president of the board carondelet leadership academy 7604 ... 2018 2019 annual repo… ·...

• Toll Free (855) 267-7323 • https://mcpsc.mo.gov/ • [email protected] •

January 31, 2020 Mr. Joe Jacobson President of the Board Carondelet Leadership Academy 7604 Michigan Ave St. Louis, Missouri 63111 RE: 2018-2019 Annual Report Dear Mr. Jacobson: This letter transmits the Missouri Charter Public School Commission’s 2018-2019 Annual Report of Carondelet Leadership Academy. Charter schools sponsored by the Commission are reviewed annually as to their progress in meeting statutes, provisions of their performance contacts and Commission policies. Commission staff review required submissions provided by the school for accuracy, timeliness and compliance. The annual report includes a summary of the submission review, a report on the formal annual site visit and supplementary exhibits. The annual report is issued once the academic performance results are published by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and analyzed by Commission staff. Carondelet Leadership Academy is a fiscally and organizationally viable school. The board and leadership should be proud of the fiscal management of the organization. Your attention to detail allowed for you to be able to respond when unforeseen circumstances arose. You have also been able to respond to needed investments in the school. The board’s use of reserves for these purposes is understandable. This is an important role for a charter school board and we commend the board’s protection and management of public funds. Carondelet Leadership Academy’s academics are seriously underperforming in nearly all areas. The board has not had in place a process for holding school leadership accountable or to successfully track academic performance, especially those related to performance contract goals. The School Quality Review that was conducted in the spring of 2019 found that the “Board does not provide strong oversight over the effectiveness of the academic program [and]…the Board

https://mcpsc.mo.gov/%20%E2%80%A2

mailto:[email protected]

• Toll Free (855) 267-7323 • https://mcpsc.mo.gov/ • [email protected] •

CLA Annual Report Transmittal Letter - was unable to articulate specific goals or performance targets.” Similarly the team found that school leaders “were unable to name clear, measurable academic goals that are aligned across the school’s improvement efforts and could not specifically indicate what student academic success looks like”. The Commission recognizes that recently the board has taken steps to address these shortcomings in preparation for renewal. These steps include an additional board members with expertise in academics, engagement with external partners to increase instructional practices, and an investment in new English Language Arts curriculum. Your partnership with The Opportunity Trust and your plan to submit a re-start plan for renewal, has initiated a national search for a new leadership. These necessary actions have put your school on the path to deliver on the promises your school has made to the students and community you serve. We commend the board for taking steps and look forward to reading your re-start plan at renewal. The Commission is available to discuss the report if you desire. We look forward to partnering with you as you approach renewal. Sincerely,

Robbyn G. Wahby Executive Director CC: Carondelet Leadership Academy Board of Directors Patrice Coffin, Carondelet Leadership Academy Executive Director Members, Missouri Charter Public School Commission Dr. Chris Neale, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Attachments

2018-19 Annual Report School Quality Review EpiCenter Compliance Summary

https://mcpsc.mo.gov/%20%E2%80%A2


Missouri Charter Public School Commission Carondelet Leadership Academy Annual Report

School Year: 2018-2019

It is with gratitude that the Missouri Charter Public School Commission thanks the National Association of Charter School Authorizers for the use of their Authorizers Toolkit – Annual Reports Made Easy (2016). For more information on annual reports, toolkits or quality charter school authorizing please visit: www.qualitycharters.org.

SUMMARY INDICATORS AND MEASURES MEETS

STANDARD? ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE Falls Far Below State and Federal Accountability Not Evaluated Academic Proficiency Falls Far Below Academic Growth Partially Meets Postsecondary Readiness Partially Meets School-Specific Academic Measure(s) Falls Far Below FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE Partially Meets Near-Term Financial Health Meets Financial Sustainability Partially Meets ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE Meets Education Program Compliance (including services for special populations)

Meets

Financial Management and Oversight Meets Governance and Reporting Partially Meets Student and Employee Rights and Requirements Meets School Environment Meets

For each measure in this report, the school receives one of the ratings described below:

RATING DESCRIPTION

Exceeds The school is exceeding expectations and showing exemplary performance. This rating only applies to academic performance.

Meets The school generally meets the criterion, is performing well, is meeting expectations for performance, and/or minor concerns(s) are noted.

Partially Meets The school meets some aspects of the criterion, but not others and/or moderate concerns(s) are noted.

Falls Far Below Standard

The school falls far below the stated expectations and/or significant concern(s) are noted. The failures are material and significant to the viability to the school.

http://www.qualitycharters.org/

SCHOOL OVERVIEW SCHOOL NAME Carondelet Leadership Academy SCHOOL OPENED 2010-2011 SCHOOL NEXT RENEWAL 2019-2020 GRADES SERVED K-8 SCHOOL ADDRESS 7604 Michigan Ave.

St. Louis, MO 63111 SCHOOL CONTACT INFORMATION Patrice Coffin

314-802-8744 [email protected]

SCHOOL WEBSITE www.carondeletacademy.org NEIGHBORHOOD LOCATION 63111, 63116, 63118 priority AREAS SERVED Carondelet LEADERSHIP Patrice Coffin, Executive Director

Joseph Jacobson, President SCHOOL MISSION Carondelet Leadership Academy seeks to create a

challenging learning environment that encourages high expectations for success through developmentally appropriate instruction that allows for individual differences and learning styles. Our school strives to prepare young men and women with a solid foundation of basic academic and social skills which will ensure success both at the secondary school level and for future participation in postsecondary education and/ or the workplace.

TOTAL STUDENT ENROLLMENT IN 2018-19 534 Student Demographics

RACE/ETHNICITY Asian/Pacific Islander .4% Black 56.7% Hispanic/Latino 4.4% Multiracial & Other 12.7% Native American 0 White/Caucasian 25.4% HISTORICALLY UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS Free or Reduced-Price Lunch 100% Students with Disabilities 20% English Language Learners 6%

Student Enrollment by Grade in 2018-2019 K 60 1 70 2 55 3 59 4 54 5 63 6 54 7 53 8 66


http://www.carondeletacademy.org/

Carondelet Leadership Academy 3

I. ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE This section provides an overview of the school’s performance in the year reviewed on a variety of academic measures the school is accountable for achieving, as established by applicable federal and state law and the charter contract.

INDICATORS AND MEASURES SCHOOL PERFORMANCE

MEETS STANDARD?

