Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: Fordham’s 2010-11 Sponsorship Accountability Report

8/3/2019 Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: Fordhams 2010-11 Sponsorship Accountability Report

1/62

One Step

back

twO StepSforward

2010-11Fordham SponSorShip accountability report


2/62


3/62

2010-11Frdham Spsrship Accutability Rprt

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation

2600 Far Hills Avenue, Suite 216

Dayton, OH 45419

937-227-3368

Two STepSforward

one STep

back


4/62

22


5/62

Tabl f Ctts

Ackldgmts 5

Missi Statmt f th Thmas B Frdham Fudati 6

Yar i Rvi: Dbat Arud Chartr Quality i th Biial Budgt 7

Fordhams Charter School Portfolio: Improving Schools 8

New Fordham-Sponsored Schools 13

Th Frdham Spsrship Prgram 14

Accountability A Solemn Responsibility 14

Technical Assistance Efforts 16

Sponsorship Governance 16

Idividual Schl Prfils 19

Appdix 56
http://../FSAR%202010/yearinreview.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/yearinreview.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/yearinreview.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/yearinreview.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/yearinreview.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/yearinreview.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/section_one.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/section_one.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/section_one.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/section_one.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/section_one.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/section_one.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/section_one.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/section_one.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/section_one.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/section_one.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/section_one.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/section_one.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/schools_intro.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/appndx.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/appndx.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/schools_intro.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/section_one.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/section_one.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/section_one.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/section_one.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/yearinreview.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/yearinreview.pdfhttp://../FSAR%202010/yearinreview.pdf


6/62

44


7/62

Thomas B. Fordham FoundaTion 5

Te Tomas B. Fordham Foundation (Fordham) would like to recognize several organizations and indi-

viduals with whom we worked in 2010-11. First and oremost, we would like to acknowledge the sta,

leadership, and governing authorities at each o our sponsored schools or their eorts and hard work.

We are also grateul to Chas Kidwell and his colleagues at Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur or their advice

and counsel; our colleagues at the National Association o Charter School Authorizers (NACSA); and the

Ofce o Community Schools at the Ohio Department o Education; our partners in the Ohio Authorizer

Collaborative; and the team at Corporate Computer.

Ackldgmts


8/62

6 Two STePS forward one STeP back

Te Tomas B. Fordham Foundation and its sister organization, the Tomas B. Fordham Institute believe

that all children deserve a high-quality K-12 education at the school o their choice. Te Institute is the

nations leader in advancing educational excellence or every child through quality research, analysis, and

commentary, as well as on-the-ground action and advocacy in Ohio.

Nationally and in our home state o Ohio, we advance:

n High standards or schools, students and educators;

n Quality education options or amilies;

n A more productive, equitable, and efcient education system;

and

n A culture o innovation, entrepreneurship, and excellence.

We promote education reorm by:

n Authorizing (aka, sponsoring) charter schools across Ohio;

n Producing rigorous policy research and incisive analysis;

n Building coalitions with policy makers, donors, organizations, and others who share our vision;

and

n Advocating bold solutions and comprehensive responses to education challenges, even when opposed

by powerul interests and timid establishments.

Missi Statmt f th

Thmas B Frdham Fudati


9/62


Since their inception in 1997, charter schools have

been at the center o some o the most politically con-

tentious debates about education in Ohio. Te past

year oered yet another example o charter school

controversy, but this time with a twist. Te 2010

elections were very good or Republicans in Ohio,

with John Kasich winning the governors race (replac-ing ed Strickland who had been a charter adversary

throughout his our-year term), and Republicans

taking control o the House while expanding their

majority in the Senate.

Almost immediately Republican lawmakers set out

to make the Buckeye State more inviting to char-

ter schools by removing caps, moratoria, and other

punitive restrictions on charters. In act, Governor

Kasichs budget proposals in House Bill (HB) 153oered a solid plan or not only increasing the num-

ber o charters in Ohio but improving their quality.

Crucial elements included encouraging successul

operators to clone good schools; leaning hard on

authorizers to x or close ailing schools and banning

the replication o ailure; placing schools ostensibly

independent governing boards in clear charge o

any outside organizations that they engaged to run

their education programs; creating proessional and

ethical norms or all parties; insisting on transpar-

ency around academics, governance, and nances;

channeling air unding into successul schools; and

introducing best practices and expert advice into ev-

ery step o the process. Tis was a vision that excited

us and many others in Ohio and beyond because it

sought to boost quality, not just quantity.

It seemed at the time that nally the Buckeye State

was positioning itsel to become a leader in both

charter school quality and expansion. Ten the

House version o the budget came out, and with it

an enormous risk that the charter school community

in Ohio would shoot itsel in the oot. Te Houses

budget would have done away with any meaning-ul accountability or school operators just when

it seemed like we moving in the right direction. It

would have, among many other items:

n Neutered both governing boards and authorizers

o their oversight responsibilities and authority

and given charter school operators carte blanche

authority over virtually all school decisions; and

n Exempted charter schools rom compliance

with most o the states education laws and rules,essentially transorming them into publicly

unded private schools.

We were not the only ones upset by the Houses

charter school proposals. Te National Alliance or

Public Charter Schools and the National Associa-

tion o Charter School Authorizers wrote in a joint

letter to Senate leadership, We are writing today

to express our serious concerns with HB 153 as

passed by the House. In the guise o helping charter

schools, we believe that HB 153 will actually harm

charter schools. Te letter continued, Many o

the provisions in HB 153 contradict the charter

school model, thwart eorts to strengthen charter

school accountability and quality, and will ultimately

undermine popular support or Ohios community

schools. As passed by the Ohio House, the charter

Year in review:

Db aud ChQuly h Bl Budg


10/62

8 two steps forward one step back

provisions o HB 153 represent a signicant risk or

Ohios community school sector.

Te president and CEO o the Ohio Alliance or

Public Charter Schools warned that the Houses bud-

get, takes the public out o public education, while

the Columbus Dispatch editorialized that School

choice is meaningless without good charter schools

rom which to choose, and that requires account-

ability and eective oversight. Te Senate agreed

with the critics and ultimately purged most o the

troubling language rom the bill, but yet again there

had been much political drama and uncertainty

around charters and their uture in the Buckeye State.

Tis time, however, the danger came not rom char-

ter oes but rom riends o school choice who had

sought to neutralize authorizers, including Fordham,and governing boards in the name o eciency or

well-heeled school operators.

But, ortunately, the larger charter school community

rallied itsel around the need or charter school qual-

ity and at the end o the day Ohios charter school

law came out o the budget process stronger on some

ronts while weaker on a ew others. Improvements

included requiring all charter schools and charter

school authorizers to be rated by their perormanceindex (PI) scores. Under the changes to law, the au-

thorizers with the lowest 20 percent o students on

the PI cannot open new schools until they improve

or close the ones they have. Further, the budget al-

lows schools to open in districts rated in the bottom

ve percent o all school districts.

Unortunately, the law also requires the Ohio De-

partment o Education to yet again sponsor charter

schools it was red rom the role in 2003 by the

General Assembly ater a blistering report rom the

Attorney General at the time chronicling the many

ailings o the department as a sponsor. Tere is no

evidence that the department or the state board

wants the job o authorizing and they now nd

themselves dealing with some troubling conficts o

interest. Te most bizarre is that the department is

now responsible or not only overseeing and rating

all sponsors across the state, but is also responsible or

authorizing schools o its own. In practice, this meansthe departments Oce o Community Schools must

now hold the departments Oce o School Sponsor-

ship accountable and report on its perormance and

take corrective actions as needed. Tis will surely be

a painul situation or the department and its leaders

to navigate moving orward.

