

Last Name: IROSS 

 

*Tme; or PUBLIC EDUCATION

 

 

 

 

SIGNATURE: lDeneiIce Cooper

 



 

 

 



 



 

DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
Approved by OMB

Complete this form to disclose lobbying activities pursuant to 31 U.S.C.1352 034843045

 

1. Type of Federal Action: 2. Status of Federal Action: 3. Report Type:

a. contract El 3. bidlo??erlapplication a_ initiaI?Ijng
b-Qram b. initial award El b. materialchange
c. cooperative CV postaward

El d. loan

9. loan guarantee
I: f. loan insurance

 

 

 

4. Name and Address of Reporting Entity:
Prime SubAwardee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?Name INA I
'StreeH I!m I Street 2 I I
?City INA I State I I Zip I I

 

 

 

Congress'onal District. if known: I I

 

 

5. If Reporting Entity in No.4 is Subawardee, Enter Name and Address of Prime:

 

6. Federal DepartmentlAgency: 7. Federal Program NameIDescription:

118003 Charter Schools

 

 

 

 

 

 

CFDA Nun'ber, if applicable: la 4 . 282

 

 

8. Federal Action Number, if known: 9. Award Amount, if known:



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. a. Name and Address of Lobbying Registrant:

Pre?x 'Firstame I Middle NameI I
'?S'Namel 


?Sires? I I Street2 I I

?City I I State I I Zip I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b. Individual Performing Services (includng address if differentfrom No. 10a)

Pre?x I: ?Fr'rsl Name INA Name I I
I  

'Streeil I i I Street2 I I

?Cr'ty I IState I Zip I I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 1 Information requested throth this form is authorized by title 31 U.S.C. section 1352. This disclosure of activities is a material representation of fact upcn which
reliance was placed by the tier above when the transaction was made or enteed into. This disdosure is required pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352. This information will be reputed to
the Congress semi-annually and will be available for public inspedion. Any person who fails to ?le the required disdosure shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than
$10,000 and not more than $163,000 for each such failure.

 


Signature- lDeneice Cooper 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Title: I I Telephone No.: lDate: '07/16/2015

 

 

i . '7 Authorized lor Local Reproduction
I Federal Use Only. Standard Form . (Rev. 7-91)

 

 

 

 

NOTICE TO ALL APPLICANTS

The purpose of this enclosure is to inform you about a new
provision in the Department of Education's General
Education Provisions Act (GEPA) that applies to applicants
for new grant awards under Department programs. This
provision is Section 427 of GEPA. enacted as part of the
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (Public Law (P.L.)
103-382).

To Whom Does This Provision Apply?

Section 427 of GEPA affects applicants for new grant
awards under this program. ALL APPLICANTS FOR
NEW AWARDS MUST INCLUDE INFORMATION IN
THEIR APPLICATIONS To ADDRESS THIS NEW
PROVISION IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FUNDING UNDER
THIS PROGRAM.

(If this program is a State-formula grant program, a State
needs to provide this description only for projects or
activities that it carries out with funds reserved for State-level
uses. In addition, local school districts or other eligible
applicants that apply to the State for funding need to provide
this description in their applications to the State for funding.
The State would be responsible for ensuring that the school
district or other local entity has submitted a suf?cient

section 427 statement as described below.)

What Does This Provision Require?

Section 427 requires each applicant for funds (other than an
individual person) to include in its application a description of
the steps the applicant proposes to take to ensure equitable
access to, and participation in. its Federally-assisted program
for students. teachers. and other program bene?ciaries with
special needs. This provision allows applicants discretion in
developing the required description. The statute highlights
six types of barriers that can impede equitable access or
participation: gender. race. national origin, color. disability. or
age. Based on local circumstances. you should determine
whether these or other barriers may prevent your students.
teachers. etc. from such access or participation in, the
Federally-funded project or activity. The description in your
application of steps to be taken to overcome these barriers
need not be you may provide a clear and succinct
description of how you plan to address those barriers that are
applicable to your circumstances. In addition. the information
may be provided in a single narrative. or, if appropriate. may

OMB Number: 1894-0005
Expiration Date: 0313112017

be discussed in connection with related topics in the
application.

Section 427 is not intended to duplicate the requirements of
civil rights statutes, but rather to ensure that. in designing
their projects. applicants for Federal funds address equity
concerns that may affect the ability of certain potential
bene?ciaries to fully participate in the project and to achieve
to high standards. Consistent with program requirements and
its approved application. an applicant may use the Federal
funds awarded to it to eliminate barriers it identi?es.

What are Examples of How an Applicant Might Satisfy the
Requirement of This Provision?

The following examples may help illustrate how an applicant
may comply with Section 427.

(1) An applicant that proposes to carry out an adult literacy
project sewing, among others, adults with limited English
pro?ciency. might describe in its application how it intends
to distribute a brochure about the proposed project to such
potential participants in their native language.

(2) An applicant that proposes to develop instructional
materials for classroom use might describe how it will
make the materials available on audio tape or in braille for
students who are blind.

(3) An applicant that proposes to carry out a model
science program for secondary students and is
concerned that girls may be less likely than boys to enroll
in the course, might indicate how it intends to conduct
"outreach" efforts to girls, to encourage their enrollment.

(4) An applicant that proposes a project to increase
school safety might describe the special efforts it will take
to address concern of lesbian. gay. bisexual, and
transgender students, and efforts to reach out to and
involve the families of LGBT students.

We recognize that many applicants may already be

implementing effective steps to ensure equity of access and
participation in their grant programs. and we appreciate your
cooperation in responding to the requirements of this
provision.

Estimated Burden Statement for GEPA Requirements

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such
collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average
1.5 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions. searching existing data sources. gathering and maintaining the
data needed. and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is required to
obtain or retain bene?t (Public Law 103-382). Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information. including suggestions for reducing this burden. to the US. Department of Education. 400 Maryland Ave. SW.
Washington. DC 20210-4537 or email lCDocketMgr@ed.gov and reference the OMB Control Number 1894-0005.

Optional - You may attach 1 file to this page.

 



i 

OMB Number: 1894-0007

u.s. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Expiration Date: 08/31/2017
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
FOR THE SF-424
1. Project Director:
Pre?x: First Name: Middle Name: Last Name: Suf?x:

 

IDAVID HANSEN 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Address:

 

Street1: I25 SOUTH FRONT STREET

Street2: I

 

 

 

 

City: ICOLUMBUS
County: I

 

 

State: Ion: Ohio

 

 

Zip Code: l43215-4183 I

 

 

Country: IUSA: UNITED STATES 

Phone Number (give area code) Fax Number (give area code)

 

 

l614?466?0452 

 

 

Email Address:



 

 

2. Novice Applicant:

Are you a novice applicant as de?ned in the regulations in 34 CFR 75.225 (and included in the de?nitions page in the attached instructions)?
Yes No Not applicable to this program

3. Human Subjects Research:

 

a. Are any research activities involving human subjects planned at any time during the proposed Project Period?
Yes No

b. Are ALL the research activities proposed designated to be exempt from the regulations?

Yes Provide Provide Assurance if available:

 

 

 

 

c. If applicable, please attach your "Exempt Research" or "Nonexempt Research" narrative to this form as
indicated in the de?nitions page in the attached instructions.

 

 

FWKEEWTEI IlDEIeterA?achmentl ilVieWAttachmentl

Abstract

The abstract narrative must not exceed one page and should use language that will be understood by a range of audiences.
For all projects, include the project title (if applicable). goals. expected outcomes and contributions for research. policy,
practice. etc. Include population to be served. as appropriate. For research applications, also include the following:

Theoretical and conceptual background of the study prior research that this investigation builds upon and that
provides a compelling rationale for this study)

- Research issues. hypotheses and questions being addressed

Study design including a brief description of the sample including sample size. methods, principals dependent.
independent. and control variables, and the approach to data analysis.

[Note: For a non-electronic submission. include the name and address of your organization and the name. phone number and
e-mail address of the contact person for this project]

 

You may now Close the Form

we- .1..1?tr ?7 id- 7 (r 7 kerrwr-ie 7? ~rr 777 err?rimi-ri ?ay?ti 7 ?mi? 7. 7-7 

7 You have attached 1 file to this page, no more files may be added. To add a different file: I.
you must first delete the existing file. 

N777 7 7L7 777777777-7_77r_77 7 777 7.77, 77777777 7 777777.. 777 777 7 7-.k 77H77 7777 7.77.77-7? 7 777.7 7 7777.

 

 

*Attachment: l?bstractNarrativepdf Attachment ilDelet?'A?achmEQEi [E'Viewatta'Ehment'?

Ohio Department of Education
FY 2015 Application for Charter Schools Program - Grants for State Education Agencies
Abstract
David Hansen, Executive Director
Of?ce of Quality School Choice
The Ohio Department of Education
25 S. Front Street
Columbus, OH 43215

have a chance to show what it means to. . .have a compassionate side, a caring side, to help lift
people up." Ohio Governor John Kasich?s quote highlights the state?s continued priority to
support the most disadvantaged Ohioans. The means through which this fundamental vision can
be achieved includes better serving the educational needs of Ohio?s underprivileged students
through charter schools.

Under Governor John Kasich?s leadership, policies have been enacted that are leading to the
creation of new, high-quality charter schools and improving the academic and ?scal performance
of existing charter schools. This includes Ohio?s new law instituting a ?rst in the nation, high
stakes quality reviews of all state authorizers.

An award from the Charter Schools Program SEA Grant will allow Ohio to signi?cantly increase
access to effective charter education opportunities for Ohio?s most disadvantaged boys and girls,
particularly from low-income and minority families, who are currently poorly served by the
urban schools districts in which they live.

The key strategies in our use of the SEA Grant include:

- Open more high quality charter schools and close poor-performing schools. Aggressively
target new high-quality charter schools in areas where poor-performing schools are
closing or likely to close.

Provide for more schools serving targeted students where no effective options exist.
- Target supply and quality increases toward low-income and minority families.

- Partner with Community Educational Development Organizations (CEDOs) to accelerate
charter development and success.

- Integrate quality charter development into the State?s new authority to create
achievement school districts serving the children of the most dysfunctional school
districts.

- Increase accountability and autonomy in the charter marketplace by strengthening the
guardrails of quality authorizing and hold state authorizers rigorously accountable for
protecting student trust and public investment in Ohio charter schools.

With the creation of new schools and the replication of those that are high quality, 
ultimate goal is for Ohio to have 70% of charter school seats in effective schools by 2020,
contributing to an overall state charter sector of 100,000 seats and 400 schools.

Project Narrative File(s)

 

 

Mandatory Project Narrative File Filename: lcsp_15_Project Narrative_FINAL.pdf 

 

 

 

 

 

Narratiy? Eiie? Narrative Fila?l

 

To add more Froject Narrative File attachments. please use the attachment buttons below.

 



 

 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

APPLICATION FOR THE CHARTER SCHOOLS PROGRAM GRANT FOR

STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES

PROJECT NARRATIVE

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION 1
ABSOLUTE PRIORITIES 2
PERIODIC REVIEW AND EVALUATION 2
CHARTER SCHOOL OVERSIGHT 5
COMPETITIVE PRIORITIES 7
HIGH-QUALITY AUTHORIZING AND MONITORING 7
ONE AUTHORIZED PUBLIC CHARTERING AGENCY OTHER THAN AN LEA 12
SEAS THAT HAVE NEVER RECEIVED A CSP GRANT 12
SELECTION CRITERIA 12
STATE-LEVEL STRATEGY 12
POLICY CONTEXT FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS 17
PAST PERFORMANCE 20
QUALITY OF PLAN TO SUPPORT EDUCATIONALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS 23
VISION FOR GROWTH AND ACCOUNTABILITY 26
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION AND BEST PRACTICES 30
OVERSIGHT 0F AUTHORIZED PUBLIC CHARTERING AGENCIES 35
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND THEORY OF ACTION 39
PROJECT DESIGN 50

APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

Ohio Charter Schools Program Grant Application

Introduction

Ohio is pleased to submit this application to the US. Department of Education for a
Charter School Program SEA grant. Receiving this grant would signi?cantly assist the state in
advancing its vision for charter education, allowing for more educationally disadvantaged
students to be served with high-quality school options.

Ohio?s vision for charter education is as follows:

Ohio will significantly increase access to effective charter education opportunities for
Ohio ?s most disadvantaged boys and girls, particularly from low-income and minority
families, who are currently poorly served by the school districts in which they live.

Ohio will advance this vision through the following strategies:

- Open more high?quality charter schools and close poor-performing schools, aggressively
targeting new high-quality charter schools in areas where poor-performing schools are
closing or likely to close.

- Provide for more schools serving targeted students where no effective options exist.

Partner with Community Educational Development Organizations (CEDOS) to accelerate
high-quality charter school development.

- Integrate quality charter development into the State?s new authority to create ?recovery
districts? that serve the children of the most underperforming districts.

- Increase accountability and autonomy for state authorizers accountable to protect student

trust and public investment in Ohio charter schools.

Our Goals

Today, Ohio?s charter schools are measured as ?effective? or ?ineffective? per the State?s

 

grading system which, like the federal de?nition of high-quality schools, incorporates several
measures of school success. An effective school is de?ned as a school where a year?s learning
growth occurs ahnually, or, if students are behind grade in pro?ciency, where more than a year?s
learning growthoccurs. Schools that do not achieve such growth are deemed ?ineffective.

Per the federal de?nition of ?high-quality? and ?poor-performing? schools, Ohio has 93

high-quality chafrters and 6 poor-performing.

i

In October 2014, the state serves 89,995 students in its site-based charter schools. Our


ultimate goal is for 70% of charter school these students to be attending ?effective? schools by
i

2021. It is expe?ted that by 2021 the state charter sector will total nearly 100,000 seats and have
1

about 400 schools. By leveraging new planning and implementation subgrants through Ohio?s

CSP program, the state will generate nearly 25,000 new charter school seats over the next 5

years.

In additibn to meeting this State-based goal, Ohio also aspires to increase the percentage
1

of high-quality schools, per the USDOE de?nition, from 32% ofcharter schools in 2013-14 to

50% of all chartfr schools by 2021.

1 Absolute Priority 1: Periodic Review and Evaluation
The State provides for periodic review and evaluation by the authorized public chartering
agency of each bharter school and takes steps to ensure that such reviews take place. Reviews
and evaluations will:

A. At a minimum be conducted at least once every ?ve years, unless required more frequently

by State law

 

B. Serve to determine whether the charter school is meeting the terms of the school ?s charter
and meeting or exceeding the student academic achievement requirements and goals for
charter schools 1

C. Include an opportunity for the authorized public charter agency to take appropriate action

or impose meaningful consequences

State laws is clear with respect to the authorizer?s obligation to review the charter school?s
operations, compliance with state and federal laws and the terms of the charter contract, and
intervention and.E renewal decision?making (Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 3314.03). The Ohio

Department of Eiducation (ODE) adopted rules to amplify these requirements (Ohio

Administrative Oode (OAC) Chapter 3301-05) and the annual evaluation of authorizers (called

?sponsors? in Ohio law) sets clear expectations regarding the authorizers? review, evaluation,

and decision-majking pertaining to charter schools. Required authorizer reviews include the

following: 

A pic-opening review. ORC 3314.19; complete on-site reviews for each schools prior to
opening of each school year and submit the report to ODE.

- reviews of financial and enrollment activity. ORC 3314.023; meet with the
governing authority or ?scal of?cer of the school every month and provide a written report
of its reviewito the school.

- Twice annually comprehensive reviews. OAC complete comprehensive
site visits twice annually while school is in session.

- Renewal, termination/non-renewal or suspension review. State laws pertaining to
decisions to renew a school?s charter (ORC 3314.03), terminate or nonrenew (ORC 3314.07),

or suspend school activities (ORC 3314.072), require that the performance standards by

which the success of the school is evaluated are set forth in the charter contract (ORC
More speci?cally, the charter contract must state the academic goals to be
achieved and the method of measurement used to determine progress toward those goals,
which includes the state?s mandated assessments. If the authorizer ?nds that the school?s
compliance with laws and its charter contract, and progress in meeting the academic goals
prescribed have been satisfactory, it may renew the contract (ORC 

ODE evaluates authorizers annually on three components, one of which is quality practices
(ORC 3314.016). Quality practices assess transparency of the charter contract; data-driven
renewal andt?intervention decisions; annual and cumulative school reports based upon
multiple souices of data; and a high-stakes reviews at least every five years (more frequently
if a school?sicharter expires sooner or if suspension is being contemplated).

At any point during any of the above reviews, the authorized public charter agency
has the opportlinity and the responsibility -- to take appropriate action or impose
meaningful consequences.

Ohio rule?i and law ensure that authorizers have a legal basis for taking appropriate action
against a charter;: school, as necessary. Authorizer-school contracts must include a provision that
recognizes the l?gal right of authorizers ?to assume the operation of a school,? according to ORC
may place a school on probationary status under ORC 3314.073,
suspend the schdol?s operation under 3314.072 of the Revised Code, or terminate a school?s
contract under 3314.07. The reasons for applying such consequences are: failure to meet
student performance requirements stated in the contract (charter); failure to meet generally
accepted standards of fiscal management; violation of any provision of the charter contract or

applicable state or federal law; non-compliance with health and safety standards required by law.

ODE holds authorizers accountable for performing and reporting on these reviews
through its Authorizer Quality Performance Review (AQPR), developed in alignment with
Principles Standards of Quality Charter School Authorizing, to measure an
authorizer?s overall quality performance (see Appendix E). The AQPR is compulsory under
ORC and evaluates authorizer performance in the areas of: agency commitment
and capacity; application process and decision-making; performance contracting; oversight and
evaluation; terniination and renewal decision-making; and technical assistance. Ohio?s AQPR is
the only high stakes evaluation of authorizer performance by an SEA. More details on the AQPR
can be found under Competitive Priority 1.

7 Absolute Priority 2: Charter School Oversig?

A. State laws, regulations, and other policies that require:
1. Each charter school to operate under legally binding charters or performance contracts that
describe the rights and responsibilities of the school and public chartering agency

Ohio Revised Code 3314.03 requires charter schools to operate under binding contracts
issued by eligible authorizers, which establish the rights of both parties. The authorizer?s
obligations to the school, and the school?s to the authorizer, are required elements in the charter
contract. Examples of responsibilities for the authorizer and schools include: monitoring a
school's compliance; describing the metrics and expectations for evaluating the school; and all
laws with whichthe school must comply. Examples of rights for the authorizer and/or school are
standard in all charter contract language and include: the authorizer?s right to intervene; the
circumstances for any intervention; appeal rights for contract termination; arbitration of

disagreements; rbles and obligations (ORC 3313.03).

2. Each charterischool in the state conducts annual, timely, and independent audits of the
school ?s ?nancial statements that are ?led with the school?s authorizer

State law requires community schools to have a ?nancial audit by the Auditor of State
annually. The authorizer is involved during the audit process and attends the exit conferences
with the school and the auditors. Each audit is shared with the school, authorizer, published to
the Auditor of State?s website, and if material ?ndings are noted, a notice is also sent to ODE.
(ORC and Chapter 117).
3. Each charter school in the state demonstrates improved academic achievement

The AQPR ensures that Ohio?s authorizers are attentive to their schools? academic
achievement. Net only are authorizers compelled to provide annual reports summarizing school
performance by the section on oversight and evaluation, but they are also expected to
establish measures for student pro?ciency, academic growth, graduation rates, attendance, and
post-secondary enrollment (if applicable) under the performance contracting section.

Additionally, Ohio?s charter schools are required to demonstrate improved academic
achievement or face closure under state law. Report cards for general education charter schools
are required under ORC 3314.02, while report cards for dropout prevention and recovery charter
schools (DOPR): are required under ORC 3314.017.

B. Authdrized public chartering agencies in the state use increases in student
achievement as ime of the most important factors when determining to renew or revoke a
school?s charter;

Whetherjby authorizer action or as a result of Ohio?s automatic closure law, charter

schools in the State are closed for failing to demonstrate improved academic achievement.

1


As Local Report Cards and their measures were phased in for Ohio schools from years 2012-
2013 through 14-2015, so too were elements evaluated for school closure that are found in the
LRC. Closure laws differ based on grade levels offered by a school, but essentially a
school is forced close under ORC 3314.35 when it has ratings of or in two of three
consecutive years, and fails to meet expected value-added expected gains.

Criteria found in the termination and renewal section of the AQPR emphasize the
importance of stludent achievement in an authorizer?s decision to renew or revoke a charter. Ohio
authorizers use an assortment of measures in making this decision, including multiple years and
measures of student performance. Authorizers grant renewals to schools that are successful in
achieving rigorous and speci?c academic goals. Please see Appendix for renewal decision
criteria used by :Ohio?s authorizers.

Competitive Prioritv 1: High-Quality Authorizing and Monitoring Process
A. Framework and processes to evaluate the performance of charter schools on a regular
basis that inclutlle:
1. Rigorous aca?demic and operational performance expectations

Charter ?chools are monitored by authorizers to evaluate their adherence to the charter
contract, as reqtlired under ORC 3314.03. These evaluations examine ?ve components of school
compliance at least twice annually: health and safety, governance, ?nance, operations, and
education programs. In addition to these semi-annual evaluations, authorizers are required to
conduct ?scal monitoring of their schools under ORC 3314.023.

The fran?lework to evaluate performance of charter schools is set forth in State and
Federal law, in each charter school?s contract with its authorizer, and in the performance

contracting section of the AQPR (see Appendix E). Charter schools must define their curriculum

and performance goals in their contracts, and administer all state achievement assessments and
graduation tests under ORC 3314.03. Additionally, charter schools must comply with Annual
Measurable Objectives requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Waiver and other parameters set forth by the US. Department of Education.
2. Performance ?objectives for each school aligned to expectations

Under Ohio law, performance objectives are established for each charter school in its
authorizer contract. ORC requires charter contracts to include ?academic goals to
be achieved method of measurement that will be used to determine progress toward those
goals, which shall include the statewide achievement assessments.? ORC requires
?performance standards by which the success of the school will be evaluated by the
(authorizer).? Please see Appendix for school performance objectives from an exemplary Ohio
authorizer, the 'Ehomas B. Fordham Institute.
3. Clear criteria for renewing the charter of a school based on an objective body of evidence

Ohio?s authorizers base the renewal process and renewal decisions on a comprehensive
analysis of objective evidence, as de?ned by the performance framework in the charter contract
and in concert with expectations from the performance contracting section of the AQPR.
Authorizers have written policies explaining: the grounds and criteria for renewal; the specific
evidence to be collected and/or documented; and the procedures both the school and the
authorizer will follow once renewal decisions have been made. Evidence collected by authorizers
includes multiple years and measures of student achievement, as well as other relevant measures
of school performance. ODE considers a charter school?s success in meeting its achievement and

?scal goals to be two of the most important factors in making renewal/revocation decisions.

Please see Appeiidix for renewal criteria adopted by the Ohio Council of Community Schools,
a second exemplary Ohio authorizer.

4. Clear criteriaifor revoking the charter of a school if there is a violation of law or public
truSt Violations of the law and the public trust are cause for the closure of charter schools.
Ohio authorizers are required under OAC to make twice annual site visits
to monitor school adherence to rule and law, and to report ?ndings on such things as school
safety plans, emergency evacuations drills, criminal background checks, and
academic/intervention services policy.

Clear violations of the law or public trust identified during site visits or through other
means represent: grounds for the termination/revocation of a charter, particularly as they apply to
health and safety, governance, ?nance, operations, and education programs.

5. Annual reporting by authorizers to each of their authorized charter schools that
summarizes the?schools performance and compliance

OAC 3301-102-05 mandates that charter school authorizers make written reports from
school site visits available to ODE upon request and requires authorizers to send academic and
?scal performance reports to parents annually by November 30. Additionally, authorizers are
obligated to submit annual performance reports to ODE for their authorized schools under ORC
 

B. Clear and speci?c standards and formalized processes that measure and benchmark the
performance of authorizers

The Of?ce of Quality School Choice (QSC) has staff solely dedicated to the formal
evaluation of authorizers. Authorizers are evaluated on three components and the results are

posted annually 0n website. The components are monitoring school compliance with all

applicable laws and the terms of the charter contract; academic portfolio performance; and
adherence to quality practices and standards of authorizing, aligned with those of the National
Association of Oharter School Authorizers (NACSA), which is specifically cited in law (ORC
The quality practices cover six critical areas (agency commitment and capacity;
application renewal and decision-making; performance contracting; oversight and evaluation;
termination and renewal decision; and technical assistance). Three areas are given twice the
weight in the ev?luation: agency commitment and capacity; application decision-making; and
renewal and decision-making. Possible ratings for the AQPR are exemplary, effective,
ineffective, or poor/underdeveloped. Possible ratings for the compliance review are exemplary,
effective, and ineffective (see Appendix E). Ohio is one of few states to conduct high-stakes
quality reviews  authorizers. Seven authorizers have been through the process to date and, by
January 1, 2016,: authorizers overseeing 90% of the state?s charter schools will have been
through the prociess. Two of the authorizers evaluated to date have been assigned ratings cf
ineffective. Kids Count of Dayton has been placed on a one-year corrective action plan, during
which it will have to demonstrate signi?cant improvements in its practices or have its ability to
authorize schoolis revoked by ODE. Portage County Educational Service Center also earned a
rating of ineffective and has elected to surrender its authority to authorize schools. All
authorizers haveibeen evaluated for compliance.
C. Authorizing processes establish clear criteria for evaluating charter applications and
include multi-tiriared reviews

ODE expects charters to be issued only to applicants that have: a clear and compelling

mission; quality educational program; solid business plan; an effective governance structure;

staff knowledgeable in all areas of school operations; and clear evidence of the capacity to

10

successfully execute the plan. Applicants should conduct market research that validates demand
for a high-quality school in the proposed area and should have signi?cant startup capital. The
authorizer is expected to follow a documented, systematic process for applications that cover
four main areas of school planning and operations (education plan, governance, ?nance and
accountability). It is expected that the authorizer will involve multiple reviewers in assessing the
written application, who have broad expertise and bring in others with speci?c knowledge if
needed, based upon the applicant?s proposal. Further, authorizers are expected to train the
reviewers on the use of the rubric, while including rigorous criteria and differentiaed scoring.
The process calls for an applicant interview; additional due diligence in vetting; and engaging in
data-driven decisions involving the authorizer?s board.

D. Authorizing processes that include differentiated review of charter petitions to assess
whether, and extent to which, the charter school developer has been successful in establishing
and operating one or more high-quality charter schools

The application and decision-making section establishes standards for
authorizers in assessing petitions for new charter schools. Application requirements are expected
to vary by type of applicant (existing charter operators, replicators, those seeking a different
authorizer) in order to clearly capture the applicant?s history performance of any af?liated
schools as well as association with any never-opened, terminated, or non-renewed schools).

As noted. before, the standards for assessing petitions obligate authorizers to
ensure that applicants have: a clear and compelling mission and vision; a quality educational
program; a solid business plan (including market and charter research); an effective governance
and managemen: structure; staf?ng of people with diverse knowledge in education, school

?nance, etc.

11

Cmetitive Priority 2: One Authorized Public Chartering A gencv Other than a Local
Education Agency (LEA), or an Appeals Process
A. Provides for one authorized public agency that is not an LEA 

Ohio has a multi?authorizer system. There are 65 active authorizers in Ohio, most of
which are LEAs. However, the majority of operating schools are chartered by non-LEA
authorizers: federal non-pro?t organizations and a state university, most approved by and
a number of educational service centers. ODE is also an authorizer through its Of?ce of School
Sponsorship. There is no statutory appeal rights for an applicant, but there are a multitude of
authorizers available to any applicant.

B. In the case of a State in which LEAs are the only authorized public agency, allows for
appeals of denied applications - Not applicable
Competitive Priority 3: SEAS That Have Never Received a CSP Grant Not applicable

Selection Criteria
A. State-Level Strategy

1. Extent to which the SEA ?3 CSP activities are integrated into the state?s overall strategy for
improving student academic achievement and attainment and closing gaps.

Ohio has. a well-established overall state strategy for improving student academic
achievement and attainment, including closing achievement and attainment gaps. This strategy is
well documented in the state?s successful federal Race to the Top grant application and
implementation plan, and the key strategies are codi?ed in state statute and regulation (see
citations listed throughout). The key components of the state?s overall strategy, all of which are

implemented, are as follows:

12

. Academic content standards in mathematics, English language arts, science, social
studies (including US. History and US. Government) that prepare students for success in
college and careers (ORC 3301.079).

. Statewide assessments aligned to the standards in math and English/language arts in
grades 3 through 8 and once in high school, and in science (grades 5 and 8), social
studies,  Government and US. History (ORC 3301.0711).

. High standard for high school graduation that includes minimum, but rigorous course-
taking rehuirements and the passage of state assessments (ORC 3301.0710, 3313.603).

. An accoimtability system (report cards) that reports on student achievement, attainment
and growth for schools and districts, and uses report cards to drive academic
improvement, while ensuring that data is disaggregated and that buildings and districts
are measfured on closing achievement gaps (ORC Chapter 3302).

. Ensuring that all students can read at grade level by the third grade (Third Grade
Reading ,Cuarantee, measured on the Report Card) (ORC 3313.608).

. Intensive, ongoing system of support for the improvement of school districts and school
buildings. This is accomplished primarily through the Ohio Improvement Process (OIP),
requirements for improvement planning and the State Support Teams (ORC 3302.04).

. Performance standards forteachers, principals and superintendents, and the design and
implementation of high-quality evaluation systems (ORC 3319.61, 3319.112).

. Options for students through charter schools and scholarships (vouchers for private
schools) that create educational options primarily for students who attend or would attend

the state?s lowest performing schools (ORC Chapters 3310 and 3314). The state?s

13

proposed CSP activities (under Project Design) are a critical component to the

continudd development and expansion of charter school options.

9. Fostering innovation through the ?Straight innovation grant program (ORC 3319.57).

10. An adeqaate and equitable level of funding for education through a combination of state

and local funding sources (ORC Chapter 3317).

All of these strategies are designed to work together to support and promote a system of
primary and secondary education that ensures students? academic achievement in all traditional
and public charter schools.

2. Extent to which funding equity for charter schools is incorporated into the SEA ?s State-
level strategy 

funding strategy is designed to promote funding equity for all schools. To that
end, the State?s funding formula ensures the same basic level of ?nancial support for charter and
traditional public schools. Beyond basic funding, an ODE legislative recommendation to the
General Assembly opened the door to new funding sources for charter schools. Previously
available only ini the Cleveland area, charter schools can now seek voter approved tax levies
statewide, so long as they are overseen by exemplary authorizers. Tax levies are adopted in
conjunction with local school boards and can be used to pay for operational expenses.

Ohio?s efforts to provide funding equity for charter schools are also evident in the state?s
most recent education budget, which set aside $25 million for high-quality charter schools to use
on facilities. Additionally, ODE is enhancing the State?s Academic Distress Commission
concept, established by the State Superintendent pursuant to ORC 3302.10, by providing
supplemental sources of funding to charters in ?recovery districts? overseen by these

Commissions.

l4

3. Extent to which the State encourages local Strategies for improving student academic
achievement that involve charter schools

In order to promote coordinated support of quality school development at the local level,
ODE will collaborate with community education development organizations (CEDOs). CEDOs
are organizations located in urban areas that consist of school, business and government leaders.
CEDOs drive and coordinate efforts to improve educational quality through comprehensive
strategies that ingclude, among other things, improving overall school quality. CEDOs have:
meaningful local funding sources; broad community engagement; professional staf?ng; and are
actively engaged in improving the prerequisites of school system success, including quality
teacher pipelines, increased school accountability and parental engagement. The success of
CEDOs is critical for wide-scale education reform in Ohio. ODE will work closely with CEDOs
so that awarded proposals will bene?t from their accelerator activities.

The Department will partner with CEDOs in determining the priority for awards to
eligible proposals. While maintaining complete quality control over the award process and grant
use, the Department will allow CEDOS to prioritize awards among eligible applicants. This, in
turn, enables CEDOS to leverage the awards into greater school success as well as into ?scal and
political support?for their reform efforts. With more ?scal and political support, CEDOs will be
able to provide more support for the success of the awarded school proposals and expand their
own locally-resourced school development efforts.

i. Collaboration 1between charter schools and other public schools

The Ohio Community Collaboration Model for School Improvement (OCCMSI) is an

ODE led initiative that was created to provoke collaboration'between charter schools and other

public schools  an effort to enhance school quality and academic achievement for all students.



I . . . .
OCCMSI is a mPlti?faceted school improvement model, With specr?cally desrgned programs and
i . . . .
services that feature strategies for academic improvement, youth development, parent/family
engagement, health and social services, and community partnerships.

i

The respionsibility for student achievement is shared as educators and stakeholders
I .
recognize their interdependence in improving outcomes for students. Collaboration is the key
concept emphasized by the OCCMSI. Figure 1 illustrates some of the model?s targeted goals.

Figure 1: Ohio! Community Collaboration Model for School Improvement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Areas of School Improvement Areas of Reductions
Academic achievement Achievement Gaps
Productive learning during out-of-school time Problem behaviors
Attendance in school School suspensions

School climate, Duplication of Services
Access to services; faster delivery of services Fragmentation of Programs
Service integration Feelings of isolation
Healthy youth development Student mobility

 

 

ii. The creation of charter schools that would serve as viable options for students who
currently attend: the state?s Io west-performing schools.

The Clevieland Transformation Alliance (CTA) is a CEDO that ODE has been working
with for the pastitwo years. Ohio?s plans for creating charter schools serving as viable options for
students in the State?s lowest performing schools is re?ected in that partnership. CTA promotes
the developmentof high-quality district and public charter schools in the Cleveland area by:
assessing the quality of all public schools in the area; creating awareness among Cleveland
families about quality school options; empowering families to make informed choices; and by
monitoring the growth and quality of charter schools. ODE is committed to expanding CTA

strategies into all of Ohio?s urban districts and, in so doing, signi?cantly increasing the number

of high-quality schools in those areas.

16

 

 

 as previously noted, are located in Ohio?s major cities. partnerships with
CEDOs link the Department to school, business and government leaders in metropolitan areas to
form mutually beneficial relationships that strive to combine efforts and resources to improve
school quality thereby creating more quality school options across the State.

Additionally, in legislation just signed into law, the State Superintendent is now
empowered to put in motion complete redesigns of chronically underperforming traditional
school districts. The creation of high-quality charter schools will support newly designated
?recovery districts? in providing quality options for students who would otherwise attend the
state?s worst district schools. The state?s plan for a recovery district will rely on replacing current
failing traditional public and charter schools with effective charter schools and developing new
K-l2 pyramids of charters schools. The ?rst recovery district will be formed in Youngstown.

B. Policy Context for Charter Schools

1. The degree of ?exibility afforded to charter schools under the State?s charter school law,
including. 

i. Extent to whidh charter schools are exempt from rules that limit ?exible operations

Under OliC 3314.04, charter schools in Ohio are ?exempt from all state laws and rules
pertaining to schools, school districts, and boards of education, except those laws and rules that
grant certain rights to parents.? Charter schools are not exempt from laws related to health and
safety, civil rights, performance accountability, employee criminal records checks, sunshine
laws, public records, and generally accepted accounting principles.

Once approved and operating, flexible options continue for Ohio?s charter schools. These
options include the ?exibility to design curriculum that is sensitive to the academic and cultural

needs of their students, establish academic goals, determine instructional methods that will lead

17

to the achievement of state standards, open enrollment to any Ohio student, select members of
the governing board, hire and dismiss staff, and contract with service providers.
ii. Extent to which charter schools have a high degree of autonomy

ORC 334 provides charter schools with a high degree of autonomy over their own
budgets and expenditures in four ways: (1) clear statutory language mandating autonomy; (2)
direct state funding for charter schools; (3) monitoring potential con?icts of interest and (4)
governing board, authority to make autonomous decisions regarding budgets and expenditures.

Charter schools are clearly de?ned as local education agencies (LEAs) under OAC 3301-
3-01 As such, charter schools: are independent of any other school district; receive direct
state and federalifunding, which is separate from any other entity?s ?mding; may acquire
facilities; and have broad contracting authority to obtain all services necessary for the operation
the school, as permitted under ORC 

_Every charter school in Ohio has an independent governing board. The school charter or
contract entered .into by the school?s governing authority and the authorizer specifies academic,
fiscal, governance, and accountability responsibilities for which both parties must follow.
Authorizers are primarily responsible for monitoring their schools? performance and compliance
with state rules and regulations and may not interfere with the charter school?s daily operations,
according to ORC 

2. The Quality of the SEA ?3 Processes for:
i. Annually infoi?ming charter schools about Federal funds for which they are eligible

To inform charter schools and traditional districts of federal entitlement funding
opportunities,  holds multiple seminars throughout the state every June. As discretionary

grants become available, ODE publicizes these through the Superintendent?s weekly newsletter,

18

through webinaris, and in the state?s consolidated grant application platform, called the
Comprehensive iContinuous Improvement Program (CCIP).
ii. Annually ensuring that charter schools receive Federal funds in a timely manner

Payments to charter schools in Ohio are incorporated as part of the Department?s normal
payment processes. ODE follows documented initiation procedures at the beginning of the state
?scal year to inform relevant of?ces, including the Of?ce of Federal Student Programs, of newly
opening charter schools. A11 charter schools use CCIP to access federal entitlement and
discretionary funds. Charter schools provide data on low-income students as part of their
application for Eederal assistance. Low-income student data from resident districts and charter
schools are extracted to ensure a valid transition count each year in the fall, called the initial
allocation. Charter school enrollment is submitted Five months into the State ?scal
year, a second review is conducted by the Of?ce of Federal Student Programs to make
allocations to ne?w charter schools and adjust allocations to all other LEAs. This twice annual
allocation calculation ensures that charter schoolsand all other LEAs receive their share of
federal education funding and title funds.

ODE has: a Grants Management of?ce with staff experienced in managing LEA grants
and using established routines and reporting protocols. The Of?ce of QSC employs a grants
coordinator to priovide technical assistance on and monitoring of the CSP grant. Last but not
least, the authorijzer also reviews ?nances with its schools and ensuring timeliness of
payment is part of that review.

3. The quality of the SEA ?s plan to ensure that charter schools are considered to be LEAs

under State lawjand LEAs in which charter schools are located will comply with IDEA, the

19

Age Discriminaltion Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Education Amendments of 19 72 and the
Rehabilitation Act

Ohio?s charter schools are public schools, established as local education agencies. ORC
reads, (charter) school created under this chapter is a public school, independent
of any school diStrict, and is part of the state's program of education program of education.? As
such, they are required to comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
the Age Discrimiination Act, Civil Rights Act, Title X, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Authorizf'ers verify school compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws during
twice annual site visits. ORC dictates that authorizers ?monitor the community
school's compliance with all laws applicable to the school. . while states that
authorizers must; ?provide technical assistance to the community school in complying with laws
applicable to the; A number of additional mandates found in state law and regulations
offer additional assurances that charter schools are compliant with Federal laws.
C. Past Performance
1. Extent to whitish there has been demonstrated increase, for each of the past ?ve years, in the
number and per?centage of high-quality charter schools

Figure 2 Eshows the number and percentage of high-quality, general education charter
schools in Ohio for the past ?ve years per the de?nition. The state has increased the
rigor of report card measures annually, and those made alter the publication of the 2012 report
card have been significant, making it more dif?cult for all schools to achieve a high-quality
designation (see :Appendix B). As illustrated, Ohio saw a steady increase in the number and
percentage of high-quality charter schools from 2009?2010 to 2011-2012, but lower percentages

in the two subseduent years after more rigorous measures were implemented.

20

Figure 2: High-Quality, General Education Charter Schools in Ohio

 

 

 

 

 

 

General Education
High- Total of General
Quality General Education
Year School Education Schools High-
Count Schools Quality
2009-2010 88 236 37.3%
2010-2011 112 244 45.9%
1 2011-2012 124 256 48.4%
2012-2013 104 271 38.4%
2013-2014 93 290 32.1%

 

 

 

2. Extent to which there has been a demonstrated reduction, for each of the past ?ve years, in

 

the number and percentage of academically poor-performing schools

Figure 3 ?shows the percentage and number of poor-performing, general education charter
schools in Ohio over the past ?ve years per the de?nition. The number of poorly
performing scholols rose in 2013-2014, which is directly attributable to the increased rigor
brought by adjusted measures in the accountability system.

Figure 3: Poor-Performing General Education Charter Schools in Ohio

 

 

 

 

General Education
1 Low- Total of General
Performing General Education
Year School Education Schools Low-
Count Schools Performing
2009-2010 1 236 0.4%
2010-201 1 3 244 1.2%
2011-2012 1 256 0.4%
2012-2013 0 271 0.0%
2013-2014 6 290 2.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

1
Since the 2010- 2011 school year, 11 charter schools have been closed under the state?s
closure criteria ahd 68 have been ordered to close by their authorizers for failing to meet
academic and/org?scal expectations. An additional 20 charter schools have been voluntarily


. . . . . .
closed during the same t1meframe by their governing boards for ?scal, enrollment, or

i 21
i

i
other reasons. The closure of 78 schools since FYI I, as shown in Figure 4, clearly shows that

Ohio has been aggressive in reducing the number of poorly performing charter schools.

Figure 4: Ohio Charter Schools Closed Since FY11

 

 

 

 

 

 

Academic Closure Contractual Non- Closed
ear . . . .
Criterla compliance Voluntarily

FYI I i 4 8 2
FY12 FY14 36 3
FY15 0 8 4
Total 1 1 68 20

 

 

 

3. Extent to which achievement and attainment levels of charter school students, including
graduation rates and past-secondary enrollment, equal or exceed achievement and attainment
levels ofstudentls in other public schools over the past ?ve years

Ohio?s charter schools are highly similar to the Ohio 8 school districts (the 8 largest
urban districts in: the state) in terms of student demographics (economically disadvantaged,
special needs, pe?rcent minority). Comparisons of like data from 2010-2014 Show that all charter
schools and Ohio 8 districts are roughly equal in terms of the percentage of high-quality schools.

Figure 5 demonstratesjust how closely the two compare, with narrow differences each
year in the percentage of high-quality schools.

Figure 5: Percentage of high-quality general education charter schools and Ohio 8 schools
i

 

 

 

 

I i gh-Quality High-Quality
Year Charter Schools Traditional Schools
I 2010 37.3% 38%
i 2011 45.9% 44.6%
i 2012 48.4% 43.8%
2013 38.4% 40.8%
2014 32.1% 36.3%

 

 

 

22

 

 

The differences are again minimal when comparing poorly performing charter schools
and Ohio 8 districts, as shown in Figure 6. In four of the ?ve years, however, a smaller
percentage of charter schools than Ohio 8 schools were designated as poorly performing.

Figure 6: Percentage of high-quality general education charter schools and Ohio 8 schools

 

 

 

 

Poor-Performing Poor-Performing
Year Charter Schools Traditional Schools
2010 0.4% 0.85%
201 1 1.2% 0.89%
2012 0.4% 0.92%
2013 0% 3.26%
2014 2.1% 4.47%

 

 

 

D. Quality Planjto Support Educationally Disadvantaged Students

1. The extent to .?which the SEA ?s charter school subgrant program would:

i. Assist disadvajntaged students in meeting and exceeding State academic content standards
and State student achievement standards.

mission is ?higher achievement for all students, regardless of race, ethnicity,
income level, language background, disability status, or gender.? As such, the Department seeks
to: set clear and high expectations for all students; build the capacity of educators to help
students reach higher levels of achievement; and improve results.

ODE will achieve its mission by assisting disadvantaged students in meeting and
exceeding State Standards through the emphasis on high-quality authorizing, which is
expected to leadiito the development of more hi gh-quality schools. As exemplary authorizer
practices increase among Ohio authorizers, and successful school models are increasingly
replicated in Ohio, ODE expects that disadvantaged students and their families will greatly

bene?t from add?ed opportunities to select and enroll in high-quality schools.

23

Ohio?s charter school subgrant program will assist educationally disadvantaged students
by increasing the number of high-quality schools and effective seats where they are most needed,
primarily in the Ohio 8 districts. These districts have the highest number of. traditional public
schools with designations of Focus or Priority under Ohio?s Elementary and Secondary Act
(ESEA) ?exibility waiver. ODE tracks the number of site-based charters operating in each of
these districts, enabling the Department to prioritize areas in greatest need of additional schools
to serve disadvantaged students.

ii. Reducing acltievement gaps for economically disadvantaged students

CSP subgrantees will be held accountable for their results in reducing or eliminating
achievement gaps through measures (annual measurable objectives) reported on the LRC. Ohio
schools receive a percent ranking on four report card measures, including gap closing, that are
combined into overall grade.

Additionally, the Of?ce of social science researcher will conduct a study of best
practices for reducing achievement gaps and disseminate ?ndings from the study to subgrantees
through workshops, webinars, newsletters, and partnering with charter school organizations such
as the Ohio Assdciation of Charter School Authorizers, Ohio Association for Public Charter
Schools, and Quality School Coalition. These dissemination activities will include technical
assistance, as needed, to support schools in the implementation of best practices.

Ohio?s strategies for reducing or eliminating achievement gaps are shown in several
actions: the Ohio Improvement Process, a data-driven, local control process for identifying what
is not working Well and implementing actions steps and measures to guide improvement, with a

focus on sub-grdup achievement; funding changes facility funds) which make additional

24

resources available; and early learning and career and college readiness strategies, which drive
academic improvement and close achievement gaps.
2. Recruiting, enrolling, serving, and retaining disadvantaged students

The Department?s notice of grant opportunity will require applicants to build into their
proposals a plan for recruiting, enrolling, and retaining disadvantaged students. In their plans,
applicants will be asked to explain how they expect to engage diverse populations during initial
enrollment drives and throughout the grant period. Successful proposals will include plans to
continue these activities beyond the grant period as part of the school?s normal business plan.
Community outreach efforts will be consistent with Ohio statute and will describe promising
practices for reaching underrepresented student populations and their families. Such practices
may include orientations, mailings, and partnerships with community leaders and organizations.

In a manner consistent with plans to disseminate best practices for reducing
achievement gaps, the Of?ce of QSC will disseminate best practices for recruiting, enrolling,
serving, and retaining disadvantaged students, including practices employed by subgrantees.
3. school innovation

Clear, comprehensive plans for innovation, designed to improve achievement for
disadvantaged students, will be encouraged of every applicant. Prospective subgrantees will be
afforded the ?exibility to develop plans best suited to their students? needs. Ohio?s plan is to
award subgrantsto applicants with a strong sense of best practices in charter school innovation,
and how those innovations will meet the learning needs of targeted populations.
4. Monitoring charter schools to ensure compliance

The Of?ce of QSC has a CSP Grant Site Monitoring Form that is completed by the grants

manager during Site visits. This form guides the grants manager to verify that things such as

25

1

performance objectives, action steps and benchmarks described in the application are being
achieved. Evidence, ratings, and actions needed are documented for each item.

