the suny charter schools institute · 2018. 12. 6. · a subsequent charter term would enable the...

INSTITUTETHE SUNY CHARTER SCHOOLS

RENEWAL RECOMMENDATION REPORTI C A H N C H A R T E R S C H O O L 4

518.445.4250

518.320.1572 (fax)

www.newyorkcharters.org

Charter Schools InstituteThe State University of New York

Report Date: December 3, 2018

Visit Date: September 28, 2018

SUNY Charter Schools Institute

SUNY Plaza

353 Broadway

Albany, NY 12246

2Introduction & Report Format

4Renewal Recommendation

6School Background and Executive Summary

9Academic Performance

18Organizational Performance

21Fiscal Performance

24Future Plans

CONTENTS

AppendicesA: School OverviewB: School Performance SummariesC: District CommentsD: School Fiscal DashboardE: Education Corporation Overview

2

SUNY Charter Schools Institute SUNY Plaza

353 BroadwayAlbany, NY 12246

INTRODUCTION & REPORT FORMATThis report is the primary means by which the SUNY Charter Schools Institute (the “Institute”) transmits to the State University of New York Board of Trustees (the “SUNY Trustees”) its findings and recommendations regarding a school’s Application for Charter Renewal, and more broadly, details the merits of a school’s case for renewal. The Institute has created and issued this report pursuant to the Policies for the Renewal of Not-For-Profit Charter School Education Corporations and Charter Schools Authorized by the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York (the “SUNY Renewal Policies”).1

THE INSTITUTE MAKES ALL RENEWAL RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON

Most importantly, the Institute analyzes the school’s record of academic performance

and the extent to which it has met its academic Accountability Plan goals.

InINTRODUCTION

LEGAL COMPLIANCEFISCAL SOUNDNESS RENEWAL EVALUATION VISIT

A SCHOOL’S APPLICATION FOR CHARTER RENEWAL

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

INFORMATION GATHERED DURING THE CHARTER TERM

!1. Revised September 4,

2013 and available at: www.

newyorkcharters.org/SUNY-

Renewal-Policies/.

Icahn 4

http://www.newyorkcharters.org/SUNY-Renewal-Policies/



3



Additional information

about the SUNY renewal

process and an overview

of the requirements for

renewal under the New

York Charter Schools Act

of 1998 (as amended, the

“Act”) are available on

the Institute’s website at:

www.newyorkcharters.

org/renewal/.

2. Version 5.0, May

2012, available at:

www.newyorkcharters.

org/SUNY-Renewal-

Benchmarks/.

REPORT FORMAT

This renewal recommendation report compiles the evidence below using the State University of New York Charter Renewal Benchmarks (the “SUNY Renewal Benchmarks”),2 which specify in detail what a successful school should be able to demonstrate at the time of the renewal review. The Institute uses the four interconnected renewal questions below for framing benchmark statements to determine if a school has made an adequate case for renewal.

RENEWAL QUESTIONS

1. IS THE SCHOOL AN ACADEMIC SUCCESS?

2. IS THE SCHOOL AN EFFECTIVE, VIABLE ORGANIZATION?

3. IS THE SCHOOL FISCALLY SOUND?

4. IF THE SUNY TRUSTEES RENEW THE EDUCATION CORPORATION’S AUTHORITY TO OPERATE THE SCHOOL, ARE ITS PLANS FOR THE SCHOOL REASONABLE, FEASIBLE, AND ACHIEVABLE?

This report contains appendices that provide additional statistical and organizationally related information including a largely statistical school overview, copies of any school district comments on the Application for Charter Renewal, and the SUNY Fiscal Dashboard information for the school. If applicable, the appendices also include additional information about the education corporation and its schools including additional evidence on student achievement of other education corporation schools.

?

InINTRODUCTION

Icahn 4

http://www.newyorkcharters.org/renewal

http://www.newyorkcharters.org/renewal

http://www.newyorkcharters.org/SUNY-Renewal-Benchmarks/



4



RENEWAL RECOMMENDATIONFull-Term Renewal The Institute recommends that the SUNY Trustees approve the Application for Charter Renewal of Icahn Charter School 4 for a period of five years with authority to provide instruction to students in Kindergarten – 8th grade in such configuration as set forth in its Application for Charter Renewal, with a projected total enrollment of 324 students.

To earn a Subsequent Full-Term Renewal, a school must demonstrate that it has met or come close to meeting its academic Accountability Plan goals.3

REQUIRED FINDINGS

In addition to making a recommendation based on a determination of whether the school has met the SUNY Trustees’ specific renewal criteria, the Institute makes the following findings required by the Act:

the school, as described in the Application for Charter Renewal, meets the requirements of the Act and all other applicable laws, rules, and regulations;

the education corporation can demonstrate the ability to operate the school in an educationally and fiscally sound manner in the next charter term; and,

given the programs it will offer, its structure and its purpose, approving the school to operate for another five years is likely to improve student learning and achievement and materially further the purposes of the Act.4

ENROLLMENT AND RETENTION

Charter schools are required to make good faith efforts to meet enrollment and retention targets for students with disabilities, English language learners (“ELLs”), and students who are eligible for the federal Free and Reduced Price Lunch (“FRPL”) program. Icahn Charter School 4 (“Icahn 4” or the “education corporation”) received its targets at the time of its last renewal in 2014. As required by Education Law § 2851(4)(e), a school must include in its renewal application information regarding the efforts it puts in place to meet or exceed those targets.

4

1:2:3:

3. SUNY Renewal Policies

(p. 13).

4. See New York Education

Law § 2852(2).

RRRENEWAL

RECOMMENDATION

Icahn 4

5



Icahn 4 exceeds its enrollment target for ELLs and does not currently meet its enrollment targets for students with disabilities and economically disadvantaged students, and the school meets all retention targets for each subgroup. Icahn 4 makes good faith efforts to meet its enrollment and retention targets and plans to use the following strategies to meet its targets:

• posting flyers and placing notices in local newspapers, supermarkets, churches, community centers, and apartment complexes;

• incorporating an admissions preference for students at risk of academic failure and students who qualify for the FRPL program;

• posting flyers and applications in New York City Housing Authority complex community centers and in homeless shelters throughout the district;

• highlighting the school’s guidance program in promotional materials to show how the school supports social and emotional learning;

• conducting open houses on the school campus, and at off site after school programs and youth centers;

• hosting information sessions at local organizations in surrounding neighborhoods; and,

• canvassing neighborhoods to further reach interested families.

For additional information on the school’s enrollment and retention target progress, see Appendix A.

CONSIDERATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMENTS

In accordance with the Act, the Institute notified the district in which the charter school is located regarding the school’s Application for Charter Renewal. The full text of any written comments received from the district appears in Appendix C, which also includes a summary of any public comments.

As of the date of this report, the Institute has not received district comments in response to the renewal application. A summary of public comments submitted to the Institute appears in Appendix C.

RRRENEWAL

RECOMMENDATION

Icahn 4

6



SCHOOL BACKGROUND AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARYICAHN CHARTER SCHOOL 4

BACKGROUND

The SUNY Trustees approved the original charter for Icahn 4 on September 19, 2008. The school opened its doors in the fall of 2009 initially serving 109 students in Kindergarten – 2nd grade. The school is authorized to serve 324 students in Kindergarten – 8th grade during the 2018-19 school year and, if renewed, will continue to serve students in Kindergarten – 8th grade with an enrollment of 324 students.

The current charter term expires on July 31, 2019. A subsequent charter term would enable the school to operate through July 31, 2024. The school is located in privately leased space at 1500 Pelham Parkway, Bronx, NY in New York City Community School District (“CSD”) 11.

The school’s mission states:

The mission of Icahn Charter School 4 is to use the Core Knowledge curriculum, developed by E.D. Hirsch, to provide students with a rigorous academic program offered in an extended day/year setting. Students will graduate armed with the skills and knowledge to participate successfully in the most rigorous academic environments, and will have a sense of personal and community responsibility.

Icahn 4 is one of seven schools in the Icahn Charter Schools network (“Icahn network” or the “network”). SUNY authorizes all seven Icahn network affiliated schools. Each Icahn charter school is an independent not-for-profit education corporation. All Icahn network charter schools partner with the Foundation for a Greater Opportunity, a Delaware not-for-profit corporation based in New York City, which provides facilities and other business supports. Icahn Charter School 1 (“Icahn 1”) formally employs network staff including a superintendent of schools as well as financial, human resources, and other back office staff. Each of the remaining six Icahn charter schools enters into a mutually beneficial agreement with Icahn 1 to share the cost of personnel and services across the network. In addition, the network assists in the implementation of the core academic program. Network leaders oversee day-to-day school operations in addition to coaching and evaluating school principals.

SBSCHOOL

BACKGROUND

ESEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Icahn 4

7



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Icahn 4 is an academic success having met its Accountability Plan goals. Icahn 4 demonstrates success in the following ways:

• Over the charter term, Icahn 4 has outperformed the district in English language arts (“ELA”), more than doubling the district’s proficiency rate of 37% in 2017-18 when 80% of Icahn 4 students performed at or above proficiency in ELA. Notably, the school more than doubled its own percentage of students scoring at or above proficiency from 2013-14 to 2017-18. Icahn 4 exceeded its effect size target in each year of the charter term, performing higher than expected to a large degree in comparison to schools across the state enrolling similar percentages of economically disadvantaged students.

• Icahn 4 exceeded its absolute target of 75% students achieving proficiency in mathematics in all five years of its charter term. In 2017-18, 83% of Icahn 4 students performed at or above proficiency in mathematics outperforming the district by more than 50 percentage points and outperforming 96% of schools statewide.

• Icahn 4 students with disabilities outperformed their district peers proficiency rates in ELA by 44 percentage points in 2017-18.

• In each year of the charter term, Icahn 4 met its science Accountability Plan goal with 100% of 4th and 8th graders scoring at or above proficient in 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2016-17.

• Icahn 4 has significantly low discipline rates, producing less than one percent of in-school and out-of-school suspensions over the charter term, which the school leader attributes to the school’s ongoing focus on social emotional learning (“SEL”) reinforced daily through the Move this World SEL curriculum.

During this charter term, Icahn 4 refined and supplemented the school’s curriculum to ensure teachers deliver a consistent academic program across and within grade levels. The school also equips parents with resources and content knowledge to support students with the academic program at home. Additionally, the school’s principal effectively develops the competencies of the teaching staff through a comprehensive professional development program that leverages the strengths of veteran teachers. As a result, the school has met its Accountability Plan goals during the charter term.

SBSCHOOL

BACKGROUND

ESEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Icahn 4

8



Based on the Institute’s review of the school’s performance as posted over the charter term; a review of the Application for Charter Renewal submitted by the school; a review of academic, organizational, governance, and financial documentation; and a renewal visit to the school, the Institute finds that the school meets the required criteria for charter renewal.

The Institute recommends that the SUNY Trustees grant Icahn 4 a Subsequent Full-Term Renewal of five years.

NOTEWORTHY

In 2016, The U.S. Department of Education recognized Icahn 4 as a National Blue Ribbon Award School, which is granted to schools across the United States based on a school’s overall academic excellence and progress in closing the achievement gaps among student subgroups. Additionally, in 2014 and 2016, New York State gave Icahn 4 the Reward school designation. New York State issues Reward school designation to schools that rank in the top 20 percent of schools statewide based on mathematics and ELA state test scores.

