3. Assign Additional Accountability to Each Learning Center to Ensure Transparency and Accountability for the Communities in Which the Learning Centers Operate

EXHIBIT A

Facts about APS

● APS 2020: Shaping the Future is the district’s strategic plan to our vision that every child shapes a successful future. The APS Board of Education and Leadership Team gathered feedback on the plan from staff, parents, students, community, and business members.

● APS students come from more than 130 countries and speak over 160 different languages.

● 51.2% of students speak English as a second language; of these, 78.9% are native Spanish speakers.

● 66.5% of our students receive free or reduced lunch.

● 12.7% of our students benefit from special education programs.

● Our annual budget for 2018-19 is $410.9 million.

● 76 cents of every dollar from the APS operating budget goes directly to support the instructional program.

● There are 63 schools in APS: 4 child development centers, 28 elementary schools, 6 P-8 / K-8 schools, 6 middle schools, 1 Grades 6-12 academy, 6 high schools, 1 vocational/technical college, 1 gifted and talented K-8 school, 9 charter schools and 1 home school support program.

● The current K-12 enrollment for Aurora Public Schools is more than 37,947 students. Our students are: Native American 0.7% Asian 4.9% Black 17.8% Hispanic 54.1% White 16.4% Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 0.8% Two or More Races 5.2%

● To enhance student and staff safety, all schools are equipped with public-address systems, doors that lock from the inside, and classroom telephones. Each school has an emergency plan that includes lockdown procedures and evacuation plans. Our automated phone system can deliver phone messages to all parents and staff members in a matter of minutes.

● Our 4-year graduation rate is 76.5%.

● Our dropout rate is 2.6%.

● For more information visit the district Web site at aurorak12.org. Important phone numbers: Main District Phone Number 303-344-8060 Nutrition Services 303-343-0295 Early Childhood Education 303-364-9371 Exceptional Student Services 303-340-0510 Head Start 303-343-6326

Aurora Public Schools Educational Services Center – 4 1085 Peoria St. Aurora, Colorado 80011

OPR: Accountability & Data Reporting, Finance, Communication – Updated 2/27/2019 EXHIBIT B

District Program Monitoring Report APS Avenues

Date: May 14, 2019

Section 1: Brief Overview.

For the 18-19 school year, APS launched APS Avenues, a multi-site blended learning program, following the Board of Education’s decision to close APS Online for the 2018-19 school year. APS Avenues replaced APS Online, the district’s online high school, and the Rebound program, a program for students who dropped out, were expelled, or were referred by their home high school as a student who would benefit from an alternative learning environment.

APS Avenues serves three purposes for the Aurora Public School District:

● to provide an alternative educational setting for students to complete the requirements for their high school diploma. ● to support students’ development of necessary social emotional skills that increase the self-esteem and self-confidence necessary for a successful future. ● to create an environment that support students who have been expelled or on the verge of an expulsion.

APS Avenues does this by providing students with access to a standards-based academic program using a combination of direct instruction and online learning in a small environment students. Students come to APS Avenues either by being referred by a counselor or teacher or attend APS Avenues while they are expelled. In order for students to attend APS Avenues through a direct referral, they need to interview and participate in an orientation with a parent or guardian. Since APS Avenues is a program, students remain affiliated with their home school.

By its name, APS Avenues has four separate avenues/services to support students: face to face programming, blended programming, online programming and credit recovery programming for the district. Additionally, APS Avenues provides the expulsion program for the district. For the 18-19 school year, these Avenues are the following:

● Avenue 1: Common Campus@Pickens- Face-to-Face Programming. Face-to-face programming is offered at APS Avenues for students that are in grades 9-12. Students are in classes that are equivalent to graduation requirements in comprehensive high schools and are aligned with grade level standards. Avenues runs on six, six-week hexters (i.e., sessions) that give students the opportunity to earn 6-7 credits a year that is equivalent to any high school in the district. ● Avenue 2: APS Avenues @Montview Annex- Blended Programming. Blended programming is offered at our Montview Annex site. This programming offers a morning program from 8:00am-12:30pm and an afternoon program from 1:15pm-5:55pm. Students are in classes that are equivalent to graduation requirements in comprehensive high schools and are aligned with grade level standards. Students also follow the six, six-week hexter schedule that give students the opportunity to earn 6-7 credits a year that is equivalent to any high school in the district. Students need to work from home to supplement the time needed to have a full-time schedule to keep up with course work. Students that opt into the blended program have circumstances that prevent them from attending a full-day program, such as work schedules, health issues, parenting, etc.

1 ● Avenue 3: Full virtual - Online Programming. Online programming is for students that need a full virtual option. Students must have at least a 2.5 GPA and not be more than one credit behind toward graduation to be eligible for this avenue. Students will start by taking our course: Introduction to Online learning and once that is completed they will be enrolled in academic courses. Students also follow the six, six-week hexter schedule. Students are required to keep up with the schedule of classes independently and they are to reach out to teachers to advocate for assistance when needed. Assessments and quizzes must be completed on site when teachers direct them to. Students are also required to check in on a weekly basis to be supported with time management and course work. ● Avenue 4: Middle School programming. Located on the campus of Gateway High School, students that are in the middle school can be part of our program as an eighth grade direct placement or a sixth through eighth student that has been expelled. Students have direct instruction in math, English, Social Studies and Science. The focus in the middle school program is to support their socio-emotional development to be prepared to access high school.

Additionally, students enrolled in Avenues 1 and 2 participate in the Discovery program. At the high school level, The Discovery Program is a six-week intensive learning opportunity program focused on helping students develop socio-emotional skills that support their success both inside and outside the classroom. Specifically, the Discovery program covers the following units: Effective Groups, Anger Management, Communication Skills, Assertiveness Training, Problem Solving and Conflict Resolution. Students must pass with at least a 70% or above to be able to then move into the academic portion of their Avenue. Students enrolled in the Middle School Programming have some elements of Discovery embedded throughout their program

Students that are transitioning to APS Avenues can also be placed in Academic and Behavioral Intervention (ABI), particularly if transitioning to APS Avenues in the middle of a hexter. ABI is utilized to support students that have struggled with attendance or behavior and need a time-out from the dominant culture. This allows students an opportunity to both reset and develop buy-in for their work at APS Avenues moving forward.

With support from an Expelled and At-Risk Student Services (EARSS) grant from the Colorado Department of Education, APS Avenues has also implemented a Parent University that provides a monthly opportunity for families to come in to learn about topics relevant to our program or are related to supporting their students. Section 2: Key Evidence for Implementation.

When APS Online opened in 2011, the intention of the school was to serve learners with credit recovery. In 2012, the school shifted to focus on serving students interested in online learning. Subsequently, the students enrolling in APS Online shifted from students who thrive in a primarily virtual environment to students who wanted and needed the flexibility of a virtual program, but required differentiated academic intervention. During the 2017-18 school year, approximately sixty percent of students enrolled in APS Online were at least one year below grade level in literacy and/or math and 100% of students were on campus for academic support 2-5 days per week. Because of these changing needs of the student population, APS launched the STUDIO Design Team in September 2017 to begin the discussion about how to better expand and enhance comprehensive support for any APS student at risk of not graduating.

Section 3: Students Served, Demographics, and Grades.

Because of the nature of the students served via APS Avenues, students may cycle in or out of the program at the end of each hexter. For example, a student may graduate or decide to return to a more traditional setting. As a result enrollment fluctuates over the course of the year. As of April 8, 2019, APS Avenues had enrolled 370 students over the course of the 2018-19 school year.

As of May 3, 2019, 223 students were currently enrolled in the current hexter as follows:

Table 1: APS Avenues Enrollment (May 3, 2019) Avenue Enrollment # Avenue 1: Common Campus @Pickens- Face-to-Face Programming. 73 Avenue 2: APS Avenues @Montview Annex- Blended Programming 55 Avenue 3: Full virtual - Online Programming 77 Avenue 4: Middle School programming 18 All Avenues 223

The demographics of students enrolled are approximately the following: Table 2: APS Avenues Enrollment Demographics (May 3, 2019) Native Asian Black Hispanic Whit 2 or % ELL Students GT America e More FRL (NEP with n/ Pacific Races & Disabiliti Islander LEP) es APS 1% 4% 22% 54% 16% 4% 54% 20% 17% 2% Avenues —All Avenues Previously, APS Online was classified as an Alternative Education Campus, which meant that under the AEC designation it monitored indicators about the experience of students. While APS Avenues is now a program and does not have a unique accountability designation, APS Avenues continues to use the same metrics to monitor the experiences of students who may benefit from an alternative environment. (See Figure 1.)

3 Figure 1: Student Experience Indicators

Section 4: Fidelity & Outcomes (Evidence of Effectiveness).

Detailed below are the benchmark activities for APS Avenues, as well as short-term and long-term outcomes expected as a result of implementing APS Avenues. For Short-Term and Long-term Outcomes, baseline data has been provided for APS Online as a point of comparison. However, given that APS Avenues is also inclusive of the Rebound program and some of the focus of APS Avenues shifted given lessons learned from APS Online, it is not a perfect point of comparison. Additionally, districtwide data has been provided, however the impact will likely be much less on the overall district data.

Benchmark Activities ● For the 18-19 school year and the months leading up to the 18-19 school year, key benchmark activities included those connected to initial implementation of APS Avenues: o Development and Implementation of an enrollment process o Development and Implementation of Instructional program that meets academic standards in a blended setting o Development and Implementation of the Discovery Program o Development and Implementation of the ABI Program o Establishing Attendance expectations to drive improved attendance ● For the 19-20 school year, APS Avenues will move into continuous improvement to refine its work based on lessons learned and data collected, as it outlines in its 90-day plan. Additionally, it will: o Develop and implement oversight APS’ credit recovery work

Short-Term Outcomes ● In the short-term, with APS Avenues there should be improved attendance rates, increased percentage of students on track toward graduation based on overall credits earned.

4 Table 3: Short-Term Outcome Baseline Data % On Track/ Average Daily Chronically Absent % Off Track Attendance 2017-18 2017-18 2017-18

APS Online 28.5%/ 71.5% 93.1% 31.8%

APS Districtwide 78.2%/ 21.8% 91% 30.1%

● Early results around attendance are promising. In reviewing attendance data of students enrolled in APS Avenues during the 4th Hexter (01/07/19-02/04/19) as compared to their attendance during the previous quarter at their home school, average daily attendance improved by 23 percentage points, from an ADA of 60% at the home school to an ADA of 83% at APS Avenues.

Long-Term Outcomes ● In the long-term, by providing students alternative settings that might better meet their social- emotional and educational needs, we expect to see improved graduation rates and improved achievement and growth data. The table below provides baseline data from the 17-18 school year for APS Online and the district.

Table 4: Long-Term Outcomes Baseline Data--Graduation Rates, Achievement, Growth Graduation 17-18 ELA Achievement: 17-18 Math Achievement: Rates % of students meeting College % of students meeting College and 17-18 and Career Ready Standards Career Ready Standards PSAT PSAT SAT PSAT PSAT SAT 9th 10th 11th Grade 9th 10th Grade 11th Grade Grade Grade Grade APS Online 9.1% 30% 25% 12.5% 10% 6.3% 12.5% APS 76.5% 27.5% 40.3% 29.1% 37.4% 22.1% 38.4% Districtwide

17-18 ELA Growth 17-18 Math Growth:

PSAT PSAT SAT PSAT PSAT SAT 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 9th 10th Grade 11th Grade Grade APS Online * * * * * * APS 31 36 41 47 44 49 Districtwide *Growth data was not available because of the n-size of less than 20.

We also hypothesize that having APS Avenues may also help reduce overall discipline incidences by both providing an alternative setting and helping develop socio-emotional skills in students that may help students be better prepared when they return to the more traditional setting.

5 Table 5: Long-Term Outcomes Baseline Data--Discipline Discipline Suspension. Incidents Expulsions. APS Online 3 - APS Districtwide 4,171 49

Section 5: Program Budget.

The following table reflects the budget for 18-19 and projected budget for 19-20.

Table 6: Budget for APS Avenues Budget Items 2018-19 Adopted Budget 2019-20 Projected (Source: Readopted Budget) Personnel: Salaries and Benefits $2,708,142 $2,708,142 ● Director ● Assistant Director ● Director’s Secretary

● Discovery/Academic Deans (3 for

18-19; 4 for 19-20)** ● Social Worker (3) ● Counseling (2) ● ESS Support (3)* ● Student Engagement Advocate (2--1 grant funded; 1 general fund) ● Clerk ● Campus Monitor ● Integrated Learning Instructors o Elective (2) o Language Arts (5) o Math (5) o Science (4) o Social Studies (4)

Supplies $36,750 $48,250 Equipment & Maintenance $76,500 $76,500 Purchased Services (e.g., Instructional $64,000 $52,500 Supports & Professional Development) Total $2,885,392 $2,885,392 *Funded through ESS budget, with additional funding for longer school year covered through APS Avenues budget ESS Support (3) **Additional role able to be added within existing budget by repurposing a role and leveraging grant funding for specific costs.

APS Avenues’ EARSS grant provided APS Avenues with $480,000 over four years. This has gone to support the Transitions Coordinator position, technology for the blended learning work and implementation of the Parent University to support parents and guardians in supporting their student.

Section 6: Staffing Requirements.

The following roles and responsibilities are required for successful implementation of APS Avenues: ● Director: The Director is responsible for overall instructional leadership and support, as well as operations and management at APS Avenues. ● Assistant Director: The Assistant Director is responsible for overall instructional leadership, serving as the Student Assessment Coordinator, and supporting operations and management. ● Dean/Discovery Teacher: Dean/Discovery Teachers teach the Discovery program, are responsible for enforcement of policies and discipline management, and take on other responsibilities aligned to their strengths and expertise, such as assistant assessment coordinator, technology support, teacher coaching, instructional support and design, professional development, and day-to-day support. ● Director’s Secretary. The Director’s Secretary is responsible for administration support, registration, enrollment, and budget manager/support. ● Clerk. The Clerk is responsible for supporting the Director’s Secretary and office management for our Pickens site. ● Student Engagement Advocate. The Student Engagement Advocate supports student engagement and retention and serves as the expulsion program lead. ● Counselors. Counselors are responsible for the management of student plans to graduate, credit audit, student support/concern management, case management for assigned students and socio- emotional support for students. ● Social Worker. The Social Work is responsible for case management of assigned students and providing socio-emotional support/resources. ● Campus Monitor. The Campus Monitor provides day to day campus monitoring to support program and students. ● Transitions Coordinator. The Transitions Coordinator is responsible for recruitment and transition of students from program to school and vice versa. ● Integrated Learning Instructors. The Integrated Learning Instructors are highly qualified teachers who provide direct instruction for students to work toward their post-secondary outcome. Face- to-face - @Pickens: Provide students in a traditional schedule with direct instruction.

Section 7: Stakeholder Feedback.

As indicated above, feedback was collected through a wide variety of stakeholders in the development of APS Avenues. The cross-functional STUDIO Design Team, including more than 30 APS district and community stakeholders, collaborated over the course of 4 months to review the current state of alternative education options in APS and in numerous districts across the country.

Additionally, APS Avenues has continued to collect feedback throughout the year. A staff survey was administered in December 2018. Through that survey: ● 83.9% of staff indicated they felt happy at APS Avenues ● 82.4% of staff indicated they felt supported ● 94.4% of staff felt that they had the resources appropriate to support students

Section 8: Program Updates & Additional Information. Through the lessons learned during the first year of APS Avenues, the following adjustments will be made for the 2019-20 school year: ● The Blended and Online Avenues will only be for Juniors and Senior, since 9th and 10th grade students struggle with the self-discipline needed to be successful in a primarily online avenue.

7 ● A Credit Recovery Avenue will be added to ensure consistency and high standards in credit recovery opportunities for students across APS. ● Scheduling adjustments so that the Blended and Middle School programs will operate four days per week with expanded hours, thus allowing teachers to have planning time and time to check in with online students on Fridays.

Section 9: Next update. The next update on APS Avenues will occur during the 2019-20 school year, with the specific date determined when the Board schedule is created for the 2019-20 school year, likely spring 2019.

8 Exhibit C

EXHIBIT D

Accountability Hearing: HOPE Online Learning Academy Co-Op Elementary School & Middle School Alyssa Pearson, Associate Commissioner Brenda Bautsch, Accountability Specialist Peter Sherman, Turnaround Support Manager Agenda

• Remarks from Commissioner Anthes • Overview of Commissioner’s Recommendation • Background • Grants and Support • Review of Conditions for Success • Rationale for Recommendation • CDE Evaluation of District’s Management Plan • State Review Panel • Summary • Next steps

4/4/2017 2 Commissioner Anthes

• Remarks regarding the recommendation for HOPE Online Learning Academy Co-Op Elementary School & Middle School authorized by Douglas County School District

4/4/2017 3 Commissioner’s Recommendation School Status

• HOPE Online Learning Academy Co-Op Elementary School and Middle School will enter their 6th consecutive year of Priority Improvement or Turnaround on July 1, 2017 • The State Board of Education is required to direct action to the district’s local school board prior to June 30, 2017

4/4/2017 5 Accountability Actions: Charter Schools

• For charter schools at the end of the Accountability Clock, the State Board of Education may direct: • That the public or private entity operating the charter school or the governing board of the charter school should be replaced by a different public or private entity or governing board (22-11- 210(5)(a)(II)); or • That the public charter school’s charter be revoked (22-11-210(5)(a)(V))

4/4/2017 6 Commissioner’s Recommendation

• The Commissioner recommends: • Replacement of the governing board, and • Partnership with an external entity to support the operations of the school • Recommendation is based upon: • A review of data, leadership, culture, academic systems, Unified Improvement Plan, and the history of grants and supports • The State Review Panel’s final recommendation • The district’s own proposal to pursue a management partner and governing board reconstitution • Key conditions for success

4/4/2017 7 Summary of Recommendations

State Review Panel Management Recommendation

Commissioner Replace Governing Board Recommendation & Management

Reconstitute Governing Board District Proposal & Management

State Board of Education Decision

4/4/2017 8 Background

• HOPE is a multi-district online charter school that first opened in 2005-06 and is authorized by Douglas County School District • Operated as one K-12 school until 2013-14 when it formally divided into three schools—one elementary, one middle and one alternative education campus (AEC) high school • 26 learning centers are open in 11 school districts; each independent learning center has a contract with HOPE • Elementary and middle enrollment: 1,788 students • Students engage in a blended model of online and direct instruction and attend brick and mortar learning centers every day on a set, full-day schedule

4/4/2017 9 School Ratings and Trends over Time

Official School Ratings over Time Rating 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 HOPE Priority Elementary Turnaround Turnaround Turnaround Turnaround Turnaround Improvement HOPE Priority Priority Priority Priority Middle Turnaround Improvement Improvement Improvement Turnaround Improvement Note: 2010-2013 ratings were calculated from HOPE's individual school levels, as the school was considered a K-12 at that time. 2014 and 2016 results were reported by the separate school codes.

School Trends on Academic Achievement and Growth, for English Language Arts and Math

Participation Level Indicator Content Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 Rates (2016) Reading DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM 96.00% Achievement Math DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM 96.20% Elementary Reading DNM DNM A DNM DNM A Growth Math DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM A Reading DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM 96.30% Achievement Math DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM 96.70% Middle Reading A A A A A A Growth Math DNM DNM DNM A DNM A Legend DNM=Does Not Meet A=Approaching M=Meets

4/4/2017 10 Achievement in 2016

Achievement Percentile Ranks in 2016, by Disaggregated Group

99 Exceeds Expectations 85

Meets Expectations 50

Approaching 15 Expectations Percentile Rank Percentile 6 4 1 3 1 1 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 0 ELA Math ELA Math Elementary Middle All EL FRL Minority IEP

4/4/2017 11 Growth in 2016

Median Growth Percentiles in 2016, By Disaggregated Group

Exceeds 65 Expectations Meets 50 Expectations 43 43 4443 43 Approaching 38 40 4141 36 38 36 35.5 3538 38 Expectations 35 37 30

0 Median Growth Percentile Growth Median ELA Math ELA Math Elementary Middle All EL FRL Minority IEP

4/4/2017 12 School Retention Trends

HOPE’s elementary school retention rates are consistently below the state’s average retention rates

Red bars represent state-wide averages for retention at K-5 schools. Colored bars represent HOPE elementary retention rate by cohort. 4/4/2017 13 Engagement with HOPE

• CDE performance managers have conducted site visits to HOPE over the last three school years • CDE supported and funded a diagnostic school readiness assessment in May 2015 • CDE staff have provided support on improvement planning and pathway plan development • Commissioner Anthes toured a learning center and met with district leadership in Feb. 2017

4/4/2017 14 Grants and Supports from 2014-15 to 2016-17

• Expelled & At-Risk Student Services (EARSS) • Assists with providing services to expelled and at-risk students • Reading Ignite • Designed to embed the essential components of supplemental reading instruction into all elements of the teaching structures for K-6 grades • School Improvement Support • Provides funds to support improvement planning and implementation • Title I Multi-District Online Learning Pilot Program • Provides additional funding for ELA/Math teachers and paraprofessionals • Turnaround Network – Diagnostic Review • Provided support and funding for a diagnostic review in 2015 • UIP Support • CDE staff provide in-person support on UIP development • State Turnaround Leaders Development • Recommending approval by the State Board for a grant to support leadership training for HOPE staff

4/4/2017 15 Review of Conditions and Systems

Research on turnaround shows that schools on track to improve student achievement are likely to show strong evidence of highly-functioning:

• Leadership & staff • School culture • Academic systems • District support and flexibility • Board and community relationships

4/4/2017 16 Leadership & Staff

• Heather O’Mara is the Chief Executive Officer and is a co-founder of HOPE • Employs a central staff of 97 people (full-time equivalent) • Each learning center requires the positions of Learning Center Director, Manager & Academic Lead (not employees of HOPE) • Learning Center Managers hire mentors who provide the primary instruction to students (the mentors are not employees of HOPE or of the school district) • Mentors are not required to hold Colorado teacher licenses, although 22% do hold licenses

4/4/2017 17 School Culture

• Observations by CDE staff have found that a range of learning conditions exist at different HOPE learning centers • Some have strong learning environments and some lack structure and clear expectations for focused student learning • The climate of each learning center appears to be partially dependent on the leadership of each learning center director • HOPE collects “affiliation” data as a means to assess student engagement, including: attendance; re- enrollment rates; student retention rates; student affiliation rates; and mentor retention rates

4/4/2017 18 Academic Systems

• Online learning time varies by grade level: • Elementary students are engaged in online learning for 60 min/day • Middle grades students spend approximately 50% of the day online • HOPE implements interim/benchmark assessments • On visits to several HOPE learning centers, CDE staff observed mixed instructional practices, ranging from effective to poor with low levels of student engagement: • It is not clear that all mentors or center managers have an understanding of what highly-effective instruction looks like • It is not clear the full extent to which HOPE learning centers have the capacity to differentiate instruction and provide adequate services to students with disabilities and English Learners

4/4/2017 19 District Support and Operations

• As a charter school, HOPE receives a high level of autonomy from Douglas County Schools • The school receives Title I funding from Douglas County School District & piloted the multi-district online school funding model • HOPE learning centers operate in 11 different school districts through MOUs

4/4/2017 20 District Support and Operations (cont.)

• Douglas County School District supports HOPE in a variety of ways: • Title funding planning, monitoring, fiscal oversight, and budgeting coordination • Grant development • Unified Improvement Planning • Progress monitoring of school improvement efforts • Collaboration and support with state accountability efforts • Support for special education, English language development, literacy and READ Act coordination, and professional development

4/4/2017 21 Board and Community Relations

• As a charter school, HOPE maintains a governing Board of Directors with five members • It is not clear how the HOPE Board of Directors holds the school and individual learning centers accountable for student performance • The board recognizes the need to expand its membership and expertise in order to provide greater accountability for student performance

4/4/2017 22 Conditions for Success

The pathway plan must address the following conditions to demonstrate that the elementary and middle schools are on track to attaining an Improvement or Performance plan rating: • Academic Systems • Continue to focus on improving instruction and academic systems that will lead to significantly better student learning outcomes • Leadership and Talent Management • Ensure that each learning center and classroom are staffed with skilled instructional leaders and teachers so as to ensure that each student has access to the greatest learning opportunities possible • School Culture • Ensure that every learning center and each classroom are deliberately set up and maintained as inspiring learning environments with high expectations for students that allow for differentiated instruction • Governance and Accountability • Increase shared accountability across the entire organization for student learning at HOPE Online as a whole and at individual learning centers 4/4/2017 23 Commissioner Recommendation

The Commissioner recommends three actions for HOPE Elementary School and Middle Schools to improve student outcomes: 1. Contract with an external entity to operate all or targeted portions of its operations to improve academic systems and leadership and talent management 2. Replace the governing board to ensure robust accountability for student performance 3. Assign additional accountability to each learning center to ensure transparency and accountability for the communities in which the learning centers operate

4/4/2017 24 CDE Evaluation of the District’s Plan

CDE evaluated the district’s plan using our management rubric and determined that the proposed Management Plan partially meets the standards of the rubric.

Plan Strengths Plan Weaknesses • Use of a management • Lack of clarity on how partner to improve teacher there will be greater and leader quality accountability for student learning • Focuses on recruitment, professional development, • Lack of detail on how and evaluation of adding two new board instructional staff members will improve governance and progress monitoring

4/4/2017 25 State Review Panel Discussion

• The 2015 and 2016 State Review Panel reports reflect different ratings for the elementary and middle schools, but both recommend management by a public or private entity • The 2015 reports rate HOPE’s elementary and middle schools as “Developing” in all areas except for adequacy of infrastructure in the elementary school, which was rated as “Effective” • The 2016 reports found the schools to be “Developing” on three criteria and “Not Effective” on two criteria—the adequacy of infrastructure and the likelihood of positive returns on investments of assistance and supports

4/4/2017 26 State Review Panel Discussion

• The 2015 and 2016 State Review Panel reports reflect different ratings for the elementary and middle schools, but both recommend management by a public or private entity

SRP Site Visit Summary 2015 Capacity 2016 Capacity 1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Developing Developing

2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement. Effective (E)/ Not Effective Developing (M) 3. There is readiness and apparent capacity of personnel to plan Developing Developing effectively and lead the implementation of appropriate action to improve student academic performance. 4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively Developing Developing with and benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner. 5. There is likelihood of positive returns on state investments of Developing Not Effective assistance and support to improve the performance within the current management structure and staffing. 6. There is necessity that the school/district remain in operation to Yes No serve students.