Monitoring compliance with Federal and Ohio laws, and the usage of Federal funds is
critically important to ODE, thus monitoring activities are conducted on a quarterly basis.
Monitoring activities ensure that applicable federal requirements and performance goals are
being met and that the expenditure of federal funds is in accord with all applicable laws and
regulations. Programmatic goals will also be closely scrutinized to con?rm that they have or are
in the process of? achieving objectives and are adhering to the program?s governing assurances.

During the monitoring process, if a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) is required, the Of?ce
of QSC continuezs monitoring activities to ensure that the school has successfully implemented
the CAP. Failure to cooperate with the monitoring efforts will result in early termination
of the subgrantee?s award, including the return of any previously distributed funds.

The previously mentioned is a uni?ed grants application and veri?cation system
that consists of two parts: the Planning Tool and the Funding Application. It will be used to
monitor subgrantees? compliance by tracking goals, strategies, action steps, district goal amounts
for all grants, budgets, budget details, and other related pages. Subgrantee applications are filed
electronically to Ethe CCIP, with all steps in the review and approval process documented. Any
subgrantee who fails to adhere to their approved plans in the CCIP could face corrective action
from ODE, up tq and including the revocation and repayment of grant funds.

E. Statewide vision, including the role of the SEA, for charter school growth and
accountability I
Ohio?s overall vision for charter education is that the state will provide access to effective

1

charter education opportunities for Ohio?s disadvantaged boys and girls, particularly from low-

26

income and minority families, who are currently poorly served by the school districts in which
they live. I

Ohio?s goal for charter school growth and accountability is to grow to 400 schools and
for 70% of charter seats to be in effective schools by 2021. In alignment with the state?s vision,
the Of?ce of Quality School Choice strives to provide all Ohio students with high-quality,
accessible educational options and the knowledge to make the best choices. The key to
achieving this goal is continued focus on holding authorizers accountable for opening
more high~qualiiy schools, closing or non-renewing poor-performing schools, and helping more
current schools feach high-quality status and expand. The CSP grant will enable Ohio to realize
that vision by supporting the opening of schools with effective seats in the most underserved
areas. Ohio?s acfademic accountability system ensures that data, easy to understand and use, are
readily available; for families seeking a choice option.
1. Quality of the SEA ?s system for collecting, analyzing, and publically reporting data on
charter school performance

Charter schools, like their traditional public school counterparts, are required to submit
extensive data to the state through the Education Management Information System (EMIS). Data
must include strident achievement, attainment, retention,'and discipline data. Data are used to
compute value-added metrics for each tested grade and subject, and a performance index score
for each school. 1Data are disaggregated to assess the attainment of annual measurable objectives
and illustrate achievement gaps.

Collected and processed data are used to populate an annual report card for each school

(A sample report card is attached in Appendix E). Charter schools are given a letter grade (A-F),

while a measure of college and career readiness will appear on the 2016 report card for the ?rst

27

time. In its 2014 annual report, the Data Quality Campaign said that, ?Ohio?s highly interactive
School Report Cards provides parents detailed information on school-level student performance,
including trend data, state and district comparisons, and levels of achievement. Explanation of
indicators, indices and measure of student achievement are clearly presented, helping parents
understand the data.? The Ohio vision for growth and accountability is based on the value of
transparency and acknowledging the critical place that student data have in evaluating the
performance and driving the improvement of all public schools.

ODE publishes an annual report on charter schools (see Appendix E). The report focuses
on four main areas of charter school performance: academic performance; sustained student
enrollment; ?scal accountability; and sponsor/authorizer accountability and oversight. The report
includes extensive tables containing achievement data for each charter school in the state.
Authorizer ratings are also published in the report.

2. The ambitiousness, quality of vision, and feasibility of the SEA ?3 plan to support the
creation of high-quality charter schools

A key component to Ohio?s strategy is the creation of high-quality charter schools. This
will be accomplished through collaboration with exemplary and effective, high-quality
authorizers working with school developers to pr0pose new high-quality schools or replicate
already success?Jl education models and by helping existing schools become high-quality. The
key components of the plan are as follows:

1. Increase levels of high-quality authorizing. Authorizers are the state?s connection to
creating, sustaining and expanding or replicating high-quality charter schools. High-quality
authorizers are more likely to sponsor high-quality schools. Key actions: Ohio will continue to

implement its APQR and rating process for authorizers, and limit the opening of new schools

28

under the CSP program to authorizers rated as exemplary and effective. Ohio will provide
technical assistance in promoting quality authorizing practices to develop exemplary authorizers.
2. Hold authorizers accountable for supporting schools in becoming or maintaining high-
quality status. {authorizers must take the primary responsibility for helping increase the number
of high-quality schools. Key actions: Ohio will continue to use the AQPR to hold authorizers
accountable for improving the quality of their portfolio of schools. Ohio will also provide
resources, information and technical assistance to authorizers and operators where appropriate.
3. Target federal Charter School Program funds to support the creation of new high-
quality schools; through replication of already proven models. Ohio is committed to
maintaining the creation of high-quality schools as a top priority in the CSP program. An
important aspecf of this will include working with authorizers and developers to replicate already
proven models. lt?ey actions: Annually conduct a notice of grant opportunity (NGO) and
application review process that targets reputable and proven high-quality charter networks.
4. Impose strict-I criteria and exercise quality control over authorizers? actions to open new
schools. ODE has developed criteria that are used to gauge the quality of an authorizer?s decision
to support the opening of a school. Key action: ODE will strictly adhere to this criteria and reject
proposals that do not have suf?cient evidence to support the creation of high-quality schools.

It is expected that through the strategies described abovegthe state will achieve 70,000
effective seats out of 100,000 students in approximately 400 charter schools by 2021.
Additionally, 50% of site-based charter schools will be rated ?hi gh-performing? (according to

USDOE de?nition) by the end of the project period.

3. SEA ?s plan to support the closure of academically poor-performing charter schools

29

Another lkey component of Ohio?s strategy is to close academically poor-performing
schools. NACSA has identi?ed Ohio as the first states with automatic closure requirements for
charter schools ivritten into law. Ohio law (ORC 3314.35) mandates the permanent closure of
charter schools alter poor performance (D or on the report card) in two of the three most recent
years. The key domponents of the state?s plan to support school closure are as follows:

1. Hold authorizers accountable through the AQPR for making effective termination
decisions. To earn an effective or exemplary rating in the area of ?Termination and Renewal
Decision-Making,? an authorizer must terminate a charter school?s contract when there is
evidence of: extreme underperformance; an egregious violation of law; a violation of the
public trust thatjeopardizes students? health and well-being or public funds (theft); or
unfaithfulness to the terms of the contract. Renewals are approved only for those schools that
have been sudcessful in achieving target goals for improving academic achievement. Key
action: The state will use the evaluation process and the consequences for authorizers of not
being rated ?ej-ffective? or ?exemplary? to continue to drive aggressive closure action by
authorizers while adhering to the parameters of state law.

2. Automatic clbsure law. This is an essential tool in Ohio?s effort to eliminate poor-performing

schools. Key action: ODE will continue to ensure that computations are made, noti?cations




are given, and actions are taken that close poor-performing charter schools pursuant to the
provisions of state law.
F. Plan to disseminate information about charter schools and promising practices of
successful charter schools to each LEA, as well as to charter schools, other public schools,

and charter developers



i

30

1. SEA as a leader in identifying and disseminating information and research on promising
practices 

ODE believes that identifying, disseminating and supporting the implementation of
promising practices stands as an essential strategy to promoting high-quality schools whether
charter or non-charter. ODE has a plan to ensure that such information is available to each LEA
in the state, as well as charter schools, other public schools, and charter school deveIOpers. This
plan begins with? the formation and regular convening of a Charter School Promising Practices
Dissemination Network. The network approach acknowledges that dissemination is a shared
responsibility involving many players. The network?s activity will be led by ODE staff and will
be coordinated  a steering committee that includes one representative each from the Ohio
Association of Charter School Authorizers, the Ohio Association of Public Charter Schools, the
Quality School Coalition, the Ohio Education Research Center, one of Ohio?s regional
Educational Service Centers, and one of the Community Education Development Organizations.
The steering committee will also include two members representing exemplary authorizers and
two members representing LEAs that sponsor charter schools. The steering committee?s purpose
is to guide and support the network?s activities and the implementation of the state?s research
and dissemination strategy.

Once assembled, the steering committee will determine a ?seal of approval? for
promising practices. ODE recognizes the importance of anchoring the state?s charter school work
in best-in-class research and materials that re?ect promising practices. Thus, it will identify
already existing iresearch on best/promising practices. This research, including case studies and

informational pieces, will be lodged in a clearinghouse of resources on website. Any

31

resources collected through the research or submitted by network members will be screened
against the ?seal of approval? criteria.

This type of approach is not new for ODE. lt annually identi?es ?Schools of Promise?
and ?Schools of Honor? across the state. While the criteria vary across the three
categories, the schools achieve academic success, close achievement gaps, and serve a student
population that is at least 40 percent economically disadvantaged. ODE captures the factors that
help these schools achieve success and disseminates the information via its website. It takes a
similar track for the Straight A Fund to promote innovative practices and share promising
practices from fund grantees. ODE will apply these same methods to the Charter School
Promising Practices Dissemination Network.

Once screened, ODE will consider other key outcomes that are ripe for identifying
schools that excel in those areas (see the discussions below related to, and then documenting the
practices that lead to that excellence). To push further on data analysis and conduct necessary
research, ODE and the network will leverage the expertise and capacity of the Ohio Educational
Research Center. All validated research will be posted on website.

To maximize dissemination, ODE and the steering committee will develop a detailed
dissemination plan that will identify key opportunities to engage with LEAs, charter schools,
charter developers and others to ensure that high-quality information is being shared with a broad
audience. This plan will include webinars that highlight schools and practitioners; site visit
opportunities; dedicated training sessions; conference (state and regional) presentations; and
professional learning communities comprised of schools and leaders. The plan will be integrated

into the Ohio Improvement Process (OIP).

32

ODE will carefully work to spread and disseminate information against this plan. ODE,
in conjunction with the network steering committee, will periodically gauge implementation
progress and adjust accordingly. Similarly, ODE will assess impact by reviewing the prior year?s
activities and using the results to inform future plans. The plan will also identify the roles that
various partners? and practitioners can play. For instance, authorizers will be expected to ensure
that schools in their portfolio are encouraged to access research and promising practice
information. Education Service Centers (ESCs) will be asked to leverage their knowledge of best
practices and their regular engagements with many education organizations on an on-going basis.
LEAs, eSpecially those that sponsor charter schools, a special role in disseminating
information to traditional public schools as part of regional convenings and statewide
conferences. They will also serve as possible visit sites for leaders from other LEAs. CEDOs will
ensure that LEA-1s and charter schools that exist or are being developed in their communities are
aware of and applying the promising practice research. Associations will use their websites,
conferences and other participation opportunities to share information about best practices.

2. SEA ?s plan for disseminating information and research on racial and ethnic diversity

In addition to identifying and disseminating promising practices in a host of relevant
educational and operational areas, Ohio will pay particular attention to identifying promising
practices relative to racial and ethnic diversity. This will initially focus on identifying national
research. SimilarE to Ohio?s Schools of Promise and Schools of Honor, the work will extend to
identifying Ohioschools that have shown particular success in the area of racial and ethnic
diversity. Schools identi?ed as effective and exemplary in this area will be the subject of case
studies that will highlight key elements of school management, operation, and academic

programming that successfully support racial and ethnic diversity. These key elements will then

33

form the foundation for additional dissemination activity in a manner similar to that described in
the dissemination summary above.
3. SEA ?s plan for disseminating information and research related to student discipline and
school climate

There is an increasing research base that acknowledges how discipline and school climate
issues in?uence school improvement efforts. In the short term, Ohio?s efforts will focus on
identifying this information and incorporating it into the overall dissemination approach. Ohio
already collects information on disciplinary incidents for schools across the state. Also, as part of
the Ohio Improvement Process, schools are required to analyze various aspects of school
climate. ODE,  conjunction with the steering committee, will identify strategies to ensure and
improve quality data collection around these issues, and then, similar to the work described
above, identify Ohio-speci?c examples that address discipline and school climate factors in
school improvement efforts. Again, the expertise of the Ohio Education Research center will be
leveraged. Dissemination of the key learnings in this area will shared in a manner similar to
those described above.

The various elements of Ohio?s plan are summarized in ?gure 8 below:

Figure 8: Dissemination Plan

 

ACTIVITIES DELIVERABLE TINIELINES

 

Launch Charter School 0 Invite partners to the Charter School Promising Jan. 2016
Promising Practices Practices Dissemination Network
Dissemination Network 0 With partners, con?rm and adopt a Network

vision and theory of action
0 Determine a regular meeting schedule

 

 

 

 

 

Develop a detailed research 0 Develop research plan Jan. Feb.
plan to identify current 0 Conduct research 2016;
research on promising ongoing
practices update 

 

34




 

Determine/de?ne a
threshold of qliality 
seal of approval) for
promising practices; screen
against seal criteria

0 Based on research, identify criteria for seal of
approval

0 Determine a list of criteria that comprise the seal
of approval

 

 

 

 

 

recalibration of
dissemination plan

1

 

 

activity

0 Convene group to discuss improvement

opportunities and create new plan.

 

Develop a detailed Conduct planning meetings Jan. Feb.
dissemination lsian 0 Create dedicated space on website for 2016;
including modes of the Network updated
dissemination 'gind Partner 0 Post the Network?s vision, theory of action and annually
regular meeting schedule
0 Post the Network ?5 research plan
Develop researzch plan fOr 0 Develop a research plan, process and timeline Jan. - Feb.
Processes i0 iantify Ohio 0 Identify needed data, create data collection and 2016; Update
based promising practices ana1y5is plan, annually
in iaCial/ethnici diVCYSitya 0 Call for promising practices from Network
discipline and School members
Climate 0 Review, curate and rate promising practices
0 Apply the seal of approval where necessary
Implement disseminatiOn Leverage Network members to share and ThroughOUt
plan broadcast approved promising practices year; updated
0 Post approved promising practices on the annually
Network?s web page on website
0 Conduct webinars that feature the approved
promising practices
0 Sponsor visits to promising practice sites
0 Host training that is dedicated to promoting the
concepts within the approved promising
practices
0 Establish PCLs that are focused on the
integration of the approved promising practices
0 Embed the approved promising practices into
the Ohio Improvement Process
Annual revieW'and 0 Collect data regarding impact of dissemination Annually

 

4. SEA ?5 process for awarding dissemination subgrants not applicable

I

G. Oversight o?authorized public chartering agencies

1. Authorizers approving petitions with the capacity to become high-quality charter schools

35

 

i

Authoriziers are evaluated on three components: the overall academic performance of
their community schools; the completeness of their monitoring of schools? compliance with laws
and rules; and tlieir adherence to quality practices (ORC 3314.016) (see Appendix for copies
of evaluation instruments). Under current law, each component has equal weight in making up

?1
the overall evaluation rating. An authorizer?s ability to authorize new schools or take on
sponsorship of currently operating school is affected by the overall rating. Criteria regarding
the approval of petitions (or applications) are covered in one of the six critical areas of the
APQR. As described earlier, authorizers are expected to provide evidence of a comprehensive
application, review and approval processes that require extensive data allowing for rigorous
evaluation of the. applicant?s plans, and a capacityd to successfully execute its plans. The process
should include a; detailed review of the written application, an in-depth interview with ?nalists,
and a thorough b:ackground review of the applicant?s experience and capacity.

In considering petitions, authorizers determine the extent to which there is: a clear and
compelling mission and vision; a quality educational program; a sustainable business; an
effective governance and management structure; quality staf?ng, etc. Applicants must explain
any never-opened, terminated, or non-renewed school, while also documenting educational,
organizational,  ?nancial performance records based on all existing schools.

2. Authorizers approving petitions with evidenced-based models and practices

Criteria for application (petition) process and decision-making, though not using the term
evidence-based models, assumes that the petition provides the kinds of information and data to
support the education program proposed. For example, the criteria in the AQPR for application

process and decision-making con?rm that the authorizer?s application calls for an explanation of

the academic impact of the proposed school model on the students and charter along with an

36

explanation of the school?s curriculum, its alignment to the Ohio Standards and benchmarks,
speci?c instructional materials to be used to implement the curriculum, and the process the
school will follow to evaluate, review, and revise its curriculum on an annual basis. Data must
include a needs assessments of the school?s target neighborhoods and student populations,
including current student demographics and academic performance of other schools in the area in
which the charter school will be located.
3. Authorizers egtablishing measurable academic and operational gains for schools

State law requires that each charter describe the methods by which the school will be
evaluated. In addition to evaluating authorizers, ODE reviews the legal suf?ciency of every
charter executed: by an authorizer. Besides con?rming that all legal requirements are in the
charter, over thegpast two years, ODE developed and disseminated examples of performance
frameworks for use in the charter consistent with the characteristics of exemplary authorizer
practices in setting performance requirements. ODE has insisted that authorizers update their
charter contracts; if needed, with performance frameworks that are appropriate, comprehensive,
measurable and speci?c in their metrics, as well as in the consequences and bene?ts of
achievement of those goals and outcomes. The AQPR reviews the extent to which rigorous and
measurable gains criteria are in use.
4. Authorizers? annual monitoring of charter schools

As noted; in Absolute Priority 1, authorizers are required to provide ongoing monitoring
of their schools? academic and operational performance. As a requirement of charter law (ORC
3314.03 art authorizer must: (1) Monitor the community school's compliance with all laws
applicable to theischool and with the terms of the contract; (2) Monitor and evaluate the

academic and ?scal performance and the organization and operation of the community school on

37

at least an annual basis. As ampli?ed in OAC 3301-05 (reporting requirements of all sponsors),
authorizers are required to ?conduct comprehensive site visits to the community school as
necessary, but at least twice annually while classes are in session.? In addition, the authorizer
must conduct an onsite review of every charter school every year, prior to the school?s opening,
and submit assurances of numerous points of student safety, per ORC 3314.019.
5. Authorizers? use of achievement data in renewal decisions

APQR details the criteria used by Ohio?s exemplary and effective authorizers as
the basis for making renewal decisions of charter contracts. Authorizers base renewal decisions
on objective evidence as de?ned by the performance framework in the charter contract. Evidence
includes all of the following: multiple years and measures of student achievement; ?nancial
audits; site visits; and compliance reports; and status reports on corrective action plans, if
necessary. The duthorizer only grants renewals to schools that are ?scally and organizationally
viable based on briteria in the school?s performance contract, which includes rigorous and
speci?c achievement goals.
6. Authorizers providing annual public reports on charter school performance

ORC requires the authorizer to report, on an annual basis, the results of
the evaluation described in number 4 above to ODE and to the parents of students enrolled in the
community school. ODE publishes these reports annually on its website. In addition, the AQRP
looks for each authorizer?s annual report to the public. It is expected that the annual report
include clear, accurate performance data for the charter schools it oversees, reporting on
individual schools and its overall portfolio performance, and progress toward achieving its
authorizing mission.

7. Authorizers supporting autonomy while holding charter schools accountable

38

Ohio?s public charter schools are de?ned in law as follows: a community school created
under this chapter is a public school, independent of any school district, and is part of the state?s
program of education. A community school may sue and be sued, acquire facilities as needed,
contract for any services necessary for the operation of the school, and enter into contracts with a
sponsor pursuant to this chapter. The governing authority of a community school may carry out
any act and ensure the performance of any function that is in compliance with the Ohio
Constitution, this chapter, other statutes applicable to community schools, and the contract
entered into under this chapter establishing the school. Each school is established as a public
bene?t corporation (ORC 1720). The AQPR reviews evidence that the authorizer ?respects
governing authority autonomy in operations? (Oversight and Evaluation area, indicator A of
AQPR). 

8. Authorizers? ilccountability of charter schools through transitions to new assessments or
accountability 

Ohio, like many other states, is currently going through a transition of assessment
systems. It has made provisions to ensure that district and school report cards continue to be
generated. This will allow all schools, including charters, to continue to be held accountable for
their performance. As such, authorizer-school contracts ensure the continued accountability of
charter schools during transitions to new assessments or accountability systems. Contracts must
include provisions that charter schools will comply with academic performance requirements,
including compliance with state assessments.



H. Management Plan and Theory of Action

39

1. Quality of the logic model including cohesiveness and strength of reasoning and extent to
which it addresses the role of the grant in promoting the state-level strategy for using charter
schools to improve education outcomes for students

logic model for its proposed CSP project is illustrated by the following graphic:

Figure 9: Logic Model for CSP Program Planning

Resources Activities Outputs Outcomes

       
   
       
   
   
   

 

  
   

  

 

        
    

 
 
        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quality-    
Criteria for AL SUbErant RFP Quality Plans
New School Process for New
l, Proposals Schools
Exemplarv - Subgrant Awards  -- . -- -  77m r~
and Effective (Planning/Design] 096m": Improved
Authorizers I Implementation ng. Educat'onal
Quality Outcomes
5r for Students 
Monitoring of 
CSP Grant School Planning] Operation of 
Funding . .
Openmg/ I High
Operation Quality
if ODE 1 . Schools
oversight Disseminate 
a Management Resources,

 

 

Provide Supports 

The components of the logic model are:
Resources: These are the necessary and essential project inputs that support project activities.
For this project the essential resources are:

0 Quality Criteria for New School Proposals; Establishing criteria that explicitly identify
those characteristics and practices of high-quality schools will help to ensure that proposals
are attentive to those criteria.

0 Exemplary and Effective Authorizers: Exemplary and effective authorizers have proven
that they have the capacity and experience to work with developers and operators to ensure

quality proposals are developed and schools will perform to a high-quality standard.

40

 CSP Grant I??unding: Grant funding is critical to attracting the best proposals for the opening
of new schools. Funding for planning and well as implementation can help ensure that schools
are able to start strong and effectively manage the challenges of opening a new school.

0 ODE Oversight and Management: ODE has established the processes and frameworks that
provide quality assurance over the grant award process, and the monitoring of school planning
and operation;

Activities: The above resources support four key project activities that will lead to project
outputs. These aie:

- Subgrant  Process: The Notice of Grant Opportunity process will play a key role in
communicatirig the state?s goals and objectives, and the desired qualities, characteristics and
objectives forghigh quality proposals.

0 Subgrant Awards Awards will serve to give the green
light for high-:quality proposals to move from concept to reality. Awards will provide
important financial support to ensure the development and launch of high-quality schools.

0 Monitoring of School Planning, Implementation and Operations: Monitoring and support
activities are critical to ensuring that high-quality plans result in high-quality schools Opening
and operating; Monitoring and support will be conducted both by authorizers and by the state.
Each proposal for a planning grant will include a timeline of key milestones and critical
junctures for authorizer engagement. Authorizers will engage in planning activities at speci?c
points of the plan development. A planning quality rubric will be used to identify 
and weaknesses in school start-up plans at various points of the planning process, and will be

able to point operators to areas where plans need to be improved. Authorizers will do a

thorough pre-opening check of schools. Information from these reviews will be submitted to

'4

I


41

ODE, and scliool openings will be approved only if pre-opening conditions are met.
Authorizers will review new schools three times during the year to assess implementation and
gauge compliance with the school?s operating plan. These will occur in August, November
and March. The March review can be used to inform the process of determining whether a
school will be awarded a year two implementation grant.

0 Disseminatidn of Resources/Provision of Supports: In order to increase the likelihood that
plans and implementations re?ect practices that deliver high quality results, authorizers and
ODE will engage in disseminating resources and providing supports to planners and, operators.
This activity will focus on key points of the development process as follows:

0 Planning phase: Authorizers and ODE will provide planners with opportunities to
learn about best practices, engage with various school operators to understand planning
and implementation realities, and network with other subgrantees and operators.

0 Opening phase: Authorizers will tailor supports to meet opening and first year
operation needs of each school. First year reviews will help identify areas that need
attentidn to help ensure successful year one activity. Authorizers will provide technical
suppori to schools to address needs. ODE will coordinate with authorizers to identify
areas v?here state assistance with support will be meaningful, and will provide resources
and support opportunities accordingly.

0 Year ti:va operations: Based on end-of-year one reviews, authorizers will again
identify key needs of schools to help ensure successful year 2 operation. Support
opporttinities will be provided over the summer, and school improvement plans will be
developed to inform supports during year two. Again, ODE will coordinate with


authorizers to identify and provide meaningful supports.

42

Outputs: The above activities support three primary outputs

0 Quality Plans for New Schools: The goal is for 80% of plans prepared as a result of
planning grants to meet a standard for being high quality plans (achieving 75% of total
points on the plan evaluation rubric).

0 Opening of High-Quality Schools: The goal is to have 100% of high-quality plans result in
the opening of high-quality schools within two years - 80% in the ?rst year after the
planning grant, and 20% in the second year.

0 Operation-of High-Quality Schools: The ultimate goal is for new schools to operate in a
manner that produces high-quality results, addresses the needs of educationally
disadvantaged students, and serves communities that need high-quality options. At the end
of the ?rst year of operation, 100% of opened schools should demonstrate academic and
operational? performance results that meet or exceed the performance standards speci?ed in
their charters. Additionally, 100% of schools in ?rst year of operation will have at least 75%
of their students demonstrating one full grade-level or higher of growth. All schools will
show improvement in the second year as compared to the ?rst year.

Outcomes: The above outputs ultimately lead to the program outcome: improved

educational outcomes for students. The goal is that the cohort of schools funded by CSP

subgrants perform within the highest quartile of schools serving students with similar
demographic characteristics.
2. Extent to wh1 ich project speci?c performance measures support the logic model
Performance measures are included for the outputs and outcomes levels of the logic
model. Since all measures are speci?c to the schools that will be funded with CSP grant funds,

there is no baseline data available.

43

 

A number of performance measures rely on rubrics. These rubrics will be designed using

NACSA resoucm-es, using its high quality standards, to ensure fairness and rigor. Training will be

provided to those using the rubrics by the state in order to ensure consistency. These rubrics

include the scoring rubric to be used for rating program applications, school plans, and the


quality of schooll operations.

ODE has!I seven primary objectives for the federal CSP grant for which it has identi?ed

the following measures and targets:

 

Obie'ctives

Measures

Target

 

1: Stimulate the creation of high-
quality applications for the creation
of new schools.

Percentage of applications
received earning 75% or more
of total quality points on
application evaluation rubric.

80% of applications meet
the standard.

 

2: Subgrantees generate high-quality
plans by the end of the planning
year.

 



Percentage of plans prepared
earning 75% or more of total
quality points on plan
evaluation rubric.

80% of plans meet the
standard at the end of the
?rst planning year.
Remaining schools meet
the standard by the end of
the second year. 

 

3: Annual operations re?ect high-
quality practices and (beginning in
year two) improvement in high-
quality practices in comparison to
the prior year. 

Percentage of schools that
open score 80% or more of
total points on year one
implementation rubric.

80% of schools meet the
standard.

 

 

4: In each year of bperation, schools
achieve or exceedithe performance
targets set forth in: their contracts
(beginning in the 2nd year of
operations) increase performance on
the majority of their measures. M: a)
Value-Added Ovejrall, for the
Lowest 20% or students, and for
students with disabilities; b)
Performance Index scores K-3
Literacy Improvement; (I) Annual
Measurable Objectives; and, e) 4
and 5 year graduation rates:

 

Percentage of schools
achieving or exceeding
performance targets

 

80% of schools meet their
applicable state measures
or make improvement.

 

44

 

 

Obieictives

Measures

Targg

 

5: The academic achievement and
academic attainment of schools that
operate under the program are
in the upper quartile of schools with
similar demographic characteristics.



i


The schools? ranking among a
group of schools identi?ed
based on the similarity of
student demographics (For
each school, a comparison
group would be selected using
grade levels, student
demographic data and
comparability of community
characteristics such as large
urban, medium urban, etc. All
schools in the comparison
group would be ranked based
on performance metrics).

85% of schools are in the
upper 25% of schools in
their comparison group.

 

6: Schools that operate successfully

under the CSP program are in

priority geographic areas, and/or
serve educationally disadvantaged

students.

Percentage of schools opened
with CSP subgrant funds
located in priority geographic
areas and/or serving
educationally disadvantaged
students.

90% of schools meet the
measure

 

 

7: Schools that operate successfully
under the CSP program serve socio-

economically disailvantaged
students. i

 

Percentage of students
eligible for the federal free
and reduced lunch program
and the percentage of students
that identify as a racial
minority.

 

100% of schools retain at
least 60% of its population
as eligible for free and
reduced lunch and at least
60% minority students.

 

1
In addition to these measures, the project will also collect data related to the Secretary?s



priorities - how the CSP project is impacting the total number of charter schools in the state, and

the percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade students in CSP funded schools who are achieving at

or above the proficient level on state assessments in mathematics and reading. The project will


also track total cests and establish data collection protocols that will allow it to compute the

amount of federal cost per student in implementing a successful school. Whether the school is

successful or not, as measured by being in operation for three years or more, will not be

measurable untilithe ?nal 2 years of the 5-year grant program.

45

 

3. The adequacy of the management plan to:
i. Achieve objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget

There are two key components of Ohio?s project management plan the organization and
staf?ng plan, and the strategies/activities workplan.
Organization and Staf?ng Plan:

To ensure the successful implementation of the state?s CSP subgrant program, 3.75 FTE
employees will be hired to supplement current of?ce staff. Positions to be hired include:

0 Director of Quality Charter School Development will assist in the strategic
development of high-quality charter schools throughout the state by identifying
leadership talent, supporting quality school development, and by attracting high-
performing charter networks to the state.

0 Program Administrator will be responsible for coordinating the grant application to
coordinating and monitoring the agency's grant funding to quali?ed participants
for adherence to program rules regulations; reviews and makes recommendations
concerning budget revisions and grant project goals; and completes recipient monitoring
activities;

0 Prograni Specialists will be responsible for reviewing the performance and compliance
of subgrantees, conducting site visits of subgrantees, and supporting program
administration.

0 Data Manager provides and tracks all data regarding charter school student
performance.

Current of?ce staff supporting this project include:




46

Joni Hoffman, with a in health research and 16 years of experience working with
state and federal grants; Steve Tate, a researcher with a in education; Karlyn Geis and
Kelsey Stephens with Masters degrees in sociology; and Deniece Cooper, current AOR for
Of?ce of Quality School Choice (resumes are included in Appendix B). The project will also
have access to all the of?ces of ODE that will need to support the work of the project.

Ohio expects that all staff will be on-board and operating within 90 days of the grant
award. Ensuring that appropriate staff are in place and engaged in project responsibilities will be
the responsibility of the Of?ce of Quality School Choice?s Executive Director, David Hansen,
who has worked at the national level with the National Association of Charter School
Authorizers and elsewhere to identify and promote best practices for high-quality charter
schools.

Strategies/Activities Work Plan;

The following work plan (Figure 10) describes the key strategies for successful
implementation. of the project along with actions, responsible staff, milestones and timelines
(The timelines are based on a grant activity start date of Oct. 15, 2015. The timeline would be
adjusted commensurate with a later start date).

Overall Project Obiective: The CSP grant project will increase the number of high-quality
charter schools that assist educationally disadvantaged and other students in meeting state
academic conteiit standards and state student academic achievement standards.

Figure 10: CSP Program Work Plan

 

Strategy 1: Disseminate information about the CSP grant program to interested parties
including potential developers, authorizers, teachers, parents, communities and other
stakeholders. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activ? . Responsible Staff imelines Milestones
Develop detailed Program Oct. Dec. Completion of dissemination
dissemination and Administrator 2015 plan; ?rst contact with key

 

 

47

 

 

engagement plan; partners and interested
identify dissemination parties; communication
opportunities and calendar showing key dates
partners; identify and information
dissemination dissemination activities
channels; create

informational i

materials;

Conduct dissemination Program On-going Completion of regular
activities; establish Administrator engagement activity pursuant
routine to the communications plan
communications and calendar

 

 

 

 

Strategy 2: Conduct subgrantee award rounds for planning, year one implementation and year
two implementation grants.

 

Activity Responsible Staff imelines Milestones

 

Develop detailed Program Nov. 2015 Completion of subgrant
written subgrant Administrator Jan. 2016 and guidelines and application
guidelines explaining from instructions

grant requirements, November to

competitive January for

preferences, scoring subsequent

criteria, deadlines, etc.; funding

stakeholder rounds.

engagement around
grant guidelines

 

 

 

 

 

Issue Notice of Grant Program Jan. 15, 2016 Timer issuance of Notice of
Opportunity Administrator Every January Grant Opportunity; targets
1 thereafter for dissemination of Notice
for met
subsequent
funding
rounds
Receive applications Program Feb 1 April Applications received;
Administrator 29, 2016, prepared for distribution to
Feb April, peer reviewers
2017 2021
Conduct peer review Program May June, Peer reviewers identified;
process -- prepare for Administrator 2016 2021 Reviewers conduct and
peer review process; submit reviews; compilation
identify peers; provide of scores; review session
training with reviewers
Make grant awards Program June July Grants awarded.
Administrator 2016 2021 Subgrantee activity begins

 

 

 

 

48

 

 

Strategy 3: Monitoring and technical assistance (TA)/support activity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activin Responsible Stq? imelines Milestones
Develop detailed Program January Complete detailed
monitoring and Administrator May 2016 monitoring and support plan
support plan for all
aspects of monitoring
and "FA/support
activity provided by
both ODE and
authorizers; engage
likely authorizers
Identify types of high Program Specialists Annually Identi?cation of types of
quality TA/support needed TA/support, and
required by proposed development of strategies for
schools and design providing TA/support
strategies for providing
it
Ensure authorizers Program Specialists On-going Required reviews completed;
conduct monitoring reviews shared with schools;
and TA/support de?ciencies recti?ed or
activity pursuant to corrective action plans
plan developed; planned support
activities completed per plan
Conduct ODE Program Specialists On-going Required reviews completed;
monitoring review and reviews shared with
"FA/support activities schools/authorizers;
de?ciencies recti?ed or
corrective action plans
developed; planned support
activities complete per plan
ODE review of Program Specialists Annually Reviews completed;
authorizer compliance de?ciencies recti?ed or
with monitoring and corrective action plans
TA/support developed
requirements
Strategyr4: Data-collection, analysis and 
Activity ReSponsible Sta?r Timelines Milestones
Develop detailed Data manager Nov. Jan. Plan development completed
project data collection 2016
and analysis plan
Collection of relevant Data manager On-going; 100% of required data
data Annual collected timely
Prepare data analysis Data manager As Data analysis report prepared
and reports appropriate
data is
available, but

 

49

 

 

no less than

 

A annuaHy
Convene stakeholders Data manager Annually Completed stakeholder data
to review data and . review meetings; plan for
discuss strategies to improvements

continually improve
activities/outcomes

 

 

 

 

 

 

ii. Address any eompliance issues or ?ndings related to the CSP identi?ed in an auditor
monitoring review

project management plan includes speci?c processes and procedures for
addressing any compliance issues or ?ndings related to the CSP project. Authorizer monitoring
is often the ?rstiinstance where compliance issues are identi?ed. Authorizers are required to
communicate results of their regular monitoring reviews with ODE. In those cases where
compliance issues are identi?ed, the authorizer will work with the school to either immediately
rectify the compliance issue, or to develop a corrective action that will lead to compliance in as
expeditious mariner as possible. Compliance issues may also arise in the course of ODE
monitoring activity. In these cases, issues uncovered by ODE will be communicated to the
authorizer, and will result in a similar process of immediate recti?cation or corrective action
plan. In those cases where corrective action plans are put into place, future monitoring activity
will include review of corrective action plan commitments. Schools will know that extended
non-compliancefjjwill lead to termination of their charter.

ODE and authorizers will also closely review school audits for any ?ndings or
compliance issues. These will be addressed in the same manner as described above.
I. Project Design

Ohio?s has designed its Charter School Program project to ensure that the program?s

objectives are met. These include increasing the number of high-quality schools that operate in


?l


50

i
the state, and erisuring that new schools that open meet priority state needs for high-quality

educational options. The project design includes the process for awarding subgrants, the process
for monitoring subgrantees, and a strategy to communicate with key stakeholders about the

i

s'ubgrant program

1. SEA ?s procesis for awarding subgrants

i. Application ajnd peer review process, timelines, and awarding to applicants demonstrating
capacity to create high- quality charter schools

Ohio?s plan for awarding subgrants is as follows:

Grant types: Ohio will award three types of grants: Planning grants, year one
implementation? grants and year 2 implementation grants.

Notification and Stakeholder Engagement: At the outset of the project, Ohio will
notify stakeholders of the CSP grant opportunity review with them the program?s design and

1
operation. It will also establish communication channels that will allow interested stakeholders
(parents, teacheii's and communities) to be informed about the progress of the program (see the
discussion lateritin this section).

Application Requirements and Evaluation Guidelines: Ohio will develop application
guidelines that will specify the requirements for applications in line with USDOE assurances, the
competitive prefference priorities for the grant program, and the criteria that will be used to
evaluate the applications. The competitive preference priorities will include the following:

0 Strategic Replacement (10 points): Priority will be given to applications where a high-quality
school serves to replace a poor-performing school that is closing or ought to be closed. Within
this category: we will prioritize innovative applications that replace poor charter Operators

l'

who hold desirable ??xed advantages? such as high visibility locations serving high need
i

51

neighborhoods, customer bases of parents and students actively seeking better school options,
with high-quality charters able to do more for students with these advantages. 

0 High Need Liocation (8 points): Priority will be given to applications where a high-quality
school will serve a neighborhood where there is no meaningful high?quality option.

0 ,Educationally Disadvantaged Students (5 points): Priority will be given to applications in
urban areas that serve high numbers of educationally disadvantaged students in the state?s
most challen?jged urban communities. At a minimum, awarded proposals will serve low

income and minority families at rates greater than current segment averages.

Proven Educational Models (5 points): Priority will be given to applications that indicate the

 

intention to replicate a successful and proven educational model by a charter management
organization i?with a proven track record of developing and operating high-quality schools.

0 Dropout Prevention and Recovery (3 points): Priority will be given to applications for high-
quality dropdut prevention and recovery school proposals particularly if they are serving
students many years away from career and college readiness and who are often completely
ignored by traditional schools.

The criteria for evaluating applications will include the following:

a. Quality of applicant?s governance and management plan.

b. Quality of evidence supporting proposed educational model.

c. Commitment and quality of plan for recruiting, enrolling, and retaining educationally
disadvantaged students.

d. Quality of plian for striving for a diverse student population.

e.Capacity for addressing needs of diverse students including students with disabilities.

f. Quality of plan for parent and community outreach and engagement.

1

52

g. Quality and feasibility of ?nancial plan.

h. Location of school and the need for academic options in the community being served.

i. Academic performance measures and improvement objectives, and methods to evaluate
outcomes and progress.

j. Operational and organizational objectives and methods to evaluate them.

k. Capacity and assurance of compliance with state and federal laws and regulations.

1. Commitment to sharing of best practices.

For each. of these criteria, applications will be scored re?ecting categories similar to those
used by the US. Department of Education: ?Not Addressed,? ?Poorly Developed,? ?Adequater
Developed,? ?Well Developed,? and ?Fully Developed.? Each of these categories will be
assigned a range of scores from for ?Not Addressed? to full points for ?Fully Developed.?

Authorizer Engagement: Ohio will identify those authorizers that will be invited to
work with developers on school applications. Only authorizers that are rated ?exemplary? or
?effective? under the state?s quality evaluation criteria will be invited to participate. A meeting
of invited authorizers will be held at the beginning of the project to review the grant criteria
described above and to explain the state?s objectives under the CSP program. Authorizers will be
solicited regarding their needs for assistance during the process of identifying high-quality
development projects and putting together high-quality proposals. ODE will provide assistance
as appropriate and work collaboratively with authorizers to ensure a suf?cient pool of strong
proposals. Additionally, in partnership with NACSA, ODE will develop a series of tools and
trainings that will be made available to authorizers across the state. These materials and trainings
will provide best practices and professional development throughout Ohio to ensure high-quality

authorizing across the state, yielding high-performing charter schools.

53

Community Education Development Organization (CEDO) Engagement: The state
will coordinate decisions about awarding subgrants for schools located in urban areas with
CEDOs in the area. CEDOS will not have any decision making authority, but will serve in an
advisory capacity to ODE relative to community needs, academic program needs, creating a
balanced portfolio of schools, and proposed school locations. To ensure quality CEDO
engagement, ODE will host an annual CEDO training that will gather all participating CEDOs to
support a thorough understanding of CSP program guidelines, target high-quality CSP
applicants, and inform best practices.

Application Process: Ohio will utilize annual grant funding cycles. Assuming a grant
start date of July 1, 2016, the NGO for the ?rst year will be issued on January 15, 2016 and then
January 1 in subsequent years. Proposals will be due by April 29, 2016 and then end of April in
subsequent years. A webinar will be conducted for interested applicants to answer questions and
point to quality resources.

Peer Review Process: Peer reviewers will review applications. They will be recruited
from among education practitioners in the state and will be screened for potential con?icts of
interest. Peer reviewers will be provided with an application evaluation rubric that will specify
the criteria against which grants should bejudged, and descriptors for awarding points for each
criteria. Peer reviewers will be required to participate in a webinar that will review the criteria
and discuss the scoring approach. Each application will be scored by three reviewers.

Award issuance: The results of the peer review process will be compiled and analyzed.
ODE will de?ne a minimum quality threshold for applications that will form a floor.
Applications that have not reached the minimum quality threshold will not be funded. ODE will

fund applications largely based on points awarded by the peer review process. ODE, however,

54

will reserve theidiscretion to make awards that do not rely solely on points earned in the interest
of meeting key geographic distribution objectives and to avoid any unintended concentrations of
schools which could provide capacity in excess of need.

Recovery District Reserve: $10.25 million will be reserved for the creation of high-
quality schools in any recovery district designated by the state. Recovery districts are established
for persistently imder?performing districts in academic emergency status for multiple years. The
criteria used to judge these applications will be the same as those used for other applications. The
only difference is that schools located in the territory of the recovery district will not be
competing withiproposals from other parts of the state. For this reserved amount, however, there
will still be adherence to the minimum quality threshold (described above).

Figure 11: CSP Program Project Subgrant Award Activity Summary

 

Project Activity Deadline

 

 

 

1. Award of CSP Program Grant to ODE Sept. 2015

2. Notice of Grant Opportunity (NGO) Development for Planning Oct. Jan. (Yr. 1)

Implementation. Notice will include eligibility requirements, deadline, Nov. Dec.

and instructions. (Yrs. 2-5)

3. NGO released on website. January 15 (Yr. 1)
Recruit? and train diverse reader panel. Jan. (Yrs. 2-5)

0 Develop apglication scoring rubric
4. Technical Assistance Webinar, publicized through Of?ce of February (Yr. 1- 5)
Communication and on website. Ongoing TA available through
Program Administrator. Recruiting and training diverse peer
review panel centinues.

 

 

 

5. Subgrant applications due to ODE. April 29 (Yr. 1)
0 Submitito peer reviewers for scoring of applications April (Yrs. 2-5)
0 Compile peer review scores

6. Notice of AWards to subgrantees. June July (Yr. 1)
0 Make award decisions June (Yrs. 2-5)

0 Publicly announce winners on website and through the
Of?ce of Communications

 

 

 

 

ii. Year by year estimates

a. Number of szibgrants expected to be awarded; average size; assumptions

55

Over the past three years, ODE has had an average of 19 schools Open each year. Based
on continuing demand for high-quality school choice options and the desire of developers to
open more schools, we continue to believe that an aggressive pace of new school openings can
be supported.

Each year, it is anticipated that 23 planning grants will be awarded. These grants will
average $100,000 each.

Planning grant recipients will be given the opportunity to receive a year one
implementation Egrant. Quality and operational criteria will be speci?ed that must be met in order
to be awarded a?year one implementation grant (this will be a separate, streamlined process from
the application process for planning grants). The criteria for gauging readiness to receive an
implementation :grant will include, but not limited to:

0 Quality and feasibility of the school?s academic plan

0 School?s perfiormance measure targets for student attainment and student achievement

0 Quality and feasibility of the school?s plan for recruiting, admitting, enrolling, serving and
retaining educationally disadvantaged students

0 Quality of stalteholder and community outreach conducted during the planning process

0 Location 

a Quality and feasibility of the school?s ?nancial plan

It is estimated that there will be 12 year one implementation grants awarded beginning in
Year 1 to support high-quality schools ready to open, and 23 year one implementation grants
awarded each year of the project thereafter. These grants will average $350,000 each.

Year one?implementation recipients will be given the opportunity to apply for a year two

i

implementation grant. Quality and operational criteria will be speci?ed and which must be met

..
i

56

in order to be awarded a year two implementation grant. These criteria will re?ect the school?s
year one implementation experience in multiple areas enrollment/retention, staf?ng and
academic program implementation, student academic performance including performance of
educationally disadvantaged students, operational management, ?nancial management and
stakeholder/community engagement. I

It is estimated that there will be 12 year two grants awarded beginning in the second year
of the program, and 23 year two grants awarded annually thereafter. These grants will average
$250,000 each. 
b. Prior CSP pdrcentage of eligible applicants awarded and how related to overall quality of
the applicant paol.

When last received the CSP grant, 56 schools received awards, representing 55% of
the 102 total schools eligible to apply during the grant period. Since receiving the subgrant, 72%
of subrecipientsiiearncd a value-added grade of A-C in the 2013-14 school year, demonstrating
student of one year or more for the school year. Of the eligible applicants who
did not receive  subgrant, only 58% achieved value-added grades of A-C in 2013-14. At the
lower end, 42% cf applicants not receiving a subgrant earned a value?added grade in 2013-
14, demonstrating the school's inability to achieve student learning of more than one year during
the school year. Only 27% of past CSP subrecipients received a valued-added grade. These
?ndings indicate how past CSP subrecipients have outperformed those not receiving CSP funds,
demonstrating the overall higher quality nature of the subrecipients' initial plans and
implementation. 
2. Process for Monitoring CSP subgrantees

ODE will require schools to be monitored in the following manner:

57

a. Sponsors w1ll conduct semi-annual revrews based on criteria and rubr1cs prov1ded by

ODE. These reviews will include the following components:


I

0 Compliance with state operational requirements
0 Qiiality and success of academic program
0 Quality and success of operational management
0 Quality, stability and soundness of ?nancial management
b. ODE will conduct yearly reviews of sponsor monitoring. Authorizers will be evaluated
on compliance with review expectations, provision of technical assistance to schools and
evidence: of impact, and facilitation of information sharing and dissemination between
sponsor?is schools and externally.
c. ODE will conduct multiple site visits to each CSP subgrantee. These site visits will
ensure the educational programs are being implemented with ?delity, operational

benchmarks are being met and all ?scal controls are in place.

d. ODE will require each subgrantee to provide project goals and performance measures

that align with the subgrantee's objectives in opening the school. ODE will evaluate these

.4

goals annually by requiring an annual report from the subgrantee. Inability to meet or
exceed goals and performance measures will be taken into account when the subgrantee
applies for the next year's funding.
3. Portfolio of sitbgrantees focused on areas of need within the State
I The competitive preference priorities described above will be a primary mechanism for

1

building a portfolio of schools that focus on essential needs within the state.