Targets

STATE AND FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY Not Evaluated State Rating Not

Evaluated School Goal is 88%

STUDENT ACADEMIC PROFICIENCY Falls Far Below Proficiency – English (All) 20.7% Falls Far

Below 47.0% - State (3-8)

Proficiency – English (Subgroups) 20.7% Falls Far Below

35.7% - State (All)

Proficiency Comparison – English 20.7% Meets 19.0% - SLPS (3-8) Proficiency – Math (All) 21.6% Falls Far


Proficiency – Math (Subgroups) 21.6% Falls Far Below

29.1% - State (All) (25% difference)

Proficiency Comparison – Math 21.6% Meets 14.9% - SLPS (3-8) Proficiency – Science (All) 12.9% Falls Far


Proficiency – Science (Subgroups) 12.9% Falls Far Below

28.6% - State (All)

Proficiency Comparison – Science 12.9% Falls Far Below

17.2% - SLPS (5 & 8) (25% difference)

STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH Partially Meets Growth – English (All)

Floor Falls Far Below

Growth – English (Subgroups) Floor

Falls Far Below

Growth – Math (All) On track

Partially Meets

Growth – Math (Subgroups) On track

Partially Meets

HIGH SCHOOL READINESS Partially Meets High School Readiness - Algebra 18.2% (4 of 22) Falls Far

Below State = 44.5%

2 year Average 9.1% Partially Meets

up from 4.6%

Falls Far Below


SCHOOL-SPECIFIC ACADEMIC MEASURES Falls Far Below School Goal – Students with 3 consecutive years at CLA 75.9% Proficient and Advanced in ELA

Falls Far Below

However, significantly outperforms students with less years at CLA

School Goal – Students with 3 consecutive years at CLA 80.1% Proficient and Advanced in Math

Falls Far Below

However, significantly outperforms students with less years at CLA

School Goal – Students with 3 consecutive years at CLA 70% Proficient and Advanced in science

N/A N/A Data not available

School Goal – 85% of student meeting growth projections in English

Falls Far Below

School Goal – 92% of students meeting growth projections in Math

Falls Far Below

School Goal - Each year on the MAP Assessment, CLA will move 50% of the students in Below Basic to Basic and 50% of the students in Basic to Proficient until 5% or less of students are Below Basic and 90% of students are Proficient or Advanced.

Falls Far Below

Each student scoring below grade level on NWEA will progress at least 20% above expected growth in reading and math until the student is at grade level and then will progress at least at expected growth thereafter

Reading Falls Far Below Math Falls Far Below

Each student scoring below grade level on BAS will progress at least 20% above expected growth until the student is at grade level and then will progress at least at expected growth thereafter.

School-wide BAS, 14.83 growth from Fall to Spring in FY18

N/A FY16 = 20.3% FY17 = 13.2% FY18 = 46.5% FY19 = 14.83% School-wide


II. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE This section provides an overview of the school’s performance in the year reviewed, and a view of recent historical trends, on financial measures the school is accountable for achieving, as established by applicable federal and state law and the charter contract. These measures provide information about the school’s financial health and sustainability. Near-Term Measures

• Current Ratio measures a school’s ability to pay its obligations over the next 12 months (calculated as the ratio of short-term assets to short-term liabilities).

• Unrestricted Days Cash on Hand indicates how many days the school could operate without receiving additional funding (calculated as the school’s total cash divided by the average daily cost to operate the school).

• Enrollment Variance shows how well the school is meeting its enrollment projections (calculated as actual enrollment divided by enrollment projection in the school’s board-approved budget).

• Debt Default indicates whether a school is meeting its debt obligations or covenants.

Sustainability Measures

• Total Margin measures a school’s revenues compared to its expenses—i.e., did the school operate at a surplus or deficit in the given time period?

• Debt to Asset Ratio compares the school’s financial liabilities to its assets. • Cash Flow indicates the trend in the school’s cash balance over a period of time (similar to

Days Cash on Hand, but indicating long-term vs. near-term sustainability). • Debt Service Coverage Ratio indicates a school’s ability to cover its debt obligations in the

current year.

INDICATORS AND MEASURES 3-YR AVG.

FY18 VALUE FY19 VALUE

MEETS STANDARD?

Targets

NEAR-TERM MEASURES Meets Fund Balance N/A 18.33% 16.47% Meets Current Ratio N/A 1 1 Meets Unrestricted Days Cash on Hand N/A 64.61 55.41 Partially

Meets *School experienced natural disaster and board improved investment

Enrollment Variance N/A 524/425 534/400 Meets Debt Default N/A 0 0 Meets SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES Partially Meets Total Margin N/A -0.06 -.01 Partially Meets Debt to Asset Ratio N/A 0.6 0.6 Partially Meets Cash Flow N/A $860,674

829,345 Falls Far

Below See above*

Debt Service Coverage Ratio N/A 0.64 .61 Falls Far Below

Partially Meets


III. ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE Charter schools are required to meet certain regulatory requirements and responsibilities as established by applicable state and federal law and their charter contracts. This section reports the school’s overall performance in the year reviewed in fulfilling legal requirements and fiduciary/public stewardship responsibilities, and other measures relevant to organizational health and performance.

INDICATORS AND MEASURES MEETS STANDARD?

Targets

EDUCATION PROGRAM COMPLIANCE Meets Implementing the material terms of the education program as defined in the current charter contract

Meets

Complying with applicable education requirements Meets Protecting the rights of students with disabilities Meets Protecting the rights of English Language Learner (ELL) students

Meets

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT Meets Meeting financial reporting and compliance requirements

Meets

Following Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)

Meets

GOVERNANCE AND REPORTING Partially Meets Complying with governance requirements Meets Holding management accountable Falls Far

Below No CEO evaluation; lacked academic dashboard

Complying with reporting requirements Meets STUDENT AND EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AND REQUIREMENTS

Meets

Protecting the rights of all students Meets Meeting teacher and other staff credentialing requirements

Meets

Respecting employee rights Meets Completing required background checks Meets SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT Meets Complying with facilities and transportation requirements

Meets

Complying with health and safety requirements Meets Handling information appropriately Meets

Meets

SchoolWorks School Quality Report Carondelet Leadership Academy

April 15-16, 2019

100 Cummings Center, Suite 236C

Beverly, MA 01915 (978) 921-1674 www.schoolworks.org

Table of Contents

About the School Quality Review Process ...................................................................................... 1

Domains and Key Questions ........................................................................................................... 2

Domain 1: Instruction .................................................................................................................. 3

Domain 2: Students’ Opportunities to Learn .............................................................................. 7

Domain 3: Educators’ Opportunities to Learn ............................................................................ 9

Domain 4: Leadership and Governance .................................................................................... 11

Domain 5: Financial Performance ............................................................................................. 14

Domain 6: Organizational Performance .................................................................................... 15

Appendix A: Site Visit Team Members ......................................................................................... 16

Appendix B: Summary of Classroom Observation Data ............................................................... 17

Carondelet Leadership Academy April 15-16, 2019

©2019 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Page 1

About the School Quality Review Process

The SchoolWorks School Quality Review (SQR) is a process that educators can use to understand and

explain how well schools are working to educate students. The SQR places a team of experienced

educators in a school to collect and analyze data about school performance. The length of the SQR with

the Missouri Charter Public School Commission (MCPSC) will be two days. The SQR is based on a

transparent, research-based set of standards – the SchoolWorks Quality Criteria (SQC) – that serve as the

framework to understand the effectiveness of school practices. The SQC are used to promote

understanding and dialogue between the school and the site visit team through both verbal and written

feedback.