4/4/2017 27 Summary of Recommendations

• The Commissioner recommends: • Partnering with an external entity to improve academic systems and talent management • Replacing the governing board to ensure robust accountability for student performance • Assigning additional accountability to each learning center to ensure transparency and accountability for parents and the community • HOPE’s proposed plan and scope of work has strengths as well as room for improvement • Additional options include: • HOPE Online Elementary School could be transitioned into a brick and mortar charter school to provide increased state funding

4/4/2017 28 Next Steps

• CDE will continue to support HOPE through a turnaround support manager and implementation of various grants • District/HOPE will be asked to provide annual updates to the State Board until the schools come off the clock • The Board may request additional progress monitoring through the written determination

4/4/2017 29 Thank you! EXHIBIT E

Submitted to: Colorado State Board of Education

By: Dr. Katy Anthes, Commissioner of Education

March 2017

Colorado Department of Education 201 E. Colfax Ave., Denver, CO 80203 303-866-6600

HOPE Online Learning Academy Co-Op Elementary School and Middle School will enter their 6th consecutive year of Priority Improvement or Turnaround on July 1, 2017. This report constitutes CDE’s formal recommendation for both schools, which are multi-district online schools authorized by Douglas County School District. The State Board of Education is required, by law, to direct action to the district’s local school board prior to June 30, 2017.

CDE Recommendation Pursuant to the Education Accountability Act of 2009, the Commissioner of Education is required to provide a recommendation to the State Board of Education. The Commissioner recommends that the governing board of the charter school should be replaced by a different governing board and the charter school should engage with an external entity to support operations of the school. This recommendation is based upon a review conducted by Department staff of the school’s data, leadership, culture, academic systems, Unified Improvement Plans, and the history of grants and supports provided to the school. Department staff also considered the State Review Panel’s final recommendation and the district’s own proposal for a management partner and governing board reconstitution.

Background HOPE Online is a multi-district online charter school that has been authorized by the Douglas County School district since 2008-09. HOPE Online first opened in 2005-06 and was authorized by the Vilas school district until it transferred to Douglas County in 2008. A multi-district online school is defined in C.R.S. 22- 30.7-102 as “an online school that serves a student population drawn from two or more school districts.” HOPE’s students reside across the state attending learning centers in 11 different school districts. 1 The model HOPE Online uses differs from the fully virtual model where students receive instruction remotely. Students enrolled in HOPE Online attend brick and mortar learning centers every day on a set, full-day schedule.2 In-person attendance at the learning centers is required for all HOPE students. Learning centers provide HOPE students a facility in which to engage in a blended model of online and direct instruction for the purpose of accessing online curriculum under the supervision of a teacher or a “mentor.” A mentor is defined in statute (C.R.S. 22-30.7-102) as “an individual who is responsible for providing supervision at a Learning Center.” Mentors are not required to be licensed teachers, but they must at least meet the

1 In order for a multi-district online school to operate a learning center in the boundaries of a district other than its authorizer, C.R.S. 22-30.7-111 requires the school “to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with each school district in which the multi-district online school intends to provide instruction within a learning center.” 2 Statute (C.R.S. 22-30.7-111) defines a Learning Center as “a facility in which a consistent group of students meets more often than once per week under the supervision of a Teacher or Mentor for a significant portion of a school day for the purpose of participating in an Online School or Program.”

qualifications required for paraprofessionals. 3 Depending on the grade level, students spend varying amounts of time receiving direct instruction from mentors or engaging with the online curriculum. At the elementary level, for example, students spend 1 hour per day using the online learning platform and spend the remainder of the full school day receiving instruction from a mentor. At the high school level, students spend nearly the full school day using the online platform. HOPE Online learning centers are semi-autonomous organizations operated by community-based partners that contract with HOPE Online (see Appendix E for the 2016-17 contract language). HOPE Online provides funding for each student, computer labs, core curriculum, individualized student learning plans, student recruitment support, professional development opportunities and technical support. The community-based partner leads the day-to-day operations of the learning center and is responsible for hiring qualified mentors, providing an appropriate and safe facility, high speed Internet, elective courses (approved by HOPE), classroom management and student discipline in accordance with HOPE’s policies. HOPE Online currently has twenty six learning centers in 11 school districts in Colorado. The elementary and middle schools enroll 1,788 students, according to the 2016 October Student Count. Learning Centers exist within the boundaries of Aurora Public Schools, Adams 12 School District, Adams 14 School District, Boulder Valley School District, Denver Public School District, Douglas County School District, Eaton School District, Jefferson County School District, Lake County School District, 27J School District, and Pueblo 60 School District. The Learning Centers serve different grade ranges including: K-12, K-5, K-8, and 9- 12. Two Learning Centers serve only high school students. Prior to the 2013-14 school year, HOPE Online operated as one K-12 school; in 2013-14, it formally divided into three schools—one elementary, one middle and one alternative education campus (AEC) high school. Due to the reporting and governance structure, CDE has data available at the three school levels, but not by each individual, brick and mortar learning center. The limited information contained in this report concerning the individual learning centers was obtained from the Hope Online website (http://www.hopeonline.org/) or from district or school staff. Hope Online Learning Academy Elementary School earned a Turnaround rating from 2010 through 2014. In 2016, the school earned a Priority Improvement rating for the first time. Hope Online Learning Academy Middle School has fluctuated between Priority Improvement and Turnaround over the past six years. Persistent challenges with student performance are present at both the elementary and middle level, in English Language Arts and Math achievement and growth.

Key Conditions for Success Based on interactions with HOPE Online over the past several years, the diagnostic review conducted by Mass Insight in May 2015 for the CDE Turnaround Network, and the school’s Unified Improvement Plan (UIP), it is evident to the Department that the school continues to face core challenges in several key areas. As such, the district’s pathway plan must address the following conditions to demonstrate

3 Statute (C.R.S. 22-30.7-102) states that “A Mentor shall not be required to be a licensed Teacher but shall, at minimum satisfy the requirements specified for a paraprofessional as such requirements are described in the federal law No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. §6301 et seq.” 5

that the elementary and middle schools are on track to attaining an Improvement or Performance plan rating. Academic Systems. HOPE has initiated a number of changes to their academic systems in the past two years, including new assessments and curriculum, but student achievement results remain a challenge. Thus, it is critical that HOPE Online continue to focus on improving instruction and academic systems that will lead to significantly better student learning outcomes. HOPE’s accountability pathway plan should:

x Ensure that every student receives the best possible first instruction, differentiating for student needs and including multiple tiers of support, to ensure that students meet the grade level expectations. x Ensure that instruction is delivered by staff with the skills and knowledge to ensure students can meet grade-level expectations. x Ensure that all students with specialized needs receive adequate individualized attention with best practice instructional strategies, standards-based curricular materials, and instructors with the proper expertise. This should include students identified with learning disabilities, as gifted and talented, and as English language learners. x Ensure that every student is assessed on a regular basis throughout the year with assessment tools and strategies, aligned to the content and rigor of the Colorado Academic Standards, so as to provide actionable instructional data. Such data must be regularly analyzed and used by all learning center and HOPE staff to differentiate instruction and meet the learning needs of every student. Leadership and Talent Management. While some progress has been made, there are continuing concerns that students are not provided adequate instruction by appropriately skilled staff. The roles and responsibilities for accountability for instructional quality and student learning between HOPE staff and learning center staff are unclear. Thus, the following conditions need to be addressed in HOPE’s accountability pathway plan:

x Shift to a staffing model that allows HOPE to hire more highly-skilled teachers to deliver primary instruction to students. The school has made a noticeable effort to encourage mentors to earn their teaching licenses, and CDE encourages the continuation of those efforts. x Clarify the roles, responsibilities, and practices between all HOPE staff and learning center staff regarding observation, feedback and evaluation of teaching staff, mentors, learning center directors and managers. Ensure staff giving instructional feedback have the expertise to do so. x Prioritize ensuring that each learning center and classroom are staffed with skilled instructional leaders and teachers so as to ensure that each student has access to the greatest learning opportunities possible. HOPE seeks to staff learning centers with individuals from the local communities, which is an important component of their model and should be coupled with efforts to find qualified instructors for students. HOPE should further develop incentives and resources aimed at retaining the strongest and most-effective leaders and instructors. As HOPE notes in their plan, “students require qualified staff to close learning gaps.”

x Further develop routines and practices and build the capacity of learning center leaders and instructional staff to regularly analyze, discuss, and plan for student learning using all available data. School Culture. With numerous independently-run learning centers in various locations across the state, the culture and climate experienced everyday by students, families and staff varies, as observed by different CDE staff over the past three years. Thus, the school needs to ensure that every learning center and each classroom are deliberately set up and maintained as inspiring learning environments with high expectations for students that allow for differentiated instruction. HOPE strives to create welcoming and supportive learning centers for students and their families, especially those who have not had positive experiences in other schools. CDE commends this role and mission of HOPE. The student retention rate may be a good measure to track as part of understanding the school culture. The student retention rate at HOPE has been a historical challenge for the school (see Data Analysis section), but it has improved lately—although it is still below the state average. The number of learning centers has decreased in recent years, which may have impacted student retention rates in the past. As CDE does not have individual learning center enrollment data, it is not possible to determine the extent of this impact, and CDE encourages HOPE to continue efforts to establish consistent school cultures of high expectations across all learning centers. Governance and Accountability. The governance and accountability structures are critical to the continuous improvement of HOPE Online Learning Academy and the academic achievement of its students. CDE finds that the following conditions need to be in place at the charter school to ensure successful outcomes for students.

x Increase shared accountability for student learning across the entire organization. Clarify roles and responsibilities for HOPE staff, learning center leadership, instructional staff, the HOPE governing board, and district leadership. x Financial adequacy has been raised as a barrier to improvement. A financial analysis by the governing board and/or an external organization could help determine how to maximize resources for student learning, as well as investigate pathways for receiving full-time, brick and mortar funding from the state. x Data from each learning center is not available to the public and is not reported to the state. It is recommended that HOPE make such data available to the public, including parents, the community and the state to increase transparency and accountability for each individual, semi- autonomous learning center. x Increase accountability and supports for improvement for the performance of HOPE Online Learning Academy Elementary and Middle Schools as a whole and for each individual learning center, which should be a priority for the governing board and regularly reviewed at every board meeting.

Rationale for Recommendation The Education Accountability Act of 2009 specifies three accountability actions for charter schools at the end of the Accountability Clock. The State Board of Education may direct:

x That the public or private entity operating the charter school or the governing board of the charter school should be replaced by a different public or private entity or governing board (22- 11-210(5)(a)(II)); or x That the public charter school’s charter be revoked (22-11-210(5)(a)(V)). Based on the key conditions needed for success, the State Review Panel recommendations, CDE staff considerations and work with the school, and the school’s own proposal, CDE recommends that in the best interest of students, the following actions should occur. 1. HOPE Online must make significant changes to ensure students receive the necessary instruction to access and meet the Colorado Academic Standards by contracting with an external private or public entity to operate all or targeted portions of its operations.An external entity or entities should be identified that address the key conditions for success articulated above. According to HOPE’s pathway proposal that was shared with CDE, HOPE intends to contract with an external entity to address some of the conditions identified in this recommendation. It is CDE’s assessment that the school’s plan provides sufficient detail and rationale, although CDE has provided written feedback and some questions and concerns remain (see page 32 of this report). 2. Governance changes are needed to ensure robust accountability for student performance. The HOPE Online governing board is responsible for critical factors related to student success, including but not limited to: resource allocation; instructional model; management of learning centers; and staffing models—and, ultimately, the board is responsible for ensuring that individual learning centers and the school as a whole are providing students with a quality education that will prepare them for a successful life after high school. Given the consistently low student performance, it evident to the Department that the governing board has not sufficiently held the school accountable to ensure increased student outcomes. Thus, the Department recommends that the governing board be replaced pursuant to C.R.S. 22-11- 210(5)(a)(II)). The new governing board should be comprised of members who can objectively hold the learning centers and school leadership accountable for performance. To do this, the board members will need to have appropriate content expertise and be independent of the school. The new board should also revisit and enhance its procedures for holding the school accountable to include reviewing interim student achievement data—at the school and learning center level—at every board meeting. The Department’s recommendation is supported by the 2016 State Review Panel recommendation, which stated that “new board members and/or management must represent expertise in each major area of operations and instruction at HOPE, and demonstrate a capacity to provide increased accountability to the school leadership. The school is in need of an outside partner(s) to hold them accountable to strategically distribute funds and resources to impact student learning.”

3. For learning centers in their first two years of operation that are subject to a provisional contract, academic as well as operational performance is required. Per the contract template between HOPE and the learning centers, there is not explicit accountability for academic performance for other learning centers. As the learning centers greatly impact the student academic outcomes at each site, it is recommended that additional accountability be assigned to each learning center. This could be built in to the contracts for all learning centers (not just the provisional contracts). Likewise, it is recommended that contracts are not renewed automatically each year, and that decisions about renewal include a review of academic performance. Additionally, it may be valuable to create local “learning center accountability committees” (similar to school accountability committees) to ensure transparency and accountability for the communities in which the learning centers operate.

While these actions may bring about needed changes, both CDE and State Review Panel note that there is an additional action that the state board, district, school and HOPE governing board may pursue that could address the needed conditions for success. HOPE Online Elementary School could be transitioned into a brick and mortar charter school which would allow the school to receive additional resources for each student through per pupil funding, more accurately reflect its operational structure and develop a more transparent governance and accountability structure. In response to diagnostic reviews and internal assessments, HOPE Online shifted the instructional model for elementary grades to focus less on computer-based instruction and more on face-to-face instruction. This shift has had a positive impact on the early grades, as evidenced by improved growth performance on the 2016 school performance framework. Initial reviews suggest the new instructional model, while being a better approach for elementary students, does not qualify the elementary school as an online school anymore. Students in grades K through 5 spend approximately 1 hour each day using the online curriculum, with the remainder of the day spent with mentors who provide instruction. According to 1 CCR 301-71 2.05.1, students attending learning centers “must be actively participating in the curricula of the certified online program for more than fifty-percent of the school day.” The Department commends HOPE for adjusting the instructional model in order to better meet student needs. Between the direct instruction and the on-site learning center resources that build the school community, students are more likely to be able to meet the Colorado Academic Standards learning expectations. However, we know these strategies are more resource intensive than the typical “online school,” and the current structure does not meet the definition of an online school as specified in regulations. A brick and mortar charter model would more accurately reflect the current operations of Hope Online Elementary School and would provide the school with higher amounts of per pupil funding. Additionally, it would create more local accountability and transparency for each learning center site. CDE, however, recognizes that there are challenges with this approach, as it would require a process to transition each learning center into individual chartered schools within the 11 districts or potentially through the Charter School Institute. The current MOU approval process between the 11 districts and HOPE for the operation of learning centers would not be sufficient, as that is specific to the multi-district online learning 9

center criteria. CDE can conduct additional research into possible processes for transitioning into brick and mortar schools, if requested by the State Board of Education. Lastly, if significant progress in student achievement is not made, CDE recommends revocation of the charter. HOPE’s pathway plan, a draft of which was shared with CDE on March 13, 2017, also states, “the district [Douglas County] is prepared to take all necessary actions, up to and including terminating HOPE’s charter contract, if the management plan does not result in greater student achievement over an appropriate time period” (p.11). As the State Review Panel notes, “There are other online and brick and mortar programs that are serving similar students and showing better results. Although the general sentiment from HOPE staff is that the current students are disenfranchised from the traditional school system, the site visit and document review provided no data to confirm this. The students who are served by HOPE are not in a remote community, and the majority of students live in geographic areas with a variety of other academic choices.” (2016 State Review Panel Recommendation Report, p.2) With the increased performance on the Growth indicator in 2016, CDE does not recommend this action at this time. However, if significant progress is not demonstrated at HOPE Online Elementary and Middle Schools within a reasonable amount of time, it will be critical for the school district to re-visit this option.

Summary of Pathways that Meet Necessary Conditions for Improvement CDE Additional CDE Does Not Charter School Pathway Recommendation Options Recommend Replace the public or private entity operating the charter school X Replace the governing board of the X charter school Revocation of charter X

CDE Recommendation Report Outline The next sections of this report provide supporting evidence and documentation for the statements made above. First, an analysis of school data trends is provided, followed by a review of the school’s systems and conditions. A summary of the HOPE Online Unified Improvement Plan is included, as is an overview of the state and federal grants provided to the school over the past several years. Lastly, the report includes an evaluation by CDE staff of the State Review Panel’s report and the school’s proposal for a management partnership.

HOPE Online Elementary School and Middle School serve just under 1,800 students in grades K-8 across 26 learning centers located throughout the state. HOPE Online also serves high schools students, but as the high school is not currently on the accountability clock, this data analysis focuses on the elementary and middle schools. In 2016-17, over 75 percent of students at both HOPE Elementary and HOPE Middle qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. Both schools have earned Priority Improvement or Turnaround ratings since 2010. Persistent challenges with student performance are present at both the elementary and middle level, particularly in English Language Arts and Math achievement. The following section provides a summary of school-level student enrollment, retention, and performance trends for both HOPE Elementary and HOPE Middle School.

School Enrollment and Retention Trends Enrollment at both HOPE Elementary and HOPE Middle peaked in 2012-13 and 2013-14 and has declined since then (see Table 1). Both HOPE Elementary and HOPE Middle enroll a higher proportion of students of color, students with disabilities, English learners, and students who qualify for Free and Reduced lunch than the average elementary and middle school in the state (see Figure 1). At the elementary level, the percent of students with disabilities enrolled at HOPE (5%) is lower than the state average (11%).

Table 1. Enrollment at HOPE Elementary and Middle, 2011-12 to 2016-17 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 HOPE Elementary 1,506 1,614 1,751 1,508 1,150 1,201 HOPE Middle 644 739 724 660 530 587

Figure 1. Demographic Enrollment at HOPE in 2016 by Disaggregated Student Group 100% 84% 90% 81% 80% 76% 75% 70% 60% 47% 50% 46% 45% 46% 43% 38% 40% 30% 17% 19% 20% 11% 11% 11% 10% 5% 0% HOPE State HOPE State Elementary Middle

% Minority % IEP % ELL % FRL

The student retention data below tracks the percentage of students who start at HOPE elementary in a given year and re-enroll at HOPE Elementary the next year. Table 2 displays what the pattern may look like for a typical grade progression that begins in Kindergarten. As displayed in Figure 2, retention rates drop by approximately half each year. Retention rates for the 2014 cohort have fallen from 51.5% to 12.1% after four years. While retention rates for the 2016 cohort looks more promising (68.2% compared to 51.5% from 2015 and 44.9% from 2014), 68.2% is still quite low when compared to state averages. In all cases for all cohorts, HOPE’s elementary school retention rates are consistently below the state’s average retention rates.

Table 2. Example Retention Patterns at HOPE Elementary Starting Year Grade 1 Grade in Year 2 Grade in Year 3 Grade in Year 4 2014 K 1 2 3 2015 K 1 2 2016 K 1

Figure 2. Retention Analysis at HOPE Elementary 2014-2016

Red bars represent state-wide averages for retention at K-5 schools. Colored bars represent HOPE elementary retention rate by cohort.

Note: Retention rate, expressed as a percentage, looks at the proportion of students returning to the same school the following year. The analysis includes students with typical grade progression and atypical grade progression (e.g., students who were held back a grade level). State retention analysis similarly looks at the percentage of students returning to the same school the following year. Due to data limitations, the state retention numbers represent a conservative estimate because it does not exclude students in the following scenarios: schools that closed, schools that changed code, district-to-district grade configuration for middle school level. In all of these cases, students were counted as not retained. Taking into consideration all of the unaccounted scenarios, CDE’s retention numbers represent the lowest possible retention rate. CDE estimates that if it were to take into account those scenarios, the retention rate may be up to 3% higher.

School Performance Frameworks Both HOPE Elementary and HOPE Middle have earned ratings of Turnaround or Priority Improvement for the last six accountability cycles on the state’s school performance framework, as displayed in Table 3. Until 2014, HOPE Elementary and HOPE Middle school were included in the same school code as HOPE High school. To determine ratings for HOPE Elementary and HOPE Middle for 2010-2013, ratings for each level were calculated based on the points earned divided by the points eligible for elementary and middle school results separately. Ratings for each year were created for HOPE Elementary and HOPE Middle using this method. For 2014 and 2016, the published ratings were used, since in these years HOPE Elementary and HOPE Middle were assigned separate school codes.

Table 3. Official School Ratings over Time Rating 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 HOPE Priority Elementary Turnaround3 Turnaround1 Turnaround1 Turnaround3 Turnaround1 Improvement1 HOPE Priority Priority Priority Priority Middle Turnaround3 Improvement1 Improvement1 Improvement3 Turnaround1 Improvement1 Note: 2010-2013 ratings were calculated from HOPE's individual school levels, as the school was considered a K-12 at that time. 2014 and 2016 results were reported by the separate school codes. 1Accountability rating derived from 1 year accountability framework. 3Accountability rating derived from 3 year accountability framework.

School Academic Performance Trends Due to the assessment transition, the trend results are best described by looking at the rating level for each indicator on the performance frameworks. As displayed in Table 4, reading and math achievement have been consistent challenges for both HOPE Elementary and HOPE Middle over the past six years, earning mostly Does Not Meet ratings. While Academic Growth ratings for HOPE Middle have been consistently Approaching for reading for the last six years, Academic Growth in math for HOPE Middle has often been Does Not Meet. HOPE Elementary’s Academic Growth rating in both reading and math was Approaching in 2016, but was typically Does Not Meet in all other years. This suggests that not only are students at HOPE Elementary and HOPE Middle consistently performing lower than other schools in the state, but they are also consistently falling behind their academic peers. The 2016 growth data, however, shows some improvement over prior years. CDE commends this recent progress.

Table 4. School Trends on Academic Achievement and Growth, for English Language Arts and Math Participation Level Indicator Content Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 Rates (2016) Reading DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM 96.00% Achievement Math DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM 96.20% Elementary Reading DNM DNM A DNM DNM A Growth Math DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM A Reading DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM 96.30% Achievement Math DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM 96.70% Middle Reading A A A A A A Growth Math DNM DNM DNM A DNM A Legend DNM=Does Not Meet A=Approaching M=Meets Note: Data from 1 year frameworks is presented for year-to-year comparability.

Figure 3 shows each school’s Achievement percentile ranks on English language arts (ELA) and math, disaggregated by student subgroup. Small within-school gaps among subgroups are apparent for elementary ELA and math and for middle school math. It should be noted that a percentile of 1 is the lowest possible percentile rank a school can earn, and it indicates that 99 percent of other high schools in the state had a higher mean scale score than this school in the specified content area.

Figure 3. Achievement Percentile Ranks at HOPE Elementary and Middle in 2016, by Subgroup 99 Exceeds Expectations 85

Meets Expectations 50

Approaching Percentile Rank Expectations 15 4 6 5 4 1 331 113 1111 11112 0 ELA Math ELA Math Elementary Middle All EL FRL Minority IEP

Figure 4 shows the school’s median growth percentiles in English Language Arts and Math by student group. The data on gaps between groups of students is unclear. HOPE Elementary and HOPE Middle both show growth data that is below state expectations. Within both schools, there is variance in the growth performance across the disaggregated groups—for example, the English Learners at HOPE Elementary School are outperforming the All Students group—but no disaggregated group is meeting state expectations for academic growth.

Figure 4. Median Growth Percentiles at HOPE Elementary and Middle in 2016, by Subgroup 99

65 43 43 50 40 38 44 43 41 41 43 36 38 38 36 35.5 37 3538 35 30

0 Median Growth Median Percentile ELA Math ELA Math Elementary Middle

All EL FRL Minority IEP

School Academic Performance Comparison Given the high number of at-risk students HOPE Elementary serves, CDE staff analyzed the school’s academic performance as compared to other elementary schools that also serve high populations of minority, low-income or English Learner students. As displayed in Figure 5, HOPE Elementary falls in the bottom quartile of student achievement when compared to other elementary schools serving high-needs populations. Figure 6 shows the same data for HOPE Middle school. 15

Figure 5: HOPE Elementary’s 2016 English Language Arts Achievement Compared to Other Elementary Schools Serving High Proportion of High-Needs Students Data showing the performance of other schools in the highest quartile of minority students, students in poverty and English learners (those with the highest percentages of students compared to other schools in the state) is displayed in each of the columns below. Each dot represents a school; HOPE Elementary is highlighted in orange whereas other elementary schools are shaded in gray. The band in the middle of each plot represents high schools scoring in the 25th – 75th percentile on the English language arts assessment in 2016.

Note: Only schools with a valid mean scale score and students enrolled at the elementary level were included. Additionally, schools were excluded if they had fewer than 16 students or the assessment participation rate was below 90%. Schools classified as either high minority, high poverty, or high English learners represent the top quartile within each student population. The following data sources were used to create this chart: Student October 2015-16 and CMAS PARCC English Language Arts results for the 2015-16 school year.

Figure 6: HOPE Middle School’s 2016 English Language Arts Achievement Compared to Other Middle Schools Serving High Proportion of High-Needs Students Data showing the performance of other schools in the second highest quartile of minority students, students in poverty and English learners (those with the similar percentages of students compared to other schools in the state) is displayed in each of the columns below. Each dot represents a school; HOPE Middle is highlighted in orange whereas other middle schools are shaded in gray. The band in the middle of each plot represents high schools scoring in the 25th – 75th percentile on the English language arts assessment in 2016.

Note: Only schools with a valid mean scale score and students enrolled at the middle level were included. Additionally, schools were excluded if they had fewer than 16 students or the assessment participation rate was below 90%. Schools classified as either mid- high minority, mid-high poverty, or mid-high English learners represent the second highest quartile within each student population. The following data sources were used to create this chart: Student October 2015-16 and CMAS PARCC English Language Arts results for the 2015-16 school year. Data Not Available Due to the structure of HOPE and their relationships with their learning centers, there is data that CDE does not have available for reporting or analysis. Specifically, CDE cannot: x Provide information on the performance of individual learning centers x Analyze the qualifications of the adults that are face to face with students all day (mentors) x Provide the amount of time that students are getting instruction from HOPE teachers compared to mentors x Report on the qualifications of the managers and directors of the learning centers x Analyze information on students that transfer between different HOPE learning centers. 17

This section is designed to provide a summary of a qualitative review of district and school systems and conditions. Research on school turnaround shows that certain conditions are essential in establishing a strong foundation for rapid school improvement.4 Schools on track to improve student achievement are likely to show strong evidence of highly-functioning leadership, culture, academic systems, district support structures and board and community relationships. The data listed below were captured primarily through CDE performance manager site visits to HOPE over the last two school years, a diagnostic school readiness assessment completed in May 2015, and state data.

