U.S. Department of Education - EDCAPS G5-Technical Review Form (New) Status: Submitted Last Updated: 06/26/2017 12:43 PM Technical Review Coversheet Applicant: Indiana Department of Education (U282A170017) Reader #1: ********** Points Possible Points Scored Questions Selection criteria Flexibility 1. Flexibility Points Possible 10 Points Scored 10 Sub Total Points Possible 10 Points Scored 10 Selection Criteria Objectives 1. Objectives Points Possible 15 Points Scored 12 Quality of Eligible Subgrant Applicants 1. Quality of Subgrant Points Possible 15 Points Scored 10 State Plan 1. State Plan Points Possible 20 Points Scored 17 Parent and Community Involvement 1. Involvement Points Possible 10 Points Scored 8 Quality of Project Design 1. Project Design Points Possible 15 Points Scored 12 Quality of the Management Plan, Theory of Action 1. Management Plan Points Possible 15 Points Scored 10 Sub Total Points Possible 90 Points Scored 69 Priority Questions Competitive Preference Priority 1 Periodic Review and Evaluation 1. Review and Evaluation Points Possible 5 Points Scored 5 Sub Total Points Possible 5 Points Scored 5 Competitive Preference Priority 2 Charter School Oversight 1. Charter School Oversight Points Possible 5 Points Scored 5 Sub Total Points Possible 5 Points Scored 5 Competitive Preference Priority 3 Authorizer other than LEA or Appeal Process 1. Authorizer other than LEA Points Possible 2 Points Scored 2 Sub Total Points Possible 2 Points Scored 2 6/28/17 2:02 PM Page 1 of 16 Competitive Preference Priority 4 Equitable Financing 1. Equitable Financing Points Possible 2 Points Scored 1 Sub Total Points Possible 2 Points Scored 1 Competitive Preference Priority 5 Charter School Facilities 1. Charter School Facilities Points Possible 2 Points Scored 2 Sub Total Points Possible 2 Points Scored 2 Competitive Preference Priority 6 Best Practices to Improve Struggling Schools/LEAs 1. Struggling Schools Points Possible 2 Points Scored 1 Sub Total Points Possible 2 Points Scored 1 Competitive Preference Priority 7 Serving At-Risk Students 1. Serving At-Risk Students Points Possible 2 Points Scored 1 Sub Total Points Possible 2 Points Scored 1 Competitive Preference Priority 8 Best Practices for Charter School Authorizing 1. Best Practices Points Possible 5 Points Scored 2 Sub Total Points Possible 5 Points Scored 2 Total Points Possible 125 Points Possible 98 6/28/17 2:02 PM Page 2 of 16 Technical Review Form Panel #17 - Panel 17 - Indiana - 1: 84.282A Reader #1: ********** Applicant: Indiana Department of Education (U282A170017) Questions Selection criteria - Flexibility 1. The degree of flexibility afforded by the State’s charter school law and how the State entity will work to maximize the flexibility provided to charter schools under such law. Strengths: Indiana has a strong charter school law, with the Center for Ed Reform giving the state an A in its nationwide rankings, and the National Alliance ranked the law as the top in the country for the second year in a row (pg. 43). Indiana law allows for charter school exemption from any state statute, rule or guideline adopted by the state board of education applicable to a governing body or school corporation (pg. e43). This law incorporates explicit flexibility around several guidelines, including financial oversight, purchased services, employee processes, and third party contracting. The law also explicitly considers and provides for specific allowances when a traditional school undertakes conversion to a charter school (pg. e43). Flexibilities are provided for teacher certification and licensing requirements, including delays in requirements for teachers in transition programs, and ability to teach full time if the individual holds a degree from an accredited institution and met a particular grade point average threshold. The Indiana Department of Education defers to the authorizer and the charter contract in situations where this relationship and document can provide for compliance with state requirements. This positively reinforces the authority and role of the authorizer and upholds the autonomy of the school (pg. e44). Weaknesses: No weaknesses noted. Reader's Score: 10 Selection Criteria - Objectives 1. The ambitiousness of the State entity’s objectives for the quality charter school program carried out under this program. Strengths: The objectives are clear and specific, including specific quantification where applicable (pg. e45). The applicant is seeking to award 60 subgrants in a 5-year period to charters seeking incubation, expansion and replication. The Department also recognizes the limitations to its own regulatory, oversight role and has built into its plan an objective around establishing and facilitating partnerships with local organizations that can provide direct assistance for incubation and support to charter school capacity-building and implementation efforts (pg. e45). 