The Missouri Charter Public School Commission was established in 2012 (RSMO 160.425). Lawmakers,

charter school advocates, and education reformers wanted an independent sponsoring entity with the

authority to sponsor high-quality charter schools throughout Missouri. Sponsors enter into a contract with

a Missouri nonprofit organization that demonstrates the ability and capacity to operate a quality

independent public school. Sponsors hold these schools accountable for the performance of the school

and to the conditions of the contract. Performing schools can have their contract renewed. Poor quality

charter schools can be closed.

MCPSC has partnered with SchoolWorks to develop the SQR protocol and review process, which is aligned

to complement MCPSC’s initiatives and school performance framework; the subsequent report

documents and communicates findings of the SQR.

The SQR protocol and review process provides a third-party perspective on current school quality for all

students. The process includes two days of collecting evidence on site through interviews, classroom visits,

and document review. While on site, the team meets to discuss, sort, and analyze evidence it is collecting.

The site visit team uses evidence collected through these events to develop findings in relation to the

protocol’s criteria and indicators. The review team’s findings, contained in this report, represents one

piece of evidence considered by MCPSC as part of their on-going oversight and renewal decision-making

process.

The report documents the team’s findings for each of the six domains identified within the SQR protocol:

Instruction, Students’ Opportunities to Learn, Educators’ Opportunities to Learn, Leadership and

Governance, Financial Performance, and Organizational Performance. Findings provide a response to each

Key Question in the SQR protocol.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/16000004251.html



Domains and Key Questions

The following key questions guide the SQR team’s work in the school. All evidence is collected in response

to these key questions and their respective standards.

Domain 1: Instruction

1. Do classroom interactions and organization ensure a classroom climate conducive to learning?

2. Is classroom instruction intentional, engaging, and challenging for all students?

3. Do teachers regularly assess students’ progress toward mastery of key skills and concepts, and utilize

assessment data to provide feedback to students during the lesson?

Domain 2: Students’ Opportunities to Learn

4. Does the school identify and support students with a full range of needs?

5. Does the school have a safe, supportive learning environment that reflects high expectations for all

students?

Domain 3: Educators’ Opportunities to Learn

6. Does the school design professional development and collaborative systems to sustain a focus on

instructional improvement?

7. Does the school’s culture indicate high levels of collective responsibility, trust, and efficacy?

Domain 4: Leadership and Governance

8. Do school leaders guide and participate with instructional staff in the central processes of improving

teaching and learning?

9. Do school leaders effectively orchestrate the school’s operations?

10. Does the Board provide competent stewardship and oversight of the school?

Domain 5: Financial Performance

11. Does the school maintain a sound and sustainable financial condition?

Domain 6: Organizational Performance

12. Does the school have effective operational systems and structures in place?



Domain 1: Instruction

Classroom interactions generally ensure a climate conducive to learning; however, classroom

organization does not yet consistently contribute to this climate.

Behavioral Expectations

Ineffective Partially

Ineffective Partially Effective

Effective1

1 2 3 4 5% 9% 36% 50%

• Behavioral expectations are clear and understood by most students. In focus groups, the majority of

teachers gave detailed descriptions of their behavior management techniques using the Love and

Logic approach. For example, teachers indicated that when a student breaks a rule, they will engage

the student in a conversation about the student’s choices, rather than simply give the student a

consequence. Other teachers described encouraging students to spend a short amount of time in a

classroom “thinking space,” where the student can calmly reflect on the situation and then rejoin the

class when ready. In 50% of classrooms (n=22), the site visit team observed the effective

establishment of behavioral expectations. In these rooms, behavioral expectations were clearly

communicated verbally or in writing; students consistently behaved, and the teacher effectively

anticipated and managed any small misbehaviors. For example, in one classroom, student behavior

was appropriate throughout the lesson, and students followed clear procedures for participating in

the lesson, such as raising their hands to contribute. In another classroom, students were working in

small groups, and the teacher privately corrected two instances of minor misbehavior without

disrupting the lesson for the other students. The site visit team observed the partially effective

establishment of behavioral expectations in 36% of classrooms. In these rooms, student behavior was

largely appropriate, but there were a few minor disruptions that negatively impacted the lesson. For

instance, one teacher had to remind students a few times to keep their voice level at zero, but the

noise level kept rising afterwards. In another classroom, behavior was mostly appropriate, but the

teacher over-corrected one student’s misbehavior, turning the situation into a larger disruption.

Structured Learning Environment



Effective

1 2 3 4 14% 36% 32% 18%

• The learning environment is structured; however, learning time is not consistently maximized. In

18% of classrooms, the site visit team observed an effectively structured learning environment. In

these classrooms, the teacher was fully prepared, and learning time was maximized throughout the

lesson. For example, one teacher had prepared learning centers with instructional materials in

advance; students immediately engaged in center activities, as well as quickly transitioned between

centers. In 32% of classrooms, the site visit team noted the partially effective establishment of a

structured learning environment. In these classrooms, teachers were prepared for most, but not all,

of the lesson, and pacing, routines, and procedures were inconsistently effective. For example, one

teacher used a SMARTBoard to deliver instruction, but was not able to maintain the pacing of

instruction, so that some learning time was lost trying to regain students’ attention. In another

1 Due to rounding, the percentages for a particular indicator may not appear to total to 100%.



classroom, the pacing of the lesson was not interrupted, but was slow; the teacher repeated examples

multiple times, even when it seemed that students were following along well. In 36% of classrooms,

the site visit team observed partially ineffective structured learning environments. In these

classrooms, teachers were not fully prepared, and learning time was frequently lost because of

problems with pacing or transitions. For instance, one teacher began the lesson with a whole-class

lecture, but did not have visual materials prepared in advance, so that instructional time was lost

getting these materials ready. When the teacher asked students to move from whole group into

smaller groups, the transition required several promptings from the teacher to get the students where

they needed to be. In 14% of classrooms, the site visit team observed ineffectively structured learning

environments. In some of these classrooms, teachers were not prepared, and learning opportunities

were severely reduced because of slow pacing or ineffective transitions. In other classrooms,

instruction was not evident. For instance, in one classroom, no instruction was observed at all; the

teacher directed students to small groups, but did not provide instruction, and students did not

engage in learning activities.