District Support x HOPE was authorized by Vilas School District in 2005. Douglas County School District began authorizing HOPE in 2008. x Various Douglas County district staff support HOPE Online - the Grants and ESSA Coordinator, Laura Gorman, has served as a primary contact and partner with CDE and HOPE leadership. Laura supports HOPE in a variety of ways: o Title funding planning, monitoring, fiscal oversight, and budgeting coordination. o Support in grant development o Support with Unified Improvement Planning o Progress monitoring of school improvement efforts o Collaboration and support with state accountability efforts o Liaison with other district staff regarding support for the school, including: choice and charter schools; special education; English language development; literacy and READ coordination; professional development, homeless liaison, and district leadership. x HOPE receives Title I funding from Douglas County School District. x HOPE contracts with Douglas County School District to provide special education services, including full or part-time positions of: special education coordinator, moderate needs teacher, building resource teacher, speech language pathologist, school psychologist, social worker, and classified support staff. x As a charter school, HOPE receives a high level of autonomy from Douglas County Schools.

School Leadership x Heather O’Mara is the Chief Executive Officer and is a co-founder of HOPE. x HOPE is governed by a board of directors of five individuals

4 Public Impact. (2008). School Turnaround Leaders: Competencies for Success; Mass Insight Education & Research Institute. (2007). The Turnaround Challenge: Why America’s best opportunity to dramatically improve student achievement lies in our worst-performing schools; Player, D. Hitt, D.H. and W. Robinson, W. (2014). District Readiness to Support School Turnaround. University of Virginia Partnership for Leaders in Education.

x HOPE employs a central staff of 97 people (full-time equivalent): 8 FTE under Finance; 6 FTE under Community Outreach; 10 FTE under Administration; 61 FTE under Academic Achievement; and 12 FTE under Student Services. x The CEO and other school leadership have sought out support from CDE and have applied for support grants. HOPE was successful in some grant applications and not in others. x The school leadership have been open to working with a CDE Turnaround Support Manager for the past two years by facilitating visits to learning centers, sharing school and staffing information, sharing performance trends, and discussing grant and support opportunities. CDE’s engagement with HOPE have led to a better understanding of the school and honest feedback to the school.

Learning Center Staff x Each learning center requires the positions of Learning Center Director, Learning Center Manager, and Learning Center Academic Lead. “The Learning Center Director may also serve as the Learning Center Manager, Academic Lead and/or Mentor if on site full time and if qualified to do so based on prior background and experience.” (HOPE Learning Center contract, 5.1). x Directors/Managers are responsible for: the operations of the center to support academics; ensuring mentors monitor online instruction and teach offline instruction; ensuring the facility is clean, safe, and engaging; and maintaining a positive relationship with students, families, staff, and the community. x Learning Center Managers hire mentors who provide the primary instruction to students (the mentors are not employees of HOPE or of the school district). Mentors are not required to hold Colorado teacher licenses, although 22% do hold licenses. Mentors are required to pass background and fingerprint reviews. Mentors work under direct supervision of learning center directors or managers and receive instructional support by HOPE staff. Learning center directors are not required to have educational licenses. According to the 2016 State Panel Review report, “only 26% of learning center directors hold teaching licenses.” x It is one of HOPE’s goals to hire learning center staff that represent the diversity of the communities they serve. x In the past two years, HOPE has increased the frequency, amount of time, and number of teachers and specialized support staff that work directly with mentors. x HOPE has invested in encouraging and developing pathways for their mentors to earn their licensure through partnerships with University of Northern Colorado at Greeley.

School Culture x Observations by CDE staff have noted that there exist a range of learning conditions at different HOPE learning centers - some have strong learning environments and some lack structure and clear expectations for focused student learning. x The climate of each learning center appears to be partially dependent on the leadership of each learning center director. 19

x HOPE collects “affiliation” data as a means to assess student engagement, including: attendance; re- enrollment rates; student retention rates; student affiliation rates; and mentor retention rates. This data was shared with CDE for the 2014-2015 school year for all learning centers. x HOPE promotional materials state that learning centers are “safe, supportive environments, operated by nonprofit community organizations.”

Academic Systems x HOPE is authorized as a multi-district online school. Observations and information from the school indicate that HOPE elementary students are engaged in online learning for 60 minutes per day and engaged in face-to-face instruction from mentors for the remainder of each day. In the secondary grade levels, the face-to-face instruction is progressively less - students in the middle grades spend approximately 50% of the day online, while high school students spend nearly 100% of each day engaged in online curricula. x Students are expected to physically attend class for the majority of each school day. x HOPE has expanded their expectations for academic curricular materials throughout the learning centers over the past two years. x HOPE implements interim/benchmark assessments including: DIBELS; Acuity for math and English language arts; and assessments used with the Engage NY curricula. HOPE staff have made efforts to utilize that data more with teachers, directors, and mentors to drive instruction. In 2015, according to the Mass Insight diagnostic report, there was mixed evidence that interim assessment data was used to meet student needs. x On visits to several HOPE learning centers, CDE staff have observed mixed instructional practices, ranging from effective to poor with low levels of student engagement. x In classrooms and learning centers with lower levels of instruction, it is not clear that mentors or center managers have awareness or understanding of what highly-effective instruction looks like. In some cases, mentors deliver instruction that is not differentiated or engaging and rely on limited instructional materials. x Most learning centers are unable to offer elective courses beyond physical education. x HOPE states that support interventions are provided for students identified as needing additional academic supports. HOPE receives Title I funds ($1,327,291 in Title I funds in 2015-2016) for these intervention services. Whereas HOPE strives to provide interventions consistently, offerings vary by learning center. x CDE observations and conversations with HOPE and learning center staff have pointed to a lack of adequate services and attention for students with special needs. It is not clear the full extent to which HOPE serves these groups of students.

Operations x HOPE receives funding as a multi-district online school. x HOPE learning centers operate geographically in 11 different school districts. HOPE enters into Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with each of these districts to operate the learning centers.

x HOPE operates learning centers in different facilities. Many learning centers are co-located in churches or other multi-use facilities.

Board and Community Relations x As a charter school, HOPE maintains a Board of Directors with five members x It is not clear how the HOPE Board of Directors holds the school accountable for student performance. x Per board minutes, the board recognizes the need to expand its membership and expertise in order to provide greater accountability for student performance

HOPE Online Elementary and Middle School submitted the UIP in January 2017 on time. CDE staff members are currently reviewing the plan and preparing formal feedback. An initial review indicates a generally high- quality plan that addresses feedback from CDE on past plans. A summary of past feedback from CDE is available in Appendix B.

Current School UIP Summary The following items were pulled directly from the school’s Unified Improvement Plan submitted to CDE in January 2017. (The text in the boxes below is the work of the school/district, not CDE). Where are students continuing to struggle most? Priority Performance Challenges: Specific statements about the district’s performance challenges (not budgeting, staffing curriculum, instruction, etc.). Elementary School Both reading and math status achievement continue to be well below expectations. The overall percentile for ELA on CMAS is up from the previous year for both reading and math. Both reading and math achievement continue to be well below expectations. HOPE elementary school students performed in the 4th percentile in reading and at the 6th percentile in math. To achieve approaching students must perform at least at the 15th percentile.

Reading and math growth is not sufficient to close achievement gaps. Reading and math growth across all students and subgroups was up from previous year and approaching for all groups. Reading and math growth across all students and subgroups is not sufficient for students to meet grade-level performance and close achievement gaps. Growth at the level of Meets is needed for students to be on track for meets/exceeds. Growth was at 36 for both ELA and math. Growth must demonstrate a median percentile of 50 to demonstrate the level of growth needed to support students toward grade-level expectations.

Subgroups gaps the greatest for students identified as Black and Hispanic. Achievement for students identified as those that are Black or Hispanic demonstrate the greatest achievement and growth gaps. Mean growth must at least meet or exceed a median growth percentile of 50.

Language growth must be accelerated to support achievement. To facilitate academic achievement, language acquisition of students must be accelerated to move students from L3 and 4 to L 5 and 6.Language acquisition growth for students moving from LEP to FEP. The 2015 growth MGP for ELL was 32, a rating of "does not meet". To make gains toward approaching, the MGP must be at least 40.

Middle School Both reading and math status achievement continue to be well below expectations. Both reading and math achievement on PARCC and on local assessments demonstrate that students are well below performance expectations as demonstrated by percentile performance on SPF and on local assessments.

Reading and math growth is not sufficient to close achievement gaps. Both reading and math growth has improved on both PARCC and on local assessments. However, to ensure that students’ growth trajectory is sufficient for each to meet grade expectations, growth must be at "meets".

Subgroups gaps the greatest for students with disabilities. Growth improved for all subgroups except students with disabilities on PARCC math and ELA. RIT scores on local assessments demonstrate gaps between students who are identified as Black and Hispanic as well.

Language growth must be accelerated to support achievement. To facilitate academic achievement, language acquisition of students must be accelerated to move students from L3 and 4 to L5 and 6.

Why is the school continuing to have this problem(s)? Root Causes: Statements describing the deepest underlying cause, or causes, of performance challenges, that, if dissolved, would result in elimination, or substantial reduction of the performance challenge(s). Elementary School Lack of highly qualified staff. Learning Center staff may lack CDE requirement for highly qualified status resulting in lack of pedagogy in the subject areas they teach.

Inconsistent monitoring of performance. Learning Center performance is inconsistently monitored and subsequent actions to address issues may not be timely.

Lack of LC director instructional leadership to guide and evaluate performance. Learning Center directors do not have the instructional leadership skills needed to guide and evaluate Learning Center staff performance.

Middle School Lack of highly qualified staff. Learning Center staff may lack CDE requirement for highly qualified status resulting in lack of pedagogy in the subject area.

Inconsistent monitoring of performance. Learning Center performance is inconsistently monitored and subsequent actions to address issues may not be timely.

What action is the school taking? Major Improvement Strategies: An overall approach that describes a series of related actions intended to result in improvements in performance. Elementary School Implement a system to recruit and train quality educators from the community. By June, 2017 a Licensure and Leadership Pathway Program has been created and approved and all teachers and Learning Center staff have a plan in place By June, 2017 an External Management Organization has been contracted and has completed a professional development review, needs assessment and has created comprehensive professional development plan and schedule to be implemented starting summer 2017. By June, 2017 a cadre of teachers and director peer coaches has been selected, trained and are providing mentoring to peers in identified areas for growth and development. Restructure and refine staffing within the HOPE organization and Learning Center. By June, 2017 every Learning Center has a dedicated full time HOPE staff (general education teacher, reading teacher, reading interventionist); HOPE licensed administrators are assigned as Academic Liaisons to each LC to oversee management and academic performance and to supervise teachers, and a plan for reconfiguring staffing to place individuals in areas of academic competence in appropriate roles (e.g. teacher, interventionist, para) at each LC has been completed. By fall 2018 every Learning Center with high language needs has a teacher with CLD endorsed or in program for endorsement assigned; staffing within Learning Centers is based on student needs and LC staff qualifications.

Intensify accountability and support systems and reconstitute the HOPE Governing. By June, 2017 a policy and process for Learning Center management and performance accountability has been designed and is being implemented to monitor, support and close Learning Centers as indicated; HOPE’s educator evaluation system is redesigned and piloted and includes the CDE Educator Effectiveness rubric and academic growth performance expectations with specific criteria for performance; HOPE’s governing board membership has been expanded to include educational and accountability experts; a governance committee of DCSD, EMO, HOPE leadership and board, and family/community has met to review the needs assessment, PD plan and evaluation plan and agreed upon changes as indicated.

Middle School Implement a system to recruit and train quality educators from the community. By June, 2017 a Licensure and Leadership Pathway Program has been created and approved and all teachers and Learning Center staff have a plan in place By June, 2017 an External Management Organization has been contracted and has completed a professional 2 development review, needs assessment and has created comprehensive professional development plan and schedule to be implemented starting summer 2017. By June, 2017 a cadre of teachers and director peer coaches has been selected, trained and are providing mentoring to peers in identified areas for growth and development.

Restructure and refine staffing within the HOPE organization and Learning Center. By June, 2017 every Learning Center has a dedicated full time HOPE staff (general education teacher, reading teacher, reading interventionist); HOPE licensed administrators are assigned as Academic Liaisons to each LC to oversee management and academic performance and to supervise teachers, and a plan for re configuring staffing to place individuals in areas of academic competence in appropriate roles (e.g. teacher, interventionist, para) at each LC has been completed. By fall 2018 every Learning Center with high language needs has a 23

teacher with CLD endorsed or in program for endorsement assigned; staffing within Learning Centers is based on student needs and LC staff qualifications.

Intensify accountability and support systems, reconstitute the Governing Board. By June, 2017 a policy and process for Learning Center management and performance accountability has been designed and is being implemented to monitor, support and close Learning Centers as indicated; HOPE’s educator evaluation system is redesigned and piloted and includes the CDE Educator Effectiveness rubric and academic growth performance expectations with specific criteria for performance; HOPE’s governing board membership has been expanded to include educational and accountability experts; a governance committee of DCSD, EMO, HOPE leadership and board, and family/community has met to review the needs assessment, PD plan and evaluation plan and agreed upon changes as indicated. History of Supports Available from the State on UIP Development The school has participated in universal and targeted supports from CDE on its UIP development. Universal supports include regional trainings held each spring and fall and access to many resources (e.g., quality criteria, UIP Handbook, online tutorials, sample plans) on CDE’s website. CDE has also worked directly with the district and with schools on their plan development. CDE staff were invited to work with district and school staff through multiple in-person interaction over the last couple of years.

Over the past few years, HOPE Online Learning Academy has applied for and received a number of competitive grants to support implementation of their improvement efforts. Below is a summary of the major grants and supports the district received over the past three years. In addition, HOPE Online participates in the Early Literacy Assessment Tool (ELAT) project. Grant funds are not distributed to the school, but rather the state pays the licensing fee for HOPE Online to administer state-approved reading assessments to its K-3 students so that teachers may obtain real-time data on the reading skill levels of students. Lastly, there were some grants HOPE applied for but did not receive; explanations of those grant processes are also below.

Expelled & At-Risk Student Services (EARSS) HOPE Online Learning Academy received the Expelled & At-Risk Student Services (EARSS) grant beginning in 2014-15 to serve grade K-12. The grant program runs for a total of four years. Grant purpose. The EARSS grant is a state-funded grant program intended to assist with providing educational and supportive services to expelled students, students at-risk for expulsion, and students of compulsory school age who are truant and at risk of being declared habitually truant as defined by unexcused absences. Funded activities. HOPE Online Learning Academy applied to use the EARSS funds to establish an initiative they named Project Restore. It concentrates additional mental health supports to students and their families including: 1) Process and protocol for screening and addressing mental health events and issues centrally and at each Learning Center, 2) Behavioral support in the classroom with home connections

for students struggling with mental health and behavioral issues, and 3) Social/emotional curriculum instruction to middle school students once a week to mitigate lack of impulse control, bullying and to expand a student’s ability to think critically and plan. Funds are used for: x 1 FTE Social Worker x 1FTE Behavior Specialist x Year 1 only: Stipend for programmer/data specialist to develop resource and referral database x Mental Health Assessment x Brain Wise curriculum x Student incentives for behavior management x Ten Teacher's Encyclopedia of Behavior Management Manual x Additional professional development x Renewal of CPI trainer certification, conference registrations to implement CPI and other strategies x Administrative costs charged by Douglas County School District for support to charter schools Grant outcomes. HOPE Online reported the following results and outcomes from the grant in 2015-16. Students Served: During the 2015-16 school year, the school served 422 at-risk students. Of the at-risk students, 361 will continue; 21 transferred to another school district, state, or country; 14 refused services; 10 graduated with a regular diploma, 10 successfully completed, 4 dropped out or discontinued schooling, and 2 K-6 students exited to an unknown educational setting. Parents/Guardians Served: The grant served 98 parents of the at-risk students, and 63% of parents reported an improvement in their ability to support their child. Performance Measures: The school reported meeting their goals or making progress on their goals related to parent support, academic progress and attendance. The school met or exceeded their safety and discipline goals. Credit Recovery: (Note: Not a specific emphasis of the EARSS grant.) The grant served 107 high school students. 62 students began the school year behind their expected age, grade and credit accumulation to graduate with a regular diploma, and 24 of those students (39%) earned half or more credits toward getting back on track. Of the 45 students who began EARSS services being on track to graduate on time, 39 (86%) remained on track.

Reading Ignite HOPE was awarded a Reading Ignite grant in FY 2015-16. The grant covers a 1 ½ year time span; Year 1 ran from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016 and Year 2 runs from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017. Funding for Year 1 encompassed planning and preparation for full implementation of the Reading Ignite components in Year 2. Grant purpose. The Reading Ignite Literacy Grant Program is designed to distribute ESEA Title I, Part A 1003(a) funds to schools and districts to embed the essential components of supplemental reading instruction into all elements of the teaching structures for kindergarten up to sixth grade in eligible Title I elementary schools. These structures include targeted and intensive instructional interventions in order to 25

assist students in achieving reading competency. These structures should be embedded into the school’s Title I program. Funded activities. Funds may be used to embed the essential components of reading instruction into all elements of the K-6 teaching structures in eligible Title I elementary schools. Required activities (funded by the grant) include: x Using a Literacy Coach; x Purchasing or using DIBELS Next or Indicadores Dinámicos del Éxito en la Lectura (IDEL) Assessment Materials; x Using a DIBELS compliant online data collection tool (e.g., Amplify mCLASS, DIBELSnet); x Attending Networking Days (two per year/Denver area); and x On-going, on-site implementation coaching/consulting assistance selected from the READ Act resource bank advisory list of professional development (at least monthly). Funds could also be used for: x Purchasing Supplemental Reading Materials; x Providing staff stipends to attend Professional Development if not occurring within the school day, or substitute pay if the Professional Development occurs during the school day.

Grant outcomes. The grant is designed to achieve the following outcomes (listed below). The Year 1 progress report indicated that HOPE is in the process of achieving these conditions and will work toward full implementation in Year 2 of the grant. x That a Reading Ignite School Leadership Team (SLT) has been established, meets regularly, and has been providing oversight of the grant implementation; x That the established instructional systems related to the teaching of reading for all K-6 students are based on Scientifically Based Reading Research (SBRR); x That the reading professional development provided is significantly more frequent than the year prior to implementation and ensures all principals and teachers, including teachers providing interventions for students, have the skills necessary to understand the infrastructure that enable increased reading achievement for K-6 students and consequently effectively teach all children to read; x That interim and diagnostic assessments as listed in the CDE READ Act State Board approved lists of interim and diagnostic assessments pursuant to the READ Act (www.cde.state.co.us/coloradoliteracy/ReadAct/resourcebank) are being used to inform instruction; x That the SLT has provided support in implementing universal/core programs and programs designed for targeted and intensive instructional interventions, as listed in the CDE READ Act advisory list of instructional programming (www.cde.state.co.us/coloradoliteracy/ReadAct/programming); x That the SLT has provided assistance in scheduling testing of students and interpreting assessment data, including scheduling of progress monitoring of students that are reading below grade level; and,

x That implementation of the Reading Ignite Literacy Grant Program has been and continues to be monitored through the use of the Literacy Evaluation Tool.

School Improvement Support HOPE Online Elementary and Middle schools were both awarded School Improvement Support (SIS) planning and implementation grants in 2014. Grant purpose. The purpose of this grant is to provide funds to eligible Title I schools to support a focused approach to improvement in the following areas: x Planning: Evaluation by external provider and action planning; or data analysis and action planning. x Implementation: Activities related to best first instruction; leadership; positive climate and culture; and/or extended learning opportunities. Funded activities. The SIS grant supported a diagnostic review for HOPE Online Elementary and Middle as a part of the planning portion of the grant. The SIS grant also funded curriculum specialists and the development of curriculum materials.

Title I Multi-District Online Learning Pilot Program While Title I funds are formula funds (and not competitive grants), it is important to note that the State Board of Education ensured additional Title I funding for HOPE through the Title I Multi-District Online Learning Pilot Program (initiated in May 2014 for a pilot starting in the 2014-15 school year). As the majority of students enrolled at HOPE are not residents of Douglas County, the Title I allocation for Douglas County was not calculated based on HOPE students. (Title I allocations are based on the census data of the geographic district.) The State Board noted this issue and created a two year pilot program to explore alternate Title I allocation methods that might result in greater alignment between the districts that are providing services to Title I students and the Title I funding they receive. As a result, starting in 2014-15, Douglas County’s Title I allocation was based on inclusion of HOPE students. As displayed in the table below, the district, and HOPE Online received significantly more funding starting in 2014-15 with the beginning of the pilot project.

Table 5. Title IA Funding for Douglas County School District Title I Funding Title I Funding for Douglas County Title IA Set Year for HOPE Other Douglas Total Allocation Aside/Admin Costs Schools County Schools 2012-13 945,644 737,480 - 208,164 2013-14 933,431 727,285 - 206,146

2014-15* 1,669,062 1,239,174 259,394 170,494

2015-16 1,833,725 1,228,107 268,256 337,362 2016-17 1,815,425 1,020,837 336,915 457,673 * Start of the pilot project 27

The pilot project has not only allowed HOPE to better serve students with over $500,000 additional dollars, and expanded services to the middle and high school levels, but has also enabled Douglas County to serve additional students in two schools in the district with Title I funds. In 2016-17, Douglas County School District allocated Title IA funding as follows:

x HOPE Elementary = $780,118

x HOPE Middle = $138,798

x HOPE High = $101,921

x Two (2) additional elementary schools

The funding for HOPE Online is being used for:

x 15 FTE (Salary and benefits) for ELA/math teachers to provide additional instructional time in reading for students to supplement general classroom and online instruction. Mileage, cell phones and laptops are provided to support their work.

x 4.5 FTE (Salary and benefits) for instructional Paraprofessionals to support additional instructional time in reading for students to supplement general classroom and online instruction. Mileage, cell phones and laptops are provided to support their work.

x Supplies to support this program.

Turnaround Network The purpose of the Turnaround Network is to provide support, professional development and grant resources for schools with Priority Improvement and Turnaround Plan types. Schools participating in the network are required to engage their district in all of the improvement activities. Schools in the network typically use grant resources to pay for diagnostic reviews, professional development opportunities for teachers and leaders, and additional time for teachers and staff to engage in PD and planning. The Turnaround Network application process has two phases – an initial application and a follow-up diagnostic review to ensure the school’s needs were a good match for the Turnaround Network support. HOPE online applied for the Turnaround Network in the spring of 2015 and was accepted for the first phase. The school received a grant of $30,000 to engage in a diagnostic review and additional planning time. The diagnostic review was conducted by Mass Insight Education and a summary report was generated and shared. After the diagnostic review, CDE and the school determined that the support provided by the Network would not be a good fit for HOPE’s school structure. The Network structure and professional development is largely geared towards developing school culture and intensive teacher coaching by principals, and principal coaching by principal supervisors. Given HOPE’s staffing model, this support structure provided by the Network would be less relevant for HOPE. As a result, HOPE did not participate in the Turnaround Network, but was able to leverage the feedback from the diagnostic review to focus their improvement plan.

School Turnaround Leaders Development grant The School Turnaround Leaders Development grant program is a competitive grant through which districts and charter schools can apply for funds to support teacher leaders, principals, and district staff to

attend identified turnaround leadership development programs. HOPE applied for this grant in 2016. Through the review process, it was determined that HOPE’s application did not earn enough points to be funded. Written feedback was shared with the school and articulated the primary reasons for denial being that the school and learning center staffing structure did not match with the designed training targets of the chosen leadership provider programs. With the lack of clarity about HOPE’s accountability and support structures between the school and the learning center staff, the application was not clear or specific enough to describe how a training program would address the school’s needs.

CDE staff have reviewed the State Review Panel’s reports from 2015 and 2016, which were based on document reviews and site visits. The State Review Panel reports recommend management by a public or private entity for HOPE Online Elementary School and Middle School. The 2015 reports rate HOPE’s elementary and middle schools as “Developing” in all areas except for adequacy of infrastructure in the elementary school, which was rated as “Effective” (see Tables 6 and 7). Both HOPE Elementary and Middle Schools received lower ratings on the 2016 State Review Panel reports. The Panel found the schools to be “Developing” on three criteria and “Not Effective” on two criteria—the adequacy of infrastructure and the likelihood of positive returns on investments of assistance and supports (see Tables 8 and 9). The 2016 report for the elementary school states, “the instructional leadership at the learning center level continues to be a concern. Despite efforts to increase the presence of HOPE leadership at the centers during the 2015-2016 school year, HOPE lacks evidence of high quality instruction as observed during the site visit.” As such, the 2016 State Review Panel “believes that the school would benefit from an external management company to assist with all areas of operational and instructional leadership and/or a reconstituted Board of Directors.” The 2015 Panel report also recommended management to provide, in particular, support for HOPE leadership in training, developing, and retaining effective instructional staff.