SBSCHOOL

BACKGROUND

ESEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Icahn 4

9



Icahn 4

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCEIS THE SCHOOL AN ACADEMIC SUCCESS?Icahn 4 is an academic success as the school met its Accountability Plan goals each year of its subsequent charter term. The school’s strong academic program supported by the Icahn network ensures teachers and leaders have ample support to deliver a high quality program.

The Act outlines the requirement that authorizers “change from rule-based to performance-based accountability systems by holding [charter] schools . . . accountable for meeting measurable student achievement results.”5 As described in this report, Icahn 4 has satisfied the requirements of the Act as well as the SUNY Renewal Policies6 as it has posted consistently strong outcomes as measured by performance on state assessments. This performance indicates Icahn 4’s curriculum, assessment system, instructional design and leadership combine into a demonstrably successful implementation of Icahn’s model. The strength of that model, detailed in Appendix E, along with the strong and sustained student performance outcomes at Icahn 4 provide the foundation for the Institute’s analysis that: 1) the school posts sufficient evidence to support the conclusion it meets the academic and organizational criteria called for in the SUNY Renewal Benchmarks; and, 2) the school’s strong performance merits a five-year renewal recommendation.

At the beginning of the Accountability Period,7 the school developed and adopted an Accountability Plan that set academic goals in the key subjects of ELA and mathematics. For each goal in the Accountability Plan, specific outcome measures define the level of performance necessary to meet that goal. The Institute examines results for five required Accountability Plan measures to determine ELA and mathematics goal attainment. Because the Act requires charters be held “accountable for meeting measurable student achievement results”8 and states the educational programs at a charter school must “meet or exceed the student performance standards adopted by the board of regents”9 for other public schools, SUNY’s required accountability measures rest on performance as measured by state wide assessments. Historically, SUNY’s required measures include measures that present schools’:

COMPARATIVE PERFOR-MANCE, I.E., HOW DID THE SCHOOL DO AS COMPARED TO SCHOOLS IN THE DISTRICT AND SCHOOLS THAT SERVE SIMILAR POPULATIONS OF ECO- NOMICALLY DISADVAN-TAGED STUDENTS?

ABSOLUTE PERFORMANCE, I.E., WHAT PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS SCORE AT A CERTAIN PROFICIENCY ON STATE EXAMS?

GROWTH PERFORMANCE, I.E., HOW MUCH DID THE SCHOOL GROW STUDENT PERFORMANCE AS COMPARED TO THE GROWTH OF SIMILARLY SITUATED STUDENTS?

5. Education Law § 2850(2)(f).

6. SUNY Renewal Policies

(pp. 12-15).

7. Because the SUNY Trustees

make a renewal decision

before student achievement

results for the final year

of a charter term become

available, the Accountability

Period ends with the school

year prior to the final year

of the charter term. For a

school in a subsequent charter

term, the Accountability

Period covers the final year

of the previous charter term

and ends with the school

year prior to the final year

of the current charter term.

In this renewal report, the

Institute uses “charter term”

and “Accountability Period”

interchangeably.

8. Education Law § 2850(2)(f).

9. Education Law § 2854(1)(d).

?

AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE

10



Every SUNY authorized charter school has the opportunity to propose additional measures of success when crafting its Accountability Plan. Icahn 4 did not include any additional measures of success in the Accountability Plan it adopted.

The Institute analyzes every measure included in the school’s Accountability Plan to determine its level of academic success including the extent to which the school has established and maintained a record of high performance, and established progress toward meeting its academic Accountability Plan goals throughout the initial charter term. Since 2009, the Institute has examined but consistently de-emphasized the two absolute measures under each goal in elementary and middle schools’ Accountability Plans because of changes to the state’s assessment system. The analysis of elementary and middle school performance continues to focus primarily on the two comparative measures and the growth measure while also considering the two required absolute measures and any additional evidence the school presents using additional measures identified in its Accountability Plan. The Institute identifies the required measures (absolute proficiency, absolute measure of interim progress attainment, comparison to local district, comparison to demographically similar schools, and student growth) in the Performance Summaries appearing in Appendix B.

The Institute analyzes all measures under the school’s ELA and mathematics goals while emphasizing the school’s comparative performance and growth to determine goal attainment The Institute calculates a comparative effect size to measure the performance of Icahn 4 relative to all public schools statewide that serve the same grade levels and that enroll students who are similarly economically disadvantaged. It is important to note that this measure is a comparison measure and therefore any changes in New York’s assessment system do not compromise its validity or reliability. Further, the school’s performance on the measure is not relative to the test, but relative to the strength of Icahn 4’s demonstrated student learning compared to other schools’ demonstrated student learning. Notwithstanding the validity of the measures within a given school year, it is important to recognize changes in the administration of the state exams and cautiously interpret year over year trends in achievement scores.

The Institute uses the state’s growth percentile analysis as a measure of Icahn 4’s comparative year-to-year growth in student performance on the state’s ELA and mathematics exams. The measure compares a school’s growth in assessment scores to the growth in assessment scores of the subset of students throughout the state who performed identically on previous years’ assessments. According to this measure, median growth statewide is at the 50th percentile. This means that to signal the school’s ability to help students make one year’s worth of growth in one year’s time the expected percentile performance is 50. To signal a school is increasing students’ performance above their peers (students statewide who scored previously at the same level), the school must post a percentile performance that exceeds 50.

AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE

Icahn 4

11



The Accountability Plan also includes a science goal and a goal for performance under the former the No Child Left Behind (“NCLB”), accountability system, which will be replaced by Every Student Succeeds Act (“ESSA”) goals in the future.

HAS THE SCHOOL MET OR COME CLOSE TO MEETING ITS ACADEMIC ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN GOALS?

Icahn 4 met its key academic Accountability Plan goals in ELA, mathematics, and science throughout its second charter term. The school demonstrates commendable absolute achievement while also exceeding the target for all its comparative measures over the charter term. In 2017-18, the school outperformed 96% of schools statewide in ELA and mathematics.

Icahn 4 demonstrated strong performance in ELA over its charter term, meeting its Accountability Plan goal each year. The school’s students enrolled in at least their second year posted proficiency rates on the state’s ELA exam that surpassed the district in every year of the term. Commendably in 2017-18, with 80% of its students enrolled in at least their second year scoring at or above proficiency, Icahn 4 exceeded the absolute target of 75% by five percentage points and the district comparison target by 43 percentage points. The school also posted strong performance on its effect size measure, exceeding the target of 0.3 during every year. From 2013-14 through 2017-18, Icahn 4 performed higher than expected to a large degree in comparison to schools enrolling similar proportions of economically disadvantaged students statewide. Although the school posted growth scores slightly below the target in 2013-14 and 2016-17, Icahn 4 exceeded its growth target of 50 during the majority of the charter term.

Icahn 4 also met its mathematics goal throughout the charter term, exceeding the target for all absolute and comparative measures included in its Accountability Plan each year. From 2013-14 through 2017-18, the school’s students enrolled in at least their second year posted proficiency rates on the state’s mathematics exam above the absolute target of 75%. Icahn 4 also outperformed the district each year by at least 53 percentage points. In comparison to schools across New York state enrolling similar percentages of students who are economically disadvantaged, the school performed higher than expected to a large degree every year of the term. Icahn 4 also demonstrated consistently strong growth over the charter term. In four of the five years of the charter term, the school posted mean growth percentiles that exceeded the target of 50.

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK: GOALS

AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE

Icahn 4

12



Icahn 4 met its science goal throughout the charter term. Each year, the school posted proficiency rates that exceeded the absolute target of 75% scoring at or above proficiency. The school also exceeded the district’s performance every year. Notably during 2016-17, 100% of the school’s students in 4th and 8th grade scored at or above proficiency, exceeding the absolute target by 25 percentage points and the district’s performance by 37 percentage points. Further, Icahn 4’s students enrolled in at least their second year posted proficiency rates of 100% of the state’s science exam in three of the five years during its charter term.

Icahn 4 remained in good standing under the state’s accountability system throughout its charter term.

AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE

Icahn 412

13




AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE

ICAHN CHARTER SCHOOL 4

0

50

100

Target: 75

TestYear

CompGrades

District%

School%

2014 3-6

2015 3-7

2016 3-8

2017 3-8

2018 3-8

4021

4921

8129

6832

8037

Compara�ve Measure:District Comparison. Eachyear, the percentage ofstudents at the school in atleast their second yearperforming at or aboveproficiency in ELA will begreater than that of studentsin the same tested grades inthe district.

0

1

2

3

Target: 0.3

TestYear

TestGrades Effect Size

2014 3-6

2015 3-7

2016 3-8

2017 3-8

2018 3-8

1.51

2.34

3.11

2.23

2.34

40

60

Target: 50

TestYear School Mean Growth

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018 53.6

41.4

69.3

60.9

44.8

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN GOAL

Compara�ve Measure:Effect Size. Each year, theschool will exceed itspredicted level ofperformance by an effectsize of 0.3 or above in ELAaccording to a regressionanalysis controlling foreconomically disadvantagedstudents among all publicschools in New York State.

Compara�ve GrowthMeasure: Mean GrowthPercen�le. Each year, theschool's unadjusted meangrowth percen�le for allstudents in grades 4-8 will beabove the state's unadjustedmedian growth percen�le inELA.

Icahn Charter School 4 Bronx CSD 11

*

*This draft effect size is based on preliminary data available for 2017-18.

Icahn 4

14




AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE


0

50

100

Target: 75

TestYear

CompGrades

District%

School%

2014 3-6

2015 3-7

2016 3-8

2017 3-8

2018 3-8

8529

8027

9026

8726

8330

MATHEMATICS ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN GOAL


0

1

2

3

Target: 0.3

TestYear

TestGrades Effect Size

2014 3-6

2015 3-7

2016 3-8

2017 3-8

2018 3-8

2.91

2.91

3.04

2.87

2.34

40

60

Target: 50

TestYear School Mean Growth

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018 42.5

55.9

67.4

53.7

59.7

*

*This draft effect size is based on preliminary data available for 2017-18.

Compara�ve Measure:District Comparison. Eachyear, the percentage ofstudents at the school in atleast their second yearperforming at or aboveproficiency in mathema�cswill be greater than that ofstudents in the same testedgrades in the district.

Compara�ve Measure: EffectSize. Each year, the schoolwill exceed its predicted levelof performance by an effectsize of 0.3 or above inMathema�cs according to aregression analysis controllingfor economicallydisadvantaged studentsamong all public schools inNew York State.

Compara�ve GrowthMeasure: Mean GrowthPercen�le. Each year, theschool's unadjusted meangrowth percen�le for allstudents in grades 4-8 will beabove the state's unadjustedmedian growth percen�le inMathema�cs.

Icahn 4

15




AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE


Science: Compara�veMeasure. Each year, thepercentage of students at theschool in at least their secondyear performing at or aboveproficiency in science willexceed that of students in thesame tested grades in thedistrict.

TestYear District % School %

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

10081

10081

9863

10063

96

50

100

SCIENCE ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN GOAL

2016 2017 2018Enrollment Receiving Mandated AcademicServices

Tested on State Exam

School Percent Proficient on ELA Exam

District Percent Proficient 10.2

53.8

13

26

7.2

40.0

15

23

5.9

45.0

20

28

SPECIAL POPULATIONS PERFORMANCE

The academic outcome data about the performance of students receiving special educa�on services and ELLs above is not�ed to separate goals in the school's formal Accountability Plan.

The NYSESLAT, the New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test, is a standardized state exam.

"Making Progress" is defined as moving up at least one level of proficiency. Student scores fall into fivecategories/proficiency levels: Entering; Emerging; Transi�oning; Expanding; and, Commanding.

