2013-14 school evaluation report invictus preparatory ... · 2013-14 school evaluation report ....

2013-14 School Evaluation Report

Invictus Preparatory Charter School

VISIT DATE: MAY 15, 2014

REPORT ISSUED: MARCH 26, 2015

Charter Schools Institute State University of New York

41 State Street, Suite 700 Albany, New York 12207

(518) 445-4250 (518) 427-6510 (Fax)

www.newyorkcharters.org

http://www.newyorkcharters.org/

BACKGROUND INFORMATION Location and Enrollment

Address District Facility Enrollment Grades 370 Fountain Avenue, 3rd Floor,

Brooklyn, NY 11208 NYC CSD 19 Co-Located 242 5-7

INTRODUCTION

This School Evaluation Report presents the school’s 2013-14 Performance Review and Summaries, which provide an analysis of the attainment of the key academic goals in the school’s Accountability Plan. Following these achievement results, the report offers an analysis of evidence collected during the school visit on May 15, 2014. While the SUNY Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”) conducts a comprehensive review of evidence related to all the State University of New York Charter Renewal Benchmarks (the “SUNY Renewal Benchmarks”) near the end of a charter term, most mid-cycle school evaluation visits focus on a subset of these benchmarks. This subset, the Qualitative Education Benchmarks, addresses the academic success of the school and the effectiveness and viability of the school organization. They provide a framework for examining the quality of the educational program, focusing on teaching and learning (i.e., curriculum, instruction, and assessment), as well as leadership, organizational capacity and board oversight. The Institute uses the established criteria on a regular basis to provide schools with a consistent set of expectations leading up to renewal.

The appendix to the report contains a School Overview with descriptive information about the school, including enrollment and demographic data, as well as historical information regarding the life of the school. It also offers background information on the conduct of the visit, including information about the evaluation team and puts the visit in the context of the school’s current charter cycle. Finally, the appendix presents the SUNY Renewal Benchmarks.

The report below provides benchmark evidence to support these conclusions in order to highlight areas of concern. The Institute intends this selection of information to be an exception report. As such, limited detail and evidence about positive elements of the educational program are not an indication that the Institute does not fully recognize evidence of program effectiveness. This report does not contain an overall rating or comprehensive indicator that would specify at a glance the school’s prospects for renewal; however, it does summarize the various strengths of the school and notes areas in need of improvement based on the Qualitative Education Benchmarks.

SUNY Charter Schools Institute ■ School Evaluation Report 1

2013-14 School Performance Review Performance Summary

In the 2013-14 school year, the third year of Invictus Preparatory Charter School’s (“Invictus Prep’s”) four-year Accountability Period, the school’s performance improved in both English language arts (“ELA”) and mathematics. Invictus Prep came close to meeting its key academic Accountability Plan goal in ELA and met its mathematics goal. The school is meeting its NCLB goal. Note: This year, the Institute is not using absolute measure #1 under the ELA and math goals when evaluating goal attainment. Because of the high standards in the new state testing program only a handful of schools statewide met the absolute proficiency target. The Institute will resume the use of this measure during 2014-15. This year, the Institute is resuming the use of absolute measure #2 because the state has recalibrated the absolute Annual Measurable Objective.

ELA Based on results of the one absolute measure, the two comparative measures, and the one growth measure in its Accountability Plan, Invictus Prep came close to meeting its ELA goal during 2013-14. The school continued to outperform Community School District 19 (the “district”) by a small margin. Invictus Prep’s comparative growth in ELA achievement exceeded the state median score of 50 by 3 percentile points. Importantly, the school’s performance in comparison to other schools enrolling similar proportions of economically disadvantaged students was higher than expected to a small degree. Although this level of performance does not meet the school’s benchmark for this measure, it reflects improvement since the school’s first year of operation. Math Based on results of the four available measures in its Accountability Plan, Invictus Prep met its mathematics goal during 2013-14. The school’s performance exceeded the district’s by 23 percentage points. In comparison to demographically similar students throughout the state, Invictus Prep performed higher than expected to a large degree. This demonstrates a significant improvement over previous years when the school performed lower than expected according to the Institute’s effect size analysis. The average growth in mathematics achievement among students enrolled at Invictus Prep during 2013-14 exceeded 70 percent of students throughout the state who attained the same baseline scores. Science The state administers science assessments in 4th and 98th grades. Because Invictus Prep does not yet enroll 8th grade students the school has not generated any science data. NCLB Invictus Prep has met its No Child Left Behind goal and remains in good standing under the state’s accountability system.


Benchmark Conclusions and Evidence Instructional Leadership. With a significant emphasis in professional development on classroom management activities and limited coaching sessions, at the time of the evaluation visit Invictus Prep had not developed the instructional skills and competencies of its largely novice teaching staff.