Table 6: 2015 State Review Panel Site Visit Summary for HOPE Online Elementary School SRP Site Visit Summary Capacity Level* 1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Developing 2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement. Effective 3. There is readiness and apparent capacity of personnel to plan effectively and Developing lead the implementation of appropriate action to improve student academic performance. 4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and Developing benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner. 5. There is likelihood of positive returns on state investments of assistance and Developing support to improve the performance within the current management structure and staffing. 6. There is necessity that the school/district remain in operation to serve students. Yes *Capacity levels include: Not Effective, Developing, Effective and Highly Effective 29

Table 7: 2015 State Review Panel Site Visit Summary for HOPE Online Middle School SRP Site Visit Summary Capacity Level* 1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Developing 2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement. Developing 3. There is readiness and apparent capacity of personnel to plan effectively and Developing lead the implementation of appropriate action to improve student academic performance. 4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and Developing benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner. 5. There is likelihood of positive returns on state investments of assistance and Developing support to improve the performance within the current management structure and staffing. 6. There is necessity that the school/district remain in operation to serve students. Yes *Capacity levels include: Not Effective, Developing, Effective and Highly Effective

Table 8: 2016 State Review Panel Site Visit Summary for HOPE Online Elementary School SRP Site Visit Summary Capacity Level* 1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Developing 2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement. Not Effective 3. There is readiness and apparent capacity of personnel to plan effectively and Developing lead the implementation of appropriate action to improve student academic performance. 4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and Developing benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner. 5. There is likelihood of positive returns on state investments of assistance and Not Effective support to improve the performance within the current management structure and staffing. 6. There is necessity that the school/district remain in operation to serve students. No *Capacity levels include: Not Effective, Developing, Effective and Highly Effective

Table 9: 2016 State Review Panel Site Visit Summary for HOPE Online Middle School SRP Site Visit Summary Capacity Level* 1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Developing 2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement. Not Effective 3. There is readiness and apparent capacity of personnel to plan effectively and Developing lead the implementation of appropriate action to improve student academic performance. 4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and Developing benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner. 5. There is likelihood of positive returns on state investments of assistance and Not Effective support to improve the performance within the current management structure and staffing. 6. There is necessity that the school/district remain in operation to serve students. No *Capacity levels include: Not Effective, Developing, Effective and Highly Effective

The 2015 Panel made additional suggestions for the management pathway. They concluded that implementing the pathway could also mean restructuring the school to identify as a blended learning model, as opposed to an online model. The report states, The school is currently categorized as an online charter school, but the model for both elementary and middle school is not truly online. The model includes centers where students are required to attend and receive both offline and online teaching. Shifting the management entity by removing the online charter authorization and re-establishing the school as a blended learning program could result in an increase in state funding and support. (2015 SRP, p 2) The 2015 Panel also envisioned a management pathway whereby the school’s authorizer relationship is restructured. The report suggested that exploring a charter through a state authorizer instead of Douglas County “could benefit students throughout the state, as resources can be more equitably distributed and additional supports provided outside of the bounds of Douglas County.” The Panel stated, however, that they found the relationship between Douglas County and HOPE to be strong. The 2015 State Review Panel found that there is a necessity for the school to remain in operation, noting that “the school has a high number of ELL, transient, at-risk and low income students and has successfully implemented services and academic programming to support the needs and gaps of this group.” The Panel also cited the school’s ability to serve as community-based centers for families. The 2016 State Review Panel report came to a different conclusion. That report notes, “The State Review Panel found that there is not a necessity that the school remain in operation to serve students. There are other online and brick and mortar programs that are serving similar students and showing better results. Although the general sentiment from HOPE staff is that the current students are disenfranchised from the traditional school system, the site visit and document review provided no data to confirm this. The students who are served by HOPE are not in a remote community, and the majority of students live in geographic areas with a variety of other academic choices.” (2016 SRP, p 2)

The Department used the following rubric to evaluate the proposed management plan from HOPE Online Learning Academy. The rubric was developed to assess whether the plan, if implemented, will have significant, rapid and positive impact on student learning. A check mark indicates the management plan met the stated criteria.

Management Plan Overview X Meets expectations □ Partially meets expectations □ Does not meet expectations Plan Component Rating of Evidence Notes Need for Management Meets Expectations Comments Partner Plan provides a clear 9 Provides clear rationale for why the district is The plan provides rationale for their focus on management and and compelling selecting the management accountability clock governance as pathway options. The plan states that “HOPE will not rationale for pursuing a pathway for the identified Priority achieve a dramatic increase in student achievement without the management Improvement/Turnaround school(s) or district. support of a Management Partner. The level of planning partnership. 9 Gives in-depth description of the district and/or implementation and evaluation that is required is beyond the scope school’s most pressing areas of need that the of current HOPE leaders and staff.” management partner will help address and support. The plan identifies talent management, academic systems, and 9 Explicitly explains how the management accountability for student learning as the most pressing areas of partnership will result in a greater level of need, and describes why focusing on talent management in success for student learning. particular is their strategy. Whereas the plan describes much about the management partnership, the plan does not explain why the current HOPE staff need the management partners in order to accomplish this work. Mission & Vision Meets Expectations Comments Plan articulates a vision 9 States a mission and vision that provides a clear The school’s mission and vision articulate their desire to serve and mission that and concise picture of what the school/district underrepresented students by engaging with adults and resources reflects high aims to achieve. from local communities. The plan includes a thoughtful theory of expectations for 9 Demonstrates how the management partner will action. student learning and help the school/district advance its vision and 32

sets goals for mission. HOPE is proposing that the management partner focus on one of the improving academic 9 Outlines the district’s plan for providing major improvement areas of the school – talent management – to outcomes as a result of differentiated support to the school, including help the school advance its mission and vision. the management changes to organizational structures, routines, or partnership. systems. 9 Identifies actionable goals for student academic achievement 9 Establishes a vision for how the district and/or school will earn its way off the accountability clock. District Systems Meets Expectations Comments Plan describes district 9 Describes any flexibility or changes in district The plan states that the “district relies on the HOPE Governing Board flexibilities and policies and practices that will be granted to the to provide oversight and accountability,” but given that the charter resources that will be school(s) as a result of the management school is at the end of the clock the district will also support and granted to allow for the partnership. provide oversight for the HOPE management plan. The management agreed upon scope of 9 Outlines the district’s plan for providing partner will provide reports to the district, HOPE administration and work. differentiated support to the school, including the HOPE governing board. The district will work to provide an changes to organizational structures, routines, or appropriate balance between autonomy and accountability. systems. Further, the district will base renewal of HOPE’s charter contract 9 Describes the district’s plan or changes in contingent upon greater student achievement. Specific expectations allocating resources (financial or personnel) to for student achievement improvements should be delineated in ensure the success of the management plan. reference to the DCSD’s decision to continue HOPE’s charter contract in 2018.

These details around the district’s involvement are helpful and demonstrate a willingness of the district to play the authorizer’s role of holding the school accountable to student outcomes. The documents provided to CDE outline some details about the board’s functioning and reporting processes. The plan indicates the formation of an “Academic Excellence Committee” which will “help the full board evaluate HOPE’s ‘bottom line,’ its student achievement data.” The plan would be stronger if it included clear 33

criteria about what will define success at HOPE and at each learning center. CDE will be very interested to see what the board and this committee articulate in the coming months.

The plan describes the “reconstitution and re-engagement” of the governing board to include adding two additional members to the board that have experience in education and accountability. This change may not be sufficient to meet the Commissioner’s recommendations nor the statutory pathway of replacing the governing board. It will be important that the HOPE governing board and the district play an objective accountability role as the school enters into year 6 on the accountability clock.

School Design Plan □ Meets expectations X Partially meets expectations □ Does not meet expectations Plan Component Rating of Evidence Notes Academic Systems Meets Expectations Comments Plan articulates what For schools or districts implementing changes to The plan recognizes significant needs around academic systems and strategies, the school academic systems, please address the following articulates the multiple steps the school has already taken to will focus on that are elements. If a school or district is not making improve curriculum, instruction and assessment. The management related to academic changes in these areas, provide rationale for not partner will not oversee academic systems, however HOPE’s plan systems. making changes. draws connections between the academic needs of the school and 9 Articulate proposed changes to curriculum and the talent challenges that will be addressed by the management instruction at the school in response to school partner. The management partner is responsible for overseeing the needs. Discusses any special academic/curricular implementation of the UIP, which contains many of the action steps themes and addresses how the chosen needed to continue improvement of the academic systems. instructional methods are expected to improve school performance and student achievement The plan begins to describe differentiated instruction and the need and are necessary for the school to achieve its to better serve all students, in particular students with special needs mission and English language learners. Given that academic achievement 9 Provides an overview of the school’s proposed rating for each sub-group on the SPFs are all “does not meet,” it is assessment plan, including a description of any recommended that serving special populations of students be assessments that will supplement those required addressed more directly. 34

by the district and the state The plans to enhance academic accountability do not provide 9 Describes the school’s approach to provide sufficient description. How will an additional position at HOPE serve personalized and differentiated instruction that this need? What might a tiered process of interventions for best meets the needs of all students, especially underperforming learning centers look like? Why has this not been students with disabilities and English Language developed to date? What can be done to ensure learning centers see Learners. greater student gains? 9 Describes what changes to the school schedule or calendar will occur and articulates how the changes will address current barriers and lead to increased student achievement. Culture of Meets Expectations Comments Performance Plan articulates what For schools or districts implementing changes to HOPE’s management proposal does not include oversight related to strategies, the school school culture, please address the following Culture of Performance, and does not offer changes in this area. The or district focus on that elements. If a school or district is not making plan, however, does describe some practices HOPE is using to are related to culture of changes in these areas, provide rationale for not engage parents. performance. making changes. HOPE manages learning centers indirectly and thus has more limited NA Articulates changes to the systems, programs, control of the day-to-day climate and culture than in a traditional structures, rituals, and routines the school will school. A culture of high expectations and accountability for high use to foster a positive school culture for all quality instruction and student learning is something HOPE is striving students and teachers. for, but it remains inconsistent across learning centers. While this 9 Describes plan to engage regularly, frequently, area is somewhat addressed in the management plan, it is not an and effectively with parents and guardians, area of focus for the proposed partnership. external stakeholders and the community at large. Talent Management Meets Expectations Comments Plan articulates what For schools or districts implementing changes to The management plan focuses on talent management as a strategies, the school talent management systems, please address the challenge. or district will focus on following elements. If a school or district is not that are related to making changes in these areas, provide rationale for The school’s goal of recruiting from local communities is admirable. talent management. not making changes. 35

9 Provides an overview of the school’s The plan includes plans to conduct an assessment of professional recruitment and staffing plan and explains how learning needs across HOPE and learning center staff. This these changes will produce gains in academic assessment will drive professional development offering. Consider achievement. adding more detail about what specific professional development is 9 Explains how plans for professional needed to bring current staff to a higher level of instructional development differ from the school’s current practice. practice and/or district requirements and why these changes are necessary. The plan lacks details about systematic observation, evaluation, and 9 Describes changes to the processes and criteria feedback cycles. Including the further detail on the evaluation of used to support the strategic evaluation and teachers and mentors and clarifying the management partner’s role retention of highly effective teachers and staff, in those processes would strengthen the plan. including incentives and compensation. The plan builds on the assumption that the school will/must

continue to operate by recruiting and hiring the instructional staff with the same skill level as they currently have. Are there other methods to staff the school with instructors with the needed skills?

The plan would also be more compelling if recruitment, selection, and qualifications of learning center leaders was considered, along with the higher standards sought for mentors.

Management Partner □ Meets expectations X Partially meets expectations □ Does not meet expectations Plan Component Rating of Evidence Notes Selection of Partner Meets Expectations Comments Plan describes a rigorous process of recruitment, The plan states that the management partners were selected by the ٯ Plan describes the process the district vetting and selection of partner. CEO and Board President. A systems-wide objective selection Selection process demonstrates verifiable, process including more staff and/or district staff may have ensured ٯ used to select the partner and ensure quantitative data that demonstrates the broader commitment to the partners. The plan identifies two management partner partner’s past effectiveness in improvement in individuals to serve as management partners. Whereas they will has a track record of schools with similar needs and similar have decision-making roles, they appear to act more as consultants success in supporting demographics. Where appropriate, names and than embedded partners. schools in identified qualifications of key staff members assigned to areas of need. the school are provided. 36

9 Justifies why the scope of work is appropriate The plan briefly describes a process of searching, recruiting and given school/district needs (e.g., if only seeking a vetting the individual partners. The plan includes criteria used to targeted management partnership, why and how identify partners as well as the selected partners’ resumes. is the targeted approach appropriate?). 9 Articulates how the partner’s services and The plan identifies talent management (recruitment, professional approach will align to and support current development, staffing quality, and accountability) as a focus area. district needs. Explains how the partner will Increasing the quality of instruction is the ultimate goal so the talent directly support the school or district’s plan for management partners need to ensure they focus their work on improvement. attaining this goal.

Scope of Work Meets Expectations Comments Plan describes one or 9 Includes a clear and concise overview of the The Scope of Work includes key services to be provided by the more targeted areas scope of services to be implemented by the partners. The plan begins to address accountability for learning but the management management partner. lacks compelling detail as to how this will be addressed. partner will focus on in 9 Provides detailed explanation of the agreed upon the district and/or targeted areas for support for the school/district. The tasks identified in the plan for the partners and school staff school. Plan also 9 Includes a timeline that thoroughly outlines begin to describe key services and timelines for implementation. provides a timeline for implementation of the scope of services. Plan Questions remain from these descriptions about the work of the the implementation of should be practical but also demonstrate partners and immediate outcomes. the management urgency for pulling the school/district off the partnership activities. accountability clock. The focus on professional development seeks to provide more training to an already under-skilled instructional staff. An additional focus on recruiting skilled staff is recommended. Performance Meets Expectations Comments Contract/MOU The district and 9 The plan includes a copy of the contract/MOU The plan includes a copy of the draft contract between the school management partner between the district and the management and the management partners. The draft contract outlines decision- should enter into a partner. It clearly outlines the terms of the making responsibilities that the partners will have. It would be comprehensive performance partnership, including (where helpful, however, to know the actual activities expected of the performance applicable): partners on a weekly/monthly basis. contract/memorandum Comprehensive Services of understanding • Length of contract (suggested to be 2-4 years) 37

(MOU) that specifically • Management fees, budget autonomy and The plan provides some details about the roles and responsibilities outlines the terms of fundraising the management partners will play with school staff, the governing the performance o Includes description of resources board, and the district liaison. This description can be strengthened partnership. necessary to sustain the partnership for by adding more details about the decision-making body that spans duration of the contract the school, partners, governing board, and district. • Terms of termination initiated by the district or the management partner. Description of process The plan does not include details about how the management the district and partner will follow in the case of partner or HOPE will be held accountable for the outcomes related disagreements of judgment or scope of work as to the scope of work. outlined in contract/MOU. • Relevant responsibility for Non-Academic The plan provides more detail about how HOPE might intervene if a Operations (e.g., facilities, maintenance and learning center does not meet outcome expectation, but additional operations, accounting, payroll and HR, detail about how learning centers are evaluated is needed. technology infrastructure, dining services, transportation, school security, procurement.) The plan also indicates that the district liaison will have oversight, Responsibilities, rights, and authorities of the reporting, and dispute-resolution responsibilities. More detail is management partner and the district needed here with explanation as to how that shift will impact the • Articulates what specific management authority time and role of the district liaison. How would such dispute the partner will hold that will be significant and resolution occur? meaningful to addressing the identified school/district needs. The plan indicates that the management partner will “recommend • The management partner’s rights and the removal of teachers from the licensure pathway if adequate responsibilities should include any autonomies progress is not being made”. How is adequate progress defined? around academic systems, talent management and culture as specified above in the school Management partners will “carry equal weight as that of the HOPE design plan. The plan should describe the degree staff” in hiring and firing of learning center staff. Does this include all and type of decision-making control that the learning center staff? Is this a function that HOPE staff already have partner may exercise. with personnel decisions at learning centers? • Establishes clear lines of reporting, responsibility, and supervision of district-partner The plan describes a “school-level decision-making body” to relationship. “provide overall governance of the PD planning.” This group and • District responsibilities should include providing their decision-making process should be described further. the partner with a direct contact/advocate 38

within the district system, continuing services as The management partners will have oversight of implementing the needed (e.g., purchased services), and ensuring UIP. The UIP includes improvement areas outside of the scope of compliance of the partner and school. what is described in this plan. The scope of and process for oversight • Partner responsibilities should include the over the UIP implementation needs to be clarified and detailed. number and qualifications of partner staff who will be embedded within the district or school(s) and should articulate their roles and responsibilities. Accountability for student achievement and assessment of success: • Addresses performance accountability, including fidelity of implementation and effectiveness at raising student achievement. • Includes specific benchmarks and timelines for program implementation and performance outputs. • Includes agreements on shared access to data and leading and lagging indicators of performance. • Identifies supports and interventions for deviating performance, and remedies available to either party if there is failure to make reasonable progress toward mutually agreed- upon performance benchmarks. 39

Summary Overall Rationale

CDE has determined that The plan provides enough detail to begin to understand how HOPE intends to use a management partner to address the proposed talent and accountability challenges. The plan’s focus on human capital challenges lays out some major areas on which to Management Plan draft focus this work, namely recruitment, professional development, and evaluation of instructional staff. dated 3/13 has been The plan begins to address the need for greater accountability for student learning throughout the HOPE organization. improved from the This area needs to be developed in greater detail and should explain relationships between the school, learning centers, 2/27/17 draft and the governing board, the district and the management partners, and the criteria and data that they use to determine partially meets the sufficient progress. standards described The specifics of the restructuring the governing board needs to be addressed more. Additionally, as various reporting above. cycles are named in the plan, it would be helpful to have one table describing the reporting that will occur, what data shall be reported, to whom it shall be reported, by whom, and on what cycle and frequency.

With the multiple revisions and addenda, this plan begins to address CDE’s standards, as outlined in this rubric, to address the improvement efforts needed to meet the educational needs of the students at HOPE Online. EXHIBIT F

STATE OF COLORADO BOARD OF EDUCATION 201 E. Colfax Avenue #506 Denver, CO 80203

..... BOARD USE In Re: Accountability Recommendations CASE NUMBER: HOPE Online Learning Academy Elementary School 17-AR-04

and

HOPE Online Learning Academy Middle School

In Douglas County School District RE-1

PROPOSED FINALWRITTEN DETERMINATION OF STATE BOARD

On Thursday, April 13, 2017, a hearing was held on this matter before the Colorado State Board of Education pursuant to§ 22-ll-210(5)(b), C.R.S., and the Colorado State Board of Education Procedures for State Board Accountability Actions.

Pursuant to§ 22-11-210(5)(b), C.R.S., the State Board has reviewed and fully considered the accountability recommendations of the Commissioner, the State Review Panel, and the report submitted by HOPE Online Learning Academy Co-Op, and has heard and considered the presentations of the Department and the Schools in this matter.

Based upon the recommendations of the Department, the Commissioner, the State Review Panel, and the proposal of the Schools, the State Board makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. HOPE Online Learning Academy Co-Op ("HOPE") consists of three charter schools authorized by Douglas County School District (DCSD). HOPE currently consists of three separate schools; an elementary, middle, and high school. It is the elementary and middle schools that are the subject of this action, 1

EXHIBIT G

MEMO

TO: State Board of Education Members FROM: Alyssa Pearson, Lindsey Jaeckel and Brenda Bautsch RE: Year 8 School and District Progress Monitoring DATE: March 14, 2019

Below, please find details to support the information item regarding the progress monitoring update for schools and districts at the March board meeting. There are six schools and two districts that continue to have a Priority Improvement or Turnaround rating for the 8th year based on the 2018 school and district performance frameworks. The department has been working with these schools and districts to support and monitor their progress in implementing their accountability pathway plan as directed by the state board in spring 2017.

The board materials for this agenda item include information for the following schools and districts: • Adams 14 School District • Adams City High School (Adams 14 School District) • Aguilar School District/Aguilar Junior-Senior High School • Aurora Central High School (Aurora Public Schools) • HOPE Online Elementary School (Douglas County School District) • Heroes Academy (Pueblo City Schools) • Risley International Academy of Innovation (Pueblo City Schools)

As required by the state board order, a few of these schools and districts presented updates to the state board in fall 2018 and the state board directed additional actions at that time. These schools and districts were: Adams 14 School District, Adams City High School, Heroes Academy and Risley International Academy of Innovation. The state board received an update on the additional actions for Heroes Academy and Risley International Academy of Innovation at the state board’s February board meeting. The state board will receive an update from Adams 14 School District and Adams City High School on their additional actions at the state board’s March board meeting. For these schools and districts, the progress monitoring update includes a brief summary of available and applicable mid-year local data.

For the remaining Year 8 schools and districts, the state board has requested a more detailed progress monitoring report at the March board meeting. These schools and districts are: Aguilar School District/Aguilar Junior-Senior High School, Aurora Central High School, and HOPE Online Elementary School. The more detailed progress monitoring reports include the following: • A description of the pathway, priorities, and key strategies/activities taken from the school’s/district’s approved pathway plan;

201 East Colfax Avenue, Denver, CO 80203-1799 P 303.866.6600 F 303.830.0793 Dr. Katy Anthes, Commissioner of Education | www.cde.state.co.us • The department’s mid-year reflection on the implementation progress of the key strategies/activities. Reflections are based on visits with the schools and districts, information shared by the schools, districts, and management partners (if applicable), student outcome data, and staff observations; • A summary of available and applicable mid-year local data; and • An overall assessment of progress by department staff.

At the March meeting, CDE staff will provide a brief presentation on the progress monitoring process. Additionally, HOPE Online staff will present a brief update on their pathway plan, which underwent substantive revisions last fall. HOPE has faced significant challenges implementing strategies to ensure that higher quality "mentors" are recruited. This was a key priority of the pathway plan approved in 2017, since mentors provide the bulk of the instruction to elementary students. The multi-district online school's financial and operational structure is such that they receive a lower per-pupil funding amount as an online school. In reality, HOPE relies on adults to provide the vast majority of instruction for students in grades K-5 in a face-to-face setting that resembles traditional, brick-and-mortar schools. With this model, it is difficult to recruit and retain highly effective mentors because educators with more experience and qualifications can find higher paying jobs in traditional schools than they can as mentors at HOPE learning centers. Given these realities, HOPE has revised its plan to create multiple pathways to additional education and training for mentors depending on their current level of qualifications. This revision to the original pathway plan was approved by the Douglas County School Board in November 2018 and will be shared by HOPE Online staff with the State Board of Education as part of this information item in March.

PowerPoint presentations from CDE and HOPE Online and the progress monitoring reports are available on Board Docs. This is only an information item at this time. Other than for HOPE Online, school and district staff will not be in attendance at this board meeting. Department staff will be able to share any questions or comments the state board members have with any other schools and districts following the board meeting.

201 East Colfax Avenue, Denver, CO 80203-1799 P 303.866.6600 F 303.830.0793 Dr. Katy Anthes, Commissioner of Education | www.cde.state.co.us EXHIBIT H

^ĐŚŽŽů;ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚͿ ,KWKŶůŝŶĞ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĐĂĚĞŵǇůĞŵĞŶƚĂƌǇΘDŝĚĚůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůƐ;ŽƵŐůĂƐŽƵŶƚǇ^ĐŚŽŽůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚͿ ĐĐŽƵŶƚĂďŝůŝƚǇ ǆƚĞƌŶĂůDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͕ŽĂƌĚZĞĐŽŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ͘,KWKŶůŝŶĞŝƐƉĂƌƚŶĞƌŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚǁŽŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂŶƚƐŝŶƐĞǀĞƌĂůƉƌŝŽƌŝƚǇŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚĂƌĞĂƐĂŶĚ ŝƌĞĐƚĞĚĐƚŝŽŶ ŝƐĂĚũƵƐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌďŽĂƌĚŵĞŵďĞƌƐŚŝƉ͘ (OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO3HUIRUPDQFH)UDPHZRUN'DWD KǀĞƌĂůůϮϬϭϴWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌǇZĂƚŝŶŐ͗ WƌŝŽƌŝƚǇ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ͕ϯϴ͘ϵйŽĨWŽŝŶƚƐ KǀĞƌĂůůϮϬϭϳ&ŝŶĂůZĂƚŝŶŐ͗ WƌŝŽƌŝƚǇ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ͕ϯϵ͘ϰйŽĨWŽŝŶƚƐ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ йŽĨWŽŝŶƚƐĂƌŶĞĚ ZĂƚŝŶŐ ŚĂŶŐĞ ĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ ϮϬϭϴWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌǇ Ϯϱ͘Ϭй ŽĞƐEŽƚDĞĞƚ EŽĐŚĂŶŐĞ ĐŚŝĞǀĞŵĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϳ&ŝŶĂů Ϯϱ͘Ϭй ŽĞƐEŽƚDĞĞƚ ĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ ϮϬϭϴWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌǇ ϰϴ͘Ϯй ƉƉƌŽĂĐŚŝŶŐ ĞĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶйŽĨWŽŝŶƚƐĂƌŶĞĚ 'ƌŽǁƚŚ ϮϬϭϳ&ŝŶĂů ϰϵ͘Ϭй ƉƉƌŽĂĐŚŝŶŐ 0LGGOH6FKRRO3HUIRUPDQFH)UDPHZRUN'DWD KǀĞƌĂůůϮϬϭϴWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌǇZĂƚŝŶŐ͗ /ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ͕ϰϱ͘ϵйŽĨWŽŝŶƚƐ KǀĞƌĂůůϮϬϭϳ&ŝŶĂůZĂƚŝŶŐ͗ WƌŝŽƌŝƚǇ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ͕ϰϬ͘ϲйŽĨWŽŝŶƚƐ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ zĞĂƌ йŽĨWŽŝŶƚƐĂƌŶĞĚ ZĂƚŝŶŐ ŚĂŶŐĞ ĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ ϮϬϭϴWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌǇ Ϯϱ͘Ϭй ŽĞƐEŽƚDĞĞƚ EŽĐŚĂŶŐĞ ĐŚŝĞǀĞŵĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϳ&ŝŶĂů Ϯϱ͘Ϭй ŽĞƐEŽƚDĞĞƚ ĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ ϮϬϭϴWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌǇ ϱϵ͘ϴй ƉƉƌŽĂĐŚŝŶŐ /ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶйŽĨWŽŝŶƚƐĂƌŶĞĚ 'ƌŽǁƚŚ ϮϬϭϳ&ŝŶĂů ϱϭ͘Ϭй ƉƉƌŽĂĐŚŝŶŐ (QG2I

