IDEA PCS Renewal Report

2012-13 Charter
Preliminary Renewal Report
Integrated Design and

Electronics Academy
Public Charter School
January 31, 2013

DC Public Charter School Board
3333 14th St., NW
Washington, DC 20010
(202) 328-2660
www.dcpcsb.org
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................................................................3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................3
GOALS AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT EXPECTATIONS ..............................................................4
COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS ...........................................................................................22
General Laws ................................................................................................................... ..22
Special Education Laws ............................................................................................................ 24
Financial Laws .......................................................................................................................... 25
FISCAL MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC VIABILITY .....................................................................26
Adherence to Accounting Principles ......................................................................................... 26
Fiscal Management .................................................................................................................... 26
Economic Viability.................................................................................................................... 26
RECOMMENDATION
DC Public Charter School Board (PCSB) staff recommends Integrated Design and Electronics
Academy Public Charter Schools (IDEA PCS) charter not be renewed at this time based on the
schools failure to meet its goals and student academic achievement expectations as set forth in its charter
and subsequently developed accountability plans.
However, given that this school is undergoing a PCSB Board-approved restructuring of its academic
program and operations, PCSB staff recommends to the Mayor that, pursuant to the School Reform Act
(SRA) 38-1802.12(d)(5)(B), IDEA PCS be placed on probation, subject to the terms and conditions
recommended by PCSB.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IDEA PCS began operating in 1998 under the authority of the District of Columbia Board of Education
(DC BOE) and is currently in its fifteenth year of operation. In 2002-03, the DC BOE conducted a fiveyear review of IDEA PCS and determined that the school continue operating, notwithstanding the
schools mixed performance of meeting the goals and academic achievement expectations laid out in its
charter and further developed in subsequently created Accountability Plans (collectively, the Charter).
In 2007, after the passage of the Public Education Reform Amendment Act dissolved the DC BOE, PCSB
became the authorizer for IDEA PCS. Between 2007 and 2012, PCSB conducted several reviews of IDEA
PCS, each of which indicated that the school had serious academic and operational failings that prevented
its students from learning effectively. 1
In December 2011, the PCSB Board approved a proposal to revoke the charter of IDEA PCS. 2 However,
in February 2012, the PCSB Board voted to forgo closure, and agreed to the terms of mutually agreed
upon conditions between PCSB and [IDEA PCS] to address IDEA [PCS]s poor academic performance
and violation of their charter. 3 One of these conditions, among others, was that IDEA PCS would create
a Restructuring Team that would conduct a thorough review of IDEA [PCS]s current systems and
processes including: staffing, governance, academic program and performance, finances, and operations.
These conditions also called for IDEA PCS to submit a report to the PCSB Board detailing the IDEA PCS
Restructuring Teams review findings, along with the Restructuring Teams recommendations regarding
how these school systems should be improved under a restructured school leadership team. 4 IDEA PCS
1
To see a timeline of PCSB reviews, see memorandum attached to this document as Appendix A.
See Letter to Colonel Joseph Stull, dated December 21, 2011, attached to this document as Appendix B.
3
See Letter to Colonel Joseph Stull, dated March 15, 2012, attached to this document as Appendix C. See
Conditions for Continuance Agreement, attached to this document as Appendix D.
4
See IDEA PCS May 15th report, attached to this document as Appendix E.
2
submitted this report on May 15th, 2012 and is currently executing the Restructuring Teams
recommendations, while PCSB is monitoring the schools progress in doing so.
This year, IDEA PCSs charter will expire, and it has submitted an application to renew its charter for
another fifteen-year term. As part of the renewal process, PCSB must assess whether IDEA PCS has: (1)
met the goals and academic achievement expectations (goals and expectations) included in its Charter;
(2) remained materially compliant with applicable laws; and (3) managed its finances effectively and
remained economically viable. 5 PCSB has conducted this assessment and determined that IDEA PCS has
not met the goals and academic achievement expectations detailed in its Charter. The following report
details this finding, and also assesses IDEA PCSs legal compliance and fiscal management over the
course of its Charter.
Given its determination that IDEA PCS failed to meet its goals and expectations, PCSB is bound by the
School Reform Act to deny IDEA PCSs application for renewal. 6 However, the School Reform Act
provides two alternatives upon nonrenewal and specifically limits only the DC BOE to exercising each
of these alternatives. One alternative is for the DC BOE to manage the school directly while it arranges
for the school to be closed; the second alternative is for the DC BOE to place the school in a
probationary status that requires [it] to take remedial actions, to be determined by the Board of Education,
that directly relate to the grounds for the denial. 7 As noted above, the DC BOE was dissolved in 2007 by
the Public Education Reform Amendment Act, which also transferred the local education agency
functions of the DC BOE to the Mayor. 8
Given the restructuring plan that was approved last year by the PCSB Board, PCSB recommends the
second alternative to non-renewal be pursued, and that IDEA PCS be placed on probation according to
terms recommended by PCSB in a separate document, IDEA PCS Proposed Probationary Terms.
GOALS AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT EXPECTATIONS

