the suny charter schools institute...recommendation troy prep 3: 5 suny charter schools institute...

INSTITUTETHE SUNY CHARTER SCHOOLS

RENEWAL RECOMMENDATION REPORTT R U E N O R T H T R O Y P R E P A R A T O R Y C H A R T E R S C H O O L

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 19-20, 2018

SUNY Charter Schools Institute

SUNY Plaza

353 Broadway

Albany, NY 12246

2Introduction & Report Format

4Renewal Recommendation

6School Background and Executive Summary

9Academic Performance

19Organizational Performance

24Fiscal Performance

27Future 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/.

Troy Prep

3



2. Version 5.0, May

2012, available at:

www.newyorkcharters.

org/SUNY-Renewal-

Benchmarks/.

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/.

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.

?

Troy Prep

InINTRODUCTION

4



RENEWAL RECOMMENDATIONFull-Term Renewal The Institute recommends that the SUNY Trustees approve the Application for Charter Renewal of True North Troy Preparatory Charter School for a period of five years with authority to provide instruction to students in Kindergarten – 12th grade in such configuration as set forth in its Application for Charter Renewal, with a projected total enrollment of 754 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 TARGETS

Generally, enrollment and retention targets apply to all charter schools. True North Troy Preparatory Charter School (“Troy Prep”) received a full-term renewal from the SUNY Trustees in 2014, and was given targets at that time. 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 applicants for the federal Free and Reduced Price Lunch (“FRPL”) program. As required by Education Law § 2851(4)(e), a school must include in its renewal application information regarding the efforts it will put in place to meet or exceed SUNY’s enrollment and retention targets for students with disabilities, ELLs, and FRPL eligible students.

4

1:2:

3. SUNY Renewal Policies

(p. 13).

4. See New York Education

Law § 2852(2).

RRRENEWAL

RECOMMENDATION

Troy Prep

3:

5



Troy Prep meets its enrollment targets for ELLs and students who qualify for FRPL, and comes close to meeting its goal for students with disabilities. Troy Prep makes good faith efforts to meet its enrollment and retention targets and, if renewed, plans to utilize the following efforts to meet its targets in a future charter term:

• canvassing door to door at local public housing complexes with information about at-risk programs at the school;

• posting fliers and advertising information, which highlights the school’s at-risk programs, in public areas around the city;

• hosting informational events in public housing complexes;

• attending community events in the city of Troy;

• establishing relationships with community organizations that work with low income families and families who speak languages other than English;

• utilizing a weighted lottery preference for students eligible for FRPL and ELLs;

• working with the local school district to provide recommendations to families with students with disabilities to apply to the school; and,

• translating recruitment materials and information sessions to languages other than English to recruit ELLs.

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.

Troy Prep

RRRENEWAL

RECOMMENDATION

6



SCHOOL BACKGROUND AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARYTRUE NORTH TROY PREPARATORY CHARTER SCHOOL

BACKGROUND

The SUNY Trustees approved the original charter for Troy Prep on October 26, 2007. The school opened its doors in the fall of 2009 initially serving 78 students in 5th grade. Prior to the third year of operation, the SUNY Trustees approved a revision allowing the school to add an elementary program with Kindergarten opening in the 2011-12 school year. After approving an initial full term renewal in January 2014, the SUNY Trustees approved Troy Prep to expand the Kindergarten – 8th grade program into high school in December 2016. The school is currently authorized to serve 646 students in Kindergarten – 10th grade during the 2018-19 school year.

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 3055 6th Avenue, Troy, NY for Kindergarten – 4th grade, and 2 Polk Street, Troy, NY for 5th – 10th grade in the Enlarged City School District of Troy.

Troy Prep’s mission states:

The mission of True North Troy Preparatory Charter School is to prepare all students to enter and succeed in college through effort, achievement, and the content of their character. All Troy Prep students will demonstrate excellence in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and history, while consistently exemplifying the virtues of diligence, integrity, compassion, responsibility, respect, and perseverance.

Troy Prep contracts with Uncommon Schools, Inc. (“Uncommon” or the “network”), a New Jersey not-for-profit corporation that serves as the charter management organization (“CMO”). The network operates charter schools across New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey and provides operational, instructional, and performance management support to schools pursuant to a contract. The SUNY Trustees authorize 17 schools in New York City, Rochester, and Troy, including Troy Prep, across three not-for-profit education corporations that contract with the network for education management services. The 17 schools collectively educate over 11,000 students.

SBSCHOOL

BACKGROUND

ESEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Troy Prep

7



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Troy Prep is an academic success, having met its Accountability Plan goals. Troy Prep demonstrates success in the following ways:

• Each year of the current charter term Troy Prep exceeded the target under all comparative and growth measures included in its Accountability Plan for English language arts (“ELA”) in 3rd – 8th grade. Notably, the school outperformed the district by 29 percentage points in 2017-18. Additionally, Troy Prep exceeded the target of 50 for its mean growth percentile in every year of the current charter term.

• In mathematics, Troy Prep posted a mean growth percentile above the target of 50 each year of the charter term, and notably posted a mean growth percentile of 89 in 2013-14, exceeding the target by 39 points.

• Troy Prep administers the Regents Common Core Algebra I exam to 8th grade students in lieu of the 8th grade mathematics exam. In 2017-18, 92% of students passed the exam with a score of 65 or higher, with 59% of tested students scoring at Performance Level 4 or higher, achieving the college and career readiness standard and indicating that they fully met Common Core expectations.

• Troy Prep additionally administers the Regents Living Environment exam to 8th grade students in lieu of the 8th grade science exam. Over the charter term, the school posted commendable achievement on the Regents exam, and notably 100% of tested students passed the exam in 2014-15.

Troy Prep has established strong structures to support and develop teacher practice across each grade level. Leaders are regularly in classrooms providing real time coaching to teachers and meet with teachers consistently to provide feedback and review data to drive instructional practices. During the charter term, the network increased its supports to the school in ways that helped to improve the academic program. For example, the network began providing curricular frameworks and materials to teachers and scheduling more opportunities for visits to other high performing Uncommon schools.

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 Troy Prep a Subsequent Full-Term Renewal of five years.

SBSCHOOL

BACKGROUND

ESEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Troy Prep

8



NOTEWORTHY

Troy Prep’s science club partners with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (“RPI”) to bring college students, who major in science related fields, to work with and mentor students twice a month on rigorous science experiments. The club takes an annual trip to RPI to tour the science facilities, which includes some of the most advanced research laboratories in the country in areas of nanotechnology, combustion and energy, biochemistry, and the environmental sciences.

Troy Prep

SBSCHOOL

BACKGROUND

ESEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

9



Troy Prep

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCEIS THE SCHOOL AN ACADEMIC SUCCESS?Troy Prep is an academic success as the school meets its Accountability Plan goals. The school’s strong academic program supported by the Uncommon network ensures that teachers have ample support in pedagogical practices.

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.”6 As described in this report, Troy Prep has satisfied the requirements of the Act as well as the SUNY Renewal Policies7 as it has met its Accountability Plan goals and implements a particularly strong and effective educational program. Troy Prep’s curriculum, assessment system, instructional design, and leadership combine into a demonstrably successful implementation of Uncommon’s model. The strength of that model, detailed in Appendix E, along with strong and sustained student performance outcomes at Troy Prep 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 required by the SUNY Renewal Benchmarks; and, 2) the school merits a five-year renewal recommendation.

At the beginning of the Accountability Period,8 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”9 and states the educational programs at a charter school must “meet or exceed the student performance standards adopted by the board of regents”10 for other public schools, SUNY’s required accountability measures rest on performance as measured by statewide assessments. Historically, SUNY’s required measures include measures that present schools’:

6. Education Law § 2850(2)(f).

7. SUNY Renewal Policies

(pp. 12-15).