ForDHaMs CHarter sCHooLportFoLio: img schl

Despite the uncertainty around the state budget andthe uture o charter schools authorizers in Ohio,

Fordhams sponsored schools made gains in 2010-11.

As the ollowing achievement tables show, with the

tbl i: Fordham-sponsored Schools Results over Time by State Rating

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Dayton Liberty CampusAcademic

WatchAcademic

WatchAcademic

WatchAcademicEmergency

ContinuousImprovement

Dayton View CampusAcademic

WatchAcademic

WatchContinuous

ImprovementContinuous

ImprovementContinuous

Improvement

Phoenix CommunityLearning Center



AcademicWatch


Effective

Springfield Academyof Excellence


AcademicWatch

AcademicWatch


AcademicWatch

Columbus CollegiateAcademy

Effective Effective

KIPP: JourneyContinuous

ImprovementEffective


11/62


exception o one school, Fordham-sponsored schools

made academic gains last year. Tree schools were

rated Eective (a B), two Continuous Improve-

ment (a C), and one Academic Watch (a D).

Te next three exhibits use data rom the Ohio De-

partment o Education provide detail on how the

Fordham schools as a whole stack up against those

o the other major authorizers in the Buckeye State.

tbl ii: Fordham-sponsored Schools AYP and Value-Added Results over Time

2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11

Dayton Liberty Campus

Made AYP? No No No No No No

Made AYP in Reading? No No No No No No

Made AYP in Mathematics? Yes No No No No No

Rated at least Continuous Improvement? Yes No No No No Yes

Value Added of at least one year? No Yes No Yes

Dayton View Campus

Made AYP? No No No Yes Yes Yes

Made AYP in Reading? No No No Yes Yes Yes

Made AYP in Mathematics? Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Rated at least Continuous Improvement? No No No Yes Yes Yes

Value Added of at least one year? Yes Yes No No

Phoenix Community Learning Center

Made AYP? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Made AYP in Reading? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Made AYP in Mathematics? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Rated at least Continuous Improvement? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Value Added of at least one year? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Springfield Academy of Excellence

Made AYP? No No No No Yes No

Made AYP in Reading? No No No No Yes No

Made AYP in Mathematics? No No No No Yes No

Rated at least Continuous Improvement? No Yes No No Yes No

Value Added of at least one year? No Yes Yes No


12/62


tbl iii: School Performance, Columbus Collegiate Academy and KIPP: Journey Academy

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Columbus Collegiate Academy

Made AYP? No No Yes

Made AYP in Reading? No No Yes

Made AYP in Mathematics? Yes Yes Yes

Rated at least Continuous Improvement? NA* Yes Yes

Value Added of at least one year? Yes Yes

KIPP: Journey Academy

Made AYP? No Yes Yes

Made AYP in Reading? No Yes Yes

Made AYP in Mathematics? Yes Yes Yes

Rated at least Continuous Improvement? NA* Yes Yes

Value Added of at least one year? Yes Yes

*The Ohio Department of Education does not issue ratings for rst year schools.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Excellent & Excellent w/ DistinctionEffectiveContinuous ImprovementAcademic WatchAcademic Emergency

ah Culu C(n=1,112)

Bucky Cmmuy H Fud(n=6,188)

educl ruc Cul f oh(n=4,605)

esC f Cl f oh(n=1,285)

Kd Cu(n=1,990)

Luc Cuy(n=27,440)

Mgmy Cuy esC(n=763)

oh Cucl f Cmmuy schl

(n=32,765)

s. alyu ohg(n=8,766)

thm B. Fdhm Fud(n=1,938)

5

46

18

13 14 49 19

17

18

8 6 61

100

8

21

11

40

40

52

12

628

37

37 3

5

15 10

42

44

23

38

18

9 22 1140

48 6

Gh i: Fordham-sponsored Schools v. Portfolios of Other Ohio Sponsors, by State Rating

Ohio Department of Education Interactive Local Report Card database.Total enrollment numbers were rst gathered for the top ten sponsors in the State of Ohio by the number of students served. The enrollmentnumbers were further broken down by the number of students served in each academic designation in order to calculate the percentage ofstudents enrolled in school buildings by academic designation. Non-rated schools were not included in the enrollment totals.


13/62


Graph I shows that, while we dont currently have any

schools in Academic Emergency, 11 percent o the

students in our portolio were in a school rated Aca-demic Watch (Springeld Academy o Excellence).

Fity-two percent attended schools rated Continu-

ous Improvement, and 37 percent attended schools

rated Eective. Note also the woeul perormance

o the Ashe Culture Center in all three graphs. o

its credit, the Ohio State Board o Education voted

unanimously in September 2011 to rescind Ashes

authority to sponsor charter schools at the end o

2011-12 school year.

Graph II shows how Fordhams portolio ared against

other authorizers regarding value added. O the

10 largest Ohio authorizers studied (by number o

students), ully 57 percent o students in Fordham

schools made above expected growth in 2010-11.

Note, when a school makes above expected gains

it automatically gets an academic rating jump o

one level (rom Academic Watch to Continuous

Improvement or example). However, 38 percent

o students in Fordham-sponsored schools did notmeet expected growth in 2010-11.

Graph III examines the perormance index scores1 o

students in Fordham-sponsored schools vs. students

in other sponsors portolios. In 2010-11, 64 per-

cent o students in the Fordham-sponsored schools

attended a school with a perormance index rating

o 80 or higher; 36 percent o students attended a

school that had a perormance index below 80.

Since we rst started as an authorizer in July 2005,

our sponsorship portolio has evolved considerably.

We began in 2005 with a total o 10 schools (all in

the Dayton-Cincinnati area) that collectively served

about 2,700 students, and all but three o these

schools we inherited rom the Ohio Department o

Education as they were orced out o sponsorship

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AboveMetBelow

ah Culu C(n=1,112)



esC f Cl f oh(n=763)

Kd Cu(n=1,651)

Luc Cuy(n=25,306)

Mgmy Cuy esC(n=454)

oh Cucl f Cmmuy schl

(n=30,828)



60

19

3 64 33

20

4

6 77

100

7

12

38

78

5

56

57

37

10

17

31

67

49

29

3744

30 10

Gh ii: Fordham-sponsored Schools v. Other Ohio Sponsors, by Value Added Designation

Ohio Department of Education Interactive Local Report Card database.Total enrollment numbers were rst gathered for the top ten sponsors in the State of Ohio by the number of students served. The enrollmentnumbers were further broken down by the number of students served in each value added ratings in order to calculate the percentage ofstudents enrolled in school buildings by value added ratings. Non-rated schools were not included in the enrollment totals.