Classroom instruction is not yet consistently intentional, engaging, and challenging.

Focused Instruction



Effective

1 2 3 4 27% 41% 18% 14%

• Teachers do not yet consistently provide students with focused and purposeful instruction. The site

visit team observed the effective delivery of focused instruction in 14% of classrooms. In these

classrooms, teachers communicated a clear learning objective, held all students accountable for their

learning, and communicated academic content with accuracy and clarity. For example, one teacher

posted a clear learning objective, gave an in-depth explanation of the concept, along with several

examples, then engaged students in rigorous practice. In 18% of classrooms, the site visit team

observed partially effective focused instruction. In these classrooms, learning objectives were evident

but were less clear, and not all students were held to high expectations for learning. For example, one

teacher was clearly teaching content tied to an objective, but several students were not engaged

throughout the lesson; the teacher did not hold them accountable by ensuring that they did not opt

out of the challenging activities. The site visit team observed partially ineffective focused instruction

in 41% of classrooms. In these rooms, learning objectives were unclear; teachers demonstrated high

expectations for only some students, and did not deliver academic content effectively. In one of these

classrooms, the teacher was instructing the whole group of students, but over a third of them were

sitting apart from the group and not engaged in learning. In another classroom, the content that the

teacher was communicating was unclear and, at times, incorrect. Finally, the site visit team observed

ineffective focused instruction in 27% of classrooms. In these classrooms, learning objectives were

not evident. Teachers did not hold students to high expectations, and academic content was either

not delivered or was inaccurate and/or unclear. For example, in one classroom, the teacher did not

communicate a learning objective and delivered inaccurate academic content during the lesson.



Higher Order Thinking



Effective

1 2 3 4 68% 14% 18% 0%

• Instruction does not require students to use and develop higher-order thinking skills. In 18% of

classrooms, the site visit team observed partially effective development of higher-order thinking skills.

In these classrooms, most students were engaged in complex tasks, but were not required to apply

knowledge or skills to new situations and were not asked to explain their thinking. In one classroom,

for example, students were writing answers to questions that involved critical thinking skills; however,

not all students were asked to justify their answers in the subsequent class discussion. The site visit

team observed partially ineffective use of higher-order thinking skills in 14% of classrooms. In these

rooms, only some of the lesson involved tasks that required critical thinking, and students were not

engaged in a productive struggle with the concepts. For instance, students in one classroom were

completing grade-level tasks, but the work did not allow opportunities for students to explain their

answers, and the class discussion consisted entirely of choral responses to low-level questions. The

site visit team observed the ineffective use of higher-order thinking strategies in 68% of classrooms.

In these classrooms, students were not interacting with complex text or tasks and were never required

to justify their thinking or reasoning. For example, in one classroom, the teacher posted information

on a PowerPoint slide and students were simply expected to fill in blanks on their own paper copies

of the slide. In another classroom, the teacher asked only lower-level questions (e.g., “How should I

label this?” and, “What does this word mean?”). In yet another classroom, the teacher talked through

how to solve a problem, and students copied the teacher’s work verbatim into their notes.

Teachers do not regularly assess students’ progress throughout the lesson, and do not provide high-quality feedback to students.

Assessment Strategies



Effective

1 2 3 4 36% 32% 14% 18%

• In-class assessment strategies inconsistently reveal students’ thinking about learning goals. The site

visit team observed the effective use of assessment strategies in 18% of classrooms. In these

classrooms, the teacher used formative assessment strategies such as exit tickets or hand signals to

check the understanding of all students, and these assessments were tightly aligned to the learning

objective. For instance, in one classroom, all students were required to complete an exercise related

to the learning objective, which was posted as an “I can…” statement and in an anchor chart; students

turned in this work before moving on to the next part of the lesson. In 14% of classrooms, the site

visit team observed the partially effective use of assessment strategies. In these classrooms, teachers

checked the understanding of most, but not all, students. For example, one teacher used cold calling

and questioning to gauge student understanding but did not hear from all of the students. In 32% of

classrooms, the site visit team noted partially effective use of assessment strategies. In these

classrooms, the teacher checked the understanding of less than half of the students. For example,

one teacher asked questions of the whole class, but fewer than half of the students raised their hands

to answer, and the teacher only called on students whose hands were raised. The site visit team

observed ineffective use of assessment strategies in 36% of classrooms. In these classrooms,

assessment that enabled teachers to gauge student understanding was not evident. In one classroom,



the teacher was trying to check the understanding of sight words but was not pausing the narration

to listen to the responses, so the teacher never actually heard how the students were responding. In

another classroom, no assessment strategies were observed at all.

Feedback



Effective

1 2 3 4 68% 5% 27% 0%

• Timely and specific feedback is infrequently provided throughout the learning process. The site visit

team observed partially effective use of feedback in 27% of classrooms. In these rooms, only some

students received, and used, high-quality feedback. For example, in one room, the teacher circulated

during whole group instruction, and provided specific feedback on the independent work to fewer

than half of the students. In another classroom, during small group instruction, the teacher pointed

out to the group how one student was correctly labeling part of the problem, but the rest of the class

(outside of that small group) did not receive any feedback. In 68% of classrooms, the site visit team

noted ineffective use of feedback. In these rooms, either no students received feedback throughout

the lesson, or the teacher’s feedback was not content-specific. In one classroom, for instance, the

teacher walked around and told students, “Good job,” and “Keep going.” In another room, the teacher

asked whole group questions, and when students answered individually, the teacher replied with

either a “yes” or “no” to simply indicate whether the answer was correct. In yet another classroom,

the site visit team observed no feedback being given at any point during the lesson.



Domain 2: Students’ Opportunities to Learn

While the school generally identifies and supports students with a range of needs, it is not yet ensuring

that these supports are effective.