In order to comply with Family Educa�onal Rights and Privacy Act regula�ons on repor�ng educa�on outcome data, theIns�tute does not report assessment results for groups containing five or fewer students and indicates this with an "s."

2016 2017 2018

ELL Enrollment

Tested on NYSESLAT Exam

School Percent 'Commanding' or MakingProgress on NYSESLAT 14.3

7

7

s

2

2

1

1

Bronx CSD 11Icahn Charter School 4

s

Target: 75

65

Icahn 4

16



ACADEMIC PROGRAM SUMMARY

Icahn 4’s key levers for building a successful program and sustaining an impressive academic performance include strong instructional leadership, effective professional development, and a consistent focus on using student data to adjust instruction.

During this charter term, Icahn 4 teachers refined the school’s curriculum, developed unit plans that are shared across grade level teams, and developed content guides to help parents support their students at home. Across all classrooms, teachers implement effective and engaging instructional techniques. Teachers consistently deliver instruction that targets specific skill deficits through small group instruction techniques. Teachers regularly utilize technology in the classroom to create engaging classroom environments and maximize the time teachers work with students struggling academically.

Icahn 4 teachers participate in a robust professional development program and collaborate regularly with other teachers both within Icahn 4 and across the Icahn network. In addition to network provided professional development, the principal provides a multifaceted in-house coaching and development program, as well as sends teachers to external trainings when appropriate. The leader strategically develops a school schedule that provides multiple opportunities per week for teachers to plan together and observe peer classrooms. When necessary, the leader will deploy experienced teachers to observe more frequently or work one-on-one during planning time with teachers who need additional support. As another layer of development, the school’s principal films teacher observations and provides the video with feedback to teachers to review after each observation. Through this process the school has established a video library of best practices the leader can use to support teachers who are struggling in specific areas. Another component of the professional development program is weekly professional learning communities that use an online platform to facilitate academic conversations among teachers across grade levels.

Icahn 4’s frequent analysis of student data contributes to the school’s strong academic performance. Grade level teams review data biweekly to understand students’ skill deficits and areas of strength. Teachers share this information with at-risk program teachers and use it to inform weekly lesson planning. Another component of this analysis takes place during weekly data action planning meetings between teachers and leaders. During these meetings, teachers and leaders create classroom action plans for remediating skill deficits. Leaders

AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE

Icahn 4

17



AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE

share classroom action plans with targeted assistance teachers and include the specific support they will provide to students identified to receive additional academic support. For students with Individualized Education Programs (“IEPs”), Icahn 4 provides mandated services such as special education teacher support services (“SETSS”) and related services. To meet the needs of ELL students, an English to speakers of other languages teacher delivers small group instruction through pull out and push in services as mandated by students’ proficiency levels from the NYSESLAT and New York State Identification Test for English Language Learners (“NYSITELL”).

The Icahn network leverages its multiple schools to allow students the opportunity to compete against one another in academic challenges. In 2017-18, the network held its first STEAM fair where students created science and technology based projects. Icahn 4 took home five of the seven grade level awards for the entire network.

Please refer to Appendix E for additional information on the Icahn 4 program model and how it meets the demands of the SUNY Renewal Benchmarks.

Icahn 4

18



ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCEIS THE SCHOOL AN EFFECTIVE, VIABLE ORGANIZATION? Icahn 4 is an organizational success. The network and school based operational teams support with all administrative aspects of the school allowing the principal to focus on instruction. The board provides effective oversight to ensure the school is operationally and fiscally sound.

IS THE SCHOOL FAITHFUL TO ITS MISSION AND DOES IT IMPLEMENT THE KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS INCLUDED IN ITS CHARTER?

Icahn 4 is faithful to its mission and key design elements. These can be found in the School Background section at the beginning of the report and appendix A, respectively. The school consistently values parent voice through the school’s parent teacher association as well as reserving a seat on the board for a parent representative.

ARE PARENTS/GUARDIANS AND STUDENTS SATISFIED WITH THE SCHOOL?

To report on parent satisfaction with the school’s program, the Institute used satisfaction survey data, information gathered from a focus group of parents representing a cross section of students, and data regarding persistence in enrollment.

Parent Survey Data. The Institute compiled data from Icahn 4’s 2017-18 family survey. Icahn 4 creates and distributes a family satisfaction survey every year to compile data about school culture, instruction, and systems for improvement. In 2017-18, 100% of families who received the survey responded. All respondents (100%) indicated satisfaction with the school, and the response rate is sufficient to be useful in framing the results as representative of the school community.

Parent Focus Group. The Institute asks all schools facing renewal to convene a representative set of parents for a focus group discussion. A representative set includes parents of students in attendance at the school for multiple years, parents of students new to the school, parents of students receiving general education services, parents of students with special needs, and parents of ELLs. The 16 parents in attendance at the focus group expressed satisfaction in the

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK: MISSION

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK : SATISFACTION

OgORGANIZATIONAL

PfPERFORMANCE

?

Icahn 4

19



school’s program, emphasizing the supports all students receive both academically and social emotionally to be successful. Parents appreciate the high expectations the school sets for staff, students, and families, and also find the classroom syllabi and parent workshops to be useful resources for understanding the content their students are learning.

Persistence in Enrollment. An additional indicator of parent satisfaction is persistence in enrollment. In 2017-18, 96% of Icahn 4 students returned from the previous year. Student persistence data from previous years of the charter term is available in Appendix A.

The Institute derived the statistical information on persistence in enrollment from its database. No comparative data from the New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE”) or the New York State Education Department (“NYSED”) is available to the Institute to provide

either district or state wide context.

DOES THE BOARD IMPLEMENT, MAINTAIN, AND ABIDE BY APPROPRIATE POLICIES, SYSTEMS, AND PROCESSES?

The board implements, maintains, and abides by adequate and appropriate policies, systems, and processes to ensure the effective governance and oversight of the school. The board demonstrates a thorough understanding of its role in holding the network and school leadership accountable for both academic results and fiscal soundness.

• Due to the education corporation trustees’ common oversight of multiple charter schools, the board has vast oversight experience and thoroughly understands the difference between management and oversight.

• The Icahn 4 board generally avoids creating conflicts of interest where possible, and where conflicts exist, the board has managed those conflicts in a clear and transparent manner.

• The board effectively uses legal counsel when warranted.

• The board materially complies with the provisions in its by-laws.

• The Icahn network shared leadership team provides necessary academic and fiscal information regarding Icahn 4 to the board regularly at each board meeting.

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK: POLICIES

OgORGANIZATIONAL

PfPERFORMANCE

Icahn 4

20



HAS THE SCHOOL SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH APPLICABLE LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND PROVISIONS OF ITS CHARTER?

Based on the evidence available at the time of the renewal visit and throughout the current charter term, in material respects, Icahn 4 has been in general and substantial compliance with the terms of its charter, applicable state and federal law, rules, and regulations with certain, minor exceptions.

• Compliance. The Institute issued no violation letters during the charter term, nor was the school placed on probation or corrective plan.

• Complaints. The Institute received no formal complaints regarding the school. The school’s complaint policy is in need of some minor updates to track the Institute’s latest requirements. The Institute will ensure that the education corporation comes to compliance before the start of the next charter term.

• Board Meeting Attendance. As Education Law § 226(4) creates a vacancy on the board when any trustee fails to attend three consecutive meetings without excuse acceptable to the board, the Institute recommends, as a best practice, that such acceptance be noted in the minutes when any such trustee next attends a meeting.

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK: COMPLIANCE

OgORGANIZATIONAL

PfPERFORMANCE

Icahn 4

21



FISCAL PERFORMANCEIS THE EDUCATION CORPORATION FISCALLY SOUND?Based on review of the fiscal evidence collected through the renewal review, Icahn 4 is fiscally sound. The SUNY Fiscal Dashboard presents color coded tables and charts indicating that the education corporation has demonstrated fiscal soundness over the majority of the charter term.10

DOES THE SCHOOL OPERATE PURSUANT TO A FISCAL PLAN IN WHICH IT CREATES REALISTIC BUDGETS THAT IT MONITORS AND ADJUSTS WHEN APPROPRIATE?

Icahn 4 has sufficient financial resources to ensure stable operations and has maintained fiscal soundness through conservative budgeting practices, routine monitoring of revenues and expenses, and by making appropriate adjustments when necessary.

• The Icahn network’s deputy superintendent of finance and operations, and accountants develop annual budgets in collaboration with the school’s principal, key staff members, and members of the education corporation board. The network and other business office staff members routinely analyze budget variances and discuss material variances with the principal and board as necessary.

• The next charter term projection reflects steady enrollment and stable budgets.

• The financial function is largely centralized among all seven Icahn network charter schools. The positions of superintendent, deputy superintendent, accountants, facility manager, and human resources manager are considered shared services. This helps to ensure that the education corporation consistently applies fiscal policies and procedures. Icahn 1 pays the compensation for these shared service positions (including salary, bonus, and benefits), but the expenses are allocated among all of the schools in the Icahn network, based on student enrollment, and reimbursements are made to Icahn 1.

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK: BUDGETS

10. The U.S. Department of

Education has established

fiscal criteria for certain

ratios or information with

high – medium – low

categories, represented

in the table as green –

gray – red. The categories

generally correspond to

levels of fiscal risk, but must

be viewed in the context of

each education corporation

and the general type or

category of school.

FcFISCAL

PfPERFORMANCE

?

Icahn 4

22



DOES THE SCHOOL MAINTAIN APPROPRIATE INTERNAL CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES?

Icahn 4 generally establishes and maintains appropriate fiscal policies, procedures, and internal controls.

• Written policies address key issues including financial reporting, cash disbursements and receipts, payroll, bank reconciliations, fixed assets, grants/contributions, capitalization and accounting, procurement, and investments.

• Icahn 4 has accurately recorded and appropriately documented transactions in accordance with established policies.

• The Icahn network works with the principal, key staff, and the board to help ensure that the school follows established policies and procedures.

• Icahn 4’s most recent audit report of internal control over financial reporting related to financial reporting and on compliance and other matters disclosed no material weaknesses or instances of non-compliance that were required to be reported.

DOES THE SCHOOL COMPLY WITH FINANCIAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS?

Icahn 4 complies with reporting requirements.

• Icahn 4’s annual financial statements are presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and the independent audits of those statements have received unqualified opinions.

• Icahn 4’s independent auditor meets with the board to discuss the annual financial statements and answer any questions about the process and results.

• The school submitted the audited financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2018 to the Institute by the November 1, 2018 due date. The Institute is in the process of reviewing the school’s audited financial statements at the time of this report.

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK: INTERNAL CONTROLS

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK : FINANCIALREPORTING

FcFISCAL

PfPERFORMANCE

Icahn 4

23



DOES THE SCHOOL MAINTAIN ADEQUATE FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO ENSURE STABLE OPERATIONS?

Icahn 4 maintains adequate financial resources to ensure stable operations.

• Icahn 4 posts a fiscally strong composite score rating on the Institute’s financial dashboard indicating a consistent level of fiscal stability over the charter term.

• Icahn 4 has relied primarily on recurring operating revenues and accumulated surpluses to cover any operating deficits and does not depend upon variable income for its financial needs. The education corporation meets program needs without budgetary restraints.

• Icahn 4’s facility is provided for free by Inwood Opportunity, an organization affiliated with the board chair. As Icahn 4 does not pay rent, no prohibited conflict exists. The fair market value of cost savings associated with such arrangement, which totaled approximately $789,000 (auditor estimated) for fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, was recognized as revenue in the financial statements.