Geographic/community needs: Ohio wants to be sure to give priority to schools located

in communities that are not served by other quality options or where there are insuf?cient quality

I

58

5
options to serve the students in need. In Ohio, there continue to be places where educationally
disadvantaged students do not have any or enough alternatives to attending poorly performing
traditional public schools. Priority in awarding grants will be given to applications that
demonstrate community need for a high-quality school option. Grant awards will also be
made with sensitivity to ensuring geographic dispersion throughout the state.

Student} needs: Ohio will target meeting the needs of educationally disadvantaged
students. The project will specifically focus on students attending schools that will be closing,
student located  urban areas, especially areas where the only option available to students is
poor-performing traditional public schools. The project will also focus on dropouts and students
at-risk of dropping out.

Innovative models: Ohio will explicitly pursue innovative academic models to increase
the variety of clioices available to students. One of the criteria that will be used tojudge
proposals will be the innovativeness of the academic plan. By providing points for innovation,
the state believes it will receive a number of applications that take new and innovative
approaches to meeting educational challenges.

4. Steps SEA will take to inform stakeholders of the subgrant program

ODE recognizes that teachers, parents and communities play indispensable roles in
student achievement. The state already takes many actions to keep these groups informed about
education policy, options availability, and available programs and resources. The following
strategies will be used to keep stakeholders informed:

0 Posting of appropriate information on the ODE website.

0 Providing contact information for those wanting more information.

59

0 Inclusion of project description and project progress updates in regular ODE communications,
news blasts, ieacher letters, parent letters, etc.

0 Sharing information and pitching stories to print media outlets as well as radio and television.

0 Creating andjleveraging communications and information dissemination partnerships with
local community advocacy organizations, local government entities, social services
organizations, churches, state school option and charter school advocacy organizations,
community education development organizations, etc.

0 Performing various outreach efforts to inform communities and parents of school choice
options.

5. Description ofRequested Waivers

The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) is requesting one waiver to successfully
implement our proposed project: a waiver of the three-year limit for SEA grants to implement a
?ve-year grant project;

Ohio is determined to improve the performance of charter schools and effectiveness of
authorizers in our state. In order to realize the ambitious goals re?ected in this proposal, ODE
requests a waiver of the three-year limit for SEAS in order to implement a ?ve-year project. This
will provide Ohio with the necessary time and resources to achieve proposed performance
measures to increase the quality and performance of Ohio?s charter schools. Fundamental change
requires sustained efforts to effectively execute; ODE acknowledges this important challenge
and presents a proposal focused on program outcomes that will take five years to achieve. The
proposed project objectives and management plan in selection criteria and project design in

selection criteria outline Ohio?s ?ve-year plan.

60

Application Requirements

Poor-performing charter school de?nition For the purposes of the SEA grant, the
ODE uses the de?nition of academically poor-performing charter school provided in the
notice.

Disseminating best practices The department?s plan to disseminate best practices to
each LEA in the state can be found in selection criterion pages 30?35, of the project
narrative.

Federal funds

a. The State?s plan to inform each charter school in the State about Federal funds the
charter school is eligible to receive and Federal programs in which the charter
school may participate can be found on pages 18-19 of the project narrative.

b. The state?s plan to ensure each charter school in the State receives the school?s
commensurate share of Federal education funds that are allocated by formula each
year can be found on page 19 of the project narrative.

High-quality charter school definition - For the purposes of the SEA grant, the ODE
uses the definition of high?quality charter school provided in the notice.

IDEA compliance See pages 19 - 20.
Logic model See page 40.

Lottery and enrollment preferences - The Ohio Department of Education assures that
it will require each applicant for a CSP subgrant to include in its application descriptions
of its recruitment and admissions policies and practices, including a description of the
proposed lottery and any enrollment preferences or exemptions from the lottery the
charter school employs or plans to employ, and how those enrollment preferences or
exemptions are consistent with State law and the CSP authorizing statute.

Additionally, all charter school lotteries must follow ORC 3314.06 admission procedures
(effective March 23, 2015): The governing authority of each community school
established under this chapter shall adopt admission procedures that speci?/ the
following:

(A) That, except as otherwise provided in this section, admission to the school shall be
open to any individual age ?ve to twenty-two entitled to attend school pursuant to section
3313.64 or 3313.65 of the Revised Code in a school district in the state.

Additionally, except as otherwise provided in this section, admission to the school may be
open on a tuition basis to any individual age ?ve to twenty-two who is not a resident of
this state. The school shall not receive state funds under section 3314.08 of the Revised
Code for any student who is not a resident of this state.

A

An individual younger than ?ve years of age may be admitted to the school in accordance
with division (A) (2) of section 3321. 01 of the Revised Code. The school shall receive
funds for an individual admitted under that division in the manner provided under section
3314.08 of the Revised Code.

If the school operates a program that uses the Montessori method endorsed by the
American Montessori society, the Montessori accreditation council for teacher
education, or the association Montessori internationale as its primary method of
instruction, admission to the school may be open to individuals younger than ?ve years of
age, but the school shall not receive funds under this chapter for those individuals.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this chapter, individuals younger than ?ve
years of age who are enrolled in a Montessori program shall be o?ered at least four
hundred ?fty-?ve hours of learning opportunities per school year.

(B) (1) That admission to the school may be limited to students who have attained a
speci?c grade level or are within a specific age group; to students that meet a de?nition
of "at-risk, as de?ned in the contract; to residents of a specific geographic area within
the district, as de?ned in the contract; or to separate groups of autistic students and
nondisabled students, as authorized in section 3314. 061 of the Revised Code and as
de?ned in the contract.

(2) For purposes of division (B) (1) of this section, "at-risk" students may include those
students identi?ed as gifted students under section 3324.03 of the Revised Code.

(C) Whether enrollment is limited to students who reside in the district in which the
school is located or is open to residents of other districts, as provided in the policy
adopted; pursuant to the contract.

(D) (I) That there will be no discrimination in the admission of students to the school on
the basis of race, creed, color, disability, or sex except that:

The governing authority may do either of the following for the purpose described in
division

(G) of this section:

Establish a single-gender school for either sex;

(it) Establish single-gender schools for each sex under the same contract, provided
substantially equal facilities and learning opportunities are offered for both boys and
girls. Such facilities and opportunities may be o?ered for each sex at separate locations.
The governing authority may establish a school that simultaneously serves a group of
students identi?ed as autistic and a group of students who are not disabled, as authorized
in section 3314. 061 of the Revised Code. However, unless the total capacity established
for the school has been ?lled, no student with any disability shall be denied admission on
the basis of that disability.

(2) hat?upon admission of any student with a disability, the community school will
comply with all ?zderal and state laws regarding the education of students with
disabilities.

(E) hat. the school may not limit admission to students on the basis of intellectual ability,
measures of achievement or aptitude, or athletic ability, except that a school may limit its
enrollment to students as described in division (B) of this section.

(F) hat the community school will admit the number of students that does not exceed the
capacity of the school ?s programs, classes, grade levels, or facilities.

3)

9)

(G) That the purpose of single-gender schools that are established shall be to take
advantage of the academic bene?ts some students realize from single-gender instruction
and facilities and to o?er students and parents residing in the district the option of a
single-gender education. (H) That, except as otherwise provided under division (B) of
this section or section 3314. 06] of the Revised Code, if the number of applicants exceeds
the capacity restrictions of division (F) of this section, students shall be admitted by lot
from all those submitting applications, except preference shall be given to students
attending the school the previous year and to students who reside in the district in which
the school is located. Preference may be given to siblings of students attending the school
the previous year.

Notwithstanding divisions (A) to (H) of this section, in the event the racial composition of
the enrollment of the community school is violative of a federal desegregation order, the
community school shall take any and all corrective measures to comply with the
desegregation order.

Objectives See pages 39 - 50

Revolving Loan Fund Ohio will not utilize a revolving loan fund if selected for the
grant. 

10) Waivers See page 60

Budget Narrative File(s)

 

 

Mandatory Budget Narrative Filename: IBudget Narrative .pdf

 

 

   

59E HFaToryeycig??f?i? [View?M?faTw 

 

To add more Budget Narrative attachments. please use the attachment buttons below.

 

 

 

Ll" A'dd Op?tfo?n?lquiet?NEFrStiJE I?LDET?Fdi?J?tignzf?idgmetNmi? ?f?Vie?w o'?'tic?m?al BUdgTat'NarrTniFli

Budget Narrative Instructions: Provide an itemized budget breakdown, andjusti?cation by project year, for each budget category
listed in Section A of the ED 524 (and Section B, if applicable). Provide other budget explanations or comments deemed necessary.

The Ohio Department of Education requests $71,058,320 over a ?ve-year period from the federal Charter School Program. Table 1
describes our budget request by project year for each budget category.

Table 1: ODE Budget Request, July 1, 2016 June 30, 2021

 

Budget Categories Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Total

Description of Costs .

 

1) Personnel 224,400

238,986

254,520

271,064

288,683

1,277,653

Total of 3.75 FTE each year with 2.5% annual increase

 

61,200

65,178

69,415

73,927

78,732

348,451

Program Administrator 1.0 FTE

 

106,080

112,975

120,319

128,139

136,468

603,981

Program Specialist 2.0 FTE

 

40,800

43,452

46,276

49,284

52,488

232,301

Director of Quality Charter School Development 0.5 FTE

 

16,320

17,381

18,511

19,714

20,995

92,920

Data Manager  0.25 FTE

 

2) Fringe Bene?ts 74,052

78,865

83,992

89,451

95,265

421,626

Calculated at 33% of base salary

 

20,196

21,509

22,907

24,396

25,981

114,939

Base Salary  Administrator 1.0 FTE

 

35,006

37,282

39,705

42,286

45,035

199,314

Program SpeciaJist Base Salary 2.0 FTE

 

13,464

14,339

15,271

16,264

17,321

76,659

Director of Quality Charter School Development Base Salary 
0.5 FTE

 

5,386

5,736

 

6,108

 

6,506

 

6,928

 

30,664

 

Data Manager 0.25 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Budget Categories

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Total

Description of Costs

 

3) Travel

11,000

11,000

11,000

11,000

11,000

55,000

 

6,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

30,000

Site v'miE

 

2,000

4 2.000 -

2,000

2,000

2,000

10,000

NACSA Annual conference

 

3,000

3,000

3,000

3,000

3,000

5 ,0?00

CSP Projazt Director's Meeting

 

4) Equipment

3,750

5,750

IT Equipment (Lap1opstesktops) $1,000  employee 3.75 FTE

 

5) Supp?es

4,920

4,920

4,920

4,920

4,920

24,600

 

1,920

1,920

1,920

1,920

1,920

9,600

Communications - desk phone, cell phones, me, etc

 

3,000

3,000

3,000

3,000

3,000

1 5,000

General o?ce supplies

 

6) Contractual A A

224,500

124,500

124,500

124,500

124,500

722,500

 

100,000

0

100,000

Application development

 

34,500

34 500

34,500

34,500

34,500

172,500

Information Technology Operations, maintenance ($9,200 per
employee 3.75 FTE)

 

40.000

40,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

200,000

NASCA Authodzer Traim'ng Conferences

 

50,000

50,000

50,000

50,000

50,000

250,000

Ohio Ednca?on Research Caller data analysis and research

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Budget Categories

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Total

Description of Costs

 

7) Construction

Not applicable

 

8) Other

6,545,375

13,395,375

16,145,375

16,145,375

16,145,375

68,376,875

 

Subgrantee grants

2,3 00,000

2,300,000

2,300,000

2,300,000

2,300,000

11,500,000

Planning Grants: 23 Grants in Years One through Five at an
average of $1001: each

 

4,200,000

8,050,000

8,050,000

8,050,000

8,050,000

36,400,000

Year 1 Implementation Grants: 12 Grants in Year One and 23
grants in Years Two through Five an average of $3 5011 each

 

0

3,000,000

5,750,000

5,750,000

5,750,000

20,250,000

Year 2 Implementation Grants: 0 Grants in Year One, 12
Grants in Year Two and 23_ Grants in Years Three through
Five at an average of $250k each

 

Rent

15,375

15,375

15,375

15,375

15,375

76,875

Covers utilities, heating/cooling, security, building
maintenance

 

Professional Development

Trainings

15,000

15,000

15,000

15,000

15,000

75,000

Sub-grantee Training Conferences

 

15,000

15,000

15,000

15,000

15,000

75,000

Community Education Development Organizations (CEDO)
Training Conferences

 

9) Total Direct Costs

7,087,997

13,853,646

16,624,307

16,646,310

16,669,743

70,882,004

 

10) Indirect Costs

30,967

32,980

35,124

37,407

39,838

176,316

Indirect Costs based on ODE's indirect cost rate of 13.8%
personnel costs for agency shared services

 

 

 

Total Costs

 

7,118,964

 

13,886,626

 

1 6,659,430

 

16,683,717

 

16,709,582

 

71,058,320

 

 

 

Budget Note: Fiscal year assumptions

Year 1 represents an anticipated CSP grant ?scal year of July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017
Year 2 represents an anticipated CSP grant ?scal year of July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018
Year 3 represents an anticipated CSP grant ?scal year of July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019
Year 4 represents an anticipated CSP grant ?scal year of July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020
Year 5 represents an anticipated CSP grant ?scal year of July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021

Budget Note (Section 1): Justi?cation for Personnel

The project budget includes $1,277,653 for personnel services.
(Yr. 1: $224,400 Yr. 2: $238,986 Yr. 3: $254,520 Yr. 4: $271,064 Yr. 5: $288,683)

Ohio?s goal is to award one hundred ?fteen planning, one hundred-four year-one implementation and eighty-one year-two
implementation subgrants throughout the next ?ve years. These grants will result in the opening of high-quality charter schools
throughout the state. In order to administer the subgrant process and monitor subgrantees to the level required by the US Department
of Education, the Ohio Department of Education will staff the following personnel positions:

Program Administrator

(1.0 FTE, Yr. 1: $61,200 Yr. 2: $65,178 Yr. 3: $69,415 Yr. 4: $73,927 Yr. 5: $78,732)

The Program Administrator will be responsible for coordinating the grant application to coordinating and monitoring the
agency's grant funding to quali?ed participants for adherence to program rules regulations; reviews and makes recommendations
concerning budget revisions and grant project goals; and completes recipient monitoring activities.

Program Specialists

(2.0 FTE, Yr. 1: $106,080 Yr. 2: $112,975 Yr. 3: $120,319 Yr. 4: $128,139 Yr. 5: $136,468)

The Program Specialists will be responsible for reviewing the performance and compliance of subgrantees, conducting site visits of
subgrantees, and supporting program administration.

Director of Quality Charter School Development

(0.5 FTE, Yr. 1: $40,800 Yr. 2: $43,452 Yr. 3: $46,276 Yr. 4: $49,284 Yr. 5: $52,488)

The Director of Quality Charter School Development will assist in the strategic development of high quality charter schools
throughout the state by identifying leadership talent, supporting quality school development, and by attracting hi gh-performing charter
networks to the state.

Data Manager
(0.25 FTE, Yr. 1: $16,320 Yr. 2: $17,381 Yr. 3: $18,511 Yr. 4: $19,714 Yr. 5: $20,995)
The Data Manager provides and tracks all data regarding charter school student performance.

All salary levels are based on State of Ohio pay schedules for positions with commensurate responsibility and include an annual 6.5%
increase per state guidelines. In the event that personnel positions are contracted, salaries would be reclassi?ed as ?contractual.?

Budget Note (Section 2): Fringe Benefits
The project budget includes $421,626 for fringe bene?ts.
(Yr. 1: $74,052 Yr. 2: $78,865 Yr. 3: $83,992 Yr. 4: $89,451 Yr. 5: $95,265)

Fringe bene?ts are calculated at 33% of base salary per Ohio State agency guidelines and include health care, retirement, workers
compensation, short term disability, etc.

Budget Note (Section 3): Justi?cation for Travel
The project budget includes $55,000 for travel.
(Yr. 1: $11,000 Yr. 2: $11,000 Yr. 3: $11,000 Yr. 4: $11,000 Yr. 5: $11,000)

Throughout the grant period, the Program Administrator and Program Specialists will conduct multiple site visits to each CSP
subgrantee. These site visits will ensure the educational programs match the grant description, the benchmarks are being met and all
?scal controls are in place. An average of 60 site visits will be completed each program year (2 site visits will be completed per day at
a cost of approximately $200 in employee travel reimbursements).

Year 1: 60 site visits totaling $6,000
Year 2: 60 site visits totaling $6,000
Year 3: 60 site visits totaling $6,000
Year 4: 60 site visits totaling $6,000
Year 5: 60 site visits totaling $6,000

Additionally, a representative from our of?ce will plan to attend annual conference each of the grant program years in order
to further professional development and ensure best authorizer practices in the state per our strong emphasis on high quality

authorizing (1 employee attending, approximately $2,000 per year).

Finally, 2 employees will plan to attend the Project Director?s meeting in Washington DC each of the grant program years
(approximately $1,500 per attendee, totaling $3,000 per year). 1

Budget Note (Section 5): Justi?cation for Supplies

The project budget includes $24,600 for supplies.
(Yr. 1: $4,920 Yr. 2: $4,920 Yr. 3: $4,920 Yr. 4: $4,920 Yr. 5: $4,920)

A cost of $1 ,920 will be incurred each program year to cover employee communications supplies per standard agency cost.
Additionally, $3,000 per year is projected to cover additional supplies cost including general office supplies, presentation materials,
etc.

Budget Note (Section 6): Justi?cation for Contracts

The project budget includes $722,500 for contractual expenses and professional development. (Yr. I: $224,500 Yr. 2: $124,500 Yr. 3:
$l24,500 Yr. 4: $124,500 Yr. 5: $124,500)

In order to develop and maintain the state?s subgrantee application and disbursement processes, a technology development contract
cost of$100,000 will be incurred in year 1.

An agency information technology operations cost of $9,200 per FTE employee (agency rate), will cost $34,500 per grant program
year in order to cover general technology maintenance and operations.

The Department will partner with NACSA to develop a series of tools and trainings to be made available for authorizers across the
state with the goal of improving the quality of authorizer practices statewide at a cost of $40,000 per year, which will cover contract
costs, tools and trainings development, and additional speaker costs.

Lastly, the Department will partner with the Ohio Education Research Center to perform research and data analysis pertaining to the
State?s CSP activities ($50,000 per year) throughout the grant period.

Budget Note (Section 8): Justi?cation for Subgrant Amounts and Other expenses

The project budget includes $68,376,875 for other expenses which consists of planning and implementation grants to be disbursed to
subgrantees, professional development trainings, and rental expenses.

To develop the budget proposal and subgrant recipient amounts for the five-year grant period, the Ohio Department of Education
sought to determine an appropriate amount of start-up assistance to ensure the implementation of high quality charter schools.
Inadequate ?nancial resources is often cited as one of the most common reasons for charter school failure, accounting for 41 percent
of charter school closures annually (Allen et al., 2009). In order to avoid this common pitfall, ODE sought insight from high-
performing school founders throughout the state and considered the current ?scal landscape of private and foundation donor support
for charter schools. Given these insights, the subgrant recipient disbursement amounts were selected.

Over 5 years, the Ohio Department of Education will award 1 15 planning grants of approximately $100,000 each for a total
disbursement of$l 1,500,000.
(Yr. 1: $2,300,000 Yr. 2: $2,300,000 Yr. 3: $2,300,000 Yr. 4: $2,300,000 Yr. 5: $2,300,000)

104 year 1 implementation grants of approximately $350,000 each for a total disbursement of $36,400,000;
(Yr. 1: $4,200,000 Yr. 2: $8,050,000 Yr. 3: $8,050,000 Yr. 4: $8,050,000 Yr. 5: $8,050,000)

81 year 2 implementation grants of approximately $250,000 each for a total disbursement of $20,250,000.
(Yr. 1: $0 Yr. 2: $3,000,000 Yr. 3: $5,750,000 Yr. 4: $5,750,000 Yr. 5: $5,750,000)

. program goalsqand best-practices andi'professionaldevelopment to authorizers (See

Source:
Jeanne Allen et al., The Accountability Report: Charter Schools (Washington, DC: Center for Education Reform, February 2009).

Throughout the grant period our office will host various professional development and training conferences for subgrantees,
authorizers and community education development organizations. These trainings will serve to provide clear communication of

Contractual), and application review training to community partners ($15,000 per year). Such trainings will support the foundational
tenets of high-quality charter school throughout the state. Each training?s cost will cover conference room space, training materials,
and speaker per diems.

Lastly, a rent cost will be incurred each year to cover associated expenses of renting State agency space. This annual cost will be
$15,375 ($4,100 per FTE employee) per State rates.

Budget Note (Section 10): Justi?cation for Indirect Costs

The project budget includes $176,316 for Indirect Costs.
(Yr. 1: $30,967 Yr. 2: $32,980 Yr. 3: $35,124 Yr. 4: $37,407 Yr. 5: $39,838)

Indirect costs were calculated based on a 13.8% of payroll rate given the current agreement between Ohio Department of Education
and Federal Government (agreement No. 2014-156) and cover shared services within the agency (?scal, legal, communications).

Other Attachment File(s)

 

 

Mandatory Other Attachment Filename: lAppendix A Charter School Program Assurances.pdfl

 

 

Delete Mandato?pth?mr Attachment! II.View' 

 

To add more "Other Attachment" attachments. please use the attachment buttons below.

 

 

"View Optional Other?ttaghment

   

'O?ti?l 'OthETTAtt_@hmentfgi Tigelete Optional Other Attachment 

CHARTER SCHOOLS PROGRAM ASSURANCES STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES

Pursuant to Section 5203(bil3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended Title ill of
theConsolid'ated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015; and sections 200.302la) and 200.331ld) of the
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, a State educational

agency (SEA) application for a grant under the CSP must contain the following assurances.

As the duly authorized representative of the applicant, 1 certify to the following:

1) The applicant will require each eligible applicant desiring to receive a subgrant to submit an application to the SEA

containing:

A.

A description of the educational program to be implemented by the proposed charter school, including 
how the program will enable all students to meet challenging State student academic achievement
standards; (ii) the grade levels or ages of children to be served; and the curriculum and instructional

practices to be used;
Adescription of how the charter school will be managed;
A description of?(i) the objectives of the charter school; and (ii) the methods by which the charter school will

determine its progress toward achieving those Objectives;
A description of the administrative relationship between the charter school and the authorized public

chartering agency;
A description of how parents and other members of the community Will be inVOlVEd in the Planning.

program design and implementation of the charter school;
A description of how the authorized public chartering agency will provide for continued operation of the
school once the Federal grant has expired, if such agency determines that the school has met its objectives;

A request and justification for waivers of any Federal statutory or regulatory provisions that the eligible
applicant believes are necessary for the successful operation of the charter school, and a description of any
State or local rules, generally applicable to public schools, that the applicant proposes to be waived, or

otherwise not apply to, the school;
A description of how the subgrant funds will be used, including a description of how such funds will be used

in conjunction with other Federal programs administered by the U.S. Secretary of Education;

A description of how students in the community will be informed about the charter school; and (ii) given

an equal opportunity-to attend the charter school;
An assurance that the eligible applicant will annually provide the Secretary and the SEA such information as

may be required to determine if the charter school is making satisfactory progress toward achieving the

objectives described in subparagraph 
An assurance that the applicant will cooperate with the Secretary and the SEA in evaluating the program

assisted under this sdbpart;
A description of howa charter school that is considered a local educational agency under State law, or a

local educational agency in which a charter school is located, will comply with sections 613la)(5)? and

613(c)(1)(8l of the individuals with Disabilities Education Act;

61

 it the eligible applicant desires to use-eram lunds for dissemination activities under section 
a description oi those activities and how those activities will invotve charter schools-and other public
schoois. local educational agencies, devoiopers. and potential developers; and

N. Such other Information and assurances as the SeCretary and sat may require.

2) The applicant wilt 
A. Use the grant funds to award subgrants to one or more applicants in the State toenable the

applicant to plan and impier?nent a charter school in accordance with this program; and

8. Use a peer review pm? to review applications lor subgrants.
State iaw, regulations, or other policies In the Statewhere the applicant is-located require that 

3).
A. each authorized charter school in the State Operate under a legally binding charter or performance

contractbetween itself and the school's authorized public charterlng agency that describes the
obligations and responsibilities of the school and the public chartering agency; conduct annual,-timely.
and independent audits of the school's financial statements that are filed with the school's authorized

public chartering agency; and demonstrate improved student academic achievement; and

8. Authorized public chartering agencies use increases in student academic achievement for all groups of
students desc?bed in section 11 of the one of the most impartant factors when
determining to renew or revoke a school's charter.

The applicant will monitor the activities of the subreclpient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for
authon?zed purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, reguiations, and the'terms and conditions of?the 
s?ubaward; and that subawand performance goals are achieved.

The applicant and each subrecipient will use ?nanciai'management systems, including records dowmentirtg
catnplianoe with Federal statutes. regulations, and the terms and conditidns of the Federal award, that are
suf?cient to permit the preparation of reportsrequired by general and programespec'rfic terms and conditions;
and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used
according to the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.

 Ohio Stuart ?Radcmk {3 jnat?ruck tovx
TITLE

NAME or AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL
'l [i ?1 I 



OF AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL DATE

Ohio momma} Mame?

4)

Sl

 

   

 

DATE SUBMITTED

 

nacsa

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS

quality charter schools

July 2015:

NA CSA Letter in Support of the Ohio Department of Education ?3
2015 Charter Schools Program Grants for State Educational Agencies Proposal

On behalf of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA), I write in
support of the Ohio Department of Education?s (ODE) Grant Proposal to the 2015 Charter
School Program for State Educational Agencies. Webelieve- that receiving this grant will greatly
strengthen Ohio?s ability to establish and expand high-quality charter schools throughout the
state.

Ohio?s new Authorizer Quality Performance Review is an exemplar for a state-focused
authorizer evaluation. This review process was developed in close partnership with NACSA and
is based on our Principles Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing. The
Performance Review is providingbadly needed oversight of state authorizing and putting the
development of Ohio?s charter sector on the road toward quality.

Additionally, with grant support, NACSA will partner with ODE and its new Authorizer
Development staff in delivering a series of tools and trainings intended to strengthen the quality
of authorizer practices statewide. Through an annual training of all Ohio authorizers, continual
dissemination of best practices, and ongoing professional development, ODE, with NACSA
guidance, will tackle the challenge of developing current poor and ineffective authorizers into
effective and even exemplary charter authorizing entities.

The strides that-Ohio has already made in improving itsauthorizer review process and
strengthening its charter school sector are very encouraging. Receiving the Charter School
Program SEA grant would allow the state to continue its momentum in creating, expanding and
supporting hi gh-quality authorizers and charter schools across Ohio.

..
.








Sincerely, i 

l.

H:
k. 

'William Ha?

VP, Authorizer Development

NACSA

Direct: 312.376.2323 
Mobile: 303.817.6797

 

1250 Hu Rd. 500
[3 nd' Clevelan: OH 
Tra I'lst rm at] 0 tel: 216 912-9600

 

A  a 

July 6, 2015

Stephan Huh, Director

Office of Innovation and Improvement
U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Ave., SW

Washington, 20202

Dear Mr. Huh,

On behalf of the Cleveland Transformation Alliance, I am writing to express our full support for
the Ohio Department of Education's application for a grant from the US. Department of
Education?s Public Charter School Program for State Education Agencies.

This grant program presents an important opportunity for Ohio. Support for the planning and
creation of new high-quality charter schools is needed across the state, and fits well into the
work the Alliance is doing to implement Cleveland?s Plan for Transforming Schools. The
Cleveland Plan is our citywide strategy to overhaul education, and it relies in part on creating
new high-performing schools. While we are focused on Cleveland, we know that families and
students statewide would benefit from a PCSP award to Ohio.

Evaluation of the effects of charter schools is also an important aspect as the Alliance, and
other stakeholders across Ohio, work to monitor the growth and quality of the charter sector.

In recent years, the Ohio Department of Education has made great progress with its work to
improve the quality of the state's charter sector. The Alliance views ODE as a strong partner in
our work to ensure that all children can attend quality schools.

Sincerely,



Megan O?Bryan

 

Executive Director



 

.


COLUMBUS

June 29, 2015

US. Department of Education Building
400 Maryland Ave, SW
Washington, DC 20202

Dear Secretary Duncan:

The Federal Charter Schools Program Grant for State Educational Agencies represents a
significant opportunity to support high-quality charter schools that improve educational
outcomes for our country's most underserved students. On behalf of Columbus, it is
my pleasure to express our strongest support for the Office of Quality School Choice of
the Ohio Department of Education's application for this grant.

Columbus has experience exceptional success in implementing its mission to prove
the possible by supporting Columbus? most in need students on theirjourney to and
through college. The students of Columbus benefit from presence in our
community. operates with a vision of elevating and accelerating the academic
and character achievement of its students, their families, and sharing this impact with the
community it serves.

This grant would enable high performing Ohio charter schools, like Columbus to
understand exactly'what has been crucial in allowing us to meet our goals as we seek to
replicate and share this success with more students. At Columbus, we recognize the
immense importance of notjust gaining desirable outcomes, but investigating the why
and how of Ethese goals to go deeper before we go wider.

The need in Ohio for this kind of support is undeniable. Though the education community
is making great strides under Superintendent Richard Ross, Ohio?s journey to providing all
students the education they need to live-lives of choice and meaning is not over.
Charter schools play an important role in this journey, and can be a strong influence in
the climate that is created for positive change.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Please do not hesitate to
contact me with any questions.

Best regards,

Hannah D. Powell
Columbus, Executive Director
hpowell@kippcolumbus.org

Columbus 2750 AglerRoad Columbus, OH 43224 614.263.6150 

FRIENDS OF

BREAKTHROUGH SCHOOLS


i

July 16, 2015.

 

 

 

Nadya Chinoy Dabby
Assistant Deputy Secretary
Office of Innovation and Improvement
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20202

I

Dear Mrs. Chlnoy Dabby,

I am writing ih strong support of the proposal submitted to the U.S. Department of Education by
the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) for a State Educational Agencies Charter Schools
Program grant.

Breakthrough Schools is a network of 11 high-performing public charter schools in Cleveland,
Ohio. In 201542016, Breakthrough Schools will serve nearly 3,500 students in grades K-8,
providing an outstanding college-preparatory education to those without high?quality options in
their neighborhoods. Breakthrough?s mission is to develop a growing network of distinctive
school optiorls that prepare Cleveland area students for success in life. Our goal is to continue
growing by replicating and improving upon our flagship models. Breakthrough?s aspirational goal
is to ultimately serve 7,400 students across at least 19 schools, thereby sewing, on average,
nearly 20% of all K-8 children in public schools in Cleveland, and have a demonstrable impact on
a city in need of viable educational options for children.

In 2011, Schools was honored to become one of nine CMOs in the country
receiving a charter school start-up and replication grant from the US Department of Education.
To date, Breakthrough h?as replicated seven schools and will open three more with these
transformativle funds. If awarded, ODE can continue the successful replication and expansion of
high-performing schools and effective seats throughout the state.

Breakthrough: Schools fully supports ODE's plan to leverage federal grant dollars to conduct
charter schocil programs in the state, ensuring that all students have high-quality school options.
Breakthrouin Schools also strongly believes in comprehensive system to improve
accountability, and its plan to drive both school and authorizer outcomes with federal funds.

Thank you for your consideration,
i

John Zitzner 
Friends of Breakthrough Schools

 

3615 Superior Avenue, Suite 3103A 0 Cleveland, OH 44114
phone 216.539.9349 



DONATE 0 ADVOCATE VOLUNTEER


i

July 14, zois

Stephan 

Of?ce of Innovation and Improvement
US. Department of Education

400 Maryland Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20202

Dear Mr. Huh,

I am writing on behalf of Accelerate Great Schools, 3 community education
development organization in Cincinnati, Ohio. I would like to express my strong
support of the State of Ohio?s application for the Charter School Programs Startup
Grants for State Education Agencies to the US. Department of Education.

Accelerate Great Schools is a city-based education reform nonprofit focused on the
creation of thousands of new, high-quality seats for students in Cincinnati. We have
currently raised over $15 million in private philanthropy with a plan to raise an
additional $10 million, all to invest in new schools, grow talent pipelines, and
improve policy conditions for the State of Ohio.

A State Education Agencies grant to the Ohio Department of Education would allow
the State of?Ohio to partner more deeply with community organizations such as
Accelerate Great Schools as we invest in high quality charter school expansion. We
have a bold?plan to create thousands of new seats of the next ?ve years, and this
Federal grant would accelerate that work in Cincinnati and statewide.

I am pleased to offer my full support to the Ohio Department of Education in their
grant appIiCation. Please feel free to reach out to me directly if I can be of further
assistance. I can be reached at 312-590-1318.

Respectfully,

Wow

Patrick Herif?el
CEO, Accelerate Great Schools

 CLEVELAND
METROPOLITAN .
SCHOOL DISTRICT

Vision to Victory

Chief Executive Of?cer
Err}: 5. Gordon

July 9, 2015
Board of Education
Denise W. Link
Board Chair To Whom It May Concern:

?wise The Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD) supports the applicati0n ofthe

Ohio Department of Education for a federal Charter School Program (CSP) grant for
a State Education Agency.

Ericka L. Abrams
Anne E. Bingham
Robert M. Heard, Sr.

S?C?gg??amrg?g? CMSD is a portfolio school district, committed to ensuring that all of Cleveland?s
Stephanie Morales students have the opportunity to attend a high-quality public school. Charter schools
Dr- ?53 ThOmas can play a valuable role in providing those opportunities. CMSD supports the
0mm, Mamba? development and expansion of high-quality charter schools, as evidenced by our
Dr. Ronald M- Berkman multiple and varied relationships with charters. We authorize 10 charter schools and

Alex J?hnson have partnering relationships with seven others. All 17 of these schools share in

proceeds of a local education levy passed by Cleveland voters in 2012. CMSD is the
only district in Ohio to share local tax dollars with charter schools. CMSD also is
working with charter schools to create a District/Charter grant and has received
funding from the Gates Foundation to support these efforts aimed at improving
collaboration between the sectors.

The CSP would support our efforts to improve education quality in Cleveland by
providing needed funding to help expand the number of seats available at quality
charter schools and by contributing to the evaluation of charter schools.

Thank you for considering the Ohio Department of Education?s application for a
CSP grant. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need additional information.

Very truly yours,

Make 7% -7%ac?
Christine Fowler Mack,
Chief Portfolio Of?cer

 



ITUTE

TMFIMZ

ADVANCHB EXCELLENCE

 

Michael J. Petrilli
President

Chester E. Finn. Jr.
Distinguished Senior Fellow
and President Emeritus

Amber M. Northern
Senior Vice President for Research

Chad Aldis
Vice President for
Ohio Policy and Advocacy

Gary LaBelle
vice President for Finance and
Operations

Mullen Upton
Vice President for Sponsorship
and Dayton Initiatives

Robert Pondiscio
Vice President for
External Affairs

TRUSTEES

David P. Driscoll
Chester E. Finn, Jr.
Thomas A. Holton
Michael W. Kelly
Rod Paige

Michael J. Petrilli
Stefanie Sanford
Caprice Young

TRUSTEES EMERITUS

Chester E. Finn (1918-2007)
Craig Kennedy

Bruce Kovner

Bruno V. Manno

David H. Ponitz

Diane Ravitch

1016 16th St NW. 8th Floor
Washington. DC 20036
PHONE (202) 223-5452

(202) 223-9226

15 West Fourth Street. Suite 430
Dayton. Ohio 451102

PHONE (937) 227-3368

not (937) 660?3338

37 W. Broad Street, Suite 400
Columbus. OH l13215

mom: (6111) 223-1580

mx (614) 223-1494

July 2, 2015

Mr. David Hansen

Executive Director, Office of Quality School Choice
25 S. Front St. 

Columbus, OH 43215

Dear David,

On behalf of the board and staff of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, I am
writing to express our strong support for the Ohio Department of Education?s
Public Charter School Program (PCSP) grant application for State Education
Agencies.

As you know, there is still a'great need in many areas throughout the state for
high quality schools. Receipt of PCSP funds would bolster these efforts by
facilitating the creation of more high quality charter schools to serve all Ohio
students.

We appreciate the work that your office has done over the past two years to
improve the quality of the charter sector in Ohio, including implementing a
robust authorizer evaluation system. We fully support your application for
funding and believe that receipt of PCSP monies will play a critical role in
providing children, especially our most disadvantaged, with more high quality
school options.

Sincerely,

    

Michael J. Petrilli
President



 

PATRICK J. TIBERI .

CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TFIADE

SELECT REVENUE MEASURES

COLUMBUS OFFICE:

3000 CORPORATE EXCHANGE 
SUITE 310
is -, I COLUMBUS. OH 43231
COMMITTEE ON - . PHONE: (514) 523-2555
WAYS AND MEANS . .- FAX: (614)318-0887
faint?

WASHINGTON OFFICE:

1203 LONGWOFITH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON. DC 20515?3512
PHONE: (202)-225-5355
FAX: (202) 225?4523

I2TH DISTRICT. OHIO

       

 

I

?0200mm 0f the ?ttnittd 0%t0tzs

330052 of 
July-5,2015-

 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON



United States Department of Education
Of?ce of Innovation Improvement
400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Washington, DC. 20202

Dear Sir or Madam:

I was recently informed that the Of?ce of Quality School Choice at the Ohio Department
of Education has applied for the Charter School Program Grant for State Educational Agencies
through the United States Department of Education. I am pleased to offer my support for their
grant application.

It is my understanding that the Of?ce of Quality School Choice at the Ohio Department
of Education plans to increase national understanding of the charter school model. By providing
?nancial assistance for planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools,
the Ohio Department of Education will be able to evaluate the effects of charter schools on
students, staff, and parents.

I believe the Charter School Program Grant is important for furthering the education of
our nation?s youth. I hope the Of?ce of Innovation and Improvement will give all possible

consideration to this application. Please accept this letter as an expression of my interest in this
matter.

Sincerely,



:?Pat?idkil?. Tiber].
Representative to Congress



PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

227 .A i=2 .

 

ROB PORTMAN consumes;
OHIO BUDGET

ENERGY AND
NATURAL RESOURCES

   FINANCE

HOMELAND secuan 
WASHINGTON, Dc 205170 AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

July 16, 2015

Nadya Ch?inoy Dabby

Assistant Deputy Secretary

Of?ce (if-innovation and Improvement
US. Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue SW.
Washington, DC. 20202-5970

Dear Assistant Deputy Secretary Dabby=

I write to bring to your attention the competitive grant application submitted by
the Ohio Department of Education for funding in the Charter Schools Program
Grants for State Education Agencies.

understand the purpose of thisprogram is to increase national understanding of
the charter. schOol model. Funding from your agency will enhance Ohio?s ability
to implement and expand its efforts to ensure that all students have high quality
school options. 

Please give all due consideration to this request. If there are any questions, please
contact my grant eco'rdinator, Linda Greenwood at (419) 259-3895. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rob Portman
United States Senator

- . i

4118 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING 312 Smear 9m Smear 37 WEST Smear 420 MADISON AVENUE
WASHINGTON. DC 20510 Sum; 3075 Sum: 3061 300 Sunn 1210
PHONE: t202l 22493353 OH 45202 CLEVELAND. OH 44199 COLUMBUS. OH 43215 TOLEDO, OH 43504
7 PHONE: (513) Gad-3265 (216) 52217095 PHONE: (8111) 469-6774 PHONE: (419) 259-3895



Ul-

studentsfirst  

 

On behalf of StudentsFirst and our 67,000 members in Ohio who passionately care about educational
improvement, including quality school choice, am writing in strong support of the Ohio Department of
Education?s application for the US Charter School Programs Startup Grants.

Ohio was one of the ?rst states in the nation to embrace the educational alternatives promised by charter
schools. For the past 20 years, charters emerged as options for families residing in struggling school
districts. Today, approximately 400 charter schools educate 120,000 Ohio school kids. With nearly two
decades of hindsight, however, it is clear that the movement has not lived up to its promise.

What we have, at best, is a mixed bag. Some charter schools excel at educating mostly low-income
schoolchildren who endure all kinds of barriers to learning. Others do not even outperform the traditional
district public schools the kids departed.

Fortunately, the legislature and state leadership have come to focus on rectifying this sobering reality.
Indeed, the Ohio Department of Education used its authorizing authority to allow very few new schools to
open this year, placing an emphasis on operators set up for success. They also shuttered bad schools. The
ODE has implemented a new system to evaluate charter school sponsor that places a heavy emphasis on
student outcomes.

Strong bi-partisan legislation (H8 2) is also heading towards passage that complements the culture
accountability and results being imbued by the ODE. The efforts of State Department leadership combined
with legislative action are creating conditions needed to build on the successes we already see across
Ohio's charter community. For example, a recent report from Stanford University?s Center for Research on
Education Outcomes shows that Ohio?s low-income charter school students, especially low-income black
students, have significant learning gains in both reading and math compared to their peers who remain at
their traditional public;school. Overall, low-income students gain 14 days of learning in both reading and
math. The learning gains for low-income black studentsjumps to 29 days in reading and 22 in math. It is
imperative that we now bolster these trends and support successful charter schools that can play an
important role in helping to close Ohio?s achievement gap.

As a result of the state momentum on several fronts in creating a culture of accountability and transparency,
combined with new initiatives to support high quality charter schools in our cities, there is no better time for
an infusion of start upgrants that can help the state and our urban centers replicate existing strong schools,
while also attracting new high quality charter schools to our cities.

As the state and its cities create conditions of readiness to seed strong new school, your federal support
will help expedite Ohio's effort to create tens of thousands of new, high quality charter school seats across
the state. As seen over the past twenty years, Ohio families embrace better options for their kids when
empowered by choice.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Greg Harris, 

State Director
StudentsFirst Ohio

@StudentsFirstOH facebook.comlStudentsFirstOH

Improving the lives and
education ol Ohio children

22 East Gay Street
Suite 600
Columbus, Ohio 43215

Ph.: 614.228.6400
Fax: 614.461.0100



Board Members

Dale Heydlauff
Chad Jester
Linda Kass
Jeffrey 

Frederick L. Ransier, Esq.

Elizabeth Ruppert, MD.
Barbara Trueman
Abigail Wexner

Mark Real, President

 

July 15, 2015

The Honorable Arne Duncan

Secretary, US. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Washington, DC. 20202

Dear Secretary Duncan,

KidsOhio.org, a 13-year-old nonpartisan education research and policy organization,
supports the Ohio Department of Education?s application for the federal Charter
School Startup Grant. Public charter schools have become an important part of the
Ohio education landscape with more than 120,000 Ohio students enrolled. In the
Columbus City Schools district, which has the state?s largest student body,

25% (17,000 students) of students attending a publicly funded school are enrolled in
a public charter school.

While charter schools are a popular choice for large numbers of urban parents, a
recent analysis of student academic performance by the well-respected CREDO
Institute at Stanford University found that the academic performance of Ohio charter
school students lagged behind that of students in traditional school districts. In
response, Governor John Kasich and legislative leaders in both parties have proposed
fundamental changes to Ohio charter school law to improve academic accountability
and fiscal management. Last month, the Ohio Senate, by a unanimous 30-0 vote,
passed the most comprehensive charter school reform proposal in Ohio history.

Awarding Ohio 3 federal charter school startup grant would help the Ohio
Department of Education to shape the growth of Ohio?s charter school sector. The
grant would allow the Department to put an increased emphasis on quality and to
support high-performing charter schools in communities with a short supply of high-
performing public schools.

Importantly, the grant requires that the Ohio Department of Education form
partnerships with a local Community Educational Development Organization to
create neighborhood?level strategies to increase the number of high?quality schools
and to review proposals from schools seeking to locate in that neighborhood. This
will authentically engage urban parents and neighborhood and civic leaders in key
decisions.

This grant offers Ohio an important tool to screen potential new charter school
operators and to provide startup grants to charter schools with a demonstrated
ability to help students make progress. Thank you for considering Ohio?s request.

Sincerely,

be.

Mark Real
President
KidsOhio.org

 

@3009 mm -

 

 

July 8, 20.15

Mr. Stephan Huh, Director

Of?ce of Innovation and .lmprovement
US. Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC. 20202

Dear Mr. Huh,

The Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools is pleased to submit this letter of support for'the Ohio
Department of Education?sOf?ce of'Quality School Choice in its submission for a. 20] 5 Charter School
Program Grant for State Educational Agencies.

.As a statewide membership organization. dedicated to expanding the scope and quality of Ohio?s charter
schools, OAPCSjoins ODE in its commitment to create new and better educational options, particularly
for the state?s disadvantaged students. We believe an SEA grant to expand high-quality charter schools in
Ohio is critical to the continuous improvement of student, achievement in the state?s urban centers.
Further, additional funds would help generate equitable outcomes for. all students, especially those in
challenging economic environments with limited resources and access to high-performing schools.

Currently, the families of nearly 125,000 students in Ohio choose charter schools as they seek innovation,
equity. and quality for'their children. The challenge for education leaders in our communities is providing
more successful charter options so more students can bene?t. In this endeavor, OAPCS fully endorses
the efforts of Of?ce of Quality School Choice to seek grant funding to increase the number of
high-quality charter schools availablein the state. Improving the charter school sector in'Ohio is a high
priority we share with our state leadership and our families. We urge your favorable consideration ofthis
SEA application.

Sincerely,

Pea/4m: Una-Z9

Dr; Darlene Chambers
President and CH)

33 N.Third Street, Suite 600 Columbus, OH 43215 I Fax: (614) 744-2255 

Leadership for
Public Charter Schools

 

 

OHIO EOE QUALITY EDUCATION

I.

i

I

July 8, 2015

Stephan Huh, Director
Of?ce of Innovation and Improvement
US. Department :of Education
400 Maryland Ave, SW
Washington, DC I20202



Subject: Charter School Program for State Education Agencies


I
Dear Mr. Huh 

The Ohio Coalition for Quality Education is the leadership organization representing Ohio?s public
charter schools and the high performing charter school sponsors.

With nearly 400 :charter schools educating over 123,000 students, Ohio has become one of the
nation's leading states providing options to thousands of families searching for quality educational

choices for their children.

Working with many of Ohio?s leading charter school stakeholders, the Ohio Department of
Education?s - Of?ce of Quality School Choice has been highly focused in propelling excellence in
education. This grant will help continue to expand the number of high quality charter schools in

Ohio. 

i

We strongly support their application for the Charter School Grant for State Educational Agencies.