HOPE Online Elementary and Middle School October 2018 1 WƌŝŽƌŝƚǇ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ <ĞǇ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ DŝĚͲzĞĂƌZĞĨůĞĐƚŝŽŶ ŶĚͲŽĨͲzĞĂƌZĞĨůĞĐƚŝŽŶ dĞĂĐŚĞƌͬ ŶƐƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĂƚ Ͳ&ŽĐƵƐŽŶƌĞĐƌƵŝƚŝŶŐ ͲdŚĞĨŽĐƵƐŽĨƚŚŝƐƉƌŝŽƌŝƚǇŝƐƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĞ Ͳ,KWŝƐǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŽŶĂƌĞǀŝƐĞĚƉůĂŶĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƉƌŝŽƌŝƚǇĂƌĞĂƚŽ DĞŶƚŽƌWŝƉĞůŝŶĞ ŚŝŐŚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇ ůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚƐƚĂĨĨŽƌ ƌĞĐƌƵŝƚŵĞŶƚ͕ƐĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƌĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶŽĨŚŝŐŚůǇ ƐŚĂƌĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƚĂƚĞďŽĂƌĚŝŶEŽǀĞŵďĞƌ͘ ƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐĂŶĚ ƐƚĂĨĨǁŝůůŝŶŐƚŽ ƋƵĂůŝĨŝĞĚƚĞĂĐŚŝŶŐƐƚĂĨĨ͘dŚŝƐǇĞĂƌ͕,KWŚŝƌĞĚ Ͳ,KWΖƐWĂƚŚǁĂǇWůĂŶŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚƚĂůĞŶƚŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĂƐƚŚĞ ŵĞŶƚŽƌƐĂƌĞ ƉƵƌƐƵĞůŝĐĞŶƐƵƌĞ͘ ϰϯŶĞǁŵĞŶƚŽƌƐ͕ϮϯйŽĨǁŚŽŵǁĞƌĞůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚ ΗĂƌĞĂŽĨŵŽƐƚƉƌĞƐƐŝŶŐŶĞĞĚΗ;Ɖ͘ϵͿ͘dǁŽŽĨƚŚĞŬĞǇŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ƌĞĐƌƵŝƚĞĚ͕ŚŝƌĞĚ͕ ͲĞǀĞůŽƉůŝĐĞŶƐƵƌĞ ĂŶĚϯϯйŽĨǁŚŽŵƉŽƐƐĞƐƐĂďĂĐŚĞůŽƌĚĞŐƌĞĞ ŽĨĨŽĐƵƐŝŶŐŽŶƚŚŝƐƉƌŝŽƌŝƚǇĂƌĞĂǁĞƌĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚŽďĞ͗ ĂŶĚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĞĚŝƐ ƉĂƚŚǁĂǇƐĨŽƌ ;ďƵƚĂƌĞŶŽƚůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚͿ͘ĂĐŚŶĞǁŚŝƌĞŚĂƐ ΗDĞŶƚŽƌƐǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĨŽƵƌǇĞĂƌĚĞŐƌĞĞƐĞŶƌŽůůĂŶĚĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞƚŚĞ ĂĐƌŝƚŝĐĂůĨĂĐƚŽƌ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚŵĞŶƚŽƌƐ͘ ĞǆƉƌĞƐƐĞĚŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚŝŶďĞĐŽŵŝŶŐůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚ͘/ƚŝƐ ƚĞĂĐŚĞƌĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵΗĂŶĚΗDĞŶƚŽƌƐǁŝƚŚĨŽƵƌǇĞĂƌ ƚŽŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ ͲƌĞĂƚĞĂŶĚ ŶŽƚĐůĞĂƌŚŽǁƚŚŝƐŚŝƌŝŶŐĚĂƚĂĐŽŵƉĂƌĞƐƚŽ ĚĞŐƌĞĞƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞƚŚĞĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞƚĞĂĐŚĞƌůŝĐĞŶƐƵƌĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵΗ ĞĨĨŽƌƚƐĂƚ,KW͘ ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂŶ ƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐǇĞĂƌƐ͕ďƵƚ,KWĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚŶĞǁ ;Ɖ͘ϯϰͿ͘dŚĞďĞŶĐŚŵĂƌŬƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƐĞŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ;ϴϬйŽĨŶŽŶͲ ĞǆƚĞŶƐŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ ƐĐƌĞĞŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŝŶƚĞƌǀŝĞǁƚŽŽůƐƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞ ĚĞŐƌĞĞĚƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐĞŶƌŽůůĞĚŝŶĂƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƉƌĞƉĂƌĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ ŽƵŐůĂƐŽƵŶƚǇ ŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨŽĨŵĞŶƚŽƌƐǁŝůůŝŶŐƚŽƉƵƌƐƵĞ ďǇϮϬϭϳ͕ĂŶĚϭϬϬйŽĨĚĞŐƌĞĞĚŵĞŶƚŽƌƐǁŝƚŚϰǇĞĂƌĚĞŐƌĞĞƐ ^ĐŚŽŽůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ůŝĐĞŶƐƵƌĞ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂƚƚŚŝƐƉŽŝŶƚ͕ƚŚƌĞĞ ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĂŶĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞůŝĐĞŶƐƵƌĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵďǇDĂǇϮϬϭϵͿĂƌĞ ;^ͿĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ ƋƵĂƌƚĞƌƐŽĨŶĞǁŵĞŶƚŽƌƐĂƌĞŶŽƚůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚ͘ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇŽĨĨƚƌĂĐŬĂŶĚŶŽƚĂƚƚĂŝŶĂďůĞĂƚƚŚŝƐƉŽŝŶƚ͘ ĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ Ͳ,KWŚĂƐĚĞĐŝĚĞĚŶŽƚƚŽƉƵƌƐƵĞĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ ͲĂƐĞĚŽŶĚĂƚĂƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĨƌŽŵ,KWƚŽŽŶ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϳ͕ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘ ĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵŐůĂƐŽƵŶƚǇ͕ƐŽŝƚ ϮϬϭϴ͕ƌĞĐƌƵŝƚŵĞŶƚŽĨůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚƐƚĂĨĨŽƌƐƚĂĨĨǁŝƚŚŚŝŐŚĞƌ ͲǀĂůƵĂƚĞƚŚĞ ƌĞŵĂŝŶƐƵŶĐůĞĂƌǁŚĂƚƚŚĞƉůĂŶŝƐƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞ ĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶůĞǀĞůƐƐŚŽǁĞĚƐƚƌŽŶŐŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐĨƌŽŵϮϬϭϲͲϭϳƚŽ ĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐŽĨƚŚĞ ǀĞƚĞƌĂŶĂŶĚŶĞǁŵĞŶƚŽƌƐĂƌĞĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĞĚ͕ƚƌĂŝŶĞĚ ϮϬϭϳͲϭϴ͕ďƵƚŚĂƐĚĞĐůŝŶĞĚƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůǇĨƌŽŵϮϬϭϳͲϭϴƚŽƚŚĞ ƚĞĂĐŚĞƌͬŵĞŶƚŽƌ ĂŶĚŚŝŐŚůǇƋƵĂůŝĨŝĞĚ͘ΖƐƉƌŝŽƌŝƚǇŝƐƚŽǁŽƌŬ ϮϬϭϴͲϭϵƐĐŚŽŽůǇĞĂƌ͘/ŶϮϬϭϲͲϮϬϭϳ͕ϲϱ͘ϲйŽĨŵĞŶƚŽƌƐŚĂĚĂŶ ƉŝƉĞůŝŶĞ͘ ǁŝƚŚĂŶĚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ,KWŝŶŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐĂ ĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐĚĞŐƌĞĞŽƌůĞƐƐ͕ǁŝƚŚϮϵ͘ϳйŚĂǀŝŶŐŽŶůǇĂŚŝŐŚ ƐƚƌŽŶŐƚĞĂĐŚĞƌĂŶĚŵĞŶƚŽƌƉŝƉĞůŝŶĞ͘ ƐĐŚŽŽůĚŝƉůŽŵĂ͘dǁĞŶƚǇƚǁŽŵĞŶƚŽƌƐ;ϭϳ͘ϮйͿŚĞůĚĂďĂĐŚĞůŽƌƐ ͲtŚŝůĞĞĂĐŚŶĞǁŚŝƌĞŚĂƐĞǆƉƌĞƐƐĞĚŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚŝŶ ĚĞŐƌĞĞĂŶĚĂƚĞĂĐŚŝŶŐůŝĐĞŶƐĞ͘/ŶϮϬϭϳͲϮϬϭϴ͕ƚŚĞƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨ ƉƵƌƐƵŝŶŐůŝĐĞŶƐƵƌĞ͕ŝƚŝƐŶŽƚǇĞƚĐůĞĂƌŚŽǁŵĂŶǇ ŵĞŶƚŽƌƐǁŝƚŚĂŶĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚĚĞŐƌĞĞŽƌůĞƐƐĚƌŽƉƉĞĚƚŽϱϭ͘ϳй͕ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚŵĞŶƚŽƌƐĂƌĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇƉƵƌƐƵŝŶŐ ǁŝƚŚϮϭ͘ϮйŚĂǀŝŶŐŽŶůǇĂŚŝŐŚƐĐŚŽŽůĚŝƉůŽŵĂ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌƚŚĞ ůŝĐĞŶƐƵƌĞ͘ ŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨŵĞŶƚŽƌƐǁŝƚŚĂďĂĐŚĞůŽƌƐĚĞŐƌĞĞĂŶĚƚĞĂĐŚŝŶŐ Ͳ,KWŝƐŶŽƚƉƵƌƐƵŝŶŐŽƵŐůĂƐŽƵŶƚǇ^ĐŚŽŽů ůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞĚƚŽϭϱŵĞŶƚŽƌƐ;ϭϮ͘ϳйͿ͘/ŶϮϬϭϴͲϮϬϭϵ͕ƚŚĞ ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚΖƐĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͕ďƵƚ ĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶůĞǀĞůŽĨŵĞŶƚŽƌƐĚĞĐůŝŶĞĚŐƌĞĂƚůǇĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŝŽƌ ŚĂƐƐŽƵŐŚƚƉĂƚŚǁĂǇƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚDĞƚƌŽƉŽůŝƚĂŶ ǇĞĂƌ͕ĂůƚŚŽƵŐŚŵŽƐƚƌĂƚĞƐĂƌĞƐůŝŐŚƚůǇďĞƚƚĞƌƚŚĂŶŝŶϮϬϭϲͲϭϳ͘ ^ƚĂƚĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ͕ZĞŐŝƐhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇĂŶĚŽůŽƌĂĚŽ /ŶϮϬϭϴͲϭϵ͕ϲϭ͘ϴйŽĨŵĞŶƚŽƌƐŽŶůǇŚĂǀĞĂŶĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐĚĞŐƌĞĞ ŚƌŝƐƚŝĂŶhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇƚŚĂƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂŵŽƌĞĚŝƌĞĐƚ ŽƌůĞƐƐ͕ǁŝƚŚϮϵ͘ϭйŚĂǀŝŶŐŽŶůǇĂŚŝŐŚƐĐŚŽŽůĚŝƉůŽŵĂ͘KŶůǇϵ ƉůĂŶĨŽƌ,KWŵĞŶƚŽƌƐ͘ ŵĞŶƚŽƌƐ;ϴ͘ϮйͿŶŽǁŚŽůĚĂďĂĐŚĞůŽƌƐĚĞŐƌĞĞĂŶĚĂƚĞĂĐŚŝŶŐ Ͳ,KWŚĂƐƌĞǀŝƐĞĚƚŚĞŵĞŶƚŽƌĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶ ůŝĐĞŶƐĞ͘,KWŝƐǁŽƌŬŝŶŐƚŽĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞůŽǁĞƌĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĂŶĚƌĞƐƵůƚƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŶĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐǁŝůů ůĞǀĞůƐŽĨŵĞŶƚŽƌƐďǇĂƐƐŝŐŶŝŶŐƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŽƌƐ ďĞƵƐĞĚƚŽĚƌŝǀĞĂŶĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐ ;,KWƐƚĂĨĨŵĞŵďĞƌƐǁŚŽĂƌĞůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŽƌƐͿƚŽ ŽĨƌĞĐƌƵŝƚŵĞŶƚ͘ ƚŚŽƐĞ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĞŶƚĞƌƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨŵĞŶƚŽƌƐǁŚŽ ŚĂǀĞĂŶĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐĚĞŐƌĞĞŽƌůĞƐƐĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϭϴͲϭϵƐĐŚŽŽůǇĞĂƌ͘

HOPE Online Elementary and Middle School October 2018 2 WƌŝŽƌŝƚǇ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ <ĞǇ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ DŝĚͲzĞĂƌZĞĨůĞĐƚŝŽŶ ŶĚͲŽĨͲzĞĂƌZĞĨůĞĐƚŝŽŶ dĞĂĐŚĞƌͬ Ͳ,KWŚĂƐƐƚĂƚĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝƌŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůƚĂƌŐĞƚƐĂƌĞŶŽƚĨĞĂƐŝďůĞ DĞŶƚŽƌWŝƉĞůŝŶĞ ďĞĐĂƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞŚŝŐŚŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨŵĞŶƚŽƌƐǁŚŽĚŽŶŽƚŚĂǀĞƚŚĞ ;ĐŽŶƚŝŶͿ ƉƌĞͲƌĞƋƵŝƐŝƚĞƵŶĚĞƌŐƌĂĚƵĂƚĞĐŽƵƌƐĞǁŽƌŬƚŽĞŶƌŽůůŝŶĂŶ ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘&ŽƌƚŚŽƐĞŵĞŶƚŽƌƐǁŚŽůĂĐŬ ĚĞŐƌĞĞŽƌĐƌĞĚŝƚƐ͕ƚŚĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶ ĞǆƉůŽƌŝŶŐŽƉƚŝŽŶƐǁŝƚŚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĐŽůůĞŐĞƐ͕ŽůŽƌĂĚŽ ŚƌŝƐƚŝĂŶhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇĂŶĚZĞŐŝƐhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇĨŽƌŵĞŶƚŽƌƐƚŽĨŝƌƐƚ ĞĂƌŶƉŽƐƚͲƐĞĐŽŶĚĂƌǇĐƌĞĚĞŶƚŝĂůƐƐŽƚŚĂƚƚŚĞǇƚŚĞŶĐĂŶďĞŐŝŶŝŶ ĂƚĞĂĐŚĞƌĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŽƌĂŶĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞůŝĐĞŶƐƵƌĞ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘ ͲŶĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞůŝĐĞŶƐƵƌĞƉĂƚŚǁĂǇƚŚƌŽƵŐŚDĞƚƌŽƉŽůŝƚĂŶ^ƚĂƚĞ hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇŬŝĐŬĞĚŽĨĨŝŶ:ƵůǇϮϬϭϴĨŽƌϲŵĞŶƚŽƌƐǁŚŽŚĂĚƚŚĞ ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƉƌĞͲƌĞƋƵŝƐŝƚĞĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚǁĞƌĞǁŝůůŝŶŐƚŽ ƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞ͘ƐŽĨDĂǇϮϬϭϴ͕ƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞϮϱƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂů ĐĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞƐĨŽƌĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞůŝĐĞŶƐƵƌĞ;ŵĂŶǇŵĞŶƚŽƌƐĚŽŶŽƚ ƋƵĂůŝĨǇƚŽĞŶƚĞƌƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐĂƐƚŚĞǇĚŽŶŽƚŚĂǀĞƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶďĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚͿ͘KĨƚŚĞϮϱ͕ϲĞŶƌŽůůĞĚŝŶDĞƚƌŽ͕ϴ ĚĞĐŝĚĞĚŶŽƚƚŽƌĞƚƵƌŶƚŽ,KWĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϭϴͲϭϵƐĐŚŽŽůǇĞĂƌ͕ϳ ĚĞůĂǇĞĚƚŚĞŝƌĞŶƌŽůůŵĞŶƚƚŽϮϬϭϵ͕ϮĚŝĚŶ͛ƚƉĂƐƐƚŚĞWƌĂǆŝƐďǇ ƚŚĞĚĞĂĚůŝŶĞĂŶĚϮĚĞĐůŝŶĞĚƚŽĞŶƌŽůůďĞĐĂƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞŝƌĂŐĞĂŶĚ ĨĂŵŝůǇƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘ Ͳ,KWŚĂƐƐŚĂƌĞĚǁŝƚŚĂŶŝŶŝƚŝĂůĚƌĂĨƚŽĨĂƌĞǀŝƐĞĚƉůĂŶ ĨŽƌƚŚĞƚĞĂĐŚĞƌͬŵĞŶƚŽƌƉŝƉĞůŝŶĞƉƌŝŽƌŝƚǇĂƌĞĂƚŚĂƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐ ĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐĂŶĚƚĂƌŐĞƚƐƚŚĂƚůĞĂĚƚŽƚŚĞŐŽĂůŽĨ ĞŶƐƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞŚŝŐŚůǇĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŽƌƐŝŶĨƌŽŶƚŽĨĂůů ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͘,KWǁŝůůďĞƐŚĂƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƉůĂŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƚĂƚĞďŽĂƌĚ ŝŶEŽǀĞŵďĞƌ͘ ͲdŚĞƌĞǀŝƐĞĚƉůĂŶƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚďǇ,KWǁŝůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞďĞŶĐŚŵĂƌŬƐ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽŵĞŶƚŽƌƌĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶ͘ Ͳ,KWŚĂƐĂůƐŽĞŶŐĂŐĞĚŝŶĞĨĨŽƌƚƐƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞƌĞĐƌƵŝƚŵĞŶƚ ŽĨŚŝŐŚůǇƋƵĂůŝĨŝĞĚƚĞĂĐŚŝŶŐƐƚĂĨĨ͘KŶĞƌĞĐƌƵŝƚŵĞŶƚĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞ͕ ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ŝƐƚŚĂƚŝŶĂƐƚƌŽŶŐĞĐŽŶŽŵǇ͕ŚŝŐŚůǇƋƵĂůŝĨŝĞĚƐƚĂĨĨĂƌĞ ĚŝĨĨŝĐƵůƚƚŽƌĞƚĂŝŶĂƐƚŚĞǇĂƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĞĂƌŶŚŝŐŚĞƌƐĂůĂƌŝĞƐĂƐ ƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐŝŶĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƐĐŚŽŽůƐƚŚĂŶƚŚĞǇĐĂŶĂƐŵĞŶƚŽƌƐ ĞŵƉůŽǇĞĚĂƚ,KWůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌƐ͘ ͲƉůĂŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞ͕ĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŽƉƚŝŽŶƐŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ƉĞĞƌĐŽĂĐŚŝŶŐĂŶĚƋƵĂůŝƚǇŝŶĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚŝĂƚĞĚ ƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁĂƐŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϳͬϮϬϭϴ͘

HOPE Online Elementary and Middle School October 2018 3 WƌŝŽƌŝƚǇ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ <ĞǇ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ DŝĚͲzĞĂƌZĞĨůĞĐƚŝŽŶ ŶĚͲŽĨͲzĞĂƌZĞĨůĞĐƚŝŽŶ >ĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉ /ŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐ Ͳ'ƵŝĚĞĂŶĞĞĚƐ Ͳ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌĚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚƐĞůĨͲ Ͳ,KWŚĂƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚzĞĂƌϭŽĨƚŚĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇŽĨĞŶǀĞƌΖƐ WƌŽŐƌĂŵĨŽƌ ůĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉ ĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ͕ ĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞĐĞŶƚĞƌƐ͘ŚĂƐŶŽƚ ;hͿdƵƌŶĂƌŽƵŶĚ>ĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉWƌŽŐƌĂŵƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉĂŶĚĞŶŚĂŶĐĞ ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĨŽƌ ƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͕ŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚ ƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚĂĐŽƉǇŽĨƚŚĞƐĞĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƐ͘ >ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĞŶƚĞƌŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐΖƐŬŝůůƐĞƚƐ͘dŚĞĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬǁĂƐƉŽƐŝƚŝǀĞ ƚŚĞĚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐŽĨ ŽĨƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂů Ͳ,KWŝƐǁŽƌŬŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇŽĨĞŶǀĞƌ ĂŶĚĚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞǇďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ ,KWΖƐϮϭ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞ^ĐŚŽŽůdƵƌŶĂƌŽƵŶĚ>ĞĂĚĞƌƐ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐƚŚĞŽƵƚĐŽŵĞŽĨĞŶŐĂŐŝŶŐƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͕ƉĂƌĞŶƚƐ͕ĂŶĚ >ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĞŶƚĞƌƐ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐĨŽƌ ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ'ƌĂŶƚ͘,KWŚĂƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚĂ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĨŽƌƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞĐŚĂŶŐĞĂŶĚĐŽŶƚŝŶƵŝŶŐ ŝƐŶĞĞĚĞĚƐŽƚŚĂƚ ĚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐ͘ ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ>ŝĂŝƐŽŶƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂů ĂĐĐŽƵŶƚĂďŝůŝƚǇ͘ƵƌŝŶŐĂǀŝƐŝƚƚŽĂ,KWůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌ͕ ĂůůĚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐĐĂŶ ͲƌĞĂƚĞĐŽĂĐŚŝŶŐ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƚŚĞŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ ƚŚĞĐĞŶƚĞƌĚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚƚŚĞǀĂůƵĞĂŶĚŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨƚŚŝƐ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚŚĞŚŝŐŚ ĂŶĚƉĞĞƌƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ ƚƵƌŶĂƌŽƵŶĚƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ͘dŚŝƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĂŶĞĞĚƐ ƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐŽŶŚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌƐ͘ƵĞƚŽ ƋƵĂůŝƚǇ ŵŽĚĞůƐĨŽƌ ĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ͕ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ ƚŚĞƉŽƐŝƚŝǀĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨƚŚŝƐǁŽƌŬ͕ƚŚĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵǁŝůůďĞ ŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚ ĚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐ͘ ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĂŶĚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƉůĂŶ͕ĂŶĚƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐŝŶ ĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϭϴͲϭϵƐĐŚŽŽůǇĞĂƌ͘ ĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ ͲŽŶĚƵĐƚ ĐŽĂĐŚŝŶŐĂŶĚĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŶŐƐƚĂĨĨ͘>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĞŶƚĞƌ Ͳ/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽĞŶŐĂŐŝŶŐǁŝƚŚ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĞŶƚĞƌŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐŽŶĞͲ ůĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉ ĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐĂƌĞĞŶŐĂŐĞĚŝŶƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐŵŽĚƵůĞƐĂŶĚ ŽŶͲŽŶĞ͕hĨĂĐƵůƚǇƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĂŶĚŐƵŝĚĂŶĐĞƚŽĂ,KW ŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽƐĞĞ ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ ĐŽĂĐŚŝŶŐƐĞƐƐŝŽŶƐĂƌŽƵŶĚƚƵƌŶĂƌŽƵŶĚ ůĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉƚĞĂŵƚŽŚĞůƉĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĂĐŚŽĨƚŚĞŵĂƐĂΗƉĞĞƌ ĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞ ůĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉ ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ͘ ĐŽĂĐŚΗƚŽƐŚĂƌĞďĞƐƚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐ͘dŚĞƵŝůĚŝŶŐZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚ ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐĂƚ ͲdŚĞǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚƚŚĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇŽĨĞŶǀĞƌŚĂƐ ŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŽƌƉŝůŽƚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵǁĂƐƵƐĞĚŝŶĨŽƵƌŽĨƚŚĞůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ ůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌƐ͘ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐŝŶŚŽǁƚŽƵƐĞĚĂƚĞƚŽĚƌŝǀĞ ĐĞŶƚĞƌƐǁŝƚŚŚŝŐŚŶŐůŝƐŚůĞĂƌŶĞƌƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘dŚĞ ŐĂŝŶƐ͘ ŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚƚŽŽůƐĨŽƌŵĞĂŶŝŶŐĨƵůĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶ ŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŽƌƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůůǇĞŶŐĂŐĞĚŝŶĐŽĂĐŚŝŶŐ ĂŶĚĨŝĚĞůŝƚǇŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĞƌĞǁŝůůďĞĂ ĚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŽĨ,KW ĨŽƌŵĂƚŝǀĞĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐĞĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ͘,KW ƐƚĂĨĨ͘dŚĞƉŝůŽƚǁŝůůďĞĞǆƉĂŶĚĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϭϴͲϭϵƐĐŚŽŽůǇĞĂƌ͘ ƌĞƉŽƌƚƐƚŚĂƚĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬĨƌŽŵŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽ Ͳ,KWƐƚĂĨĨŚĂƐǁŽƌŬĞĚǁŝƚŚhƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐǁŝƚŚ ƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝƐƉŽƐŝƚŝǀĞ͘ ĂůŝŐŶĞĚ͕ĨŽĐƵƐĞĚƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ ͲdŚĞŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ>ŝĂŝƐŽŶŝƐĂĨŽƌŵĞƌ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ ĂƌŽƵŶĚƚƵƌŶĂƌŽƵŶĚůĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ͘dŚŝƐŚĂƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ ĞŶƚĞƌŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ͕ĂŶĚŝƐǁŽƌŬŝŶŐĂƐĂƉĞĞƌĐŽĂĐŚ ƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐŝŶƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞƐǇƐƚĞŵƐ͕ƚĂůĞŶƚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ ƚŽŚĞůƉƐŚĂƌĞďĞƐƚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐ͘,KWŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇ ƋƵĂůŝĨŝĞĚƐƚĂĨĨ͕ŚŽǁƚŽƵƐĞĚĂƚĂƚŽĚƌŝǀĞŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚƚŽŽůƐ ƉŝůŽƚŝŶŐƉĞĞƌĐŽĂĐŚŝŶŐƵƚŝůŝǌŝŶŐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ĨŽƌŵĞĂŶŝŶŐĨƵůĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĨŝĚĞůŝƚǇŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘ ƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŽƌƐŝŶĨŝǀĞĐĞŶƚĞƌƐ͘ĂƚĂ ͲĂĐŚ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĞŶƚĞƌǁĂƐĞǀĂůƵĂƚĞĚƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞǀŝƐĞĚ ĂďŽƵƚĞĂƌůǇŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĐŽĂĐŚŝŶŐĂŶĚ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĐŚĞĐŬůŝƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĞĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶǁĂƐ ƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐŚĂƐŶŽƚďĞĞŶƐŚĂƌĞĚǁŝƚŚ͘ ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚďǇĂůůƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚƚŚĞ,KW>ŝĂŝƐŽŶ͘dŚĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐĂƌĞ Ͳ,KWŚĂƐƐŚĂƌĞĚĂŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨŝŶƉƵƚƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇďĞŝŶŐĐŽŵƉŝůĞĚĂŶĚǁŝůůďĞƵƐĞĚǁŝƚŚƐƚƵĚĞŶƚ ƚŽŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂůůĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉĂĐƌŽƐƐ ĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƌĞƐƵůƚƐƚŽĚƌŝǀĞƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĨŽƌ ĐĞŶƚĞƌƐ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂƐ,KWĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƐƚŽ ĞĂĐŚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ͘ ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚƚŚĞƐĞƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ͕ƚŚĞƌĞŶĞĞĚƐƚŽďĞ ƌĞĨŝŶĞŵĞŶƚŽĨǁŚĂƚĚĂƚĂ,KWŝƐĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŶŐƚŽ ĞǀĂůƵĂƚĞƚŚĞŝƌĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐĂŶĚǁŚĂƚĂĐƚŝŽŶ ƐƚĞƉƐƚŚĞǇƚĂŬĞĂƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚŽĨƚŚĞĚĂƚĂ͘