14/62


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Above 10080-100Under 80



oh Cucl f Cmmuy schl(n=32,765)

Mgmy Cuy esC(n=454)

Luc Cuy(n=27,474)

Kd Cu(n=1,990)

esC f Cl f oh(n=1,285)



ah Culu C(n=1,112)

36

52 46

100

8

2

5

23 77

29 52

49

42 51

94 6

41

7

10

19

24 68

2174

64

Gh iii: Fordham-sponsored Schools v. Portfolio of Other Ohio Sponsors, by Performance Index Score

Gh iv: Academic Performance of Ohio 8 District and Charter Schools (Fordham-Sponsored Schools

as Pull-outs), 2010-11

40

60

80

100

120

Perform

anceIndexScore

Charter Schools District Schools

Below Expected Growth Expected Growth Above Expected Growth

Columbus Collegiate

Academy

Dayton Leadership Academies:

Dayton View Campus

Dayton Leadership Academies:

Dayton Liberty Campus

Phoenix Community

Learning Center

KIPP: Journey Academy

Springfield Academy

of Excellence

Ohio Department of Education Interactive Local Report Card database.Total enrollment numbers were rst gathered for the top ten sponsors in the State of Ohio by the number of students served. The enrollmentnumbers were further broken down by the number of students served by performance index rating (under 80, 80-100, and above 100) in orderto calculate the percentage of students enrolled in school buildings by performance index score. Non-rated schools were not included in theenrollment totals.


15/62


by state law in 2003. For the most part, our initial

crop o schools were troubled academically with

ve being rated Academic Emergency, one being

rated Continuous Improvement, and one being rated

Excellent (three new start-up schools were unrated).

Over the last six years weve had six schools leave

our portolio either through closure or by jumping

to other sponsors; weve opened one new school -

Learning Without Limits, a pilot project to launch

a hybrid model - only to see it close ater a year; and

weve birthed two new schools. We currently sponsor

only our o the ten schools that originally signed

with Fordham in 2005.

Tis year, Fordham-sponsored schools serve approxi-

mately 2,500 children and as the data above shows

these schools have made progress. Tis is a refectiono the hard work and dedication o the educators,

school board members, and students in each build-

ing. But, more work remains to be done. We know

it and we wont hide rom the challenge, but more

importantly the teachers, school leaders, and board

members working in the schools we sponsor are com-

mitted to making a dierence in the lives o children

who need it and they are making progress.

new ForDHaM-sponsoreD sCHooLsIn 2011, Fordham signed sponsorship agreements

with Sciotoville Elementary Academy and Sciotoville

Community School (ormerly East High School).

Both schools are located in rural southern Ohio, and

serve a student population o approximately 75 per-

cent economically disadvantaged students. We look

orward to working with the governing board o the

schools to help them improve the achievement in

both schools while also assisting in the development

o a long-term plan or rmly establishing the schools

as high-quality options or students and amilies.

In addition to signing contracts with the two Sci-

otoville schools, we are excited to move orward

with expansion o the highly successul Colum-

bus Collegiate Academy, Dayton Early College

Academy (DECA), KIPP Columbus, and Village

Preparatory School. Columbus Collegiate Academy

plans to open a second middle school in Colum-

bus in 2012; DECA will launch DECA Prep, a

school serving grades K-6 in Dayton in 2012; KIPP:

Central Ohio is in the early stages o an expan-

sion strategy; and we currently have a preliminary

agreement to support Village Preparatory SchoolII, a K-5 elementary that is part o Cleveland-based

Breakthrough Schools.

Finally, last year we reported on a fedgling eort

to ound a new, statewide sponsor that would be a

consolidation o current sponsors and ascribe to the

gold-standards or charter school sponsorship, the

Principles and Standards o the National Association

o Charter School Authorizers (NACSA). A legisla-

tive change was needed or this entity to be able tosponsor schools itsel, and, unortunately, the lan-

guage that would have established the entity became

a casualty o the budget bill process. However, the

past year has been successul in developing relation-

ships and sharing resources among the membership;

as such, the ounding members moved orward with

incorporation and have ormed the Ohio Authorizer

Collaborative.

1 Tis measure rewards the achievement o every student, not just those who score procient or higher. Districts, buildings andcommunity schools earn points based on how well each student does on all tested subjects in grades 3-8 and the 10th-gradeOhio Graduation ests. All tests have ve perormance levels advanced, accelerated, procient, basic, and limited. Tepercentage o students scoring at each perormance level is calculated and then multiplied by the point value assigned to thatperormance level. Te percentage o students perorming at the advanced level is multiplied by 1.2 points. Te percent atthe accelerated level is multiplied by 1.1 points. Te percent at the procient level is multiplied by 1.0 point. Te percent atthe basic level is multiplied by 0.6 points. Te percent at the limited level is multiplied by 0.3 points. Untested students areincluded in the calculation and are assigned a value o 0 points. Ohio Department o Education, Guide to UnderstandingOhios Accountability System 2010-2011, available at http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/emplates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?Page=3&opicRelationID=115&ContentID=13147&Content=110365.
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?Page=3&TopicRelationID=115&ContentID=13147&Content=110365http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?Page=3&TopicRelationID=115&ContentID=13147&Content=110365http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?Page=3&TopicRelationID=115&ContentID=13147&Content=110365http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?Page=3&TopicRelationID=115&ContentID=13147&Content=110365


16/62


Accuabiliy A slmRibiliyFordham believes that a successul charter school is

academically eective, fscally sound, and organi-

zationally viable, and that such schools should be

allowed to operate reely and without intererence.

In return or these essential reedoms, however, char-

ters are to be held accountable or their academic,

fscal, and operational results. Holding schools ac-

countable or results is the sponsors most solemn

responsibility.

Fordham ocuses its sponsorship eorts on overseeing

and evaluating the perormance o the schools we

sponsor, a view o sponsorship that is also supported

by the National Association o Charter School Au-

thorizers (http://www.qualitycharters.org).

Fordhams OversightResponsibilitiesTe essential responsibilities o Fordham as a charter

school sponsor include:

n monitoring and evaluating the compliance o

each Fordham-sponsored school with all laws and

rules applicable to it;

n monitoring and evaluating the educational and

scal perormance, organizational soundness, and

eective operation o the school;

n monitoring and evaluating the contractual

commitments that the schools have made with

Fordham, above all their academic perormance;

and

n providing technical assistance to Fordham-

sponsored schools in complying with all laws and

rules applicable to community schools

In 2010-11, Fordham had sponsorship responsibility

or seven charter schools in our communities:

Each school has entered into a perormance contract

with Fordham detailing what it will accomplish,

how student perormance will be measured, and

what level o achievement it will attain. Te contract

incorporates the schools education, accountability,

th Frdham

srhi prgram

tabl IV: Fordhams Portfolio of SponsoredSchools, 2010-11

schlCharr

trmLcai sau

ColumbusCollegiateAcademy

2008-2013 Columbus Open

DaytonLibertyCampus

2010-2011 Dayton Open

Dayton View

Campus2011-2013 Dayton Open

KIPP:JourneyAcademy

2008-2013 Columbus Open

LearningWithoutLimits

2010-2011 Columbus Closed

PhoenixCommunityLearningCenter

2011-2013 Cincinnati Open

Springfield

Academy ofExcellence

2011-2013 Springfeld Open
http://www.qualitycharters.org/http://www.qualitycharters.org/


17/62


governing, and business plans and spells out theschools mission and perormance indicators.

Accountability PlanTe accountability plan is the crux o each schools

contract and establishes the academic, nancial, and

organizational perormance standards that Fordham

uses to evaluate the schools. ransparent accountabil-

ity plans allow all school stakeholders to understand

the minimum required perormance measures o the

school. Te Profles section o this report shows

the perormance to date o each Fordham-sponsored

school.