Regards,

 

 

Ron F. Adler
President

 

Phone: 937-239-7969 Fax: 937-847-8825 1808 Sulky Trail, Miamisburg, OH 45342

Website: ocqe.org 

  

  



Board
Farmer Coletti
Trustee

Robert E. Coletti
Trustee

Scott D. Farmer
Trustee

Mary J. Farmer
Trustee

Amy Farmer Joseph
Trustee

George R. Joseph
Trustee

Founders

Richard Farmer
Joyce E. Farmer

Execgtive Director
Mary Beth Martin



 

 

THE FARNIER FANIILY FOUNDATION
funding for t?e future

July 14, 2015

Mr. Stephan Huh

Of?ce of Innovation and Improvement
US. Department of Education

400 Maryland Ave., SW.
Washington, DC 20202

Dear Mr. Huh:

Please accept this letter of support for the Ohio Department of Education?s (ODE)
application for funding through the US. Department of Education?s Charter School
Programs State Education Agency Grant. The grant has the potential to leverage
many exciting education reform efforts underway across Ohio and in Cincinnati.

The Farmer Family Foundation is a private family foundation based in Cincinnati.
One of our core focus areas for investment is improving educational outcomes for at-
risk youth. Together with key business, philanthropic, and community leaders from
across Cincinnati, we have recently launched a new organization Accelerate Great
Schools - with a mission to double the number of students with access to high
performing schools in the next ?ve years. Accelerate Great Schools is an example of
aCommunity Education Development Organization. We will raise a $25 million
fund over ?ve years to support the launch of an ecosystem of high performing
schools for Cincinnati. This would have a demonstrable impact on student outcomes
and the larger economic vibrancy of our community.

Over the past several years, The Farmer Family Foundation has had the pleasure of
partnering with ODE to advance education opportunities for underserved students in
Ohio. We look forward to ongoing opportunities to work with them to meet our
shared objective of increasing the number of high-quality seats in Ohio.

The Farmer Family Foundation is extremely supportive of grant application
and appreciative of the opportunity it may provide to our families and youth in need.
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
a  i  C.
Mary Eeth Martin

Executive Director

6847 Cintas Boulevard, Suite 120 Mason, Ohio 45040 9 (513) 459-1085 0 Fax (513) 573-4078

.. ..

THE GREATER
July 14, 2015 I CINCINNATI

FOUNDATION



Stephan Huh- i

Office of Innovation and Improvement
US. Department of Education

400 Maryland Ave, SW.
Washington, DC 20202

Dear Mr. Huh: I

I am writing to expressIlstrong support from The Greater Cincinnati Foundation for Ohio?s application for
funding through the US. Department of Education?s Charter School Programs Startup Grants for State
Education Agencies. 

The Greater CincinnatilFoundation has invested over $2.2 million over the last 5 years to improve the
educational success ofour region. Too many Greater Cincinnati children enter kindergarten not prepared for
school, not succeeding, educationally in elementary school through high school, nor successfully transitioning
into post?secondary education. Nearly half of all adults in our region currently lack any education beyond high
school. It is estimated that by 2018, two-thirds of all jobs will require some type of post-secondary credential or
degree. We have invested a wide range of educational programs, including a regional early childhood
education initiative, programs to reengage urban teenagers in learning, and partnerships to support non-
traditional and ?rst-generation college students in furthering their education.

The Ohio Department of Education is working diligently to improve charter school quality in Ohio and support
the creation of improved educational opportunities for students across the state. This grant would allow
communities to partner with the State of Ohio to increase the pace of innovation and improvement. The newly
launched Accelerate Great Schools organization in our city is focused on doubling the number of students in
high performing seats. Cincinnati is on the brink of meaningful change in education and such a partnership
could dramatically boost the scope and pace of change.

The Greater Cincinnati 1Foundation stands in support of this proposal and is con?dent that students and
families in Ohio would benefit from such an opportunity.

Sincerely, 

Shiloh Turner


Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-2775

tel: 513-241-2880

 

CINCINNATI REGIONAL
BUSINESS COMMITTEE

 
3 East Fourth Street, Suite 302
Cincinnati, OH 45202
(513) 784-4111
July 14, 201 5;
i
Stephan Huh 

Of?ce of Inndvation and Irnprovcment
U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Ave, S.W.
Washington, DC 20202

Dear Mr. :2

As the chairm1an of the Cincinnati Regional Business Committee (CRBC), I would like to offer
support for Ohio?s funding application through the U.S. Department of Education?s Charter
School Prograims Startup Grants for State Education Agencies.

The CRBC is a mid-cap, executive civic organization. Comprised of more than 75 members, the
CRBC is dedipated to promoting transformational change and improving economic
competitiveness in the greater Cincinnati region.

The CRBC recently helped to launch a new organization called Accelerate Great Schools to
dramatically ir'nprove educational opportunities for students in Cincinnati. This broad community
effort has been supported by philanthropic, business, education, and faith-based organizations in
our city. The organization is focused on doubling the number of students in high performing
schools over the next ?ve years by investing in new schools, grong talent pipelines for
quali?ed teachers, and improving policy conditions. Community partners are pursuing a $25
million fund to support Accelerate Great Schools over the next ?ve years. CRBC has committed
$1 million. In total, over $15 million has been raised to date.

We urge you to support Ohio?s application. It would enable the Ohio Department of Education to
become a key partner with groups like Accelerate Great Schools to transform communities
across the state by creating new high performing school options for students and their families.

Sincerely, 



Scott Robertson
Chairman 
Cincinnati Regional Business Committee





I
I
I

 



5 telephone [513] 241.91 1 1
July 14, 2015 3  [51312415260

Cincinnati Business Committee

 

600 Vine Street. Sulfa 1908
Cincinnati, OH 45202

Stephan Huh

Of?ce of Innovation and Improvement
US. Department of Education

400 Maryland Ave, S.W.

Washington, DC 20202

Dear Mr. Huh:

I am writing on behalf of the Cincinnati Business Committee (CBC) in support of Ohio?s application for
funding through the US. Department of Education?s Charter School Programs State Education Agency
Grant. If awarded, this grant fimding would dramatically accelerate our education reform efforts here in
Cincinnati and across the state.

The CBC is an organization of CEOs in the Greater Cincinnati area committed to identifying and
providing leadership on issues that improve our community?s long-term economic vitality and well-being.
We place special emphasis on economic development, public education, and government reform and
collaboration. -

The CBC is committed to improving education options for disadvantaged students in Cincinnati. Earlier
this year, we joined forces with leaders from the philanthropic, business, and education communities to
launch a new organization with the mission of doubling the number of students with access to high
performing schools in our community over the next ?ve years. This organization - called ?Accelerate
Great Schools? will focus on attracting and growing proven school models from across the country and
building the talent pipeline needed to fuel a local system of high performing schools. Our community
partners are pursuing a $25 million ?md to support this work over the next ?ve years.

If successful in this grant application, the Ohio Department of Education could become a key partner with
groups like Accelerate Great Schools to create new high performing school options for families.

Again, the CBC is pleased to support Ohio?s grant application and view this as an exciting opportunity to
accelerate education reform efforts across the state.

Gary Lindgren 
Executive Director
Cincinnati Business Committee

 1'

GREATER
CLEVELAND
. PARTNERSHIP

1240 Huron Road 5, Suite 300
Cleveland, Ohio-44115

216.621.3300 - 216.621.6013


July 15, 2015



Stephan Huh 1

Office of Innovation and 
US. Department of Education

400 Maryland Ave., S.W. 
Washington, DC 20202

Ms. Huh: 1


The mission ofthe Greater Cleveland Partnership (GCP) is to mobilize private sector leadership, expertise and
resources to create jobs ai1d economic vitality for the region. We do that in many ways by promoting public policies
that improve the business'and economic climate; working to enhance our physical infrastructure and next-generation
projects and civic assets; aind continuing the momentum that is underway with regard to education reform.

GCP was an integral partner in the creation of Cleveland?s Plan for Transforming Schools that seeks to ensure every
child in the City of Cleveland has an excellent education and every neighborhood has great schools- public and
charter. We worked closely with local and state leadership to create the enabling legislation (HB 525) for the
Cleveland Plan that passed in 2012, and the local levy that has helped to fund its implementation. A key component
of that plan was the creatibn of the Transformation Alliance the watchdog for charter quality and growth in the City
of Cleveland. Led by Mayor Frank Jackson, the Alliance is comprised of key stakeholders from the education, union,
business, and civic commu'lnity who are all committed to the success of Cleveland?s kids.

I.
As a member of the Transformation Alliance, I have had the opportunity to collaborate with the Ohio Department of
Education as an important partner in our work. If awarded a grant from this initiative, we could strengthen our
collective efforts to transform the quality of education for all children in our city and, ultimately, the State of Ohio.
For these reasons, we support the Ohio Department of Education?s Charter Startup School grant proposal. Thank you
for your consideration. i

Best regards,

    

resident CEO

I



I
1

i Afounder of

-Clevelond+

I Akron-r inhumnuwn

July 14, 2015

Stephan Huh

Of?ce of Innovation and Improvement
U.S. Departrnent of Education

400 Maryland Ave, SW.
Washington, DC 20202

Dear Mr. Huh:

I am writing on behalf of the Lovett and Ruth Peters Foundation in support of the state of Ohio?s
application for ?nding through the U.S. Department of Education?s Charter School Programs State
Education Agency Grant.

The Lovett and Ruth Peters Foundation, based in Cincinnati, is focused on improving the quality of
education and has partnered with leaders from the philanthropic, business, and education
communities to launch a new effort called Accelerate Great Schools. This organization will work to
double the number of students with access to high performing schools in our community over the
next ?ve years. It will focus on expanding and attracting proven school models, building human
capital pipelines, and engaging and informing the community. This is a transformational moment for
educational innovation and improvement in our community.

As president of the Lovett and Ruth Peters Foundation, I am pleased to support this proposal. Should
Ohio be awarded funding, I am con?dent that it will signi?cantly contribute to our ability to provide
improved educational opportunities for the most disadvantaged children in our community.

Sincerely,
90AM 9' Prim

Daniel S. Peters, President
Lovett Ruth Peters Foundation
1500 Chiquita Center

250 East Fifth St.

Cincinnati, OH 45202

Tel: 513.562.1550
dan@petersfd.n.org

COLUMBUS

PARTNERSHIP

150 South Front St
Suite 200
Columbus. OH 43215

(614) 225.0500
(614) 225.9300


July 14, 2015

Mr. Stephan Huh

Director, Of?ce of Innovation and Improvement
US. Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20202

Dear Mr. Huh:

On behalf of the Columbus Partnership, I am writing to express our support of the Of?ce of Quality School
Choice in applying for the Public Charter School Program Grant for State Education Agencies through the
US. Department of Education.

I believe that quality education is imbedded in the integral foundation of our economic development work
which supports the local community. The Columbus Partnership is dedicated to creating and maintaining the
best urban metropolitan education infrastructure in the nation serving as a magnet to attracting talent and
businesses to the Columbus Region. Therefore, this grant is essential in supporting and sustaining quality
charter schools in the state of Ohio.

I have full con?dence that awarding this grant to the Ohio Department of Education will be the next key step
in improving our education system.

Very truly yours,

a, r. 

Alex R. Fischer
President and CEO



 

 

 

Governing Board
James Telb

Jeffrey Bunck,
Michael Dansack, ir.


Joe Rutherford

SANDRA C. FRISCH
Superintendent

RICHARD A. COX
Treasurer

Administrative Of?ces
2275 Col Iingwood Blvd.
Toledo, OH 43620-1100

Community Schools Center
4955 Seaman Road
Oregon, OH #3616

419.246.3137
419.246.3127



 

 

 

 

 

 

[0 an
4
I

June 29, 2015

David Hansen

Executive Director

Office of Quality School Choice
25 South Front Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215

Dear Mr. Hansen:

It is my pleasure to write this letter of support on behalf of the Educational Service Center of
Lake Erie West in the submission of the application for Charter School Program Grant for State
Educational Agencies by the Office of Quality School Choice.

As an organization that sponsors charter schools in Ohio, we understand the importance of
our schools providing the best education possible for the students of Ohio. It is increasingly
beneficial for us to evaluate the academic and social effectiveness of our charter schools for
students, staff, and parents. Having an opportunity to expand those successful programs, in
the highest of quality facilities, will only make Ohio stand out as a national leader in the
charter school movement.

In conclusion, I fully support the efforts of the Office of Quality School Choice as they seek
external funding to increase the understanding of the charter school model to benefit our
students and their communities.

Sincerely,


Apryl M. Morin, MOD.
Director

Center for Community Schools
Educational Service Center of Lake Erie West

 

 

To Whom it May Concern;

As one of three exemplary authorizer/sponsors in Ohio we write in support of the Office of Quality School Choice at the Ohio
Department of Education as they seek funding for the Charter School Program Grant. Under the direction of
Executive Director, David Hanson, ODE has worked tirelessly strengthening Ohio?s charter school movement by enacting
policy changes and administrative processes.

Ohio?s charter school movement began in 1998 with a small school in Toledo that served fewer than 200 at-risk students.
Since then, the movement has evolved into one of the strongest and largest school choice communities in the country.
Nationwide, over 6,000 charter schools operate in 42 states and the District of Columbia, serving 2.3 million students. In
Ohio, there are 383 charter schools serving approximately 125,000 students. As the sole sponsoring designee ofthe
University of Toledo, the Ohio Council of Community Schools is one of two original sponsors borne out of Ohio's
original school choice experiment. We are proud of our partnership with the University and of the opportunities it
provides for our sponsored schools. in addition, we are proud of our partnership with ODE as together we attempt to
change the quality of charter schools opening, and operating in Ohio.

One of the current challenges in Ohio is that schools are not encouraged to replicate. If a school wish to replicate or
relocate to Ohio they would have to bear the entire cost because funds are not available.

The Charter School Program Grant would only strengthen Ohio Charter School Movement by;

- Providing financial assistance for planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools;

- Evaluating the effects of charter schools, including the effects on students, student achievement, student growth,
staff and parents; and

- Expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available to students in Ohio;

As noted above, ODE is making great progress in altering Ohio?s charter school movement and with the assistance the
Charter School Program Grant, ODE would be provided the leverage to encourage high quality charter schools to
replicate, relocate and or start anew.

Yours in Education Choice,

Lenny Schafer PCC-S
Executive Director
Ohio Council of Community Schools

George S. Barrett Cardinal Health

Chairman and 7000 Cardinal Place

Chief Executive Officer Dublin, OH 43017
614.757.7770 dir
614.757.8770 fax

Ca rd i I13 I Hea  cardinalhealthcom

July 14, 2015

Stephan Huh, Director

Office of Innovation and Improvement
US. Department of Education

400 Maryland Ave, SW

Washington, DS 20202

Dear Mr. Huh,

On behalf of Cardinal Health, am writing to express our support of the Office of Quality
School Choice in applying for the Public Charter School Program Grant for State
Education Agencies through the US. Department of Education.

We believe that educating our children for a life of opportunity is one of our community?s
most important responsibilities. And we recognize that failure to prepare our children for
the future carries with it staggering costs to individuals, families, neighborhoods and our
city's economy. The development and sustainability of high performing charter schools
is an important part of an effective education ecosystem. As such, this grant will help
ensure quality charter school Opportunities are available for students in the state of Ohio,
particularly those from low-income and minority families.

I am confident that awarding this grant to the Ohio Department of Education will
contribute to improving our education system and help us support the success of all
children.

Sincerely,



George S. Barrett

Deneice L. Cooper

Home Email address: 

Business Email address: 

 

Future Objective: Obtain School Treasurer?s License and become a certified School Treasurer

To obtain a School Treasurer?s License I have completed all required coursework at Ashland
University; and will begin the 300 hour internship with a current School Treasurer as early as
September, 2015 and complete the internship over the next two years.

Qualifications and Experience:

Accomplished "funding specialist? with more than twelve years of public service and twelve years of
achievement within the civil engineering industry. Professional experience includes more than 24
years in securing and administering federal, state grants and low-interest loans for public entities,
including six years of public service managing a small staff and a large number of volunteers. Areas of
strength include written and verbal communication, including organizing and planning, public
relations and marketing as well as grant administration.

Ohio Department of Education; Compliance Manager/Interim Lead Consultant, February 2015 to
present; as the Compliance Manager with the Office of Quality School Choice, my responsibilities
include conducting a thorough review of how authorizers/ sponsors monitor a school?s compliance
with state and federal laws, rules, and provisions of the community school?s contract. There are two
phases to evaluate authorizer compliance monitoring. The initial phase requires authorizers to
complete an "Authorizer Monitoring Review Instrument? where they describe how they monitor their
schools; I complete a desk review verifying that process is carried out by reviewing documentation
provided by the authorizers and or by the school; this process will link the authorizers work to its
compliance monitoring obligations. On-site reviews include verifying authorizer monitoring practices
of 20 core items of compliance that could not be confirmed through the desk review, plus 3 additional
items chosen at random from additional items statue requires by Visiting up to 10% of schools
authorized by each authorizer/ sponsor each year. To complete the compliance review, I provide the
results of the review and feedback to the authorizers with the compliance rating of exemplary,
effective, or ineffective.

As the Interim Lead Consultant, I am responsible to interpret and communicate laws and rules related
to charter school authorizers and charter schools; perform ad hoc analyses and write reports; review
legislative proposals and make legislative recommendations to the department?s leadership; respond to
diverse constituent questions, requests and complaints; provide training to stakeholders; tracks and
monitors data for the office and assesses progress toward strategic goals.

Ohio Department of Education; Interim School Options Enrollment SvsteijOES)
Administrator/Community School Pavment Administrator, September 2013 to present; in this
position as the SOES Interim Administrator with the office of School Finance Office of Community
Schools, my responsibilities include working in cooperation with IT office to complete 
payments to all public charter schools; tracking the payments in and out of the payment system to be

used as backup during AOS Audits; as well as working in cooperation with Area Coordinators to
resolve disputes between resident districts and charter schools, track on-site reviews of charter school
data used to determine payments. I also serve as the point of contact for charter school financial issues,
the SOES (system) and finalize the materials used in FY14 to explain charter school finances and data
entry, answer phone calls and emails from treasurers and other school administrators regarding
foundation payments and the SOES system.

Ohio Department of Education; Grants Coordinator, December 2010 to February 23; in my position as

 

the Grants Coordinator with the Office of Community Schools, my responsibilities include
coordinating the federal grant application, being the Project Director of the application, and the
Authorized Organization Representative for grants. gov. conducting Elluminate trainings, coordinating
the peer review process during the evaluation period of the applications from sub-recipients, providing
other technical support to eligible sub recipients of Public Charter School Program funds through the
application process and after award is provided, updating appropriate guidance documents.
Responsibilities also include monitoring sub-recipients, completing fiscal desk reviews and program
reviews as well as conducting school site visits. Fiscal desk reviews are completed to ensure the federal
funds are being spent in a timely manner following all the federal regulations, particularly required by
EDGAR. Site visits include monitoring educational programs, student achievement objectives,
program evaluation/ data collection and submission, governance and management plans as well as
equipment inventories purchased with PCSP funds, etc.

Ohio Department of Education; Fiscal Specialist; December 2009 to December 2010; during my
tenure with Office of Federal and State Grant Management, my responsibilities included
reviewing and approving all paper Project Cash Requests and Final Expenditure Reports in accordance
to program, state and federal guidelines. Good communication skills are key when dealing with school
district treasurers, specifically as issues arise prior to final approval of PCRs and FERs. Other
responsibilities include sub-recipient monitoring/ desk reviews of FERs, verifying allowable
expenditures completed within the period of availability, utilizing accounting records including bank
statements, invoices, payroll records, etc. provided by the school district. Also regarding ARRA
monitoring; desk reviews are completed to ensure the federal stimulus funds are being spent in a
timely manner following all the federal regulations, particularly required by EDGAR.

Ohio School for the Deaf/Ohio State School for the Blind; Grants Coordinator; December 2005 to
December 2009; during this time, responsibilities included coordination and submission of grant
proposals for OSD and OSSB, further responsibilities included monitoring all proposals until awards
were received. After the awards, responsibilities included drawing down grant funds, completing
PCRs and FERs, etc. Grants included, Title VI-B, CCIP Special Ed Part B, Title IIA, Title IVA, ARRA
IDEA, Byrne Memorial, Parent Mentor, Statewide Early Childhood, eTech Ohio K-12 Network,
etc. Other responsibilities included: processing ISTV receivables in OAKS, approving cash deposits in
completing Schedule of Federal Expenditures reports, etc.

Poggemever Design Group; Community Development Specialist; June 2004 to October 2005;
provided professional grant/ loan writing and administration to various cities and villages in Ohio.
Responsibilities included marketing to counties, cities, villages and water sewer districts. In
addition, was responsible for acquiring the City of Nelsonville and Trimble Township Wastewater
District as clients. Also, was the Client Representative for the City of Nelsonville.

M-E Companies, Inc.; Funding Specialist; January 2000 to May 2004; provided professional

 

grant/ loan writing and administration services to 41 counties, cities, villages, townships and water 8:
sewer authorities. Involved with more than 200 projects in the water, wastewater, storm water, etc.
fields, performing a value-added service to public clients. Total grant/ loan amount secured:
$48,804,790. 

Inc.; Grants Director; August 1998 to December 1999; responsible for writing federal and
state grants to fund infrastructure projects for public clients. Also prepared informational materials for
staff and clients specific to funding options and grant requirements.

Bischoff 8: Associates, Inc.; Funding_Director; April 1995 to August 1998; achieved funding for public
clients? infrastructure projects through grants and low interest loans from Public Works Commission,
Ohio Water Development Authority, Department of Development, etc.

City of Mansfield/Richland County; Litter Prevention 8: Recycling Coordinator/ Keep America
Beautiful Coordinator; March 1989 to April 1995; was responsible to manage 3 people and recruit
numerous volunteers to promote litter prevention and recycling programs throughout the city and
county. Additional responsibility included writing the proposal to achieve a state grant to fund the
program annually. 

Mansfield City SchoolsLInstructor-Adult Education; July 1936 to March 1989; was responsible to
instruct adult students participating in the Automated Office Processing program.

Mansfield Substitute Teacher; January 1986 to June 1986.
Education 8: Training:

Ashland University; summer 2013 to March 2015. Coursework includes graduate classes in School
Administration, School Law, School Finance/ Economics and an internship with a current school
treasurer. 

Columbus State Community College; summer 2013. Coursework included undergraduate Accounting
1211 and Accounting 1212.

Certificates of Completion; Columbus State Community College; 2008. Courses included Excel 2003
Intermediate 8: Advanced, Access 2003 Basic, Intermediate and Advanced and Project 2003
Introduction.

North Central State College; 1989; undergraduate Accounting 1.

Program; Ashland University; completed 1988. Coursework included post-baccalaureate
Accounting, Business Administration, Statistics, Qualitative Analysis, Marketing, etc.

3.8. in Early and Middle Childhood Education; The Ohio State University, 1985.

Letters of Reference; available upon request from the following:

Dr. Joni Hoffman, Director; Ohio Department of Education Office of Community Schools.

Mr. Brian Jones, Director; Ohio Department of Education Office of Federal and State Grant Management.

Ms. Johnson} Superintendent; Ohio State School for the Blind.

Karlyn J. Geis

 

Related Skills

0 SQL 
- SAS 7
0 Microsoft} Office

Experience
1/2015 to Present Ohio Department of Education Columbus, OH
Data Administration Manager 2

Mentors lower level data managers

0 Coordinates and guides the work of lower level data managers

0 Develops?definitions and business rules related to the collection and use of new data elements
required by rule, law and other customer needs

0 Provides subject matter expertise to enhance development of new data collection and
evaluation tools

0 Provides data and analyses to promote data based decision making by leadership

0 Educates internal staff and external customers about correct uses of agency data

0 Works with internal staff and external customers to resolve complex data reporting issues

5/2004 to 1/2015? Ohio Department of Education Columbus, OH

Data Administration Manager 1

0 Develops definitions and business rules related to the collection and use of new data elements
required by rule, law and other customer needs

0 Provides subject matter expertise to enhance development of new data collection and
evaluation tools

0 Provides data and analyses to promote data based decision making by leadership

0 Educates internal staff and external customers about correct uses of agency data

0 Works with internal staff and external customers to resolve complex data reporting issues

6/2003 to 10/2004 Ohio Department of Education Columbus, OH
Social Science Research Specialist

- Evaluated. school performance

- Analyzed data for internal and external customers
0 Produced data based reports

6/2002 to 6/6003 Department of Sociology, Ohio State University Columbus, OH

0 Graduate Research Associate

0 Provided consultation for statistical applications
0 Provided consultation for data management

0 Maintained and updated departmental databases

9/2000 to 6/2002? Department of Sociology, Ohio State University Columbus, OH
Graduate Research Associate

0 Built relational database in MS Access

- Collected, cleaned, coded and analyzed data
0 Conducted research

0 Co-authored academic journal articles

0 Presented research at national conference

6/1997 to 9/2000 Department of Sociology, Ohio State University Columbus, OH
Managing Editor, Journal of Health and Social Behavior

0 Established and oversaw review process
0 Supervised staff to publish quarterlyjournal on time and within budget
0 Coordinated stakeholders (authors, reviewers, publishing house) to manage publishing process

9/1996 to 6/1997? Department of Sociology, Ohio State University Columbus, OH

Graduate Research Associate

0 Collected and analyzed data

0 Conducted research

0 Authored academic journal articles
Education

12/1996 to 6/2003 Ohio State University Columbus, OH
ABD
9/1994 to 12/1996 Ohio State University Columbus, OH

Master of Arts, Sociology

9/1988 to 6/1992 Ohio State University Columbus, OH

Bachelor of Arts, Photography

References are available on request.

David James Hansen
(614)466-0452
25 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 4321 5 -

Ohio Department of Education, Columbus, Ohio. Executive Director of Quality School Choice; 2013-present.

In August, I joined the Ohio Department of Education in the newly created position of Executive Director of Quality
School Choice. Through this role, I oversee the Department?s three of?ces of Community Schools, Nonpublic Options
and Charter School Sponsorship.

Kilden Consulting, Columbus, Ohio. President; 2011-present.

Provided strategic counsel and expert assistance to leaders pursuing innovation and reform in education. Kilden
Consulting delivers value to clients through policies, communications, training and advocacy that move the
window of possibility in favor of educational excellence. Special focus areas include charter school authorizing,
school governance, blended learning, and education ?nance and philanthropy.

National Associationjof Charter School Authorizers (NACSA), Chicago, Illinois. Vice President, Policy and
Advocacy, later Senior Advisor; 2009-2012.

Led a comprehensive advocacy and communications effort improving the policy environment for charter
school authorizers by:

- Injecting NACSA's principles and policies into recent environment of charter expansion.

0 Designing and carrying out a National Advocacy Campaign connecting the organization's
experience, expertise and policy agenda to charter policy debates in twenty states. Resulting in
six states creating statewide charter authorizing authorities and ?ve writing NACSA's Principles
Standardsi'into statute.

Overseeing federal advocacy.

Presenting NACSA's case for federal support of quality authorizing in appropriations and
legislation to over twenty congressional offices, including the "Big 8"of education authorizers
and appropriators, and as well to the Department of Education?s Office of Charter Schools
Program.

0 Representing NACSA at congressional brie?ng panels and prepared hearing appearances and
testimony by president before two congressional committees. As a result, charter
school authorizing is now supported in current federal appropriations and included in both House
and Senate versions of CSP reauthorization. 

Communicating NACSA principles, standards and commitment to charter quality.

Under my direction, NACSA aggressively positioned itself as the independent expert on charter quality
through outreach to educational partners, annual conference design, earned communications, social
media, research dissemination and other tools of reputation development and policy education. As a
result, NACSA was a leader in the successful effort to put charter quality on the agendas of state and
federal policymakers as they have sought to expand the sector.

Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions. ColumbusLOhio. President: 2004-2009.

As president I carried.? out a strategic plan that signi?cantly grew the Buckeye Institute's impact on policy, as well as its
value to donors, by: focusing the Institute?s mission, raising its objectives, driving alignment of research and policy
proposals. Under my direction the Buckeye Institute centered its work on returning prOSperity to Ohio through
freedom. I developed an agenda of reforms linked to prosperity, and built up the intellectual capital of research and
commentary to promote each in the debates about Ohio's future. Through growing our communications impact, I made
the penetration and persuasiveness of our ideas in the public debate a new priority for the Institute. We redesigned our
products and writing standards to meet needs of key audiences, and I used a strategy where the Buckeye Institute
?became the media' and successfully utilized web 2.0 tactics to promote our work.

Ohio Manufacturers Association, Columbus. Ohio. Managing Director of Public Policy Services;
2001-2004.
Directed all governmental affairs activities of Ohio's second largest corporate trade association.
Led the design and execution of two major policy initiatives:
0 Elimination of two onerous taxes on manufacturing and capital formation, and awarded OMA's "Legacy
Award? for this success.

0 Comprehensive reform of state tort laws, including landmark asbestos litigation reform.
Successfully organized the political resources of member businesses in support of Association policies in taxes,
economic development, workforce development, energy, and workers compensation.

Michigan State Senate. Lansing. Michigan. Chief of Staff of Senate. Director of Maiority Policy Of?ce; 1994-1998.
Served the Majority Leader as the chief executive of?cer for the Senate. Responsible for formulating and enforcing
senate administrative policy, acting as liaison with other government and outside interest groups, and initiating and
coordinating special projects for the Majority Leader and the Majority Caucus. Responsible for legislative policy
development of the?Majority Caucus in the Senate. Managed a staff of twenty-four professionals and support staff
that served members and committees. Responsible for several high-level legislative services including consultation
on policy and legislative options, bill and amendment drafting, committee staf?ng, floor management of legislation
and advice on legislative politics.

Public policy and political research consultant. Lansing, Michigan. Market Strategies, Inc. for domestic assignments;
International Republican Institute for international proiects; 1993-2001.

Contributed to growing democratic values with political parties and non-govemmental organizations in Central

and Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Middle East. Served as an advisor on building democratic
legitimacy in public institutions, setting political and legislative agendas, and strengthening political

accountability. Increased popular sovereignty in developing democracies by executing complex Opinion research
projects which gave a voice to citizens' opinions and concerns.

George H.W. Bush Presidential Campaigns and Republican National Committee. Washington. DC. Director of
Strategic Information; Director of Opinion Research and AnalysisLDeputy Director of Survey Research; 1988-
1992.

Designed and built strategic information systems for Bush-Quayle campaigns and White House political leadership.
Assembled and managed the foundation of this system, a research of?ce of nine with a $3 million annual
budget. Reported to Campaign and White House decision makers on ?ndings from economic, elections, public
opinion, gee- demographic and media content data. Consulted on campaign strategy, message and resource
allocations, including advertising purchasing and Presidential travel.

Minnesota House of Representatives. St. Paul, Minnesota. Committee Administrator: Policy Analyst; 1985-1988.
Managed legislation on elections, gambling and veterans' affairs for the House General Legislation and Veterans
Affairs Committee. 

Education 
University of Bergen; Bergen, Norway
Graduate degree in Scandinavian literature and linguistics, 1983

Williams College; illiamstown, Massachusetts
Bachelor of Arts in Economics major with concentration 5 in political science and sociology, 1980

Public Service Highlights

Nexus Academy of Columbus, Founding Board Chair

Academy of Columbus and Great Western Academy, Board

Member

School Choice Ohio, Board Member

Peace Gahanna Lutheran Church, Catechism Leader

Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington, Vice Chair of Board and Treasurer, 2001-2007

Joni Hoffman

 

SKILLS

 

I Strong oral and written communication skills

Excellent planning, organization, and time-management skills

Proven research and analysis skills

Demonstrated capacity to identify problems and provide logical solutions
Talent for prioritizing work with attention to detail

Aptitude for interfacing with all levels of management

Computer pro?ciencies including MS Of?ce

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

2011- present I

2004 - 2011

2001 -2004

2000?2001

Director, Of?ce of Community Schools, Ohio Department of
Education. Oversight of charter school authorizers,

deploying three component evaluation system; develop
administrative rules for aspects of authorizing and design of
performance accountability for dropout prevention and
recovery charters; interface with charter school payment
system; wind-up federal Public Charter School grant; provide
information products and guidance about charter school
operations and performance.

Associate Director, Office of Community Schools, Ohio
Department of Education. Transitioned from authorizer role
to approval and oversight of charter school authorizers.
Administer federal Public Charter School Grant. Provide
technical assistance to all stakeholders along the continuum
of charter school development, operations, and closure.
Approve payments to new charter schools. Develop policy,
legislative recommendations, and administrative rules to
guide the program's operation.

Assistant Director, Of?ce of Community Schools, Ohio
Department of Education. Technical assistance and
oversight of State Board authorized public charter schools;
evaluation of State Board sponsored schools for charter
renewal decisions; provide guidance to charter school
developers; guide policy development.

Interim Director, Of?ce of School Options, Ohio Department
of Education. Supervised the department's authorizing of

1999-2000

1994-1999

1992-1994

1992

1987-1992

1979-1986

Educa?on

1987

public charter schools; chartering of non-public schools;
requirements relevant to home schooling; non-chartered,
non-tax schools; general oversight of the Cleveland voucher
program.

Charter School Consultant, Of?ce of School Options, Ohio
Department of Education. Lead consultant for State Board
sponsored charter schools in southwest Ohio, providing
monitoring and technical assistance; accountability lead;
of?ce liaison for Research Council, Local Report Card
steering committee.

Deputy Director, Of?ce of Research and Planning, Ohio
Department of Human Services. Created the office,
centralized existing research functions and developed new
ones.

Policy Coordinator, Immediate Office _of the Secretary, US.
Department of Health and Human Services. Managed policy
and regulatory development processes for the Administration
for Children and Families, Food and Drug Administration,

and the Administration on Aging.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Management
and Budget, US. Department of Health and Human
Services. Coordinated special initiatives in health care
?nancing reform, minority health, and disaster recovery.

Health Statistician, Of?ce of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation. Developed policy and legislative
proposals; provided subject matter expertise in
maternal/infant health; research project manager (women's
health t0pics).

Various research and data managerjobs, including
researcher on a leukemia study; database administrator,
asthma study; computer services graduate assistant (data
retrievals, analyses, consultation)

Health Services Research, University of Texas,
School of Public Health, Houston, Texas

Dissertation: A Comparison of Labor and Delivery
Management in Two Settings

Awarded a Health Services Research Fellowship from the
US. Department of Health and Human Services, 1984-1985,

1981 - MPH, Community Health Practice, University of Texas,
School of Public Health, Houston, Texas
Thesis: The Use of the Mini-Mult as a Predictor of
Readmission

1972 B.A., Sociology, University of California, San Diego,
California

References available upon request

Education

Kelsey R. Stephens

 

i 


The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

Master of Arts in Sociology, 2010

Bachelor of Arts in Sociology and Criminology, 2006
Summa cum laude

Summary of Qualifications

Advanced data management and analysis skills including: SAS, STATA, SPSS, SQL Developer
and Microsoft Office.

Experience manipulating and analyzing large, complex data sets.

Advanced statistical training and experience in complex data analysis.

Strong analytical thinking with demonstrated talent for identifying, scrutinizing, improving, and
streamlining complex work processes.

Exceptional communicator who effectively conveys information verbally and in writing.

Professional Experience

State of Ohio Department of Education, ITO, Office of Data Quality Governance. Columbus, OH
Data Administration Manager, 2014?present

Datafmanagement and analysis using SAS, SQL, Excel
Project management and coordination
Datafconsultation, monitoring and quality assurance
Federal and state reporting

Datafand public records request fulfillment
Customer support and identification of data issues

State of Ohio Department of Health, Lead and Healthy Homes Program. Columbus, OH
Surveillance Coordinator, 2011?2014

Statewide data manager .

Laboratory reporting improvement and compliance coordinator

Data {management and analysis using Stata, Excel, SAS, Epi Info and 
Research and project coordination

Project management and federal grant reporting

Data Standards monitoring and improvement

Data deveIOpment, implementation and deployment

The Ohio State University, Department of Sociology. Columbus, OH
Graduate Research Associate, Graduate Teaching Associate, 2007-2010

Development and implementation of large research projects with faculty
Data analysis using Stata, Excel and SPSS

Supervision of undergraduate research assistants

Instruction of eleven sociology courses

Lesson plan development and grading

 

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

OHIO COUNCIL OF COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, Toledo, Ohio 2011-Present
Director of Contracts and External Relations

0 Direct and coordinate all chatter contract functions including renewal/reauthorization, new school
contracting, contract amendments, updates and negotiations

- Investigate legislative, legal and other requirements that affect OCCS contracts, ensuring that all
OCCS school contracts and the contracting process comply with statutes and National
Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) best practices

- Re3pond to media requests and proactively work with the OCCS communications team to secure
solid media relationships and outcomes

0 Provide leadership for OCCS in local, state and national venues such as conferences, meetings,
presentations and associatiOns. Memberships include the Ohio Association of Charter School
Authorizers (OACSA Secretary, 2010-] 1, and currently Legislative Committee Chairman),
National Association of Charter School. Authorizers (NACSA), Ohio Council for Quality
Education (OCQE), Ohio Association of Public Charter Schools (OAPCS) and International
Association for Online Learning 

Ful?ll all public records requests in a timely manner

0 Manage lease, maintenance and related issues within the Toledo and Columbus of?ce space

- SuppOrt and assist with various administrative and operationalassignments, project teams and
strategic planning

0 Lead and implement intervention (probation, su3pension, termination) with failing schools and
communicate to stakeholders reasons for these actions

0 Implement and coordinate COmmunity school closure procedures as needed

0 Support data collection systems, such as Epicenter and OCCS Complaint Management Portal and
evaluate how they impact the- ?scal and academic success of by OCCS

- Lead and manage OCCS development of the ODE Sponsor Performance Review (SPR)

0 Present on various charter school issues at conferences, meetings and other events

0 Develop and implement seminars, workshops and in?service programs for community schools,
management companies and governing authorities sponsored by OCCS

Interact with and maintain a positive relationship with the OCCS Performance and Accountability
Committee, OCCS Board of Trustees, University of Toledo trustees and legal counsel, Ohio
Department of Education, Auditor of State and other public education stakeholders

- Support a culture with Sponsored schools that fosters school effectiveness and performance while
improving collaborative activities

0 Support efforts of OCCS that holds schools accountable for outcomes and performance

0 Assist Executive Director in managing the OCCS staff including administrative support team,
technology team, regional representatives, performance and accountability team, compliance
team and in-house legal counsel

LUCAS COUNTY EDUCATION-AL SERVICE CENTER, Toledo, Ohio
Community Schools Coordinator, Of?ce of Community Schools 2003-2011

Provided supportand consultation tocommunity schools Executive Director, community schools staff,
and other stakeholders in the area of- sponsorship, oversight and operations. Supported
Executive Director in building, managing and motivating community schools team. Responsible for
overseeing the authorizing, renewal and revocation, activities, monitoring performance of schools against
their goals, supporting community schools staff, presenting recommendations to the Board, and
representing LucasCounty Educational Service Center (LCESC) to the broader community. Led and
implemented interventions (probation, suspension, termination) withfailing- schools and communicated
reaso'nsfor these actions. Implemented and coordinated community school closure procedures as needed. 
Managed the technology needs of the community schools staff in conjunction with the LCESC Director of
Technology. Supported the LCESC Community Schools team in performing on?site evaluations. Testified
on behalf of LCESC and OACSA at the-Ohio State Board of Education and OhioSenate.

AMTRAK, Toledo, Ohio 1986-2002
Brand Manager, Marketing, Sales and Brand Management 1997-2002

Responsible for maximizing revenues with Amtrak?s most strategic travel agencies, corporate and
grassroots customers. Trained and supported travel agents and deve10ped strategic partnerships.
Implemented sales strategies and tactics to increase revenue and market share and achieve performance
goals and objectives. Managed multiple demands and competing priorities.

District Manager of Customer Services 1986-1997

Managed and directed all customer and train?related activities involving stations in 5 surrounding states,
ensuring an ef?cient customer-focused operation. Managed 56 employees and developed budgets and
operating plans. Ensured- safe and ef?cient station operations, optimizing employee and stakeholder
contributions andprovid'ed leadership and training support. Supervised ticketing, building maintenance,
service delivery, passenger handling, safety and union labor contracts. 

EDUCATION
THE-OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Columbus, Ohio
College of Social? Work
Bachelor of Science in Social Work Emphasis: SocialService Administration
THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO Toledo, Ohio
College of Education

Graduate level coursework completed in training and development and instructional technology

Steven C. Tate, 

 

PROFESSIONAL OBJECTIVE:
0 An administrative position or faculty position in education or closely related area which
offers multifaceted challenges and opportunities
0 Ideal position will involve work with people of diverse cultures and merge
responsibilities for teaching, research, leadership, mentoring, and/or counseling

Education: 3
inICurriculum and Instruction
Emphasis on diversity, literacy, and the social sciences,
Kansas State University; Manhattan, KS.
Dissertation topic: Academic Achievement of African American males in an
Urban, Midwest foster care system.
Degree Conferral: May 2000.
Graduate Coursework in Education:
Trends in Elementary Social Studies Education
Multicultural Curriculum Programming
Curriculum Theory
Curriculum and Instructional Policy
Curriculum Development
Instructional Leadership
Educational Leadership
Principles of College Teaching

of Individual Differences
Master of Science, Educational Administration
Emphasis on management and administration,
The University of Dayton; Dayton, Ohio.
Comprehensive Social Studies Certi?cation, December 1990, Ohio
Dominican College, Columbus, Ohio.
Bachelor of Arts in Journalism, June 1986, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

Professional Experience:

Education Consultant Social Science Research Specialist
Ohio Department of Education (ODE) 2007-Present
Responsibilities of this position include:
*Lead evaluator of community school sponsors

S. Tate, Vita, page 2

*Provide oversight of charter school authorizers

*Write legislative recommendations

*Prepare and/or revise policy manuals

*Facilitate workshops and trainings

*Conduct presentations before the State Board of Education
*Set strategic objectives and priorities for ODE

*Work closely with senior leadership on ODE initiatives

Professor/Instructor
University of Phoenix 2004?Present

*Teach undergraduate and graduate courses in Education and
Human Services

*Subject areas include doctoral level Research Assessment, General
Education, Cultural Diversity, Graduate Education, Sociology, Business
Writing, Health Human Services.

*Serve on doctoral committees

Program Administrator 1997-2004
Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (formerly Ohio Department of
Human Services)
Responsibilities of this position include:
*Formulating and directing the implementation of policy
*Developing, monitoring, and guiding programmatic evaluations
*Analyzing programmatic outcomes in relation to stated objectives
*Managing and assessing post-adoption services for children
*Evaluating organizational and managerial improvements for adoption
services
*Participating in quantitative and qualitative studies of statewide
initiatives
*Providing technical consultation to public services agencies
*Conducting information and training sessions on new or revised
programs and/or initiatives
*Developing Spreadsheets and graphics illustrating evaluation ?ndings
*Preparing written reports with findings and recommendations
*Making oral presentations

Adjunct Professor of Education 2003-2004
Ashland University
Responsibilities of this position include:
*Teaching graduate level courses in Curriculum Development and
Contemporary Issues

S. Tate, Vita, page 3

Assistant Professor of Education 2001-2003
Ohio University
Responsibilities of this position include:
*Teaching education courses, including Middle Childhood Social Studies
Methods, Social Studies in Early Childhood Education,
Secondary School Planning and Instruction, and Secondary
School Teaching and Learning
*Supervising ?eld experience students
*Scholarship and service
Service includes:
*Serving as a member of the salary, tenure, and promotion revision
committee
*Advising undergraduate students

Assistant Professor of Education 2000-2001
The University of Michigan-Dearborn,
Responsibilities of this position include:
*Teaching education courses, including Social Studies Methods and
Multicultural Education
*Supervising student teachers and student practicums
*Scholarship and service
Service includes:
*Serving as a member of the Faculty Senate
*Serving as a member of the Educational Technology Search Committee

Social Science Researcher 1997-2004
Ohio Department of Human Services,
Responsibilities of this position include:
*Evaluating the effectiveness of human services programs
*DeveIOping research designs, hypotheses, sampling methodologies,
and data analyses
*Collecting and interpreted data
*Authoring preliminary and final study reports
*Authoring requests for vendor research proposals
*Reviewing state and federal legislation
*Providing assistance to agency work groups in research
and analyses issues
*Managing the Ohio Works First Evaluation, Ohio?s $1.9
million study of welfare reform
*Managing the department?s study of the Child Protective
Services System
*Serving as the Director of the Quality Management Board (QMB), a
committee responsible introducing quality control initiatives to

S. Tate, Vita, page 4

the Of?ce of Research, Assessment, and Accountability
*Serving as a member of the Quality Steering Committee (QSC), the
governing body for the ten active QMBs within the department
*Facilitating meetings as a trained Quality Service Through
Partnership (QSTP) facilitator
*Making presentations at National conferences
*Operating a variety of software applications, including Quattro Pro,
Paradox, Presentations, Powerpoint,

Graduate Student, 1996-1997
Kansas State University,
Responsibilities of this position include:
*Completing coursework towards doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction
*Conducting doctoral research

Training Coordinator, 1994-1996
American Freightways,
Responsibilities of this position include:
*Facilitating orientation/training workshops for new employees
*Teaching product knowledge classes for new and established employees
*Creating training manuals used in the workshop
Teacher 1991-1994
Gahanna?Lincoln High School,
Responsibilities of this position include:
*Teaching social studies courses in Sociology, Economics,
US. History, World History, and Geography
*Writing grant proposals
*Facilitating ?World of Difference,? a proactive multicultural education
workshop for students, faculty, staff, and community members

Publications 
Differentiating Instruction 2007
Ohio Council of Community Schools

Interpreting Value Added Data 2007
Ohio Council of Community Schools

The Academic Experiences of African American Males In An 2001
Urban, Midwest Foster Care System.
Journal of Social Studies Research

S. Tate, Vita, page 5

Grant Applications:
Public Charter Schools Program Implementation Grant
Public Charter Schools Program Planning Grant
Welfare Recipient Grant
Job Retention Grant
Ohio Works First Grant
Independent Living Grant

Presentations at state, regional, or national conferences:
The Supreme Court of Ohio Judicial College
Columbus, Ohio
Topic: Online Education for Court Involved Students

Ohio State Board of Education
Columbus, Ohio
Topic: Performance Standards for Schools Serving At-Risk Populations

Ohio Community Schools Statewide Authorizer Workshop
Columbus, Ohio 
Topic: Performance Standards for Dropout Recovery Schools

National Association of Charters School Authorizers Workshop
Columbus, Ohio
Topic: Initial Lessons Learned from Sponsor Evaluations

Regional School Improvement Team State Conference
Columbus, Ohio
Topic: Strategies for Achieving AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress)

Regional School Improvement Team Reading Symposium
Columbus, Ohio
Topic: Instruments for Assessing and Improving Student Reading Performance

14th National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect
St. Louis, Missouri
Topic: Academic Success for Children in Child Welfare Systems

Child Welfare League of America National Conference on Research in Child Welfare

Denver, Colorado

Topic: Academic achievement of African American males in an urban Midwest foster care
system.