• The board dismissed the school’s founding leader at the start of the 2013-14 school year, and a board member took over the role as interim executive director (“IED”). In addition to the IED, the director of curriculum and instruction (“DCI”), two subject-area coaches and the director of operations comprised the school’s planned instructional leadership team. The DCI position was vacant at the time of the visit, as was the case in the previous school year.

• The school’s leadership did not provide consistent support for teachers in developing their pedagogical practice. Both coaches had teaching responsibilities that limited the time they could devote to coaching and other leadership responsibilities; the director of operations primarily managed the school’s day-to-day operations in addition to coaching a small number of teachers; and insufficient staffing required that the IED and DCI cover short- and long-term teacher vacancies. Teachers reported varying levels of support based on subject area.

• Ten of Invictus Prep’s 28 teachers had no previous teaching experience, and only four entered the school year with three-or-more years of classroom experience. Due to the instructional leaders’ limited bandwidth and a school-wide focus on culture, non-core subject area teachers and those with relatively stronger behavior management skills received little to no coaching.

• In weekly meetings, school leaders provided formal opportunities for teachers to plan curriculum and instruction across grade levels: however, leaders provided limited oversight and little guidance in curriculum development and lesson planning beyond ELA and math.

• Invictus Prep implemented school-wide professional development sessions for teachers monthly; however, teachers reported that these sessions often did not address their individual instructional needs. A review of the school’s spring professional development calendar showed that activities focused on behavior, test prep and topical areas rather than on building teachers’ instructional skills. Professional development activities did not interrelate with effective classroom practice.

• The school leadership reported holding teachers accountable for student performance by conducting formal observations and having teachers complete self-evaluations at mid-year. Despite this activity, teachers reported the formal evaluation process did not help them to identify areas of instructional strengths and weaknesses. Student performance data did not factor into teacher evaluations.


Curriculum & Assessment. At the time of the monitoring visit, Invictus Prep’s curriculum did not support all teachers in their instructional planning, and the school lacked a fully developed assessment system that improved instructional effectiveness and student learning. Recognition of school culture deficiencies stemming from a history of student behavioral issues limited school leaders’ focus on developing curriculum and assessment materials.

• Teachers used New York State performance standards as a curriculum framework to create lesson materials and assessments. At the time of the visit, instructional leaders provided little oversight or review of lesson plans. With minimal instructional support, some teachers were unsure of what to teach and when to teach it. As the school lacked a system to review scopes and sequences and pacing guides, teachers reported not covering several standards included on state exams and using personal judgment - absent experience - to decide what curriculum materials to change. Echoing reports from others, one teacher stated, “I think it’s[my curriculum] is terrible, but I don’t know.”

• Invictus Prep used a commercial online platform to assess student attainment of state standards four times a year and a standardized, norm-referenced assessment at the beginning and end of the year to gauge student growth. School leaders did not systematically use or distribute the standardized assessment results to target student deficiencies.

• Teachers were responsible for creating unit and weekly assessments that they administered regularly over the course of the year. Because teachers created assessments without guidance from instructional leaders, the validity of classroom assessments was questionable. Aside from the quarterly interim assessments, teachers based their ongoing evaluation of student progress on this potentially unreliable data, limiting their ability to timely and effective adjustments to instruction.

Pedagogy. Despite notable improvements from the previous school year, at the time of the visit, instruction at Invictus Prep remained inadequate to prepare students to demonstrate mastery on state tests. As shown in the chart below, the Institute conducted 12 classroom observations with a defined protocol used in all school evaluation visits.

Classroom Observation Methodology: Number of Observations

Grade

5 6 7 Total

Cont

ent A

rea

ELA 1 2 3

Math 2 2 2 6

Science Soc Stu Writing Specials

1 1

1 1 2

Total 4 3 5 12


• Teachers delivered purposeful lessons with clear objectives that they communicated to students orally (11 out of 12 observations). Lesson activities aligned with stated objectives and teachers presented concepts building off students’ previous skill and knowledge. Co-teachers had clear roles in most classrooms. In most ELA classes, one co-teacher facilitated a whole group literacy lesson while the other worked with a small intervention group.

• Teachers used whole-group questioning and individual conferencing techniques to check for student understanding (10 out of 12 observations). Teachers generally administered exit tickets at the end of lessons to gauge student mastery of lesson objectives and reported using the exit ticket data to adjust subsequent instruction.

• Few teachers challenged students with questions that developed students’ depth of understanding and higher-order thinking skills (3 out of 12 observations). Students had occasional opportunities for peer-to-peer interaction, with most teachers focusing on whole group direct instruction. In the small number of classrooms where teachers included opportunities for group work, they did not set clear expectations for how students should work together to examine, analyze and interpret information in order to meet lesson objectives.