The District of Columbia School Reform Act (SRA) provides that PCSB shall not approve a charter
renewal application if it determines that the school has failed to meet its goals and academic achievement
expectations set out in its charter agreement. 9 Goals are general aims usually charter mission related,
which may be categorized as academic, non-academic, and organizational, whereas student academic
achievement expectations (expectations) are student academic aims measured by assessments. Goals
and expectations are only considered as part of the renewal decision if they were approved by the PCSB
5
See DC Code 38-1208.12(a)(3).

See DC Code 38-1802.12(c)
7
DC Code 38-1802(d)(5)(B).
8
DC Code 38-175.
9
SRA 38-1802.12(c)(2).
6
Board in a schools charter agreement, charter amendment, or Accountability Plans (collectively, the
Charter).
IDEA PCS detailed ten goals in its charter application, which are included in the chart below. 10 However,
some of these goals were removed, others modified, and others further detailed in two subsequent
Accountability Plans. 11 For the purposes of this review, PCSB analyzed five goals included in the
schools charter application and which the school consistently pursued over the course of its Charter, as
well as one additional goal, regarding student reenrollment, which was added in a 2008 Accountability
Plan. For goals and expectations that were not consistently pursued over the course of the schools
Charter, it is noted in the chart below that they were not historically measured.
IDEA PCS has failed to meet four of the six goals it has consistently pursued over the course of its
Charter, while partially meeting two goals. The chart below summarizes these determinations, which are
detailed in the body of this report.
Goal or Expectation
Met?
1 Ensure graduation rates are over 90%.
Partially
Not
Ensure all June graduates go to college or into meaningful
2
historically
employment (minimum wage or higher) by September.
measured
Not
Raise Grade Point Averages (GPA) an average of 5% per
3
historically
year.
measured
4 Students will improve on their standardized test scores. 12
No
Create an environment that encourages attendance and
5
Yes
reduces absenteeism.
Not
Ensure all eligible seniors are afforded the opportunity to
6
historically
obtain financial aid.
measured
7 Improve student citizenship.
Partially
Not
Integrate learning and work experience by focusing on
8
historically
experiential, hands-on work related experiences.
measured
Not
9 Incorporates youth development activities.
historically
measured
10 Receive more than a high school diploma.
No
IDEA students will reenroll at IDEA to complete the
11
No
course of study.
10
See IDEA PCS Charter School Application, attached to this document as Appendix F.
See IDEA PCS Accountability Plan (2004-2009) and IDEA PCS Accountability Plan (2008-2013),
attached to this document as Appendix G and Appendix H.
12
This goal was originally written as Improve PSAT, SAT and ASVAB test scores between 7-10
11
1. Ensure graduation rates are over 90%.

Assessment: IDEA PCS has partially met this goal.
In its charter application, IDEA PCS set a goal that it would [e]nsure graduation rates are over 90%. 13
In the schools fifth year review, this goal was further refined: it was noted that graduating students would
meet or exceed all District of Columbia Carnegie graduation requirements as set forth by the Board of
Education of the District of Columbia. 14
IDEA PCS did not meet this goal in its fifth year in operation, but did meet the goal at its tenth year in
operation, as well as the three subsequent years. In 2011-12, IDEA PCS did not meet the goal. However,
in that year the schools graduation rate was calculated, as required by OSSE, using the Adjusted Cohort
Graduation Rate. Graduation rates throughout the District of Columbia dropped when calculated using
this method.
13
14
See Appendix F.
See IDEA PCS 5-Year Review, p. 18, attached to this document as Appendix I.
IDEA PCS Graduation Rates