Annual Review ProcessPursuant to Fordhams contracts with the Ohio De-

partment o Education and its sponsored schools,

Fordham conducts an annual review o each schoolsperormance.

Te academic perormance o all Fordham-sponsored

schools is published in this annual sponsorship report

and also summarized or the governing authority o

each school in the twice yearly site visit reports that

are issued to all board members o each Fordham-

sponsored school. I a school is in danger o non-

renewal or Fordham has other serious concerns,

we document those issues in letters to the schoolsboard, and meet with board members in person so

that any problems and potential consequences are

transparent.

Such letters are intended in part to inorm the

schools governing authority and sta o issues as-

sociated with school perormance and, in part, to

H Frdham Charr Crac Dfi Acadmic effciv

The academic accountability plan for each Fordham-sponsored school outlines three sets of indicators

that mark the foorof academic achievement for schools. Attainment of those requirements and goals is

expected of all Fordham-sponsored schools on an annual basis, and such performance is heavily weighted

in decisions about probation, suspension, school closure, or contract renewal.

Acadmic achivm idicar

The rst, and most important, set of indicators requires that the school:

n make overall Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP);

n make AYP in reading participation and achievement; and

n make AYP in math participation and achievement.

The second most important indicator is that the school will:

n be rated at least Continuous Improvement by the Ohio Department of Education (and be making

progress toward earning Effective and Excellent ratings).

Additional contractual goals call upon the school to:

n meet or exceed expected gains in reading on the Ohio value-added metric.

n meet or exceed expected gains in math on the Ohio value-added metric.

Additional contractual goals include outperforming similar neighborhood schools and charter averages.

These goals are spelled out further in Section II of this report.


18/62


serve as ormal reminder that the school must meet

the academic perormance terms o its contract. I,

over two or more years, the school ails to meet the

basic contractual requirements o making Adequate

Yearly Progress (AYP) and earning a state rating o

(at least) Continuous Improvement, the school will

ace consequences.

tchical Aiac effrSponsors in Ohio are required by law to provide their

sponsored schools with technical assistance. Section

3301-102-02 (AA) o the Ohio Administrative Code

defnes technical assistance as providing relevant

knowledge and/or expertise and/or assuring the pro-

vision o resources to assist the community school or

sponsor in ulflling its obligation under applicable

rules and laws, including, but not limited to, guidance,inormation, written materials and manuals.

echnical assistance rom Fordham includes provid-

ing schools with inormation on issues that aect

them as a group (e.g., charter school unding, pend-

ing legislative action, changes to laws and rules).

Fordham also undertakes a substantial amount o

customized technical assistance each year. Custom-

ized technical assistance occurs when Fordham sta

work on a project, conduct research, or navigate a

particular issue or a single school. Our goal in pro-

viding technical assistance is to provide each school

with inormation and tools so that i the issue arises

in the uture the school has the knowledge to handle

it in-house.

As noted in previous annual sponsorship reports, Ford-

ham, rst and oremost, is a charter-school sponsor

and not a vendor o services to the schools it spon-

sors. Further, Fordham does not require any schools

it sponsors to purchase or utilize any specic servicesrom any specic vendors or school operators.

Fordham receives no unding or payments rom

schools or the state beyond the sponsorship ees

paid by the schools (which under state law cannot

exceed three percent o a schools per-pupil unding).

We believe that an inherent and improper confict

o interest arises whenever a sponsor is also a paid

vendor o services to the schools that it sponsors.

Te sponsors appropriate role is to point schools

seeking specic services to competent providers o

such services but to play no role in a schools deci-

sions about which services (i any) to procure rom

which providers.

srhi Gvrac

Decision-makingStrategiesAll ormal sponsorship decisions are made by the

trustees o the Tomas B. Fordham Foundation. o

keep up with the complexities and ever-changing

landscape o sponsorship, to provide regular over-

sight o Fordhams sponsorship activities, and to

advise Fordhams ull board, a board-level commit-

tee on sponsorship meets quarterlymore oten i

necessaryto discuss pressing sponsorship issues.

Tis committeeormally known at the Ohio Policy

and Sponsorship Committeeis also interested in

policy issues aecting education in the Buckeye

State. As needed, Fordham also utilizes ad hoc ad-

visory councils and outside experts. Sta plays an

important role in inorming sponsorship activities

and decision-making.

Fordhams Ohio Policy and Sponsorship Committee

consist o the ollowing individuals:

nDavid P. Driscoll, Chair Former

Commissioner o Education, Commonwealth o

Massachusetts

nChester E. Finn, Jr. President, Tomas B.

Fordham Foundation and Tomas B. Fordham

Institute

nTomas A. Holton, Esq. Partner, Porter,Wright, Morris & Arthur

nBruno V. Manno (emeritus non-voting member)

Senior Education Advisor to the Walton

Family Foundation

nDavid H. Ponitz President Emeritus o Sinclair

Community College


19/62


Te Fordham Foundations sponsorship program

is staed by Kathryn Mullen Upton (director o

sponsorship) and Teda Sampson (assistant direc-

tor o sponsorship). Fordhams vice president or

Ohio programs and policy (erry Ryan) oversees the

sponsorship operation. Te sponsorship program

also receives part-time support rom the Tomas

B. Fordham Institutes Emmy Partin (director o

Ohio policy and research), Jamie Davies OLeary

(senior Ohio policy analyst and associate editor), and

Michael Petrilli (executive vice-president).

For more details on individual committee members or

Fordham sta, please visit our website at http://www.

edexcellence.net/about-us/ordham-sta.html .

Sponsorship

Financial OverviewBecause Fordham is a nonproft organization, it

makes no proft rom school sponsorship and expects

to continue subsidizing with grant dollars its sponsor-

ship activities into the oreseeable uture.

tabl V: Fordham Foundation Sponsorship Financials (July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011)

Rvu Amu prc

School Fees $210,584 50%

Foundation Subsidies $206,392 50%

Total Revenues $416,976 100%

ex Amu prc

Staff $208,094 50%

Consultants/Grants $87,042 21%

Professional/Legal Fees $36,588 8%

Office/Technology/Other $85,252 21%

Total Expenses $416,976 100%
http://www.edexcellence.net/about-us/fordham-staff.htmlhttp://www.edexcellence.net/about-us/fordham-staff.htmlhttp://www.edexcellence.net/about-us/fordham-staff.htmlhttp://www.edexcellence.net/about-us/fordham-staff.html


20/62



21/62

19

2010-11Frdam Spsrsp Autabty Rprt

School PRoFileS

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation

2600 Far Hills Avenue, Suite 216

Dayton, OH 45419

937-227-3368

Two STepS

forward

one STep

back


22/62

20


23/62

21

Tab f ctts

itrdut 23

cumbus cgat Aadmy 25

Dayt lbrty campus 31

Dayt Vw campus 35

KiPP: Jury Aadmy 39

larg Wtut lmts 44

Px cmmuty larg ctr 48

Sprgfd Aadmy f ex 52
http://cca.pdf/http://cca.pdf/http://cca.pdf/http://dlc.pdf/http://dlc.pdf/http://dlc.pdf/http://dvc.pdf/http://dvc.pdf/http://dvc.pdf/http://kipp.pdf/http://kipp.pdf/http://kipp.pdf/http://lwl.pdf/http://lwl.pdf/http://lwl.pdf/http://pclc.pdf/http://pclc.pdf/http://pclc.pdf/http://sae.pdf/http://sae.pdf/http://sae.pdf/http://sae.pdf/http://pclc.pdf/http://lwl.pdf/http://kipp.pdf/http://dvc.pdf/http://dlc.pdf/http://cca.pdf/


24/62

22


25/62


Te Ohio Department o Education requires that

all sponsors monitor and evaluate the education,

fnance, governance, and academic components o

a community school and assign each component a

rating o overall compliant (1), partially compliant

(2), or non-compliant (3).2

Although sponsors must report on the components

o a charter schools operations as noted above, each

sponsor is ree to defne what comprises the education,

fnance, governance, and academic components o

their sponsored schools programs. Additionally, spon-

sors are also ree to dene what overall compliant,

partially compliant and non-compliant mean.