8. 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.

9. Education Law § 2850(2)(f).

10. Education Law § 2854(1)(d).

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?

?

AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE

10



Every SUNY authorized charter school has the opportunity to propose additional measures of success when crafting its Accountability Plan. Troy Prep did not propose 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, student growth, and high school graduation and college going rates, as applicable) in the Performance Summaries appearing in Appendix B.

The Institute analyzes all measures under the school’s ELA and mathematics goals (and high school graduation and college preparation goals for schools enrolling students in high school grades) 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 Troy Prep relative to all public schools statewide that serve the same grade levels and that enroll similar concentrations of economically disadvantaged students. 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 Troy Prep’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.

Troy Prep

AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE

11



Troy Prep

The Institute uses the state’s growth percentile analysis as a measure of Troy Prep’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.

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.

AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE

12



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

Troy Prep met each of its key academic Accountability Plan goals during its second charter term. The school posted strong comparative performance and growth in both ELA and mathematics in each year of its Accountability Period. The school also met its science and state accountability goals.

Troy Prep met its key Accountability Plan goal in ELA, posting strong performance in every year of the charter term. Each year, the school exceeded the target under all comparative and growth measures included in its Accountability Plan. The school demonstrated a consistent upward trend in performance over the five years in its Accountability Period increasing the percentage of students scoring at or above proficiency on the state’s ELA exam by 29 percentage points from 2013-14 to 2017-18. Troy Prep also outperformed the local district during every year of the term. Notably, the school outperformed the district by 29 percentage points in 2017-18. The school also demonstrated strong comparative performance on its effect size measure during each year of the Accountability Period. In comparison to schools across the state enrolling similar percentages of economically disadvantaged students, the school performed higher than expected to a large degree. Troy Prep posted consistently strong growth over the term, exceeding the target of 50 for its mean growth percentile in every year from 2013-14 through 2017-18.

The school also met its mathematics Accountability Plan goal over the charter term. Troy Prep’s students enrolled in at least their second year outperformed the district’s students enrolled in similar grades during each year from 2013-14 to 2017-18. Commendably, the school posted a proficiency rate of 64 percent in 2017-18, exceeding the district’s performance by 37 percentage points. In comparison to demographically similar schools across New York State, Troy Prep performed higher than expected to a large degree in each year of the charter term. Further, the school posted mean growth percentiles that surpassed the target of 50 in every year of the term. Notably, the school posted a mean growth percentile of 89 in 2013-14, exceeding the target by 39 points. Although not included under its mathematics Accountability Plan goal, Troy Prep’s 8th grade students posted strong performance on Regents examinations over the charter term. The school administered the Regents Common Core Algebra I exam to its 8th grade students in lieu of the 8th grade mathematics exam. In 2017-18, 92% of students passed the exam with a score of 65 or higher. Further, 59% of tested students scored at Performance Level 4 or higher, achieving the college and career readiness standard, and indicating that they fully met Common Core expectations.

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK: GOALS

AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE

Troy Prep

13



The school also met its science goal over the charter term. Troy Prep first enrolled 4th

grade students in 2015-16. From 2015-16 to 2017-18, the school’s 4th grade students enrolled in at least their second year posted proficiency rates on the state science exam that exceeded the absolute target of 75 percent and the district performance each year. The school administered the Regents Living Environment exam to its 8th grade students in lieu of the 8th grade science exam. During each year of the charter term, those students posted commendable achievement on the Regents exam. Notably, 100% of tested students passed the exam in 2014-15.

The school remained in good standing under the state’s accountability system during the charter term.

Troy Prep

AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE

14




AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE

TRUE NORTH TROY PREPARATORY CHARTER SCHOOL

0

1

Target: 0.3

40

60

Target: State Median

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.

Compara�ve Measure: EffectSize. Each year, the schoolwill exceed its predicted levelof performance 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.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN GOAL

TestYear

CompGrades

District%

School%

2014 6-8

2015 3, 6-8

2016 3-4, 6-8

2017 3-8

2018 3-8

2816

3516

4923

5026

5728

TestYear

TestGrades Effect Size

2014 5-8

2015 3, 5-8

2016 3-8

2017 3-8

2018 3-8

0.76

0.72

0.84

1.00

1.07*

TestYear School Mean Growth

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018 53.5

55.4

57.4

61.2

64.2

50

100

Target: 75

True North Troy Preparatory Charter School Troy City School District

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

Troy Prep

15




AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE


Troy Prep

0

1

2

3

Targ

et: 0

.3

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.

MATHEMATICS ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN GOAL

TestYear

CompGrades

School%

District %

2014 6-8

2015 3, 6-7

2016 3-4, 6-7

2017 3-7

2018 3-7

12 71

18 62

21 57

22 65

27 64

TestYear

TestGrades Effect Size

2014 5-8

2015 3, 5-7

2016 3-7

2017 3-7

2018 3-7

2.82

1.53

1.16

1.59

1.42*

TestYear School Mean Growth

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018 50.2

60.4

64.8

75.4

88.5

50

100

Target: 75

True North Troy Preparatory Charter School Bronx CSD 8

40

60

80

Target: State Median

MATHEMATICS ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN GOAL

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

16




AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE


Troy Prep

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.

SCIENCE ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN GOAL

2016 2017 2018Enrollment Receiving Mandated AcademicServices

Tested on State Exam

School Percent Proficient on ELA Exam

District Percent Proficient 4.1

18.4

38

65

3.0

13.5

37

59

0.8

12.9

31

55

SPECIAL POPULATIONS PERFORMANCE

2016 2017 2018

ELL Enrollment

Tested on NYSESLAT Exam

School Percent 'Commanding' or MakingProgress on NYSESLAT 54.5

11

13

22.2

9

11

0.0

10

10

Troy City SchoolsTrue North Troy Preparatory Charter School

The academic outcome data about the performance of students receiving special educa�on services and ELLs above is not �edto 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 five categories/proficiencylevels: Entering; Emerging; Transi�oning; Expanding; and, Commanding.

District % School %

2016

2017

2018 94

94

100

78

67

78

0

50

100

Target: 75

17



ACADEMIC PROGRAM SUMMARY

Troy Prep leaders, with support from the network, implement the Uncommon educational model across the school. During the charter term, Troy Prep leaders leveraged more support from the CMO in the form of professional development, curriculum development, and teacher collaboration. Teachers now receive the network created curricular materials and more intensive support and access to the network’s Curriculum Assessment Team (“CAT”). In addition to curricular support, leaders utilize the network’s common assessments to input data from interim assessments and bi-weekly quizzes to compare Troy Prep’s results to other schools across the CMO. Leaders use this information to provide teachers with an opportunity to collaborate with other grade levels or content areas across the network to improve teaching and learning practices.

Across all classrooms, Troy Prep teachers implement effective classroom culture techniques to ensure that a strong foundation focused on high expectations and learning is set at the beginning of each school year so that teachers primarily focus on academics for the remainder of the school year. During the renewal visit, the Institute observed the Uncommon model of setting a strong foundation at the beginning of the school year including the use of positive narration and other management techniques to engage students in lesson material. Leaders set clear expectations for teachers to meet, and the strategies teachers implement change weekly based on leaders’ observations from the week before. During the visit, the Institute observed teachers working on specific techniques that leaders highlighted, demonstrating that the school’s professional development and pedagogical goals align tightly.

Instructional leaders utilize multiple touch points with teachers to set clear expectations for pedagogical practices, review data to drive instruction, and provide feedback on teaching. Leaders consistently coach and support teachers through lesson plan feedback, real time coaching, one on one development meetings, and professional development opportunities. Leaders are thoughtful in utilizing veteran and high performing teachers to support novice teachers through peer observations and support. At the elementary and middle school levels, leaders strategically schedule content area teachers to support in other classrooms to help model best practices and support with student learning.