HOPE Online Elementary and Middle School October 2018 4 WƌŝŽƌŝƚǇ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ <ĞǇ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ DŝĚͲzĞĂƌZĞĨůĞĐƚŝŽŶ ŶĚͲŽĨͲzĞĂƌZĞĨůĞĐƚŝŽŶ WdƌĂŝŶŝŶŐĨŽƌ &ŽƌƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ Ͳ'ƵŝĚĞĂŶĞĞĚƐ Ͳ,KWŚĂƐĂƐƐŝŐŶĞĚĂŵĞŵďĞƌŽĨƚŚĞŝƌ ͲǇĞĂƌͲůŽŶŐƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉůĂŶǁĂƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚ ,KW^ƚĂĨĨ ŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂů ĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ͕ ůĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉƚĞĂŵƚŽďĞƚŚĞĚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌŽĨ ĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϭϳͲϭϴƐĐŚŽŽůǇĞĂƌƚŚĂƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚĐůĞĂƌůǇĚĞĨŝŶĞĚ ƐƚĂĨĨ͕ĂŶĚƚŚŽƐĞ ƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͕ŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚ ƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ;WͿĂŶĚůĞĂĚƚŚĞ ŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐĂŶĚĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚŝĂƚĞĚĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌĞĂĐŚůĞǀĞůŽĨ ŚŝƌĞĚǁŝƚŚŽƵƚ ŽĨƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂů ĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚŽĨĂůůŝŶƚĞƌŶĂůƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂů ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ͘ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶƚŽŽůǁĂƐŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚŝŶ ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĨŽƌ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂƚ,KW͘ƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂů &ĞďƌƵĂƌǇϮϬϭϴ͘ĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂů ĨŽƵƌůĞǀĞůƐŽĨ,KW ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉůĂŶǁĂƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϭϳͲ ƋƵĂŶƚŝĨŝĂďůĞĚĂƚĂĨƌŽŵĞĂƌůŝĞƌƐĞƐƐŝŽŶƐ͕ϵϲйŽĨƐƚĂĨĨƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚ ĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ͕ ƐƚĂĨĨ͘ ϭϴƐĐŚŽŽůǇĞĂƌƚŚĂƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĐůĞĂƌůǇĚĞĨŝŶĞĚ ƚŚĂƚƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĞƐƐŝŽŶƐǁĞƌĞƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚĂŶĚ ,KWŚĂƐ Ͳ/ŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞ ŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐĂŶĚĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚŝĂƚĞĚĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌĞĂĐŚ ƵƐĞĨƵůƚŽƚŚĞŝƌǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͘ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚĂŶĚŝƐ ƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂů ůĞǀĞůŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ͘ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶƐǁĞƌĞĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚ Ͳ,KWƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĨŽƌƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐƚŽĞŶƌŽůůŝŶĂƵůƚƵƌĂůůǇ ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŝƚŚ ĨŽƌĂŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨWƐĞƐƐŝŽŶƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞ ĂŶĚ>ŝŶŐƵŝƐƚŝĐĂůůǇŝǀĞƌƐĞ;>ͿĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͕ďƵƚŚĂƐ ƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂů ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ ǇĞĂƌ͕ĂŶĚ,KWŝƐǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŽŶĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŝŶŐĂ ŶŽƚďĞĞŶĂďůĞƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞŽĨƐƚĂĨĨǁŝƚŚĂ> ůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ ĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚŵĞƚŚŽĚĨŽƌĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŶŐW͘ ĞŶĚŽƌƐĞŵĞŶƚ͘/ŶƐƚĞĂĚ͕,KWŚĂƐĨŽĐƵƐĞĚŽŶĂĚĚŝŶŐϱŶĞǁ ĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞƐƚŽ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ ͲĞĐĂƵƐĞ,KWŝƐŶŽƚƉƵƌƐƵŝŶŐĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ ŶŐůŝƐŚ>ĞĂƌŶĞƌ;>Ϳ^ƉĞĐŝĂůŝƐƚƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶƐ͘^ƚĂĨĨǁŝƚŚĂĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŚŝŐŚĞƌ ͲŶƌŽůů,KW ĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵŐůĂƐŽƵŶƚǇ͕ŝƚŝƐ >ĞŶĚŽƌƐĞŵĞŶƚŽƌĞŶƌŽůůĞĚŝŶĂƉƌŽŐƌĂŵǁŝůůďĞŵŽǀĞĚŝŶƚŽ ƋƵĂůŝƚǇĂŶĚŵŽƌĞ ƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐŝŶ ƵŶĐůĞĂƌŚŽǁƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĨŽƌ ƚŚĞƐĞŶĞǁƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶƐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚŶŐůŝƐŚůĞĂƌŶĞƌ ĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞ ƵůƚƵƌĂůůǇĂŶĚ ŵĞŶƚŽƌƐŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞƐǁŝƚŚĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĂƚƚŚĞŚŝŐŚĞƐƚŝŵƉĂĐƚĞĚĐĞŶƚĞƌƐ͘ ŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƚŽ >ŝŶŐƵŝƐƚŝĐĂůůǇ ĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ Ͳ,KWĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚĂŶĞĞĚƐĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐƐƵƌǀĞǇŝŶ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͘ ŝǀĞƌƐĞ;>Ϳ Ͳ,KWŝƐĨŽĐƵƐŝŶŐĞĨĨŽƌƚƐŽŶ>ĞŶĚŽƌƐĞŵĞŶƚ ƉƌŝůĂŶĚƚŚĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚĚĂƚĂǁĂƐƵƐĞĚƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉƚŚĞϮϬϭϴͲϭϵ ĞŶĚŽƌƐĞŵĞŶƚ ƚŽ,KWƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͘ƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇĂďŽƵƚϯϬйŽĨ WƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚWůĂŶ͘ĂƐĞĚŽŶƐƵƌǀĞǇĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͘ ,KWƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐŚŽůĚĂ>ĞŶĚŽƌƐĞŵĞŶƚ͘,KW ĂŶĚƐƚƵĚĞŶƚĂĐŚŝĞǀĞŵĞŶƚĚĂƚĂ͕>^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐĂŶĚ Ͳ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚĚĞƐŝŐŶ ĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƐƚŽƐĞĞŬƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐƚŽĂƐƐŝƐƚƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ DĂƚŚĞŵĂƚŝĐƐǁŝůůďĞƉƌŝŽƌŝƚǇĨŽĐƵƐĂƌĞĂƐĨŽƌϮϬϭϴͲϭϵ͘ ĂŶĚŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚŽĨ ŝŶŽďƚĂŝŶŝŶŐĨƵŶĚƐƚŽŵĞĞƚƚŚĞƵƉĨƌŽŶƚĐŽƐƚƐ ͲƵƌƌŝĐƵůƵŵĐŽŶƚĞŶƚĚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐŚĂǀĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚŝĂƚĞĚ ƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂů ƚŚĂƚĂƌĞŝŶĐƵƌƌĞĚǁŚĞŶĞŶƌŽůůŝŶŐŝŶĂƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘ ŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞďĞŝŶŐƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚƐŝĚĞďǇƐŝĚĞǁŝƚŚƐƚĂĨĨ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĚĂƚĂĂŶĚƐƚƵĚĞŶƚĂĐŚŝĞǀĞŵĞŶƚƌĞƐƵůƚƐďǇƚŚĞ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐ͘ ĞǆƚĞƌŶĂůDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚWĂƌƚŶĞƌƐƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞĂƌĞĂƐǁŚĞƌĞ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐĂŶĚƐƚĂĨĨƐƚƌƵŐŐůĞŵŽƐƚĂƌĞĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞĚŝŶŵƵůƚŝƉůĞ ǁĂǇƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞǇĞĂƌ͘ŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚŝĂƚŝŽŶǁŝůůƚĂŬĞƉůĂĐĞĂƚ ƚŚĞĐĞŶƚĞƌĂŶĚŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƐƚĂĨĨůĞǀĞů͘ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶ͕ŽďƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚƐƚƵĚĞŶƚĂĐŚŝĞǀĞŵĞŶƚĚĂƚĂǁŝůůďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚŝŶ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌǁŝĚĞWƉůĂŶƐĂŶĚƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůŝǌĞĚWƉůĂŶƐ ĨŽƌĞĂĐŚƐƚĂĨĨŵĞŵďĞƌ͘ĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ>ŝĂŝƐŽŶƐĂŶĚ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĞŶƚĞƌ ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐǁŝůůďĞƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌĞŶƐƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƐĞƉůĂŶƐĂƌĞ ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ͘ ͲdŚĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐΖĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ ŝŶƚŝŵĞďǇŚĂůĨĂƐŽĨ:ƵůǇϮϬϭϴ͘dŚĞĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚĞŶĚƐŝŶ:ƵŶĞŽĨ ϮϬϭϵ͘,KWƐƚĂĨĨŚĂƐďĞĞŶĂƐƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ͕ŝŶĐŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐ͕ĂůůĂƌĞĂƐŽĨƚŚĞWĂƚŚǁĂǇƐWůĂŶ ƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚǇ͘

HOPE Online Elementary and Middle School October 2018 5 WƌŝŽƌŝƚǇ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ <ĞǇ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ DŝĚͲzĞĂƌZĞĨůĞĐƚŝŽŶ ŶĚͲŽĨͲzĞĂƌZĞĨůĞĐƚŝŽŶ ĐĐŽƵŶƚĂďŝůŝƚǇ ĐĐŽƵŶƚĂďŝůŝƚǇ ͲdƌĂŝŶĂůůƐƚĂĨĨŽŶ ͲǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶƐĂůŝŐŶĞĚƚŽƚŚĞdĞĂĐŚĞƌ ͲĂĐŚ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĞŶƚĞƌǁĂƐĞǀĂůƵĂƚĞĚƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞŶĞǁ ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐĂƌĞ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ ĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐZƵďƌŝĐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚĂŶĚ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐdŽŽů͘dŚĞWĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚƚŽ ĞǆƉĞĐƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚĨŽƌDĞŶƚŽƌƐ͕,KWdĞĂĐŚĞƌƐĂŶĚ ŚĞĐŬůŝƐƚǁĂƐĐŽŵƉƌŝƐĞĚŽĨĨŽƵƌƉƌŝŽƌŝƚǇĂŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚƐǁŝƚŚ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ ƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶŐŝŶŵŽƌĞͲ ĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ>ĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶƐ͘ ĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌƐ͘dŚĞƉƌŝŽƌŝƚǇĂŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ ŝŶĨŽƌŵƚŚĞ,KW ŝŵƉĂĐƚĨƵů ͲŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƚƌĂŝŶĞĚĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĂƐĂĨĞĂŶĚŽƌĚĞƌůǇĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ͕ĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚŝŶŐĂŶ 'ŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐŽĂƌĚ ŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂů ƚŽŽůƐĂďŽƵƚŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂůƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ͘,KWŚĂƐ ŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞĐƵůƚƵƌĞŽĨƚƌƵƐƚƚŚĂƚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůŐƌŽǁƚŚŽĨ ĂŶĚƚŽƚƌĂĐŬƚŚĞ ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ͘ ƐĞƚĂƚĂƌŐĞƚƚŚĂƚ͕ďǇƚŚĞĞŶĚŽĨƚŚĞǇĞĂƌ͕ƚŚĞƌĞ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐĂŶĚĂĚƵůƚƐ͕ĞŶƐƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĂƚĞĂĐŚƐƚƵĚĞŶƚŚĂƐĂ ĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐŽĨ ͲKǀĞƌƐĞĞĂŶ ǁŝůůďĞĚĂƚĂĂďŽƵƚƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĞŶƚĞƌ ƋƵĂůŝĨŝĞĚĂŶĚĐĂƌŝŶŐƐƚĂĨĨƚĞĂĐŚŝŶŐƚŚĞŵ͕ĂŶĚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐĂ ĞĂĐŚ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ ĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞƉĞƌƚŚĞŝƌŐŽĂůƐ͘ ĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞĂĐĐŽƵŶƚĂďŝůŝƚǇƉƌŽĐĞƐƐƚŚĂƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĂůůƐƚĂĨĨ͕ ĞŶƚĞƌΖƐ ,KWůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ ͲĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ>ŝĂŝƐŽŶƐĂŶĚ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĞŶƚĞƌ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͕ĂŶĚĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐ͘ĂĐŚ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĞŶƚĞƌǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶǁĂƐ ŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚ ĐĞŶƚĞƌƐ͘ ĚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐĐŽůůĞĐƚĚĂƚĂŽŶŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂůƐƚƌĂƚĞŐǇ ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚďǇĂůů>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĞŶƚĞƌƐƚĂĨĨ͕Ăůů,KWƐƚĂĨĨĂƐƐŝŐŶĞĚ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͘ ͲƌƌĂŶŐĞĨŽƌ ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞůĂƐƐƌŽŽŵ ƚŽƚŚĂƚ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĞŶƚĞƌĂŶĚƚŚĞ,KWůŝĂŝƐŽŶ͕ĂŶĚĐŽŵƉŝůĞĚ ƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐƌĞƉŽƌƚƐŽĨ KďƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌŵ͘dŚŝƐĚĂƚĂĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶŝƐƐƚŝůůŝŶ ŽŶƚŚĞWƌŝŽƌŝƚǇŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚƐdƌĂĐŬŝŶŐ&Žƌŵ͘,KWŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇ ĞĂĐŚůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ ƚŚĞƉŝůŽƚƐƚĂŐĞĂŶĚŝŶƵƐĞĂƚŽŶůǇƚǁŽ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ ĂŶĂůǇǌŝŶŐƌĞƐƵůƚƐĂŶĚƐƚĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞǇǁŝůůďĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞŝŶ ĐĞŶƚĞƌ͘ ĞŶƚĞƌƐ͘ ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ͘dŚĞƐĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐǁŝůůďĞƵƐĞĚǁŝƚŚƐƚƵĚĞŶƚ ͲŶĞǁŐŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐ ͲWƌŽŐƌĞƐƐŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƉůĂŶƐĨŽƌůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌ ĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƌĞƐƵůƚƐƚŽĚƌŝǀĞƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĨŽƌ ďŽĂƌĚǁŝůůďĞ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĂŶĚĂĐĐŽƵŶƚĂďŝůŝƚǇŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶ ĞĂĐŚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ͘ƐƵŵŵĂƌǇŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞ ĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚ͘ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚĂŶĚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ͘ůůĚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐŚĂǀĞ ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚĨŽƵƌůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌƐǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞ ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĂƐĞůĨĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞƚŽŽů͘ ƌĞƚƵƌŶŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϭϴͲϭϵƐĐŚŽŽůǇĞĂƌ͕ǁĞƌĞƐŚĂƌĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ ĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚƐƚĂĨĨŚĂǀĞĂůƐŽĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĂŶ ,KW'ŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐŽĂƌĚĂƚŝƚƐƵŐƵƐƚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͘ ĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚĨŽƌĞĂĐŚĐĞŶƚĞƌ͘ŶĂĐƚŝŽŶƉůĂŶǁĂƐ Ͳ,KWĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶŽĨŝƚƐ'ŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐŽĂƌĚ͕ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚƚŽŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŝŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂŽĨŐƌĞĂƚĞƐƚ ĂƐŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ'ŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐŽĂƌĚƉůĂŶƚŚĂƚǁĂƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶ ŶĞĞĚĂƐĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚďǇĚĂƚĂĨƌŽŵĐŚĞĐŬůŝƐƚĂŶĚ ƚŚĞWĂƚŚǁĂǇƐWůĂŶ͘&ŽƵƌŶĞǁŵĞŵďĞƌƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĂĚĚĞĚǁŝƚŚ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĚĂƚĂ͘dŚĞƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐ ĞǆƉĞƌƚŝƐĞŝŶĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂĐĐŽƵŶƚĂďŝůŝƚǇĂŶĚĚŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ͘ƵĞƚŽ ƌĞƉŽƌƚƐͬĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌƐ ƚĞƌŵůŝŵŝƚƐ͕ƚŚĞ'ŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐŽĂƌĚŝƐƐĞĞŬŝŶŐĂϳƚŚŵĞŵďĞƌ͘ƚ ŚĂǀĞŶŽƚǇĞƚďĞĞŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚƚŽ͘ ƚŚĞϴͬϮϯŽĂƌĚDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕ƚŚĞŽĂƌĚĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞĚƋƵĂůŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ Ͳ^ĞǀĞƌĂůŶĞǁŵĞŵďĞƌƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĂĚĚĞĚƚŽ ĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ͘ĞƐŝƌĞĚƋƵĂůŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗ƉŽƐƚͲ ƚŚĞŐŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐďŽĂƌĚŽĨĚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐ͘,KW͛Ɛ ƐĞĐŽŶĚĂƌǇĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĐĂƌĞĞƌƚĞĐŚĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĂŶĚĂ 'ŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐŽĂƌĚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨƐĞǀĞŶ ƉĂƌĞŶƚǀŽŝĐĞ͘/ƚŝƐĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůĐĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞƐ;ƐͿ ŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͗ƌ͘DŝĐŚĂĞůW͘ĂƵƚŝƐƚĂ;>ĞŐĂĐǇͿ͕:ŽĞ ǁŝůůďĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞŽĂƌĚĨŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůĂƚŝƚƐŶĞǆƚƌĞŐƵůĂƌ ZŝĐĞ;>ĞŐĂĐǇͿ͕<ŝŵZŽƐƐŝ;EĞǁͲϲͬϮϬϭϲͿ͕ƌ͘ ŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͘ <ƌŝƐƚŝŶĞdƵƌŶĞƌ;EĞǁͲϴͬϮϬϭϳͿ͕ŝůůĚĞůĂƌƵǌ ;EĞǁͲϭϭͬϮϬϭϳͿ͕ĞƚƚǇ:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ;ŶĞǁͲϭϭͬϮϬϭϳͿ ĂŶĚĂǁŶZŽĐŬǇ;EĞǁͲϭϭͬϮϬϭϳͿ͘dŚĞƚŚƌĞĞ ŶĞǁĞƐƚŵĞŵďĞƌƐǁĞƌĞĞůĞĐƚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞ EŽǀĞŵďĞƌϵƚŚ'ŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐŽĂƌĚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͘

HOPE Online Elementary and Middle School October 2018 6 6XPPDU\RI6WXGHQW3HUIRUPDQFH7UHQGV%DVHGRQ0LG^ĂŶĚEtĚĂƚĂ͘ŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽůĂƐƚǇĞĂƌ͕ŵŽƐƚŐƌĂĚĞůĞǀĞůƐŚĂǀĞŚŝŐŚĞƌƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞƐŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŵĞĞƚŝŶŐďĞŶĐŚŵĂƌŬĂƚŵŝĚͲǇĞĂƌ ĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽůĂƐƚǇĞĂƌ͘,KWƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĐŽŶƚĞǆƚŽŶŚŽǁƚŚŝƐǇĞĂƌΖƐĚĂƚĂĐŽŵƉĂƌĞƐƚŽƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐǇĞĂƌƐ͘/>^DŝĚͲzĞĂƌZĞƐƵůƚƐ͗KĨ<ͲϯƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐƚĞƐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĨĂůůĂŶĚǁŝŶƚĞƌ ŽĨϮϬϭϳ͕ϰϭйǁĞƌĞĂƚďĞŶĐŚŵĂƌŬŽƌĂďŽǀĞŝŶƚŚĞĨĂůů͕ǁŝƚŚϱϭйĂƚďĞŶĐŚŵĂƌŬŽƌĂďŽǀĞŝŶǁŝŶƚĞƌ͘KĨ<ͲϯƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐƚĞƐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĨĂůůĂŶĚǁŝŶƚĞƌŽĨϮϬϭϳ͕ϰϰйǁĞƌĞǁĞůů ďĞůŽǁďĞŶĐŚŵĂƌŬŝŶƚŚĞĨĂůů͕ǁŝƚŚϯϰйǁĞůůďĞůŽǁďĞŶĐŚŵĂƌŬŝŶǁŝŶƚĞƌ͘,KWΖ^WĂƚŚǁĂǇWůĂŶŐŽĂůŝƐϲϱйŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐĂƚďĞŶĐŚŵĂƌŬŽƌĂďŽǀĞďǇƚŚĞĞŶĚŽĨƚŚĞǇĞĂƌƚŽ ƐŚŽǁĂďŽǀĞĂǀĞƌĂŐĞŐĂŝŶƐ͘'ŝǀĞŶĨĂůůƚŽǁŝŶƚĞƌŐƌŽǁƚŚ͕,KWĞǆƉĞĐƚƐƚŽŵĂŬĞƚŚŝƐƚĂƌŐĞƚ͘^ƚƵĚĞŶƚƐǁŚŽǁĞƌĞƐĞĐŽŶĚůĂŶŐƵĂŐĞůĞĂƌŶĞƌƐŵĂĚĞƚŚĞŐƌĞĂƚĞƐƚŐĂŝŶƐŝŶ />^͘

KĨƚŚĞEtDWĚĂƚĂƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚ͕ŶŽŐƌĂĚĞͲůĞǀĞůŝƐƉĞƌĨŽƌŵŝŶŐĂƚƚŚĞϱϬƚŚWĞƌĐĞŶƚŝůĞZ/dƐĐŽƌĞŝŶĨĂůůϮϬϭϳ͘dŚĞĚĂƚĂƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚĚŝĚŶŽƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶƐƚŽƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐ ǇĞĂƌƐĂŶĚĚŝĚŶŽƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞǁŝŶƚĞƌŽƌƐƉƌŝŶŐĚĂƚĂĨŽƌƚŚŝƐǇĞĂƌ͘ 0LG

/>^͗ĂƐĞĚŽŶƌĞƐƵůƚƐƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚďǇ,KW͕ŽǀĞƌĂůů͕ϱϵйŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐǁĞƌĞĂƚŽƌĂďŽǀĞďĞŶĐŚŵĂƌŬŽŶƚŚĞ/>^ĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚĂƚƚŚĞĞŶĚŽĨϮϬϭϳͲϭϴƐĐŚŽŽůǇĞĂƌ͕ǁŚŝĐŚ ǁĂƐďĞůŽǁƚŚĞƉĂƚŚǁĂǇƉůĂŶŐŽĂůŽĨϲϱй͕ĂůƚŚŽƵŐŚ,KWǁƌŽƚĞĂŐŽĂůŽĨϱϴйŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŝŶƚŚĞŝƌϮϬϭϴh/W͘<ŝŶĚĞƌŐĂƌƚĞŶƐŚŽǁĞĚϲϱйŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐĂƚŽƌĂďŽǀĞďĞŶĐŚŵĂƌŬ͕ ϱϵйŽĨϭƐƚĂŶĚϯƌĚŐƌĂĚĞƌƐǁĞƌĞĂƚŽƌĂďŽǀĞďĞŶĐŚŵĂƌŬ͕ĂŶĚϱϭйŽĨϮŶĚŐƌĂĚĞƌƐǁĞƌĞĂƚŽƌĂďŽǀĞďĞŶĐŚŵĂƌŬ͘KĨƚŚĞϭϵůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌƐǁŝƚŚƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚ/>^ƌĞƐƵůƚƐ͕ϳ ŵĞƚƚŚĞϲϱйŐŽĂůĂŶĚϭϮĚŝĚŶŽƚ͘tŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞǀŝƐĞĚŐŽĂů͕ϭϬůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌƐŵĞƚƚŚĞϱϴйĂŶĚϵĚŝĚŶŽƚ͘

HOPE Online Elementary and Middle School October 2018 7 EXHIBIT I

2018-19 Year 8 Progress Monitoring Summaries

School HOPE Online Learning Academy Elementary & Middle Schools (Douglas County School District) Accountability External Management and Board Reconstitution. Directed Action Overall Summary HOPE Online is partnering with two management consultants in several priority improvement areas and is adjusting its board membership. Priority Description Key Strategies CDE Mid-Year Reflection Recruit and Maintain High Ensuring that higher quality -Revise recruitment efforts and evaluate - HOPE has made significant adjustments to this strategy Quality Staff teachers and mentors are the effectiveness of recruitment based on early progress monitoring data. Original plans to recruited, hired, and supported is pathways. ensure alternative licensure pathways for mentors, while a a critical factor to improvement positive effort, were not feasible given mentors' educational efforts at HOPE. -Licensure pathways and incentives. background and qualifications. As such, HOPE has revised the recruitment and retention plan to create multiple pathways for -Implement one alternative licensure mentors. pathway. - HOPE has instituted an individualized plan for each mentor to create a trajectory based on need and background. This revision to the original pathways plan was approved by the Douglas County School Board in November 2018. HOPE continues to implement other strategies designed to improve recruitment and retention.

Professional Development Increasing leadership - Guide a needs assessment and - Learning Center Directors and HOPE leaders had the for HOPE Leadership development for the directors of planning. Oversee professional opportunity to work with the University of Denver's Turnaround HOPE's 21 Learning Centers will development programs for directors. Success Program during the 2017-2018 school year. better allow leaders to provide the high quality instructional and - Create coaching and peer training - HOPE is continuing to participate in professional learning academic leadership needed to models for directors. through the CDE School Turnaround Leadership Development see adequate student grant with the University of Denver (DU). Feedback from this performance gains. - Conduct evaluation of implementation program was strong and HOPE plans to send another cohort of leadership strategies at learning of leaders to the program. centers. - HOPE developed a Priority Agreement Monitoring Checklist for use with center directors.

- Data from fall 2018 showed a positive relationship between higher Priority Agreement ratings and positive achievement gains in Learning Centers for the DU cohort.

- Directors from Learning Centers have also received coaching from DU faculty as a part of this support.

March 2019 Colorado Department of Education 16 2018-19 Year 8 Progress Monitoring Summaries

Training for HOPE Staff For the existing instructional - Guide a needs assessment and - A year-long professional development plan was developed staff, and those hired without planning. Oversee professional for the 2017-18 school year that included clearly defined significant instructional development for four levels of HOPE outcomes and differentiated elements for each level of service experience, HOPE has staff. and experience. developed and is implementing professional learning - Integrate professional development - Staff rated the 2017-18 Professional Development as 96 experiences to support higher with alternative certification percent effective. quality and more effective requirements. instruction to students. - Student achievement data, a needs assessment, and survey - Enroll HOPE teachers in Culturally and feedback was used to develop the 2018-19 Professional Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Development Plan. The plan includes the priority focus areas endorsement programs. of English learner Strategies, mathematics, and writing.

- Support design and oversight of professional development programming.