• Some teachers maintained a focus on student achievement (7 out of 12 observations). Overall, classroom teachers did not maximize learning time, and the slow pacing contributed to frequent low-level misbehavior that teachers addressed ineffectively.

At-Risk Students. Invictus Prep had programs in place for students with disabilities and students at-risk of academic failure but lacked appropriate identification procedures and academic supports for English language learners (“ELLs”). General Education Students Receiving Targeted Interventions

Program The school implemented an integrated co-teaching (“ICT”) model for ELA and math classes and had a school-wide guided reading program.

Staff The intervention staff included the student support services coordinator, math and ELA department chairs and four academic interventionists.

Identification Process

The school administered an adaptive, computerized diagnostic assessment in the fall to determine students’ incoming skill levels. The school compared these assessment results to teachers’ classroom observations and analyses of student work to determine the appropriate intervention for each student.

Coordination

The department chairs, interventionists and the student support services coordinator met with classroom teachers to discuss students’ progress, share curriculum resources and provide strategies for teaching. The math department chair also met regularly with interventionists to discuss the standards and content that the interventions should cover.

Progress Monitoring The school used the results of interim assessments administered every


six to eight weeks to review the performance of struggling students, to determine the appropriate intensity of interventions and to adjust ability level groupings for guided reading.

Classroom Teacher Professional

Development

None.

Students with Disabilities

Program

At the time of the visit, Invictus Prep served 18 students with Individualized Education Programs (“IEPs”) that mandated academic interventions in ICT ELA and math classes. Students received additional special education teacher support services (“SETTS”) as necessary.

Staff The school’s two department chairs, student support services coordinator and two special education teachers oversaw Invictus Prep’s services for students with special education needs.

Identification Process

Invictus Prep identified students for intervention based on previous school records and results of the school’s diagnostic assessment. The school referred students who did not make adequate progress with academic interventions for special education evaluation but did not have a clear threshold for determining adequate progress.

Coordination ICT teachers planned daily instruction jointly.

Progress Monitoring

The student support services coordinator and special education teachers monitored students’ progress toward meeting IEP goals. The school continues to monitor the four students recently declassified from special education services.

Classroom Teacher Professional

Development

None.

English Language Learners (“ELLS”)

The seven ELL students enrolled at Invictus Prep at the time of the visit received no targeted support to reach English proficiency. The school had no appropriately certified teachers or other trained staff knowledgeable about the needs of ELLs to provide language acquisition supports. No staff member was responsible for administrative monitoring of ELLs, and the school did not identify the seven ELLs until several months into the school year. A school that lacks a program for serving ELL students implemented by appropriately qualified staff in an educationally sound manner is a school that also fails to demonstrate good faith efforts to attract and retain ELL students. Under New York’s Charter Schools Act this, is a potential obstacle to charter renewal.


Organizational Capacity. Invictus Prep was building the organizational capacity to support the effective delivery of a comprehensive educational program.

• While the director of operations competently managed the school’s day-to-day operations, at the time of this visit, Invictus Prep had not established an instructional leadership team sufficient to carry out the academic program.

• The instructional leadership lacked distinct lines of accountability with clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Instructional leaders’ descriptions of teacher supports did not align to teachers’ reports of supports provided. For example, some teachers reported receiving no guidance on curriculum development while leaders reported conducting ongoing supervision. Teachers expressed uncertainty when asked about instructional leaders’ assigned responsibilities and were unclear about whom to turn to for what.

• Teacher turnover at Invictus Prep was high. More than one quarter of the school’s teaching staff during the 2012-13 school year did not return, and Invictus Prep started the 2013-14 school year with an incomplete teaching staff. Additionally, the IED fired two additional teachers for poor performance during the school year. With multiple vacancies including openings in core subject areas, instructional leaders took on additional classroom responsibilities at the expense of developing the pedagogical competence of Invictus Prep’s relatively novice teachers.

• Invictus Prep continued to implement a school-wide student discipline system through which students received behavioral “paychecks.” In contrast to previous years, school leaders discontinued the practice of automatic suspension for students who earned negative paychecks and thus significantly reduced the number of in-school and out-of-school suspensions. At the time of the visit, Invictus Prep reported fewer than 30 in-school suspensions and 81 out-of-school suspensions compared to 2012-13 totals of 118 and 320 suspensions, respectively. The sharp reduction in students’ forced out-of-class time notwithstanding, school staff and board members acknowledged some degree of inconsistency in the handling of disciplinary issues at the administrative level.

• Invictus Prep had not allocated proportionate resources to support the achievement of its academic goals. While the school had limited instructional staff, the school employed four full-time deans and counselors charged with promoting a positive school culture and managing discipline.