Troy Prep’s special education program provides both pull out and push in support to students with disabilities. At the beginning of each year, the network regional director of special education works with special education teachers to develop and share individualized education programs (“IEPs”) at a glance with general education teachers. Troy Prep’s key

Troy Prep

AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE

18



design element of data informed decision making ensures that all students struggling academically receive specific and targeted interventions to support learning. Through regular meetings, general education and intervention teachers meet to discuss students’ progress toward meeting goals. While the school’s ELL program has made steady improvement in student outcomes since 2016, at the time of the renewal visit, the school’s ELL program needed improvement in some key areas including professional development and use of data. The Institute will ensure that the school has plans for the program to come into full compliance before any future charter term.

Troy Prep’s organizational structure supports the implementation of the school’s educational program. Leveraging Uncommon’s two leader model of a principal and director of operations at each of the elementary, middle school, and high school levels, the directors of operations allow the school principals to focus the majority of time on academics. During the 2016-17 school year, leaders made an effort to implement a restorative framework approach to discipline. However, in 2017-18, the school’s suspension rates spiked due to staff member transitions and absences at the beginning of the school year especially at the middle school level. With support from the regional network team, the school continues to implement restorative practices and closely monitor teacher send outs to the dean of students’ office in order to keep students in the classroom and reduce the overall number of suspensions. The regional network team closely monitors discipline data, and leaders must consult with the network team for approval on all out of school suspensions.

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

Troy Prep

AcACADEMIC

PfPERFORMANCE

19



Troy Prep

ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE

OgORGANIZATIONAL

PfPERFORMANCE

IS THE SCHOOL AN EFFECTIVE, VIABLE ORGANIZATION?Troy Prep is an organizational success. The CMO and directors of operations support the operational aspects of the school allowing principals to focus on academics and supports for teachers. The board provides oversight to ensure the school operates effectively.

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

Troy Prep 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. Leaders consistently use data to inform schoolwide decisions and work with teachers to inform instruction through the use of data.

ARE PARENTS/GUARDIANS AND STUDENTS SATISFIED WITH THE SCHOOL?

To report on parent satisfaction with the school’s program, the Institute used 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. Troy Prep distributes a survey to families on an annual basis to collect family satisfaction data about the school’s academic program, school culture, and communication. In 2017-18, 75% of families who received the survey responded. The vast majority of respondents (91%) indicated satisfaction with the school’s overall program. The participation rate is high enough to be 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 17 families in attendance expressed high levels of satisfaction with the school’s academic program and communication. Families appreciate the school’s openness to feedback. For example, families mentioned that the school took steps to reduce the amount of homework after families voiced concern.

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK: MISSION

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK: SATISFACTION

?

20



Persistence in Enrollment. An additional indicator of parent satisfaction is persistence in enrollment. In 2017-18, 83% of Troy Prep 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 district or the New York State Education Department (“NYSED”) is available to the Institute to provide either district or statewide context.

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

Troy Prep’s board draws on its deep and varied experience to provide effective oversight of the school’s educational program and progress toward meeting its Accountability Plan goals. The board ensures the high academic performance of the school and closely monitors the development of Troy Prep’s high school.

• Meeting every other month, Troy Prep’s board has in place structures and proceduresthat allow it to effectively oversee the school’s academic achievement and operations.School and network leaders provide regular updates about all aspects of the school’sprogram. School leaders share information about state and interim assessment data withthe board that allows members to monitor Troy Prep’s academic achievement and closelyexamine the school’s enrollment, budget, and spending in order to monitor its fiscalcondition.

• The Troy Prep board identifies a clear set of priorities for both the short and long term.As the high school continues to grow to full enrollment through 12th grade, the board iscarefully monitoring its enrollment, student and family satisfaction with the program,and its academic achievement. Concomitantly, the school and the network provideinformation about the school’s efforts to retain its students through middle schooland into high school. In the long term, the board will endeavor to maintain a strongacademic and extracurricular program while maintaining sensitivity to the organization’ssustainability as it continues to grow.

• The network provides detailed data to the board about personnel recruitment in orderfor the board to effectively hire and retain key staff members. The network conductsa survey with the Troy Prep staff members as part of an annual self evaluation. At theend of each year, the network presents the results to the board along with a plan toshore up any areas of weakness identified in the evaluation. The board is strategic in its

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK: OVERSIGHT

Troy Prep

OgORGANIZATIONAL

PfPERFORMANCE

21



Troy Prep

OgORGANIZATIONAL

PfPERFORMANCE

thinking about retaining key personnel and has strategies in place to develop and retain employees as well as develop new talent in the organization. Periodically, the board also examines the external operating environment by the salaries and benefits offered by other schools in the region to ensure Troy Prep’s compensation is competitive.

• The board is self reflective and continuously works to ensure its oversight remainseffective. When the board finds weaknesses in its oversight, it works with the schooland the network to modify practices and the information it receives in order to provideeffective oversight of the school and the organization. The board also takes advantageof its position in the Uncommon network by communicating with other board and staffmembers at Uncommon schools throughout the state to glean information and ideasabout effective governance.

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

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

• The board has generally avoided creating conflicts of interest where possible, and whereconflicts exist (as with the Uncommon affiliated trustees), the board has managed thoseconflicts in a clear and transparent manner.

• The school reviewed its performance on enrollment and retention targets, and prior tothe 2016-17 school year, the board amended the admissions policy to weight ELLs in itslottery and set aside 20% of seats for ELLs.

• The board arranged for the purchase of a vacant school building to house the elementaryprogram, making room for high school expansion at the original Polk Street site.

• The board engages in strategic planning and already is considering issues related to therefinancing of the Polk Street site, which must take place in calendar year 2019.

• After routinely being underpaid by one sending school district that withheld funds basedon proof of residency, and attempting to intercept funds through NYSED, the boardundertook litigation to collect those funds. The court sided with the district and theboard is now weighing options.

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK: POLICIES

22



Troy Prep

OgORGANIZATIONAL

PfPERFORMANCE

• One practice in need of review and amendment concerned the fingerprinting of non-employees who provide services to the school such as janitorial services. In conformity with older practice, the school relied on contractors to provide background checks for such persons. An arrest of such a contractor employee in late 2018 showed a disparity in the standards for checks being performed by contractors. The Institute followed up with the school, which has changed its policy to ensure NYSED background checks for such persons. The school also ensured it completed checks of all such non-employees.

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

The education corporation substantially complies with applicable laws, rules and regulations, and provisions of its charter with certain exceptions.

• ELL Program. The Institute found the school’s ELL program to be insufficient in certain, material respects. In general, such deficiencies constitute a violation of federal discrimination laws. Troy Prep did not consistently track and identify ELLs in a manner that enabled teachers to know which students were ELLs and their level of English language proficiency. While the program is largely effective, in some grades, the school treated ELLs as students generally at risk of academic failure and had special education teachers providing them services. The U.S. Department of Education frowns upon such practices. The school did not provide general education teachers and teachers providing services to ELLs with robust professional development. For the most part, the school only provides student pull out services, which may remove ELLs from other parts of the academic program. Lastly, the school did not formally evaluate its ELL program’s effectiveness annually nor disaggregate ELL student data to be informed of the program’s success. The Institute will ask the school for, and approve, a plan to bring the program into compliance before the start of the next school year.

• Annual Reports. While Troy Prep properly submitted its annual reports to the Institute and the NYSED, the school has not posted recent annual reports on its website in accordance with the Act. The Institute will follow up with the school to update the website prior to the next charter term.

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK: COMPLIANCE

23



Troy Prep

OgORGANIZATIONAL

PfPERFORMANCE

• Complaints. The Institute determined all formal complaints regarding the school were unfounded.