Accountability Accountability measures are - Train all staff on performance - Accountability measures are implemented to document and implemented to document and expectations resulting in more impactful inform the HOPE Governing Board and to track the inform the HOPE Governing instructional strategies. effectiveness of each Learning Center's instruction with Board and to track the students. effectiveness of each Learning - Oversee an evaluation of the HOPE Center's instruction with learning centers. - HOPE has revised the performance evaluation tools and students. process for all academic staff and Learning Center Directors - Arrange for progress reports of each have been provided tools to ensure instructional strategies are learning center. being utilized. Progress monitoring plans for learning center performance and accountability have been developed and - Establish a new governing board. implemented. HOPE's management partners regularly develop and present quarterly progress monitoring reports.

- The reconstitution of the HOPE Governing Board is complete. Five new members have been added with expertise in education, accountability and diversity.

March 2019 Colorado Department of Education 17

2018-19 Year 8 Progress Monitoring Summaries

Summary of Student Performance Trends Based on Mid-Year Local Data Student Performance HOPE's mid-year DIBELs goal was for 50 percent of students in grades K-3 to meet expected growth. The school was successful in meeting that goal, with 53 percent of students meeting their growth goals from fall to winter. This year, 195 students in grades K-3 scored Well Below Benchmark at the middle of the year, compared to 248 students at the beginning of the year. 39 percent of students demonstrated Above Average Growth or Well Above Average Growth from the beginning of the year to the middle of the year. HOPE's target is that 61 percent of students will score at the benchmark or above level by the end of the year.

53 percent of students in grades 3-5 met the Fall to Winter growth goal on ELA MAP, compared to 53 percent last year. HOPE's goal is that by spring 2019, 48 percent of students in grades 3-5 score at the 23rd percentile or higher on ELA MAP. As of Winter 2019, 49 percent of students scored at the 23rd percentile or higher.

47 percent of students in grades 3-5 met the Fall to Winter growth goal on Math MAP, compared to 53 percent of students last year. HOPE's goal is that by Spring 2019, 45 percent of students in grades 3-5 score at the 23rd percentile or higher on Math MAP. As of Winter 2019, 49 percent of students are scoring at the 23rd percentile or higher.

Mid-Year Assessment of Progress by CDE HOPE made a substantive change to its pathway plan in response to data showing the difficulty of obtaining alternative licensure for all mentors (the primary instructors for students). HOPE has subsequently developed a plan with new benchmarks to reflect multiple pathways to additional education and training for mentors. This includes pathways towards associate's degrees, bachelor's degrees, and alternative licensure for mentors through an individualized coaching process.

HOPE continues to implement other components of its pathway plan, including professional development for HOPE teachers, mentors, and learning center directors and new tools for accountability and progress monitoring.

The reconstitution of the school's governing board was completed during the 2017-2018 school year. Student outcome data continues to show some bright spots and HOPE is encouraged that the revisions to the pathways plan will set the school on a course of recruiting, developing, and maintaining a stronger teaching force.

March 2019 Colorado Department of Education 18

EXHIBIT J

Final 2018 School Performance Framework

3863: HOPE ONLINE LEARNING ACADEMY ELEMENTARY | 0900: DOUGLAS COUNTY .. Level: E - (Multi-Year)

Plan Type Oﬃcial Rating Based On: 1-Year SPF Report

Please see oﬃcial performance framework 38.9/100 report

Will enter Year 8 of Priority Improvement or Turnaround

The official plan type is based on either the 1-year or multi-year framework as indicated in the right hand corner of the black title bar above. Schools are assigned a plan type based on the overall percent of points earned on the official framework. The overall percent of framework points represents the percentage of points earned across all performance indicators. The official percent of points earned is matched to the Performance scoring guide to determine the plan type. Failing to meet the accountability participation rate of 95% on two or more assessments will reduce the overall plan type by one level. Please see the scoring guide at the end of this report for additional information. Improvement 38.9% Indicator Rating Totals Priority Imp Weighted Pts Performance Indicator % Pts Earned Earned/Pts Eligible Rating Turnaround Academic Achievement 25.0% 10.0/40 Does Not Meet School plan types are based Academic Growth 48.2% 28.9/60 Approaching on the total percentage of points earned:

Performance: Assurances 53.0% - 100.0% Rating Improvement: Accountability Participation Rate Meets 95% 42.0% - 52.9%

Priority Improvement: 34.0% - 41.9% Test Participation Rates (Ratings are based on Accountability Participation Rate) Turnaround: Accountability 0.0% - 33.9% Total Valid Participation Parent Participation Subject Records Scores Rate Excuses Rate** Rating Insuﬃcient Data: No English Language Arts 550 539 98.0% 8 99.6% Meets 95% reportable achievement or growth data. Math 550 542 98.5% 8 100.0% Meets 95% Science 163 161 98.8% 1 99.4% Meets 95%

Summary of Ratings by EMH Level % Pts Weighted Pts % Pts by EMH Level Performance Indicator Earned Earned/Pts Eligible Rating EMH Rating Elementary Academic Achievement 25.0% 10.0/40 Does Not Meet Priority 38.9% Academic Growth 48.2% 28.9/60 Approaching Improvement

(*) Not Applicable; (-) No Reportable Data | For additional information, reference the scoring guide on the last page of this report. (^) Schools with an Insuﬃcient State Data plan type will maintain their previously assigned year on the clock. (**) The Accountability Participation Rate excludes Parent Excuses from the denominator, and includes in the numerator English Learners in their ﬁrst year in the United States who were eligible to take the ELP assessment. SAT 11 results are excluded from 2018 participation rates. Final 2018 School Performance Framework

3863: HOPE ONLINE LEARNING ACADEMY ELEMENTARY | 0900: DOUGLAS CO.. Level: Elementary - (Multi-Year)

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT Participation Mean Scale Percentile Pts Earned/ Subject Student Group Count Rate Score Rank Eligible Rating CMAS - All Students 1,542 97.3% 714.0 4 2/8 Does Not Meet English Previously Identiﬁed for READ Plan 434 97.9% 695.5 * 0/0 - Language Arts English Learners 784 98.6% 709.6 1 0.25/1 Does Not Meet Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible 1,191 98.4% 711.9 2 0.25/1 Does Not Meet Minority Students 1,350 98.0% 711.3 2 0.25/1 Does Not Meet Students with Disabilities 110 91.1% 689.7 1 0.25/1 Does Not Meet CMAS - Math All Students 1,545 97.5% 710.9 5 2/8 Does Not Meet English Learners 790 99.3% 709.1 3 0.25/1 Does Not Meet Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible 1,194 98.6% 708.8 3 0.25/1 Does Not Meet Minority Students 1,355 98.4% 708.7 3 0.25/1 Does Not Meet Students with Disabilities 110 91.1% 691.6 1 0.25/1 Does Not Meet CMAS - All Students 498 96.8% 499.8 4 2/8 Does Not Meet Science English Learners 256 98.1% 483.7 1 0.25/1 Does Not Meet Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible 383 97.3% 493.0 3 0.25/1 Does Not Meet Minority Students 436 97.6% 490.9 2 0.25/1 Does Not Meet Students with Disabilities 39 93.0% 431.3 1 0.25/1 Does Not Meet TOTAL * * * * 9/36 Does Not Meet

ACADEMIC GROWTH Median Growth Pts Earned/ Subject Student Group Count Percentile/Rate Eligible Rating CMAS - All Students 960 41.0 4/8 Approaching English English Learners 494 42.0 0.5/1 Approaching Language Arts Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible 733 41.0 0.5/1 Approaching Minority Students 847 42.0 0.5/1 Approaching Students with Disabilities 69 23.0 0.25/1 Does Not Meet CMAS - Math All Students 968 39.5 4/8 Approaching English Learners 506 42.0 0.5/1 Approaching Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible 739 39.0 0.5/1 Approaching Minority Students 857 40.0 0.5/1 Approaching Students with Disabilities 68 34.0 0.25/1 Does Not Meet ELP English Language Proﬁciency (ELP) 354 46.0 2/4 Approaching On Track to EL Proﬁciency 354 76.6% 0/0 Approaching TOTAL * * 13.5/28 Approaching

This page displays the performance indicator data for the elementary school level. Data are based on results from 2017-18, unless otherwise noted.

Academic Achievement: reflects the mean scale score for the identified subject and student group based on 2018 assessment results. The participation rate displayed with the achievement results includes Parent Excuses in the denominator and does not apply the exemption for English Learners in their first year in the United States.

Academic Growth: reflects the median student growth percentile for the identified student group based on 2018 CMAS growth results for Math and English Language Arts. English Language Proficiency growth results for 2018 are included for points. The On-Track to EL proficiency metric is reported for informational purposes only in 2018 and will be included for points in 2019.

For additional information regarding Academic Achievement and Academic Growth points, cut-points, and ratings reference the scoring guide at the end of this document.

(*) Not Applicable; (-) No Reportable Data Scoring Guide for 2018 District/School Performance Frameworks Performance Indicator Measure/Metric Rating Point Value The district or school's mean scale score was*: see table below for actual values All Students Each Disaggregated Group • at or above the 85th percentile Exceeds 8 1.00 • at or above the 50th percentile but below the 85th percentile Meets 6 0.75 Academic Achievement • at or above the 15th percentile but below the 50th percentile Approaching 4 0.50 • below the 15th percentile Does Not Meet 2 0.25 Students Previously Identified for a READ Plan (bonus point) • CMAS ELA Mean scale score at or above 725 (Approaching Expectations cut-score) 1 bonus point Each Disaggregated Median Growth Percentile was: ELP All Students Group • at or above 65 Exceeds 8 1.00 4 Academic Growth • at or above 50 but below 65 Meets 6 0.75 3 • at or above 35 but below 50 Approaching 4 0.50 2 • below 35 Does Not Meet 2 0.25 1 Mean CO SAT Evidence-Based Reading and Writing (EBRW) scale score was**: • at or above 559.1 Exceeds 2.0 • at or above 509.2 but below 559.1 Meets 1.5 • at or above 462.3 but below 509.2 Approaching 1.0 • below 462.3 Does Not Meet 0.5 Mean CO SAT Math scale score was**: • at or above 543.4 Exceeds 2.0 • at or above 491.7 but below 543.4 Meets 1.5 • at or above 446.5 but below 491.7 Approaching 1.0 • below 446.5 Does Not Meet 0.5 Dropout Rate: The district or school dropout rate was (of all schools in 2017): • at or below 0.5% Exceeds 4 Postsecondary and • at or below 2.0% but above 0.5% Meets 3 Workforce Readiness • at or below 5.0% but above 2.0% Approaching 2 • above 5.0% Does Not Meet 1 Matriculation Rate (of all schools in 2017): • at or above the 73.1% Exceeds 2.0 • at or above 59.3% but below 73.1% Meets 1.5 • at or above 41.4% but below 59.3% Approaching 1.0 • below 41.1% Does Not Meet 0.5 Graduation Rate and Disaggregated Graduation Rate (Best of 4-, 5-, 6-, or 7-year): All Students Each Disaggregated Group • at or above 95.0% Exceeds 4 1.00 • at or above 85.0% but below 95.0% Meets 3 0.75 • at or above 75.0% but below 85.0% Approaching 2 0.50 • below 75.0% Does Not Meet 1 0.25

Academic Achievement: Mean Scale Score by Percentile Cut-Points The Academic Achievement Indicator reflects achievement as measured by the mean scale score on Colorado's standardized assessments. The presented targets for the Achievement Indicators have been established utilizing baseline year data.* English Language Arts & EBRW for CO PSAT Mathematics Science CO PSAT CO PSAT CO PSAT CO PSAT Percentile Elem Middle (1-Year) (MultiYear)† Elem Middle (1-Year) (MultiYear)† Elem Middle High 15th percentile 722.3 724.1 423.5 430.0 719.1 716.5 413.0 419.8 531.9 527.7 564.4 50th percentile 739.5 740.1 461.1 468.2 734.3 731.2 448.4 452.7 601.7 591.4 609.2 85th percentile 755.9 757.3 505.0 509.4 751.9 746.2 491.0 496.1 655.9 643.3 651.3

Cut-Points for Each Performance Indicator Cut-Point: The district or school earned...of the points eligible. • at or above 87.5% Exceeds Achievement; Growth; • at or above 62.5% but below 87.5% Meets Postsecondary Readiness • at or above 37.5% but below 62.5% Approaching • below 37.5% Does Not Meet

Total Possible Points by Performance Indicator Indicator Total Possible Points Elementary/Middle High/District Achievement 36 points (8 per subject for all students, 4 per subject by disaggregated group) 40% 30%

Growth 28 total points (8 per subject for all students, 4 per subject by disaggregated group, 4 for ELP) 60% 40%

Postsecondary Readiness 18 total points (8 for graduation, 2 for matriculation, 4 for dropout, 2 per CO SAT subject) not applicable 30%

Cut-Points for Plan/Category Type Assignment District School Accreditation Category/Plan Type 74.0% not applicable Accredited w/Distinction (District only) 56.0% 53.0% Accredited (District) or Performance Plan (School) Total Framework Points 44.0% 42.0% Accredited w/Improvement Plan (District) or Improvement Plan (School) 34.0% 34.0% Accredited w/Priority Improvement Plan (District) or Priority Improvement (School) 25.0% 25.0% Accredited w/Turnaround Plan(District) or Turnaround Plan (School)

* 2016 school data used as baseline for CMAS & CoAlt ELA & Math (g3-8), CMAS Science (g5, 8, 11); 2017 for CO SAT & CoAlt EBRW/ELA & Math (g11). August 09, 2018 ** 2018 school data used as baseline for CO PSAT and CoAlt EBRW/ELA & Math (g9-10). † 2018 Multiyear high school EBRW/ELA & Math cuts based on 1-year of g9 CO PSAT/CoAlt and 3-years of g10 CO PSAT/CoAlt. 2018 Performance Framework Addendum

3863: HOPE ONLINE LEARNING ACADEMY ELEMENTARY | 0900: DOUGLAS CO.. Level: Elementary - (Multi-Year)

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT Participation Percentile Subject Student Group Count Rate Mean Scale Score Rank CMAS - English American Indian or Alaska Native n < 16 - - - Language Arts Asian n < 16 - - - Black 126 99.2% 707.7 1 Hispanic 1,196 97.9% 711.4 2 White 192 92.6% 732.8 35 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander n < 16 - - - Two or More Races n < 16 - - - Male 755 97.5% 712.3 2 Female 787 97.1% 715.6 5 Gifted n < 16 - - - CMAS - Math American Indian or Alaska Native n < 16 - - - Asian n < 16 - - - Black 127 100.0% 703.6 1 Hispanic 1,200 98.3% 709.2 3 White 190 91.6% 726.5 30 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander n < 16 - - - Two or More Races n < 16 - - - Male 757 97.8% 712.7 6 Female 788 97.3% 709.1 3 Gifted n < 16 - - - CMAS - Science American Indian or Alaska Native n < 16 - - - Asian n < 16 - - - Black 31 100.0% 484.3 1 Hispanic 395 97.6% 490.0 2 White 62 91.2% 562.1 27 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander n < 16 - - - Two or More Races n < 16 - - - Male 246 97.7% 503.1 6 Female 252 96.0% 496.5 4 Gifted n < 16 - - - ACADEMIC GROWTH

Subject Student Group Count Median Growth Percentile CMAS - English American Indian or Alaska Native n < 20 - Language Arts Asian n < 20 - Black 71 48.0 Hispanic 760 42.0 White 113 36.0 Hawaiian/Paciﬁc Islander n < 20 - Two or More Races n < 20 - Male 466 38.0 Female 494 43.0 Gifted n < 20 - CMAS - Math American Indian or Alaska Native n < 20 - Asian n < 20 - Black 71 36.0 Hispanic 771 40.0 White 111 35.0 Hawaiian/Paciﬁc Islander n < 20 - Two or More Races n < 20 - Male 472 41.0 Female 496 38.0 Gifted n < 20 -

Percentile ranks are calculated relative to results for all students. Information about how the results for a speciﬁc student group rank against mean scale scores for other students within that same group are available here: http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/performanceframeworkresults Final 2018 School Performance Framework

3847: HOPE ONLINE LEARNING ACADEMY MIDDLE SCHOOL | 0900: DOUGLAS COUNT.. Level: M - (1-Year)

Plan Type Oﬃcial Rating Based On: 1-Year SPF Report

Improvement Plan: Meets 95% Participation 45.9/100

The official plan type is based on either the 1-year or multi-year framework as indicated in the right hand corner of the black title bar above. Schools are assigned a plan type based on the overall percent of points earned on the official framework. The overall percent of framework points represents the percentage of points earned across all performance indicators. The official percent of points earned is matched to the Performance scoring guide to determine the plan type. Failing to meet the accountability participation rate of 95% on two or more assessments will reduce the overall plan type by one level. Please see the scoring guide at the end 45.9% of this report for additional information. Improvement

Indicator Rating Totals Priority Imp Weighted Pts Performance Indicator % Pts Earned Earned/Pts Eligible Rating Turnaround Academic Achievement 25.0% 10.0/40 Does Not Meet School plan types are based Academic Growth 59.8% 35.9/60 Approaching on the total percentage of points earned:

Performance: Assurances 53.0% - 100.0% Rating Improvement: Accountability Participation Rate Meets 95% 42.0% - 52.9%

Priority Improvement: 34.0% - 41.9% Test Participation Rates (Ratings are based on Accountability Participation Rate) Turnaround: Accountability 0.0% - 33.9% Total Valid Participation Parent Participation Subject Records Scores Rate Excuses Rate** Rating Insuﬃcient Data: No English Language Arts 586 571 97.4% 14 99.8% Meets 95% reportable achievement or growth data. Math 585 574 98.1% 11 100.0% Meets 95% Science 174 172 98.9% 2 100.0% Meets 95%

Summary of Ratings by EMH Level % Pts Weighted Pts % Pts by EMH Level Performance Indicator Earned Earned/Pts Eligible Rating EMH Rating Middle Academic Achievement 25.0% 10.0/40 Does Not Meet 45.9% Improvement Academic Growth 59.8% 35.9/60 Approaching

3847: HOPE ONLINE LEARNING ACADEMY MIDDLE SCHOOL | 0900: DOUGLAS COU.. Level: Middle - (1-Year)

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT Participation Mean Scale Percentile Pts Earned/ Subject Student Group Count Rate Score Rank Eligible Rating CMAS - All Students 531 97.4% 715.2 4 2/8 Does Not Meet English English Learners 260 98.9% 711.3 1 0.25/1 Does Not Meet Language Arts Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible 379 97.8% 714.3 3 0.25/1 Does Not Meet Minority Students 473 97.9% 713.8 3 0.25/1 Does Not Meet Students with Disabilities 54 95.0% 694.7 1 0.25/1 Does Not Meet CMAS - Math All Students 538 98.1% 711.9 7 2/8 Does Not Meet English Learners 266 99.3% 709.7 5 0.25/1 Does Not Meet Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible 383 98.3% 710.7 6 0.25/1 Does Not Meet Minority Students 480 98.7% 709.8 5 0.25/1 Does Not Meet Students with Disabilities 55 96.7% 695.8 1 0.25/1 Does Not Meet CMAS - All Students 163 98.9% 471.3 1 2/8 Does Not Meet Science English Learners 75 100.0% 467.5 1 0.25/1 Does Not Meet Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible 112 99.2% 463.6 1 0.25/1 Does Not Meet Minority Students 140 99.3% 462.1 1 0.25/1 Does Not Meet Students with Disabilities 18 95.2% 399.9 1 0.25/1 Does Not Meet TOTAL * * * * 9/36 Does Not Meet

ACADEMIC GROWTH Median Growth Pts Earned/ Subject Student Group Count Percentile/Rate Eligible Rating CMAS - All Students 504 46.0 4/8 Approaching English English Learners 257 48.0 0.5/1 Approaching Language Arts Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible 361 48.0 0.5/1 Approaching Minority Students 458 47.0 0.5/1 Approaching Students with Disabilities 52 43.0 0.5/1 Approaching CMAS - Math All Students 508 54.0 6/8 Meets English Learners 259 55.0 0.75/1 Meets Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible 365 55.0 0.75/1 Meets Minority Students 461 53.0 0.75/1 Meets Students with Disabilities 53 46.0 0.5/1 Approaching ELP English Language Proﬁciency (ELP) 209 41.0 2/4 Approaching On Track to EL Proﬁciency 209 47.8% 0/0 Approaching TOTAL * * 16.75/28 Approaching

This page displays the performance indicator data for the middle school level. Data are based on results from 2017-18, unless otherwise noted.

For additional information regarding Academic Achievement and Academic Growth points, cut-points, and ratings reference the scoring guide at the end of this document.

Growth 28 total points (8 per subject for all students, 4 per subject by disaggregated group, 4 for ELP) 60% 40%

Postsecondary Readiness 18 total points (8 for graduation, 2 for matriculation, 4 for dropout, 2 per CO SAT subject) not applicable 30%

3847: HOPE ONLINE LEARNING ACADEMY MIDDLE SCHOOL | 0900: DOUGLAS COU.. Level: Middle - (1-Year)

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT Participation Percentile Subject Student Group Count Rate Mean Scale Score Rank CMAS - English American Indian or Alaska Native n < 16 - - - Language Arts Asian n < 16 - - - Black 25 100.0% 706.6 1 Hispanic 433 97.7% 713.8 3 White 58 93.9% 726.2 20 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander n < 16 - - - Two or More Races n < 16 - - - Male 261 97.9% 710.3 1 Female 270 97.0% 719.9 9 Gifted n < 16 - - - CMAS - Math American Indian or Alaska Native n < 16 - - - Asian n < 16 - - - Black 26 100.0% 700.7 1 Hispanic 439 98.5% 710.1 5 White 58 93.9% 729.3 44 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander n < 16 - - - Two or More Races n < 16 - - - Male 265 98.2% 712.3 8 Female 273 98.0% 711.6 7 Gifted n < 16 - - - CMAS - Science American Indian or Alaska Native n < 16 - - - Asian n < 16 - - - Black n < 16 - - - Hispanic 125 99.3% 463.3 1 White 23 96.0% 527.0 14 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander n < 16 - - - Two or More Races n < 16 - - - Male 78 98.8% 475.1 2 Female 85 98.9% 467.8 1 Gifted n < 16 - - - ACADEMIC GROWTH

Subject Student Group Count Median Growth Percentile CMAS - English American Indian or Alaska Native n < 20 - Language Arts Asian n < 20 - Black 24 34.5 Hispanic 420 47.5 White 46 39.5 Hawaiian/Paciﬁc Islander n < 20 - Two or More Races n < 20 - Male 252 40.0 Female 252 52.5 Gifted n < 20 - CMAS - Math American Indian or Alaska Native n < 20 - Asian n < 20 - Black 24 45.5 Hispanic 423 55.0 White 47 59.0 Hawaiian/Paciﬁc Islander n < 20 - Two or More Races n < 20 - Male 255 54.0 Female 253 53.0 Gifted n < 20 -

3995: HOPE ONLINE LEARNING ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL | 0900: DOUGLAS COUNTY RE 1 Level: ALL

Plan Type

AEC: Improvement 59.89 / 100.00

- Performance 59.89%

Indicator Rating Totals Improvement Pts

Indicator % Pts Earned Earned/Eligible Rating Priority Imp Academic Achievement 53.4% 8.01 / 15.00 Approaching

Academic Growth 50.0% 17.51 / 35.00 Approaching

Student Engagement 68.8% 13.75 / 20.00 Meets

Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness 68.7% 20.62 / 30.00 Meets Turnaround

Some schools have specialized missions and are designated as Alternative Education Campuses (AECs). These The plan type presented above schools serve a student population where either: (1) all students have severe limitations that preclude is based on the percent of appropriate administration of state assessments, (2) all students attend on a part-time basis and come from points earned of the total other public schools where the part-time students are counted in the enrollment of the other public school, or points eligible on the (3) more than 95% of the students have either an Individual Education Program and/or meet the deﬁnition of a framework: high-risk student, as deﬁned by in the Educational Accountability Act of 2009. AEC Performance: 60.0% - 100.0% This AEC SPF is composed of required state measures but may also include additional optional measures. The optional measures are submitted by the local district and approved by CDE for inclusion in the AEC framework. AEC Improvement: Results for these optional measures are provided by the district aggregated at the school level. Districts are 47.0% - 59.99% encouraged to report three years of data when available.

AEC Priority Improvement: Measures for the Academic Achievement and Academic Growth indicators have been weighted by N size. For 33.0% - 46.99% measures in these indicators, points eligible are assigned according to the number of students who participated in each measure. Measures where a greater number of students participated are worth AEC Turnaround: comparatively more weight. The individual weight of each measure in these indicators is derived from: the total 0.0% - 32.99% points eligible in the indicator (PE), the total number of students represented across all measures in the indicator (Total N), and the total number of students represented in the measure in question (Measure N): Insuﬃcient Data: No reportable data Measure Points Eligible = (Measure N/Total N) x PE

Measures for the Postsecondary Readiness and Student Engagement indicators are not weighted by N size. These measures are apportioned equal weight within the indicator. Please note that due to rounding policies points eligible at the measure level may not sum up perfectly to the total points eligible at the indicator and overall level as displayed.