• While the school has procedures for identifying students needing additional support, it does not yet

systematically monitor student progress and program effectiveness. Leaders and teachers reported

that they use data from the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) assessments and Fountas &

Pinnell (F & P) benchmark assessment systems (BAS) to identify students in need of intervention and

to put those students in small groups for targeted support. They also stated that these small groups

are redistributed after the fall and winter NWEA administration. A review of the “Teacher Support

Team – Request for Assistance” form confirmed these sources of data and also indicated that leaders

and teachers collect other information, such as student report cards, as well as student attendance

and discipline data. Leaders and teachers further reported that when students do not make academic

progress through these initial interventions, they are referred to a Care Team, which includes the

assistant principal (AP), school counselors, and special education teachers. They reported that

members of the Care Team prescribe additional interventions for teachers to implement over a 30-

day period (e.g., recording the student speaking; “animal strategies” for reading, such as “stretch the

word out like a snake;” weighted lap pad or sensory vest to help the student focus attention). Teachers

and leaders stated that students may be referred for special education services if no progress is made.

Leaders and teachers also reported that some teachers use running records and other internal

assessments to measure students’ progress. However, they indicated that these are teacher-specific,

rather than school-wide, practices. For behavior support, teachers stated that many students have

behavior plans, some of which are created through a formal 504 process; others are created by

teachers on their own. Leaders also reported that the AP creates check-in and check-out plans for

students who need additional behavior support; these plans are individualized to target specific

student needs. While these practices indicate a set of procedures currently in use to support students

who need academic and behavioral intervention, leaders and teachers were unable to describe any

overall system that fully coordinates them. Leaders and teachers were also unable to describe

systematic processes for monitoring the effectiveness of interventions or specific procedures for

measuring student progress as a result of the interventions.

• The school is working to implement targeted academic and behavioral supports and interventions

to meet the needs of diverse learners. Leaders and teachers stated that teachers do a significant

amount of small group work in classes, so that they can differentiate instruction to meet the needs of

diverse learners (Small group work was observed by the site visit team in many classrooms.). Leaders

and teachers also stated that at the middle school level, there is a Response to Intervention (RtI) block

regularly built into the schedule (confirmed by a review of class schedules); however, they explained

that students primarily use Freckle (a computer-based program) during this time Leaders and teachers

further reported that student groupings for this work are rearranged after NWEA testing in the Fall

and Winter. Leaders and teachers described several staffing positions that provide academic and

behavioral supports for students, including 3.5 Title I teachers who work with high-needs students in

either pull-out or push-in settings, depending on the needs of the particular students. Leaders and

teachers also stated that there is a .5 teacher who provides support for English language learner (ELL)

students, and that they are working on an explicit co-teaching model for next school year so that these

support teachers can have more impact. Further, leaders reported that the instructional coach often

provides intervention services for students in need of more intensive support. Leaders reported that

teachers at the middle school use Freckle – an online supplemental resource to differentiate



intervention content for students. Elementary grade teachers use F&P’s Heggerty Phonemic

Awareness intervention program. Also, at the classroom level, teachers described using intervention

tools such as individual whiteboards, flash cards, and/or worksheets in small groups (observed by the

site visit team). Teachers reported providing after-school tutoring, mostly for middle school students,

on a volunteer basis, and indicated that also they offer additional tutoring by local high school

students.

While the school is working to provide a supportive learning environment, it does not demonstrate high

expectations for all students.

• The school does not demonstrate uniformly high expectations for academic learning. Some leaders

and teachers reported that colleagues do not hold high expectations for student learning. A majority

of teachers described student success as “meeting students where they are,” often in terms of

behavior, rather than academic learning. They were unable to consistently articulate a common

expectation for bringing students to proficiency. When asked about bringing students up to grade

level in academic content, leaders and teachers reported that they focus on growth, but did not

mention specific goals such as moving students up by at least one grade level to close any achievement

gaps. Some students stated that teachers have low expectations for them and that lessons are not

rigorous. Teachers and students described a few ways in which student success is celebrated at the

school. Teachers reported that for middle school students, they have National Junior Honor Society

and that all grade levels have an honor role, monthly recognition around behavior and school culture

(e.g., student of the week/month), as well as attendance incentives. Students stated that teachers

provide rewards in different ways, such as giving points that are rewarded with candy on Fridays.

Students stated that other teachers have auctions in which students can spend their points on reward

items. Teachers gave more detailed insight into the way the point system is used: students begin the

week with a set number of points; if a student receives a disciplinary referral, s/he loses points; if a

student demonstrates good behavior, s/he can earn points back. Some students also stated that they

receive “paychecks” and can use them for free time on Chromebook or playing Silent Ball in class.

• The school is working to create opportunities for adults and students to form positive relationships.

Leaders and teachers reported that the school has a significant focus on social-emotional learning and

support; they acknowledged that students seem to be coming to the school with more challenging

personal situations than they previously realized. Leaders reported that they host a Teen Outreach

Program, in which people from a local hospital visit the school on Wednesday afternoons to conduct

activities with the middle school students. Most students stated that if they have a problem, they

have at least one adult they would seek out for help, and specifically named school social workers and

student/family support staff. Teachers reported that there are many after-school clubs that help build

relationships between students and teachers, and that also provide a safe space for students after

school. Students also described these after-school activities, listing clubs like STEM club, Harry Potter

Club, Lego robotics, and sports activities. Students reported that these activities are run by teachers,

that topics vary by quarter and are scheduled for a couple of hours after school during the week and,

sometimes, on weekends. Parents reported that staff try to get to know students and that their

children and teachers are happy to be at the school. Parents also described family activities like Bingo

Night, Math Night, and a variety of after-school clubs and activities. Leaders also reported that the

school provides supportive services for students and families in need, such as vision, dental, and

medical services, flu shots, and help with laundry.



Domain 3: Educators’ Opportunities to Learn

The school provides some professional development (PD) and collaborative structures; however, they

lack a sustained focus on instructional improvement.