• Compliance. The Institute issued no violation letters during the charter term.

• Open Meetings Law. Some recent board meeting minutes did not reflect the appropriate reason(s) the board went into executive session nor a proper vote to return to public session. The Institute will review the issue with the school.

• Teacher Certification. The Institute found a very small number of teachers were not in compliance with the Act’s certification requirements, but the school had a plan for each one to come into compliance within a reasonable period of time.

24



FISCAL PERFORMANCEIS THE EDUCATION CORPORATION FISCALLY SOUND?Based on a review of the fiscal evidence collected through the renewal review, Troy Prep 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.8

Troy Prep has the financial resources to ensure stable operations. Under the terms of an academic and business service agreement, Uncommon operates a regional support structure to provide services related to academic program, facility, fundraising, recruiting, training, professional development, financial management, and human resources. The financial model is intended to ensure that a fully enrolled school is financially sustainable, operating the academic program solely through public funding.

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

Working with the network, Troy Prep has employed clear budgetary objectives and budget preparation procedures throughout the charter term.

• The directors of operations along with the director of finance are the guardians of the school’s fiscal health and lead the development of the annual and five year budget process with the assistance of the principals and leadership team. Although the principals and board have the final say on fiscal matters, the directors of operations and director of finance are the closest to the finances and the driving force within the school on key financial decisions. The budgets are based on historical actual revenues and expenses, and programmatic changes to ensure that the staff can properly support the proposed enrollment.

• The projected five year renewal budget reflects anticipated increases in revenues and expenses associated with planned enrollment growth as the school expands through 12th grade in the second year of the renewal charter term.

• Troy Prep has two sites and anticipates that the current facilities are large enough to support the projected enrollment growth through the end of the next charter term. One site accommodates the elementary program and the other site holds the middle and high school programs. The school leases the sites from different wholly owned subsidiaries

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK: BUDGETS

8. 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

?

Troy Prep

25



of Uncommon, which pass through costs of ownership to the education corporation in the form of rent. Uncommon has also provided some renovation/purchase money on an interest free basis in cases where the education corporation did not have sufficient funds on hand. As the education corporation’s income supports the real estate, the board must approve all financings related to real estate.

DOES THE SCHOOL MAINTAIN APPROPRIATE INTERNAL CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES?

Troy Prep has a history of sound fiscal policies, procedures, and practices, and maintains appropriate internal controls.

• The Uncommon Schools Fiscal Policies and Procedures Manual – NY Schools guides all internal controls and procedures. The manual contains fiscal policies and procedures that undergo ongoing reviews and updates.

• Troy Prep’s most recent audit report of internal controls 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?

Troy Prep complies with financial reporting requirements.

• The Institute and the NYSED have received the required financial reports on time, complete, and follow generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

• Independent audits of annual financial statements have received unqualified opinions with no material weaknesses or instances of non-compliance observed.

• The education corporation has generally filed key reports timely and accurately including: audit reports, budgets, unaudited quarterly reports of revenue, expenses, and enrollment.

• 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: FINANCIAL REPORTING

FcFISCAL

PfPERFORMANCE

Troy Prep

26



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

Troy Prep maintains the necessary financial resources to ensure stable operations.

• The school opened in 2009-10 and has consistently had operating surpluses in its second charter term.

• Troy Prep relies primarily on recurring operating revenues and accumulated surpluses and is not dependent upon variable income for its financial needs. The school meets program needs without budgetary restraints.

• Troy Prep 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 2.4 months of cash on hand. Troy Prep maintains a healthy balance sheet with net assets in excess of $3.6 million.

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

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK: OPERATIONS

FcFISCAL

PfPERFORMANCE

Troy Prep

27



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. Troy Prep plans to continue to grow additional grades until the school reaches full capacity as a Kindergarten – 12th grade school in 2020-21.

Plans for the School’s Structure. Troy Prep 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. Troy Prep plans to continue to implement the same core elements of its educational program 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. Over the next charter term Troy Prep will continue to grow to serve Kindergarten – 12th grade implementing the final parts of its previously approved high school revision.

Plans for Board Oversight & Governance. Current board members express interest in continuing to serve Troy Prep 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, Troy Prep 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 646 754

Grade Span K-10 K-12

Teaching Staff 52 60

Days of Instruction 185 185

CURRENT

Troy Prep

28



Troy Prep plans to provide instruction for the elementary, middle school, and high school grades in the existing two renovated leased school spaces under long-term lease agreements for the next charter term. The education corporation and Uncommon intend to re-finance the Polk Avenue building prior to January 2020.

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

Troy Prep

Troy Prep

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 1-18

AxAPPENDICES

Troy Prep

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

Jeffrey Buell Barbara McCandless

Heather LaVine

Doug Lemov

Joe Bonilla

Robert Bellafiore

Andrea Martone

TRUSTEESCHAIR

SCHOOL LEADERS

Samantha DeLuke, Principal (January 2016 to Present) Katie Yezzi, Principal (2011-12 to January 2016)

Lauren Catlett, Principal (2014-15 to Present) Paul Powell, Middle School Principal (2009-10 to 2013-14)

Maisie Wright, High School Principal (February 2018 to Present) Katie Yezzi, High School Principal (August 2017 to February 2018)

ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL

SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS

PROPOSED GRADES

ACTUAL GRADES

2014-15 455 449 98% K-3, 5-8 K-3, 5-8

2015-16 515 514 99% K-8 K-8

2016-17 515 537 104% K-8 K-8

2017-18 598 579 97% K-9 K-92018-19 646 639 99% K-10 K-10

ACTUAL ENROLLMENT

SCHOOL YEAR

CHARTERED ENROLLMENT

ACTUAL AS A PERCENTAGE

OF CHARTERED ENROLLMENT

Troy Prep

MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL

HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL

TRUE NORTH TROY PREPARATORY CHARTER SCHOOL 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

2.92.6

2.11.7 2.2

17.116.9

11.210.7 11.1

Student Demographics: Special Popula�ons

Student Demographics: Free/Reduced Lunch

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

District

School

District

School

District

School

76.476.1

89.480.784.7

3.35.2

16.80.0

70.467.6

79.497.5

2015-16

2016-17

Asian, Na�veHawaiian, or

PacificIslander

Black orAfrican

American

Hispanic White

2017-18

District

School 1620631

4417302

Student Demographics: Race/Ethnicity

District

School 1623601

4118311

Asian,Na�ve

Hawaiian,or PacificIslander

Black orAfrican

American

Hispanic White

District

School 1523601



Troy Prep

3Ax-




2016 2017 2018

0

25

% of

stud

ents

susp

ende

d

School ISS Rate School OSS Rate

2016

2017

2018 17.0

9.2

17.2

18.5

17.1

9.7

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

84.5

81.0

82.7

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

who did return 2016 2017 2018

001

Expulsions: The number of students expelled fromthe school each year

Enrollment

economicallydisadvantagedEnglish languagelearnersstudents withdisabili�es

Reten�on

economicallydisadvantagedEnglish languagelearnersstudents withdisabili�es

True North Troy Preparatory Charter School's Enrollmentand Reten�on Status: 2017-18 District Target School

14.2

2.7

88.5

16.1

2.2

71.2

84.6

91.7

83.2

90.6

86.6

91.2


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

Troy Prep

4Ax-



PARENT SATISFACTION: SURVEY RESULTS

RESPONSE RATE

75%SCHOOL CULTURE

89%SCHOOL LEADER

AVAILABILITY

89%ACADEMICS

98%


SCHOOL VISIT HISTORY

CONDUCT OF THE RENEWAL VISIT

DATE2009-10 First Year March 18, 2010

2011-12 Evaluation May 21-22, 2012

2013-14 Initial Renewal November 6-7, 2013

2018-19 Subsequent Renewal September 19-20, 2018

VISIT TYPESCHOOL YEAR

TITLE

September 19-20, 2018

Andrew Kile Director of School Evaluation

Jeff Wasbes Executive Deputy Director of Accountability

Hannah Colestock School Evaluation Analyst

Cheyenne Batista São Roque External Consultant

EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERSDATE(S) OF VISIT

TIMELINE OF CHARTER SCHOOL RENEWAL

Troy Prep

OVERALL SATISFACTION

91%

5Ax-



KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS:

ELEMENT EVIDENT?