Te Tomas B. Fordham Foundation defnes the

our components required by the Ohio Department

o Education as:

n

Education: whether the school delivered theeducation plan as contained in its contract

or sponsorship with the Tomas B. Fordham

Foundation, as evidenced by site visits;

n Academic: how the school perormed in the

context o its Accountability Plan (Fordham

Contract Exhibit IV);

n Financial: whether the school was nancially

healthy and auditable; and

n Governance: whether the school complied with

laws, regulations, record keeping compliance,3

and guidance rom the Ohio Department o

Education.

Te Tomas B. Fordham Foundation defnes the

three ratings required by the Ohio Department oEducation as:

n Overall compliant (OC): the school met 90

percent or more o the requirements in a

particular category;

n Partially compliant (PC): the school met 70

percent to 89 percent o the requirements in a

particular category; and

n Non-compliant (NC): the school met 69

percent or ewer o the requirements in aparticular category.

n Note: a designation o unauditable rom the

Ohio Auditor o State automatically results

in nancial and governance ratings o non-

compliant.

itrdut

Tab Vi: Ohio Department of Education School Monitoring Summary

eduat Aadm Faa Gvra

Columbus Collegiate Academy OC(1) PC(2) PC(2) OC(1)Dayton Liberty Campus OC(1) NC(3) PC(2) OC(1)

Dayton View Campus OC(1) NC(3) PC(2) OC(1)

KIPP: Journey Academy OC(1) NC(3) OC(1) OC(1)

Learning Without Limits NC(3) NC(3) OC(1) OC(1)

Phoenix Community Learning Center OC(1) OC(1) OC(1) OC(1)

Springfield Academy of Excellence OC(1) NC(3) OC(1) OC(1)

OC(1)= Overall compliant PC(2) = Partially compliant NC(3) = Non-compliant


26/62

24 TWo STePS forward one STeP back

Te results in the school profles that ollow are based

on each schools contract or sponsorship; reporting

requirements; documentation stored in the Fordham

Foundations online compliance database, AOIS;

school-specifc inormation available rom the Ohio

Department o Education (ODE); and inormation

obtained during the site visits conducted at each

school.4

2 First Notice Regarding 2010-2011 Sponsor Annual Reports, Ohio Department o Education, Ofce o Community Schools

(June 28, 2011).

3 Te rating or record keeping compliance is based on whether documents were accurate/complete and timely submitted to

the Fordham Foundations Authorizer Oversight Inormation System (AOIS).

4 Specic sources are as ollows: student composition and attendance rate (ODE individual school local report cards); individual

school academic achievement data, teacher demographics, and highly qualied inormation (ODE Interactive Local Report

Card database); school calendar/days in session (individual school proles led with ODE); records compliance (Authorizer

Oversight Inormation System and individual school site visit reports).


27/62


Contact Nae

Andrew Boy, Founder and Co-Director

Aress

1469 E. Main St.

Columbus, OH 43205

IRN

009122

Teeone

(614) 299-5284

Contact Eai

[email protected]

Website

http://www.columbuscollegiate.org/

Began Oerating

2008

Goerning Atorit

Andrew Boy, Ex Officio (7/2008 NA)

Jackie Messinger, Chairperson

(7/2008 7/2011)

Chad Aldis, Treasurer (1/2009 7/2011)

John Shockley, Member (6/2010 7/2013)

Chris Malinoski, Member (6/2010 7/2013)

Amber Merl, Member (9/2010 7/2013)

Jack Windser, Member (4/2010 - 4/2013)

Rick McQuown, Member (5/2011 5/2014)

missionThe mission of Columbus Collegiate

Academy is to prepare middle-school

students to achieve academic excellence

and become citizens of integrity. High

expectations for scholarship and behavior

and an achievement-oriented school

culture ensure all students are equipped to

enter, succeed in, and graduate from the

most demanding high schools and colleges.

educational philosophy

The central focus of Columbus Collegiateseducational program is college preparation.

All children should be expected to achieve

success in school and be prepared to

achieve success in college.

Columbus Collegiates educational

philosophy and program is built on four

core values: (1) all students have the ability

to achieve academic excellence; (2) all

students thrive in a highly disciplined

environment; (3) all students must be

prepared to excel in demanding high

schools on their way to selective colleges;

(4) all students deserve outstanding

teachers that produce outstanding results.

ClumbuCllgia Acadmy

Thomas B. Fordham FoundaTion
http://www.columbuscollegiate.org/http://www.columbuscollegiate.org/


28/62


SChOOl CAlENdAR

In 2010-2011, students at Columbus Collegiate

Academy attended school or 180 days, rom August

16, 2010 through May 27, 2011.

dEmOGRAphICSStudent Composition 2010-11

Grad srvd 6-8

erllm 103

sud Dmgrahic % f sud

African American 85

White NC

Hispanic NC

Asian NC

Economically Disadvantaged 93

Students with Disabilities 10

GOvERNANCE

schl Ladr

Andrew E. Boy is the ounder and director at Co-

lumbus Collegiate Academy, overseeing the nance

and operations o the organization. Prior to joiningColumbus Collegiate, Andrew completed the Build-

ing Excellent Schools (BES) Fellowship. During

the BES Fellowship, Andrew studied the highest

perorming urban charter schools across the country,

completed a school and leadership residency at a

high-perorming urban middle school, and received

extensive training in governance, nance, operations,

school organization, curriculum development, and

school culture. Andrew holds bachelors degrees in

education and communication rom the University

o Cincinnati and a masters in education adminis-

tration rom Xavier University.

FACulTy

numbr f tachr

Te school employed six teachers in 2010-11.

tachr Dmgrahic % f achr

Male 0

Female 100

White 17

Not specied 83

Highly qualifid tachr

Columbus Collegiate Academy employed 100 percent

highly qualied teachers in 2010-2011.

COmplIANCE REpORT

SummARy OF COmplIANCE ASSESSmENT

educai Raig: ovrall cmlia

Site visits to Columbus Collegiate Academy during the

2010-11 school year conrmed that the Education Plan

as set orth in the contract or sponsorship between

Fordham and the governing authority o Columbus

Collegiate Academy was being implemented.

Acadmic Raig: parially cmlia

Columbus Collegiate Academy met 13 out o 16

academic perormance requirements in 2010-11.

Fiacial Raig: parially cmlia

Columbus Collegiate Academy is rated partiallycompliant in the fnancial category. Te schools

most recent audit, FY10, was released without nd-

ings or recovery. A copy o the audit is available at

http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/auditsearch/detail.

aspx?ReportID=86736.