• Teachers have opportunities for active PD through coaching and collaborative planning; however,

these practices are not part of a cohesive, strategically-aligned plan. Leaders and teachers described

having four days of PD during the week before school started last summer, along with four additional

all-day PD sessions spread throughout the school year. Leaders and teachers reported that PD is

determined and largely led by school administrators, although some teachers lead sessions as they

become experts in particular topics. Leaders stated that during one all-staff PD, teachers were able to

choose from a menu of topics, but that some teachers were encouraged to attend specific sessions to

address professional areas of growth. Leaders and teachers reported that some teachers access PD

provided outside the school and that there is an expectation that when teachers attend outside PD,

they share information with the rest of the staff. For example, one teacher attended a two-day

training on a new grading system, then led a PD session with the rest of the staff afterwards. Leaders

also reported that they sometimes send teachers to PD offered by EducationPlus – a nonprofit

educational service agency that brings school districts together to share resources, information, and

ideas. Leaders and teachers reported that there is a rotating schedule of topics for grade-level team

meetings, and that one meeting per month is dedicated to teacher-selected book study; another

meeting is devoted to analyzing data (confirmed by a review of the Team Meeting Schedule). Some

teachers described opportunities to observe colleagues when they are struggling with a particular

instructional strategy. Finally, teachers reported that there is one instructional coach. Some teachers

described the coaching as voluntary and that interested teachers can participate in quarterly coaching

sessions. However, when asked, leaders and teachers were not able to describe any long-term PD

plan, or to articulate how these different PD opportunities align with an overall strategy to increase

teachers’ professional capacity.

• Most educators collaborate regularly to share best practices and to co-plan; however, this

collaboration does not maintain a clear and persistent focus on improving academic outcomes.

Teachers reported that they have common planning time with grade-level colleagues. Teachers stated

that during this time, they sometimes co-plan lessons informally, collaborate and share ideas, and

help each other with copies. While some teachers reported meeting at times with teachers from other

grade levels, teachers and other staff reported that there is no formal vertical planning built into the

schedule; teachers will informally seek each other out to ensure that communication is fluid. For

example, a teacher who is struggling with a student might reach out to other teachers who have

worked with that student, or will seek help from a counselor, social worker, or school psychologist. In

addition to a weekly staff meeting focused on logistics and announcements, teachers reported that

they meet every Tuesday in grade level teams along with administrators. As described above, these

meeting topics include data analysis and book study. Describing their work with data, teachers stated

that they use NWEA and F&P BAS data three times per year. While some teachers reported that they

engage in a reflective practice to set their own PD goals at the beginning of the year, leaders and some

teachers reported that there is an inconsistency in teacher willingness to receive coaching and talk

about their own instructional practice during collaborative meetings. Some teachers described

engaging in peer observations; however, they stated that it happens infrequently.



The school’s culture indicates trust and collective responsibility among most teachers; however, it

reflects lower levels of efficacy.

• Educators’ mindsets and beliefs reflect a shared commitment to students’ well-being; however,

they do not communicate a common sense of urgency about student achievement. The site visit

team observed substantial evidence that staff at the school demonstrate care and concern for

students; most observed classrooms provided a supportive learning environment. In these

classrooms, teachers and students were respectful, caring, and supportive of each other and the

teacher was responsive to all, or most, student needs. For example, in one room, the teacher

maintained a warm tone throughout the lesson, and when one student seemed to be drifting off, the

teacher quietly said, “I know you’re tired. Did you sleep last night?” However, when asked, leaders

and teachers were less able to express a sense of urgency about, and responsibility for, students’

academic achievement. Teachers stated that students’ learning is not supported in the home

environment (e.g., “Students are not taught to listen at home.”). Teachers and leaders reported that

the school’s demographics have changed drastically over the past few years (i.e., more families at the

school come from different racial backgrounds and lower socio-economic levels). Some teachers and

leaders cited these changes as the reason for declining performance and their rationale for making

curricular changes. Finally, some teachers stated that although colleagues believe that they have high

academic and behavior expectations for students, it is not necessarily the case, and that expectations

among adults are inconsistent.

• The school reflects a safe and trustworthy professional climate for most educators. Teachers

reported that overall, staff have high expectations for each other’s performance, and that the school

has a collegial environment. When asked to describe the best aspect of the school community,

teachers frequently used words such as, “community,” “camaraderie,” and, “collegiality.” One

teacher expressed this common feeling, stating, “We are a community school. Collaboration is sort of

ingrained in what we do here; it just comes naturally.” Teachers stated that they seek each other out

to collaborate, even when there is no structured time scheduled to do so (e.g., “I can talk to any other

teacher about a student situation; everyone here is very open to communicate.”). Teachers further

described the professional culture at the school as one that can allow them to balance family and

work life. For instance, teachers who are parents feel that they can adjust their work to respond to

situations at home when they need to do so. Some teachers expressed discomfort in asking for

instructional support, stating that there have been situations in which they have not felt a sense of

trust or professionalism; however, the majority of teachers described leaders as extremely

supportive: “I don’t ever hesitate to go to them,” and, “The administrators here are very approachable

and down-to-earth.” Other teachers stated that the school’s leaders provide more support than in

other schools in their experience, and that they are willing to go “above and beyond” to make sure

teachers have what they need.



Domain 4: Leadership and Governance

School leaders are beginning to guide and participate with instructional staff in the central processes of

improving teaching and learning.

• School leaders have not communicated a common and clear vision aligned to students’ long-term

success and have not set goals to meet that vision. When asked to describe the school’s academic

vision, leaders and teachers could not articulate a clear statement indicating commitment to closing

the achievement gap and preparing all students for academic success. Some leaders and teachers did

state that their aim was “…to prepare students not only academically but socially;” however, most

made statements such as, “work with the community to build leadership” and, “work with community

to build character education in ways that are beneficial to students.” When asked to describe school

goals, leaders and teachers were unable to name clear, measurable academic goals that are aligned

across the school’s improvement efforts and could not specifically indicate what student academic

success looks like. When asked, teachers made statements such as, “I work on developing

relationships with my students;” “It depends on the student and what they’re going through to begin

with;” and, “For some students, just coming to school is success.” The school’s Contract and

Performance Agreement gives the following SMART goal: “Each student scoring below grade level on

NWEA will progress at least 20% above expected growth in reading and math until the student is at

grade level and then will progress at least at expected growth thereafter.” When asked, no teacher

could articulate this goal. Some teachers described grade-level goals for each quarter, while other

teachers stated that the school’s goal was “about getting students to proficiency on the NWEA

assessment” or, “to grow ten points in math on NWEA by the end of the year.” Most teachers did not

report specific, school-wide student achievement goals.