100%
94%
95%
93%
95%
95%
90%
85%
Calculated with
cohort rate
78%
85%
80%
Confirmed
Data*
Unconfirmed
Data
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
5th Year
10th Year
Performance Performance
(2002-03)
(2007-08)
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
*Data confirmed by PCSB and/or OSSE 15
2. Ensure all June graduates go to college or into meaningful employment (minimum wage or
higher) by September.
IDEA PCS stopped pursuing this goal after its five-year review; its subsequently created Accountability
Plans do not reference this goal. However, in its renewal application, IDEA PCS discussed how its
mission is the preparation of students with the academic, social, leadership and occupational skills for
post-secondary opportunities and presents data regarding the different education and career paths
pursued by IDEA PCS graduates. This data indicates that IDEA PCS has increasingly focused its efforts
to ensure that 100% of its students are accepted into college. Indeed, in both 2011-12 and 2012-13, 100%
of IDEA PCS graduating students were accepted into college.
Also in its renewal application, IDEA PCS describes how it is preparing its students for post-secondary
opportunities according to the schools Restructuring Plan. It details how the school is providing students
with targeted assistance regarding the college entrance process, and how it will continue to dedicate staff
15
See IDEA PCS Graduation Rates memorandum, attached to this document as Appendix J, to review the
sources for this data. Fifth-year performance data is sourced from IDEA PCS Fifth Year Review,
attached to this document as Appendix I.
to students post-secondary pursuits in college, the armed services, and post-secondary training/careers
and to tracking the post-secondary choices of the graduates more precisely. 16
3. Raise Grade Point Averages (GPA) an average of 5% per year.
IDEA PCS stopped pursuing this goal after its five-year review; its subsequently created Accountability
Plans do not reference the goal. However, IDEA PCS did detail its students average GPAs: from school
years 2006-07 to 2011-12, students average GPAs were between 1.97 and 2.07. 17
IDEA PCS also details its restructured leadership teams efforts to more accurately track grades, its
implementation of a new grading methodology intending to support student achievement, and its efforts to
make IDEA PCS students active participants invested in the schools grading system and proactively
pursuing higher grades. It details that as the restructuring process continues, the school will then examine
how grades from outside institutions, credit recovery, and summer school factor into a students GPA. 18
4. Students will improve on their standardized test scores.
Assessment: IDEA PCS has failed to meet this goal.
In its charter application, IDEA PCS set a goal to [i]mprove PSAT, SAT and ASVAB [Armed Services
Vocational Aptitude Battery] test scores between 7-10% each year. 19 This goal was modified to more
general terms in the schools 2003-08 Accountability Plan: Students will improve on their standardized
test scores. 20 It was noted in this Accountability Plan that this goal regarded four standardized tests: the
PSAT, SAT, ASVAB, and the DC-CAS. 21 Thus, in analyzing whether IDEA PCS has met this goal, its
students performance on these four tests is considered.
IDEA PCS PSAT and SAT scores have consistently remained below the District of Columbia average,
and its DC-CAS scores have declined since its tenth year in operation, while the District of Columbia
average DC-CAS performance level has increased. IDEA PCS students have had mixed results in
obtaining ASVAB scores that would qualify them to join the army: some years, 60% of students taking
the test make a qualifying score, whereas in other years, less than 30% of students achieve a qualifying
score. Because IDEAs students have not improved on their performance on standardized tests over the
course of the schools charter, PCSB concludes that IDEA PCS has failed to meet this goal. The graphs
below illustrate IDEA PCSs students performance on the above mentioned standardized tests.
16
See IDEA PCS Renewal Application, p. 7, attached to this document as Appendix K.

See Appendix K.
18
See Appendix K.
19
See Appendix F.
20
See Appendix H.
21
See Appendix H.
17
IDEA PCS PSAT Performance

IDEA PCS average eleventh grade PSAT scores have been consistently below the District of Columbia
average for the past five years.
IDEA PCS Eleventh Grade Average PSAT Scores

80
70
60
50
40
30
2008
2009
Average of School Score
2010
2011
Writing
Verbal
Math
Writing
Verbal
Math
Writing
Verbal
Math
Writing
Verbal
Math
Writing
Verbal
Math
20
2012
Difference between state and school average
The below graph represents IDEA PCSs PSAT performance as calculated for the PMF. In each school
year since 2009, except for school year 2010-11, less than 10% of IDEA PCSs eleventh grade students
have scored 80 or higher on the PSAT. Even in school year 2010-2011 when the performance IDEA
PCSs eleventh grade students spiked, the percentage of students scoring 80 or higher on the PSAT was
30 percentage points below the PCSB-set PMF target.
Percentage of Eleventh Grade Students with a

Combined Score of 80 or higher on Reading and
Math PSAT
100%
90%
80%
PSAT
70%
60%
DC Charter
Sector
Average
50%
40%
27%
30%
20%
17%
17%
21%
10%
29%
20%
10%
9%
0%
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Source: PCSB PMF (* = not validated)
10
IDEA PCS SAT Performance

As with PSAT scores, IDEA PCSs average twelfth grade SAT scores have been consistently below the
District of Columbia average for the last five years. Given the strong correlation between PSAT and SAT
scores, IDEA PCS SAT scores are consistent with its PSAT scores, discussed above. 22
IDEA PCS Twelfth Grade Average SAT Scores