• Icahn 4 prepares and monitors cash flow projections and maintains sufficient cash on hand to pay current bills and those that are due shortly and retains a healthy 3.4 months of cash on hand. Icahn 4 maintains a healthy balance sheet with net assets in excess of $1.4 million.

• As required by the charter agreement, Icahn 4 has established a separate bank account for the dissolution fund reserve of $75,000.

FcFISCAL

PfPERFORMANCE

Icahn 4

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK: OPERATIONS

24



FUTURE PLANS

FPFUTURE PLANS

IF THE SUNY TRUSTEES RENEW THE EDUCATION CORPORATION’S AUTHORITY TO OPERATE THE SCHOOL, ARE ITS PLANS FOR THE SCHOOL REASONABLE, FEASIBLE, AND ACHIEVABLE?The education corporation’s plans for the school are reasonable, feasible, and achievable. Icahn 4 plans to continue to serve students in Kindergarten – 8th grade in the next charter term.

Plans for the School’s Structure. The education corporation has provided all of the key structural elements for a charter renewal and those elements are reasonable, feasible, and achievable.

Plans for the Educational Program. Icahn 4 plans to continue to implement the same core elements of its educational program for students in Kindergarten – 8th grade that enabled the school to meet or come close to meeting its key Accountability Plan goals in the current charter term. These elements are likely to enable the school to meet or exceed its academic goals in the next charter term.

Plans for Board Oversight & Governance. Current board members express interest in continuing to serve Icahn 4 in the next charter term.

Fiscal & Facility Plans. Based on evidence collected through the renewal review including a review of the five year financial plan, Icahn 4 presents a reasonable and appropriate fiscal plan for the next charter term including budgets that are feasible and achievable.

?

END OF NEXT CHARTER TERM

Enrollment 324 324

Grade Span K-8 K-8

Teaching Staff 29 29

Days of Instruction 192 192

CURRENT

Icahn 4

25



The school intends to continue instruction in their existing facility, which is provided for free by Inwood Opportunity, LLC, an organization affiliated with the board chair. As Icahn 4 does not pay the $789,000 (auditor estimated) rent, no prohibited conflict exists. The building also houses Icahn Charter School 3 and Icahn Charter School 5, which separately account for their rent donations.

The school’s Application for Charter Renewal contains all necessary elements as required by the Act. The proposed school calendar allots an appropriate amount of instructional time to meet or exceed instructional time requirements, and taken together with other academic and key design elements, should be sufficient to allow the school to meet its proposed Accountability Plan goals.

FPFUTURE PLANS

Icahn 4

Icahn 4

PSB

PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES

PAGE Ax 7

SOA

SCHOOL OVERVIEW

PAGE Ax 1

DCC

DISTRICT COMMENTS

PAGE Ax 9

FDD

FISCAL DASHBOARD

PAGE Ax 10

PAGES Ax 1-31

AxAPPENDICES

Icahn 4

PSB

PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES

PAGE Ax 6

SOA

SCHOOL OVERVIEW

PAGE Ax 1

DCC

DISTRICT COMMENTS

PAGE Ax 8

FDD

FISCAL DASHBOARD

PAGE Ax 9

EOE

ED CORP OVERVIEW

PAGE Ax 13

1Ax-


353 Broadway Albany, NY 12246

APPENDIX A: School Overview

Gail Golden Diane Fellows Seymour Fliegel Karen Mandelbaum Robert Sancho Edward Shanahan

TRUSTEESCHAIR

SCHOOL LEADERS

Michelle Allen, Principal (2010-11 to Present) Betzaida Franco, Principal (2009-10)

PRINCIPAL

SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS

PROPOSED GRADES

ACTUAL GRADES

2014-15 288 286 99% K-7 K-7

2015-16 324 316 98% K-8 K-8

2016-17 324 323 99% K-8 K-8

2017-18 324 319 98% K-8 K-8 2018-19 324 314 97% K-8 K-8

ACTUAL ENROLLMENT

SCHOOL YEAR

CHARTERED ENROLLMENT

ACTUAL AS A PERCENTAGE

OF CHARTERED ENROLLMENT

Icahn 4

ICAHN CHARTER SCHOOL 4 BOARD OF TRUSTEES

2Ax-



2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

EnglishLanguageLearners

Students withDisabili�es

510

15

51015

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

EconomicallyDisadvantaged

Eligible forReduced PriceLunch

Eligible forFree Lunch

50

100

50

100

50

100

2017-182015-16 2016-17

District

School

District

School

11.09.8

0.60.3 2.2

20.520.9

7.38.8 8.1

Student Demographics: Special Popula�ons

Student Demographics: Free/Reduced Lunch

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

District

School

District

School

District

School

74.173.6

73.871.872.3

4.64.8

11.19.1

69.268.5

58.954.1

2015-16

2016-17

Asian, Na�veHawaiian, or

PacificIslander

Black orAfrican

American

Hispanic White

2017-18

District

School 134611

940418

Student Demographics: Race/Ethnicity

District

School 134602

1040408

Asian,Na�ve

Hawaiian,or PacificIslander

Black orAfrican

American

Hispanic White

District

School 232613



Icahn 4

3Ax-




2016 2017 2018

0

25

% o

f stu

dent

s sus

pend

ed

School ISS Rate School OSS Rate

2016

2017

2018 0.0

0.3

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

92.7

94.1

96.4

Persistence in Enrollment: The percentage ofstudents eligible to return from previous year

who did return 2016 2017 2018

000

Expulsions: The number of students expelled fromthe school each year

Enrollment

economicallydisadvantagedEnglish languagelearnersstudents withdisabili�es

Reten�on

economicallydisadvantagedEnglish languagelearnersstudents withdisabili�es

Icahn Charter School 4's Enrollment and Reten�on Status:2017-18 District Target School

7.5

13.5

70.1

17.1

9.3

85.6

94.7

100.0

96.0

92.0

91.3

91.7

CSD data suitable for comparison are not available. The percentage rate shown here is calculated using the method employed by theNew York City Department of Educa�on ("NYCDOE"): the total number of students receiving an in school or out of school suspensionat any �me during the school year is divided by the total enrollment, then mul�plied by 100.


Icahn 4

4Ax-



PARENT SATISFACTION: SURVEY RESULTS

RESPONSE RATE

100%OVERALL

SATISFACTION

100%COMMUNICATION

100%HIGH

EXPECTATIONS

100%


SCHOOL VISIT HISTORY

CONDUCT OF THE RENEWAL VISIT

DATE2009-10 First Year Visit March 9, 2010

2011-12 Evaluation Visit May 9-10, 2012

2012-13 Initial Renewal Visit June 12-13, 2013

2018-19 Subsequent Renewal Visit September 28, 2018

VISIT TYPESCHOOL YEAR

TITLE

September 28, 2018Hannah Hansen School Evaluation Analyst

Michelle Bianchi Director of Charter School Information

EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERSDATE(S) OF VISIT

TIMELINE OF CHARTER SCHOOL RENEWAL

Icahn 4

ENVIRONMENT

100%

5Ax-



KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS:

ELEMENT EVIDENT?

Curriculum based on the Core Knowledge Sequence; +A robust remediation program including a Saturday academy, and after school program, targeted assistance for students at risk of academic failure, and a mentor program; +Enrichment opportunities including an extended school day and summer camp; +A school culture focused on the enjoyment of hard work, the promotion of good character and respect for learning; +Encouraging parental involvement through a parent teacher association and the placement of one parent on the school board, as well as strongly encouraging parents to enter into a contract with the school each year; +A commitment to providing the bulk of special education and related services to our students at our school facility; +A commitment to fiscal stability through budgeting conservatively and provide a surplus year after year; +Effectively using data by employing a director of assessment, who collects and organizes student performance data, and facilitates its use in instructional decision making among teachers; and, +A robust professional development system including a full time staff developer, who works with staff members and the director of assessment to ensure that support for high student performance is maximized, and a relationship with outside agencies that provide support in English language arts and mathematics.

+


Icahn 4

6Ax-



APPENDIX B: Performance SummariesIn

INTRODUCTION

1Te

xt47

:Ic

ahn

Char

ter S

choo

l 4SC

HOO

L PE

RFO

RMAN

CE S

UMM

ARY:

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Arts

ABSO

LUTE

MEA

SURE

S1.

Each

yea

r 75

perc

ent o

f stu

dent

sw

ho a

re e

nrol

led

in a

t lea

st th

eir

seco

nd y

ear w

ill pe

rform

at p

rofic

ienc

yon

the

New

Yor

k St

ate

exam

.

2. E

ach

year

the

scho

ol’s

agg

rega

te

Perfo

rman

ce L

evel

Inde

x on

the

Stat

e ex

amw

illm

eett

heAn

nual

Mea

sura

ble

Obj

ectiv

e se

t for

th in

the

Stat

e’s

ac

coun

tabi

lity

syst

em.

3.Ea

ch y

ear t

he p

erce

nt o

f stu

dent

sen

rolle

d in

at l

east

thei

r sec

ond

year

and

perfo

rmin

g at

pro

ficie

ncy

will

begr

eate

r tha

n th

at o

f stu

dent

s in

the

sam

e gr

ades

in th

e lo

cal d

istri

ct.

COM

PARA

TIVE

MEA

SURE

S

4.Ea

ch y

ear t

he s

choo

l will

exce

ed it

spr

edic

ted

perc

ent o

f stu

dent

s at

prof

icie

ncy

on th

e st

ate

exam

by

atle

ast a

sm

all E

ffect

Siz

e (a

t lea

st 0

.3)

base

d on

its

perc

enta

ge o

fEc

onom

ical

ly D

isad

vant

aged

stu

dent

s.

5. E

ach

year

, the

sch

ool's

una

djus

ted

mea

ngr

owth

perc

entil

ew

illm

eeto

r ex

ceed

the

targ

et o

f 50.

GRO

WTH

MEA

SURE

All

Stud

ents

% (N

)

2+ Y

ears

St

uden

ts%

(N)

MET

Gra

des

AMO

PLI

104

178

YES

YES

81.3

28.9

YES

Scho

olDi

stric

tG

rade

s

3-8

Gra

des

91.2

Pred

icte

dEf

fect

Si

zeAc

tual

81.2

31.5

3.11

YES

Com

paris

on:

Bron

x D

istri

ct11

3-8

3 4 5 6 7 8 All

66.7

69.7

91.2

92.6

80.0

81.2

(34)

(39)

(33)

(34)

(27)

(30)

(197

)

90.9

66.7

67.7

91.2

92.0

82.1

81.3

(33)

(36)

(31)

(34)

(25)

(28)

(187

)

2015

-16

Gra

des

Serv

ed:K

-8

% E

D

71.5

Gra

des

4 5 6 7 8 All

Scho

olSt

ate

YES

52.3

67.0

87.2

70.3

71.6

69.3

50.0

All

Stud

ents

% (N

)

2+ Y

ears

St

uden

ts%

(N)

MET

Gra

des

AMO

PLI

2016

-17

111

167

NO YES

68.4

32.4

YES

Scho

olDi

stric

tG

rade

s

3-8

Gra

des

64.9

Pred

icte

dEf

fect

Si

zeAc

tual

70.0

32.8

2.21

YES

Com

paris

on:

Bron

x D

istri

ct11

3-8

3 4 5 6 7 8 All

94.1

54.1

75.0

63.6

70.4

70.0

(37)

(34)

(37)

(32)

(33)

(27)

(200

)

62.5

93.8

51.4

72.4

63.6

69.2

68.4

(32)

(32)

(35)

(29)

(33)

(26)

(187

)

Gra

des

Serv

ed: K

-8

% E

D

72.5

Gra

des

4 5 6 7 8 All

Scho

olSt

ate

41.4

NO50

.0

47.5

51.2

51.2

26.8

26.7

All

Stud

ents

% (N

)

2+ Y

ears

St

uden

ts%

(N)

MET

Gra

des

MIP

PLI

2017

-18

196

YES

NA

80.3

37.4

YES

Scho

olDi

stric

tG

rade

s

3-8

Gra

des

75.8

Pred

icte

dEf

fect

Si

zeAc

tual

80.4

38.1

2.33

YES

Com

paris

on:

Bron

x D

istri

ct11

3-8

3 4 5 6 7 8 All

87.9

85.7

66.7

84.4

81.8

80.4

(33)

(33)

(35)

(33)

(32)

(33)

(199

)

77.4

87.9

84.4

63.3

86.2

81.8

80.3

(31)

(33)

(32)

(30)

(29)

(33)

(188

)

Gra

des

Serv

ed: K

-8

% E

D

76.2

Gra

des

4 5 6 7 8 All

Scho

olSt

ate

YES

60.6

53.5

55.8

54.7

43.8

53.6

50.0

Icahn 4

7Ax-



Text

47:

Icah

n Ch

arte

r Sch

ool 4

SCHO

OL

PERF

ORM

ANCE

SUM

MAR

Y: M

athe

mat

ics

ABSO

LUTE

MEA

SURE

S1.