Board Oversight. At the time of the visit, Invictus Prep’s board was not working effectively to achieve the school’s Accountability Plan goals.

• Invictus Prep board members did not fully convey a firm understanding of their governance responsibilities in the first two years of the school’s operation. The full board did not meet between October 2012 and March 2013; only the finance committee maintained a regular meeting and reporting schedule. Board membership was stable through the first three


years of the charter term. One trustee resigned from the board in the 2013-14 school year in order to serve as Invictus Prep’s IED.

• Staffing issues illustrated how the board’s early failure to oversee management of Invictus Prep’s day-to-day operations had a significant negative impact on the academic program. Prior to the start of the 2013-14 school year, the board did not take an active role in the search for a DCI despite having identified the role as critical to the school’s success and recognizing that the previous leader was stretched too thin to implement a robust and timely hiring process.

• In the school’s first two years of operation, the board allowed the school leader to provide updates on the matters he viewed as most urgent and requiring trustees’ attention rather than on a pre—determined set of benchmarks. In its third year, the school developed an accountability dashboard that the IED used to create monthly reports to the board.

• At the time of the visit, board members had started to leverage a variety of skills and experience in charter school management, not-for-profit management, leadership development, finance, law and real estate to their oversight of the total educational program. The board was well informed about staffing plans for the 2014-15 school year and predicted that roughly 40 percent of teachers would leave prior to the start of the school year along with the school’s two most experienced instructional leaders. The board had not identified a permanent executive director at the time of the visit.

• Invictus Prep board members expressed understanding of the school’s Accountability Plan goals and were confident that its enhanced governance and the identification of a permanent executive director would improve the school’s prospects for renewal.


APPENDIX SCHOOL OVERVIEW

Mission Statement

Invictus Prep is a free public charter school with a single vision – college success for all students. All of our students will receive the academic and ethical foundation necessary for success at four-year colleges and universities.

Student Demographics 2011-121 2012-132 2013-143

Percent of School

Enrollment

Percent of NYC CSD 19 Enrollment

Percent of School

Enrollment

Percent of NYC CSD 19 Enrollment

Percent of School

Enrollment Race/Ethnicity American Indian or Alaska Native 0 1 0 1 0

Black or African American 92 51 84 51 82

Hispanic 6 41 11 41 14 Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander

1 6 3 6 2

White 1 1 2 1 2 Multiracial 0 0 0 0 0 Special Populations Students with Disabilities 15 15 14 16 15

English Language Learners 1 13 1 12 3

Free/ Reduced Lunch Eligible for Free Lunch

57 82 78 87 --

Eligible for Reduced –Price Lunch

-- 5 8 5 --

Economically Disadvantaged 79 93 86 93 90

1 Source: 2011-12 School Report Card, New York State Education Department. 2 Source: 2012-13 School Report Card, New York State Education Department. 3 Source: The Institute derived the 2013-14 statistics from the school’s October 2013 student enrollment report to NYSED (2013-14 BEDS Report). District data are not yet available.


School Characteristics School Year Proposed Chartered

Enrollment Actual

Enrollment Original Chartered Grades Actual Grades

2011-2012 90 97 5 5 2012-2013 180 180 5-6 5-6 2013-2014 270 242 5-7 5-7

Board of Trustees4

Name Position Charles Guerrero Chair

Luke Justice Treasurer Renee Chung Secretary Erica Ahdoot Trustee Ka Yee Tom Trustee

Stefan Atkinson Trustee Kevin Brown Trustee Shelly Cleary Trustee

School Leader(s)

School Year(s) School Leader(s) Name and Title 2011-12 to October 2013 Clifford Thomas, Executive Director October 2013 to July 2014 Alex Marchuk, Interim Executive Director

School Visit History

School Year Visit Type Evaluator (Institute/External) Date

2011-12 First Year/Formative Institute May 3, 2012 2012-13 Informal Institute January 29, 2013 2012-13 Evaluation Institute May 1-2, 2013 2013-14 Evaluation Institute May 15, 2014

4 Source: Institute records.


CONDUCT OF THE SCHOOL EVALUATION VISIT

Specifications Date(s) of Visit Evaluation Team Members Title

May 15, 2014 Natasha M. Howard, Ph.D. Director of School Evaluation

Aaron Campbell Senior Analyst

Context of the Visit

Charter Cycle Charter Term 3rd Year of Five-Year Charter Term

Accountability Period5 3rd Year of Four-Year Accountability Period Anticipated Renewal Visit Fall 2015

5 Because the SUNY Trustees make a renewal decision in the last year of a charter term, the Accountability Period ends in the next to last year of the charter term. For schools in initial charter terms, the Accountability Period comprises the first four years of operation.


2013-14 school evaluation report invictus preparatory ... · 2013-14 school evaluation report ....

Documents