Black Administrators in Child Welfare National Conference
Washington, DC
Topic: The academic status of African American males in foster care

S. Tate, Vita, page 6

National Council for Geographic Education
Chicago, Illinois
Topic: Academic achievement of African American males in foster care

National Association for Welfare Research and Statistics
Cleveland, Ohio
Topic: Design of the Impact/Outcome Evaluation of Ohio Works First.

Professional Development:
Microsoft Access Training
Columbus, Ohio

Focus Group Facilitator Training
Grandview, Ohio,

National Association for Welfare Research and Statistics Conference
Cleveland, Ohio, 

SPSS Workshop
Columbus, Ohio,

Quality Service Through Partnership (QSTP) Facilitator Training
Columbus, Ohio,

Survey Design
Reynoldsburg, Ohio,

Quality Service Through Partnership (QSTP) Training
Columbus, Ohio,

Quattro Pro Software Training
Columbus, Ohio,

Paradox Software Training
Columbus, Ohio,

Technology in the Classroom Seminar
Columbus, Ohio,

Teaching Diversity Seminar
Columbus, Ohio,

?World of Difference? Facilitator Training
Gahanna, Ohio,

 S. Tate, Vita, page 7

Professional Organization Membership
National Council for the Social Studies
National Council for Geographic Education
College and University Faculty Assembly
{Rational Association for Welfare Research and Statistics

References:
Dr. Ben Smith, Professor Emeritus
Kansas State University

  

Dr. Joni Hoffman

Director

Ohio Department of Education

(1614) 466?7058


1

Ronald R. Browder, 
Executive Director

Children?s Defense Fund-Ohio
395 E. Broad Street, Suite 330
Columbus, OH 43215

  

rbrowder@cdfohio.org

El

Ohio

 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Commitment Ca

acity

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

A. Clear
Mission for
Authorizing
Charter
Schools

 

The authorizer?s mission for
chartering schools is broad or
it has no mission.

0 The authorizer?s vision for
chartering is vague, with no
defined priorities and no
strategic goals.

0 The authorizer?s governing
board designates all contract
decisions to staff and/or
accepts contract decision-
making recommendations
with only a cursory review,
taking action perfunctorin as
part of routine business.

 

The authorizer states a clear
mission for authorizing charter
schools.

0 The authorizer articulates a
broad vision for chartering,
with broad goals over an
undefined period of time.

The authorizer?s governing
board typically designates
contract decisions to staff,
which provides the board with
general recommendations for
which contracts to approve.
Decisions are typically made
with limited information
provided by the staff and
without consideration of the
authorizer's broad vision.

 

- The authorizer states a clear

mission for quality
authorizing.

The authorizer articulates and
implements a vision and plan
for chartering, including
general goals and timelines for
achievement.

The authorizer?s governing
board, while formally making
all contract decisions, relies
upon their staff to carefully
review and recommend
contract decisions aligned
with their chartering vision
and plan.

 

The authorizer states a clear
mission for quality
authorizing.

The authorizer articulates and
implements an intentional
strategic vision and plan for
chartering, including clear
priorities, specific goals, and
time frames for achievement.

0 The authorizer?s governing
board actively participates in
all contract decision-making
(approval and renewal) to
ensure that all such actions
are consistent with the
authorizer?s strategic vision
and plan for quality
authorizing.

 

6/5/2014

 

Department
of Education

 

Ohio

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Commitment Ca

pacity

 

Poor or Undeveloped Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

B. Self-
Evaluation 
Improvement

0 The authorizer rarely
examines its work to ensure it
is meeting Its Ohio authorizing
obligations and applicable
laws.

0 The authorizer sporadically
examines its work to ensure it
Is meeting its Ohio authorizing
obligations and applicable
laws.

0 The authorizer occasionally
looks to improve its
operations, but does not
follow a structured process.

0 The authorizer does not
examine its operations for the
purpose of improvement.

0 Does not evaluate self as an
authorizer.

 

 

 

- The authorizer regularly
examines its work to ensure it
is meeting its Ohio authorizing
obligations and applicable
laws.

0 The authorizer follows a
defined improvement process
to evaluate its work against its
goals and outcomes.

0 The authoriz'er uses the
findings from its self-
evaluation when making
improvements in its practices.

 

The authorizer continuously
uses a defined improvement
process to evaluate its work
against its goals and outcomes
and to ensure it is meeting its
Ohio authorizing obligations
and applicable laws.

The authorizer implements
strategic action steps based
upon the findings from its
rigorous self?evaluation to
improve its performance as an
authorizer.

The authorizer cOntinuously
and rigorously evaluates its
work against national
standards for quality charter
school authorizers.

The authorizer reports
annually to its governing
entity the progress it is making
on its strategic goals.

 

6/5/2014

 

Ohio

 

Department

of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Commitment 8: Ca

acity

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

C. Defined
Relationships


 

0 Beyond what is stated in the

contract, the authorizer
Cannot explaln the 
in roles and responsibilities
between the authorizer staff
and the charter schools it
authorizers.

 

0 While not documented
beyond what is in the contract,
the authorizer is able to
explain in general terms how
the roles and responsibilities
differ between its staff and the
charter schools it authorizers.

The charter schools it
authorizers do not understand
the responsibilities of the
authorizer.

 

0 While not documented

beyond what is in the contract,
the authorizer has and IS able
to clearly explain the roles and
responsibilities of its staff
relative to those of the charter
schools it authorizers.

The charter schools it
authorizers generally
understand the responsibilities
of the authorizer.

 

- Roles and responsibilities of

the authorizing staff are clearly
separated, documented and
delineated from the charter
schools it authorizers.

- The charter schools it

authorizers clearly understand
the responsibilities of the
authorizer.

 

6/5/2014

 

Ohio

 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Commitment Ca

pacity

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

D. Conflicts
of Interest
In PI'dL?liL?e

 

0 Schools chartered by the
authorizer have limited or no
autonomy.

0 Numerous conflicts of interest
exist between the authorizer
and the charter schools it
authorizes. Sta}?r and
boards may overlap, authorizer
may require school to purchase
services from authorizer,
schools may not be afforded
appropriate autonomy, funds
may be co-mingled, etc]

0 Decision making is not
transparent; it is unclear what
or if criteria are being used by
the authorizer to make
decisions.

Charter schools are
improperly offered incentives
by the authorizer and/or
required by the authorizer to
make choices that may not be
in their best interest. 
may only contract with the
authorizer for various services,
contract services from
authorizer in exchange for
reduced chartering fee, etc.]

 

0 Evidence of conflicts of

interest exists between the
aUIhoriZer and the charter
schools it authorizes. the
authorizing district?s
superintendent fills the role of
the charter school?s
superintendent with no
accommodations for
independent oversight of
his/her role as charter school
superintendent]

Decision making is not
transparent and the criteria
used to make them are
inconsistently applied and not
fully understood by authorizer
staff.

In some instances, the
authorizer?s decisions are
improperly influenced by a
management company or a
charter school?s governing
authority. for example, a
management company with
multiple o??iliated schools
implies action related to one
school will impact the others]

 

- No conflicts of interest (both
in staffing and funding) exist
between the authorizer and
the charter schools it
authorizers.

- While decision making is
transparent to charter schools
and appears to be based upon
merit, the process and criteria
for making decisions are not

fully transparent to the public.

 

No conflicts of interest (both
in staffing and funding) exist
between the authorizer and
the charter schools it
authorizers.

The authorizer has a written
policy that effectively prevents
conflicts of interest, assures
decision making is transparent
and based upon merit.

0 The authorizer?s funding is
structured in a manner that
avoids conflicts of interest,
inducements, incentives, or
disincentives that might
compromise its judgment in
charter approval and
accountability decision
making.

 

6/5/2014

 

Ohio

 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Commitment Ca

pacity

 

Poor or Undeveloped

ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

E. Staff
Expertise

Deep under-
standing of
essential
principles,
gained
through
training and/or
several years
working in the
?eld and
mastering the
principles.

 

The authorizer?s dedicated
staff memberls) have little to
no experience working in or
authorizing charter schools.
At least one staff member is
trained in school finance. but
has limited experience
applying the knowledge.

0 No external sources are
sought in education related
areas for which the
authorizing staff lacks
expertise. These areas
include:

0 Charter schools;
0 Curriculum, instruction
and assessment;
0 Special education and ELL
instruction;

School accountability;

School facilities;

School law;

School finance; and,

School governance.



 

- The authorizer has at least one
dedicated staff member with
less than two years of
experience working in or
authorizing charter schools,
and a member who is trained
and has limited experience
working in the area of school
finance.

0 Other staff have limited
training and limited
experience working in the
following areas:

0 Curriculum, instruction
and assessment;
0 Special education and ELL
instruction;

School accountability;

School facilities;

School law;

School finance; and,

School governance.

00000

0 When existing staff do not
have the range of expertise
needed, the authorizer
sometimes contracts with
external sources to complete
particular aspects of work.

0 The authorizer has at least one
dedicated staff member with
two or more years of
experience working in or
authorizing charter schools,
and a member who is trained
and experienced in the area of
school finance.

0 Other staff are certified and
have experience working in
the following areas:

0 Curriculum, instruction
and assessment;
Special education and ELL
instruction;

School accountability;

School facilities;

School law; and,

School finance; and,

School governance.

0

00000

0 When existing staff do not
have the range of expertise
needed, the authorizer
contracts with external
sources to complete particular
aspects of work.

 

 

0 Many of the authorizing staff
have practiced in charter
schools or authorizing charter 
schools for several years, and
have diverse expertise in the
following areas:

0 Curriculum, instruction
and assessment;

Special education and ELL

instruction;

School accountability;

School facilities;

School law; and,

School finance; and,

School governance.

0

00000

0 When existing staff do not
have the range of expertise
needed, the authorizer
contracts with external
sources to complete particular
aspects of work.

 

6/5/2014

 

Ohio 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Commitment Ca

pacity

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

F. Staff
Professional
Development

 

Authorizer staff rarely
participates in professional
development, Internally or
externally provided.

0 PD shows no alignment with
the authorizer's functions.

 

Authorizer staff sporadically
participates in professional
development internally or
externally provided, and
typically only what is required
by ODE.

0 PD shows some alignment
with the authorizer's functions
or in response to needed
corrections.

0 Authorizer staff regularly
participates in professional
development, inte?r?nally'or
externally provided, and
beyond what is required by
ODE.

0 PD is aligned with authorizer
functions and takes into
account identi?ed needs (as
determined by its self-
improvement process).

0 Authorizer staff attends
national conferences with PD
focus NACSA, 
etc.)

 

 

Authorizer staff continuously
participates in professional
development beyond what is
required by ODE and that
complements the authorizer?s
improvement efforts and that
takes into account staff
member's and
weaknesses.

The authorizer is able to
provide examples of how
professional development is
incorporated into its ongoing
work.

 

5/2014

 

Ohio I

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Commitment Ca

acity

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

G. Allocation
of Resources

Resources
include human
and financial
capital.

 

0 Resource decisions are not
data driven.

- The authorizer has inadequate

staff (or contracted services)
to adequately carry out its
roles and responsibilities.

0 No evidence that the
authorizer has examined and

allocated its resources to fulfill

its authorizer obligations.

0 Some resource decisions are
data driven.

I The authorizer sporadically
examines its needs and
allocates its resources to fulfill
its statutory requirements.

Resource allocations are not
commensurate with the scale
of its portfolio of charter

 

 

0 Most resource decisions are

data driven.

The authorizer examines its

portfolio of schools needs-and
allocates its resources to
improve school performance
and its responsibilities as an
authorizer.

 

All resource decisions are data

driven.

The authorizer determines its

portfolio of schools needs and
devotes resources to improve
school performance, ful?ll its
responsibilities as an
authorizer, and meet national
quality standards for
authorizing the
authorizer provides math
coach, software, PD
consortiums, banners,
specialized staff for job
coaching, etc.)

Resource allocations are
commensurate with the
authorizer?s identified needs.

 

6/5/2014

 

Ohio I

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Application Process Decision Making

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

A. Application
Process,
Tim'e'li'ne, 8:
Clarity of
Directions

 

The authorizer has no formal
application process no
"written ?application. 

The authorizer?s application
timeline is not defined.

0 Application guidance is
absent or undocumented and
varies depending upon which
staff member responds to
questions by the public.

0 The application process does
not include interviewing
applicants.

 

- The authorizer has an
application process; however,
it is undocumented and
loosely defined.

0 Timelines are loosely defined.
0 Applications are accepted

close to the statutory contract
adoption date, leaving little

time for contract negotiations.

The application is not readily
available to the public.

0 The application provides
limited directions on the
content and format expected
of applicants.

0 The authorizer does not
document the criteria it uses
to evaluate its applications.

0 The application process may
include an interview with
applicants.

 

The authorizer follows and
explains a systemic
application process; however,
it is not fully documented.

0 The authorizer typically
follows a defined timeline for
reviewing charter applications.
The planning stage is at least
six months long.

0 The application is readily
available to the public.

0 The application provides
general directions on content
and format expected of
applicants. does not
include resources or
references to assist the
applicant.)

a The authorizer documents the
general criteria it uses to
evaluate its applications.
However, these criteria are not
publicized as part of the
application process.

0 The application process
includes interviewing final
applicants.

 

The authorizer follows a
documented systematic
application process.

The authorizer?s timeline allows
for a pre-opening stage of least
nine months so that the
application process is carried out
with quality and integrity. It
aligns with the school year and
provides ample time to
adequately complete the
application, plan, and prepare for
the school's opening.

The authorizer?s application
guidance is documented, detailed
and readily available to the
public through the authorizer?s
website. includes the
procedure to submit (word
length, font size,
electronic/paper), includes
references to assist the applicant,
etc.).

The application provides clear
directions on required content
and format.

The authorizer documents and
clearly communicates to
applicants the criteria it uses to
evaluate its applications.
Application clearly states the
authorizer?s chartering priorities.
The process includes interviewing
final applicants before adopting a
contract.

 

6/5/2014

 

Ohio 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Application Process 8: Decision Making

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

B. Application
Depth

 

0 The authorizer does not have
a written application.

 

The application includes few
questions.

0 The questions are very broad
in nature and do not provide
enough data to thoroughly
evaluate the applicant's
educational and business
plans and capacities.

 

0 General application questions,
covering four main areas of
school planning and
operations [education plan,
governance, finance (including
market research) and
accountability] along with
suggested attachments,
provide adequate data for
analyzing an applicant?s plans
and capacities.

For example:

Describe the demographics of the
students that your school will serve
and of the charter in which the
school will be located. Why are you
proposing this school in this location?

Generally describe your school?s
curriculum plan and provide an
overview of the instructional design
and program to be emphasized by
the school.

 

- Comprehensive, detailed
application questions cross-
reference the four main areas
of school planning and
operations [education plan,
governance, finance (including
market research) and
accountability] provide
extensive data for rigorous
evaluation of the applicant?s
plans and capacities.

For example:

Describe the needs assessment of the
school?s target neighborhood and
student population, including current
student demographics and academic
performance of other schools in the
charter in which the school will be
located. Explain the academic
impact of the proposed school model
on the students and charter. Describe
the process used to assess local need
and provide evidence that the charter
appra ves of the proposed school.

Explain the school?s curriculum, its
alignment to the Ohio Standards and
benchmarks, specific instructional
materials to be used to implement
the curriculum, and the process your
school will follow to evaluate, review
and revise its curriculum on an
annual basis. 

 

6/5/2014

 

 

Ohio I

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Application Process 8: Decision Making

 

Poor or Undeveloped

neffe ctive

Effective

Exemplary

 

C. Rigorous
Criteria for
New
Applicants,
including any
affiliated with
previously
operating
schools.

 

0 The authorizer may require
applicants to outline some of
the followlng:

0 an educational program;
0 staffing plan;

0 a business plan;

0 governance; and/or

0 management structure.

0 Application criteria are
minimal and focus mainly on
meeting state and federal
statutory requirements.

 

- The authorizer requires all
applicants to describe in
general terms some of the
following:

a mission and vision;

0 an educational program;
0 staffing plan;

0 a business plan;

0 governance; and/or

0 management structure.

 

The authorizer requires all
applicants to present in detail
all of the following:

a mission and vision;

0 an educational program;

0 staffing plan;

0 a business plan (including
market research);

0 governance and
management structure; and

0 capacity to carry out its
plan.

0 The applicant must explain
any never-opened,
terminated, or non-renewed
schools.

(Market research includes examining
the types of schools and students in
the area; it does n_ot include an
examination of the needs ofthe
charter.)

 

The authorizer requires all
applicants to provide strong
evidence and great detail on
all of the following:

a clear and compelling
mission and vision;

0 a quality educational
program;

0 a solid business plan
(including market and
charter research);

0 an effective governance
and management structure;

0 staffing for people with
diverse knowledge in
education, school finance,
etc.; and

0 clear evidence of capacity
to successfully execute its
plan.

0 The applicant must explain
any never?opened,
terminated, or non-renewed
schools.

(Charter research includes
examining the proximately of choice
options and niche schools, and
examining unmet charter needs,
such as lack of schools with
specialized focus.)

 

6/5/2014

10

 

Department
of Education

Ohio

 

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Application Process Decision Making

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

No additional criteria are
required of existing school
Operators and/or replicators
of existing schools.

D. Rigorous
Criteria for
Existing
Charter School
Operators 
Replicators Authorizer does not look for
any evidence of past success
or the capacity for growth.
Whichever
school is being
replicated, it
must have been
in operation for
two or more
school years.

 

 

0 While no additional criteria
are required, the authorizer
completes a cursory look of
the current school?s academic
success or a consideration for
the school's capacity to
expand.

 

Authorizer requires the

applicant to meet the

following criteria:

0 Clear evidence of capacity to
operate a new school
successfully while
maintaining quality in
existing schools;

0 Document educational,
organizational, and financial
performance records based
on all existing schools;

0 Must explain any never-
opened, terminated, or non-
renewed schools;

0 Must present a growth plan,
business plan, and most
recent financial audits; and

0 Meet at least one?of the
following indicators of
effectiveness to earn
approval for replication:
high academic, organization,
and/or financial success to

earn approval for replication.

 

Authorizer requires the
applicant to meet the
following criteria:

0 Clear evidence of capacity to
operate a new school
successfully while
maintaining quality in
existing schools;

0 Document educational,
organizational, and financial
performance records based
on all existing schools;

0 Must explain any never-
opened, terminated, or non-
renewed schools;

0 Must present a growth plan,
business plan, and most
recent ?nancial audits; and

0 Meet multiple indicators of
effectiveness in all of the
following areas: high
academic, organization, and
financial success to earn
approval for replication.

Examples of success include: never
had an un-auditable school; no
general education or special
education school rated below the
top two LRC categories; no dropout
prevention and recovery schools
rated below "meets", etc.

 

6/5/2014

11

 

Ohio

 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Application Process Decision Making

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

E. Rigorous
Criteria for
Charter
Schools
Changing
Authorizer/
Assignment of
Contract

(ifapplicable)

 

No additional criteria are
required of the existing school
seeking to be switch
authorizers.

Authorizer does not look for
any evidence of past success
or the capacity to operate
successfully.

 

0 While no additional criteria
are required, the authorizer
completes a cursory look of
the current school's academic
success or considers the
school's capacity to operate
successfully.

 

0 While no additional criteria
are required, the authorizer
reviews the existing school?s
financial audits (where
available), academic success
and the school's capacity to
operate successfully, meeting
and/or exceeding it
performance targets.

0 The application process may
include either a face to face
interview with the applicant
or contact with the school?s
current authorizer.

- The authorizer does not
consider contracting with a
charter school that is being
non-renewed by its current
authorizer.

 

Authorizer requires the
applicant to provide
educational, organizational,
and financial performance
records to evaluate the
school's capacity to operate
successfully, meeting and/or
exceeding its performance
targets.

0 The application process
includes a face to face
interview with the applicant
and contact with the school?s
current authorizer.

The application process may
include visiting the school
and/or attending a board
meeting.

0 The authorizer does not
consider contracting with a
charter school that is being
non-renewed by its current
authorizer. A

The authorizer?s process to
consider authorizing a
currently operating school is
publicly available.

 

6/5/2014

12

 

Department
of Education

Ohio

 

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Application Process Decision Making

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

0 Review team members have
little to no experience
Working in or authorizing
charter schools. At least one
review team member is
trained in school ?nance, but
has limited experience
applying the knowledge.

F. Reviewer
Expertise

Deep under-
standing of
essential
principles,
gained through
training and/or
severalyears
working in the
field and
mastering the
principles.

0 No external sources are
sought in education related
areas for which the review
team members lack
expertise. These areas
include:

0 Charter schools;
0 Curriculum, instruction
and assessment;
0 Special education and ELL
instruction;

School accountability;

School facilities;

School law;

School finance; and,

School governance.



 

 

The authorizer has at least one
dedicated reviewer with
limited experience (less than
two years) working in or
authorizing charter schools,
and at least one other
reviewer who may have
limited knowledge in one or
more of the following areas:

0 Curriculum, instruction
and assessment;
0 Special education and ELL
instruction;

School accountability;

School facilities;

School law;

School finance; and/or

School governance.

00000

0 When existing reviewers do
not have the range of expertise
needed, the authorizer
sometimes contracts with
external sources to complete
particular aspects of the
application review.

 

The authorizer has at least one

dedicated reviewer with two
or more years of experience
working in or authorizing
charter schools.

0 Other reviewers are certified
(where appropriate) and have
experience working in the
following areas:

0

00000

Curriculum, instruction
and assessment;

Special education and ELL
instruction;

School accountability;
School facilities;

School law;

School finance; and,
School governance.

0 When existing reviewers do

not have the range of expertise

needed, the authorizer
contracts with external

sources to complete particular

aspects of the application
review.

 

0 Many of the reviewers have
practiced in charter schools or
authorizing for several years,
and have diverse expertise
(and certification where
appropriate) in the following
areas:

0 Curriculum, instruction
and assessment;

Special education and ELL

instruction;

School accountability;

School facilities;

School law;

School finance; and,

School governance.

0

00000

0 When existing staff do not
have the range of expertise
needed, the authorizer
contracts with external
sources to complete particular
aspects of the application
review.

 

6/5/2014

13

 

Ohio

 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Application Process Decision Making

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

G. Protocols
and Training

 

0 No defined selection criteria
or protocols are used to
evaluate applications. 

0 Review team members simply
review the written
application and only ask
clarifying questions.

0 Reviewers receive no
training.

0 No process is followed to
ensure that all internal and
external reviewers do not
have a conflict of interest
with the applicants they are
reviewing.

 

Selection criteria are
documented, but are broad or
vague. A 

Review team members receive
limited training on the selection
criteria.

If a protocol is used to evaluate
applications, limited evidence is
documented to support whether
or not the applicant meets the
selection criteria.

Applicants are not interviewed.

All internal and external
reviewers are responsible for
identifying if a conflict of interest
exists with the applicants they are
reviewing.

The reviewer initiates their own
removal from reviewing an
application if he/she feels a
conflict of interest exists.

The authorizer does not require a
formal written conflict of interest
statement to be signed by each

person reviewing the applications.

 

- Evaluation includes a careful

review of the written application,
a brief interview of all applicants
to clarify points in the written
application, and a careful review
of the applicant?s experience and
capacity.

While not always documented in
protocols, all new review team
members are trained on the
selection criteria and protocols
prior to reviewing applications for
approval.

The review team documents
evidence to support whether or
not the applicant meets the
selection criteria.

Review team members who have
previously reviewed applications
for the authorizer receive
refresher training on the selection
criteria and protocols prior to
reviewing applications for
approval.

The authorizer requires a formal
written conflict of interest
statement to be signed by every
internal and external reviewer of
applicants.

The authorizer initiates removal
of an internal or external reviewer
from evaluating an application.

 

Evaluation includes a detailed review
of the written application, an in-
depth interview with finalists, and a
thorough background review of the
applicant?s experience and capacity.
Application evaluators are trained
annually on the selection criteria, the
evaluation process and the protocols.
interview guides used for all
applicants, rubrics that require the
evaluator to score and document how
the applicant rates on the selection
criteria, etc. 

The review team documents in detail
the evidence to support whether or
not the applicant meets the selection
criteria.

An established policy and process are
consistently followed that ensures all
internal and external reviewers do
not have a real or perceived conflict
of interest with the applicants they
are reviewing.

The authorizer requires a formal
written conflict of interest statement
to be signed by every internal and
external reviewer of applicants.

The authorizer initiates and
documents the removal of an internal
or external reviewer from evaluating
an application if a formal conflict of
interest is found.

 

6/5/2014

14

 

Ohio

 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Application Process Decision Making

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

H. Rigorous
Decision
Making

Rigorous
decisions are
based upon a
thorough
analysis of a
com-
prehensive
body of
objective
evidence.

0 Almost all applicants that

apply are approved,
'reg'ar?dlesS of the strength of
the application.

0 Preliminary agreements are

made with schools that had
previously closed and/or
were non-renewed by their
previous authorizer.

The majority of applications that
meet a general framework of
criteria are approved. A

0 Preliminary agreements are
made with charter schools that

meet one or more of the following

criteria:

0 Fall to clearly demonstrate
the capacity to successfully
operate lack of staffing,
lack of resources,
questionable governance,
history of poor performance,
etc.);

0 Little or no market research
data to support the school?s
opening;

0 Little or no data to support a
successful educational
model;

0 Questionable business plan
and limited resources to
support the school?s launch
reliance on unsecured
loans and/or management
company financial support);
or

0 Were previously closed

and/or non-renewed by their

previous authorizer.

0 Applicants that meet the majority
of the criteria are approved.

o?Enters into preliminary
agreements with sthools that
meet most of the following
criteria:

0

Clear capacity to
successfully operate a new
school lack of staffing,
lack of resources,
questionable governance,
history of poor
performance, etc.);
Researched data shows
strong market demand for
the proposed school 
mission, location, grades
served, proximity of high
quality public private
school options)

Quality educational
program;

Solid business plan and a
start-up budget to support
the school?s launch and
sustained early operations;
and,

The school has not been
recycled: previously closed
or non-renewed by its
previous authorizer.

 

- Only applicants meeting all, or
almost all, of the criteria are
approved. Anyperceived minor
deficiencies are addressed in the
contract process.

0 Only enters into preliminary
agreements with schools that
meet all of the following criteria:

0

Clear capacity to
successfully operate a new
school lack of staffing,
lack of resources,
questionable governance,
history of poor
performance, etc.);
Researched data shows
strong market demand for
the proposed school 
mission, location, grades
served, proximity of high
quality public private
school options)

Quality educational
program;

Solid business plan and a
start-up budget to support
the school?s launch and
sustained early operations;
and,

The school has not been
recycled: previously closed
or non-renewed by its
previous authorizer.

 

 

6/5/2014

 

 

 

15

 

Ohio

 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Performance Contracting

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

A. Contract
Student
Performance
Measures

 

Most contracts include:

VagUe measures of Student

performance, such as local
report card ratings or
statewide assessments.

No specific metrics and

targets for school-wide
performance ?80%
proficiency in 3rd grade
reading and math 0AA)

 

Most contracts include:

Multiple measures of

student performance which

may include the following:

statewide assessments,

attendance, or

if applicable, graduation
rates.

Metrics and targets for
school-wide performance
are vague meet state
standards)

Targets are for the all
students group; they do
not include subgroups of
students.

 

All contracts may include the
following:

multiple measures of

student performance, such

as

I proficiency rates on
state assessments

I if applicable, student
academic growth,

0 if applicable,
graduation rates,

0 attendance, and

if applicable, post-
secondary enrollment
after high school.

Metrics and targets for
school-wide performance
are speci?c 80%
proficiency in 3rd grade
reading, meet or exceed
value added, etc.)

Targets include all students
and subgroups of students.

 

All contracts include all of the
following student measures:

0





0000

proficiency rates on state

assessments,

student academic growth,
graduation rates,
attendance,

if applicable, post-
secondary enrollment
after high school, and

if applicable, student

performance on other
valid and reliable
assessments as laid out in
the contract.
Metrics and targets are
specific and rigorous.
Targets include all students
and subgroups of students.
At a minimum, targets are
set that compare the
school's student
performance to the state,
schools serving similar
populations and/or schools
in the same geographical
area.
Mission-specific academic
goals may be included; such
goals include specific metrics
and targets.

 

6/5/2014

16

 

Ohio

 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Performance Contracting

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

B. Contract Terms
for High-Stakes
and Ongoing
Reviews

A performance
review upon which
renewal decisions
are made.

0 Contract renewal is
essentially automatic and
contract language may
specify automatic renewal as
the default.

0 Authorizer contracts rarely

specify a high-stakes review
to take place prior to contract
renewal.

0 Contract renewal is
essentially automatic and
contract language may
specify automatic renewal as
the default.

0 Authorizer contracts
occasionally specify a high-
stakes review to take place
prior to contract renewal, but
at least every 5 years for
extended contracts.

0 Authorizer contracts
regularly specify a required
high-stakes review to take
place prior to contract
renewal, but at least every 5

years for extended contracts.

All authorizer contracts
specify a required high-
stakes review to take place
prior. to contract renewal,
and at least every 5 years for
extended contracts.

 

 

C. Contract Terms
for Renewal and
Non-renewal

 

0 Contracts rarely define the

performance standards and
criteria and conditions for
renewal.

0 Contracts rarely define the

consequences for meeting or
not meeting standards and
conditions.

 

- Most contracts broadly
define the performance
standards and criteria and
conditions for renewal.

0 Most contracts broadly
define the consequences for
meeting or not meeting
standards and conditions.

 

0 Most contracts define the
performance standards and
criteria and conditions for
renewal.

0 Most contracts define the
consequences for meeting or
the consequences for not
meeting standards and
conditions.

 

All contracts clearly define
and detail performance
standards and criteria and
conditions for renewal.

All contracts clearly define
and detail the consequences
for meeting or the
consequences for not
meeting standards and
conditions.

 

6/5/2014

17

 

 

 

Ohio

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Performance Contracting

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

D. Contract terms
for Amendments
and Updates

All/most authorizers
have boiler-plate
language noting
that amendments
may be made to all
contracts.

 

No specific conditions for

amendment or modi?cations
are noted in the contract.

Authorizer does not modify

the terms of a contract, even
when it is renewed with the
school.

 

- General conditions for

amendment or modifications
are noted in the contract.

Authorizer regularly assesses
contract language to ensure
consistency with changes in
state and/or federal law.

Authorizer has an updated
contract template that it uses
as it authorizers new schools;
however, old contracts are
not updated to reflect the
more rigorous contract terms
until the existing contract
expires.

 

0 General conditions for

amendment or modifications
are noted in the contract.

Authorizer regularly assesses
contract language to ensure
consistency with changes in
state and/or federal law.

Authorizer regularly updates
all or most of its existing
contracts to reflect changes
in state and/or federal law.

If an authorizer updates its
performance framework to
support higher achievement
and ensure better
compliance in the new
schools it authorizers, old
contracts are not updated to
reflect this new framework
until the existing contract
expires.

 

0 General conditions for

amendment or modifications
are noted in the contract.

Authorizer regularly assesses
contract language to ensure
consistency with changes in
state and/or federal law.

Authorizer regularly updates
its performance framework
to support higher
achievement or to ensure
better compliance.

Authorizer regularly updates
all or most of its existing
contracts to reflect changes
made in the template it uses
for new schools.

 

6/5/2014

18

 

Ohio

 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Oversight Evaluation

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

A. System of
Oversight 
Evaluation

 

The authorizer?s oversight and

evaluation system is reactive,
focused only on the school?s
compliance with laws.

0 The authorizer rarely enforces

consequences for failing to
meet compliance
requirements or performance
expectations.

 

The authorizer?s oversight and
evaluation system is minimal;
focusing mainly on the
school's compliance with laws
and with limited examination
of academic performance.

The authorizer occasionally
enforces consequences for
failing to meet compliance
requirements or performance
expectations.

 

The authorizer?s oversight and
evaluation system is proactive,
collecting and/ or accessing
and reviewing and/or
analyzing data on the school's
compliance with laws and
against performance targets
stated in the contract.
Combined, these sources of
data inform contract renewal,
termination, and intervention
decisions.

0 The authorizer regularly
enforces consequences for
failing to meet compliance
requirements, and sometimes
performance expectations.

 

The authorizer implements a
comprehensive performance
accountability and compliance
monitoring system that is
defined by the charter
contract and that provides the
information necessary to
make rigorous and standards-
based renewal, termination,
and intervention decisions.

The authorizer predetermines
intervention actions for failure
to meet contract requirements
and clearly articulates and
enforces stated consequences
for failing to meet
performance expectations or
compliance requirements.

 

6/5/2014

19

 

Department
of Education

Ohio

 

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Oversight 8: Evaluation

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

B. The authorizer?s major
Transparency oversight and evaluation

of Process processes for 
renewal and closure are not
transparent.

 

 

The authorizer?s major
oversight and evaluation
processes for application,
renewal and closure are not
transparent; however, the
timelines are communicated.

 

The authorizer?s major
oversight and evaluation
processes for application,
renewal and closure are
transparent - clearly
communicated to schools
through contract and
documented guidance and
acknowledging that some
aspects of oversight
necessitate flexibility a
testing investigation).

 

The authorizer?s oversight and
evaluation process is fully
transparent; it defines and
communicates to schools
through the schooi contract
and documented guidance the
process, methods, and timing
of gathering and reporting
school performance and
compliance data, while
acknowledging that some
aspects of oversight
necessitate flexibility a
testing investigation).

 

6/5/2014

20

 

Ohio

 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Oversight Evaluation

 

Poor or Undeveloped Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

C. Enrollment
Financial
Reviews

Note: when on
authorizer is
reviewing
certain

a?iliated
schools, it may
nothave
access to all
the ?nancial
records
deemed
necessary for
the authorizer
to do a full
?nancial
review.
(Protocol
issue)

 

The authorizer rarely reviews
the enrollment and ?nancial
records of each school. When
or if reviewed, the authorizer
provides few details and
feedback that is rarely of value
to the school.

0 The authorizer minimally
reviews the enrollment and
financial records of each
school, and provides
occasional feedback with
limited details and that are of
limited use to the school.

0 No consideration is given to
the qualifications of the
individual performing the
review on behalf of the
authorizer.

0 Some consideration is given to
appropriate qualifications of
the authorizer?s reviewer.

 

 

The authorizer reviews and

provides feedback on
the enrollment and financial
records of each school.

All revenue sources are
considered against the
school's annual budget.

Consideration is given to the
qualifications of the
authorizer?s reviewer
respecting school financial
reviews.

 

The authorizer reviews and

provides feedback on
the enrollment and financial
records of each school.

The authorizer?s
recommendations to the
board are pro-active in that
they help the school achieve
greater ef?ciencies, and also
results in timely interventions
when problems arise.

All revenue sources are
considered against the
school?s annual budget.

The authorizer employs a

licensed school treasurer or

equivalent to conduct school

financial reviews, which

include the following:

0 budget ledgers,

transaction detail reports,

0 five year forecasts, and

0 previous Auditor of State
reports.

 

6/5/2014

21

 

Ohio

 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Oversight Evaluation

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

D. Financial
Audit Follow-

up

Note: when an
authorizer is
reviewing
certain

a?iliated
schools, it may
not have
access to all
the financial
records
deemed
necessary for
the authorizer
to do a full
?nancial
review.
{Protocol
issue)

 

0 When it receives timely notice
and the school agrees to the
meeting, the authorizer never
attends the school?s closing
audit conference.

0 The authorizer either rarely
follows-up with schools on
issues identi?ed in a school's
annual audit by the Auditor of
State or is excessive in its
follow-up and direction to the
schooL

 

0 When it receives timely notice
and the school agrees to the
meeting, the authorizer never

or rarely attends less than half

of the schools? closing audit
conferences.

0 The authorizer may follow-up
on legal compliance issues
identified in a school?s annual
audit by the Auditor of State.

 

0 When it receives timely notice
and the school agrees to the
meeting, the authorizer
attends the majority of the
schools? closing audit
conferences.

The authorizer addresses the

majority of issues identified in

a school's annual audit by the
Auditor of State, including

findings for recovery, issues of

material non-compliance, and
so on.

If the authorizer requires the
school to engage in a
Corrective Action Plan, the
authorizer monitors the
school's implementation of

A the plan.

 

When it receives timely notice
and the school agrees to the
meeting, the authorizer always
attends the schools? closing audit
conferences.

The authorizer thoroughly
addresses issues identi?ed in a
school's annual audit by the
Auditor of State, including
findings for recovery, issues of
material non-compliance, and so
on. These actions are evidenced
by correspondence and] or
meetings between the school and
the authorizer.

Examples of a school?s corrective
action could include but not limited
to:



adopting or advising relevant
policies, reducing deficiencies
by implementing additional
internal controls, and/or setting
up a board audit committee;
the follow-up to measure, along
with school?s status of previous
citations/concerns/comments
from the Auditor;

the authorizer engages in
follow?up to measure the
school?s progress in ensuring
that similar future findings are
avoided, with or without a
formal Corrective Action Plan.

 

6/5/2014

22

 

Department
of Education

Ohio

 

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Oversight Evaluation

 

POor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

E. Site Visit
Protocols 
Training

0 During an onsite review, data
are collected from a school
employee avallable at the
school on the clay of the
review.

0 The authorizer?s onsite
reviewers receive very little
training on the site visit
process and no protocols are
used.

 

 

0 During an onsite review, data
are collected from a school
employee available at the
school on the day of the
review.

0 The authorizer has an onsite
visit protocol; however, its
onsite reviewers are not
trained on the tool; and
therefore,

0 There is no evidence of
consistent use of the protocol
across reviewers.

 

0 During an onsite review, data
are collected from school
administrators and a sample
of instructors.

The authorizer?s onsite
reviewers are trained on and
regularly use observation and
interview protocols.

0 There is evidence of consistent
use of the protocols across
reviewers.

0 Data may be collected through
a variety of means and
throughout the school year.

 

0 During an onsite review, data
are collected consistently
from a variety of stakeholders,
which may include the charter
school's governing board
members, administrators,
teachers, students, parents,
and staff from the
management company (if
applicable).

0 Reviewers receive ongoing
training, formal or informal,
on the purpose, criteria,
process and protocols of
conducting onsite visits.

0 Additionally, training is
- provided as needed to remain
current with changes in law.

0 Data may be collected through
a variety of means and
throughout the school year.

 

6/5/2014

23

 

Department

of Education Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

Ohio

 

 

Oversight Evaluation

 

Poor or Undeveloped Ineffective Effective Exemplary

 

 

F. Site Visit 0 Site visit reviewers have little 0 At least one dedicated site 0 The authorizer has at least one 0 Many of the reviewers have
Reviewer or no experience working in or visit reviewer has limited dedicated site visit reviewer practiced in charter schools or
Expertise authorizing charter schools. experience (less than two with two or more years of authorizing for several years,
At least one review team years) working in or experience working in or and have diverse expertise
member is trained in school authorizing charter schools, authorizing charter schools. (and certification where

0880 under- finance, but has limited and at least one other site visit appropriate) in the following
standing of experience applying the reviewer has limited training Other reviewers are certi?ed areas:

aslerl?a? k??W'Edge in feweme Bed limited experience or (where appropriate) and have 0 Curriculum, instruction
pnf'c'zles? charter school compliance data knowledge in one or more of experience working in the and assessment;

3:339}? gathered from the site visit. the following areas: following areas: 0 Special education and ELL
training and/or 0 instruction 0 Curriculum, instruction instruction;

several years 0 No external sources are sought and assessment; and assessment; School accountability;
working in the in education related areas for 0 Special education and ELL 0 Special education and ELL School facilities;

field and which the authorizing staff lacks instruction; instruction; School law; and,

mastering the expertise. These areas include: School accountability; School accountability; School finance; and,
PrinCiP?es- 0 Charter schools; School facilities; School facilities; School governance.
0 Curriculum, instruction School law; School law; and,
and assessment; School finance; and/or School finance; and, If the charter school has a
Special education and ELL School governance. School governance. distinct focus online
instruction; delivery, special education,
School accountability; 0 When existing staff do not 0 When existing reviewers do dropout recovery), the

School facilities; have the range of expertise not have the range of expertise reviewers of these schools are
School law; needed, the authorizer needed, the authorizer knowledgeable in the area of
School finance; and, sometimes contracts with contracts with external the school's focus.

School governance. external sources to complete sources to complete particular
particular aspects of the site aspects of the site review. When existing reviewers do
visit review. not have the range of expertise
needed, the authorizer
contracts with external
sources to complete particular
aspects of the site visit review.

00000

0
00000
00000

0 00000

 

 

 

 

 

6/5/2014 24

 

Department

ofEducation Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

Ohio

 

 

Oversight 8: Evaluation

 

Poor or Undeveloped Ineffective Effective Exemplary

 

G. Site Visit 0 Based upon information from 0 Based upon information from 0 Based upon information from 0 Based upon information from

Reports site visits, the authorizer may site visits, the authorizer site visits, the authorizer site visits throughout the year,

provide the school with a provides the school with 3 provides the school with a the authorizer provides the 
written report but which fails written report of general written report which includes school with a written report
to provide any relevant findings, may include areas the following: which includes the following:
information about the school's needing improvement. 0 the information the information
operations. collected; and collected;

0 There may or may not be 0 areas needing 0 areas of strength; and

0 There is no follow-up. follow-up for improvement improvement. 0 areas needing

areas. improvement.

- Ongoing, the authorizer
requests and reviews status Ongoing, the authorizer
updates from the school requests and reviews status
pertaining to any areas updates from the school
needing improvement. pertaining to any areas

needing improvement.

 

 

H. The authorizer fails to The authorizer's - The authorizer?s The authorizer?s

Communica- communicate with the communication with the communication with the communication is frequent,

tion with the school's Governing Authority; school?s governing authority is school?s governing authority is speci?c and informative

Charter or limited, vague and/or frequent, specific and regarding the school's

School inconsistent. informative regarding the operations and includes both

0 The authorizer is school's operations. the school operator and
inappropriately overly governing authority.
involved in the school's
operations, directing it or
making decisions on the
governing authority?s behalf.

 

 

 

 

 

6/5/2014 9 25

 

Ohio

 

Department-
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Oversight Evaluation

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

l. Respecting
Governing
Authority
Autonomy in
Operations

 

The authorizer is
inappropriately overly
involved in the day-to-day
operational decisions of the
schools it authorizers and/or
operates more as a ?program?
of the authorizer.

Regardless of demonstrated
success, all schools have
limited or no autonomy over
decision-making.

The authorizer collects data in
a manner that is burdensome
to the school, without thought
to protect students and public
interests.

0 The authorizer never examines
its own compliance
requirements to possibly
minimize burden and increase
the autonomy of its schools.

 

0 The authorizer is
inappropriately 
involved in the day-to-day
operational decisions of the
schools it authorizers.

The authorizer collects data in
a manner that is burdensome
to the school, without thought
to protect students and public
interests.

0 Authorizer may or rarely (no
more than once every two
years) examines its own
compliance requirements to
possibly minimize burden and
increase the autonomy of its
schools.

 

The authorizer has limited

involvement in the day-toeday 
operations of the schools it
authorizers, targeting those
that have demonstrated poor
performance or non-
compliance.

The authorizer collects data in
a manner that minimizes
administrative burden on the
school, and protects student
and public interests.

Authorizer occasionally (once
or twice every two years)
examines its own compliance
requirements to possibly
minimize burden and increase
the autonomy of its schools.

 

The authorizer has no
involvement in any school's ..
authority over its day-to-day
operations, unless required to
as part of its contractual
obligations pertaining to
intervention.

0 The authorizer collects data in
a manner that minimizes
administrative burden on the
school, and protects student
and public interests.

0 The authorizer annually
reviews its own compliance
requirements and evaluates
the potential to increase
school autonomy based on
flexibility in the law,
streamlining requirements or
other considerations.

 

6/5/2014

26

 

Ohio 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Oversight Evaluation

 

Poor or Undeveloped.

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

Int

ervention

 

The authorizer is unaware of
its obligation to intervene in
accordance with Ohlo law.? 

The conditions that trigger
intervention are never
articulated by the authorizer
to its schools.

The authorizer never or rarely
provides schools with timely
notice of contract violations
and/or provides little to no
information on performance
deficiencies.

There is no evidence that the
authorizer (based upon its
own oversight or evidence
from ODE and/or AOS that a
compliance issue(s) exist),
intervenes or follows-up on
issues with schools in which
compliance problems are
identified.

 

The authorizer is generally
aware of its obligation to
Intervene a charter
school in accordance with Ohio
law.

The charter school contract
states the conditions that may
trigger intervention.

The authorizer occasionally
provides schools with timely
notice of contract violations,
and/or minimal notice of
performance deficiencies.

There minimal or limited
evidence that the authorizer
intervenes with problems
related to compliance which
are identified during its own
oversight or when identified by
an external agency, such as
ODE or AOS.

When intervention occurs, it is
usually very prescriptive in
nature and/or the authorizer
defaults to another entity,
such as ODE or A05, for
intervention guidance.

 

The authorizer establishes and
makes known to the school in
the contract the conditions
that may trigger intervention
and the types of actions and
consequences that may ensue.

The authorizer provides timely
notice of contract violations
and performance deficiencies.

0 There is evidence that the
authorizer almost always
intervenes in the charter
school?s operations to correct

compliance issues or problems

in the school?s overall
performance, based upon the
authorizer?s oversight, or
evidence from ODE and/or
A05.

 

The authorizer establishes and
makes known to schools at
the outset an intervention
policy stating the general
conditions that may trigger
intervention and the types of
actions and consequences that
may ensue.

The authorizer gives schools
clear, adequate, evidence?
based, and timely notice of
contract violations and
performance deficiencies.

The authorizer initiates
intervention in the charter
school's operations in a timely
manner and clearly linked to
correcting speci?c deficits in
the school?s overall
performance.

0 The authorizer allows school
reasonable time and
opportunity for remediation
in non-emergency situations.

0 Intervention strategies clearly
preserve school autonomy
and responsibility 
identifying what the school
must remedy without
prescribing solutions; and
understanding that the school
may choose a different path).

 

6/

5/2014

27

 

Department;

of Education Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Ohio

 

Oversight Evaluation

 

Poor or Undeveloped Ineffective Effective Exemplary

 

K. Oversight 0 Provides a report, very broad 0 Provides a report to each 0 Provides a report to each 0 Provides a report to each

Evaluation in nature, when compliance school, summarizing fiscal and school, summarizing its - school, summarizing its
Report to problems arise that must be operational compliance. performance and compliance performance and compliance
Schools addressed by the school. to date. to date and identifying areas
of strength and areas needing
improvement.