Each

yea

r 75

perc

ent o

f stu

dent

sw

ho a

re e

nrol

led

in a

t lea

st th

eir

seco

nd y

ear w

ill pe

rform

at p

rofic

ienc

yon

the

New

Yor

k St

ate

exam

.

2. E

ach

year

the

scho

ol’s

aggr

egat

e Pe

rform

ance

Lev

el In

dex

onth

e St

ate

exam

will

mee

tthe

Annu

alM

easu

rabl

e O

bjec

tive

set f

orth

in th

e St

ate’

s

acco

unta

bilit

y sy

stem

.

3.Ea

ch y

ear t

he p

erce

nt o

f stu

dent

sen

rolle

d in

at l

east

thei

r sec

ond

year

and

perfo

rmin

g at

pro

ficie

ncy

will

begr

eate

r tha

n th

at o

f stu

dent

s in

the

sam

e gr

ades

in th

e lo

cal d

istri

ct.

COM

PARA

TIVE

MEA

SURE

S

4.Ea

ch y

ear t

he s

choo

l will

exce

ed it

spr

edic

ted

perc

ent o

f stu

dent

s at

prof

icie

ncy

on th

e St

ate

exam

by

atle

ast a

sm

all E

ffect

Size

(at l

east

0.3

)ba

sed

on it

s pe

rcen

tage

of

Econ

omic

ally

Dis

adva

ntag

ed s

tude

nts.

5. E

ach

year

, the

sch

ool's

una

djus

ted

mea

ngr

owth

perc

entil

ew

illm

eeto

r ex

ceed

the

targ

et o

f 50.

GRO

WTH

MEA

SURE

All

Stud

ents

% (N

)

2+ Y

ears

St

uden

ts%

(N)

MET

Gra

des

AMO

PLI

101

188

YES

YES

89.8

25.9

YES

Scho

olDi

stric

tG

rade

s

3-8

Gra

des

85.3

Pred

icte

dEf

fect

Si

zeAc

tual

89.3

31.4

3.04

YES

Com

paris

on:

Bron

x D

istri

ct11

3-8

3 4 5 6 7 8 All

89.5

87.9

97.1

88.9

86.7

89.3

(34)

(38)

(33)

(34)

(27)

(30)

(196

)

87.9

88.6

90.3

97.1

88.0

85.7

89.8

(33)

(35)

(31)

(34)

(25)

(28)

(186

)

2015

-16

Gra

des

Serv

ed:K

-8

% E

D

71.5

Gra

des

4 5 6 7 8 All

Scho

olSt

ate

YES

74.1

53.3

87.2

41.6

75.4

67.4

50.0

2016

-17

All

Stud

ents

% (N

)

2+ Y

ears

St

uden

ts%

(N)

MET

Gra

des

AMO

PLI

186

YES

YES

87.0

26.5

YES

Scho

olDi

stric

tG

rade

s

3-8

Gra

des

78.4

Pred

icte

dEf

fect

Si

zeAc

tual

86.8

32.2

2.86

YES

Com

paris

on:

Bron

x D

istri

ct11

3-8

3 4 5 6 7 8 All

94.1

72.2

100.

090

.988

.086

.8

(37)

(34)

(36)

(32)

(33)

(25)

(197

)

78.1

93.8

73.5

100.

090

.988

.087

.0

(32)

(32)

(34)

(29)

(33)

(25)

(185

)

Gra

des

Serv

ed: K

-8

% E

D

72.4

Gra

des

4 5 6 7 8 All

Scho

olSt

ate

55.9

50.0

YES

80.5

37.2

70.0

31.8

63.2

109

NO

91.42017

-18

All

Stud

ents

% (N

)

2+ Y

ears

St

uden

ts%

(N)

MET

Gra

des

MIP

PLI

208

YES

NA

83.1

30.3

YES

Scho

olDi

stric

tG

rade

s

3-8

Gra

des

82.4

Pred

icte

dEf

fect

Si

zeAc

tual

83.8

35.9

2.34

YES

Com

paris

on:

Bron

x D

istri

ct11

3-8

3 4 5 6 7 8 All

84.8

75.0

90.3

78.8

83.8

(34)

(33)

(35)

(32)

(31)

(33)

(198

)

81.3

84.8

90.6

73.3

89.7

78.8

83.1

(32)

(33)

(32)

(30)

(29)

(33)

(189

)

Gra

des

Serv

ed: K

-8

% E

D

76.1

Gra

des

4 5 6 7 8 All

Scho

olSt

ate

65.1

34.5

57.8

35.6

20.4

42.5

50.0

APPENDIX B: Performance Summaries

Icahn 4

8Ax-



APPENDIX C: District Comments

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

The New York City Department of Education held its required hearing on Icahn Charter School 4’s renewal on November 8, 2018 at the school. Three people were present, and one person spoke in support of the application and praised the school for the rigorous educational opportunities it provides students including how students are consistently accepted into competitive high schools across New York City.

Icahn 4

9Ax-



APPENDIX D: Fiscal Dashboard

BALANCE SHEETAssetsCurrent Assets 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17

Cash and Cash Equivalents ‐ GRAPH 1 1,220,597 1,365,193 1,560,229 1,811,986 1,657,433 Grants and Contracts Receivable 98,934 83,098 81,844 70,152 155,036 Accounts Receivable 8,642 12,111 13,352 95,816 173,157 Prepaid Expenses 60,345 86,417 92,833 94,848 81,133 Contributions and Other Receivables 38,758 7,482 14,564 26,735 20,143

Total Current Assets ‐ GRAPH 1 1,427,276 1,554,301 1,762,822 2,099,537 2,086,902 Property, Building and Equipment, net 359,227 226,739 315,977 233,689 245,073 Other Assets ‐ ‐ 75,000 75,000 8,900 Total Assets ‐ GRAPH 1 1,786,503 1,781,040 2,153,799 2,408,226 2,340,875

Liabilities and Net AssetsCurrent Liabilities

Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses 126,265 108,491 182,103 337,644 264,632 Accrued Payroll and Benefits 339,275 369,131 462,833 437,483 556,042 Deferred Revenue 132,988 134,964 139,582 211,907 99,993 Current Maturities of Long‐Term Debt ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Short Term Debt ‐ Bonds, Notes Payable ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Other 8,532 25,454 20,101 14,516 8,689

Total Current Liabilities ‐ GRAPH 1 607,060 638,040 804,619 1,001,550 929,356 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Liabilities ‐ GRAPH 1 607,060 638,040 804,619 1,001,550 929,356

Net AssetsUnrestricted 1,179,443 1,143,000 1,349,180 1,406,676 1,411,519 Temporarily restricted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Net Assets 1,179,443 1,143,000 1,349,180 1,406,676 1,411,519

Total Liabilities and Net Assets 1,786,503 1,781,040 2,153,799 2,408,226 2,340,875

ACTIVITIESOperating Revenue

Resident Student Enrollment 2,984,972 3,404,376 3,971,059 4,400,888 4,734,413 Students with Disabilities 19,621 23,831 19,720 34,891 35,809 Grants and Contracts State and local 175,763 225,571 780,773 669,678 814,591 Federal ‐ Title and IDEA 156,390 125,844 168,395 171,075 156,817 Federal ‐ Other 164,911 142,892 146,965 46,407 ‐ Other 24,620 60,256 23,349 19,363 40,448 NYC DoE Rental Assistance ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Food Service/Child Nutrition Program ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Operating Revenue 3,526,277 3,982,770 5,110,261 5,342,302 5,782,078

ExpensesRegular Education 2,784,292 3,362,555 4,060,410 4,338,952 4,788,325 SPED 103,093 137,535 133,469 130,198 135,248 Regular Education & SPED (combined) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Program Services 2,887,385 3,500,090 4,193,879 4,469,150 4,923,573 Management and General 616,001 593,888 773,176 835,106 865,505 Fundraising ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Expenses ‐ GRAPHS 2, 3 & 4 3,503,386 4,093,978 4,967,055 5,304,256 5,789,078

Surplus / (Deficit) From School Operations 22,891 (111,208) 143,206 38,046 (7,000)

Support and Other RevenueContributions 30,662 73,586 61,322 15,970 1,000 Fundraising ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Miscellaneous Income 611 1,179 1,652 3,480 10,843 Net assets released from restriction ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Support and Other Revenue 31,273 74,765 62,974 19,450 11,843

Total Unrestricted Revenue 3,557,550 4,057,535 5,173,235 5,361,752 5,793,921 Total Temporally Restricted Revenue ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Revenue ‐ GRAPHS 2 & 3 3,557,550 4,057,535 5,173,235 5,361,752 5,793,921

Change in Net Assets 54,164 (36,443) 206,180 57,496 4,843 Net Assets ‐ Beginning of Year ‐ GRAPH 2 1,125,279 1,179,443 1,143,000 1,349,180 1,406,676

Prior Year Adjustment(s) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Net Assets ‐ End of Year ‐ GRAPH 2 1,179,443 1,143,000 1,349,180 1,406,676 1,411,519


Opened 2009‐10

SCHOOL INFORMATION

L‐T Debt and Notes Payable, net current maturities

Icahn 4

10Ax-




Functional Expense Breakdown

Personnel Service 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 Administrative Staff Personnel 365,081 379,109 416,412 457,363 480,633 Instructional Personnel 1,284,074 1,521,633 1,732,090 1,908,506 2,139,191 Non‐Instructional Personnel 168,268 175,763 227,331 233,360 224,738 Personnel Services (Combined) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Salaries and Staff 1,817,423 2,076,505 2,375,833 2,599,229 2,844,562 Fringe Benefits & Payroll Taxes 336,876 411,405 479,813 530,990 569,106 Retirement 53,919 66,972 65,462 66,486 78,003 Management Company Fees ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Building and Land Rent / Lease 158,608 206,530 758,440 643,556 788,607 Staff Development 142,351 173,253 146,307 202,432 187,692 Professional Fees, Consultant & Purchased Services 69,628 65,890 58,511 78,744 80,455 Marketing / Recruitment 1,253 1,362 3,992 2,545 5,938 Student Supplies, Materials & Services 314,583 429,989 405,990 490,846 411,873 Depreciation 264,428 262,157 162,530 158,712 185,226 Other 344,317 399,915 510,177 530,715 637,616