800
700
600
500
400
300
2008
2009
Average School Score
2010
2011
Writing
Reading
Math
Writing
Reading
Math
Writing
Reading
Math
Writing
Reading
Math
Writing
Math
Reading
200
2012
Difference between state and school average
Source: College Board
22
Proctor, Thomas P., Wyatt, Jeffrey, and Wiley, Andrew. (2010). PSAT/NMSQT Indicators of College
Readiness, p. 3. Retrieved from
http://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchreport-2010-4-psat-nmsqtindicators-college-readiness.pdf.
11
The below graph represents IDEA PCSs SAT performance as calculated for the PMF. The percentage of
IDEA PCS seniors achieving a combined score of 800 on the reading and mathematics section of the SAT
exam increased from 2008-09 to 2009-10, but has since decreased, in contrast to the DC charter sectors
increasing rate.
Percentage of Twelfth Grade Students With a

Combined Score of 800 on Reading and Math SAT
100%
90%
80%
70%
SAT
60%
50%
40%
40%
24%
30%
20%
27%
DC
Charter
Sector
Average
18%
30%
10%
26%
25%
2010-11
2011-12
13%
0%
2008-09*
2009-10*
Source: PCSB PMF (* = not validated).
12
IDEA PCS DC-CAS Performance 23

As the two graphs below illustrate, IDEA PCSs performance on the DC-CAS reading and math sections
has declined since its tenth year in operation. While its students scores in both reading and math were
slightly above the state average in its tenth year, reading proficiency rates have steadily declined each of
the last five years, falling further below the state average, and math proficiency rates, while sporadic, have
remained below the state average over the past five years..
IDEA PCS DC-CAS Reading Proficiency Rates

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
43.80%
50%
46.40%
45.10%
45.50%
45.60%
DC CAS
Reading
State
Average
Reading
40%
30%
44.60%
42.90%
41.20%
39.20%
35.20%
10th Year
Review(2007-08)
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
20%
10%
0%
DC-CAS Math Proficiency Rates

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40.60%
45.70%
45.40%
47.00%
49.30%
33.80%
37.60%
35.20%
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
DC CAS
Math
State
Average
Reading
40%
30%
20%
42.20%
40.90%
10th Year
Review(2007-08)
2008-09
10%
0%
23
See IDEA PCS DC-CAS Rates memorandum, attached to this document as Appendix L, to review the
sources for this data.
13
IDEA PCS ASVAB Performance 24

IDEA PCS twelfth grade students may elect to take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery
(ASVAB), which is a test administered by the United States military and used to determine whether a
test-taker is qualified to enlist in various branches of the armed forces. In its renewal report, IDEA PCS
submitted passage rates for this exam that indicate[] the percentage of students who voluntarily elected
to take the ASVAB and attained a qualifying score that enabled them to enlist in one of the armed
services. 25 IDEA PCS defines qualifying as obtaining a score of 31 or higher, which is the minimum
score required to qualify for enlistment in the army.
Between IDEA PCSs fifth and tenth year in operation, the percentage of students obtaining a qualifying
score on this exam dropped by almost half. This rate increased during school years 2008-09 and 2009-10,
then dropped in school years 2010-11 and 2011-12, never reaching the passage rate attained in its 5th year
of operation. Under IDEA PCSs new leadership team, this rate increased by 15% during the current
school year from last school year.
Percentage of IDEA PCS Students Taking ASVAB and

Obtaining Qualifying Score to Enlist in US Army
100%
90%
80%
70%
61%
60%
54%
50%
40%
30%
41%
38%
31%
30%
26%
20%
10%
0%
24
Data for fifth year performance is sourced from IDEAs Fifth Year Review, conducted by the DC
Board of Education, attached to this document as Appendix M. Data for following years was submitted by
IDEA PCS in its renewal application and has not been verified by PCSB.
25
See Appendix K.
14
5. Create an environment that encourages attendance and reduces absenteeism. 2627

Assessment: IDEA PCS has met this goal.
In IDEA PCS fifth-year review, the DC BOE found that the school was meeting its attendance rate,
average daily goal to a moderate extent. 28 Since 2008-09, the schools in-seat middle and high school
attendance rate has improved since the schools tenth year in operation. Average daily attendance reflects
the average number of students who are present, or have an excused absence. In-seat attendance only
reflects the average number of students who are present (it does not include excused absences).
Significantly, for school year 2011-12, and for school year 2012-13 through December, the schools
middle school in-seat attendance rate was higher than the charter sector average, and its in-seat high
school attendance rate was approximately the same as the charter sector average. IDEA PCSs average
daily middle school attendance rate has decreased since 2009-10, and its average daily high school
attendance rate has decreased since 2010-11.
Middle School Attendance Rates