Data informed decision making; +High quality professional development; +Learning fundamentals; +Character education; +Building relationships; and, +Shared decision making process. +


Troy Prep

6Ax-



APPENDIX B: Performance SummariesIn

INTRODUCTION

1Te

xt47

:Tr

ue N

orth

Tro

y Pr

epar

ator

y Ch

arte

r Sch

ool

SCHO

OL

PERF

ORM

ANCE

SUM

MAR

Y: E

nglis

h La

ngua

ge A

rts

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 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

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

104

118

NO YES

49.1

22.7

YES

Scho

olDi

stric

tG

rade

s

3-4,

6-8

Gra

des

62.7

Pred

icte

dEf

fect

Si

zeAc

tual

41.7

26.3

0.84

YES

Com

paris

on:

Troy

City

Sch

ools

3-8

3 4 5 6 7 8 All

79.3

9.6

17.3

26.0

48.8

41.7

(59)

(58)

(52)

(52)

(50)

(41)

(312

)

62.5

85.7

0.0

16.7

27.0

48.8

49.1

(48)

(49) (9)

(36)

(37)

(41)

(220

)

2015

-16

Gra

des

Serv

ed:K

-8

% E

D

83.2

Gra

des

4 5 6 7 8 All

Scho

olSt

ate

YES

56.1

54.0

55.2

62.2

59.6

57.4

50.0

All

Stud

ents

% (N

)

2+ Y

ears

St

uden

ts%

(N)

MET

Gra

des

AMO

PLI

2016

-17

111

126

NO YES

50.4

25.7

YES

Scho

olDi

stric

tG

rade

s

3-8

Gra

des

65.6

Pred

icte

dEf

fect

Si

zeAc

tual

46.8

29.8

1.00

YES

Com

paris

on:

Troy

City

Sch

ools

3-8

3 4 5 6 7 8 All

61.7

57.1

20.3

16.3

54.2

46.8

(61)

(60)

(63)

(59)

(49)

(48)

(340

)

72.5

66.7

62.7

16.3

15.4

58.8

50.4

(51)

(48)

(51)

(43)

(39)

(34)

(266

)

Gra

des

Serv

ed: K

-8

% E

D

78.9

Gra

des

4 5 6 7 8 All

Scho

olSt

ate

55.4

YES

50.0

55.4

51.2

58.6

47.3

64.7

All

Stud

ents

% (N

)

2+ Y

ears

St

uden

ts%

(N)

MET

Gra

des

MIP

PI 140

NO NA

56.6

28.0

YES

Scho

olDi

stric

tG

rade

s

3-8

Gra

des

62.5

Pred

icte

dEf

fect

Si

zeAc

tual

51.6

32.6

1.07

YES

Com

paris

on:

Troy

City

Sch

ools

3-8

3 4 5 6 7 8 All

71.7

37.9

72.1

22.8

35.9

51.6

(64)

(60)

(66)

(61)

(57)

(39)

(347

)

61.5

76.9

48.0

76.9

25.6

37.5

56.6

(52)

(52)

(50)

(52)

(43)

(32)

(281

)

2017

-18

Gra

des

Serv

ed:K

-9

% E

D

89.5

Gra

des

4 5 6 7 8 All

Scho

olSt

ate

YES

56.7

42.2

57.7

52.6

61.9

53.5

50.0

Troy Prep

7Ax-



Text

47:

True

Nor

th T

roy

Prep

arat

ory

Cha

rter

Sch

ool

SCH

OO

L PE

RFO

RM

ANC

E SU

MM

ARY:

Mat

hem

atic

s

ABSO

LUTE

MEA

SUR

ES1.

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

Per

form

ance

Lev

el In

dex

onth

e St

ate

exam

will

mee

tthe

Ann

ualM

easu

rabl

e O

bjec

tive

set f

orth

in th

e St

ate’

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.

CO

MPA

RAT

IVE

MEA

SUR

ES

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

fE

cono

mic

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.

GR

OW

TH M

EASU

RE

All

Stud

ents

% (N

)

2+ Y

ears

St

uden

ts%

(N)

MET

Gra

des

AMO

PLI

101

137

NO

YES

56.7

21.2

YES

Scho

olD

istr

ict

Gra

des

3-4,

6-7

Gra

des

71.2

Pred

icte

dEf

fect

Si

zeAc

tual

52.4

28.6

1.16

YES

Com

paris

on:

Troy

City

Sch

ools

3-7

3 4 5 6 7 8 All

82.8

34.0

35.3

32.0

52.4

(59)

(58)

(53)

(51)

(50) (0)

(271

)

68.8

87.8

0.0

37.1

32.4

56.7

(48)

(49) (9)

(35)

(37) (0)

(178

)

2015

-16

Gra

des

Ser

ved:

K-8

% E

D

82.0

Gra

des

4 5 6 7 8 All

Scho

olSt

ate

YES

57.4

77.3

70.1

58.0

0.0

64.8

50.0

2016

-17

All

Stud

ents

% (N

)

2+ Y

ears

St

uden

ts%

(N)

MET

Gra

des

AMO

PLI

149

NO

YES

65.4

21.9

YES

Scho

olD

istr

ict

Gra

des

3-7

Gra

des

85.5

Pred

icte

dEf

fect

Si

zeAc

tual

61.8

30.2

1.59

YES

Com

paris

on:

Troy

City

Sch

ools

3-7

3 4 5 6 7 8 All

62.3

67.7

39.7

50.0

61.8

(62)

(61)

(62)

(58)

(50) (0)

(293

)

92.2

67.3

72.0

40.5

46.2

65.4

(51)

(49)

(50)

(42)

(39) (0)

(231

)

Gra

des

Ser

ved:

K-8

% E

D

81.1

Gra

des

4 5 6 7 8 All

Scho

olSt

ate

60.4

50.0

YES

52.6

46.3

71.6

77.2

0.0

109

YES

51.5

2017

-18

All

Stud

ents

% (N

)

2+ Y

ears

St

uden

ts%

(N)

MET

Gra

des

MIP

PI 157

NO NA

64.1

27.1

YES

Scho

olD

istr

ict

Gra

des

3-7

Gra

des

76.6

Pred

icte

dEf

fect

Si

zeAc

tual

58.4

31.3

1.42

YES

Com

paris

on:

Troy

City

Sch

ools

3-7

3 4 5 6 7 8 All

69.5

54.8

38.6

58.4

(64)

(59)

(66)

(62)

(57) (0)

(308

)

76.9

74.5

58.0

63.5

44.2

64.1

(52)

(51)

(50)

(52)

(43) (0)

(248

)

Gra

des

Ser

ved:

K-9

% E

D

89.5

Gra

des

4 5 6 7 8 All

Scho

olSt

ate

44.8

45.7

58.3

52.7

0.0

50.2

50.0

APPENDIX B: Performance Summaries

Troy Prep

8Ax-



APPENDIX C: District Comments

NO COMMENTS RECEIVED

Troy Prep

9Ax-



APPENDIX D: Fiscal Dashboard

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

Cash and Cash Equivalents ‐ GRAPH 1 709,752 129,534 651,163 1,573,469 1,672,015 Grants and Contracts Receivable 447,182 2,199,914 1,111,776 439,682 637,065 Accounts Receivable ‐ ‐ ‐ 498,024 950,687 Prepaid Expenses 3,125 35,831 62,004 42,968 39,369 Contributions and Other Receivables ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Current Assets ‐ GRAPH 1 1,160,059 2,365,279 1,824,943 2,554,143 3,299,136 Property, Building and Equipment, net 480,841 409,820 472,457 419,673 807,800 Other Assets ‐ ‐ ‐ 75,171 75,314 Total Assets ‐ GRAPH 1 1,640,900 2,775,099 2,297,400 3,048,987 4,182,250

Liabilities and Net AssetsCurrent Liabilities

Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses 458,120 354,586 279,346 328,677 566,499 Accrued Payroll and Benefits ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Deferred Revenue 25,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Current Maturities of Long‐Term Debt ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Short Term Debt ‐ Bonds, Notes Payable ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Other ‐ 1,000,000 ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Current Liabilities ‐ GRAPH 1 483,120 1,354,586 279,346 328,677 566,499 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Liabilities ‐ GRAPH 1 483,120 1,354,586 279,346 328,677 566,499

Net AssetsUnrestricted 1,157,780 1,420,513 2,018,054 2,720,310 3,615,751 Temporarily restricted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Net Assets 1,157,780 1,420,513 2,018,054 2,720,310 3,615,751

Total Liabilities and Net Assets 1,640,900 2,775,099 2,297,400 3,048,987 4,182,250

ACTIVITIESOperating Revenue

Resident Student Enrollment 4,846,180 5,764,678 6,674,756 7,570,535 7,994,014 Students with Disabilities 90,314 145,407 231,246 246,262 343,576 Grants and Contracts State and local ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Federal ‐ Title and IDEA 207,278 761,514 221,202 275,994 273,251 Federal ‐ Other 412,657 52,016 469,799 49,658 160,004 Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ NYC DoE Rental Assistance ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Food Service/Child Nutrition Program 310,688 ‐ ‐ 504,100 500,566

Total Operating Revenue 5,867,117 6,723,615 7,597,003 8,646,549 9,271,411

ExpensesRegular Education 4,731,015 5,766,292 5,998,972 6,867,789 6,906,755 SPED 111,600 ‐ 223,511 212,403 287,782 Regular Education & SPED (combined) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Program Services 4,842,615 5,766,292 6,222,483 7,080,192 7,194,537 Management and General 754,708 780,681 778,894 875,637 1,201,794 Fundraising ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Expenses ‐ GRAPHS 2, 3 & 4 5,597,323 6,546,973 7,001,377 7,955,829 8,396,331

Surplus / (Deficit) From School Operations 269,794 176,642 595,626 690,720 875,080

Support and Other RevenueContributions 104,240 29,750 1,840 1,000 5,200 Fundraising ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Miscellaneous Income 14,506 56,341 75 10,536 15,161 Net assets released from restriction ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Support and Other Revenue 118,746 86,091 1,915 11,536 20,361

Total Unrestricted Revenue 5,985,863 6,809,706 7,598,918 8,658,085 9,291,772 Total Temporally Restricted Revenue ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Revenue ‐ GRAPHS 2 & 3 5,985,863 6,809,706 7,598,918 8,658,085 9,291,772

Change in Net Assets 388,540 262,733 597,541 702,256 895,441 Net Assets ‐ Beginning of Year ‐ GRAPH 2 769,240 1,157,780 1,420,513 2,018,054 2,720,310

Prior Year Adjustment(s) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Net Assets ‐ End of Year ‐ GRAPH 2 1,157,780 1,420,513 2,018,054 2,720,310 3,615,751


Opened 2009‐10

SCHOOL INFORMATION

L‐T Debt and Notes Payable, net current maturities

Troy Prep

10Ax-




Functional Expense Breakdown

Personnel Service 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 Administrative Staff Personnel 280,878 317,308 1,059,798 1,291,302 1,392,695 Instructional Personnel 2,126,183 2,534,325 2,066,099 2,384,681 2,450,330 Non‐Instructional Personnel ‐ ‐ ‐ 38,000 39,500 Personnel Services (Combined) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Salaries and Staff 2,407,061 2,851,633 3,125,897 3,713,983 3,882,525 Fringe Benefits & Payroll Taxes 483,123 597,128 669,538 645,130 693,826 Retirement ‐ ‐ ‐ 92,083 101,808 Management Company Fees 488,659 552,853 605,715 646,931 688,867 Building and Land Rent / Lease 565,287 575,981 625,645 506,100 538,624 Staff Development 121,060 188,575 187,675 185,278 213,900 Professional Fees, Consultant & Purchased Services 110,796 59,476 ‐ 190,014 194,166 Marketing / Recruitment ‐ ‐ ‐ 19,942 20,269 Student Supplies, Materials & Services 339,192 829,235 837,928 503,361 517,778 Depreciation 183,459 210,119 209,249 145,507 154,107 Other 898,686 681,973 739,730 1,307,500 1,390,461

Total Expenses 5,597,323 6,546,973 7,001,377 7,955,829 8,396,331

ENROLLMENT 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17Original Chartered Enrollment 319 394 455 515 515 Final Chartered Enrollment (includes any revisions) 319 394 455 515 515 Actual Enrollment ‐ GRAPH 4 322 390 449 514 537 Chartered Grades K‐1, 5‐8 K‐2, 5‐8 K‐3, 5‐8 K‐8 K‐8Final Chartered Grades (includes any revisions) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Primary School District: TROY CITY SDPer Pupil Funding (Weighted Avg of All Districts) 15,986 14,996 14,996 14,996 14,981

Increase over prior year 0.0% ‐6.6% 0.0% 0.0% ‐0.1%

PER STUDENT BREAKDOWN

RevenueOperating 18,221 17,232 16,904 16,831 17,272 Other Revenue and Support 369 221 4 22 38 TOTAL ‐ GRAPH 3 18,590 17,453 16,908 16,854 17,310

ExpensesProgram Services 15,039 14,779 13,846 13,782 13,403 Management and General, Fundraising 2,344 2,001 1,733 1,705 2,239 TOTAL ‐ GRAPH 3 17,383 16,780 15,579 15,487 15,641 % of Program Services 86.5% 88.1% 88.9% 89.0% 85.7%% of Management and Other 13.5% 11.9% 11.1% 11.0% 14.3%

% of Revenue Exceeding Expenses ‐ GRAPH 5 6.9% 4.0% 8.5% 8.8% 10.7%

Student to Faculty Ratio 7.8 8.1 11.5 10.3 10.1

Faculty to Admin Ratio 10.6 12.0 2.4 2.6 2.8

Financial Responsibility Composite Scores ‐ GRAPH 6Score 2.3 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.0

Working Capital ‐ GRAPH 7Net Working Capital 676,939 1,010,693 1,545,597 2,225,466 2,732,637 As % of Unrestricted Revenue 11.3% 14.8% 20.3% 25.7% 29.4%Working Capital (Current) Ratio Score 2.4 1.7 6.5 7.8 5.8Risk (Low ≥ 3.0 / Medium 1.4 ‐ 2.9 / High < 1.4) MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW LOW LOWRating (Excellent ≥ 3.0 / Good 1.4 ‐ 2.9 / Poor < 1.4) Good Good Excellent Excellent Excellent

Quick (Acid Test) RatioScore 2.4 1.7 6.3 7.6 5.8Risk (Low ≥ 2.5 / Medium 1.0 ‐ 2.4 / High < 1.0) MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW LOW LOWRating (Excellent ≥ 2.5 / Good 1.0 ‐ 2.4 / Poor < 1.0) Good Good Excellent Excellent Excellent

Debt to Asset Ratio ‐ GRAPH 7Score 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1Risk (Low < 0.50 / Medium 0.51 ‐ .95 / High > 1.0) LOW MEDIUM LOW LOW LOWRating (Excellent < 0.50 / Good 0.51 ‐ .95 / Poor > 1.0) Excellent Good Excellent Excellent Excellent

Months of Cash ‐ GRAPH 8Score 1.5 0.2 1.1 2.4 2.4Risk (Low > 3 mo. / Medium 1 ‐ 3 mo. / High < 1 mo.) MEDIUM HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUMRating (Excellent > 3 mo. / Good 1 ‐ 3 mo. / Poor < 1 mo.) Good Poor Good Good Good

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


Troy Prep

11Ax-





‐

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

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

8,000,000

9,000,000

10,000,000

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.