Total Expenses 3,503,386 4,093,978 4,967,055 5,304,256 5,789,078

ENROLLMENT 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17Original Chartered Enrollment 216 259 288 324 324 Final Chartered Enrollment (includes any revisions) 216 259 288 324 324 Actual Enrollment ‐ GRAPH 4 221 251 286 316 323 Chartered Grades K‐5 K‐6 K‐7 K‐8 K‐8Final Chartered Grades (includes any revisions) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Primary School District: NYC CHANCELLOR'S OFFICEPer Pupil Funding (Weighted Avg of All Districts) 13,527 13,908 13,908 13,908 14,057

Increase over prior year 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1%

PER STUDENT BREAKDOWN

RevenueOperating 15,934 15,868 17,868 16,906 17,901 Other Revenue and Support 141 298 220 62 37 TOTAL ‐ GRAPH 3 16,075 16,165 18,088 16,968 17,938

ExpensesProgram Services 13,047 13,945 14,664 14,143 15,243 Management and General, Fundraising 2,783 2,366 2,703 2,643 2,680 TOTAL ‐ GRAPH 3 15,830 16,311 17,367 16,786 17,923 % of Program Services 82.4% 85.5% 84.4% 84.3% 85.0%% of Management and Other 17.6% 14.5% 15.6% 15.7% 15.0%

% of Revenue Exceeding Expenses ‐ GRAPH 5 1.5% ‐0.9% 4.2% 1.1% 0.1%

Student to Faculty Ratio 10.7 10.7 11.2 11.3 10.2

Faculty to Admin Ratio 4.5 6.5 4.6 4.2 5.4

Financial Responsibility Composite Scores ‐ GRAPH 6Score 2.5 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.2

Working Capital ‐ GRAPH 7Net Working Capital 820,216 916,261 958,203 1,097,987 1,157,546 As % of Unrestricted Revenue 23.1% 22.6% 18.5% 20.5% 20.0%Working Capital (Current) Ratio Score 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.2Risk (Low ≥ 3.0 / Medium 1.4 ‐ 2.9 / High < 1.4) MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUMRating (Excellent ≥ 3.0 / Good 1.4 ‐ 2.9 / Poor < 1.4) Good Good Good Good Good

Quick (Acid Test) RatioScore 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.2Risk (Low ≥ 2.5 / Medium 1.0 ‐ 2.4 / High < 1.0) MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUMRating (Excellent ≥ 2.5 / Good 1.0 ‐ 2.4 / Poor < 1.0) Good Good Good Good Good

Debt to Asset Ratio ‐ GRAPH 7Score 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4Risk (Low < 0.50 / Medium 0.51 ‐ .95 / High > 1.0) LOW LOW LOW LOW LOWRating (Excellent < 0.50 / Good 0.51 ‐ .95 / Poor > 1.0) Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Months of Cash ‐ GRAPH 8Score 4.2 4.0 3.8 4.1 3.4Risk (Low > 3 mo. / Medium 1 ‐ 3 mo. / High < 1 mo.) LOW LOW LOW LOW LOWRating (Excellent > 3 mo. / Good 1 ‐ 3 mo. / Poor < 1 mo.) Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

SCHOOL INFORMATION ‐ (Continued)

SCHOOL ANALYSIS

Fiscally Strong 1.5 ‐ 3.0 / Fiscally Adequate 1.0 ‐ 1.4 /Fiscally Needs Monitoring < 1.0

Fiscally Strong Fiscally Strong Fiscally Strong Fiscally Strong Fiscally Strong


Icahn 4

11Ax-





‐

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17

Dolla

rs

For the Year Ended June 30

Cash, Assets and Liabilities

Cash Current Assets Current Liabilities Total Assets Total Liabilities

‐

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17

Dolla

rs


Revenue, Expenses and Net Assets

Revenue Expenses Net Assets ‐ Beginning Net Assets ‐ Ending

GRAPH 2GRAPH 1

This chart illustrates total revenue and expenses each year and the relationship those subsets have on the increase/decrease of net assets on a year‐to‐year basis. Ideally subset 1, revenue, will be taller than subset 2, expenses, and as a result subset 3, net assets ‐ beginning, will increase each year, building a more fiscally viable school.

This chart illustrates the breakdown of revenue and expenses on a per pupil basis. Caution should be exercised in making school‐by‐school comparisons since schools serving different missions or student populations are likely to have substantially different educational cost bases. Comparisons with similar schools with similar dynamics are most valid.

This chart illustrates to what extent the school's operating expenses have followed its student enrollment pattern. A baseline assumption that this data tests is that operating expenses increase with each additional student served. This chart also compares and contrasts growth trends of both, giving insight into what a reasonable expectation might be in terms of economies of scale.

This chart illustrates the relationship between assets and liabilities and to what extent cash reserves makes up current assets. Ideally for each subset, subsets 2 through 4, (i.e. current assets vs. current liabilities), the column on the left is taller than the immediate column on the right; and, generally speaking, the bigger that gap, the better.

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

-

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Enrollm

ent

Operating Expe

nses


Enrollment vs. Operating Expenses

Program Expenses Management & OtherTotal ExpensesEnrollment

GRAPH 4

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Dolla

rs

For the Year Ending June 30

Revenue & Expenses Per Pupil

Rev. - Reg. & Special ED Rev. - Other OperatingRev. - Other Support Exp. - Reg. & Special EDExp. - Other Program Exp. - Mngmt. & Other

GRAPH 3

Icahn 4

12Ax-




Comparable School, Region or Network: All SUNY Authorized Charter Schools (Including Closed Schools)

‐

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17

Debt

Workin

g Cap

ital


Working Capital & Debt to Asset Ratios

Working Capital ‐ School Working Capital ‐ Comparable

Debt Ratio ‐ School Debt Ratio ‐ Comparable

WORKING CAPITAL RATIO ‐ Risk = Low > 3.0 / Medium 1.4 ‐ 2.9 / High < 1.4DEBT TO ASSET RATIO ‐ Risk = Low < 0.50 / Medium 0.51 ‐ .95 / High > 1.0

This chart illustrates the percentage expense breakdown between program services and management & others as well as the percentage of revenues exceeding expenses. Ideally the percentage expense for program services will far exceed that of the management & other expense. The percentage of revenues exceeding expenses should not be negative. Similar caution, as mentioned on GRAPH 3, should be used in comparing schools.

This chart illustrates working capital and debt to asset ratios. The working capital ratio indicates if a school has enough short‐term assets to cover its immediate liabilities/short term debt. The debt to asset ratio indicates what proportion of debt a school has relative to its assets. The measure gives an idea to the leverage of the school along with the potential risks the school faces in terms of its debt‐load.

This chart illustrates a school's composite score based on the methodology developed by the United States Department of Education (USDOE) to determine whether private not‐for‐profit colleges and universities are financially strong enough to participate in federal loan programs. These scores can be valid for observing the fiscal trends of a particular school and used as a tool to compare the results of different schools.

This chart illustrates how many months of cash the school has in reserves. This metric is to measure solvency – the school's ability to pay debts and claims as they come due. This gives some idea of how long a school could continue its ongoing operating costs without tapping into some other, non‐cash form of financing in the event that revenues were to cease flowing to the school.

GRAPH 7

‐20.0%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17

Percen

tage


% Breakdown of Expenses

Program Services ‐ School Program Services ‐ ComparableManagement & Other ‐ School Management & Other ‐ ComparableREV. Exceeding EXP. ‐ School REV. Exceeding EXP. Comparable

GRAPH 5

‐2.00

‐1.50

‐1.00

‐0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.002012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17

Score


Composite Score

Composite Score ‐ School Composite Score ‐ ComparableBenchmark

Fiscally: Strong = 1.5 ‐ 3.0 / Adequate = 1.0 ‐ 1.4 / Needs Monitoring < 1.0

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.502012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17

Mon

ths


Months of Cash

Cash ‐ School Cash ‐ Comparable Ideal Months of Cash

GRAPH 8

GRAPH 6


Icahn 4

13Ax-



ICAHN CHARTER SCHOOL NETWORK1

For strong performing SUNY authorized charter schools that implement a common school design across multiple schools, the Institute provides an analysis and description of the schools’ academic design structured using the Qualitative Education Benchmarks. This subset of the SUNY Renewal Benchmarks focuses on assessment, curriculum, pedagogy, leadership, at-risk programs, organizational capacity, and board oversight. The following program description analyzes and reports on the school design that produced the high quality outcomes captured in the body of this renewal report.

DOES ICAHN CHARTER SCHOOLS HAVE AN ASSESSMENT SYSTEM?

The Icahn Charter Schools network’s (“Icahn network’s” or the “network’s”) systematic use of assessment data improves instructional effectiveness and student learning. Using a variety of diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments, teachers understand students’ instructional needs and adjust lessons accordingly. Principals and network leaders use student assessment data as a key indicator of teacher effectiveness.

The Icahn network schools use iReady Diagnostics, NY Ready Assessments,2 and mClass: Dibels Next3 to identify students’ skill deficiencies and to identify students in need of academic intervention services. To prepare students for annual state assessments, schools administer four practice tests during the school year. Schools also administer network provided interim assessments in English language arts (“ELA”) and mathematics in addition to weekly tests and unit assessments embedded in commercial curricula. Network schools use iReady, a computerized reading and mathematics intervention program that adapts to students’ individual needs, as a diagnostic tool and for ongoing progress monitoring.

Teachers compile student performance data using IO Education, an online platform and mobile application that stores student information over multiple years. Parents access Pupil Path to communicate with teachers regarding student performance. Network leaders prepare detailed analyses at multiple levels (e.g., student, grade, and school) that inform instructional planning and professional development activities. For example, analysis of a baseline assessment revealed that students across schools performed below mastery on multiple choice items related to a particular standard but performed quite well on extended response questions related to the same standard. The action plan resulting from this analysis included additional time devoted to strategies for answering multiple choice items during the following unit. School leaders review network-wide performance data to schedule intervisitation sessions, which allow teachers to engage in peer observation of instruction at other Icahn schools.

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK

1B

1. For additional

information, refer to www.

icahncharterschools.org/.

2. Multiple research studies

have found the program

effective in supporting student

achievement. For additional


curriculumassociates.com/.

3. For additional information,

refer to www.amplify.com/

assessment/mclass-dibels-

next/.

APPENDIX E: Education Corporation Overview

Icahn 4

http://www.icahncharterschools.org

http://www.icahncharterschools.org

http://www.curriculumassociates.com

http://www.curriculumassociates.com

http://www.amplify.com/assessment/mclass-dibels-next/



14Ax-



DOES THE NETWORK’S CURRICULUM SUPPORT TEACHERS IN THEIR INSTRUCTIONAL PLANNING?

The Icahn network implements a rigorous curriculum that prepares students to meet state performance standards and supports teachers in instructional planning. The shared curricular framework provides a fixed, underlying structure that aligns to state grade level performance standards. The curricular framework includes student performance expectations across subject areas in each grade, and the network provides teachers with scope and sequence documents to aid in daily lesson planning. Network leaders, school leaders, and select teachers participate in curriculum committee meetings to review curricular materials and make changes deemed necessary based on student outcome data.