 

 

L. Annual 0 The authorizer provides the The authorizer produces an 0 The authorizer produces an The authorizer produces an
Report to the general public and ODE with a annual report for each of the annual report on the individual annual public report that
Public very brief report on the schools that it authorizes. schools that it oversees. These provides clear, accurate
school?s compliance with the These reports provide limited reports include informative performance data for the
laws for each of the schools it information on the school?s data on the school?s charter schools it oversees,
authorizes. compliance with the laws and compliance with the laws and reporting on individual
meeting the terms of its meeting the terms of its schools and its overall
contract. contract. portfolio performance and
progress toward achieving its
authorizing mission.

 

 

 

 

 

6/5/2014 23

 

Ohio

 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Termination Renewal Decision Making

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

A. Contract
Termination

Termination
occurs when
the authorizer
chooses to
close a
charter school
prior to the
expiration
date/term of
the charter
school
contract.

Non-renewal
of a contract
occurs at the
end of a
charter
school?s
contract term.

 

The criteria for terminating a

school's contract during its
charter term are defined in the
contract.

The authorizer does not have a
written policy explaining the
grounds for termination, nor the
procedures to be followed if
termination is required.

0 Even when evidence is brought

before it that an egregious
violation of law has occurred,
the authorizer never terminates
a school?s contract during its
charter term.

0 The authorizer relies upon the

state's closure law.

 

The criteria for terminating a

school's contract during its
char her term are defined In the
contract.

The authorizer does not have a
written policy explaining the
grounds for termination, nor the
procedures to be followed if
termination is required.

The authorizer does not seek
evidence that might result in
termination of a school?s
contract during its charter term,
but will consider evidence
brought before it.

The authorizer seldom
terminates a school?s contract
when there is an egregious
violation of law such as clear
self-dealing funneling
school resources to family 
friends of school board
members and/or staff); falsifying
data (financial or student)

 

The criteria for terminating a

school?s contract during its
charter term are clearly defined
in the contract.

The authorizer has a written
policy explaining the grounds
for termination and the
procedures to be followed if
termination is required.

The authorizer?s ongoing
oversight and evaluation
provides evidence for these
decisions to be made.

The authorizer may terminate a
school?s contract during its
charter term when there is
evidence of some or all of
following:
unacceptable academic
performance;
0 egregious violations of law;
0 extreme financial
mismanagement leading to
the school's demise; or
unfaithfulness to the terms
of the contract clea 
mismatch between school?s
mission and its actual
program).

 

The criteria for terminating a
school?s contract during its
charter term are clearly defined
in the contract.

The authorizer has a written
policy explaining the grounds
and criteria for termination; the
speci?c evidence it will collect
and/or document, and the
procedures both the school and

the authorizer will follow to

wind-up the school?s
operations.

The authorizer terminates a
school?s contract during its
charter term when there is clear
evidence of some or all of
following:

extreme
underperformance;

0 an egregious violation of
law;

0 a violation of the public
trust that imperils students
health and well-being or
public funds (theft); or

unfaithfulness to the terms
of the contract clear
mismatch between school's
mission and its actual
program).

 

6/5/2014

29

 

Ohio

 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Termination 8: Renewal Decision Making

 

Poor or Undeveloped

4 Effective

Exemplary

 

 

8. Evidence
Based
Renewal

 

0 Contract renewal is almost
always assumed or made
based upon factors other than
school performance.

 

Ineffective
- The contract renewal decision 0 The contract renewal decision
is based upon a substantial

is based upon a limited body
body of evidence of legal

of academic and operational

evidence recent financial compliance and performance.

audits, recent compliance These data inform renewal

monitoring reports, or the decisions.

school?s most recent state

accountability report card). 0 Evidence may include at least
two of the following:

0 multiple years of student
achievement;

0 multiple measures of
student achievement,
including statewide
assessments and
measures;

0 financial audits; or

0 site visit reports and/or
other compliance reports.

 

 

The authorizer bases the
renewal process and renewal
decisions on thorough analysis
of a comprehensive body of
objective evidence defined by
the performance framework
in the charter contract.

0 Evidence includes at least all
of the following:

0

multiple years of student
achievement; multiple
measures of student
achievement;

financial audits;

site visit reports and/or
other compliance reports;
and,

status reports on
corrective action plans or
other required
interventions, if necessary.

 

6/5/2014

30

 

 

Department
of Education

Ohio

 

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Termination Renewal Decision Making

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

C. Renewal
and Non-
Renewal
Decisions

0 The authorizer grants renewal
to all schools regardless of
failure to meet the terms and 
academic achievement targets

0 The authorizer inconsistently
grants renewal to schools,
even those that have failed to
meet the terms and academic

The authorizer grants renewal
to schools that are fiscally and
organizationally viable and
that meet most of the

 

in their contract, fiscal or
organizational problems, or
compliance with the law.

achievement targets in their following criteria:

contract; have fiscal or achieve their contractual
organizational problems; or academic standards and
have been out of compliance targets; or

with the law. 0 faithful to the terms of

their contract.
Note: This approach to renewal -
decisions is evident regardless of the
strength of the performance
framework.

Note: Even in the absence of a strong
performance framework, the
authorizer consistently applies
performance?based criteria in
making renewal decisions.

 

 

 

 

The authorizer only grants
renewal to schools that are
fiscally and organizationally
viable based on criteria in the
school's performance
framework with rigorous,
specifically goals and targets:

0 achieve their contractual
academic standards and
targets; and

faithful to the terms of
their contract.

Note: it is assumed that an
exemplary authorizer uses a
performance framework with
rigorous, speci?c goals and targets.

 

6/5/2014

31

 

Ohio

 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

4 Termination Renewal Decision Making

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

Cumulative
Report on
Performance

Note: Provided
each year to
the school?s
governing
authority, the
cumulative
report builds a
record of the
school?s
performance
over the
charter term.

The cumulative
report is used
as part of the
evidence based
renewal
decisions
described in
indicator 8.

 

0 Does not provide the charter
school a report on its

cumulative performance, other

than the Authorizer?s
Compliance Review report
submitted annually to the
department.

0 May annually provide the
charter school with a report,
bur It does not relate to the
school's performance against
its contract; and/or

0 When a report is given, it does
not include multiple years of
performance data against its
contract term.

 

 

Annually provides each
charter school with a report of
its' performance;

0 The report includes multiple
years but may not include the
school?s entire charter term.

 

0 As referenced in the school's

contract, provides each
charter school, in advance of
the renewal decision, a
cumulative performance
report that summarizes the
school?s performance record
over the charter term and
states the authorizer?s
summative ?ndings
concerning the school's
performance and its prospects
for renewal.

 

6/5/2014

32

 

Ohio

 

Department?
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Termination Renewal Decision Making

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

E.
Transparent
Renewal
Application
Process

 

The authorizer does not have
an application process for
contract renewal.

 

The authorizer may have an
application renewal process,
but does not consistently
require schools to follow the
process, nor does it specify
criteria for renewal.

 

0 The authorizer has an
application process and
requires all schools seeking
renewal to apply through a
renewal application.

a The guidance regarding the
renewal process is non-speci?c
as to criteria, content and/or
format;

0 The process may allow a
school to present additional
evidence regarding its
performance.

 

The authorizer has an
application process and
requires all schools seeking
renewal to apply through a
renewal application.

0 The requirements for renewal
are publicly available and
include written guidance
regarding the process, content
and format for renewal
applications, as well as
criteria/standards used to
evaluate the applicant and a
timeline.

The application provides the
school an opportunity and
reasonable time to respond to
the cumulative report; correct
the record, if needed; and
present additional evidence
regarding its performance.

 

6/5/2014

33

 

Ohio

 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Termination Renewal Decision Making

 

Poor of Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

F. Prompt
Notification
and
Explanation
of Reasons
for the
Renewal
Decision

 

The authorizer?s written
notification of renewal I
?decision Farely includes an
explanation of the reasons for
the decision.

0 Parents and students have
almost no time and no
information to make informed
choices for the coming school
year.

 

- The authorizer?s written
notification of renewal
includes a very limited

explanation of the reasons for

the decision.

0 Parents and students have

little time and limited

information to make informed
choices for the coming school

year.

 

I The authorizer 
notifies each school of its
renewal decision, including a
written explanation of the
reasons for the decision.

0 Parents and students have
enough time and information
to make informed choices for
the coming school year.

 

The authorizer 
notifies each. school of its
renewal decision, including a
specific written explanation of
the reasons for the decision
actual performance
standard and performance
level against the specific
targets and goals in the
contract).

0 Parents and students have
ample time and information
to make informed choices for
the coming school year when a
school?s contract is non-
renewed.

 

 

6/5/2014

34

 

Ohio

 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Termination Renewal Decision Making

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

G. Closure
Process

 

The authorizer is unaware of
its obligation to oversee
school closure. 

In the event of a school
closure, the authorizer has no
formal policy or procedure for
school?s to follow. The closing
school might default to the
ODE guidance.

0 The authorizer does not
oversee the closure process.

 

The authorizer is aware of its
obligation to oversee school
closure; however, It lacks the
capacity to oversee; when a
school has closed, the
authorizer may or may not
have submitted the Closing
Assurances to ODE.

In the event of a school
closure, the authorizer has no
formal policy or procedure for
school?s to follow. The closing
school might default to the
ODE guidance.

The authorizer does ensure
that student records are
returned to the home school
district.

 

The authorizer is aware of its
obligation to oversee school
closure.

0 The authorizer may have a
formal policy, but at a
minimum follows ODE's
guidance.

0 In the event of a school
closure, the authorizer
oversees the school's
governing board and
leadership in carrying out a
closure process that:

informs parents,

0 transitions student
records to the home
school district,

0 disposes of school funds,
property, and assets in
accordance with law; and

submits Closing
Assurances to ODE

 

The authorizer is aware of its
obligation to oversee school
closure.
Theauthonzerhasafonnalpo?cy
for overseeing school closure.
lntheeventofaschooldosure,
the authorizer oversees and
works with the school's governing
board and leadership in carrying
out a detailed closure protocol
that ensures:

timely notification to
parents including assistance
in finding new placements

orderly transition of
students records to home
school district,

0 disposition of school funds,
property, and assets in
accordance with law; and

submits Closing Assurances
to ODE

The authorizer carries out or has

the capacity and commitment to

carry out the closure to the
extent possible if school?s
governing authority fails to carry
out the protocols.

 

6/5/2014

35

 

Department . .
otEdUcation Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

Ohio

 

 

Technical Assistance and Authorizer Req uirements in Rule and Law

 

Poor or Undeveloped Ineffective Effective Exemplary

 

 

A. Ongoing - Technical assistance, if 0 Most technical assistance 0 The authorizer routinely The authorizer always
Technical provided to schools, is provided by the authorizer provides timely provides timely
Assistance to reactive to problems that is reactive to problems. comprehensive technical comprehensive technical
Schools arise. assistance in response to assistance in response to
The authorizer occasionally issues, problems and issues, problems and
The authorizer does not solicits information about concerns identified by concerns identi?ed by
assess the technical the technical assistance either the authorizer or the either the authorizer or the
Note: the assistance needs of the needs of the schools it . school. school.
proVision of schools it authorizes. authorizes. A
technical 0 Almost all technical
aSSiStanCE does 0 The authorizer sporadically The authorizer regularly assistance is proactive,
not mean that provides the technical assesses or solicits - intended to prevent
the authorizer assistance identified as information about the problems from arising in the
does work for needed by the schools. technical assistance needs schools it authorizes. 
the school; the of the schools it authorizes.
authorizer A I The authorizer regularly
The authorizer routinely assesses or solicits
EUidahce: provides the technical information about the
inC'Uding assistance identified as technical assistance needs of
iNfOFmation . needed by the schools. the schools it authorizes.
about
resources; but The authorizer regularly The authorizer always
the aUthoriZer solicits feedback on the provides the technical
does not Clothe quality and impact of the assistance identified as
work- technical assistance that it needed by the schools.
provides to the schools.
0 The authorizer continuously
solicits feedback on the
quality and impact of the
technical assistance that it
provides to the schools it
authorizes.

 

 

 

 

 

6/5/2014 36

 

Ohio

 

Department,
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Technical Assistance and Authorizer Req uirements in Rule and Law

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

B. Ongoing
Updates of
Legal and Policy
Changes

 

The authorizer never or
rarely updates schools on
changes to rule and law that
impact the schools?
operations.

0 The authorizer sporadically
updates schools on changes
to rule and law that impact
the schools? operations, but
has no process for doing so.

0 The authorizer?s updates
may include directing
schools to another credible
source for this information
OAPCS).

 

 

0 The authorizer has a process

that it uses to at least
annually, informs'schools on
changes to rule and law that
impact the schools?
operations.

The authorizer?s updates may
include directing schools to
another credible source for
this information OAPCS,
OCQE).

 

The authorizer continually

ensures that schools are
informed in a timely manner
of changes to rule and law
that impact the schools?
operations, ensuring that
schools are in compliance as
quickly as needed.

The authorizer?s updates may
include directing schools to
another credible source for
this information OAPCS,
OCQE).

 

6/5/2014

37

 

Ohio

 

Department
of Education

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Technical Assistance and Authorizer Requirements in Rule and Law

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

C. Ongoing
Professional
Developmenl
(PD) for
Schools

 

0 The authorizer never provides
information about PD
opportunities for its schools.

0 The authorizer sporadically
provides information about
PD opportunities for its
schools.

0r

0 Is prescriptive or mandating
that its schools participate in
certain PD, excepting a topic
specific training that is a
requirement of the contract.

 

 

- The authorizer shares

information about PD
opportunities for its schools,
which may or may not be
charter school specific.

0 The authorizer may provide

PD directly on certain topics
annual meeting for
updates)

While the authorizer shares
information about PD
opportunities, it is the
school's independent decision
as to whether or not it
participates, excepting a topic
specific training that is a
requirement of the contract.

 

The authorizer provides its

schools with multiple sources
of information about PD
opportunities for its schools.

0r

0 The authorizer provides at

least some of the PD directly
to its schools, based upon
school need.

While the authorizer
encourages and promotes
high quality PD, it is the
school's independent decision
as to whether or not it
participates, excepting a topic
specific training that is a
requirement of the contract.

 

6/5/2014

38

 

Department
of Education

Ohio

 

Authorizer Quality Practices Rubric

 

Technical Assistance and Authorizer Re uirements in Rule and Law

 

Poor or Undeveloped

Ineffective

Effective

Exemplary

 

 

D. Effective
Working
Relationships
with Schools'
Governing
Authorities

 

0 Beyond what is stated in the
charter school contract, the
authorizer has no written
policy and no explanation
that differentiates its roles
and responsibilities from
those of the charter school's
governing authority. In the
absence of clarity, both
parties frequently have
misunderstandings and their
mutual respect is low.

0 The authorizer rarely works to
maintain a solid relationship
with their assigned schools?
governing authority members
rare communication; no
attendance at board
meetings).

0 The authorizer provides little

guidance to its governing
authorities.

 

- While not documented
beyond what is stated inthe
charter school contract, the
authorizer is able to explain in
general terms how its roles
and responsibilities differ
from the school's governing
authority. However, both
parties may view the roles
and responsibilities
differently.

a While the authorizer tries to

maintain a solid relationship
with their assigned schools?
governing authority members,
differing opinions and
misunderstandings between
the authorizer and governing
authorities occasionally leads
to a lack of respect between
both parties limited
communication, sporadically
or not attending board
meetings).

 

0 While not documented
beyond what is stated in the
charter school contract, the
authorizer and the school?s
governing authority describe
roles and responsibilities that
are understood and respected
by both parties.

0 The authorizer regularly

works to maintain a solid
relationship with their
assigned schools? governing
authority members 
regular communication,
attending at least two board
meetings annually for each
school).

 

0 Beyond what is stated in the
charter school contract, roles
and responsibilities of the
authorizing staff are clearly
separated, documented and
delineated from the governing
authorities of the charter
schools it authorizers. This
clear delineation is
understood and respected by
both parties.

0 The authorizer continuously
works to maintain a solid
relationship with their
assigned schools' governing
authority members 
frequent communication
(newsletters, for example),
attending as many board
meetings as possible; directly
informing board members
about compliance concerns,
high stakes reviews, and so
on].

 

6/5/2014

39

 


i
i


Ohio Charter School Renewal Decision Criteria
I

 

1. The authorizjer has a written policy explaining the grounds and criteria for:
i
renewal/temiination decisions; the speci?c evidence it will collect and/or document;

and the procedures both the school and the authorizer will follow to wind-up the

school?s operations.

 

2. The authorizer terminates a school?s contract during its charter term when there is
clear evidence of: academic underpetformance; an egregious violation of law; a

violation of the public trust that imperils students health and well-being or public


funds (the?j; or unfaithfulness to the terms of the contract.


 

3. The authorizer bases the renewal process and renewal decisions on a thorough

analysis of a; comprehensive body of objective evidence de?ned by the
performance? framework in the charter contract. Evidence includes at least all of the
following: niultiple years of student achievement; multiple measures of

student achievement; ?nancial audits; site visit reports and/or other compliance

reports; and status reports on corrective action plans or other required

interventions, if necessary.

 

4. The authoriier only grants renewal to schools that are ?scally and organizationally
viable based on criteria in the school?s performance framework with rigorous,
speci?cally goals and targets, including: achieving their contractual academic

standards and targets; and ful?lling the terms of their contract.

 

5. The authoriier has an-application process and requires all schools seeking

renewal to reapply.

 

 

 

 

Department

of Education Authorizer Quality Practices Contract Review

Ohio 

 

 

Authorizer: New, Current, Renewal: Type of school (gen, swd, dor): Grade levels served:

 

 

School Name: Expiration date: 1st year of operation:
IRN 

 

 

 

 

Note ADM,
LRC grades for last three years, using VA for K-8, plus Grad ratestwhen appropriate; overall grades

 

Contract Student Performance Measures

 

Poor Ineffective Effective Exemplary

proficiency rates on state assessments,
student academic growth,
graduation rates,

0 Vague measures of student 0 Multiple measures of 0 multiple measures of
performance, such as local student performance which student performance, such
report card ratings or may include the following: as
statewide assessments. statewide assessments, I proficiency rates on attendance,

0 attendance, or state assessments if applicable, post-secondary enrollment after

0 No specific metrics and if applicable, graduation I if applicable, student high school, and
targets for school-wide rates. academic growth, 0 if applicable, student performance on other
performance leg, "80% ifapplicable, valid and reliable assessments as laid out in. the
in 3rd grade 0 Metrics and targets for graduation rates, contract.
reading and math 0AA) school-wide performance 0 attendance, and Metrics and targets are specific and rigorous.

are vague meet state 0 if applicable, post- 0 Targets include all students and subgroups of

standards) secondary enrollment students.

after high school. 0 At a minimum, targets are set that compare the

Targets are for the all school's student performance to the state, schools

students group; they do 0 Metrics and targets for serving in the

not include subgroups of school-wide performance same geographical area.
students, are speci?c 80% Mission-specific academic goals may be included;

proficiency in 3rd grade such goals include specific metrics and targets.
reading, meet or exceed
value added, etc.)

00000

0 Targets include all students
and subgroups of students.

 

 

 

 

 

Notes and questions:

 

2014?2015 school year

 

Ohio

Department
of Education

 

Authorizer Quality Practices Contract Review

 

Contract Terms for High-Stakes and Ongoing Reviews

 

Poor

0 Contract renewal is
essentially automatic and
contract language may
specify automatic renewal as
the default.

0 Authorizer contracts rarely
specify a high-stakes review
to take place prior to contract
renewal.

 

Ineffective

0 Contract renewal is
essentially automatic and
contract language may
specify automatic renewal as
the default.

- Authorizer contracts
occasionally specify a high-
stakes review to take place
prior to contract renewal, but
at least every 5 years for
extended contracts.

 

Effective

Authorizer contracts
regularly specify a required
high-stakes review to take
place prior to contract
renewal, but at least every 5
years for extended contracts.

 

Exemplary

All authorizer contracts specify a required high-
stakes review to take place prior to contract
renewal, and at least every 5 years for extended
contracts. 

 

Notes and Questions:

 

Contract Terms for Renewal and Non-renewal

 

0 Contracts rarely define the
performance standards and
criteria and conditions for
renewal.

0 Contracts rarely define the
consequences for meeting or
not meeting standards and
conditions.

0 Most contracts broadly
define the performance
standards and criteria and
conditions for renewal.

- Most contracts broadly
define the consequences for
meeting or not meeting
standards and conditions.

0 Most contracts define the
performance standards and
criteria and conditions for
renewal.

Most contracts define the
consequences for meeting or
the consequences for not
meeting standards and
conditions.

 

- All contracts clearly define and detail performance
standards and criteria and conditions for renewal.

All contracts clearly define and detail the
consequences for meeting or the consequences for
not meeting standards and conditions.

 

 

Notes and Questions:

 

 

 

2014-2015 school year

 

Department . 
of Education Authorizer Quality Practices Contract ReVIew

Ohio 

 

 

Contract Terms for Amendments and Updates

 

No specific conditions for 0 General conditions for 0 General conditions for 0 General conditions for amendment or
amendment or modi?cations amendment or modifications amendment or modifications modifications are noted in the contract.
are noted in the contract. are noted in the contract. are noted in the contract.

I ,3?Authorizer regularly assesses contract language

Authorizer'doensnot modify 0 Authorizer regularly assesses Authorizer regularly assesses to ensure consistency with changes in state
the terms of a contract, even contract language to ensure contract language to ensure and/or federal law.
when it is renewed with the consistency with changes in consistency with changes in
school. state and/or federal law. state and/or federal law. 0 Authorizer regularly updates its performance

framework to support higher achievement or to

Authorizer has an updated 0 Authorizer regularly updates ensure better compliance.
contract template that it uses all or most of its existing
as it authorizers new schools; contracts to reflect changes 0 Authorizer regularly updates all or most of its
however, old contracts are in state and/or federal law. existing contracts to reflect changes made in
not updated to reflect the the template it uses for new schools.
more rigorous contract terms 0 If an authorizer updates its
until the existing contract performance framework to
expires. support higher achievement

and ensure better

compliance in the new
schools it authorizers, old
contracts are not updated to
reflect this new framework
until the existing contract
expires.

 

 

 

 

 

Notes and Questions:

 

2014-2015 school year

 

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation Performance Accountability Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Academic Goals Yes/No
School Was Rated or Better on the Following Performance Measures

Annual Measurable Objectives NO
Performance Index Score NO
Overall Value-Added Score YES
Value Added: Gifted Students NR
Value Added: Students with Disabilities YES
Value Added: Lowest 20 Percent of Students YES
Literacy Improvement Pending
Performance against comparable schools

Outperformed Home District Pro?ciency Rates (all grades and subjects) NO
Outperformed Statewide Charter Pro?ciency Rates (all grades and subjects) NO
Growth

The School's Value-Added Score Shows at Least 1.5 Years of Student Growth YES
Financial Goals

Total Assets Exceed Total Liabilities NO
The School Has at Least Two Months of Cash Reserves NO
Eighty Percent?of Invoices Are Paid within Thirty Days YES
The School 15 Auditable YES
The School Has Not Been Issued Findings for Recovery by the Auditor's Of?ce NO
Non-compliance, Material Weakness, De?ciencies or Findings (If Any) Have NR
Been Corrected

Enrollment Increased from the Previous Year YES
The School Has a Waiting List of Students in at Least Some Grades NO
Operational and Governance Goals

The Governing Authority Has a Strategic Plan YES
The Governing Authority Is Making Progress on Its Strategic Plan YES
Governing Authority Actions Are Free of Con?icts of Interest YES
Zero Referrals Were Made to the Ohio Ethics Commission YES
Compliance Submissions Are at Least 90 Percent Accurate and Complete YES
Compliance Submissions Are at Least 90 Percent On-Time YES
Site Visit Records Are at Least 90 Percent Compliant YES

 

 

 . ,?vn .-

OCCS School Performance Accountability Framework*




 

The school?s Overall Grade will be equivalent to the local district grade or greater than

three of the ?ve closest demographically comparable schools and be rated no lower than a



 

2.) The Achievement Component Grade will be greater than or equal to the comparison

group, be no lower than a or show an upward trend in data.

 

3.) The Gap Closing Component Grade will be greater than or equal to the comparison group.

 

4.) The K-3 Eiteracy Component Grade will be greater than or equal to the comparison group,

show an upward trend or be no lower than a 

 

5.) The Progress Component Grade will be no lower than a 

 

6.) The four? 'and five-year Graduation Rate Component Grade will greater than or equal to

the comparison group or show an upward trend.

 

7.) The Prepared for Success Component Grade will be greater than or equal the comparison

group or no lower than a 

 

8.) Insert Scho;ol Speci?c Goal.
1

 

 

 

*Reprinted witli permission from OCCS

 

Quality Practices Review Overview

Beginning in January, 2015 and annually thereafter, authorizers (also called sponsors), will be
evaluated on three components: the completeness of monitoring schools? compliance with laws and
rules; the overall academic performance of their community schools; and their adherence to quality
practices.

The review of the sponsor?s adherence to Quality Practices is based upon quality practices as defined
by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA). A review instrument to assess
adherence to quality practices was designed by a team of Ohio department of education staff,
sponsors (representatives from the Ohio Association of Charter School Authorizers; the former
Authorizer Collaborative; the Ohio Coalition of Quality Education; and the Ohio Alliance of Public
Charter Schools), and was reviewed by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers.
Independent national experts used by NACSA participated in the pilot ofthe quality review evaluation
and minor revisions were made based upon comments.

The process is based upon gathering data from multiple sources with intentional overlap to provide a
comprehensive pool of information upon which to assess the sponsor's practices. The sponsor provides
many documents for review, such as a description of its organization, policies and procedures, sample
documents used for oversight, sample communications, developer applications and so on. Existing
sources of information and data such as the sponsor?s community school contracts and schools? Report
Card data are also readily available on the department?s website. An online survey is sent to all the
sponsor?s schools, asking the school about the sponsor?s technical assistance, communication,
oversight and monitoring and contract renewal processes. A few schools are selected for a telephone
interview, which covers the same topics but allows an opportunity to gain more detail or ask clarifying
questions. The information collected by way of the online survey and telephone interview is
supplemental in nature and does not, of itself, lead to a rating. The quality review relies upon a team
of independent reviewers who are knowledgeable about quality practices of sponsorship, and trained
in evaluating evidence of quality practices, including the use of standardized protocols for data .
collection and analysis. Members ofthe review team may n_ot be affiliated with the sponsor or any of
the community schools currently or formerly authorized by the sponsor. Review teams consist of at
least three members, at least one of whom are from Office of Quality School Options, and may
include one or more national experts and/or a sponsor peer from an organization with an exemplary
rating.

The Quality Review

The sponsor is evaluated across six critical areas and asked to provide documentation of its practices
for five of them.

I. Commitment and Capacity sponsor provides documentation

Overview of Sponsor/Authorizer?s Adherence to Quality Practices Review 2014-2015 1

Quality Practices Review Overview

a. Examples include the organization?s mission statement, strategic plan, organizational
chart, staff resumes/bios
ll. Application Process and Decision Making sponsor provides documentation
3. Examples include application and rubric for school developers; interview questions;
reviewer training materials
Ill. Performance contracts ODE uses information already provided
a. Review team will use current school contracts, looking at the accountability section and
other descriptors of school performance expectations
IV. Oversight and Evaluation sponsor provides documentation
3. Examples include protocols used to monitor and oversee charter schools, site visit
form?s; corrective action plans; annual reports of the school?s progress against contract
measures
V. Termination and Renewal Decision Making sponsor provides documentation
a. Examples include renewal applicatiOns; cumulative performance reports
VI. Technical Assistance sponsor provides documentation
a. Examples include agendas from professional development events; sample
communications to schools

Review Process

Following the orientation, the sponsor will upload documents that indicate its practices for five of the
six critical areas. The Review Team will notify the schools and the sponsor of the online survey; send
out the online survey; schedule telephone interviews with a subset of schools; review documents
uploaded by the sponsor, along with examples of community school contracts; analyze survey results
and telephone interview results and use them to either confirm practices already shown by the
sponsor?s documents, or propose questions to the sponsor during the onsite interview; and schedule
the onsite interview with the sponsor. The Review Team will interview the sponsor, finalize the rubric
and rating, send the sponsor the finalized rubric and score and schedule a reporting out telephone
conference.

Expectations of the department?s Review Team

0 Provide an orientation to the sponsor about the review, covering:
Evaluation overview;

Timeline;

Documents expected;

Collaboration Center uploading process, if needed;

0000

School online survey (sent to all schools);

Overview of Sponsor/Authorizer?s Adherence to Quality Practices Review 2014-2015 2

Quality Practices Review Overview

0 Description of the school interview (schools selected with replacement to avoid
duplicating schools using the same management company with the same grade levels
served and to include schools that were recently approved to open or were recently
renewed);

0 Contract review template (stratified sample of contracts to ensure at least three are

reviewed for sponsors with four or more schools, and up to 10% for sponsors with more

than 30 schools in operation);

Description of the sponsor interview and expected participants;

Rubric and scoring thresholds;

Receipt of rubric with comments and scoring;

0000

Reporting out conference call; and,
0 Next steps.

0 Full participation of team members;

0 Timely response to sponsor.

Expectations of Cornmunity School Sponsors

0 Provide all documents or data requested by ODE for review within the time frame;
0 If the documents or data do not exist do create them for the purpose of the
review;
0 There can be no extension to the document review deadline; additional information
maylbe shared during the onsite interview;
0 Facilitate scheduling the onsite interview with the review team, to ensure that key sponsor
personnel and board members are able to participate;
- Encourage schools to respond to the online survey;
0 Encourage schools to participate in the telephone interview;
- Participate in the onsite interview;
- Participate in the exit conference.

Expectations of Community Schools

0 Participate in the online survey provided by ODE, unless selected for a telephone interview;
a Facilitate the scheduling of telephone interviews; 
0 Participants include administrative staff, building leadership, and members of the

school?s governing authority, as needed to provide the most comprehensive responses.

1

Overview of Sponsor/Authorizer?s Adherence to Quality Practices Review 2014-2015 3

 

Quality Practices Review Overview

Determining the Rating

Each indicator of each section is given a score of 1 to 4, with 4 being equivalent to exemplary practice.
Three of the critical areas carry twice the weight of the other three: evidence of the organization's
commitment to authorizing and its capacity to carry out the obligations; the rigor used to approve new
schools; and the rigor used to make renewal decisions count double. Within each critical area, the
points are totaled and averaged. Weights are assigned and the overall points totaled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Critical Area Points Per Area Weight Maximum
Possible Points

Commitment Capacity 4 2 8
Application Process Decision Making Oversight Evaluation 4 1 4

I TerminatiOn &7Renewa  4 2 8
Technical Assistance 4 1 4
Total Points - - - - - - -- 36

 

 

 

 

 

After totaling the points earned across all six critical areas, the total is divided by the maximum number
of points that an authorizer could possibly earn (36 points). The resulting percentage is then evaluated
against the following ranges:

 

 

 

 

 

Percentage of Possible Points Earned Overall Level of Adherence to Quality Practices
90% to 100% I I Exemplary 7
75% to 89% Effective
55% to 74.9% Ineffective 7
Less than 55% Poor or Underdeveloped

 

 

 

Relationship of the evaluation to applying to ODE for approval to open start-up community schools
or applying to renew the Sponsorship Agreement with ODE

The application for approval as a sponsor, including the renewal application, is aligned to the six critical
areas. A completed evaluation is a prerequisite for applicants seeking to enter into an agreement with
ODE to sponsor new start-up community schools, under either Pathways II or and to authorizers
seeking renewal of their agreement with the department. If an authorizer has received a rating of
Exemplary or Effective in any critical area, many of the questions in the first time approval and renewal
application will be waived in recognition that the sponsor has already documented its practices at an
acceptable level.

Overview of Sponsor/Authorizer?s Adherence to Quality Practices Review 2014-2015 4

Explanation of Ohio?s accountability system changes

Through 2012, the state?s growth measure usedjust a single year of data to issue a rating.
Using a single year of data decreased the level of certainty around growth made for some schools.
and districts, with the effect that schools were more likely to receive an average rating of ?Meets
Growth? than  rating of ?Above? or ?Below.? In 2013, state law was updated to require the use
of up to three years of data in the Value-Added calculation where possible. By adding up to two
additional years of data, Ohio?s Value-Added vendor was able to greatly increase the. level of
certainty that growth, or a lack of growth, was accurate, resulting in more schools and districts
receiving grades at both ends of the performance continuum than in prior years.

At the same time, school year 2013 saw a change in the rating options awarded for value-
added. Prior to 2013, value-added data were examined within the context of a three level rating
system, with schools rated based on gain indices of:

0 above 2.00 and up
0 rhet between 1.99 to -2
0 below below -2.00
As of school year 2013, Value-Added data are examined within the context of an A-F
grading system based on gain indices of:
2.00 and up
0  1.99 to 1.00
0.99 to -l.00
-1.01 to -2.00



below -2.00

As a reisult of this change, a subset of schools that would previously be identi?ed as met,
but falling in the lower range of met gain scores -1.01 to -2.00) are now considered to have
made less thani one year of growth within the accountability system. As a result of both changes,
fewer schools now receive Value-Added grades consistent with making one or more years of
growth. As a result of the state?s accountability reforms, performance on various measures from
one year to theinext is not comparable across the past 5 years as the system has been evolving
and schools have worked to orient themselves towards this new accountability system that is not
yet fully phased in. While data show a drop in performance, this is primarily attributable to the

increased rigorfof the accountability system.

2013 - 2014 Report Card for
Entrepreneurship Preparatory School - Woodland Hills Campus

 

SCHOOL GRADE

Coming in

2?16

 

 

 

Achievement
This grade combines two results for students who 
took the state tests. The ?rst result answers the Coming In

question - How many students passed the state test?
The second result answers the question How well  1 6

did students do on the state test?

Performance Index Value Added
70.8% .. Overall ..A

Indicators Met Gifted ..2 .. 
200% - Students with Disabilities ..A
Lowest 20% in Achievement. ..A

Progress COMPONENT GRADE
This is your school's average progress for its 
students in math and reading, grades 4-8. It looks Comlng In

at how much each student learns in a year. Did
the students get a year's worth of growth? Did  6
they get more? Did they get less?

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

- Graduation Rate COMPONENT GRADE
This grade answers the question How many 
ninth graders graduate in four years or ?ve years? Com ng  n

2?16

Gap Closing COMPONENT GRADE
This grade shows how well all students are doing in .
your district in reading, math, and graduation. It Com ng "1

answers the question Is every student succeeding,
regardless of income, race, ethnicity, or disability?  1 6
Annual Measurable Objectives Graduation Rates

NC .. This school is not evaluated for graduation rate because there are not
enough students in the graduating class.

 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

?33 Literacy
This grade answers the question - Are more students 
learning to read in kindergarten through third grade? Comlng  n

2&16

K-3 Literacy Improvement
NC .. NR

 

Prepared for SUCcess       
This grade answers the question Are students  
who graduate from your district ready for college m ng  n

or a career? There are many ways to show that
graduates are prepared.  1 6

 i r-m ref

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IRN: 012031 Printed on July 15, 2015 Page 1 of 22

2013 - 2014 Report Card for Entrepreneurship Preparatory School - Woodland Hills Campus

 

Achievement

This grade combines two results for students who took the state
tests. The ?rst result answers the question How many

students passed the state test? The second result answers the . .
question - How well did students do on the state test? com "9 In

2011.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

am Performance Index

The Performance Index measures the test ieSulls uf ever student, not just those who
score pro?cient or higher. There are six levels on the index and districts receive points Performance Index Trend
for every student in each of these levels. The higher the achievement level the mare
the points awarded in the district's index. This rewards sandals and districts for
improving performance. 1 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Index
Achievement of Points for Points 100
Level Students this Level Received
Advanced Plus 0.0 1.3 0.0
Advanced 5.2 1.2 6.2
0 3? Accelerated 16.7 1.1 18.4 80
Pro?cient 41.0 1.0 41.0
Basic 27.5 0.6 16.5
Limited 9.5 0.3 2.9
Untested 0.0 0.0 0.0 60
85.0

I 40

85.0 of a possible 120.0

85.0

10



A 90.0 - 100.0%



793% I Advanced Plus 20
I Advanced
Accelerated
Pro?cient
Umited

a Basic 0
Untested

 

 

 

 

2013 2014

 

I I I
Limited Basic Pro?cient Accelerated Advanced

 

 

IRN: 012031 Printed on July 15, 2015 Page 2 of 22

2013 - 2014 Report Card for Entrepreneurship Preparatory School - Woodland Hills Campus

 

 

Indicators Met

Indicators Met measures the percent of students who have passed state tests. 
Test results are reported for each student in a grade and subject. At least 80 Indlcatars Mat A

percent of students must pass to get credit for the indicator. 0
20 . 0 /o

2'outof10

 

 

 

 

 

90.0 - 100.0%
0.0 - 89.9%

It II II ii i
<mUDu.

 

Grades 3-5 Grades 6-8 Ohio Graduation Test

 

 

Mathematics NC
3rd Grade Reading NC Mathematics 55.6%

Mathematics NC I ?fh Grade
Reading NC Reading 50.3%

 

 

 

 

4m Grade This school does not have

enough Ohio Graduation
Test results to display this
table.

 

 

Mathematics 42.6%



Mathematics 83.6%

 

 

5th Grade Reading 44.7% ml Grade



Reading 83.6%

 

 

Science 66.0% 
Mathematics 78.5%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade Reading 75.0%

 

Science 35.7%



 

 

 

 

 

 

IRN: 012031 Printed on July 15, 2015 Page 3 of 22

 

PreparatOrymaWoodlandW 1' I if - I I 33; 

Achievement Levels by Grade Proficient Percent Trend by Grade

 

5th Grade 5th Grade

71.9% 69 10/ 100%
675% 66.0% 90%

80%
70%
60%

50%
29.2% I

40%
2014

 

 

 

42.6%

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mathematics Science
I School I District I State Average 0 Reading 0 Mamematics 0 Science

 

 

6th Grade 6th Grade

100%
84. Ila/o 950/0
76.65%
44.7% 60%
in 5 5% .
Mathematics 2013 2014

- District . State Average 0 Reading 0 Mathematics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7th Grade 7th Grade

900/ 1 or
350/: 83.6% 83.5% 33.Reading Mathematics 2013 2014

- School I District . State Average 0 Reading 9 Mathematics

 

 

8th Grade 8th Grade

 

1sz 012031 Printed on July 15, 2015 Page 4 of 22

2013 - 2014 Report Card for Entrepreneurship Preparatory School Woodland Hills Campus

 

90% 86.7% 100%
79.3%

 

 

 

80% 75.0% 73.5%
70%
60%
50%
40%
300/0
20%

90%
67.6% 80%
70%
60%
500/0
40%


. 30%
Reading Mathematics 2014

 

 

   

 

 

I School I District - State Average . Reading .- Mathematics . Science

 

 

IRN: 012031 Printed on July 15,. 2015 Page 5 of 22

 

 

 

 

 

Gifted Students

The Gifted Students data and Indicator highlight the opportunities for and performance of "m
gifted students. The dashboard answers several questions: How many students are coming in
identi?ed as gifted and in what categories? How many of those students are receiving

gifted services? How well are those gifted students performing? ?Ihe Gifted Indicator  1 5
measures whether opportunity and performance expectations are being met for gifted

-- 9 students.

 

 

 

 

 

Gifted Summary Achievement

The gifted data for this
school cannot be
displayed because there
were no students
identified as gifted to
evaluate.

Students Identi?ed as
Gifted

0.0% of enrollment

Students Receiving . 
Gifted Services

0.0% of enrollment

 

Identi?ed as Gifted. Not Receiving Gifted
I Receiving Services '1 Services

I Not Identi?ed as Gifted

 

 

 

Value-Added - - 

 

Value-Added measures the progress for all
students identi?ed as gifted in reading, math,
and/or superior cognitive ability.

IRN: 012031 Printed on July 15, 2015 Page 6 of 22

 

 

 

 

2013 - 2014 Report Card for Entrepreneurship Preparatory School - Woodland Hills Campus

IRN: 012031 Printed on July 15, 2015 Page 7 of 22

 

Entrepreneurship PreparatowmeWW

 

 

 

Progress

This is your sdlool?s average progrss for its students in math and COMPONENT GRADE

reading, grades 4-8. It looks at how much each student learns in a 

year. It answers the question - Did the students get a year's worth of Com [19 "1

growth? Did they get more? Did they get less? 2 0 1 6


Overall Progress Details

This measures the progras for all students in math and reading,
grades 4-3.

 

 

 

 

 

This table shows the Progress scores by test grade and subject, and includes up to three years of data as available.

 

Progress Score

tG 
Gifted Students  ra Mathematics All Tests

This measures the progress for studenls identi?ed as gifted in reading, m? M?m m" I 
math, and/or superior cognitive ability. All Grades Boo-2 15.92 wt 06

  
 

 

emerade A 2.32: - egos 4:97

- I I 
Students in the Lowest 20 lo In Achievement 6th Grade 4.66 9:36 8:87
This measures the progress for students identi?ed as the lowest 20% 

statewide in reading and math achievement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7th Grade I 5.18 9am -. 939')



 

 

8th Grade 0.73 1.47 1.42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students with Disabilities
This measures the progress for students with disabilities.

Although Progress scores are not
High School assigned letter grades at this level of
A High School measure of progress will be reported in the 2014.15 detail, the grading scale applied at the

. 0v II All Students, All Tests level is:
Coming schoo'year A era 

 

 

 

0
issue
coo

Nu-i


c: 

.E



II ll ll 
(COUCH.

m0?
:aa?iOEO-g.

I
3

in 2015

 

 

 

IRN: 012031 Printed on July 15, 2015 Page 8 of 22

2013 - 2014 Report Card for Entrepreneurship Preparatory School - Woodland Hills Campus

 

Progress vs. Performance Index

This bubble chart shows the relationship between each subgroup's Performance Index results (horizontal
axis) to me Value-Added letter grade (vertical axis). The size of the bubble represents the size of the
student subgroup.

A O.

 

 

 

 

. Overall
0 Students w/ Disabilities
- 0 Lowest 20% 
. Gifted

spars

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 

Performance Index

IRN: 012031 Printed on July 15, 2015 Page 9 of 22

 

 

 

Entrepreneurship mmawmm

 

Gap Closing

This grade shows how well all students are doing in your district in
reading, math, and graduation. It answers the question 15 every 
student succeeding, regardless of income, race, ethnicity, or disability? Com' "9 [n

2016

COMPONENT GRADE

 

 

Annual Measurable Objectives
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOS) compare the performance of student groups to a state goal which is displayed as the red line in the following charts. These charts show how well each group achieves
that goal in reading, math and graduation and emphasize any achievement gaps that exist between groups. The. ultimate goal is for all groups to achieve at high levels.

 

Reading Mam Graduation Rate

 

 

 

 

Paints

 

- 
65.3 3 ?j 13} 63.7" f5; 3  Objective for Graduation Rate because there were not
- - - enough students to evaluate.

 

 

 

 

 

65.3 53.7

 

 

 

 

 

A:
B:
C:
D:
F:

64.9 63All Students 1: Econ I: All Students 13 Econ Disadvantage
[3 African American Disadvantage African American

The red line on each graph identi?es the Annual Measurable Objective. The 2014 AMO for Reading is 84.9%, for Math is 80.5%, and for Graduation Rate is 78.2%.
Subgroups With fewer than 30 students are not rated and do not appear on the graphs.

IRN: 012031 Printed on July 15, 2015 Page 10 of 22

2013 - 2014 Report Card for Entrepreneurship Preparatory School - Woodland Hills Campus

 

Graduation Rate

COMPONENT GRADE

   

This grade represents the percentage of students whom entered the
9th grade and graduated 4 and 5 years later.

Coming in

20116

 

 

 

 

This school has not been assigned
a grade for Graduation Rate
because there were not enough
students to evaluate.

IRN: 012031 Printed on July 15r 2015 Page 11 of 22

2013 - 2014 Report Card for Entrepreneurship Preparatory School - Woodland Hills Campus

 

The Graduation Rate graph that
would appear in this space cannot
be displayed because there were
not enough students to evaluate.

IRN: 012031 Printed on July 15, 2015 Page 12 of 22

2013 - 2014 Report Card for Entrepreneurship Preparatory School - Woodland Hills Campus

 

K-3 Literacy

 

This grade answers the question - Are more students learning to read
in kindergarten through third grade?

 

 

 

 

Coming in

2031.6

 

 

 

 

 

NR

K-3 memo!
Improvement
This data is not displayed
because there are not
enough studens to
evaluate.

 

 

 

In Your 

K-3 Literacy was not calculated for this
school because there were not enough
students to evaluate.

Details of Measure

Not On-Track at
Point A

Kindergarten Reading

Diagnostic, School 10

Year 2012 - 2013

to

Improving to On-Track

at Point 

Grade Reading
Diagnostic, School
Year 2013 - 2014

<10

 

Grade Reading
Diagnostic, School
Year 2012 - 2013

<10

to

2nd Grade Reading
Diagnostic, School
Year 2013 - 2014

<10

 

2nd Grade Reading
Diagnostic, School
Year 2012 - 2013

<10

3rd Grade Reading
Diagnostic, School
Year 2013 - 2014

<10

 

3rd Grade Reading
Diagnostic, School
Year 2013 - 2014

<10

to

3rd Grade Reading
0AA, School Year
2013 - 2014

 

Deduction for 3rd graders who did not pass OM and were

not on a Reading Improvement and Monitoring Plan

 

 

Totals <10

<10

 

IRN: 0 1203 1

Printed on July 15, 2015

2013 - 2014 Report Card for Entrepreneurship Preparatory School - Woodland Hills Campus

 

 

Percentage OnuTrack in Reading Diagnostic

K-3 Literacy was not calculated for this school because
there were not enough students to evaluate.

 

Third Grade Reading Guarantee

Ohio's Third Grade Reading Guarantee ensures that students are successful in
reading before moving on to fourth grade. Schools must provide supports for
struggling readers in early grades. If a child appears to be falling behind in reading,
the school will immediately start a Reading Improvement and Monitoring Plan. The
program ensures that every struggling reader gets the support he or she needs to
learn and achieve. A

Students have multiple opportunities to meet promotion requirements including
meeting a minimum promotion score on the third grade state reading tests given in
the fall and spring. Students have an additional opportunity to take the state
assessment in the summer, as well as a district-determined alternative assessment.

The Parent Roadmap is available to help parents understand how the Third Grade
Reading Guarantee applies to your child.

How many third graders met the Third Grade Reading NC
Guarantee requirements for promotion to 4th grade?

 

 

How many third graders scored pro?cient on the state NC
Reading test?

 

 

 

IRN: 012031

Printed on July 15r 2015 Page 14 of 22

 

2013 - 2014 Report Card for Entrepreneurship Preparatory School - Woodland Hills Campus

 

Prepared for Success

 

This grade answers the question - Are students who graduate from
your school ready for college or a career? There are many ways to
show that graduates are prepared.