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

-

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

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

Enrollm

ent

Operating E

xpen

ses


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

Troy Prep

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

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

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

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

3.002012‐13 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


Troy Prep

13Ax-



UNCOMMON UPSTATE CHARTER SCHOOLS1

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 structure using the Qualitative Education Benchmarks. This subset of the SUNY Renewal Benchmarks focuses on instruction, assessment, curriculum, leadership, and organizational capacity. 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. The analysis below reflects information gathered from the education corporation’s charter and founding documents and Institute visits across all schools implementing the common design as well as information submitted in annual and other reports required of New York charter schools.

DOES UNCOMMON UPSTATE CHARTER SCHOOLS HAVE AN ASSESSMENT SYSTEM THAT IMPROVES INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AND STUDENT LEARNING?

Uncommon Schools Upstate’s assessment system is robust and provides valid and reliable data to inform its instructional program. Uncommon Schools Upstate administers a variety of diagnostic, formative, and benchmark assessments throughout the school year to determine students’ level of mastery and identify student needs at each grade level. To measure literacy and mathematics skills in elementary grades, Uncommon Schools Upstate administers the Strategic Teaching and Evaluation of Progress (“STEP”) Assessment2 for Kindergarten – 4th grade and the Terra Nova Assessment3 for Kindergarten. Uncommon also creates English language arts (“ELA”) and mathematics interim assessments (“IAs”) that each school administers in Kindergarten – 4th grade. For middle school grades, Uncommon Schools Upstate administers practice ELA and mathematics state exams and IAs in ELA, mathematics, science, and history. For 8th grade, Uncommon Schools Upstate students take the Algebra 1 and Living Environment Regents exams in lieu of taking the 8th grade state assessments. At the high school level, students take quarterly and final course exams in addition to Regents exams. Uncommon Schools Upstate’s high school programs require all 10th, 11th, and 12th graders to enroll in at least one AP course. The schools focus on AP coursework upon students’ completion of the five required Regents exams. As such, the schools prioritize measures of college preparation that supplant the Advanced Diploma measure.

Appropriate training prepares teachers to implement valid and reliable processes for scoring assessments and evaluating results. For example, during pre-service training, teachers collectively grade and analyze student work samples to norm their understanding of grading rubrics. This norming helps ensure teachers score student work and assessments in the same manner across schools and individual classrooms, and that the collected data are reliable. Schools work with the network to provide thorough analyses of assessment data at the student, class, grade, and school levels using Illuminate, an online software that houses student information. This portal serves as a repository for student academic and culture data.

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK

1B1. Uncommon Schools,

Inc. (“Uncommon” or

the “network”), serves as

the charter management

organization (“CMO”) for

True North Troy Preparatory

Charter School and True North

Rochester Preparatory Charter

School, which operates three

schools (“Uncommon Schools

Upstate”). For additional

information on the managing

organization, refer to www.

uncommonschools.org.

2. The STEP Assessment

measures student reading

growth and performance from

pre-Kindergarten to 3rd grade.

For more information please

refer to

www.uchicagoimpact.org/

our-offerings/step.

3. The Terra Nova Assessment

is a nationally normed

assessment that measures

student performance against

Common Core Standards. For

more information, please refer

to www.setontesting.com/

terranova/.

APPENDIX E: Uncommon Upstate Overview

Troy Prep

14Ax-



The network generates visually engaging performance reports to enable school-to-school comparisons across grade levels and to assist in developing instructional adjustments at the network, school, and classroom level.

Additionally, school leaders and the network use data to identify topics for professional development and to identify strategies needed for general coaching. For example, after reviewing classroom observation and student performance data, principals create specific professional development activities around working with teachers to identify standards students did not previously master and incorporating or “spiraling” those standards into mini-review lessons to increase student mastery. Uncommon Schools Upstate continually uses assessment data to evaluate teacher, leader, and program effectiveness.

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

Uncommon Schools Upstate develops a rigorous and comprehensive in-house curriculum that supports teachers in their instructional planning within and across grades. At the elementary and middle school levels, the Uncommon curriculum and assessment team creates scope and sequence documents aligned to state standards for each subject and grade level under the guidance of the Uncommon chief schools officer. Scope and sequence documents include flexibility to allow for adjustment based on individual school schedules and student needs. Lead lesson planners from each grade level and content area help develop the curriculum materials collaboratively with network staff. The network chooses lead planners based on student performance data and demonstrated ability to create strong lesson plans. At the high school level, teachers receive curricular frameworks and supporting documents for most classes from the network. During the school year, teachers work collaboratively with instructional leaders at each school to review and internalize instructional plans and provide feedback to the network if necessary. Lead lesson planners hold roll out conferences for teachers one to two weeks before the start of each new mathematics and ELA unit to ensure schools implement units with fidelity. As part of roll-out conferences, staff members discuss the upcoming unit, lesson plans, and logistics that will ensure effective implementation of the unit.

In addition to the network curriculum framework that details what students will learn in each grade, Uncommon provides teachers with a variety of supporting tools including pacing guides, unit plans, and individual lesson plans that provide a bridge between the framework and daily lessons. As stated above, network lead planners create daily lesson plans and class assignments. Each lesson plan includes sections that instructional leaders may assist teachers in modifying based on the needs of their particular students. These materials detail what students should learn and be able to do throughout the school year, therefore allowing teachers to know what to teach and when to teach it.

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK

1C

APPENDIX E: Education Corporation Overview

Troy Prep

15Ax-



IS HIGH QUALITY INSTRUCTION EVIDENT THROUGHOUT UNCOMMON SCHOOLS UPSTATE?

High quality instruction that creates a consistent focus on academic achievement, and develops students’ higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills, is evident across Uncommon Schools Upstate. During first year visits, mid-charter term visits, and renewal visits to a sample of schools in recent years, Institute teams have found well-crafted lessons, effective questioning, and ongoing formal and informal assessment of students’ progress toward concept mastery. Particularly, daily work packets in classrooms serve as a primary means to support adherence to clear objectives generally built on previously taught concepts.

Typically, lessons include opportunities for students to work with peers to solve problems or complete assignments that require higher-order thinking skills. Teachers regularly use “The Taxonomy of Effective Teaching Practices” found in Teach Like A Champion4 to help guide instruction. Some techniques to gauge student understanding of taught concepts include circulating the classroom to conference with students or peer groups, as well as requiring students to orally articulate correct answers. These strategies help ensure teachers have clear understandings of student mastery in order to plan future instruction and address any student misunderstandings during or after lessons.

A high urgency for learning is an integral part of Uncommon Schools Upstate’s approach to instruction. The majority of teachers maximize learning time, often with use of timers to regulate pacing and effective classroom management techniques the network and individual schools train teachers to implement. Routines for transitioning students from one lesson to the next ensure students remain focused on learning tasks.

DOES UNCOMMON SCHOOLS UPSTATE HAVE STRONG INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP?