100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
87.4%
73.7%
90.4%
72.4%
90.3%
85.5%85.0%
85.0%
82.6%
74.7%
ADA rate
70.0%
60.0%
In-seat rate
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
Charter
Sector
Average
(in-seat
rate)
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
(through
December)
26
See Appendix H.
See IDEA PCS Attendance Rates memorandum, attached to this document as Appendix N, to review
the sources for this data.
28
See Appendix M.
27
15
High School Attendance Rates

100.0%
90.3%
90.0%
83.6%
86.3%
81.1% 80.9%
81.9%
78.6%
80.0%
70.2%
70.0%
65.3%
67.8%
60.0%
ADA rate
50.0%
In-seat rate
40.0%
Charter Sector
Average (in-seat
rate)
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
(through
December)
6. Ensure all eligible seniors are afforded the opportunity to obtain financial aid.
IDEA PCS stopped formally pursuing this goal after its five-year review; its subsequently created
accountability plans do not reference the goal. However, IDEA PCS detailed in its renewal application it
supports twelfth grade students in pursu[ing] meaningful post-secondary opportunities. 29 For the past
five years, a DC-College Access Program (DC-CAP) advisor has spent three days a week at IDEA PCS
teaching students about higher education opportunities and financial aid and holding workshops to
educate parents and teenagers about the college application process, as well as how to effectively pursue
financial aid for college.
Additionally, IDEA PCSs restructured leadership has created an Upper School Dean position to guide
the process of college applications and financial aid, track all data relevant to the students college
application process, and coordinate with the DC-CAP advisor. 30 IDEA PCS now offers a College Prep
and Writing Lab class where students can receive targeted assistance regarding college applications and
financial aid issues.
29
30
See Appendix K.
See Appendix K.
16
7. Improve student citizenship.

Assessment: IDEA PCS has partially met this goal.
In its charter application, IDEA PCS detailed a goal to improve student citizenship. It defined this goal
as follows:
JROTC will focus on student discipline, citizenship and teamwork through
repetitive team building exercises and performance tests. They will also be
highly involved in community activities where civic issues and current
events affecting the community are discussed.
In two subsequent Accountability Plans, this goal was revised to only focus on the schools JROTC
program, and not community service. In IDEA PCSs 2008 Accountability Plan, the exact wording of this
goal was:
IDEA high school students will complete a four year sequence of JROTC
that will encompass instruction in leadership, teamwork, citizenship, health
and physical fitness. 31
While IDEA PCS set a target in its 2004 Accountability Plan that 100% of its students would participate
in a four-year sequence JROTC program, it lowered this participation target to 25% of seniors in its 2008
Accountability Plan. 32
In its Restructuring Plan prepared last year, as part of the terms and conditions between the school and
PCSB, IDEA PCS was required to analyze the merits of the school program in place and suggest new
systems where appropriate. Its analysis, submitted as part of its May 15th Restructuring Report,
indicated the JROTC program was not executed such that students participated in a progressive sequence
of JROTC classes. 33 The Restructuring Report also indicated there were no policies in place regarding
JROTC course outcomes and/or structure, and that JROTC instruction was inconsistent. It also noted that
no instruction in leadership or citizenship was evident. It is unclear how long the JROTC program had
operated under such conditions.
The Restructuring Plan also included recommendations for improving the JROTC program, including
specifying whether JROTC was required to graduate, establishing course outcomes that included
measurable objectives, adopting a research-based JROTC curriculum, training JROTC instructors in this
curriculum, among others.
31
See Appendices G and H.