 

 

 

Coming in

2031.6

 

 

 

How Prepared was Your 2013 Graduating Class?

ACT: Participation
ACT: Remediation
Free

SAT: Participation
SAT: Remediation
Free

Honors Diploma

Industry-Recognized
Credential

Advanced Placement:
Participation

AP: Exam Score of 3
or Better

Dual Enrollment
Credit

International
Baccalaureate

18: Exam Score of 4
or Better

Outcomes after High School Graduation

Districts and schools have long-term impacts on student outcomes. The Prepared for
Success component provides information on how schools prepare students for different
pathways of college and career success. It also provides insights on how those students

do once they leave high school. What happens beyond the diploma is an important
indicator of how well schools are preparing students.
This data cannot be shown because
there are not enough students in the

graduating class of 2013 to evaluate.

The University System of Ohio provides district reports on enrollment and remediation of
high school graduates attending in-state, public colleges and universities.

Additional data on outcomes after high school are coming soon. These will include
college graduation, demographics of college enrollees, workforce and military enlistment.

 

 

Note: These data represent students in the 4-year graduation rate, i. e. students who entered 9th grade in 2010.

Data used in generating the ACT and SAT Remediation Free, AP Exam, 18 Exam, and Dual Enrollment Credit measures for the 2013 graduating class were not reported to the Ohio Department of Education
by districts. To con?rm the information on this page and get a complete picture of the work your district is doing to prepare students for college and career success, please contact your district directly.

IRN: 012031

Printed on July 15, 2015 Page 15 of 22

2013 - 2014 Report Card for Entrepreneurship Preparatory School - Woodland Hills Campus

 

Principal: Christopher]. O'Brien Phone: (216) 298-1164

Address: 9201 Crane Ave
Cleveland OH 44105?1627

Directory infonnab'an current as of the 2013-2014 Report Card publicah?on date.

 

Your School's Students

Average Enrollment by Subgroup
Daily
Enrollment: 1 120%

 

 

Inmn?wu m1 5 Enrollment# Enrollment 1 100.0%

i . . a
[Aililv A  Am. Indian I Alaskan Native NC  100% 98.5 ,0
Asian or Paci?c Islander NC  30%
Black, Non-Hispanic 208 98.5%
Hispanic NC I 50%
Multiracial NC 
White, Non-Hispanic NC 
Students with Disabilities 33 15.5% i 20% 155%
Economically Disadvantaged 211 100.0% 
Limited English Pro?ciency NC . 3 0% 
Migrant NC 

k. \4 $114. 4.1 ?5.4 a? 44.A441. 4.4.4 I

 

Number of
Limited English
Proficiency
Students
Excluded from
Accountability
Calculations:

#4444? 


400/0

  

 

 

 

 

 



American Indian or



Asian 0r Paci?c Islander I: Black, Non-Hispanic

NC Not Calculated because there are fewer than 10 in the group I Hispanic :1 Multiracial I White, Non-Hispanic
$11de with Limited English

'3 Disabilities - Pro?ciency

l: Migrant

I Economic Disadvantage
State and fedEral law require an annual assessment of Limited English Pro?cient (LEP) students to measure
their English language pro?ciency. The Ohio Test of English Language Acquisition (OTELA) is the
assessment used in Ohio to gauge LEP studenls' growth in learning English. For information about your
district's OTELA results, see the Department of Education's web site at 

IRN: 012031 Printed on July 15, 2015 Page 16 of 22

2013 - 2014 Report Card for Entrepreneurship Preparatory School - Woodland Hills Campus

 

Attendance Rate

1
All Students 94.5% 3
Am. Indian I Alaskan Native NC 
Asian or Paci?c Islander NC 
Black, Non-Hispanic 94.5% if
Hispanic NC

Multiracial . NC

White, Non-Hispanic . NC

Students with Disabilities 93.2%
Economic Disadvantage 94.5%
Limited English Pro?ciency NC

Migrant NC 
Male 94.1% 
Female 95.0% 

Chronic
Absenteeism
Rate:

(.  
16.Not Calculated because there are fewer than 10 in the group

IRN: 012031 Printed on July 15, 2015

100.0%

80.0%

60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%

 

94. 5% 94. 5%

93. 2?/o
93.2%

95.0%:
94. 1 

 

American Indian or
I 

Hispanic

Students with
I Disabilities
I Migrant

I All Students
I Black, Non-Hispanic

a white, Non~Hispanic

Limited Engiish
'3 Pro?ciency

I Female

1] Asian or Paci?c Islander
Multiracial
Economic Disadvantage

I Male

Attendance Rate is not shown if enrollment is less than 10.

Page 17 of 22

2013 - 2014 Report Card for Entrepreneurship Preparatory School a Woodland Hills Campus

 

IRN: 012031

I Student Mobility 

All Students

Am. Indian 1 Alaskan Native
Asian or Paci?c Islander
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic

Multiracial

White, Non-Hispanic
Students with Disabilities
Economically Disadvantaged
Limited EnglishPro?ciency
Migrant

0.0%
NC
NC

0.0%
NC
NC
NC

0.0%

0.0%
NC
NC

Mobility Rates by Subgroup

NC Not Calculated because there are fewer than 10 in the group

 

A mobility rate chart cannot be
displayed for this school because
either there are not enough
students to evaluate in any
subgroup or all calculated results
are 0. 

Printed on July 15, 2015 Page 18 of 22

IRN: 012031

2013 - 2014 Report Card for Entrepreneurship Preparatory School - Woodland Hills Campus

 

Your School's Teachers

Your School's Poverty Status: High Your School Your District

{?fe AW?kew h? ?rvn?rfenm A rm. ~aw. if; erg; wr

LPercentage of teachers with at least a Bachelor's Degree

 

 

 

Percentage of teachers with at least a Master's Degree

(Percentage of core academic subject andeI-tamentary
classes not taught by Highly Quali?ed Teachers

i
?x ?Rea?*4

 

 

Percentage of core academic subject and elementary
classes taught by properly certi?ed teachers

1f Percentage of core academic subject elementary and
secondary classes taught by teachers with temporary, 0 
Lconditional?or long-term substitute certi?cation/?censure 

100 92.3

 

 

 

Lead or Senior Teacher; 0.0 

Number of Teachers by Program Area

 

(EEneral Ealjcgaiivgn?MV-gm 44w; 

 

Gifted and Talented 0.0

?it?P?s 4f 4w?A?A#w 4 Here 44-f 44 #4n4mw

Career-Technical Programs
Art Education K-si 0.0



f'?usic Education K-8 0.5 i

haw?- .J

Physical Education KLs 0.5



"3.0

A district?s high-poverty schools are those ranked in the top quartile based on the percentage of economically disadvantaged students. Low-poverty schools are those ranked in the bottom quartile based
on the percentage of economically disadvantaged students. A district may have buildings in both quartils. in just one quartile or in neither quartile

NC Not Calculated because there are fewer than 10 in the group

Wellness and Physical Education

a 4? A-414 r?

i; The extent to which studentsare successful in?i
1 meeting the benchmarks contained in Ohio's 
physical education standards


Lemmas so. ?comb a- ?new.

LesSthan'"10 



Printed on July 15, 2015

Fine Arts Courses Offered

Music (K-B)

 

mamm?j??r Entrepreneurship Preparatory mi: Woodland [1mm

 

 

 

Financial Data

  

and schools?

These measures answer several questions about spending and performance. How much is spent on Classroom instruction? How
much, on average, is spent on each student? What is the source of the revenue? How do these measures compare to other districts

Comparison Group: Community Schools with Enrollment between 150 and 499

    
  

Note: Data under 
additional review and 1
subject to chevng

 

Classroom Spending Data

What percent of funds are
spent on classroom
instruction?



How does this school rank
in comparison to other
schools of similar size?

13 out of 179

A rank of 1 indiczts the highest percent spent
on classroom instruction.

School Comparison Group State

43.9% 32.5%
10. 1%
89.9%
. 67.4%
56. 1%

Noh-ClassroomInshuction

 

 

Spending per Pupil Data
School

Operating Spending per Pupil $15,597

Classroom Instruction $14,017
Non-Classroom Spending $1,580

State

$9,189

1 92
998

 

 

School $14,017

$1,580

 

 

 

 

State $6,192 $2,998

 

 

 

 

 

 

$0 $8,000

$15,000

Entrepreneurship Preparatory School - Woodland Hills Campus 15 NOT among the 20%
of traditional community schools with the lowest operating expenditures per pupil.

Entrepreneurship Preparatory School - Woodland Hills Campus IS NOT among the 20%
of traditional community schools with the highest academic performance index scores.

 

IRN: 012031

Printed on July 15, 2015

Page 20 of 22

2013 - 2014 Report Card for Entrepreneurship Preparatory School - Woodland Hills Campus

 

Spending and Performance

This measure answers the question what is the relationship of average spending per student to
performance, and how does that compare to similar districts and schools?

camparison Group All Community STEM Schools

 

 

120.0 120.0

110.0 110.0

100.0 100.0

90.0


xapuI 

xepuI aoueLuJoyad

 

 

80.0 80.0

 

70.0

  

 

 

0
$0 $4,000 $8,000 $12,000 $16,000 $20,000 $24,000 $28,000 $32,000 $0 $4,000 0 $12,000 $16,000 $20,000 $24,000 $28,000 $32,000

 

 

 

Spending per Pupil Spending per Pupil
The quadrant lines on these graphs represent the statewide average performance index score and the statewide average spending per pupil for all Community and STEM schools.

IRN: 012031 Printed on July 15, 2015 Page 21 of 22

2013 - 2014 Report Card for Entrepreneurship Preparatory School - Woodland Hills Campus

 

Source of Revenue

Source of Funds School State Total

Local $180,494 5.9% $8,234,354,404 40.0%
State $1,753,777 56.9%. $9,263,100,098 45.0%
Federal $799,205 25.9% $1,645,296,986 8.0%
Other Non-Tax $347,315 11.3% $1,454,411,567 7.1%
Total $3,080,791 100.0% $20,597,163,055 100.0%

School State

A 45.0%  

 
  

[3 Local a State a Local I: Federal
a Federal Other Non-Tax a State I Other Non-Tax

IRN: 012031 Printed on July 15, 2015 Page 22 of 22

 

 

 apartment

aw.

Elf-rill:

 

.m?fmx A1 Wimp?


m?


.4. 

 






 

 

mm 
Annual Report

 

 

 

Oh Department
10 of Education

Dec. 31, 2014
i

The Honorable John Kasich
Office of the Governor

77 South High Street. 30th Floor
Columbus. Ohio 43215

RE: 2013 2014 Annual Report on Ohio Community Schools

Dear Governor Kasich:

The Ohio Department of Education's Office of Community Schools is pleased to provide you with the
12th Annual Report on Community Schools Operating in Ohio. In compliance with Ohio Revised Code
this report is submitted by Dec. 31 each year to the governor, the speaker of the

House of Representatives, the president of the Senate. and the chairpersons of the House and Senate

committees principally responsible for education matters.

During the 2013-2014 school year. more than 120,000 students attended one of Ohio?s community
schools. which is 7 percent of the total public school enrollment in our state. This report is designed
to help Ohio citizens gain an understanding of charter Schools' operations and their roles in our
system of public education.

A numberl?of tabies and graphs accompany the narrative. and links to other informative pages are
available on the Office of Community Schools' Web page. To view the tables and the accompanying
narration. visit 



David Hansen, Executive Director
Quality School Choice, Office of Community Schools
Ohio Department of Education

 

2013 2014
Annual Report

Ohio Charter Schools

Introduction

Each year. the Ohio Department of Education?s Office of Community Schools develops an annual report on charter

schools. commonly referred to as community schools. operating in Ohio. The report, in compliance with Ohio Revised

Code (ORC) provides information on the "effectiveness of academic programs, operations and legal

compliance and of the financial COndition of all community schools."

The 2013-2014 annual report describes the status of charter schools with respect to four elements essential to

high-quality charte? school performance:

1.

2;

3.

4.

Academic performance;
Sustained student enrollment;
Fiscal accountability; and

Sponsor/authorizer accountability and oversight.

To acknowledge the key role that authorizers, commonly referred to as sponsors. play to enable high-performing

charter schools, the Office of Community Schools has maintained its focus on authorizer performance using targeted

technical aSSistance and the development of a comprehensive evaluation system as tools for strengthening the quality

of charter schools.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 



 

I 2013 -2014 Annual Report on Ohio Community Schools 7 . 5 



Community Schools in 2013?2014: The Basics

Since the Ohio General Assembly passed the first law establishing such schools $1997, the continuing development
of public charter schools offers choices for Ohio families seeking a different educational environment for their
children. The Office of Community Schools' top priority and mission is sustaining high-quality and high?performing
charter schools through exemplary authorizer practices.

Charter Schools Are Public, Nonprofit, Nonsectarlan Schools

Such schools operate independently of any school district, but under a contract with a sponsoring entity whose
authority is established in statute or approved by the Ohio Department of Education. While charter schools receive
state and federal funds, they are purposefully designed to have greater operational autonomy than traditional public
schools to facilitate greater flexibility in the design and delivery of educational programs. Flexibility provides charter
school administrators and teachers multiple paths to design unique curriculum and instruction models. and autonomy
is the key element that allows these schools to operate in a structure and environment that can be more adaptable
and responsive than that of larger, traditional public school districts.

There Are Two Types of Charter Schools
Conversion charter schools are those in which part or all of an existing traditional public school building or a building
operated by a joint vocational school district or educational service center is transformed into a charter school. These

I
schools may be established in any public school district in the state.
I

The second type, referred to as new start-up charter schools. may locate only in a district that meets the definition of
a "challenged" school district at the time that the charter school developer enters into a preliminary agreement with
an authorizer to establish a new school. Challenged districts are currently defined as:

- The ?Ohio Eight" urban public school districts, including Akron, Canton. Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus.
Dayton, Toledo and Youngstown;

- School districts located in the "pilot area? of Lucas County;

0 School districts designated in Academic Emergency or Academic Watch on the 20li-20l2 Local Report Card
(until June. 2014);

- School districts graded or on the Performance Index and on Value-Added for two of school years 2012-
2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015;
I

- School districts with an overall grade of or in the 2015-2016 school year. or later, that also have a grade of 
on Value?Added for at least two of the three most recent school years; and

- The lowest 5 percent of districts as ranked by the Performance Index scores.

Charter School Oversight

Currently, the Office of Community Schools provides technical assistance to developers and authorizers of charter
schools, approves organizations seeking to become authorizers of new start-up charter schools and oversees all
authorizers. regardless of whether their authority is granted by the Ohio Department of Education or law. Authorizers
are crucial in establishing schools that have the highest likelihood of success and are responsible for monitoring

the academic performance. financial operations and governance of their sponsored schools. Equally important

is the authorizer's role in making decisions regarding renewal or termination. The Office of Community Schools

has directed its efforts to support authorizer capacity to enable school success to benefit not only charter school
authorizers and their schools, but most importantly, the students and families who depend on them.

 

 

- 

 

1 

Map of Community Schools in Ohio 2013-2014

 

Number: of Schools by County

Allen ..3 Greene ..2 Madison Stark 

Ashland ..1 Hamilton ..32 Mahoning Summit ..21

Butler .. 6 Hancock ..1 Marion .. 6 Trumbull ..5

Champaign ..2 Hardin Mercer Tuscarawas ..2

Clark .. 4 Harrison ..1 Montgomery .. 31 Van Wert 

Columbiana ..1 Jackson Morrow ..3 Warren ..1

Coshocton ..1 Lake ..1 Muskingum .. 4 Wayne ..2
Cuyahoga ..83 Lawrence ..1 Portage ..1

Erie Licking .. 4 Richland ..7

Fairfield ..2 Lorain ..11 Scioto ..3

Franklin ..81 Lucas ..41 Seneca ..2 Total: 395

 

Figure1 displays the locations of the 395 charter schools operating in Ohio during the 2013?2014 school year.

 

 

2013 -2014 Annual Report on Ohio Community Schools 

 

 

FIGURE 2 I

 

School Choice in 2013?2014: The Basics

A number of school choice options are available to Ohio families who seek different educational opportunities than

are available at their assigned traditional public schools. a few of which are briefly discussed here.

 
  
 
 
   

 
 

Open
Enrollment

70,556

 
 
      
  

Dual
Enrollment

   
 
 

eSchools

40,383

  
 
      
   

 
 
 
 

 

Career
Technical
Education

116,001

 
 
 
 

   

Site-Based
Charter
Schools

      

 
    


Ohio Offers a

Jon peterson Variety of School Cleveland
Scholarship Cho ce Optlons Scholarship

 

    
  
  
 
   
 
  
  
 
 

  
 

  
 
 
 
 

Autism
Scholarship

2,970

   
 
  
 

EdChoice
Scholarship

17,055

Ohio's School Choice
Programs

   
 

EdChoice
Expansion
Scholarship

1,057

0 Scholarship Programs

 
   
 

0 Public Charter Schools

  

 

Figure 2 displays student enrollment in Ohio?s various school choice programs.

Traditional Public District Open Enrollment: Open enrollment allows a student to attend school tuition?free in a
district other than the district in which the student's family resides. Each spring, Ohio school districts may choose
whether or not to accept students through open enrollment for the next school year.

Dual Enrollment: Otherwise known as the Post-Secondary Enrollment Options program, dual enrollment allows high
school students in grades 9-12 to enroll in a college and complete nonsectarian courses for both high school and
college credit. High school students attending traditional public schools, charter schools. STEM schools. nonpublic
schools, as well as home-schooled students are eligible to participate in the program.

 

 

[a i 

 

Career Technical Education: Typically, Ohio career tech refers to high school juniors and seniors enrolled in programs
leading to careers in such areas as engineering, construction. health and agriculture. Emphasis is on workforce
development to meet the needs of Ohio's top industries. Ohio career tech maximizes student learning success with
real-work knowledge and skills. All Ohio students have access to career tech. Every Ohio public school district and

community school belongs to a Career?Technical Planning District. which provides this programming to students.

Scholarship Programs

Cleveland Scholarship: In place since the 1996-1997 school year, the Cleveland Scholarship program provides private
school scholarships to kindergarten through thh-grade students who reside in the Cleveland Municipal School District.

EdChoice and EdChoice Expansion Scholarships: The EdChoice Scholarship program, in place since the 2006-2007
school year. was created to provide private school scholarships to students from underperforming public schools
outside of Cleveland. The program provides up to 60.000 scholarships to eligible students. As of the 2014-2015 school
year. approximately 4.000 EdChoice Expansion Scholarships are available to public school students in low income
families entering kindergarten and first grade outside of Cleveland.

Autism Scholarship: The Autism Scholarship program gives families of children with autism who qualify for
scholarships the choice to send their children to special education programs other than those operated by their school
districts of residence to receive their education and the services outlined in their children's Individualized Education
Programs (IEP). All children who have been identified by their district as having autism and have IEPs qualify for the
Autism Scholarship.

Jon Peterson Special Needs Scholarship: The Jon Peterson Special Needs scholarship gives the families of children
with special needs the choice to send their children to special education programs other than those operated by their
school districts of residence to receive the services outlined in their children?s IEP.

Public Charter Schools

Site-Based Public Charter Schools: Commonly called brick and mortar charter schools. site-based public charter
schools are those in which students physically attend classes. Site-based public charter schools can be general or

special education. and/or dropout prevention and recovery schools.

eSchools: eSchools. are online public charter schools in which families may choose to enroll their children rather than
site-based traditional public. charter or nonpublic schools. When enrolled in an eSchool. students receive Internet
access. computers for use at home and appropriate grade-level instruction from licensed Ohio teachers. Students
graduating from an:Ohio eSchool receive an Ohio high school diploma as all other public school students. eSchools

can be general or special education. and/or dropout prevention and recovery schools.

The rest of this report focuses on public charter schools. whether they be site-based or eSchools, startup or
conversion. general education. special education, or dropout recovery.

Notes: Career Technical Education data represent the number of unique students who earned credit in an approved
career technical education course in Fiscal Year 2014. Open Enrollment data represent the headcount of participating
students as of October 2013. Public charter school enrollment is based on June 2014 Full-Time Equivalent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A?@d@mi@ 


 

 

 

 

 

E0 - 

Charter Schooercademic Performance

Latest Report Cards Enhance Accountability

As of school year 2012-2013. Ohio's accountability system was significantly enhanced by the development and
publication of many new accountability measures to be phased in over three school years for the traditional report
card and the release of a report card solely f0r dropout prevention and recovery community schools. School year 2013-
2014 saw additions to both report cards. The Ohio School Report Cards hold traditional public districts and schools
and general and special education?focused charter schools accountable for the performance of their students. The
Dropout Recovery Report Card holds schools primarily serving students who have dropped out. or are at risk

of dropping out, accountable for student performance. Detailed information about the measures. grades and

ratings, and roll out timeline for both new report cards is available on the Ohio Department of Education website at

reportcard.education.ohio.gov.

Ohio School Report Cards. which are being phased in over three years. will include six components. each comprised of
one or more measures. Components on this report card will include Achievement, Progress. Graduation. Gap Closing.
K-3 Literacy and Preparation for Success. Two measures from the report card of key importance in understanding
student performance and how schools impact that performance are the Performance Index grades. 6 measure from
the Achievement ccmponent and the Value-Added grades, a measure from the Progress component. Both measures
are calculated based on the results of state-required assessments that all of Ohio?s public school students. charter and
traditional. must participate. Currently included in the system of statewide assessments are the Ohio Achievement
Assessments for grades 3 through 8 and the Ohio Graduation Tests. The results of these assessments for grades

3 through 10 are used to calculate the Performance Index grade for general and special education community
schools. while Value-Added grades for these schools are based on results for assessments in grades 3 through 8. The
Performance Index grade indicates how well students perform on Ohio's assessments. while the Value-Added grade
indicates how well schools perform in terms of improving student performance. Component and overall grades will be
applied to Ohio School Report Cards at the end of the 2015-2016 school year. 

Dropout Recovery Report Card

The Dropout Recovery Report Card evaluates schools based on measures that are relevant to schools serving students
who are returning to high school after having dropped out of school. as well as those students who are likely to
dropout out of school due to a history of poor attendance. disciplinary problems or suspensions. When fully phased in.
measures on this report card will include four?year and extended-year (5-year. 6-year, 7-year and 8-year) graduation
rates, a high school assessment passage rate for 12th-graders and students close to aging out of the public education
system, Annual Measurable Objectives, growth based on assessments. and a number of reported student outcomes.

including postsecondary credit earned. nationally recognized career or technical certification. military enlistment. job

placement and attendance rates.

 

 

2013 ?2014 Annual Report on Ohio Community Schools 4 11 

 

How Schools Receive Dropout Recovery Report Cards

Schools were identified through two application processes. Charter schools received the Dropout Recovery Report
Card in lieu of a traditional report card if they had applied for, and were awarded. one or more of two waivers: 

a waiver from closure for continued poor academic performance as outlined in law?; or (2) a waiver from rolling
conversion commJnity school academic data up into the sponsoring district's report card.2 A total of 90 charter
schools received the Dropout Recovery Report Card at the end of the 2013-2014 school year. The type of waivers
they were awarded and their performances on the new Dropout Recovery Report Card are detailed in Table 18.
Ratings of Exceeds Standards. Meets Standards and Does Not Meet Standards were applied to measures at the end
of the 2013-2014 school year. and an overall rating will be applied at the end of the 2014-2015 school year.

 

3

Percentage of Charter Schools by Overall Value-Added and
Performance Index Grades 2013-2014

. .17" ?l

   

 

Overall Value-Added

 

 

 

3 :5 i.


 

1?

 

Performance Index

 

 

 

 

ML  A- . 
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

 

Figure 3 is based on data for 245 charter schools with overall Value-Added grades and 28] charter schools with
Performance index grades. It shows that while the current absolute achievement of students in community schools

is poor. as indicated by over 60 percent of schools having a Performance Index grade of or F, 40 percent of
community schools are adding academic value to their students. Overall Value-Added results show that 24 percent of
charter schools are providing students with a year of academic growth in a year of time and an additional 40 percent
of charter schools are providing students with more than one year of academic growth in a year of time.

 

 

 

 

 

. tin-aw .7 7 77 777W wisest. W?m? 77:

p.
in .

 

FIGURE 4 I

 

Percentage of Charter Schools Located in Ohio -8 Districts by
Overall Value-Added and Performance Index Grades 2013?2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PII 
1' i i
Canton .. 
Pli I
Cincinnati VAI  
-

 

 

 

 

VA I I 
Cleveland . Columbus VAToledo . - Youngstown 20% 730%7 80% 90% 100%


 

Figure 4 is based on data for 216 charter schools with Performance Index grades and 190 charter schools with overall
Value-Added grades. while Figure 5 is based on data for 439 traditional public schools with Performance Index grades
and 371 traditional public schools with overall Value-Added grades. Due to rules limiting where new start-up charter
schools can open, comparisons of charter and traditional public schools in Ohio are limited to traditional public schools
in the Ohio Eight districts. Over 70 percent of charter schools that operated in the 2013-2014 school year were located
within an Ohio Eight school district. Comparison of Figures 4 and 5 indicates that absolute academic performance of
students enrolled in charter schools is often, but not always. lower than that of students enrolled in the districts where
the schools are located. However, the converse is often true of the academic gains of students, that is. charter schools

add academic value to students, often more so than district schools.

 

 

 

 

 

2013 -2014 Annual Report on Ohio Community Schools 1 I i 13

 

Akron City School District?s schools performed better on the Performance Index grade than charter schools located
in Akron. In terms cf academic value added to students. however. charter schools performed better than district
buildings. A detailed look at overall Value-Added data indicates that more than twice the percentage of district schools
received a grade of on overall Value-Added as compared to charter schools located in Akron. The percentage of
schools graded A, and on Value-Added was roughly equivalent among both school groups.

Canton City School District?s schools performed better on the Performance Index grade and Value-Added grade
than charter schools located in the school district. No charter school located in Canton City received a grade of A on
overall Value-Added, but a higher percentage of district schools received Fs than did charter schools. A higher

percentage of charter schools than district schools received a grade of or on Value-Added.

Cincinnati City School District?s schools performed better on the Performance Index grade than charter schools
located in the Cincinnati City School District. while performance on overall Value-Added was only higher
among district schcols.

Charter schools and district schools located in Cleveland showed roughly equivalent achievement on the
Performance Index grade. but charter schools showed higher performance on Value-Added than Cleveland Municipal
School District's schools. Note that the Cleveland Municipal data are skewed toward higher performance due to

the inclusion of data from high-performing charter schools that they are legally allowed to roll up into their

district?s results.

Charter schools and Columbus City School District?s schools performed similarly on the Performance index grade.
But in terms of overall Value?Added. the percentage of community schools located in the Columbus City School
District that were graded A was almost twice as high as the corresponding percentage of district schools. and the

percentage of district schools graded on overall Value-Added is almost twice as high as that of charter schools.

Dayton charter schools performed better on the Performance Index grade than Dayton City School District's schools.
Over 20 percent of Dayton City School District's schools were graded on Performance Index whereas no charter
schools in Dayton were graded on the same measure. Overall Value-Added results were similar for both groups of

schools in Dayton.

Toledo City School District?s schools performed better on the Performance Index and Value-Added grades than
community schoolsjocated in the district. No district schools received an on Performance index grade compared to
approximately 6 percent of charter schools. While district and charter schools had approximately the same percentage
of schools with a or on Value-Added, district schools earned a higher percentage of A grades while charter schools
earned a higher percentage of grades.

While Youngstown City School District?s schools performed better on the Performance Index grade than charter
schools in the district. as demonstrated in other urban centers, students in charter schools outperformed traditional
school students in terms of academic progress made during the school year. Over 60 percent of charter schools
compared to 44 percent of district schools received grades of A. or on Value-Added, and more than 50 percent of

district schools received grades of on overall Value-Added compared to less than 40 percent of area charter schools.

 

 

vr? AA?wvi?r we??

L14

 

 

 

 

5

 

Percentage of Traditional Public Schools Located in Ohio 8 Districts
by Overall Value-Added and Performance Index Grades 2013-2014

 

Akron VA 

 



a
a

i



Canton

 








Cincinnati

 

 

Cleveland





VAI "Columbus

 

vAi i f'  "ii

Dayton 
PI 

 

. I
ml

Youngstown .. "1.032. 20% 76% 853A 550% 100%


 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2013 ?2014 Annual Report on Ohio Community Schools

School Recognitions
Schools of Promise, 2013-2014

To help close achievement gaps in Ohio. the Ohio Department of Education developed the Schools of Promise
program to identify. recognize and highlight schools that are making substantial progress in ensuring high achievement
for all students.

Number of Years

School IRN School Name School of Promise

 

 

5 8 Columbus Preparatory Academy . 3 1

 

 

High Performing and High Progress Schools of Honor

The Schools of Honor program recognizes schools that have sustained high achievement and. substantial progress

while serving a significant number of economically disadvantaged students.

High Performing Schools of Honor, 2013-2014

Number of Years

High Performing

 

 

 

 

 

 

School IRN School Name Schools of Honor
14 3 610 Arts College Preparatory Academy 1
133520 Citizens Academy 2
[Cr?00558 Columbus Preparatory Academy 1 
133215 The Intergenerational School 3

 

High Progress Schools of Honor, 2013-2014

Number of Years
High Progress

 

 

 

 

 

 

School IRN School Name Schools of Honor
[000 558 Cold-Ebus Preparatory Academy"Hamilton County Math Science 1

 

132 951 Constellation Schools: Lorain Community Elementary 1

 

 

 

 16 . 

Accountability and Charter School AcademiciPerformance

Accountability for charter schools is set forth in state and federal law and in each charter school's contract with its
authorizer. Charter schools must define their curriculum and performance goals in their contracts and administer all state-
required achievement assessments and graduation tests. In addition to participating in all state-required assessments.
charter schools must comply with the requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver
approved by the US. Department of Education, which includes Annual Measurable Objectives.

Closure Criteria

There can be no stronger accountability consequences for charter schools than school closure. House Bills 555 and 59
modified the existi?rg closure criteria to align it to Ohio's new Accountability System and report cards. According to Iaw3.
general population charter schools are required to close due to continued poor academic performance. As Ohio School
Report Cards and their measures and grades are phased in from school years 2012-2013 through 2014-2015, so are the
elements evaluated for school closure. Closure for general population schools will be based on a combination of ratings
from the prior accountability system and grades from the new system until the publication of Ohio School Report Cards
for the 2014-2015 school year. From that point forward. the elements evaluated for closure will based upon Ohio School

Report Cards.

Dropout prevention and recovery charter schools were eligible for waivers from closure prior to the release of the

new Specialized report card. Beginning with the 2014-2015 report card and thereafter. any school that has overall poor
performance for two out of the three most recent school years must close. With the 2015-2016 Dropout Recovery Report
Card. they will be evaluated for closure. The first dropout prevention and recovery charter schools identified for closure
will have to close at the end of the 2016-2017 school year.

The chart on page '57 describes the components used in determining closure for general population charter schools
based on data from the 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years. The criteria are applied such that, for example.
if a school offering grades 4 to 8 was in Academic Emergency and showed less than a standard year of academic growth
in reading for the 2011-2012 school year and had an on both the Performance index and overall Value-Added for the

2013-2014 school year, it would be required to close.

 

 . . . . .. - 
2013 ?2014 Annual Report on Ohio Community Schools 17

- 7-. 2

Closure Criteria for General Population Charter Schools

Grade Levels Offered Closure Criteria for 2013-2014

A school that does not offer a grade higher than 3 For two of the three most recent school years:
- The school has been in Academic Emergency.

OR
- The school had an on K-3 Literacy Improvement.

A school that offers any of grades the three most recent school years:

offers no grade higher than 9 - The school has been in Academic Emergency
and showed less than one standard year of
academic growth in reading and/or mathematics;

OR

- The school had an on Performance Index and an
on Overall Value-Added.

- A school that offers any of grades 10 to 12 For two of the three most recent school years:
- The school has been in Academic Emergency;

OR

- The school had an on Performance Index and a
or on Annual Measurable Objectives.

The charter school closure law for general population charter schools was first implemented at the end of the 2007-
2008 school year. with the first schools required to close at the end of the 2008-2009 school year. To date. the charter
school closure law has required the closure of 24 charter schools. The list of schools closed by law for continued poor

performance can be found in Table 8.

Closure Law Impact

School Year Number of Closures Required by Law

. 

I 2008-2009 I 2

I 2009-2010 10 
12010-2011 I 5 I

2011-2012 3 i 
I 2012-2013 I - 3 -

2013-2014 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sm

 

 

 

 

 

5mm E3

 

 

 

7 7.777? 77777.? 7.777 7 7 777?77: 7 7 7?7 7.7-7-7 7 7 7 .5- 

L208 -2014 Annual Report on Ohio Community Schools 19

 

 

Growth in Charter Schools and Enrollment

As of June 2014, more than 120,000 Ohio students were enrolled in the 395 charter schools that operated during the
2013?2014 school yearFull-Time Equivalent (FTE) of Charter School Students: 1998-
1999 to 2013-2014

err-V911ngc' n06)Ni Jami 21?JKLlM(' 7 7 
.
20k 7731:? wasStudents

 

Figure 6. which reports the full?time equivalent enrollment of students. shows that enrollment in Ohio charter schools

has grown each year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7 shows a general upward trend in the number of charter schools operating over time.

 

I Number of Charter Schools

1998-1999

1999-2000

2000-2001

2001-2002

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

50

15

?49

100

7o

_96

150

137

200

181

250

300

269

400
350

305:
313
326
3?7
3:3
341
355:

367

450

Number of Charter Schools: 1998-1999 to 2013-2014

7

 

 

120

 

F2013 ?_2014 Annual Report on Ohio Community Schools . I 21 

 

Charter schools add to the array of public educational options available in Ohio. Figures 8 through 10 demonstrate the

characteristics of fhese schools as they serve students and families in various settings.

 

FIGURE 8 I

Percent of Charter Schools by Site-Based and eSchool: 2013-2014

 

    

eSchools

7%

Site-Based
93%

 

Figure 8: A moratorium on virtual schools, also known as eSchools, was in place from 2003 until June of 2013, when
legislative changes ended the moratorium and allowed up to five new virtual schools to open each year starting with
the 2013-2014 schcol year. Three new eSchools opened in 2013-2014. The ratio of site-based to eSchools remained the
same from 2012-2Cl3 to 2013-2014.

 

I FIGURE 9

 

Percentage of Charter Schools by Start-up and
Conversion 2013-2014

Conversion

20%

   

Startup
80%

 

Figure 9: The percentage of conversion schools operating in Ohio increased from 18% to 20% in 2013-2014.

 

 

 

 

 

{22

 

 

 

10

Number of Charter Schools by Student Population Focus:
2013~2014

Dropout Recovery 1 15

  
 
  
  

Dropout Recovery 2 '57

Dropout Recovery 1 8: 2 17

Dropout Recovery 1 8. Special Education 
Dropout Recovery 2 8? Special Education 1

Special Education 35

General 269

 

There Are Two Special Charter School Types 7

According to law, there are special education schools and dropout prevention and recovery schools. All other schools
are referred to as general education schools. Special education schools are schools that report more than half of their
students had lndiv dual Education Programs during the school year. Special education schools are exempt from closure

for poor academic performance by law}

What Is a Dropout Prevention and Recovery School?

Dropout prevention and recovery schools are defined by meeting one or more of three definitions established in law
and rule. These sci-ools receive the Dropout Recovery Report Card. Schools listed in Table 18 as Dropout Recoveryl are
conversion charter schools authorized by traditional school districts that have been granted waivers from rolling the
charter school?s academic accountability data up into the authorizing district's Ohio School Report Card. A majority of

the students in these schools have already dropped out of school at least once or are at risk of dropping out of school.

About Closure Waivers

Prior to June 30, 2013. certain dropout prevention and recovery schools could be granted a waiver from the community
school closure law. Law repealed the exemption from closure at the same time it created the Dropout Recovery Report
Card. Schools listed in Table 18 as DrOpout Recovery 2 received a closure waiver. The students served in both categories
are the same; the majority are students who dropped out of school or are at risk of dropping out of school. Schools
granted a waiver under the old law must have fulfilled a number of programmatic conditions as stated in law in order

to receive a waiver. Both new start-up and conversion community schools were granted such waivers. Current law also
recognizes charter schools that operate drug treatment programs in cooperation with a court as dropout prevention

and recovery charter schools. One public charter school was identified under this definition in 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[24

Strengthened Charter School Fin?ancialAccountability

Should a charter school be found unauditable for financial monitoring, the Auditor of State is required to provide
written notification to the school, its authorizer, and the Ohio Department of Education and post the notification on
the Auditor's website. Any charter school declared unauditable has 90 days to bring its records into an auditable

condition or face withdrawal of all state and federal funding.

The sponsor of an unauditable charter school is prohibited from entering into contracts with additional charter school
governing boards until the auditor completes a successful financial audit of the school as indicated by the "Date
Released." The Office of Community Schools continues to work collaboratively with the Auditor of State on charter
school financial matters to promote sound financial practices in community schools. After two years without any

charter school being deemed unauditable. one was designated by the Auditor of State in the spring of 2014.
i
Supporting Charter School Authorizer Accountability and Oversight

In Ohio. charter schools are created when individuals (called developers) who are seeking to open a new charter school
enter into a contract with a charter school authorizer. When the authorizer and those individuals representing the
charter school enter into a contract. the school representatives are called the governing authority and operate similar
to a local board of education. The charter school contract specifies the academic, fiscal. governance and accountability

plans that the school's governing authority is responsible for carrying out. The authorizer and the governing authority

are the sole parties to the contract.

 

 

 

 

 

$13153:
m?i?y



 

 

 

 

g4

 

 

 

 

 

{25



 

 

Authorizer Performance Evaluation

The authorizer performance evaluation system was originally developed to assure the compliance of the relatively
small number of aLthorizers approved by the Ohio Department of Education that operate under an authorizer
agreement with the department defining the parameters of their authorizing activities. In October 2009. the Ohio
legislature provided additional clarity regarding the department?s authority to evaluate all authorizers. regardless

of how they acquired authorizing authority. A comprehensive evaluation of the authorizer's monitoring of school
compliance. adherence to quality authorizing practices. and academic performance of its cohort of charter schools will

be implemented January 1, 2015.

A Comprehensive System

In 2011-2012. the Ohio Department of Education. with the assistance of several community school stakeholder groups,
developed a comprehensive system to evaluate the compliance and quality practices of authorizers. Led by the

Office of Community Schools, in collaboration with staff from the Offices of Policy and Research and Data Quality

and Governance, key external stakeholders contributed significantly to the system's development. The participants
include leadership and the Ohio Association of Charter School Authorizers. including representatives from Buckeye
Community Hope Foundation and St. Aloysius Orphanage; the Ohio Authorizer Collaborative. including representatives
from Reynoldsburg City School District and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation; the Ohio Coalition of Quality
Education; and the Ohio Association of Public Charter Schools: and c0nsu tants from the National Association of
Charter School During the 2012-2013 school year. the system was written into state law.

A Unique Requirement

Ohio?s requirement to evaluate authorizer organizations is unique. No other state has a similar high stakes review of
its authorizers. The authorizer evaluation system is built upon the National Association of Charter School Authorizers'
Standards and Principles. It emphasizes the authorizer's commitment and capacity to both open new charter schools
with the highest likelihood of providing an academically successful option and sustain contracts with charter schools
demonstrating academic and operational success. The focus on authorizer performance ultimately improves charter

school performance. Authorizers are evaluated based upon three components:
- Effective mon toring of charter school's compliance with law and its community school contract;
- Adherence to and evidence of quality authorizer practices: and

- Academic performance of its schools.

The graphic on page 27 illustrates Ohio's system for approving new authorizers and evaluating all authorizers. Not all
authorizers gain their authority through approval by the department of education (steps one and two). However. all

authorizers participate in steps three, four and six. Authorizers that operate under an authorizing agreement with the

Ohio Department of Education are eligible for incentives in step five.

 

 

[720132-2014 Annual Report on Ohio Community Schools :7 . 23

The OhioDepartment of Education?s Cycle of Authorizer Oversight,
Engagement, Evaluation and Support 

   
 

 
 
 
 
    
 

Step 1:
Application
Em
Renewing Authorizer
awning Renewal
Application, Pathway

 
 
  
 
  
 

   
 

 

Step 4:

Authorizer

Development
mm

   
  

  
  
   
   
   
   

Step 2:
Contracting

Authorizers
32mm

  

ODE works to identify
areas of weakness,
facilitate best practices
and growth, and to
connect authorizers with
resources throughout
Recognition the process.
of "exemplary"
authorizing
through incentives

    

Step 3:
Authorizer
Performance Evaluation

       
 
 
 

  
    

   
 

Authorizer
Self-
Evaluation

   

Authorizer Compliance Monitoring Review

During the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, the Office of Community Schools piloted a tool and process for

assessing an authorizers oversight procedures and actions related to monitoring its charter schools' compliance with

all relevant rules and the terms of the contract. An administrative rule describing the process and scoring takes effect
in January 2015. The underlying assumption is that a charter school that has been appropriately monitored by its
authorizer should be operating legally and implementing its contact. A total of 51 authorizers participated in authorizer
compliance evaluations during school year 2013-2014. Site visits were made to 10 percent of each authorizer's schools.

 

 

28 I . . _l

Authorizer Quality Review

The Ohio Department of Education's review of authorizer adherence to quality practices is built upon quality
principles and standards of authorizing endorsed by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Also
built into the review. and unique to Ohio. is adherence to the specific legal requirement that authorizers provide

technical assistarce to their authorized schools. Six resulting areas of practices are the focus of the review:
OrganiZational commitment and capacity;
2. Charter school application process and decision making;
3. Performance contracting;
4. Oversight and evaluation of charter schools;
5. Contract termination and renewal decision making: and
Technical assistance.

The quality practice tools and process were piloted with three volunteer authorizing organizations during the
2013?2014 school year. Modifications were made to the tools and processes based on lessons learned during the
pilot. The process consisted of an extensive desk review of supporting documents, review of the authorizer's
charter school contracts, academic performance of its schools. school surveys, and school interviews. followed by
an on~site visit and interview with the authorizer's board. leadership. and staff. Authorizers were scored based on
a rubric established by the working group developing the evaluation system. and the review team debriefed the
authorizers individually.

Authorizer Academic Review

During the 2013-2014 school year the Ohio Department of Education's review of school academic performance
continues to use an Authorizer Composite Performance Index score. based on the same underlying Performance
Index data used in the Ohio School Report Cards. The Authorizer Composite Performance Index score is calculated
in the same manner as a district's Performance Index score-rolling up school data?but does not include data from
authorized schools that primarily serve special education and dropout prevention and recovery students. Authorizers
are ranked from high to low based on their Authorizer Composite Performance Index score. Authorizers with scores
in the lowest 20 percent of all Authorizer Composite Performance Index scores are prohibited from authorizing
additional charter schools until they are no longer in the lowest 20 percent?. As of Jan. 1. 2015. the department is

no longer required to evaluate authorizer academic performance based solely on Performance Index data. A new

evaluation method for this component is currently in development.

 

 


Inaonq.



 

 

 

 

 

 

L30



Legislation

Charter schools have been operating in Ohio for 16 years. During each session of the General Assembly. legislative
changes have been made to the program. The following legislative summaries trace the changes enacted, by legislative

session and bill number.

Charter School Legislative History

130th General Assembly 2013-2014

 

House Bill 483

- Requires the Department of Education to pay each community school 20% of the formula
amount for each student who is not taking career-technical education classes provided by the
school but is enrolled in career-technical programs at a joint vocational school district or another
district in the school?s career-technical planning district.

- Beginning in the 2014-2015 school year. permits an individual age 22 and above who has not
received a high school diploma or equivalence certificate to enroll for up to two cumulative
school years in a community school operating a dropout prevention and recovery program for
the purpose of earning a high school diploma.

For ?scal year 2015. limits the combined enrollment of individuals ages 22 and above under
the act's provisions to 1,000 individuals on a full-time equivalency basis, as determined by
the Department.

Requires the Department to annually pay. for each individual enrolled, $5.000 times the
individual?s enrollment on a full-time equivalence basis. as reported by the community
school and certified by the Department. times the percentage of the school year in which
the individual is enrolled.

Specifies that an individual enrolled under the act's provisions may elect to satisfy the
requirements to earn a high school diploma by successfully completing a competency-
based instructional program that complies with standards adopted by the State Board
of Education.

Requires the Department. by December 31, 2015, to prepare and submit a report to the
General Assembly regarding services provided to individuals ages 22 and above under the
act's provisions.

House Bill 487
I

- Requires the Department of Education to withhold state payments to a new community school
opening for its first year of operation until the school's sponsor confirms that the school has
complied with certain requirements.

- Requires that the Department calculate the value-added progress dimension for purposes of
community school closure using value-added data from only the most recent school year.

- Prohibits a community school that is permanently closed from reopening under another name if
certain conditions still apply to the new school.

- Specifies conditions under which an educational service center may spon50r a conversion or
start-up community school within and outside of its service territory.

 

 

 

?2013 -2014 Annual Report on Ohio Community Schools

 

Revises the role of a transformation alliance in recommending sponsors to operate
community schools in a municipal school district.

Permits community schools that operate programs using the Montessori method to admit
individuals younger than five years old and authorizes them to apply for early childhood
education funding for those programs.

Specifies which English language arts assessment is to be administered to third grade
students in the 2014-2015 school year for purposes of the third-grade reading guarantee.

Permits a community school that cannot furnish the number of qualified teachers to teach
a third grader who reads below grade level needed for the 2014-2015 or 2015-2016 school
year to develop and submit an alternative staffing plan for that school year.

Requires a person who is at least 16 but less than i8 years old and who applies to take the
GED to submit to the Department of Education written approval only from the person's
parent or guardian or a court official.

Beginning in the 2015-2016 school year. requires each community school to adopt a
policy on career advising; (2) identify students who are at risk of dropping out of school
using a research-based. locally based method developed ?with input" from its classroom
teachers and guidance counselors; and (3) develop a ?student success plan" for each of
those students that addresses the student's academic pathway to a successful graduation
and the role of career-technical education. competency-based education, and experiential
learning. as appropriate, in that pathway.

The community school must invite the student's parent. guardian. or custodian to
assist in developing the plan.

Requires the Department to develop and post on its website, by December 1. 2014,
model policies on career advising and model student success plans.

Requires the Department to create, by July 1, 2015, an online clearinghouse of
research related to proven practices for policies on career advising and student
success plans.

- Affords a student enrolled in a community school the opportunity to participate in any

extracurricular activities at the school of the student?s resident school district to which the
student would have been assigned.

Permits the superintendent of any school district to afford to any student who is
enrolled in a community school and who is not entitled to attend school in that
district. the opportunity to participate in a school's extracurricular activities if the
student's school does not offer the extracurricular activity. and the activity is not
interscholastic athletics or interscholastic contests or competition in music. drama.
or forensics.