Core Knowledge4 is the foundation of Icahn schools’ educational program. Developed by E.D. Hirsch, the Core Knowledge curriculum builds students’ knowledge and skills year toyear through 8th grade, ensuring that all students who have completed the curriculum arefamiliar with a specific body of knowledge and facts necessary for cultural literacy. In additionto the accumulation of knowledge and skills in the core subject areas of mathematics, ELA,history, and science, Core Knowledge provides students with rich exposure to music and art.The curricular sequence for each grade includes an overview of the topics and skills taughtthroughout the year as well as specific objectives in each content area.

Schools supplement Core Knowledge with a variety of commercial curricular products. For Kindergarten – 5th grade ELA, Icahn schools use the Reading Wonders program,5 created specifically to align with Common Core standards, and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Collections.6 For mathematics, the network supplements the technology enhanced enVisionMATH program7 with lesson modules from Eureka Math,8 which takes a sequential approach to building students’ mathematical fluency.

High school readiness is an indicator of the strength of the Icahn network curriculum. For 8th grade students, Icahn network prepares students to earn high school credits by passing the Living Environment and/or Integrated Algebra Regents tests, or by completing coursework and passing a second language proficiency test. Additionally, each school works closely with students to ensure students receive high school offers that include specialized high schools,9 private schools, boarding schools, or parochial schools.

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK

1C

4. For additional


coreknowledge.org/.

5. Additional information

available at www.

mhreadingwonders.com/.


available at www.

pearsonhighered.com/

collections/.

7. For additional

information, please visit

www.pearsonschool.com/

envisionmath/.


available at greatminds.

net/maps/math/home/.

9. NYC has nine specialized

high schools that serve

the needs of students

who specifically excel

academically and

artistically. These schools

have a separate, optional

admissions process

from the general NYC

High School Admissions

application.


Icahn 4

http://www.coreknowledge.org/

http://www.coreknowledge.org/

http://www.mhreadingwonders.com/

http://www.mhreadingwonders.com/

http://www.pearsonhighered.com/collections/



http://www.pearsonschool.com/envisionmath/

http://www.pearsonschool.com/envisionmath/

http://greatminds.net/maps/math/home/

http://greatminds.net/maps/math/home/

15Ax-



IS HIGH QUALITY INSTRUCTION EVIDENT THROUGHOUT THE NETWORK?

Consistently high levels of student achievement, as demonstrated by state assessment results, reflect the high quality of instruction in Icahn classrooms. In previous years, Institute teams conducted more than 50 classroom observations across all seven Icahn network schools during first year visits, mid-charter term visits, and renewal visits. Invariably, visit teams have found teachers maximizing learning time while delivering engaging lessons that create opportunities for students to apply concepts to real life situations. Lesson activities encourage depth of understanding and align to stated learning objectives, which align to the curricula. The Icahn school design does not prescribe a particular pedagogical style but does require teachers to adapt instruction to meet the needs of all students. Small class sizes (typically no more than 18 students) and the use of co-teaching models facilitate individualized instruction. Teachers present new concepts with clarity using age appropriate language and building on students’ prior knowledge. Teachers convey high expectations for what students will know and be able to do at the end of each lesson.

Most lessons include independent learning time as well as whole class and small group instruction. Students understand behavioral expectations and remain focused on lesson activities without direct teacher instruction. Teachers circulate throughout classrooms to monitor students’ progress toward lesson objectives. The use of a variety of techniques such as cold calling, individual conferencing, and monitoring students’ work allows teachers to check for understanding and to make ad hoc adjustments to instruction as necessary to ensure students achieve lesson objectives.

Instruction at Icahn network schools challenges students to develop higher order thinking and problem solving skills as teachers routinely require students to elaborate on and defend their answers. Frequently, teachers promote enriching student interactions with a turn and talk technique that deepen students’ understanding as they discuss elements of a text or explain their positions to one another.

DOES THE NETWORK HAVE STRONG INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP?

High expectations for student achievement permeate the halls of Icahn network schools. Frequent classroom observations and timely, actionable feedback are hallmarks of the network’s approach to strong instructional leadership that develops the skills and competencies of all teachers. Leaders hold teachers accountable for high quality instruction and student achievement with evaluations that accurately identify teachers’ strengths and areas of weakness.

Icahn network schools benefit from robust school and network level instructional leadership that supports the development of the teaching staff. In addition to a principal, each school has a staff developer responsible for coaching teachers, assisting with instructional planning, and collaborating with the principal to determine schoolwide professional development needs. Staff developers and principals observe teachers frequently and maintain a network-wide culture of continual improvement with sustained and systematic coaching.

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK

1D

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK

1E


Icahn 4

16Ax-



Network and school level professional development activities interrelate with classroom practice and align to the Icahn network’s expectations for teacher performance. Two weeks of summer pre-service training includes sessions prepared exclusively for teachers new to the Icahn network. Instructional leaders follow up on professional development activities with focused observations of instructional delivery to support the development of all teachers.

Network support for school leaders largely mirrors school based structures that support teachers. The superintendent and deputy superintendent ensure consistency of instructional practices with frequent walk through observations followed by feedback to principals and staff developers. The network’s director of curriculum and instruction, a former master teacher from Icahn 4, under the direction of the superintendent and deputy superintendent conducts instructional rounds during which school leaders receive support aligned to instructional goals developed in conjunction with the network.

Across the network, school leaders conduct regular teacher evaluations that accurately identify teachers’ strengths and areas for improvement, and that hold teachers accountable for student achievement. Leaders effectively differentiate evaluations for teachers based on experience: teachers with three or fewer years of experience in Icahn classrooms receive four formal classroom observations and teachers with more than three years of experience receive two formal observations.

DOES THE NETWORK MEET THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF AT-RISK STUDENTS?

As evidenced by strong academic outcomes, Icahn network schools implement effective intervention programs to meet the educational needs of students struggling academically, students with disabilities, and English language learners (“ELLs”). The network and individual schools provide teachers with abundant professional development opportunities that build teachers’ abilities to support students with a wide range of educational needs.

All network schools implement an intensive targeted assistance (“TA”) program, which schools use to provide robust daily (generally 40 minutes per day) supports for students at risk of academic failure. Schools rely primarily on mClass: Dibels Next, iReady, and state assessment scores to identify students in need of academic interventions early in the school year. Teacher referrals admit students to the program on an ongoing basis as needed. The core components of the TA program are small group instruction, Saturday academy, and tutoring scheduled before and after school. Saturday academy and tutoring sessions are mandatory for all students identified for TA. Ongoing monitoring of progress enables schools to cycle students out of TA after making sufficient performance gains.

Because school leaders feel passionately about not contributing to the over classification of economically disadvantaged and minority students, the Icahn TA program aims to avoid identifying students for special education services whenever possible; however, the schools do have clear and appropriate referral procedures in place. To serve students who do not have identified disabilities but who do require more intensive supports than available in TA, Icahn network schools provide some of the same services available to students with Individualized Education Programs (“IEPs”) such as special education teacher support services

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK

1F


Icahn 4

17Ax-



(“SETSS”) and classrooms co-taught by certified special education teachers. For students with IEPs, classroom teachers meet regularly with specialists and actively engage in monitoring students’ progress toward meeting IEP goals.

To identify students in need of English language acquisition supports, schools use the Home Language Identification Survey and New York State Identification Test for English Language Learners (“NYSITELL”). Identified ELLs receive ability based small group instruction from certified English to speakers of other languages (“ESOL”) teachers. Classroom teachers support ELLs within the core academic program using strategies such as picture walks and other techniques practiced during professional development sessions. In addition, classroom teachers meet regularly with specialists and actively engage in monitoring students’ progress toward reaching English proficiency on the New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test (“NYSESLAT”).

DOES THE NETWORK EFFECTIVELY SUPPORT THE DELIVERY OF THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM?

Icahn network schools effectively support the delivery of the educational program, primarily through the schools’ abilities to recruit and retain high quality staff. Low turnover at the leadership level results in tremendous institutional knowledge shared across the network team and in individual schools and in consistent implementation of the school design. The founding principal of the first Icahn school now serves as the network’s superintendent and the school’s second leader is the deputy superintendent. In over 15 years of operation, the flagship school has had only four school leaders. The founding leader of the first replication remains the school’s principal. This stability in leadership is not the result of a failure to hold leaders accountable for results: principals who fail to meet expectations do not continue to lead Icahn schools.

The network’s organizations effectively support the delivery of the high quality educational program and maintain fidelity to the schools’ mission and key design elements. The organizational structure deployed across schools establishes distinct lines of accountability with clearly defined roles and responsibilities. The operational systems, policies, and procedures developed at the network level ease the conduct of day-to-day operations, thus enabling school leaders to focus on teaching and learning.

In the first two years of an Icahn network school’s operation, the principal serves as the instructional leader. The addition of a staff developer in a school’s third year of operation increases instructional leadership capacity for teacher development and supervision. All schools have staff dedicated to at-risk programs. Staff in some roles such as ESOL teacher may work in multiple schools while others, such as reading specialist and TA teacher, provide services in just one school.

The staff developer role, similar to that of an assistant principal, is the network’s key means of preparing staff members to serve as school principals. The typical pathway to school leadership at Icahn includes demonstrated success as a classroom teacher followed by service as a master teacher and staff developer. Teacher turnover at individual schools is generally low, with some retaining more than 90% of high performing teachers year-to-year.

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK

2C


Icahn 4

18Ax-



Demand for the Icahn network schools exceeds capacity. According to network leaders, the schools typically receive about 24,000 applications for fewer than 300 available seats each year. Icahn staff members manage student recruitment and efforts to meet enrollment and retention targets for students with disabilities, ELLs, and students who are economically disadvantaged. See page Ax-28 for information on enrollment and retention targets. Few network schools face enrollment challenges. Efforts to recruit at-risk students include multilingual mailings to residences, multilingual print and transportation advertisements, and canvassing of local neighborhoods.

The network monitors the schools’ programs throughout the school year and implements any necessary changes the following year. For example, after being disappointed in ELA results in the middle grades, network staff and school leaders selected a new commercial curriculum that they believe provides better alignment of daily assignments and periodic assessments with Common Core standards.

DOES THE EDUCATION CORPORATION BOARD WORK EFFECTIVELY TO ACHIEVE SCHOOLS’ ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN GOALS?

Although each of the network schools remains an independent not-for-profit education corporation, seven trustees serve on the governing boards for all Icahn schools. Additionally, each school’s family association president serves as a trustee for the respective school. Board members’ professional backgrounds, which include finance and education experience, position them well to provide rigorous oversight to the total educational program. Each board acts with urgency to establish goals and achieve the schools’ Accountability Plan goals.

Each board requires detailed data reports from network leaders prior to each board meeting. Board members review assessment, attendance, and financial information closely and ask precise questions to put the information in context. Each board avoids involvement in the minutiae of day-to-day school operations and focuses instead on the schools’ central purpose: improving student outcomes. To that end, each board expects high levels of student achievement at all Icahn network schools and is not satisfied by schools outperforming local districts. Illustrating this point at a recent board meeting, one member commented that being in the top 20 percent of schools is not impressive if low performing schools dominate the comparison pool. No board has a formal process in place to evaluate its performance or that of the network. However, each board holds leaders accountable for student achievement by using assessment results to determine pay bonuses.