Gvrac Raig: ovrall cmlia

Columbus Collegiate Academy is rated overall com-

pliant in the governance category. Te school met

all annual report requirements and a majority ocompliance requirements in 2010-11.

SChOOlpERFORmANCE RESulTS

All Fordham-sponsored schools must meet academic

accountability requirements under state and ederal

NC: not calculated when there are fewer than 10 in a group
http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/auditsearch/detail.aspx?ReportID=86736http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/auditsearch/detail.aspx?ReportID=86736http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/auditsearch/detail.aspx?ReportID=86736http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/auditsearch/detail.aspx?ReportID=86736


29/62


law and pursuant to the sponsorship contract with the

Fordham Foundation. Federal requirements include

meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) minimum

perormance standards. State requirements include

ensuring 75 percent or more o students in grades

kindergarten through eight are profcient in tested

subjects. Tese requirements are considered annually

by Fordham when evaluating the perormance o the

school and when making renewal and non-renewal

decisions regarding the contract. Detailed inormation

on Ohios accountability system is available at http://

www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/emplates/Pages/ODE/

Compliance Reporting

educai Raig: ovrall cmlia (100%)

Did the school deliver the education plan as contained in its contract for sponsorship with theThomas B. Fordham Foundation?

2/2

Fall Site Visit Yes

Spring Site Visit Yes

Acadmic Raig: parially Cmlia (82%)

Academic Performance Requirements 13/16

Adequate Yearly Progress Requirements 5/5

Goals for Academic Performance Using Common Indicators 4/7

Goals for Academic Performance Relative to Comparable Schools 2/2

Goals for Value-Added Performance 1/1

The Community School is Attaining Its Own Distinctive Education Goals 1/1

Columbus Collegiate Academy has developed its own distinctive education goals. Yes

Fiacial Raig: parially cmlia (75%)

Fiscal Reports Required 3/4

Audit (most recent): FY10 (no ndings for recovery) Status: FY11 started 1/1

IRS Form 990 (submitted annually) 0/1

Bi-monthly Financial Reports 1/1

Five-Year Budget Forecast 1/1

Gvrac Raig: ovrall cmlia (100%)

Governance Requirements 6/6

Annual Report (2010-2011) 4/4

Performance standards Yes

Method of measurement to determine progress Yes

Activities/progress toward performance standards Yes

School nancial status Yes

Records Compliance 2/2

Accurate and complete Yes (98%)

Submitted on time Yes (96%)
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115


30/62


ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&opicRelationID=115.

Te ollowing tables provide a detailed breakdown o

school perormance in subjects tested in 2010-11.

Columbus Collegiate Academy has developed itsown distinctive education goals, as ollows.

Academic Goal saemen 3: Students at Columbus

Collegiate will become competent in the understand-

ing and application o scientic reasoning.

75% o students who have attended the school or

two or more years will score procient or better on

the on the Science OAA in 8th grade. Metric: Sci-

ence OAA. Yes

A greater percentage o students enrolled in theschool or two or more years will score procient or

better in the 8th grade Science OAA than students

rom Columbus City Schools.Metric: Science OAA.

Yes

8th grade students will design, conduct, and report

on an independent science experiment. Students will

present this experiment to a panel o at least three

expert evaluators, 95% o students will demonstrate

competence and o those, 50% will demonstrate

advanced work as measured by a standards-driven,

commonly applied rubric. Metric: Standards-based

Rubric. No

orgaizaial Viabiliy Gal sam 4: Co-

lumbus Collegiate will be ully enrolled and dem-

onstrate high levels o daily attendance and student

retention.

Academic Performance Requirements

Idicarschl prfrmac

pariciai Achivm

Rquirm 1:Made AdequateYearly Progress

(AYP)?

Yes

Rquirm 2:Made AYP inReading?

Yes Yes

Rquirm 3:Made AYP inMathematics?

Yes Yes

Goals for AcademicPerformance Using Common Indicators

Idicar schl prfrmac

Gal 1: Received ratingof at least ContinuousImprovement?

Yes

Gal 2: Averaged at least5% growth on READINGportions of state tests?

No

Gal 3: Averaged at least5% growth on MATHportions of state tests?

No

Gal 4: Averaged at least3% growth on SCIENCEportions of state tests?

NA

Gal 5: Averaged at least3% growth on WRITINGportions of state tests?

NA

Gal 6: Averaged at least3% growth on SOCIALSTUDIES portions of statetests?

NA

Gal 7: Outperformedhome district average on allportions of state tests?

Yes

Gal 8: Outperformed statecommunity school average

on all portions of state tests?

Yes

Gal 9: Met or exceeded theExpected Gain in Readingon the Ohio Value-AddedMetric.

Yes

Gal 10: Met or exceededthe Expected Gain in Mathon the Ohio Value-AddedMetric.

No

excll ih Diici

excll

effciv

Ciuu Imrvm(Frdham Gal)

Acadmic wach

Acadmic emrgcy
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115


31/62


Columbus Collegiates student enrollment will be

at 100% o projected enrollment described in the

charter application at the beginning o each school

year.Metric: Te community school will track enroll-

ment numbers and provide detailed analysis in annual

report. No

Te Columbus Collegiate waiting list will be equal

to 50% o the 6th grade enrollment during each

year.Metric: Te community school will track enroll-

ment numbers and provide detailed analysis in annual

report. No

90% o students who begin the school year at Co-

lumbus Collegiate will remain in the school through-

out the academic year.Metric: Te community school

will track enrollment numbers and provide detailedanalysis in annual report. No

90% o students who complete the school year at

Columbus Collegiate will re-enroll or the ollowing

school year.Metric: Te community school will track

enrollment numbers and provide detailed analysis in

annual report. No

Average daily student attendance at Columbus Col-

legiate will be at or above 95% over the course o

each school year.Metric: Te community school will

track enrollment numbers and provide detailed analysis

in annual report. Yes

orgaizaial Viabiliy Gal sam 5: Co-lumbus Collegiate will ensure parent approval and

support that demonstrates the schools long-term

viability and eectiveness.

Average parent satisaction with the academic pro-

gram, as measured by an annual survey at the conclu-

sion o the school year, will exceed 85% o respon-

dents.Metric: Te community school will administer

parent surveys annually. Yes

Average parent satisaction with the clear and opencommunication by the aculty and staf, as measured

by an annual survey at the conclusion o the school

year, will exceed 85%.Metric: Te community school

will administer parent surveys annually. Yes

orgaizaial Viabiliy Gal sam 6: Co-

lumbus Collegiate will demonstrate scal viability

that ocuses on student achievement and responsible

use o public monies.

School Performance on Reading, Math and Science Tests

% f sud

Mig ReADInG

sadardprc

Chag

% f sud

Mig MAtH

sadardprc

Chag

% f sud

Mig sCIenCe

sadardprc

Chag

09-10 10-11 09-10 10-11 09-10 10-11

6th Grade 73 85 16% 80 72 -10% NA NA NA

7th Grade 93 83 -11% 100 89 -11% NA NA NA

8th Grade NA NC NA NA NC NA NA NA NA

ovrall 77 84 9% 84 79 -6% nA nA nA

*Note: sixth graders were not tested in writing, science or social studies in 2010-11.