See Appendices G and H.
33
See Appendix E.
32
17
In its renewal application, IDEA PCS describes how it has modified its JROTC program according to its
Restructuring Plan. Participating in JROTC for two years is now a graduation requirement, and the school
also offers an extended four-year JROTC program that students can elect to take. 34 The JROTC program
also now allows students to follow a sequence of JROTC courses.
While IDEA PCS operated a JROTC program over the course of fifteen years, the Restructuring Teams
assessment of this program, along with the school lowering its target for student JROTC participation
from 100% to 25% in 2008 (although there is no indication on the record that IDEA PCS ever reported
JROTC participation rates), suggests serious operational deficiencies in the JROTC program and supports
a finding that IDEA PCS only partially met this goal over the course of its charter.
8. Integrate learning and work experience by focusing on experiential, hands-on work related
experiences.
IDEA PCS stopped formally pursuing this goal after its five-year review; its subsequently-created
Accountability Plans do not reference the goal. However, IDEA PCS did address in its renewal
application how the school offers students work-related experience outside of its academic program,
including how students designed and built a computer laboratory for a church in its community, as well as
completed other technical projects in an effort to serve its community and get hands-on work related
experiences. For six years, among other programming, IDEA PCS has executed an internship program
through which students learn job skills and work in summer internships in community businesses,
nonprofit organizations, and government agencies.
IDEA PCS notes that as part of restructuring, after reexamining its career program and consulting with its
students, it has shifted its focus to IT courses. To this end, it has developed an IT course sequence for
students so students can build upon their IT knowledge with each course, rather than taking many
different technology electives that did not substantively align with each other. The restructured leadership
team is also evaluating potential organizations with which to partner to further allow its students hands-on
work-related experiences.
9. Incorporates youth development activities.
IDEA PCS stopped formally pursuing this goal after its five-year review; its subsequently created
Accountability Plans do not reference the goal. However, in its renewal application, IDEA PCS did
address how the school has incorporated youth development activities into its programming. 35 It describes
its JROTC programming, field trips, and sports programming, as well as programs in partnership with
other organizations. Under the restructured leadership, IDEA PCS continues to coordinate numerous
athletic, art, music, and mentoring activities for its students.
34
35
See Appendix K.
See Appendix K.
18
10. Receive more than a high school diploma.

In IDEA PCSs charter application, the school detailed examples of student achievement that would
indicate this goal was fulfilled: advanced standing in college, a resume of work experiences, contacts
with employers and other credentials showing work experience. 36
In its 2004-09 Accountability Plan, the school revised this goal to the following: Students who desire
may take vocational educational courses during the 10th, 11th, and 12th grades to earn a District of
Columbia Public Schools career shop certificate. 37 The goal was again revised in a 2008 Accountability
Plan, in which the school further separated this goal into four separate sub-goals, each with its own target.
These goals and targets are detailed in the chart below. There is no indication on the record that IDEA
PCS reported whether it had met these targets.
Career and Technical Goals,
2008 Accountability Plan
Target Associated with Goal
Career and Technical Education (CTE) Introduction

to Technology Course. Ninth graders will begin their
four year program of CTE education by completing
the Intro to Tech Course.
Career and Technical Education (CTE) specialized
course of study. Tenth and Eleventh grade students
will take a two year sequence of specialized
technology instruction.
Career and Technical Education (CTE) Internship
program.
Career and Technical Education (CTE). CTE
Certificate.
50% of ninth graders will pass the Introduction

to Technology Course.
40% of 11th graders will complete two years of

one of IDEA [PCS] course/program offerings
with a passing grade of C- or above.
25% of seniors will complete an internship
25% of graduating seniors will receive a CTE
certificate [Certificate requirements: (1) passing
Intro to Tech Course; (2) Passing a specialized 2
year course of instruction; (3) successfully
completing an internship.]
In the Restructuring Plan prepared last year, IDEA PCS career and technology program did not possess
necessary components needed to allow it to operate successfully as a career academy program, and that
because of this, there had been little student success in regards to completion of industry certifications.
Indeed, in 2010-11 and 2011-12, only two IDEA PCS students passed industry exams. Like the JROTC
program, the schools career and technology program lacked course sequencing and did not align with the
36
37
See Appendix F.
See Appendix G.
19
students core classes. In its renewal application, IDEA PCS could only identify approximately 40
students earned certificates [in a technical field] and approximately six students earned Industry
Certificates (A+) [in information technology fields] over the schools 15-year history. 38 However, the
accompanying chart detailing which shop certificates were issued during each school year indicates that
74+ students earned a shop certificate since 1999 (although for some years, the school has no data
regarding whether any student earned a shop certificate). To give context to these numbers,
approximately 30-40 students graduate from IDEA PCS each year. 39
IDEA PCS restructured administration has scaled down the schools career and technology offerings. It
currently requires all students to complete at least one technology course, and then allows students to elect
to pursue a certification track in technology. IDEA PCS anticipates an expansion of this career and
technical field in the future. 40
Given the small number of students that have earned a certificate after studying in IDEA PCS career and
technology courses over the past 15 years, as well the programmatic deficiencies in this academic
programming, PCSB finds that IDEA PCS did not meet the above goal.
38
See Appendix K
Data sourced from PCSB Twelfth Grade Transcript Review Audit.
40
See Appendix K.
39
20
11. IDEA students will reenroll at IDEA to complete the course of study.
In its 2008 Accountability Plan, IDEA PCS included the above goal pertaining to student reenrollment. 41
Reenrollment also has been measured as part of the Performance Management Framework. 59% of
students that attended IDEA PCS in 2008-09 reenrolled for the 2009-10 school year. The reenrollment
rate increased to 59.8% in 2010-11, and then to 63% in 2011-12.
Reenrollment Rate
100%
PMF Target
90%
80%
70%
60%
59%
59.80%
2009-10
2010-11
63%
PMF Floor
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
41
2011-12
See Appendix H.
21
COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS

The SRA provides that PCSB shall not approve a charter renewal application if it determines that the
school has committed a material violation of applicable laws. 42 Several such laws are specifically
referenced in the SRA, and PCSB has also monitored schools compliance with additional laws. The
following section identifies these laws and includes a determination of whether Imagine SE PCS has
consistently complied with these laws over the past five years.
General Laws
In its 2012-13 Compliance Review, under the schools restructured leadership, IDEA PCS was found to
be in full compliance with all general laws. In previous years, there were some incidents of incompliance
with applicable laws, described below.
Health and Safety
The SRA requires schools to maintain the health and safety of all its students. 43 To ensure schools adhere
with this clause, PCSB monitors schools for various health and safety indicators, among others, that
schools have qualified staff members that can administer medications, that background checks have been
conducted for all charter school employees and volunteers, and that schools have a School Emergency
Response Plan in place and conduct emergency drills as required by the District of Columbia Fire
Department.
While the school has remained largely in compliance in this area, in 2011-12, the school did not have
background checks on file for all of its employees and volunteers. 44 The school cured this point of
incompliance by its 2012-13 compliance review.
Discipline
PCSB reviews school discipline policies to ensure they afford students due process 45 and that parents and
students are made aware of these due process safeguards. Over the past five years, IDEA PCS discipline
policies ensure due process, and it communicated these policies to its students and parents.
Enrollment and Attendance
The SRA requires schools to conduct a fair and open enrollment process that randomly selects applicants
and does not discriminate against students. PCSB requires that schools announce a cutoff date for
enrollment: IDEA PCS did not comply with this requirement in 2008-09. 46
42
43
SRA 38-1802.12(c)(2).
SRA 38-1802.6(g).
44
IDEA PCS Compliance Review (2011-12), attached to this document as Appendix O.

As required by Goss v. Lopez, 419 US 565 (1975).
46
IDEA PCS Compliance Review (2008-09), attached to this document as Appendix P.
45
22
Maintenance and Dissemination of Student Records

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act requires schools to properly maintain and disseminate
student records. 47 In 2008, while student records were found to be stored in a locked area, the school did
not have written policies and procedures in place to ensure student privacy. 48 Again in 2009, IDEA PCS
did not have written privacy policies in place. 49
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Because IDEA SE PCS receives Title I funds, it is expected to adhere to a number of requirements under
the ESEA, including hiring Highly Qualified Teachers and communicating certain information to
parents about its participation in the NCLB program. 50 In 2007, IDEA PCS did not seek to establish a
student transfer relationship with a qualified school, and three of its teachers were not Highly Qualified. 51
In 2008-09 and 2009-10, the school was again out of compliance with NCLB; it did not have information
on file regarding whether newly hired teachers were Highly Qualified, and parents were not notified of
their right to request information on the qualifications of their childs teacher. 52
Civil Rights Statutes and Regulations
Charter schools must comply with all applicable local and federal civil rights statutes. 53 There is no
indication on the record that IDEA PCS has violated any such civil rights statutes.
Governance
The SRA requires that a schools board of trustees have an odd number of members on it that does not
exceed fifteen, of which the majority must be District of Columbia residents, and two must be parents. 54
The IDEA Board was out of compliance with this requirement in 2008; a majority of its members were
not District of Columbia residents. 55 Under the restructured leadership, IDEA PCS has a board that is
fully in compliance with the SRA. 56
47
20 USC 1232g.
See Appendix P.
49
PCSB 2009-10 Master Compliance Worksheet.
50
20 USC 6300, et. seq.
51
See IDEA PCS Compliance Review (October 24, 2007), attached to this document as Appendix Q.
52
See Appendix S.
53
SRA 38-1802.02(11). This includes The Age Discrimination Act of 1985, the Civil Rights Act of
1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, part B of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
54
SRA 38-1802.5(a).
55
See Appendix P.
56
See IDEA PCS 2012-13 Board Roster, attached to this document as Appendix R.
48
23
Special Education Laws