Uncommon Schools Upstate has a common school leadership structure consisting of a principal and a director of operations for each school. Other members of the school leadership team may include a dean of curriculum and instruction, a dean of students, and a special education coordinator. One of the main roles of instructional leaders is to provide extensive coaching and professional development to support student learning. Teacher coaching consists of daily classroom observations by school and network leaders, which they follow-up with post-observation feedback through regularly scheduled one-on-ones with teachers and weekly grade-level meetings. Uncommon Schools Upstate also emphasizes the importance of “in the moment” feedback in which leaders may provide suggestions or co-teach with teachers during classroom observations.

Uncommon Schools Upstate sets high expectations for student and teacher performance, measured largely by student achievement results. For example, the network expects schools to show at least 80% student mastery on specific mathematics and ELA IAs. Network schools monitor progress toward meeting network-wide and school performance goals and use this data to adjust lesson plans if necessary.

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK

1D

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK

1E


Troy Prep

4. Taxonomy of Effective

Teaching Practices and

Teach Like a Champion

are part of Uncommon

Impact, an Uncommon

Schools, Inc., initiative.

Please refer to www.

teachlikeachampion.com

for more information.

16Ax-



Uncommon Schools Upstate’s strong, differentiated professional development program begins with summer pre-service training. The content and duration of pre-service training varies with years of teaching experience and area of specialization. For example, teachers new to Uncommon Schools Upstate participate in an additional week of network orientation, and members of schools’ at-risk programs staff attend sessions focusing on identifying students struggling academically, providing student interventions, and working with English language learners (“ELLs”). In addition to ongoing network-wide activities, weekly professional development sessions led by school leaders address particular teacher needs by grade and content area.

DOES UNCOMMON SCHOOLS UPSTATE MEET THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF AT-RISK STUDENTS?

Uncommon Schools Upstate continually adjusts its programs designed to meet the needs of at-risk students. Network schools generally implement clear procedures for identifying and serving students with disabilities, ELLs, and students at risk of academic failure. School leaders and at-risk program staff disaggregate student performance data regularly to monitor the effectiveness of instructional and behavioral interventions.

Schools use a tiered Response to Intervention (“RTI”) process to identify students struggling academically and to modify interventions as necessary. Tier 1 interventions involve the implementation of schoolwide behavior systems and differentiated instruction in general education classrooms. Teachers refer students who do not respond to tier 1 supports, as reflected in low performance on IAs or in-class assignments, to student study teams (“SSTs”) that comprise grade-level teams and at-risk program staff at each school. SSTs identify specific learning gaps and assign tier 2 interventions as appropriate. Tier 2 interventions usually last between six and 12 weeks and include pull-out classes in groups of no more than eight students for up to one hour per day. These skills-specific (for reading, writing and/or mathematics) groups often follow research-based commercial intervention programs including SRA Corrective Mathematics,5 Stern Structural Arithmetic,6 Fundations, the Wilson Reading System,7 and Lindamood Bell Visualizing and Verbalizing.8 SSTs monitor students’ progress in meeting performance goals throughout the time specifically allotted to each intervention. If a student does not make sufficient progress, the SST determines next steps including tier 3 supports that may include adjustments to pull-out and push-in supports, individualized interventions, and referral to the local school district’s committee on special education (“CSE”) as necessary.

Uncommon Schools Upstate uses a home language survey and the New York State Identification Test for English Language Learners (“NYSITELL”) to identify students requiring English language acquisition supports. The network utilizes effective strategies it provides to other students struggling academically to serve ELLs. Schools serve ELLs using a structured English language immersion program in combination with various effective instructional strategies, such as guided reading and modification of vocabulary complexity during instruction. Network professional development activities help develop teachers’ abilities in

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK

1F


Troy Prep

5. SRA Corrective Mathematics

is designed to teach math

problem solving skills to

students at least one grade

level behind. For more

information, please refer

to www.mheducation.com/

prek-12/.

6. Stern Structural Arithmetic

provides a hands-on approach

to learning, where students

actively participate and

develop abstract understanding

of mathematical principals. For

more information, please refer

to www.sternmath.com.

7. Fundations and the Wilson

Reading System allows

students to access research-

based materials and strategies

essential to comprehensive

reading, spelling and writing.

For more information, please

refer to www.wilsonlanguage.

com.

8. The Lindamood Bell

Visualizing and Verbalizing

Program aims to develop the

sensory-cognitive processes

that help students with reading

and comprehension. For more

information, please refer to

www.lindamoodbell.com.

17Ax-



identifying and supporting ELLs in their classrooms. Teachers incorporate speaking, listening, reading, and writing across the curricula. Programmatically, these supports meet students’ learning needs due to the strength of Uncommon Schools Upstate’s program. As discussed with the Institute recently, Uncommon Schools Upstate is conducting a review of its ELL services. The schools provide an ELL coordinator for each the elementary, middle school, and high school levels. The director of student support services creates English learner plans that highlight ELLs’ English language proficiency levels from either the NYSITELL or NYSESLAT for reading, writing, listening, and speaking. The schools remain committed to hiring and improving the ELL program, and the Institute will continue to monitor the schools’ ELL compliance, proficiency, and enrollment and retention targets. The Institute will also continue to communicate with the network regarding the supports it is putting in place in schools for ELLs.

To meet the needs of students with Individualized Education Programs (“IEPs”) mandating academic services, Uncommon Schools Upstate utilize a number of instructional services including direct and indirect consultant teacher, as well as resource room supports that special education teachers provide. Teachers are aware of students’ IEP goals and work regularly with at-risk program staff to address student needs. SSTs also meet regularly to discuss students’ progress toward meeting IEP goals using quantitative and qualitative data from general education and special education teachers.

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

Uncommon establishes effective organizational structures with staff, systems, and procedures that support student achievement and undergird the holistic delivery of the educational program. Clear roles and responsibilities at the school and network level allow school leaders to focus on student achievement and teacher support. The directors of operations serve as school leaders, allowing principals to focus on implementing a strong academic program. Principals receive support from directors of curriculum and instruction at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Network schools also employ deans of students that focus mainly on school culture and behavior management as well as directors of operations and additional operational staff members that manage the non-instructional business of the schools. Network associate superintendents (“ASUPs”) visit schools regularly to coach principals and supervise the instructional and academic program at the schools they manage.

To help recruit and retain high quality staff, Uncommon Schools Upstate emphasizes promoting high quality talent from within the organization to leadership positions at the school and network level. Uncommon Schools Upstate’s “leadership pathways” provide high performing teachers with secondary leadership positions that exist within all network schools at scale. These positions include dean of students, dean of curriculum and instruction,


Troy Prep

SUNY RENEWAL

BENCHMARK

2C

18Ax-



instructional leader, grade level leader, special education coordinator, or director of special projects. It is customary for staff to hold one of these secondary leadership positions before moving to higher positions in a school or at the network level. School leaders and network staff use student achievement results, classroom observations, coaching feedback, and other data to identify particularly strong teachers and staff to fill these leadership roles, ultimately supplying top talent to support the network’s portfolio of schools.

Uncommon Schools Upstate also utilizes its Instructional Fellowship Program to develop high quality candidates into future school leaders. This fellowship program prepares participants to run high-performing schools and, like standard school principals, the ASUP manages and supports these fellows. Although fellows can participate in the program for one year before leading their own school, the fellowship also offers a two-year option for those that need further development in areas such as data analysis and school culture. Much like the Instructional Fellowship Program, Uncommon Schools Upstate also offers an Operations Fellowship that trains those interested in the non-instructional responsibilities of schools to open a new network school, take over an existing school or join an existing Kindergarten – 8th grade school as an academy director of operations.


Troy Prep

the suny charter schools institute...recommendation troy prep 3: 5 suny charter schools institute...

Documents