(*) Not Applicable; (-) No Reportable Data (^) Schools with an Insuﬃcient State Data plan type will maintain their previously assigned year on the clock. 2018 AEC School Performance Framework

3995: HOPE ONLINE LEARNING ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL | 0900: DOUGLAS COUNTY RE 1 Level: ALL

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

Required/ Pts Earned/ % Pts Optional Measure Subject Count Result Eligible Earned Rating

Required CMAS Science 264 516.3 1.95 / 2.60 75.0% Meets State Evidence-Based Reading & Measures CO PSAT 397 393.1 1.96 / 3.91 50.0% Approaching Writing

Math 400 388.5 2.96 / 3.94 75.0% Meets

Optional NWEA MAP Math 230 25.0% 0.57 / 2.26 25.0% Does Not Meet Measures Acheivement Reading 233 38.0% 0.57 / 2.29 25.0% Does Not Meet

TOTAL Total TOTAL 8.01 / 15.00 53.4% Approaching

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT MEASURES & METRICS

CMAS Mean Scale Score

CO PSAT Mean Score on the PSAT

NWEA MAP Acheivement Percent of students scoring at or increasing at least one grade level

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT ESTABLISHED NORMS AND CUT-POINTS

Measure Norm Description Value Pts Earned Rating CMAS - Science <40th percentile of AECs 300.0 0.25 Does Not Meet

<60th percentile & >=40th percentile of AECs 503.0 0.5 Approaching

<90th percentile & >=60th percentile of AECs 515.0 0.75 Meets

>=90th percentile of AECs 577.0 1 Exceeds

CO PSAT - Evidence-Based Reading & <40th percentile of AECs 0 0.25 Does Not Meet Writing <60th percentile & >=40th percentile of AECs 383.8 0.5 Approaching

<90th percentile & >=60th percentile of AECs 394.5 0.75 Meets

>=90th percentile of AECs 425.3 1 Exceeds

CO PSAT - Math <40th percentile of AECs 0 0.25 Does Not Meet

<60th percentile & >=40th percentile of AECs 378.2 0.5 Approaching

<90th percentile & >=60th percentile of AECs 385.3 0.75 Meets

>=90th percentile of AECs 412.6 1 Exceeds

NWEA MAP Acheivement <40% of students 0.0% 0.25 Does Not Meet

<60% & >=40% of students 40.00% 0.5 Approaching

<90% & >=60% of students 60.00% 0.75 Meets

>=90% of students 90.00% 1 Exceeds

CMAS results include grades 3 through 8 based on 3 years of aggregated data where available. CO PSAT results aggregate 3 years of grade 10 and 1 year of grade 9 data where available. (*) Not Applicable; (-) No Reportable Data 2018 AEC School Performance Framework

3995: HOPE ONLINE LEARNING ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL | 0900: DOUGLAS COUNTY RE 1 Level: ALL

ACADEMIC GROWTH

Required/ Pts Earned/ % Pts Optional Measure Subject Count Result Eligible Earned Rating

Required State Calculated English Language Arts 356 39.0 5.99 / 11.98 50.0% Approaching State Growth Measures Math 358 40.0 6.03 / 12.05 50.0% Approaching

Optional NWEA MAP Growth Math 159 52.0% 2.68 / 5.35 50.0% Approaching Measures Target

Reading 167 52.0% 2.81 / 5.62 50.0% Approaching

TOTAL Total TOTAL 17.51 / 35.00 50.0% Approaching

ACADEMIC GROWTH MEASURES & METRICS

NWEA MAP Growth Target Percent of students achieving at or above their target growth

State Calculated Growth Median Growth Percentile (MGP)

ACADEMIC GROWTH ESTABLISHED NORMS AND CUT-POINTS

Measure Norm Description Value Pts Earned Rating

State Calculated Growth <35 MGP 0 0.25 Does Not Meet

<50 & >=35 MGP 35.0 0.5 Approaching

<65 & >=50 MGP 50.0 0.75 Meets

>=65 MGP 65.0 1 Exceeds

NWEA MAP Growth Target <40% of students 0.0% 0.25 Does Not Meet

<60% & >=40% of students 40.00% 0.5 Approaching

<90% & >=60% of students 60.00% 0.75 Meets

>=90% of students 90.00% 1 Exceeds

State Calculated Growth may include SGP data from CMAS, PSAT, and/or SAT from grades 3 through 11 across the last three years. (*) Not Applicable; (-) No Reportable Data 2018 AEC School Performance Framework

3995: HOPE ONLINE LEARNING ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL | 0900: DOUGLAS COUNTY RE 1 Level: ALL

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

Required/ Pts Earned/ % Pts Optional Measure Subject Count Result Eligible Earned Rating

Required Attendance Attendance - 86.2% 2.50 / 5.00 50.0% Approaching State Measures Truancy Truancy - 7.5% 3.75 / 5.00 75.0% Meets

Optional BIMAS Postive Response Rate 118 64.0% 3.75 / 5.00 75.0% Meets Measures Returning Student Returning Student Rate 481 64.0% 3.75 / 5.00 75.0% Meets Rate

TOTAL Total TOTAL 13.75 / 20.00 68.8% Meets

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT MEASURES & METRICS

Attendance Average daily attendance rate of the school

Truancy Truancy rate of the school

BIMAS Positive response rate on the BIMAS instrument

Returning Student Rate Percent of student completing the prior year at this school who re-enrolled for fall

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT ESTABLISHED NORMS AND CUT-POINTS

Measure Norm Description Value Pts Earned Rating Attendance <40th percentile of AECs 0.0% 0.25 Does Not Meet

<60th percentile & >=40th percentile of AECs 80.20% 0.5 Approaching

<90th percentile & >=60th percentile of AECs 86.50% 0.75 Meets

>=90th percentile of AECs 94.80% 1 Exceeds

Truancy <40th percentile of AECs 11.91% 0.25 Does Not Meet

<60th percentile & >=40th percentile of AECs 7.81% 0.5 Approaching

<90th percentile & >=60th percentile of AECs 0.01% 0.75 Meets

>=90th percentile of AECs 0.0% 1 Exceeds

BIMAS <40% of students 0.0% 0.25 Does Not Meet

<60% & >=40% of students 40.00% 0.5 Approaching

<90% & >=60% of students 60.00% 0.75 Meets

>=90% of students 90.00% 1 Exceeds

Returning Student Rate <40% of students 0.0% 0.25 Does Not Meet

<60% & >=40% of students 40.00% 0.5 Approaching

<90% & >=60% of students 60.00% 0.75 Meets

>=90% of students 90.00% 1 Exceeds

All calculations reported on this page are based on 3 years of aggregated data where available. (*) Not Applicable; (-) No Reportable Data 2018 AEC School Performance Framework

3995: HOPE ONLINE LEARNING ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL | 0900: DOUGLAS COUNTY RE 1 Level: ALL

POSTSECONDARY & WORKFORCE READINESS

Required/ Pts Earned/ % Pts Optional Measure Subject Count Result Eligible Earned Rating Required CO SAT Evidence-Based Reading & .. 190 422.4 1.88 / 3.75 50.0% Approaching State Math 190 401.4 1.88 / 3.75 50.0% Approaching Measures Completion Completion 624 59.1% 2.81 / 3.75 75.0% Meets Dropout Dropout 2,453 10.2% 2.81 / 3.75 75.0% Meets Optional ACCUPLACER Early Algebra 82 77.0% 2.81 / 3.75 75.0% Meets Measures Placement Reading Comprehension 73 81.0% 2.81 / 3.75 75.0% Meets Credit Course Compl.. by Course 10,525 75.0% 2.81 / 3.75 75.0% Meets Post-Completion Su.. Post-Completion Success R.. 118 65.0% 2.81 / 3.75 75.0% Meets TOTAL Total TOTAL 20.62 / 30.00 68.7% Meets

POSTSECONDARY & WORKFORCE READINESS MEASURES & METRICS

CO SAT Mean Score on the SAT Completion "Best-of" the 4, 5, 6, or 7-year completion rate Dropout Dropout rate of the school ACCUPLACER Placement Percent of students scoring within one semester of college-readiness Credit Course Completion Percent of of credits earned out of credits attempted by course Post-Completion Success Rate Percent of students with positive educational or workforce outcomes following completion

POSTSECONDARY & WORKFORCE READINESS ESTABLISHED NORMS AND CUT-POINTS

Measure Norm Description Value Pts Earned Rating CO SAT - Evidence-Based Reading & <40th percentile of AECs 0 0.25 Does Not Meet Writing <60th percentile & >=40th percentile of AECs 420.9 0.5 Approaching <90th percentile & >=60th percentile of AECs 431.5 0.75 Meets >=90th percentile of AECs 458.3 1 Exceeds CO SAT - Math <40th percentile of AECs 0 0.25 Does Not Meet <60th percentile & >=40th percentile of AECs 399.8 0.5 Approaching <90th percentile & >=60th percentile of AECs 406.5 0.75 Meets >=90th percentile of AECs 424.3 1 Exceeds Completion <40th percentile of AECs 0.0% 0.25 Does Not Meet <60th percentile & >=40th percentile of AECs 40.00% 0.5 Approaching <90th percentile & >=60th percentile of AECs 49.50% 0.75 Meets >=90th percentile of AECs 69.40% 1 Exceeds Dropout <40th percentile of AECs 18.20% 0.25 Does Not Meet <60th percentile & >=40th percentile of AECs 12.80% 0.5 Approaching <90th percentile & >=60th percentile of AECs 4.60% 0.75 Meets >=90th percentile of AECs 0.0% 1 Exceeds ACCUPLACER Placement <40% of students 0.0% 0.25 Does Not Meet <60% & >=40% of students 40.00% 0.5 Approaching <90% & >=60% of students 60.00% 0.75 Meets >=90% of students 90.00% 1 Exceeds Credit Course Completion <40% of courses 0.0% 0.25 Does Not Meet <60% & >=40% of courses 40.00% 0.5 Approaching <90% & >=60% of courses 60.00% 0.75 Meets >=90% of courses 90.00% 1 Exceeds Post-Completion Success Rate <40% of students 0.0% 0.25 Does Not Meet <60% & >=40% of students 40.00% 0.5 Approaching <90% & >=60% of students 60.00% 0.75 Meets >=90% of students 90.00% 1 Exceeds

CO SAT results aggregate 2 years of grade 11 data (2016-17 and 2017-18) where available. (*) Not Applicable; (-) No Reportable Data EXHIBIT K

EXHIBIT L

EXHIBIT M EXHIBIT N

Exhibit O

Exhibit P

TO: APS Board of Education

FROM: Rico Munn, Superintendent

DATE: August 16, 2019

SUBJECT: Recommendation regarding HOPE Online’s June 14, 2019 MOU Request

On February 19, 2019 Aurora Public Schools received a Standard Memorandum of Understanding (Standard MOU) to allow HOPE Online Learning Academy Co-Op (HOPE) to operate the Power Academy Learning Center (grades K-12), the Lighthouse Academy Learning Center (grades K-8), and the Children’s Academy Learning Center (grades K-4) within the boundaries of APS from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2022. APS denied this request and the State Board allowed APS’ decision to stand.

On June 14, 2019, Aurora Public Schools (APS) received a request from HOPE Online to enter into a standard MOU to operate Power Academy Learning Center, located within APS boundaries, for three years from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2022. The request provided APS with three potential MOUs. APS must review at least one MOU and make a determination regarding that MOU. The following memo provides my analysis and recommendations regarding which MOU the Board should review and my recommended determination for that MOU.

BACKGROUND

On June 14, 2019, Aurora Public Schools (APS) received a request from HOPE Online to enter into a standard MOU with HOPE Online for its Power Academy Learning Center, located within the APS boundaries, for three years.

This MOU request included three options for possible three-year standard MOUs, as well as two possible amendments to the standard MOU for APS to consider. The three mutually exclusive MOU options submitted are:  An MOU for Power Academy Learning Center to serve 250 students in grades K-12, with K-5 at one location and 6-12 at another location.  An MOU for Power Academy Learning Center to serve 145 students in grades 6-12 at one location.  An MOU for Power Academy Learning Center to serve 105 students in grades K-5 at one location.

The two possible amendments to the Standard MOU for APS to consider are the following:  An amendment to the data sharing agreement that adds additional data sharing requirements to the standard MOU data sharing agreement. This amendment indicates that HOPE will annually provide student academic achievement, growth, and retention data disaggregated by Learning Center to APS for each Learning Center within APS boundaries.  An amendment that rather than a three-year MOU, the agreement would be effective for a term of one year and would automatically renew for two additional years unless either party provides notice to discontinue or amend the agreement by January 31 of each year. Under state law 22-30.7-111, within forty five days of receipt of an MOU from a multi-district online school wanting to provide instruction to students within a Learning Center within the district’s boundaries, a district is required to make a determination regarding this MOU. Under state law C.R.S 22- 30.7-111(1)(f): A school district may refuse to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a multi-district online school for the operation of a learning center within the school district only if: (I) The standard MOU form provided by the multi-district on-line school fails to satisfy the requirements described in paragraph (b) of this subsection (1); or (II) The school district reasonably determines that the multi-district on-line school is contrary to the best interests of the pupils, parents, community, or school district.”

In response to the submission of an MOU by HOPE, APS asked the State Board of Education to find that an MOU by the same school for the same Learning Center and for the same term was already denied by the district and the decision upheld by the State Board could not be resubmitted and therefore APS did not need to reconsider this MOU.

On July 29, 2019, APS and HOPE Online agreed to extend the deadline for a decision on the MOU until August 20, 2019 in order to provide time for the required hearing and to resolve APS’ request to the State Board regarding whether or not it needed to review this MOU request. Additionally APS and HOPE Online agreed that APS, at APS’ discretion, would review at least one of the three MOUs.

On August 13, 2019, APS held a public hearing regarding HOPE Online’s June 14, 2019 MOU request.

On August 15, 2019, the State Board of Education voted not to consider the issue of whether APS needed to reconsider the MOU.

Therefore, in the absence of guidance from the State Board and per the July 29, 2019 agreement between HOPE Online and APS, HOPE Online’s June 14, 2019 MOU requests are presented to you for review to make a determination. Please find below APS’ analysis and my recommendations regarding which MOU to consider and my recommendation regarding a determination for that MOU. Additionally, you will also find the following two attachments: 1) April 2, 2019 Memo: Background on HOPE Online’s Request for MOU Renew and Superintendent’s Review, and 2) April 3, 2019 letter denying HOPE Online’s February 19, 2019 MOU, both of which are referenced in the following analysis.

RECOMMENDED MOU FOR CONSIDERATION

To determine which MOU to consider, APS analyzed the performance data for each HOPE Online school included in each of the MOUs submitted on June 14, 2019. This includes the elementary school serving grades K-5, middle school serving grades 6-8, and high school serving grades 9-12. APS reviewed school level performance data, not Learning Center data, because:

 Individual schools and districts are the unit of accountability and data reporting used by the State to assess performance through the School Performance Framework (SPF). The State only evaluates schools and not individual learning centers under the SPF and school level data is the only data APS has regular access to for informing its review of HOPE.

 State statute relating to Online Education Programs, C.R.S. 22-30.7, indicates that districts should be reviewing the school. Declining to enter into an MOU can occur if the district “determines that the multi-district on-line school is contrary to the best interests of the pupils, parents, community, or school district.” State law therefore indicates that this determination is made at the school level and not the individual Learning Center, which is the facility for operating this instructional program. (C.R.S 22-30.7-111(f)(ii)) As indicated in APS’ review and denial of HOPE Online’s February MOU request (see attached), HOPE Online Elementary School is currently in Year 8 on Performance Watch on the State’s accountability system, while its Middle School and High School both have SPF ratings of Improvement, and therefore are not on Performance Watch. While 2019 SPF results are not yet available, even if HOPE Online Elementary School improved its performance enough to earn a rating of Improvement or Performance it would remain on Performance Watch. This is the result of recent changes to state statute under HB-1355 that now requires schools in Year 2 or beyond to have two years of a rating above Priority Improvement to no longer be considered on Performance Watch.

Recommendation regarding MOU for Board consideration: Given the low performance of HOPE Online’s Elementary School (Grades K-5), I recommend that the Board consider the MOU for Power Academy Learning Center to serve grades 6-12. I further recommend that the Board only consider the proposed MOU in connection with the two proposed amendments.

RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE MOU FOR POWER ACADEMY LEARNING CENTER, GRADES 6-12

I recommend that the APS Board of Education deny HOPE Online’s amended MOU request for Power Academy Learning Center, Grades 6-12 to operate within APS boundaries for the following reasons:

1. The proposed amended MOU for Power Academy Learning Center has already been reviewed and denied by APS as part of the review of HOPE Online’s February 2019 MOU request.

On February 19, 2019, HOPE Online submitted a request to APS to renew its standard MOU with APS to continue operating three Learning Centers--Lighthouse Academy (K-8), Children’s Academy (K-4), and Power Academy (K-12)-- within Aurora Public Schools for three years from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2022. After reviewing HOPE’s request, performance data, and hearing public testimony, APS rejected the renewal of its MOU with HOPE Online on April 3, 2019 citing the low performance of HOPE online on the State’s School Performance Framework, as well as concerns and conditions expressed by HOPE’s Charter Authorizer and the State Board of Education.

On June 12, 2019, the Colorado State Board of Education heard an appeal from HOPE Online regarding APS’ decision not to enter into an MOU. The State Board of Education rejected HOPE Online’s appeal, thus allowing APS’ decision not to enter into an MOU with HOPE Online for the three Learning Centers to stand. Therefore, given that this proposed MOU for operating a Learning Center for the same time period, that previous decision stands.

It is contrary to the best interest of pupils, parents, the community and the school district if a multi-district online school is allowed to resubmit over and over the same rejected request.

2. HOPE Online’s proposed MOU for Power Academy does not comply with state law and HOPE Online has been operating out of compliance.

HOPE Online’s proposed Learning Center does not meet the legal requirements of a Learning Center, as defined under C.R.S. 22-30.7. Under C.R.S. 22-30.7, multi-district online schools may operate outside their district by opening Learning Centers. A Learning Center is defined as “a facility in which a consistent group of students meets more often than once per week under the supervision of a teacher or mentor for a significant portion of a school day for the purpose of participating in an online program.” (C.R.S. 22-30.7-102) An Online Program is defined as “a full-time education program authorized pursuant to this article that delivers a sequential program of synchronous or asynchronous instruction, directed by a teacher, primarily through online digital learning strategies that provide students choice over time, place, and path, and teacher-guided modality, of learning. ‘On-line program’ does not include a supplemental program. Accountability for each student in an on-line program is attributed to a designated school that houses the on-line program. Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection (9) to the contrary, an on-line program with one hundred or more students is an on-line school and not an on-line program.”

HOPE Online’s submitted MOU for Power Academy Learning Center, Grades 6-12, proposes to serve 145 students, which exceeds the enrollment for an online program, and therefore is in violation of the requirements and definition of a Learning Center, which is to house an online program. In 2018-19, HOPE Online reported that Power Academy Learning Center served 250 students, which is out of compliance with the law. APS expects that any Learning Center comply with the law and serve no more than 100 students.

It is contrary to the best interests of pupils, parents, the community and the school district if HOPE is allowed to operate in violation of state law.

3. As indicated in APS’ April 3, 2019 letter denying HOPE Online’s February 19, 2019 request, HOPE Online is contrary to the best interests of the pupils, parents, community, or school district. I have reviewed the school level data recently released for the 2018-2019 school year. The analysis and justification provided for the April 3, 2019 determination still stands and can be found in the attached copy of this letter.

Recommended determination: Deny HOPE Online’s amended MOU Request for Power Academy Learning Center, Grades 6-12.

ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Q EXHIBIT R

CMAS schools w/ 2 grade‐levels ‐ HS ‐ CMAS Boston/Clyde Miller) HS ‐ PSAT HS ‐ SAT Dropout

Achievement Growth Achievement Growth Achievement Growth Achievement School Distance (mi) Year Plan Type Overall ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math Rd./Wr. Math Rd./Wr. Math Rd./Wr. Math Power ES/MS Power HS Light house (K‐8) Children's Academy 2016 Priority Impr 37.3 711.0 708.5 40.0 44.0 Year 6 HOPE MS (6‐8) 2017 Priority Impr 40.6 714.6 707.8 46.0 45.0 Year 7 2018 Improvement 45.9 715.2 711.9 46.0 54.0 SAT W SAT M Drop out

2016 AEC: Performance Plan 73.5 716.8 711.0 52.0 53.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 11.80%

HOPE HS (9‐12) 2017 AEC: Performance Plan 66.2 717 711.5 61.0 51.5 397.9 403.6 36.0 31.0 422.4 405.1 10.9%

2018 AEC: Improvement 59.9 393.1 388.5 422.4 401.4 10.2%

>3 mi N/A 1.0 6.5 2016 Improvement 52.2 720.2 711.8 44.0 40.0 742.0 719.8 63.0 46.5 N/A Clyde Miller (P‐8) >3 mi 1.0 6.5 2017 Performance 54.5 721.9 712.5 62.0 51.0 731.8 720.3 46.0 56.0 N/A >3 mi 1.0 6.5 2018 Performance 54.0 724.3 713.5 52.0 33.0 729.6 717.9 53.5 56.0 0.8 N/A >3 mi 6.6 2016 Performance 57.1 710.0 711.4 38.0 38.0 728.3 716.5 80.0 70.0 N/A Boston (P‐8) 0.8 >3 mi 6.6 2017 Performance 53.1 709.6 707.1 36.5 31.5 732.3 715.4 79.0 68.0 N/A 0.8 >3 mi 6.6 2018 Performance 52.6 705.1 712.0 36.0 46.0 731.4 715.8 67.0 58.0 x 0.6 1.8 >3 mi N/A 2016 Performance 61.0 712.4 701.7 44.0 35.0 AWCPA (6‐12) 0.6 1.8 >3 mi N/A 2017 Performance 52.7 714.5 704.6 44.0 44.0 432.3 432.4 38.0 38.0 445.4 434.8 2.6% N/A 2.5 >3 mi >3 mi 2016 Turnaround 31.8 701.8 706.6 28.0 38.0 Priority N/A 2.5 >3 mi >3 mi 2017 34.8 711.5 707.9 57.0 46.0 386.0 391.7 43.0 34.0 423.6 405.3 5.8% Central HS (9‐12) Impr Priority N/A 2.5 >3 mi >3 mi 2018 37.4 379.6 376.2 37.0 41.0 422.2 409.5 4.8% Impr 1.8 N/A Priority >3 mi >3 mi 2016 38.9 714.8 710.6 41.0 37.0 1.8 N/A Impr North MS (6‐8) Priority 1.8 N/A >3 mi >3 mi 2017 40.6 719.0 709.7 48.0 42.0 Impr >3 mi >3 mi 2018 Turnaround 33.6 710.9 706.5 33.0 37.0 2.6 N/A >3 mi >3 mi 2016 Turnaround 33.0 704.6 703.6 28.0 36.0 2.6 N/A Improveme >3 mi >3 mi 2017 46.2 710.9 708.6 44.0 58.0 South MS (6‐8) 2.6 N/A nt Improveme >3 mi >3 mi 2018 42.2 711.6 708.0 39.0 46.5 nt 8/27/2019 APS Google Mail - Fwd: Petition for Declaratory Order / Motion to Stay Exhibit S

Meghan Cowan

Fwd: Petition for Declaratory Order / Motion to Stay 1 message

Meghan Cowan Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 9:50 AM To: Brandon Eyre

From: Heather O'Mara Date: Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:55 PM Subject: Re: Petition for Declaratory Order / Motion to Stay To: Julie Tolleson Cc: Jacque Phillips , Elliott Hood , Brandon Eyre , Maramba, Angela , Rico Munn , State Board Efilings

The proposed MOU doesn’t include a start date but the first day of school for 19/20- Aug 14th.

Heather O'Mara Please excuse any typos; sent from my iPhone

On Jul 3, 2019, at 6:42 PM, Julie Tolleson wrote:

What date did the MOU propose for starng operaon of the learning center?

From: Jacque Phillips Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 4:20 PM To: Ellio Hood Cc: Brandon Eyre ; Heather OMara ; Julie Tolleson ; Maramba, Angela ; Rico Munn ; State Board Eﬁlings Subject: Re: Peon for Declaratory Order / Moon to Stay

Elliot-

If you agree that HOPE can stay in operation for the first semester, then we will agree to an extension.

If not, then no.

Jacque

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 3:52 PM Elliott Hood wrote:

Jacque,

In her email to us yesterday, Julie Tolleson indicated that it will be very difficult to convene a quorum of state board members in the immediate future to vote on the motion to stay. Given that, is HOPE willing to https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=284c5803d7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1642673378121878205%7Cmsg-a%3Ar681714667734… 1/4 8/27/2019 APS Google Mail - Fwd: Petition for Declaratory Order / Motion to Stay agree to a reasonable extension or tolling of the 45-day review period to allow the state board to convene and vote on the motion?

Elliott Hood

Attorney

Caplan & Earnest LLC

3107 Iris Avenue, Suite 100 | Boulder, CO 80301

P: 303-443-8010 | F: 303-440-3967

celaw.com | LinkedIn | Twitter |Facebook

*Please note our new address effective March 25, 2019.

This electronic transmission (including any attached file) contains information from the law firm of Caplan and Earnest LLC which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or other use of this information is prohibited.

If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or by electronic mail ([email protected]).

From: Jacque Phillips Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 3:02 PM To: Julie Tolleson Cc: Elliott Hood ; State Board Efilings ; Heather OMara ; Rico Munn ; Brandon Eyre ; Maramba, Angela Subject: Re: Petition for Declaratory Order / Motion to Stay

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not open links/attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello-

We object to the Motion to Stay.

We will be filing a Petition for Leave to Intervene on Friday.

Once we are permitted to intervene, we will file a response to the Motion to Stay. If there is a more expeditious way to respond to the Motion to Stay, please let me know as we would definitely avail ourselves to that opportunity.

Also, can you give us a timeline for when we can expect to receive a response?

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=284c5803d7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1642673378121878205%7Cmsg-a%3Ar681714667734… 2/4 8/27/2019 APS Google Mail - Fwd: Petition for Declaratory Order / Motion to Stay Thanks-

Jacque Phillips

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:16 AM Julie Tolleson wrote:

Counsel –

In late April or early May (if memory serves), the State Board office sent out a communique to the field regarding the near impossibility of having an emergency state board meeting to decide urgent matters. At the forefront of our minds at that time was possible charter appeals, which are subject to a 60 day deadline for State Board decision. Obviously, this is not a charter appeal, but it does present the same conundrum. Even gathering a quorum for a telephonic meeting to decide the Motion for Stay could be tricky. Is there a mechanism for the parties to agree to any form of a stand-still agreement or stipulation regarding any applicable timelines?

State Board rules permit intervention on a petition such as this one by real-parties-in-interest. Jacque, can you let me know what HOPE’s intentions are regarding any intervention and any possible response on the Motion to Stay (in particular)?

Thanks.

From: Elliott Hood Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 3:28 PM To: State Board Efilings Cc: Jacque Phillips ; Heather OMara ; Rico Munn ; Brandon Eyre ; Julie Tolleson ; Maramba, Angela Subject: [BULK] Petition for Declaratory Order / Motion to Stay

Attached please find a Petition for Declaratory Order pursuant to 1 C.C.R. 301-31 and a Motion to Stay concerning and filed concurrently with that Petition.

Please confirm receipt.

Thank you.

Elliott Hood

Attorney

Caplan & Earnest LLC

3107 Iris Avenue, Suite 100 | Boulder, CO 80301 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=284c5803d7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1642673378121878205%7Cmsg-a%3Ar681714667734… 3/4 8/27/2019 APS Google Mail - Fwd: Petition for Declaratory Order / Motion to Stay P: 303-443-8010 | F: 303-440-3967

celaw.com | LinkedIn | Twitter |Facebook

*Please note our new address effective March 25, 2019.

If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or by electronic mail ([email protected]).

Law Office of Dr. Jacque Phillips, Esq.

www.jacquephillips.com

This electronic transmission (including any attached file) contains information from the Law Office of Dr. Jacque Phillips, Esq. which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or other use of this information is prohibited.

If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (970-302-4294) or by electronic mail ([email protected]).

Law Office of Dr. Jacque Phillips, Esq.

www.jacquephillips.com

If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (970- 302-4294) or by electronic mail ([email protected]).

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=284c5803d7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1642673378121878205%7Cmsg-a%3Ar681714667734… 4/4