Eliminates a former provision permitting a school district board of education to
require a community school student to enroll and participate in no more than one
academic course as a condition to participating in an extracurricular activity.

- Prohibits a school district board from imposing additional rules on a community
school student that do not apply to other students participating in the same
extracurricular activity.

- Renames the Post-Secondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program as the College Credit
Plus (CCP) program and makes several changes to the program.

- Renames "dual-enrollment program" as ?advanced standing program" and makes
any agreement between a community school and an associated college subject to
new requirements.

 

 

 

32

 

- Revises graduation requirements for students entering the ninth grade for the first time on or
after July 1. 2014, to require those students to (1) score at "remediation-free" levels in English,
math. and reading on nationally standardized assessments. (2) attain a cumulative passing score
on the end-of-course examinations. or (3) attain a passing score on a nationally recognized
gob skills assessment and obtain either an industry-recognized credential or a state agency- or
ooard-issued license for practice in a specific vocation.

Requires the State Board to approve the industry-recognized Credentials and licenses that
may qualify a student for a high school diploma.

Requires the State Board to select by December 31, 2014. at least one nationally recognized
job skills assessment for schools to administer to students who opt to take the assessment.
and to establish the minimum score a student must attain on the job skills assessment in
order to demonstrate a student's workforce readiness and employability for the purpose of
high school graduation.

- Sets the replacement of the Ohio Graduation Tests (OGT) with the College and Work-Ready
Assessment System beginning with the 2014-2015 school year for students who enter ninth
grade for the first time on or after July 1. 2014.

Prescribes seven end-of-course examinations: one in each of English language arts 1.
English language arts II. physical science. Algebra I. geometry. American history.
and American government.

Authorizes the State Board to replace the Algebra I end-of-course examination with one in
Algebra II beginning with the 2016-2017 school year for students who enter the ninth grade
on or after July 1. 2016.

Specifies that the OGT may not be administered to first-time takers after July 1. 2015.

Permits substitute exams for students enrolled in an Advanced Placement (AP) or
international Baccalaureate (IB) course or other advanced standing program course in the
areas of physical science. American history, or American government.

Specifies that any student who received high school credit prior to July 1. 2014. for a course for
which an end-of-course examination is prescribed may not be required to take that examination.

- Requires the nationally standardized assessment that measures college and career readiness (1)
be administered to all eleventh-grade students. (2) include components in English. mathematics,
science. and social studies. and (3) be an assessment used for college admission.

- For the 2014-2015 school year. prohibits schools from being required to administer state
achievement assessments in an online format, (2) permits schools to administer assessments in
any combination of online or paper formats. and (3) requires the Department of Education to
furnish. free of charge. all such assessments.

- Requires the Department to publish. by July 1. 2015. the number of districts or schools that
administer assessments in paper format. in online format. or in a combination of such. formats.

Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to submit a report. by January 15,
2015. to the Governor and the General Assembly that includes a review of. as well as
recommendations for. the number of elementary and secondary achievement assessments.

0 Beginning with the spring assessments for the 2014-2015 school year. makes the questions and
corresponding preferred answers on the third through eighth grade achievement assessments
and high school end-of~course examinations a public record under a staggered release process.
so that the entirety of those assessments and questions are a public record within three years of
their administration.

Requires the Department to post questions and answers from the assessments that have
been made a public record on its website.

 

 

 

2013 -2014 Annual Report on Ohio Community Schools I . I 334]

 

- Requires the state Superintendent to submit a report to the Governor and General Assembly by
December 31, 2014, on the security and use of student data.

- Requires the Department to submit a report to the Governor and General Assembly by December 31.
2014. on the security of student data with regard to the administration of online assessments.

- Requires the State Board of Education to establish standards providing strict safeguards to
protect the confidentiality of personally identifiable information in the use of the statewide
Education Management Information System.

- Makes several changes to the local report card:

Establishes an additional graded value-added progress dimension measure for a "high
mobility? school district or building that is exempt from the computation of the overall letter
grade of a school or district.

- For the 2014-2015 school year, requires the Department to include the academic progress
measure for high school students on the report card as an ungraded measure.

Adjusts the assessment subjects used to calculate the performance index score as follows:
for grades 3-8. assessments in English language arts. mathematics. science. and social
studies. and (2) for high school, assessments in English language arts and mathematics.

Permits kindergarten diagnostic assessment data to be included on the annual report cards
issued for schools and school districts.

Specifies that the results of the language and reading diagnostic assessment must be
reperted to the Department and are not subject to an existing parental option not to
report that data.

Specifies that a transfer student who transfers prior to the administration of diagnostic
assessments take those assessments at the scheduled administration dates.

Exempts students with "significant cognitive disabilities." as defined by the
Department. from taking diagnostic assessments.

Permits 8 school district or school that received an or for performance index
score or for overall value-added progress dimension on the report card for the prior
school year to administer different diagnostic assessments than those prescribed by
the Department.

Creates a one year safe harbor by prohibiting report card ratings issued for the 2014-2015
school year from being considered in determining whether a school district or school is
subject to certain sanctions or penalties. including but not limited to automatic community
school closure.

Prohibits the Department from assigning an overall letter grade for school districts
and schools for the 2014-2015 school year, and (2) ranking districts and schools based on
operating expenditures. performance achievements, and other specified items for the 2014-
2015 school year.

- Revises the statutory specifications for the statewide academic content standards adopted by
the State Board of Education and creates separate academic standards review committees for
each of the subjects of English language arts. mathematics, science. and social studies.

- Prohibits any official or board of the state from entering into any agreement with any federal or
private entity that would require the state to cede any measure of control over the development.
adoption, or revision of any academic content standards.

 

- Revises law regarding the development and administration of emergency management plans.

 

 

34

 

130th General Assembly 2012-2013

 

House 

- Authorizes the mayor of a city in which a majority of a qualifying school district's territory
is located to sponsor start-up community schools upon successful application to the Ohio
Department of Education.

- Authorizes a qualifying school district to propose a levy for current operating expenses. a
portion of which would be allocated to partnering community schools and distributed among
tnose schools on a per pupil basis.

House Bill 59

- Foundation Funding for community schools is calculated in a manner similar to that of traditional
school districts but with no state share index or percentage applied. Payments continue to be
ceducted from each student's resident school district, with the exception of the $100 per pupil
facilities payment to site?based community schools. The bill also includes the following components:

An opportunity grant per pupil amount of $5.745 in FY14 and $5,800 in FY15.

The per pupil amount of tier targeted assistance funds from the resident district multiplied
by 25 percent.

Additional aid for special education and related services based on the student's disability
category and corresponding amount listed in the table under the "Special Education" section.

Kindergarten through third grade literacy funding provided at $211 in FY14 and $290 in FY15
for each student in grades K-3.

For economically disadvantaged students. $269 in FY14 and $272 in FY15 multiplied by
the resident district's economically disadvantaged index. See a description of the district's
economically disadvantaged index under the "State Support for Schools? section.

- Additional aid for limited English proficiency based on the student's limited English
proficiency category and corresponding amount described above under the "State Support
to Schools" section.

Additional aid for career-technical education services based on the student's participation in
approved career-technical education programs in one of five categories. The supplemental
amounts are provided for each category under the "Career-Technical Education? section.

- eSchools are ineligible for K-3 literacy. economically disadvantaged. limited English proficiency
and targeted assistance funds. eSchools are for the first time authorized to provide and receive
funding for career-technical education, if approved.

- eSchools have an enrollment limit starting in FY15 that is based on the following percentage
increases applied to the enrollment at the end of the 2012-2013 school year for eSchools open in
that year or applied to 1.000 if newly opened in the 2013-2014 school year:

- If the eSchool has enrollment equal to or greater than 3.000 students. the enrollment limit is
a 15 percent increase;

If the eSchool has enrollment of less than 3,000 students. the enrollment limit is a 25
percent increase.

- The Ohio Department of Education is required to deduct the amount of state funds credited to
an eSchool for students in excess of the enrollment limit and proportionally restore that amount
to the students' resident school districts.

 

 

I 2013 -2014 Annual Report on Ohio Community Schools

- Site-based community schools and STEM schools are funded $100 per student for facilities
costs. However, $7.5 million is provided in each fiscal year through lottery funds, and payments
are prorated to stay within that amount. (Therefore. this funding is not deducted from
community school students? or STEM school students' resident districts.)

- All community schools that serve grades 7 or above must be assigned to a career technical
planning district by the Ohio Department of Education. Community school students also can
participate in any career-technical education program of the career-technical planning district in
which the student's resident district belongs.

- The community school funding guarantee for severe behavioral handicapped students with
emotional disabilities is continued. For community schools that enroll a number of students
receiving special education and related services for emotional disabilities equal to at least 50
percent of the total number of students. this funding provides the difference between the
aggregate amount calculated and paid for special education weighted costs for the emotionally
disabled students and the aggregate amount that would have been calculated for those same
students in FY01.

- A new statute allows community schools to charge tuition for out-of-state students as long
as the students do not receive state foundation funding. However: the US Department of
Education prohibits community schools to charge any students tuition.

- The Ohio Department of Education is now permitted. in lieu of revoking a sponsor's authority.
to require sponsors found to be noncompliant with applicable laws and administrative rules to
olace temporary limits on the breadth and scope of the sponsor's authority until the sponsor
'emedies its noncompliance.

- The Ohio Department of Education is now authorized to deny an application submitted under
the Ohio School Sponsorship Program by an existing community school if the school's contract
with its sponsor was terminated, not just if the contract is not renewed as under current law.

- Language now Specifies that the initial term for an agreement between the Ohio Department of
Education and a community school sponsor runs for up to seven years and the department is
required to add one year to the agreement term. unless the sponsor notifies the department that
it does not wish to have the term of the agreement extended, if the following conditions are met:

Prior to Jan. 1. 2015. the sponsor is not ranked in the bottom 20 percent of sponsors
statewide according to composite Performance Index score and meets all the statutory
requirements pertaining to community school sponsors: or

On or after Jan. 1. 2015. the sponsor is rated as "exemplary" or "effective" under the new
sponSOr rating system, and in either case continues to meet all the statutory requirements
pertaining to community school Sponsors.

- Community schools that primarily enroll students in a dropout prevention and recovery program
can attain a rating of "exceeds standards.? in addition to "meets standards" as specified under
current law, if the program improves by 10 percent both its graduation rate and its percentage of
twelfth-grade students and other students passing the graduation assessments.

The State Board of Education is required, not later than Dec. 31. 2014. to review the performance
levels and benchmarks for report cards issued for dropout recovery community schools.

- The bill removes from the list of requirements that community schools must meet to operate in
multiple facilities the following: 1) their contracts were filed by May 15. 2008. and 2) they were
ooen prior to July 1. 2008.

 

 

 

I36

 

 

- Beginning with the 2013-2014 school year a community school's contract that has been
suspended is void if the school's governing authority fails to provide a proposal to remedy issues
for which the school's contract was suspended by Sept. 30 following the suspension date. If
a community school sponsor suspends the operation of a school prior to the bill's effective
date, the contract with the sponsor is void if the school's governing authority fails to provide a
proposal to remedy issues for which the school's contact was suspended by Sept. 30, 2014.

- Any closing community school that has received hardware or software from the former Ohio
SchoolNet or eTech Ohio is required to turn over the equipment to the Ohio Department of
Education. rather than eTech Ohio.

- Transportation services relating to community schools:

New community schools. beginning with the 2014-2015 school year. are allowed to accept
responsibility for providing or arranging for the transportation of the district's native
students before it is open for its first year of operation.

Community schools that are scheduled to open in the 2014-2015 school year and each year
thereafter are required to notify districts if responsibility to transport students is assumed
no later than April 15 of the previous school year.

Community schools are required to follow current law once the school has been open for
one year after renewing or relinquishing transportation responsibility.

Criteria for closing community schools that offer any of grades four to eight and do not offer
a grade higher than nine is made consistent with criteria prior to July 1. 2013. by including that
such schools must also show less than one standard year of academic growth in either reading
or math in order to be closed.

- A provision of current law is removed that requires any classroom teacher initially hired by a
community school after July 1. 2013. to provide physical education instruction to hold a valid
license from the State Board of Education for teaching physical education.

129th General Assembly 2011-2012

 

House Bill 555

- Changed the state's accountability system by replacing the current academic performance
rating system for school districts. individual buildings of districts. community schools. STEM
schools and college-preparatory boarding schools with a phased-in letter grade system under
which districts and schools are assigned grades of     or based on various
performance measures

Requires the Department of Education to review additional information included on report
cards and submit to the Governor and General Assembly recommendations for revisions

Requires the State Board of Education to submit to the General Assembly recommendations
for a comprehensive statewide plan to intervene in and improve the performance of
persistently poor performing schools and school districts

Adds honors diploma and industry credentials to report card measures; establishes how
report card measures will be grouped into components: Achievement. Progress, Graduation,
K-3 Literacy Progress, Gap Closing (AYP alternative), and Prepared for Success (formerly
College-and Career-Ready)

Clarifies that the Prepared for Success component is to consist of an unduplicated student
count. If a student qualifies for more than one performance measure in the component. the
State Board may. in its method to determine a grade for the component, specify an additional
weight for such a student that is not greater than or equal to 1.0

 

 

I 2013 -2014 Annual. Report on Ohio Community Schools

 

37]

Requires the State Board to determine. for the K-3 literacy measure, progress made based
on the reduction in the percentage of students scoring below level each year on the reading
diagnostics and the English language arts third grade state assessment

Raises performance proficiency benchmark to 80% for the 2013-2014 school year

Restores five score levels for student test results to align with new assessments

Revises benchmarks for Indicators Met and Performance Index to 90% for an specifies that the
State Board assign specific report card measures to buildings based on applicable grade levels

Requires the State Board by December 31, 2013 to specify additional non-report card
measures that will be made available to the public

Conforms Ohio's definition of graduation rate to the federal definition; clarifies deadlines for
adopting rules for the report card and clarifies performance criteria for schools with respect
to support or intervention by ODE as required by ESEA

Requires ODE to give a presentation to the House and Senate Education Committees on its
report card recommendations at least 45 days befOre the State Board votes to adopt them
starting with the August 2013 report card

Requires ODE to assign letter grades to school districts and schools not later than September
15 of each year. or in certain cases on the preceding Friday

Requires the State Board to make recommendations to the General Assembly to create a
one-year safe harbor for districts and schools for the first year that the new assessments are
administered. The recommendation must include a method to exempt districts. buildings.
community schools. STEM schools and college preparatory boarding schools that have a
decline in performance index score from sanctions and penalties based on report card ratings

- Requires the State Board of Education to develop an alternative academic performance rating
system for community schools serving primarily students enrolled in dropout prevention and
recovery programs

Establishes criteria for closing dropout prevention and recovery community schools based
on their academic performance

Clarifies selection of assessments used to measure progress of dropout recovery students
Inserts performance criteria for dropout recovery schools wishing to operate in multiple facilities

Adds performance of dropout recovery schools to community school sponsor evaluations
beginning with the 2014-2015 school year

- Establishes a new evaluation system for determining which community school sponsors may
sponsor additional schools. This new system will be developed in 2013 but will not be used for
determining which sponsors can open new schools until the 2015-16 school year.

Clarifies the deadline for ODE to prescribe quality practices for community school sponsors
Clarifies when a new community school's performance is included in sponsor evaluations

ODE may assume sponsorship of contracted. but not yet opened. community schools if the
school's sponsor is found ineffective

I

- Permits an educational service center to sponsor a new start-up community school in any
challenged district in the state. instead of just its service territory. so long as it receives approval
to do so from the Department of Education

- Clarifies which students are included in value-added calculations for community school

closure purposes
i

 

 

iss? 

Clarifies that educational service centers approved by ODE as a statewide sponsor meet the
criteria to authorize in a municipal school district

- Specifies a community school that operates a drug recovery program in cooperation with a court
must be considered a dropout prevention and recovery program for purposes of Community
School Law

- Provides criteria for new eSchools once the moratorium on new eSchools is lifted

-- Requires community school treasurers to be licensed and provides an existing community school
fiscal officer one year from the bill's effective date to obtain a school treasurer license

-. Expands the current exception permitting a community school to operate facilities in more than

one location to apply to a community school sponsored by a school district having territory in
the same county where the facilities of the school are located. regardless of whether the school
has an operator

- Requires a school district to provide immediate services and regular diagnostic assessments
for a student found to have a reading deficiency pending development of the student's reading
improvement and monitoring plan required under the third grade reading guarantee

Clarifies which diagnostic tests are appropriate for assessing student reading levels

Requires administration of diagnostic assessments to each student in third grade, as well as
first and second under current law

Requires a teacher who provides reading instruction services under the third grade reading
guarantee to be actively engaged in the reading instruction of students for the previous
three years and to satisfy at least one of certain specified criteria. depending on which
school year the teacher intends to provide these services

House Bill 525

- Allows the mayor of Cleveland to establish and appoint a board of directors of a Municipal
School District Transformation Alliance as a nonprofit corporation.

Requires the alliance. if created. to: confirm and monitor a "transformation alliance
education plan? prepared by the mayor; (2) suggest national education models for and
provide input in the development of new district schools and partnering community
schools; (3) report annually on the performance of all municipal school district schools and
all community schools located in the district; (4) make recommendations to the department
on the approval of sponsors of new community schools located in the district.

Sunsets the authority to create an alliance on Jan. 1. 2018. and terminated any alliance
created under the bill on that date.

Requires the Ohio Department of Education, the transformation alliance. if created, and a
statewide nonprofit community school sponsor organization. to work jointly to establish
criteria for both (1) sponsor to use to determine if they will sponsor new community schools
in the municipal school district by April 30. 2013. and (2) the Ohio Department of Education
and the alliance to use in assessing the ability of a sponsor to successfully sponsor schools
in the district.

Beginning with any community school that opens after July 1. 2013. requires each sponsor
to use the criteria developed jointly by the Alliance. department and statewide SponSOr
organization to determine whether it will sponsor a new community school in the municipal
school district.

 

 

 

'r .
2013 ?2014 Annual Report on Ohio Community Schools

 

39]

Authorizes a municipal school district, with the approval of the community school
governing authority, to elect to have the student performance data of a community school
located in the district combined with the district's data on the district's report card if the
district either sponsors the community school or has entered into an agreement with the
school to endorse each other's programs.

Authorizes a municipal school district. at its own discretion. to elect to have the number

of students enrolled in a community school located in the district noted separately on the
district's report card if the district either sponsors the community school or has entered into
an agreement with the school to endorse each other's programs.

Requires the district, by Oct. 1 each year. to submit documentation to the department
indicating eligibility for the election to include a community school's data on its report card.

Authorizes the school board of a municipal school district to propose a levy for current
operating expenses. a portion of which would be allocated to "partnering" community
schools and distributed among those schools on a per-pupil basis.

Senate Bill 316

Specifies that unless the General Assembly enacts performance standards, a report card rating
system and closure criteria for community schools that operate dropout prevention and recovery
programs by March 31, 2013, those schools are subject to permanent closure under the existing
criteria that applies to other community schools. Also specified that only the performance
ratings issued to schools that operate dropout programs for the 2012-2013 school year and later
count in determining if a school meets the closure criteria.

Defines ?blended learning" as "the delivery of instruction in a combination of time in a supervised
physical location away from home and online delivery whereby the student has some element of
control over time, place, path, or pace of learning.?

Requires the State Board of Education to revise its existing operating standards for school
districts and chartered nonpublic schools to include standards for blended learning programs.

Requires the operating standards to provide for student-to-teacher ratios whereby no blended
learning classroom is required to have more than one teacher for every 125 students.

Requires an operating standard that provides for ?the licensing of teachers, administrators, and
other professional personnel and their assignment according to training and qualifications."

Requires the State Board to provide standards for the following:

Licensing of teachers. administrators and other professional personnel and their assignment
according to training and qualifications:

Efficient and effective instructional materials and equipment. including library facilities:

Proper organization, administration and supervision of each school. including regulations for
preparing all necessary records and reports and the preparation of a statement of policies
and objectives for each school;

Buildings. grounds and health and sanitary facilities and services:

Admission of pupils and such requirements for their promotion from grade to grade to
ensure that they are capable and prepared for the level of study to which they are certified:

Requirements for graduation: and

Such other factors as the Board finds necessary.

 

 

[4o

 

 

Requires school districts. community schools. STEM schools. public college-preparatory
boarding schools and chartered nonpublic schools that operate a blended learning school. or
that plan to cease operating one, to notify the department by July 1 of the school year for which
the change is effective.

Permits a school already operating a blended learning program to notify the department of
education within 90 days after the bill?s effective date and request classification as a blended
learning school.

Specifies that an Internet or computer-based community school is not a blended learning school.
and that the bill's provisions addressing blended and digital learning do not affect current law
with respect to the operation of and state payments to eSchools.

Requires the department to provide information on the use of blended or digital learning in the
delivery of the standards or curricula to students whenever the State Board adopts new state
academic standards or model curricula.

Requires community schools to comply with an existing law requiring each school district to
adopt a promotion and retention policy that prohibits the promotion of a student who has

been truant for more than 10 percent of the school year and has failed at least two of the
required subjects. unless the principal and teachers in the failed subject agree that the student is
academically prepared for the next grade.

Revises and updates the definition of ?sponsor? for purposes of the community school laws to
explicitly include boards of school districts and educational service centers that agree to the
conversion of a school or building and grandfathered sponsors, which are exempt from having to
obtain the department of education's approval to sponsor community schools.

Increases to five the number of governing authorities of start-up community schools on which a
person can serve at the same time.

Allows the governing authority of a community school to establish a single-gender school
without establishing a comparable school for the other gender.

Revises an uncodified provision enacted in 2011 in House Bill 153 and in each prior budget act
since 2005 to permit a community school operating from or in a residential care facility, as long .
as the school was operating in Ohio before May 1. 2005, regardless of whether the school was
operating from or in the facility on that date.

Requires the department of education to make available a copy of every approved community
school contract filed with the superintendent of public instruction on its website.

Makes permanent the exclusion from the ranking calculations of community schools that
primarily serve students with disabilities.

Requires the department of education to include schools that operate dropout programs when
calculating the composite Performance Index scores of community school sponsors for the
purpose of sponsor rankings. if the schools become subject to the existing closure criteria.

Excludes community schools that have been in operation for less than two full school years from
counting in the annual rankings of community school sponsors.

Specifies that the Ohio Department of Education's Office of School Sponsorship must be
ncluded in the annual rankings of community school sponsors, but exempted the office from the
arohibitions against sponsonng additional community schools.

Requires the department to publish the rankings between Oct. 1 and Oct. 15.

States that the General Assembly intends to enact a law, not later than Dec. 31, 2012, that
establishes a battery of measures to be used to rate the performance of the sponsors of
community schools and to determine whether an entity may sponsor additional
community schools.

 

 

I 2013 ?2014 Annual Report on Ohio Community Schools

0

 

41]

Designates the Ohio Department of Education's Office of School Sponsorship as the entity
within the department that may assume sponsorship of a community school whose sponsor is
found not to be in compliance with state rules or its contract with the community school.

Permits the department to deny an application for direct authorization submitted by an existing
community school, if the school's previous sponsor did not renew its contract with the school.

Requires school district boards of education to review the community school enrollment
for students who are entitled to attend school in the district and verify the community school

which the student is enrolled and that the student is entitled to attend school in the district
Jnder law.

Authorizes community school governing authorities to adopt a policy for initial reporting that
prescribes the number of documents required to verify a student's residency. If adopted. this
oolicy supersedes any policy adopted by a school district.

Codifies current department of education policy by specifying that "the school district in which
a parent or child resides is the location the parent or student has established as the primary
residence and where substantial family activity takes place."

Specifies that the following documents may serve as evidence of primary residence:

A deed. mortgage. lease. current home owner?s or renter's insurance declaration page or
current real property tax bill;

A utility bill or receipt of utility installation issued within 90 days of enrollment;

A paycheck or pay stub issued to the parent or student within 90 days of the date of
enrollment that includes the address of the parent's or student?s primary residence:

The most current available bank statement issued to the parent or student that includes the
address of the parent's or student's primary residence;

Any other official document issued to the parent or student that includes the address of the
parent's or student's primary residence. (Required the superintendent of public instruction
to develop guidelines for determining what qualifies as an "official document")

Specifies that when a student becomes a homeless child. or when a homeless child changes
living arrangements. the district in which the student is entitled to attend school must be
determined in accordance with current state and federal law governing education of
homeless children.

Specifies that in the event of a disagreement. the state superintendent must determine the
district in which the student is entitled to attend.

Requires that when a school district and community school reach different determinations as to
a student's school district. the community school is to provide the district with documentation
of the student?s residency and make a good faith effort to accurately identify the student's
residence. The community school cannot appeal to the state superintendent until doing so.

and any appeal must be within 60 days after the department's deadlines for reporting
enroilment. The state superintendent must make the determination within 30 days after the
community school presents the matter.

Makes no statement about withhoiding payments. but requires the state superintendent to direct
any necessary adjustments to deductions and payments after resolving a dispute.

In addition to community schools, as under current law, includes public college-preparatory
boarding schools in the right of first refusal for real property that a school district chooses to
sell. When offering unused real property for sale or lease to community schools located in the
district, as required under current law. permits. but does not require. a school district also to
make that offer to existing community schools or college preparatory boarding schools with
plans to relocate operations to the district.

 

 

42

 

Specifies that the appraised fair market value of the property must be determined by an
appraisal that is not more than one year old.

Specifies that if the district conducts an auction or lottery to select a Community school or
college-preparatory boarding school to purchase or lease the property. because more than one
eligible party notifies the district of its interest. the auction or lottery must be conducted only
among the parties that notified the district of their interest. instead of among all eligible parties.
as required under current law.

Adds nonprofit private colleges and universities and chartered nonpublic schools to the list
of entities that may purchase real (or personal) property of a school district directly without
purchasing it at a public auction. 

129th General Assembly 2011-2012

 

 

House Bill 153

Eliminates the requirement that new start-up community schools contract with an operator of a
previously successful community school.

Eliminates the moratorium on new eSchools. but limits growth to five new eSchools per year.
Requires the department of education to recommend eSchool standards to the General Assembly.

Requires eSchools to compiy with the newly developed standards if enacted by the legislature
cr, if not enacted, default to national standards.

Creates the Ohio School Sponsorship Program. under which the Ohio Department of Education
may directly sponsor community schools.

Expands challenged districts where start-up community schools may be established to include
tne lowest 5 percent of districts based on Performance Index scores.

Frohibits community school sponsors ranked in the lowest 20 percent of sponsors based on
Performance Index scores from sponsoring additional schools.

Increases the number of community schools any one Sponsor can sponsor to 100.
Eliminates the reduction of a sponsor's cap by one for every school that closes permanently.

Revises procedural deadlines related to a sponsor's decision to terminate or not renew
community school contracts.

Grants civil immunity to sponsors and staff when taking action authorized by law or contract to
fiulfill the oversight responsibility.

Repeals the requirement that a sponsor have a representative within 50 miles of each school
it sponsors.

Requires sponsor and school meetings to review finances and enrollment.

Imposes a one-year revolving door restriction on governing authority members and their
immediate relatives.

Increases the maximum compensation for governing authority members of start-up
community schools.

Revises the closure criteria, decreasing the length of time it takes to close poor performing
schools with certain grade configurations.

Specifies that, for state funding purposes, an eSchool student is considered automatically
re-enrolled the following year until enrollment is terminated or the student fails to meet the 105-
hour participation requirement.

 

 

2013-2014 Annual Report on Ohio Community Schools . . . I 43



- Repeals the requirement that eSchools spend a specified minimum amount per pupil
on instruction.

0 Makes exceptions to allow facilities to duplicate grades or be located in more than one district.

- Requires the department to assign a unique identification number to each facility when one
school has multiple facilities.

- Permits two or more community schools to be located in the same facility.

- Expands a community school's right of first refusal to purchase all real property owned by a
school district.

- 'Requires school district boards with real property that has not been in use for two years to offer
it to new start-up community schools for purchase or lease.

- Permits community schools to enter into an agreement for the joint operation of educational
programs but prohibited them from charging related tuition 0r fees.

0 Requires the State Board of Education to review prior recommendations for dropout recovery
performance standards and to issue new recommendations to the General Assembly by June 2012.

128th General Assembly 2009-2010

House Bill 19

 

- Requires the Ohio Department of Education to re-evaluate closure criteria f0r 2009-2010 school
year excluding each school's first two years of operation.

128th General Assembly 2009-2010

House Bill 1

 

Requires the Ohio Department of Education to issue a community school?s first Local Report
Card at the end of its first year of operation rather than the second year of operation.

Excludes any ratings a community school receives on its first two Local Report Cards from use in
the community school closure criteria.

Strengthens the closure criteria for poorly performing community schools.

Expands the exemption of schools from the closure criteria to include schools in which more
than half of the students enrolled receive special education or related services.

Requires the chief administrative officer of closing schools to transmit each student's records to
his or her district of record within seven business days of the school's permanent closure.

Clarifies that any and all sponsors are under the oversight of the department of education.

Requires the Ohio Department of Education's annual report on community schools to report the
performance of sponsors.

Clarifies the performance requirements of schools used for the operator provision.

Allows joint vocational school districts to sponsor conversion c0mmunity schools.

Revises the minimum standard for the expenditure of state funds on instruction by eSchools and
provides a fine for non-compliance.

Eliminates the prohibition against eSchools counting purchases of computers, obscenity filtering
software and certain other software toward instructional expenditures.

 

 

 

 



 

House Bill 290

Allows a conversion community school to locate outside of the sponsoring district in very
narrow circumstances.

Allows a conversion community school to obtain a new sponsor in very narrow circumstances.

127th General Assembly 2007-2008

House 

Lifts the moratorium on new start-ups by allowing them to open under the control of a
successful operator meeting certain criteria.

Expands penalties for failing to report or misreporting Education Management Information
System (EMIS) data.

Strengthens the requirements for new Spenser applicants who currently sponsor or operate
schools outside of Ohio to meet a minimum quality standard.

Limits the sponsorship territory of educational service centers to their own and centiguous
service areas, but exempts this limitation for schools already sponsored outside of the
limited areas.

Modifies payments for community school students attending multiple educational providers in
one year.

Allows community schools to transport their own students and receive transportation funds
directly from the state.

Establishes ore-opening requirements for all community schools that must be confirmed by
sponsors prior to the beginning of each school year.

Requires the Auditor of State to provide written notification to the school. sponsor and the
department of education when finding a community school is unauditable.

Prohibits the sponsor of an unauditable school from entering into preliminary agreements and/or
contracts with additional community schools until the audit is complete.

Requires the sponsor of an unauditable school to notify the Auditor of State of the actions it will
take as a result of the unauditable finding.

Requires the Ohio Department of Education to withhold funds, until notified otherwise by the
Auditor of State, from any school that fails to make progress in bringing its records into an
auditable condition within 90 days of the finding.

Clarifies the proper distribution of a closed community school's assets.

Prohibits community schools not operating as of May 1. 2005. from operating within residential
treatment facilities that receive and care for children.

House Bill 562

Allows educational service centers to sponsor conversion community schools housed in an
existing building used by the educational service center.

Allows new start-ups to be established in two districts under the same contract in
certain circumstances.

Allows governing authorities of multiple community schools to enter into pooling agreements to
make purchases.

Establishes the five-year ISUS demonstration project.

 

 

2013 -2014 Annual Report on Ohio Community Schools . 45 I

 

126th General Assembly 2005-2006

 

House Bill 66 
- Expands community school accountability for special education and related services.
- Establishes expected gains for community schools on additional assessments.

- Allows only 30 additional district-sponsored and 30 additional non-district sponsored new start-
ups to open until July 1, 2007.

- Requires a lottery to be held to determine which new start-ups can open.

- Places a moratorium on new eSchools until the General Assembly enacts standards for
eSchool operation.

- Requires eSchools to provide testing locations within 50 miles of students? homes.

- Requires eSchools to withdraw students who fail to participate in state-mandated tests fOr two
consecutive years.

- Defines a "day" for an eSchool student as a minimum of five hours and maximum of 10 hours of
learning opportunities.

- Establishes eSchool pupil instruction expenditure criteria and reporting requirements.

- Requires governing authorities to partner with a successful operator to open a new start-up
above the cap.

- Places limits on the number of schools that can be sponsored by an entity.
- Ultimately caps the number of new start-up community schools at 50 per sponsor.

- Requires operator applicants who currently operate schools outside of Ohio to meet a minimum
quality standard.

- Requires community school contracts to be adopted no later than March 15 of the year in which
the school is to open.

- Requires community school to open within one year of the contact's execution.
- Requires non-dropout recovery schools to open by Sept. 30 of the year in which the contract is signed.

- Requires the Ohio Department of Education to adopt closing procedures for use by community
schools and sponsors.

House Bill 79
- Clarifies requirements of districts offering real property to community schools.
- Reduces a sponsor's cap by one for every school that closes permanently.
- Allows individuals to serve on no more than two schools? governing authorities at one time.
- Limits governing authority members' compensation for attendance at meetings.

- Prohibits governing authority members of new start-ups. and their immediate relatives, from
becoming owners. employees or consultants of any community school operator until one year
after such membership has ended.

- Provides appeal rights for the community school's operator in the event that the governing
. .
authority terminated the operator's contract.

- Allows the parents of eSchool students to waive the school's requirement to provide a computer
to their enrolled child.

 

 

 

- Replaces earlier expected gains with the state ratings and Value-Added systems to determine
closure requirements for poorly performing community schools.

- Provides an exemption from closure for poor performance for certain dropout recovery
community schools.

125th General Assembly 2003-2004

House Bill 95

 

- Allows educational service centers to sponsor start-ups in any challenged district.
- Prohibits schools from contracting with a new sponsor upon termination of their contract.
- Petails the flow of state aid to community schools.

l.
Requires automatic withdrawal of community school students missing 105 consecutive hours
of instruction.

House Bill 3

- Limits challenged districts to include only those in Lucas County. the Ohio eight urban districts.
and districts in Academic Watch and Academic Emergency.

- Requires the State Board of Education to recommend eSchool standards to the
General Assembly.

 

 

124th General Assembly 2001-2002

House Bill 94
- Requires districts to offer real property for sale to new start-ups.

- Grants sponsors the right to suspend. terminate and non-renew community schools.

House Bill 364
- Changes the role of the State Board of Education to authorizer of sponsors.

- Refocuses the State Board of Education's efforts on oversight of sponsors and providing
technical assistance to schools and sponsors.



The State Board of Education is able to sponsor community schools only in very narrow
circumstances.

- A sponsor that operated on or before April 8. 2003. is regarded as "grandfathered" for purposes
of continuing to act as a sponSOr.

- Requires non-grandfathered sponsors of new start-ups to apply to the State Board of Education.

Extends sponsorship of new start?ups to include school districts. educational service centers. the
13 four-year state universities and qualified nonprofit organizations.

- Expands challenged districts to include those in Academic Watch.

- Limits the total number of non-district sponsored new start-ups to 225 until July 1, 2005.

 

- Allows and defines eSchools.

 

 

I 2013 -2014 Annual Report on Ohio Community Schools . . . 47 I

 

123th General Assembly 1999-2000

House Bill 282
- Expands challenged districts to include Ohio Urban 21 districts.
- Expands challenged districts to include those in Academic Emergency.
- Requires community schools to designate attendance areas.

0 Requires districts to transport community school students.

122nd General Assembly 1997-1998

House Bill 215

 

- liilot community school program established.
- Lucas County Educational Service Center established as a sponsor.
- University of Toledo established as a sponsor.

- New start-ups allowed to locate in Lucas County only.

Senate Bill 55
0 Program expanded beyond Lucas County.
- State Board of Education established as a sponsor.
- Defines challenged districts as districts in Lucas County. and the eight largest urban districts.

- Allows new start-ups to locate in challenged districts only.

House Bill 770

 

- Allows University of Toledo designee to sponsor new start-up community schools.

Additional Components of the Community School Annual Report

The remainder of this report presents tables describing school academic and demographic data. enrollment and

finance. it also presents the authorizer's assessments of community school legal compliance. along with the Ohio
Department of Education's assessment of authorizer performance. Many of the tables include historic information
for previous school years, as well as data for the 2013-2014 school year. To view the tables and the accompanying

narration, go to and search keywords: Community Schools Annual Report.

Laws cited

Ohio Revised Code. 3314.36

2 Ohio Revised Code 3302.030)
3 Ohio Revised Code 3314.35

4 Ohio Revised Code 3314.016

 

 

 

 

 

?u

education.ohio.gov

 

 

Authorizer Monitoring Review Instrument
Core Areas of Compliance

 

Area of Review

Areas of
CompliancelExpianation

Statutory
Reference

Examples of Authorizer Actions to Document Compliance

Veri?ed

Not
Verified

Description of Authorizer Methods
for Monitoring School Compliance
with Statute

 

Health and Safety

Bus Driver Quali?cations

ORC 3327.10

If the school transports its own students and/or provides transportation
as a related service on an review the school foundation payment
system account with all the drivers and private contractors entered.
(Otherwise, not applicable.)

 

Health Safety

Certi?cate of Occupancy

ORC 3314.05 (A).
3314.19 

Documentation signed by a local government agency or building
department certifying a bilding to be in condition suitable of
occupancy. (Note: not applicable to eschools.)

 

Health Safety

Criminal Background
Checks (BCl&l and FBI)

ORC 3319.39

BCI and FBI results must be in place for all staff. Results must be on
?le within 60 days of hire. The requirement is no longer "care. custody
and control." Af?davit may be available in schools with management
companies.

 

Health Safety

Current Fire Inspection

ORG 3314.05

(8H4):


Review documentation of current ?re inspection. Note: not applicable
to eschools; done annually unless speci?ed otherwise by the locality.

 

Health Safety

Heimlich Maneuver
Training

ORC 3313.815

Any school district that operates a food service program shall have at
least one employee who has received instruction in methods to
prevent choking and has demonstrated an ability to perform the
Heimlich maneuver to be present while students are being served
food.

 

Health Safety

School Emergency
Evac uation-Tornado-
School Safety Drill

ORC 3737.73 (A)
(Dli2llb):
Ohio Fire Code
405.1.1.1 and
408.3.2

At least (9) Emergency Evacuation drills must be conducted in the
school year and at least (1) must occur within the ?rst 10 days of
school. Not later than the ?rst day of December each year, the head of
school will mail a list certifying the date and time each school safety
drill was conducted to the police chief or county sheriff. Ensure
evacuation maps are clearly labeled and displayed in the building and
classrooms.

 

Health Safety

School Environment
Inspection - Health
Department

OAC 3701. 3717;
ORC 3314.05

A copy of current school environment (health) inspection.

 

Health Safety

School Safety Plan

ORC 3314.03

Must contain protocols for addressing various threats; updated every 3
yrs; the plan and floor plan filed with each local law enforcement
agency and with the Ohio Attorney General

 

Education Program

Academic

Services Policy

ORC 3313.6012

Review of policy.

 

Education Program

Implementation of the
Education Plan

ORC 3301.03;
3301.0711

Review educational plan in Contract. Tour school. Note the
teacherlstudent ratio, verify of contract required curricular materials.
Conduct classroom observations of lesson materials, plans, and any
evidence of any additional supplemental materials.

 

Education Program

Special Education 81
related services plan,
including 504
Implementation Plan

ORC 3323.03;
OAC 3301-51-06

Evidence that the school has such a plan and that it is used to guide
their service delivery; how does the Authorizer monitor implementation
of the special education services.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 1 of 4

Authorizer Monitoring Review Instrument
Core Areas of Compliance

 

Area of Review

Areas of
ComplianceIExplanation

Statutory

Examples of Authorizer Actions to Document Compliance
Reference

Veri?ed

Not
Veri?ed

Description of Authorizer Methods
for. Monitoring School Compliance
with Statute

 

Education Program

Special Education
Student Files

OAC 3301-51;

ORG 3323.03; Check for Authonzer Initials as veri?cation.

 

Governance

Certi?cation of non-profit
status

Con?rm the school has a current certi?cate of its non-pro?t status ?led

0R0 3314?03 with Ohio?s Secretary <3f State

 

Governance

Governing Authority
Approved Meeting
Minutes and Resolutions;
signed and available to
the public

Board records are public. Review appropriate procedures and board

ORC 12122 book for board meeting mmU?es-

 

Finance

Financial Review

Con?rm that sponsor is conducting ?scal review; and effective
ORC 3314.023 March 23, 2015. within 10 days after review Authorizer provides the
GA and Fiscal Of?cer with a written report

 

Finance

TreasurerlFiscal Of?cer
LicensureIQuali?cations
8. Bond

ORC 3314.011; Current school treasurer license or evidence of qualifying hours of
Sponsor Contract training for Fiscal Of?cer and current Bond.

 

Operations

Liability Insurance

ORC 3314.03 (A)
(11) 

A copy of current liability coverage.

 

Operations

Licensed Employees

ORC 3319.22 to Verify that all classroom teachers are licensed in accordance with the
3319.31 ORC.

 

Operations

Resident Educator
Program; Mentor
Program

Ensure the school has a resident educator program mentor on staff
and verify approved mentor status of the employee. Review
documentation of training received. If process is not fully in place.
follow up at next Site Visit.

ORC 3319.223

 

Operations

Review of enrollment
records

Proof of residency policy available for review; sample of records pulled

ORC 3314'" and reviewed for proper enrollment documents

 

 

 

'Desk review unless
othenivise noted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 2 of 4

Rotating Areas of Compliance

At School visit Compliance Manager will select 3 to review onsite

 













 

. . .

1' 9f Revi?w  

I . 
Compliancel?x'planation



 



to Document 7 i. 

 

   


:iDessriptiq,n .Methc?s
'jdr Moi 

- 1 'with'St'at'ute- 

 

Education Program

Child Find
implementation

OAC 3301-51-03

Evidence of the school's process and procedures for
implementing Child Find.

 

Education Program

College and Career
Readiness and Financial
Literacy

ORC 33135015

Guidelines addressing college and career readiness and
?nancial literacy; reference to incorporation of letter into
curriculum.

 

Education Program

Core Curriculum
Parental Noti?cation

ORC 3313.603

If the school offers high school grades and offers a waiver
from the core curriculum. con?rm parent signature and
notice of student's ineligibility to enroll in state universities.
Pertains to students in grades 11 12.

 

Education Program

A Dual Enrollment Policy
for College Credit

ORC 3313.6013

For schools offering high school grades. review the GA
approved policy for dual enrollment and evidence that
students are informed about the opportunity.

 

Education Program

Highly Qualified Teacher
and ParaPro
Documentation

ORC 3319.074; NCLB

Review EMIS report showing highly quali?ed teacher
(HOT) status and verify staff roster is accurately
documented.

 

Education Program

LPDC Minutes

Minutes of LPDC meetings available for review. including
dates. attendees and subject matter covered

 

Education Program

Racial and Ethnic
Balance Assessment

ORC 3314.03

Comparing school demographics to that of district; review
GA's policy regarding balance assessment.

 

Education Program

?School Improvement
Plan

CCIP or OIP, as required

For schools identi?ed as in need of improvement by ODE,
review the school's 3 year improvement plan and the
sponsor's review of the plan.

 

10

Education Program

State Mandated Testing
Plan 8. Schedule

ORC 3301.0710;
3301.0711

Review the school's documentation of its testing plan
(ordering, securing. administering. accounting for and
returning all applicable statement mandated tests and
diagnostics. along with notice to parents and students of
the testing schedule; review procedures for identifying LEP
students.

 

11

Governance

Anti Harrassment and
Bullying Policy

ORC 3313.666 (A) (B) (C)

GA adopted policy in accordance with statute; may be
aligned with ODE's model policy. .

 

12

Governance

Child Find policy

ORC 3323.03; OAC 3301-
51-03

Review board approved child ?nd policy and veri?cation of
procedures followed. Ensure that notice is published
annually and that it is posted on the school's website if it
has one.

 

13

Governance

Parental Involvement
Policy

3313.472

Verify that the school has a parent involvement policy that
is reviewed by the board and shared with the parents
annually.

 

14

Governance

Privacy Policy

ORC 3319.321 and Family
Educational Rights and

Review of GA adopted policy regarding open records.
annual public notice of FERPA (parents' and students?
rights to the student's education records).

 

 

15

 

Governance

 

Suspension 8. Expulsion
Policies and Reporting

 

Privacy Act
one 3313.55, 3313.551;
3313.552; 3313.554;
3313.513; 20 use 7151.

 

Verify published policies regarding suspension and
expulsion. 'School must show a compilation of all
su5pensions and expulsions for all students differentiatin
any special education students. 

 

 

 

 

 

September 19. 2012

Page 3 of4

Rotating Areas of Compliance

At School visit Compliance Manager will select 3 to review onsite

 



 

16

Health Safety

Safety 8. Violence
Prevention Training for
Employees

ORC 3319.073

Verify on the employee roster that each person employed
by the school as a nurse. teacher. counselor. school
or administrator, or any employee regularly
interacting with the students. has completed in-service
training for the prevention of child abuse, violence 
substance abuse wlin 2 years of employment every 5

 

17

Health and Safety

Bloodborne Pathogens
Training

. Title 29 of the Code of
Federal Regulations
1910.1030

years thereafter.

Verify staff trained on the employee roster.

 

18

Health and Safety

Epinephrine Injectors
Policy

ORC 3313.716, 3313.718

Verify that school has an a policy and has obtained written
physician approval for any student needing an inhaler at
school.

 

19

Health and Safety

Food Allergy Protection
Policy

ORC 3313.719

Policy about protecting students with peanut or other food
allergies.

 

20

Health and Safety

Food Service License

ORC 3314.05; ORC
3717.41

Review current food service/food handlers license. if
applicable

 

21

Health and Safety

Immunization Records
Policy and secure
location for records

ORC 3313.716, 3313.718

Should include a prohibition against allowing a student to
remain in school longer than 14 days without submitting
immunization records. Wavier allowable'for religious
reasons

 

22

Health and Safety

Missing Children Policy

ORC 109.65, 3313.96

Review of GA adopted policy. procedures and
implementation; review prolicy and procedures for

 

23

Health and Safety

Student Records Review

ORC 3313.50 &3313.69
(vision hearing): 3313.67;
3313.671 (immunization);
3313.712 (emergency
medical authorization)

con?rming students' veri?cation of ID.

Review a sample of student records in each grade level
utilizing student ?le checklist. Verify grade levels for vision
and hearing checks.

 

24

Health and Safety

Wellness Policy

Section 204 of the Healthy.
Hunger-Free Kids Act of
2010. Public Law 111-296

Review of GA adopted policy in accordance with statute.

 

25

Operations

Academic Calendar

ORC 3313.481

Review calendar for current year to con?rm consistency
with sponsor's approved calendar, school's operations and
with SOES submission. Did the sponsor receive calendar
8: bell schedule?

 

34

 

35

 

36

 

37

 

 

38

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

September 19. 2012

Page 4 of 4