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK

2D


Icahn 4

19Ax-



EDUCATION CORPORATION TIMELINE OF CHARTER RENEWAL


Icahn 4

20Ax-



EDUCATION CORPORATION SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS

School Local District

Co-located? Chartered Enrollment

Grade Span

Icahn Charter School 1 CSD 9 No 324 K-8 Icahn Charter School 2 CSD 11 Yes 324 K-8 Icahn Charter School 3 CSD 9 No 324 K-8 Icahn Charter School 4 CSD 11 No 324 K-8 Icahn Charter School 5 CSD 11 No 324 K-8 Icahn Charter School 6 CSD 9 Yes 378 K-8 Icahn Charter School 7 CSD 8 Yes 288 K-7

EDUCATION CORPORATION SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS


Icahn 4

21Ax-



DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCHOOLS AND DISTRICT SCORES: ELADifference between schools and district scores: 2013-14 through 2017-18

0 20 40

Icahn Charter School 1 Bronx CSD 9 20142015201620172018







Difference between ELA School and District Scores

District difference for each year broken down by school and district (in NYC, the Ins�tute uses the CSD). These chartscompare a school's performance to that of the district. Each bar represents the difference between the school'sperformance and the district's. A posi�ve result (showing the bar to the right of zero) indicates the amount by which theschool outscored the district. A nega�ve result (with the bar to the le� of zero) illustrates the amount by which the schoolperformed lower than the district. A score of zero indicates that the school performed exactly even with the district. Schoolscores reflect the achievement of students enrolled for at least two years per the schools' Accountability Plans.


Icahn 4

22Ax-



DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCHOOLS AND DISTRICT SCORES: MATHDifference between schools and district scores: 2013-14 through 2017-18

0 20 40 60








Difference between Math School and District Scores

District difference for each year broken down by school and district (in NYC, the Ins�tute uses the CSD). These chartscompare a school's performance to that of the district. Each bar represents the difference between the school'sperformance and the district's. A posi�ve result (showing the bar to the right of zero) indicates the amount by which theschool outscored the district. A nega�ve result (with the bar to the le� of zero) illustrates the amount by which the schoolperformed lower than the district. A score of zero indicates that the school performed exactly even with the district. Schoolscores reflect the achievement of students enrolled for at least two years per the schools' Accountability Plans.


Icahn 4

23Ax-



ELA GROWTH AND ACHIEVEMENT: 2014-15 THROUGH 2017-18

2017

-2 0 2Standardized Mean Scale Score

30

40

50

60

70

Mea

n Gr

owth

Per

cen�

le

2016


2015

30

40

50

60

70

Mea

n Gr

owth

Per

cen�

le

2018

ELA Growth and Achievement: 2014-15 through 2017-18

These charts compare a school’s ability to grow student achievement with a school's absolute studentperformance. Schools located in the upper right hand quadrant of each chart show strong results inhelping students make learning gains while at the same �me helping students achieve strong absolutescores on state assessments. Schools in the lower right hand quadrant show strong absolute scoresbut lower growth. Because the student growth percen�le uses the previous year’s scale score as abaseline, it becomes more difficult for a school to maintain strong overall growth scores whenstudents already post high absolute scores.

These charts are produced by comparing growth as measured by the state’s student growth percen�leto its overall achievement as measured by scale score standardized to the statewide grade level meanover each year for which data are available during the charter term. The growth axis (labeled MeanGrowth Percen�le) represents the statewide median growth score. The achievement axis (labeledStandardized Mean Scale Score) represents the statewide mean-centered achievement level for eachgrade served by each school.

High GrowthHigh Achievement

Low GrowthLow Achievement







Icahn 4

24Ax-



MATH GROWTH AND ACHIEVEMENT: 2014-15 THROUGH 2017-18

2017

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mea

n Gr

owth

Per

cen�

le2018


40

60

80

Mea

n Gr

owth

Per

cen�

le

2016

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Standardized Mean Scale Score

2015

Math Growth and Achievement: 2014-15 through 2017-18

These charts compare a school’s ability to grow student achievement with a school's absolute studentperformance. Schools located in the upper right hand quadrant of each chart show strong results inhelping students make learning gains while at the same �me helping students achieve strong absolutescores on state assessments. Schools in the lower right hand quadrant show strong absolute scoresbut lower growth. Because the student growth percen�le uses the previous year’s scale score as abaseline, it becomes more difficult for a school to maintain strong overall growth scores whenstudents already post high absolute scores.

These charts are produced by comparing growth as measured by the state’s student growth percen�leto its overall achievement as measured by scale score standardized to the statewide grade level meanover each year for which data are available during the charter term. The growth axis (labeled MeanGrowth Percen�le) represents the statewide median growth score. The achievement axis (labeledStandardized Mean Scale Score) represents the statewide mean-centered achievement level for eachgrade served by each school.










Icahn 4

25Ax-



ELA AND MATH EFFECT SIZE DOT PLOTS: 2013-14 THROUGH 2017-18ELA and Math Effect Size Dot Plots: 2013-14 through 2017-18

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5ELA Effect Size

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Targ

et: 0

.3

Higher than expected to a large degree

ELA Effect Size by Year and School

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5Math Effect Size

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Targ

et: 0

.3

Higher than expected to a large degree

Math Effect Size by Year and School

The charts illustrate the compara�ve effect size performance at each school across the ed corp by eachyear for which data are available throughout the charter term. Schools performing at or above 0.3 aremee�ng SUNY's benchmark for the measure. Schools performing at or above 0.8 are performing higherthan expected to a large degree in comparison to schools enrolling similar levels of economicallydisadvantaged students.


Icahn 4

26Ax-



ELA AND MATH EFFECT SIZE SCATTER PLOTS 2014-15 THROUGH 2015-16ELA and Math Effect Size Sca�er Plots: 2014-15 and 2015-16

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

-2

0

2

4M

ath

Effec

t Size

Target: 0.3

Target: 0.3

2015

The charts compare a school’s ELA and math effect sizes over each year for which data are availableduring the charter term. An effect size measures school performance in comparison to other schoolsstatewide enrolling students with similar propor�ons of economic disadvantage. Schools with an ELAor math effect size that is less than 0 performed lower than expected based on the economicdisadvantage sta�s�c. Schools pos�ng an effect size greater than 0 but less than 0.3 perform aboutthe same as the comparison schools. Schools with an ELA or math effect size greater than 0.3 (SUNY’sperformance target for the measure) outperformed similar schools statewide to a meaningful degree,while schools with effect sizes greater than 0.8 perform higher than expected to a large degree.

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0ELA Effect Size

-2

0

2

4

Mat

h Eff

ect S

ize

Target: 0.3

Target: 0.3

2016


Icahn 4

27Ax-



ELA AND MATH EFFECT SIZE SCATTER PLOTS 2016-17 THROUGH 2017-18ELA and Math Effect Size Sca�er Plots: 2016-17 and 2017-18

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

-3-2

-1

0

1

2

3

45

Mat

h Eff

ect S

ize

Target: 0.3

Target: 0.3

2017

The charts compare a school’s ELA and math effect sizes over each year for which data are availableduring the charter term. An effect size measures school performance in comparison to other schoolsstatewide enrolling students with similar propor�ons of economic disadvantage. Schools with an ELAor math effect size that is less than 0 performed lower than expected based on the economicdisadvantage sta�s�c. Schools pos�ng an effect size greater than 0 but less than 0.3 perform aboutthe same as the comparison schools. Schools with an ELA or math effect size greater than 0.3 (SUNY’sperformance target for the measure) outperformed similar schools statewide to a meaningful degree,while schools with effect sizes greater than 0.8 perform higher than expected to a large degree.

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0ELA Effect Size

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

Mat

h Eff

ect S

ize

Target: 0.3

Target: 0.3

2018


Icahn 4

28Ax-



ENROLLMENT AND RETENTION TARGETS

IcahnCharterSchool 1

Enrollment

ED

ELL

SWD

Reten�on

ED

ELL

SWD


Enrollment

ED

ELL

SWD

Reten�on

ED

ELL

SWD


Enrollment

ED

ELL

SWD

Reten�on

ED

ELL

SWD


Enrollment

ED

ELL

SWD

Reten�on

ED

ELL

SWD

85.0%

7.2%

7.8%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

68.0%

11.1%

7.4%

100.0%

100.0%

85.7%

81.6%

2.8%

6.9%

100.0%

96.9%

78.6%

70.1%

13.5%

7.5%

100.0%

96.0%

94.7%

95.3%

25.9%

18.8%

90.2%

91.1%

90.4%

85.6%

9.3%

17.1%

91.7%

91.3%

92.0%

85.6%

9.3%

17.1%

91.7%

91.3%

92.0%

85.6%

9.3%

17.1%

91.7%

91.3%

92.0%

Enrollment and Reten�on Targets

The chart illustrates the current enrollment and reten�on percentages against the enrollment andreten�on targets for each opera�ng school in the educa�on corpora�on. As required by Educa�on Law§ 2851(4)(e), a school must include in its renewal applica�on informa�on regarding the efforts it has,and will, put in place to meet or exceed SUNY’s enrollment and reten�on targets for students withdisabili�es, ELLs, and FRPL students. This analysis is based on the 2016-17 enrollment and reten�ondata supplied to the Ins�tute by the network.


Icahn 4

29Ax-



ENROLLMENT AND RETENTION TARGETS


Enrollment

ED

ELL

SWD

Reten�on

ED

ELL

SWD


Enrollment

ED

ELL

SWD

Reten�on

ED

ELL

SWD


Enrollment

ED

ELL

SWD

Reten�on

ED

ELL

SWD

45.9%

1.6%

6.6%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

94.0%

10.7%

6.0%

95.3%

90.0%

94.4%

52.0%

3.5%

3.9%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

85.6%

9.3%

17.1%

91.7%

91.3%

92.0%

95.4%

25.9%

18.8%

90.3%

91.2%

90.6%

19.9%

12.6%

88.2%

93.0%

91.9%

92.6%

Enrollment and Reten�on Targets

The chart illustrates the current enrollment and reten�on percentages against the enrollment andreten�on targets for each opera�ng school in the educa�on corpora�on. As required by Educa�on Law§ 2851(4)(e), a school must include in its renewal applica�on informa�on regarding the efforts it has,and will, put in place to meet or exceed SUNY’s enrollment and reten�on targets for students withdisabili�es, ELLs, and FRPL students. This analysis is based on the 2016-17 enrollment and reten�ondata supplied to the Ins�tute by the network.


Icahn 4

30Ax-



Suspensions: Icahn Charter Schools' out of school suspension rate and in school suspensionrate.

0% of students suspended

2016

Icahn Charter School 1Icahn Charter School 2Icahn Charter School 3Icahn Charter School 4Icahn Charter School 5Icahn Charter School 6Icahn Charter School 7

2017


2018


0.00.0

0.00.6

0.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.3

0.0

0.00.0

0.00.3

0.00.0

0.0

0.00.0

0.00.3

0.00.0

0.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.0

0.30.0

CSD data suitable for comparison are not available. The percentage rate shown here is calculated using the method employed bythe NYCDOE: the total the number of students receiving an out of school suspension at any �me during the school year is dividedby the total enrollment, then mul�plied by 100.

During the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 school years, Icahn Schools expelled 0 students.New York City Community School District data suitable for comparison is not available. The percentage rate shown here is calculated using the method employed by the New York City Department of Education: the total the number of students receiving an out of school suspension at any time during the school year is divided by the total enrollment, then multiplied by 100.

During the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 school years, Icahn Charter Schools expelled 0 students.


Icahn 4

31Ax-



2017-18

2016-17

2015-16

96.0%

95.7%

95.3%

Educa�on Corpora�on Persistence in Enrollment

PERSISTENCE IN ENROLLMENT


Icahn 4

the suny charter schools institute · 2018. 12. 6. · a subsequent charter term would enable the...

Documents