Percent Meeting State Standards Comparedto Home District and State Community School Average, 2010-11

Clumbu

Cllgia Acadmy

Clumbu Ciy

schl DiricDiffrc

sa Cmmuiy

schl AvragDiffrc

Reading 84 63 21 68 16

Math 79 55 21 55 24

Science NA NA NA 46 NA


32/62


Approved school budgets or each school year will

demonstrate sound allocation o resources in support

o the schools mission.Metric: Te Board o rustees

will create a Finance Committee that will monitor and

approve all monthly and annual budgets. Yes

Each year, the school will provide annual balancedbudgets with consistent cash reserves. Metric: Te

Board of rustees will create a Finance Committee

that will monitor and approve all monthly and annual

budgets. Yes

Yearly audits perormed by the ofce o the Auditor

o Ohio will show the schools sound scal manage-

ment o public resources meet or exceed GAAP. Te

ndings o these audits will be submitted in a timely

manner to the sponsor and the Legislative Ofce o

Education Oversight or any other requesting stateagency or ofce. Metric: Te Board o rustees will

create a Finance Committee that will secure an audit

perormed by the ofce o the Auditor o Ohio. Yes

Faihfulne o term of Charer Goal saemen

7: Students at Columbus Collegiate will be prepared

or success in college preparatory high schools.

50% or more o students who attend Columbus

Collegiate or three consecutive years will enroll

in college preparatory high schools. Te numbero students attending college preparatory schools

will increase, on average, ve percent per year until

100% is achieved. Metric: Te Community School

will track the high schools into which the graduating

eighth graders enroll. High schools in which 75% o

their graduates matriculate to college will be considered

college preparatory. Yes

In a survey given to parents o 8th grade students

who have attended Columbus Collegiate or three

consecutive years, 80% will agree or strongly agreewith the statement, Columbus Collegiate Academy

prepared my child or success in high school.Metric:

Te Community School will administer parent surveys

annually. Yes

OThER pERFORmANCE INdICATORS

Attenance Rate

96.5 percent.

Te perforance Inex Score

Te Perormance Index (PI) score at Columbus Col-

legiate Academy was 97.7.

96.1

97.7

95.0

95.5

96.0

96.5

97.0

97.5

98.0

2010-112009-10


33/62

31

Contact Name

Dr. T.J. Wallace, Principal

Aress

4401 Dayton Liberty Road

Dayton, OH 45418

IRN

133959

Teeone

(937) 262-4080

Contact Emai

[email protected]

Website

http://www.edisonlearning.com/custom/

schools/dayton/

Began Oerating

1999

Goerning Atorit

Mary Karr, Chairperson (1/2008 12/2011)

Ellen Ireland, Secretary (4/2008 3/2011)

David Greer, Treasurer (1/2009 12/2012)

Dixie J. Allen, Member (1/2007 12/2010)

Richard Penry, President

Vanessa Ward, Member (9/2009 8/2012)

Doug Mangen (7/2009 6/2012)

Management ComanEdisonLearning, Inc.

missionThe mission of Dayton Liberty Campus

is to provide an exemplary education

to all its students. The school intends

to offer a world-class education and to

develop understanding, inquiry, and good

citizenship. The school seeks to provide a

richer curriculum in reading, math, science,

social studies, and the arts than is the

norm in the Dayton City School District.

educational philosophy

The schools educational philosophy isthat all children should be provided with

strong educational foundations in the early

years, especially in reading and math, and

that critical thinking skills are essential as

well. All children should have a varied and

rich educational experience and exposure

to the arts and technology. The school

also believes that parental involvement is

important to the achievement of children

and to the culture of the school.

DayLibry Camu

http://www.edisonlearning.com/custom/schools/dayton/http://www.edisonlearning.com/custom/schools/dayton/http://www.edisonlearning.com/custom/schools/dayton/http://www.edisonlearning.com/custom/schools/dayton/


34/62


SChOOl CAlENdAR

In 2010-11, students at the Dayton Liberty Campus

attended school or 188 days, rom August 9, 2010

through June 7, 2011.

dEMOGRAphICSStudent Composition 2010-11

Grad srvd K-8

erllm 485


African American 95

White NC

Hispanic NC

Multi-Racial NC



GOvERNANCE

schl Ladr

During the 2010-11 school year, J Wallace served

as the principal o Dayton Liberty Campus.

FACulTy

numbr f tachr

Te school employs 40.2 teachers.

tachr Dmgrahic % f achr

Male 15

Female 85

African-American 14

Hispanic 5White 75

Highly qualifid tachr

In 2010-11, 100 percent o core academic subjects

were taught by teachers considered highly qualifed as

defned under the ederal No Child Left BehindAct.

COMplIANCE REpORT

SuMMARy OF COMplIANCE ASSESSMENT

educai Raig: ovrall Cmlia

Site visits to the Dayton Liberty Campus during the2010-11 school year evidenced that the school was

implementing the education plan as set orth in theschools contract or sponsorship.

Acadmic Raig: n-cmliaTe Dayton Liberty Campus met 2 o 7 academic

perormance requirements in 2010-11.

Fiacial Raig: parially cmliaTe Dayton Liberty Campus is rated partially com-

pliant in the fnancial category. Te schools most

recent audit, FY10, was released without fndings

or recovery. A copy o the audit is available at

http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/auditsearch/detail.

aspx?ReportID=87981.

Gvrac Raig: ovrall cmliaTe Dayton Liberty Campus is rated overall compli-

ant in the governance category.

SChOOlpERFORMANCE RESulTS

All Fordham-sponsored schools must meet academicaccountability requirements under state and ederal





excll ih Diici

excll

effciv

Ciuu Imrvm

(Frdham Gal)

Acadmic wach

Acadmic emrgcy



35/62



educai Raig: ovrall Cmlia (100%)


2/2

Fall Site Visit Yes


Acadmic Raig: n-cmlia (29%)


Requirement 1: Made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? No

Requirement 2: Made AYP in both reading participation and achievement? No

Requirement 3: Made AYP in both math participation and achievement? No

Requirement 4: Rated at least Continuous Improvement and making marked progresstoward a state rating of Effective, Excellent and Excellent with Distinction?

Yes

Requirement 5: Outperform the home district average on all reading, math and science portionsof the Ohio Achievement Assessments?

No

Requirement 6: Outperform the state community school average on all reading, math and scienceportions of the Ohio Achievement Assessments?

No

Requirement 7: Received an overall composite score on Ohios value added measure thatindicates more than one year of progress was achieved in both reading and math? Yes



Audit (most recent): FY10 (no ndings for recovery) Status: FY11 started Yes

IRS Form 990 (submitted annually) No

Bi-monthly Financial Reports Yes

Five-Year Budget Forecast Yes












36/62


ensuring 75 percent or more o students in grades

kindergarten through eight are profcient in tested


by Fordham when evaluating the perormance o theschool and when making renewal and non-renewal

decisions regarding the contract. Detailed inorma-

tion on Ohios accountability system is available at

http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/emplates/Pages/

ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&opicRelation

ID=115. Te ollowing tables provide a detailed

breakdown o school perormance in subjects tested

in 2010-11.

OThER pERFORMANCE INdICATORS

Attenance Rate

92.9 percent.

Te performance Inex Score

Te Perormance Index (PI) score at Dayton Liberty

Campus was 72.4.