6/28/17 2:02 PM Page 3 of 16 Objective 3 seeks to undergo a comprehensive analysis utilizing longitudinal data to determine the effectiveness of charter schools on student achievement, families and communities, and share best practices between charter schools and traditional public schools, ambitiously promulgating work to date in identifying sources for dissemination (pg. e45). Respecting the boundaries inherent within its role, the Department seeks to identify and acquire relevant supports for authorizers, rather than provide direct services in this area (pg. e46). The Department will contain its direct efforts to undertaking a thorough needs assessment. This recognition and indirect approach to bring value-add to these sector stakeholders should be applauded. Weaknesses: Objective 3 lacks clarity, as the goal is explicitly stated to evaluate the effectiveness of charter schools on statewide educational efforts (pg. e45). However, the narrative goes on to reference the innovation practices occurring statewide, making it unclear whether the overarching intent is to measure the impact of the sector, or to specifically isolate particular best practices within the sector for dissemination or replication. Objective four lacks operationalization of the term growth utilized in the objective language (pg. e46). It is unclear whether this corresponds to sector growth in school count, student performance growth as measured by assessments, or whether this refers to professional growth along the nationally recognized essential practices of authorizing. If it is related to quantity or quality measurements, then the strategy underlying this objectives that focuses on standards of quality in authorizing does not directly correspond to expansion, replication or incubation efforts that might translate specifically to sector growth. Similarly, if the intention is the latter, and growth implies maturation or increased capacity of authorizers, then the inherent breadth and generality applied to this objective cannot be evaluated for specific rigor and feasibility without additional detail. The stated objectives (pg. e44-45) are not explicitly tied to measures of performance or expectations of increases in school quality. Rather, they are focused primarily on growth and increases in charter count. One could argue that replication and expansion efforts will correspond to increasing quality if quality thresholds are established, but this is not explicitly stated in the application, and still has moderating factors such as ensuring preservation of quality in the flagship program. Reader's Score: 12 Selection Criteria - Quality of Eligible Subgrant Applicants 1. The likelihood that the eligible applicants receiving subgrants under the program will meet those objectives and improve educational results for students. Strengths: The sector has experienced consistent growth since the passage of the charter school law in 2001, with approximately 8 new charter schools opening per year (pg. e46). During this time, the state has also seen 26 charter school closures, indicating the sector is strong in fulfilling its accountability role and conscientious of its obligations to the community in the areas of fiscal stewardship. More specifically, the state has witnessed charter schools beginning to open beyond the perimeters of the largest cities (pg. e47). Prior to recent years, a majority of charter schools were contained to Indianapolis and Gary. Currently, there are schools in 21 of 92 counties, including specifically rural areas. The breadth of this growth supports the idea that the state can meet its growth objectives, as saturation in the two key areas is not likely to be an issue. 6/28/17 2:02 PM Page 4 of 16 Indiana has aligned its definition of high quality to the Federal Register (pg .e48), which ensures that eligibility is aligned to the intent of the grant, as well as the objectives outlined in the application. This definition aligns to the State’s categorization of an A and B in the State’s A-F system. The Department is also committed to working with authorizers to identify potential subgrantees (pg. e49). This will ensure quality is validated by an external source, and also ensures consistency between authorizer and Department perspectives of school performance. Weaknesses: The quality of the eligible pool is explained in detail primarily through case studies of a few charter schools (pg. e48). While the handful of charter schools highlighted boast impressive statistics and successes, and directly reflect some benefits from previous state grants, it is unclear whether the sector has enough quality