• School leaders are beginning to ensure that teachers deliver high-quality instruction. Teachers

reported that staff throughout the school hold inconsistent expectations for instructional practices,

and, when asked, they were unable to articulate a common understanding of high-quality instruction

for all students. Leaders and teachers reported that school leaders this year have been conducting

mini-observations in alignment with formal evaluations, based on Kim Marshall’s structure of brief,

frequent classroom visits followed by informal feedback. When asked, leaders stated that they have

not normed on the feedback they provide teachers. Some teachers reported being observed ten times

per year by at least two administrators. Other teachers reported weekly observations that are

scheduled according to an observation-feedback cycle: teachers send a lesson plan, an administrator

conducts an unannounced 15-minute observation that week, and then the teacher and administrator

meet within 24 hours to discuss feedback. Leaders and teachers further reported that teachers submit

weekly lesson plans and receive feedback on them from school leaders. Leaders stated that the school

hired an instructional coach this year specifically to provide support around curriculum development,

as well as a director of external relations with experience in school turnaround practices. Leaders

reported that the coach meets with some grade-level teams to help draft plans in support of student

learning, and that the coach also provides opportunities for teachers to participate in optional

coaching cycles.

School leaders effectively orchestrate the school’s operations.

• School leaders generally ensure inclusive, transparent decision making across the organization, and

communicate effectively with most staff. Leaders reported that they make efforts to involve teachers

and other staff in the planning and implementation of school policies and activities. For instance,

leaders reported that teachers were involved in piloting and selecting new curriculum programs in



math, science, and social studies this school year. Teachers confirmed their participation in curriculum

selection and stated that they appreciated the opportunity to give input into the process. Further,

leaders stated that they have established a voluntary curriculum committee and that teachers are

paid to work with the instructional coach to develop curriculum maps and a scope and sequence over

the course of the year. Most teachers reported that they receive frequent communication from school

leadership and timely responses to emails and other inquiries. Some teachers reported,

“communication with staff here is amazing.” Conversely, some teachers stated that communication

is sometimes a challenge, specifically suggesting that the school could use “better systems so that

there are consistent people in charge of communicating about specific things.” Other staff stated that

communication is not always fluid and that they have not been privy to some key information.

• School leaders are beginning to develop a system to recruit and retain effective teachers. Leaders

reported that teacher recruitment has been a challenge for the school over the past few years, with

a shift in access to candidate pools. Leaders stated that although the school historically used Missouri

REAP – a candidate database managed by EducationPlus – the school has shifted its strategy of teacher

recruitment to include online sites such as LinkedIn, Monster.com, Indeed, and K-12 Jobspot. Leaders

also indicated that they are working to build relationships with two local colleges that have teacher

education programs. Leaders stated that they are working to attract student teachers who will be

groomed to fill vacancies as they graduate from the program. Leaders described the hiring process:

candidates participate in a phone call with the director of external relations as an initial screening;

they are then invited to the school to be interviewed by a committee that includes the principal,

another leadership team member, and a teacher; they are brought in for a second visit to talk through

a lesson plan and sometimes give a demonstration lesson. Leaders and teachers reported that four

teachers are not expected to return next year (including two for reasons of fit with the organization,

and one because of family reasons); however, leaders stated that there has been a decline in teacher

turnover. When asked why turnover has decreased, teachers stated that they are committed to the

students and that the support of administrators and colleagues at the school is a strong draw to stay;

it is something they have not found at other schools. The Board stated that they created two separate

salary incentives aimed at increasing teacher retention: 1) a general, initial salary increase, and 2) a

2% salary increase for staying through the end of the school year. The Board stated that they have

“never had a huge retention problem, but [they] lost a few strong people, so wanted to nip it in the

bud.” The Board also reported making some smaller, incremental changes in compensation practices

(e.g., a more attractive benefits package) to make the school more competitive with surrounding

districts.

The Board provides some competent and appropriate governance practices to ensure the success and

sustainability of the school.

• The Board does not provide strong oversight over the effectiveness of the academic program. The

Board described the mission of the school variously as: “Every student learns to the maximum of their

inherent ability;” “Quality education that prepares them well for the next level;” and, “We should be

exceeding at least what the public school is.” When asked to describe school progress against

accountability goals and strategic priorities, the Board was unable to articulate specific goals or

performance targets. The Board reported that they receive academic reports at most Board meetings,

including a year-end summary report, and that they rely on the school’s leaders to let them know the

academic progress of the school. A review of Board meeting agendas and minutes for the past year

showed that while there is a standing Education Report on the agenda, the minutes indicated no

formal report for that agenda item each month. The Board also stated that they look at test results



(e.g., NWEA assessment data) at least three times per year. When asked about Board members who

bring appropriate instructional expertise to provide oversight of the academic program, the Board

reported that they had three such members in the past, but they stepped down from the Board in the

past six months. The Board stated that they have tried to establish an academic committee, but that

it was never totally successful.

• The Board maintains some effective governance practices to ensure organizational viability;

however, it does not provide systematic oversight of the school leaders. The Board reported that

over the past few years, they have participated in a few trainings – one led by the Missouri Charter

Public School Association and two led by outside consultants – around basic Board obligations and

duties (e.g., meeting requirements). The Board stated that they currently have six members, including

three with financial expertise, one attorney, one human resources professional, and one scientist. The

Board further stated that they are considering changing the by-laws to allow a flexible number of

members. The Board explained that there are two standing committees: 1) a finance committee that

works regularly with the school’s business manager and an outside firm to prepare and review

monthly financial reports and to communicate the school’s financial status to the rest of the Board at

regular meetings, and 2) a governance committee that oversees general Board operations. The Board

indicated that recruiting new members has been a challenge. They have a core of very strong,

committed members who have served for at least four years; they are trying to recruit a parent

member, and have asked the school’s leadership to make that a priority; and they have reached out

to support organizations such as the United Way for help with recruitment. When asked about its

supervision and support of school leaders, the Board stated that it does not have a tool or process to

evaluate the school leader. They further stated that they had reached out to their prior authorizer for

guidance, and that along with succession planning for leadership, it is a priority.



Domain 5: Financial Performance

The Carondelet Leadership Academy Charter School maintains a sound and sustainable financial

position.