54.9

69.1

71.5

88.8

75.871.5 72.4

68.5

73.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010

-11

2009-10

2008-09

2007-08

2006-07

2005-06

2004-05

2003-04

2002-03

School Performance on Reading, Math and Science Tests

% f sud

Mig ReADInG

sadardprc

Chag

% f sud

Mig MAtH

sadardprc

Chag

% f sud

Mig sCIenCe

sadardprc

Chag

09-10 10-11 09-10 10-11 09-10 10-11

3rd Grade 40 47 18% 44 50 14% NA NA NA

4th Grade 44 51 16% 29 46 59% NA NA NA

5th Grade 40 36 -10% 17 26 53% 38 17 -55%

6th Grade 72 64 -11% 52 57 10% NA NA NA

7th Grade 56 55 -2% 44 70 59% NA NA NA

8th Grade 51 72 41% 18 50 178% 7 20 186%

ovrall 50 54 8% 35 49 40% 25 18 -28%

*Note: sixth graders were not tested in writing, science or social studies in 2010-11.


Day Libry

Camu

Day public

schl DiricDiffrc

sa Cmmuiy

schl AvragDiffrc

Reading 54 55 -1 68 -14

Math 49 45 4 55 -6

Science 18 26 -8 46 -28
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=115


37/62

35

Contact Nae

Amy Doerman, Principal

Aress

1416 W. Riverview Avenue

Dayton, OH 45407

Teeone

(937) 567-9426

IRN

133454

Contact Eai

[email protected]

Website

http://www.edisonlearning.com/custom/

schools/dayton/index.html

Began Oerating

2000

Goerning Atorit

Mary Karr, Chairperson (1/2008 12/2011)

Ellen Ireland, Secretary (4/2008 3/2011)

David Greer, Treasurer (1/2009 12/2012)

Dixie J. Allen, Member (1/2007 12/2010)

Richard Penry, President

Vanessa Ward, Member (9/2009 8/2012)

Doug Mangen (7/2009 6/2012)

missionThe mission of Dayton View Campus is to

provide an exemplary education to all its

students. The school is also focused on

equal access to a world-class education .

educational philosophyThe schools educational philosophy is

that all children should be provided with

strong educational foundations in the early

years, especially in reading and math, and

that critical thinking skills are essential as

well. All children should have a varied andrich educational experience and exposure

to the arts and technology. The school

also believes that parental involvement is

important to the achievement of children

and to the culture of the school.

DayVi Camu

http://www.edisonlearning.com/custom/schools/dayton/index.htmlhttp://www.edisonlearning.com/custom/schools/dayton/index.htmlhttp://www.edisonlearning.com/custom/schools/dayton/index.htmlhttp://www.edisonlearning.com/custom/schools/dayton/index.html


38/62


SChOOl CAlENdAR

In 2010-11, students at Dayton View Campus at-

tended school or 188 days, rom August 9, 2010

through June 7, 2011.

dEmOGRAphICSStudent Composition 2010-11

Grad srvd K-8

erllm 517


African American 94

White NC

Other NC



GOvERNANCE

schl Ladr

Amy Doerman served as the principal or Dayton

View Campus during the 2010-11 school year. She

holds a bachelors degree in elementary education

and a masters degree in educational leadership. Shehas been the principal at Dayton View Campus since

2005 and prior to becoming principal taught for many

years including fve years at Dayton View Campus.

FACulTy

numbr f tachr

Te school employed 28 teachers in 2010-11.

tachr Dmgrahic % f achrMale 0

Female 100

African-American 14

White 82

Not specied 4

COmplIANCE REpORT

SummARy OF COmplIANCE ASSESSmENT

educai Raig: ovrall cmlia

Site visits conducted at the Dayton View Campus

during the 2010-11 school year indicated the Dayton

View Campus was ollowing the Education Plan

as set orth in its contract or sponsorship with the

Fordham Foundation.

Acadmic Raig: n-cmlia

Te Dayton View Campus is rated non-compliant in

this category because it met 4 out of 7 of its academic

perormance requirements.

Fiacial Raig: parially cmlia

Te Dayton View Campus is rated partially compliantin this category. Te schools most recent audit, FY10,

was released without fndings or recovery. A copy

o the audit is available at http://www.auditor.state.

oh.us/auditsearch/detail.aspx?ReportID=87959.

Gvrac Raig: ovrall cmlia

Te Dayton View Campus is rated overall compliant

in the governance category. Te school met all an-

nual report requirements and 100% o compliance

requirements in 2010-11.

SChOOlpERFORmANCE RESulTS

All Fordham-sponsored schools must meet academic

accountability requirements under state and ederal

excll ih Diici

excll

effciv

Ciuu Imrvm

(Frdham Gal)

Acadmic wach

Acadmic emrgcy



39/62



educai Raig: ovrall cmlia (100%)


2/2

Fall Site Visit Yes


Acadmic Raig: n-cmlia (58%)


Requirement 1: Made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? Yes

Requirement 2: Made AYP in both reading participation and achievement? Yes

Requirement 3: Made AYP in both math participation and achievement? Yes

Requirement 4: Rated at least Continuous Improvement and making marked progresstoward a state rating of Effective, Excellent and Excellent with Distinction?

Yes

Requirement 5: Outperform the home district average on all reading, math and science portionsof the Ohio Achievement Assessments?

No

Requirement 6: Outperform the state community school average on all reading, math and scienceportions of the Ohio Achievement Assessments?

No

Requirement 7: Received an overall composite score on Ohios value added measure thatindicates more than one year of progress was achieved in both reading and math? No



Audit (most recent): FY10 (no ndings for recovery) Status: FY11 in progress Yes

IRS Form 990 (submitted annually) No

Bi-monthly Financial Reports Yes

Five-Year Budget Forecast Yes












40/62






ensuring 75 percent or more o students in gradeskindergarten through eight are profcient in tested


by Fordham when evaluating the perormance o the

school and when making renewal and non-renewal

decisions regarding the contract. Detailed information

on Ohios accountability system is available at http://

www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/emplates/Pages/ODE/

ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&opicRelationID=115.

Te ollowing tables provide a detailed breakdown o

school perormance in subjects tested in 2010-11.

OThER pERFORmANCE INdICATORS

Attenance Rate

93.9 percent.

Te perforance Inex Score

Te 2010-11 Performance Index (PI) score at Dayton

View Campus was 86.9, an increase of just over four

points rom the previous year.

61.170.4

58.2

73.8 70.5

77.886.9

82.8

72.4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010

-11

2009-10

2008-09

2007-08

2006-07

2005-06

2004-05

2003-04

2002-03

School Performance on Reading, Math, and Science Tests

% f sud

Mig ReADInG

sadardprc

Chag

% f sud

Mig MAtH

sadardprc

Chag

% f sud

Mig sCIenCe

sadardprc

Chag

09-10 10-11 09-10 10-11 09-10 10-11

3rd Grade 75 94 25% 83 94 13% NA NA NA

4th Grade 91 85 -7% 70 81 16% NA NA NA

5th Grade 35 43 23% 33 30 -9% 19 28 47%

6th Grade 74 89 20% 58 71 22% NA NA NA

7th Grade 67 68 1% 55 71 29% NA NA NA

8th Grade 67 81 21% 29 50 72% 23 25 9%

ovrall 70 76 9% 58 67 16% 21 27 29%


Day Vi

Ca

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: Fordham’s 2010-11 Sponsorship Accountability Report

Documents

Transcript of Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: Fordham’s 2010-11 Sponsorship Accountability Report