• Carondelet Leadership Academy demonstrates near-term financial health. The school’s current or

working capital (WC) ratio indicates that the school has the ability to pay financial obligations in the

short-term. An industry benchmark for the current ratio is 1.2 to 2.0; Carondelet Leadership Academy

over the last three fiscal years has produced a 20.8 (FY 2016), 60.4 (FY 2017) and 51.5 (FY 2018) ratio

score for a three-year average of 44.2. Preliminary ratio score for FY 2019 is 24.7 based on the school’s

balance sheet as of December 2018. Over the last three years, the school has minimal amounts on

the books in terms of current liabilities (accounts payable, accrued expenses and payroll [roughly $60k

in FY 2016 and less than $20k in FYs 2017 and 2018]) which demonstrates the school pays its expenses

in a timely fashion and limits liabilities. The school’s days of cash-on-hand, based on annual audit

information for the last three years, meets the standard. In FY 2018, Carondelet Leadership Academy

had roughly $863k in cash and cash equivalents. Based on FY 2018’s annual expenses, the school

would have 62 days of cash-on-hand. An acceptable range for a school open this long would ideally

be in the 60-to-90-day range. The previous two years (93 – FY 2016, 86 – FY 2017) also met the

standard as did the school’s three-year average of 80 days. According to the school’s February 2019

financial reporting package, the school’s actuals appear on track when compared to the school’s

revised budget. The school as a multi-year budget projection through 2024-25. Each year, other than

2020-21 is projected to have a positive net income further building the school’s reserves. In FY 2020-

21, one of the larger debt service payments is due, resulting in that year potentially having a negative

net income. The school can weather a down year in terms of negative net income based on its positive

performance in the years before and after FY 2021. The FY 2018 audit contained an unqualified

opinion with no material weaknesses, significant deficiencies, and no repeat findings for the most

recently completed fiscal year. That is a trend that reaches three years for the school based on

information provided.

• Overall, Carondelet Leadership Academy demonstrates financial stability. The school’s debt-to-asset

ratio over the last three years is less than 0.6 (0.7 - FY 2016, 0.6 - FY 2017, and 0.6 - FY 2018). That

trend continues into FY 2019; after six months, the school’s ratio score is again 0.6. The school for the

last three years does not have any major debt other than the debt service on the properties it has

acquired. The debt service on the four properties is a long-term liability with the majority of the debt

being paid back fairly equally starting in 2024 and continuing to year 2041. Cash and cash equivalents

have averaged more than $1M between FYs 2016-18. FY 2018 showed a decrease in cash/cash

equivalents of roughly $200k. The school also saw revenues exceed expenses in FY 2018 by roughly

$285k. Per the school’s January 2019 Board minutes, the deficit was one of the planned nature as the

school decided to invest monies into the academic and instructional program. Prior to FY 2018, the

school shows revenues exceeding expenses in FY 2016 and 2017 by an average of 15.6%.

Cumulatively, the school’s fund balance would be roughly 6.3% (current/budgeted projected

expenses of $5.4M / projected cash on the school’s balance sheet of $854k), which exceeds the

benchmark of 3%.



Domain 6: Organizational Performance

The Carondelet Leadership Academy Charter School employs sound operational systems and maintains a strong internal structure.

• Carondelet Leadership Academy has developed a comprehensive Policy Manual that governs the

financial operations of the school. From a fiscal perspective, the guide addresses many of the

necessary areas such as annual budget development/preparation, accounting system, audits and

financial statements, and federal compliance. Certain sections of the Manual, as it pertains to fiscal

operations, could be more robust. For example, there could be a section added that describes the in-

year reporting process to leadership and the Board, indicating who will develop key financial reports,

who will review them, and when and how those reports will be evaluated so that decisions can be

made regarding the school’s overall fiscal health. The accounting system section was another that was

also lacking in detail, such as what system is used, who has access and oversees the system and is

responsible for the accuracy of entries into the system, and how the system adheres to the Missouri

Dept. of Education. The school also has adopted a well-thought-out Student/Parent Handbook that

governs the students and details the school’s mission, vision, and expectation of its students.

• The school’s Board is scheduled to meet on a monthly basis and, based on minutes provided,

experiences close to full attendance by its members at almost every meeting held. Every month, the

school receives a comprehensive management report that addresses many areas, including

enrollment and finances. The finance section is adequate and provides a level of analysis the Board

and school leadership needs to make informed decisions. The reports include budget vs. actuals for

the current fiscal year, as well as prior year, and the current month’s outlook of the school’s balance

sheet. This information provides stakeholders with key decision-making data to keep the school on

track fiscally. The management report also includes a full check registrar for the month, showing the

Board and school leadership every transaction that the school has made for the month. This practice

creates transparency. Board minutes also show that the Treasurer of the Board provides a high-level

summary with analysis to the full Board demonstrating that important positions involvement in the

governance of the school.



Appendix A: Site Visit Team Members

The SQR to the Carondelet Leadership Academy was conducted on April 15-16, 2019 by a team of

educators from SchoolWorks, LLC and EdStrategies, LLC (representing the Missouri Charter Public Schools

Commission).

Georgia Lieber Team Leader SchoolWorks, LLC

Chad Ferguson Team Writer SchoolWorks, LLC

David Hruby Financial Reviewer SchoolWorks, LLC

Anne Miller Team Member EdStrategies, LLC



Appendix B: Summary of Classroom Observation Data

During the site visit, the team conducted 22 observations, representing a range of grade levels and subject areas. The

following table presents the compiled data from those observations. Note: Due to rounding, the percentages for a particular

indicator may not appear to total to 100%.

Indicator

Distribution of Scores (%)



Effective

1 2 3 4

Cla

ssro

om

Clim

ate

1. Behavioral Expectations Student behavior Clear expectations Consistent rewards and/or consequences Anticipation and redirection of misbehavior

5% 9% 36% 50%

2. Structured Learning Environment Teacher preparation Clear agenda Learning time maximized

14% 36% 32% 18%

3. Supportive Learning Environment Caring relationships Teacher responsiveness to students’ needs 5% 23% 36% 36%

Pu

rpo

sefu

l Te

ach

ing

4. Focused Instruction Learning objectives High expectations Effective communication of academic content

27% 41% 18% 14%

5. Instructional Strategies Multi-sensory modalities and materials Varied groupings Student choice and leadership

32% 23% 18% 27%

6. Cognitive Engagement Active student participation Perseverance 9% 32% 27% 32%

7. Higher-order Thinking Challenging tasks Application to new problems and situations Student questions Metacognition

68% 14% 18% 0%

In-C

lass

Ass

ess

me

nt

&

Ad

just

me

nt

8. Assessment Strategies Use of formative assessments

36% 32% 14% 18%

9. Feedback Feedback to students Student use of feedback 68% 5% 27% 0%

��

��

� � �� !�"��#

�

�� $�% & ��$�% ��'�� (��$##% (��)��*+,-./01234#��566789.12:4��

;<0=>1.1?@@4��A9B.�C71@4��D��*;<0=>/9,.��;<0=>/9,.

;98<,E1>1.�F19E18BG/=�569E10H I J�� #KLM�� #�L�� LI J�� #�LM�� #NL�� L"K�" " �N�" �" !"�!N!N�!�!N�!N

president of the board carondelet leadership academy 7604 ... 2018 2019 annual repo… ·...

Documents