Charter Schools are required to comply with Subchapter B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act 57 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 58 In 2012, PCSB conducted a desktop audit of
six special education indicators to assess IDEA PCSs compliance with these laws and the educational
progress of its special education students. 59
Academic Performance of IDEA PCS Special Education Students
The SRA requires the PCSB to monitor the progress of each [] school in meeting student academic
achievement expectations specified in the charter granted to such school. 60 As such, as part of the special
education desktop audit, PCSB monitors the academic performance of students with disabilities.
Specifically, PCSB reviews: (1) the achievement gap on the DC-CAS between a schools general
population and its students with disabilities; and (2) how the academic performance of a schools students
with disabilities compares to statewide average DC-CAS scores of students with disabilities.
The DC-CAS proficiency rates of IDEA PCS students with disabilities have consistently fallen below the
state average for students with disabilities, and these students proficiency rates are significantly lower
than those of their non-disabled peers at IDEA PCS. 61
Compliance Review of IDEA PCS by the District of Columbia Office of State Superintendent
As part of the desktop audit, PCSB examined a special education Performance Determination prepared by
the District of Columbia Office of the State Superintendent (OSSE), which indicates that in 2010, IDEA
was 80% compliant with its special education requirements, with OSSE noting that the school Need[ed]
Assistance in fulfilling all applicable federal and local special education regulations. 62
OSSE also conducted On-site Compliance Reviews at IDEA PCS. In the report detailing one of these
reviews, OSSE noted that a disproportionate number of IDEA PCS special education students had been
suspended or expelled, that students identified to be evaluated for special education services were not
always evaluated within the federal requirement of 60 days, and that IDEA PCS was not adequately
providing coordinated postsecondary transition services to its students aged 16 and older. 63 Two years
57
20 USC 1413(a)(5).
20 USC 794.
59
See IDEA PCS Desktop Audit, attached to this document as Appendix S.
60
SRA 38-1802.11(a)(1)(C).
61
See Appendix S.
62
See 2010 OSSE report, attached to this document as Appendix T. OSSE uses the same determination
levels as the United States Department of Education: (1) meets requirements; (2) needs assistance; (3)
needs intervention; or (4) needs substantial intervention.
63
Requirements for implementing secondary transition services can be found in OSSEs Enclosure E,
attached to this document as Appendix U.
58
24
later, in 2012, OSSE again found IDEA PCS not to be adequately fulfilling secondary transition
requirements. 64
Timeliness of Special Education Meetings
In 2012, IDEA PCS did not always hold meetings for its students with disabilities in a timely manner, as
required by federal law and the Special Conditions imposed by the US Department Education on
OSSE. 65. OSSEs 2012 Quarterly Findings issued by notes that IDEA PCS was found to be noncompliant
for timely completion of these meetings.
Financial Laws
Procurement Contracts
SRA 38-1802.04(c)(1) requires DC charter schools to utilize a competitive bidding process for any
procurement contract $25,000 or more, and within three days of awarding such a contract, to submit to
PCSB all bids received, the contractor selected, and the rationale for which contractor was selected. To
ensure compliance with this law, PCSB requires schools to submit a Determinations and Findings form to
detail any qualifying procurement contract entered into.
In 2010 and 2011, IDEA PCS was out of compliance with this provision; it submitted Determinations and
Findings forms for 19 of 69 (28%) $25,000+ expenditures during this time. Under the restructured
leadership, the school has submitted five Determinations and Findings forms.
Timely Audits
The SRA requires schools to submit to PCSB an annual financial audit conducted by an independent
certified public accountant or accounting firm. 66 In IDEA PCSs most recent charter review, PCSB noted
that the school had submitted all of its audits in a timely fashion. 67 The school has submitted all audits due
since its transition to PCSBs oversight on time as well.
Submission of Information about Donors and Grantors
The SRA requires schools to submit to PCSB an annual list of all donors and grantors that have
contributed monetary or in-kind donations having a value equal to or exceeding $500. 68 IDEA PCS has
fulfilled this requirement consistently by reporting this information in its annual reports.
64
OSSE Quarterly Finding Report (June 29, 2012), attached to this document as Appendix V.
20 USC 1414(a)(2); OSSE FFY 2012 IDE Part B Grant Award Special Conditions, attached to this
document as Appendix U.
66
SRA 38-1802.04(c)(11)(ix).
67
See Appendix I.
68
SRA 38-1802.04(c)(11)(xi).
65
25
FISCAL MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC VIABILITY

The SRA requires the Board to revoke a charter at any time if it determines that the school:
Has engaged in a pattern of nonadherence to generally accepted accounting principles;

Has engaged in a pattern of fiscal mismanagement; or
Is no longer economically viable.
As part of the 15-year renewal process, PCSB has reviewed IDEA PCSs documentation supporting these
areas. Over the course of the last five years IDEA PCS has demonstrated adherence to generally
accepted accounting principles, sound fiscal management, and economic viability.
Adherence to Accounting Principles
The school has consistently adhered to generally accepted accounting principles, as established by the
Financial Accounting Standards Board. In its last charter review, PCSB found that IDEA PCS has been
efficient in administering accounting policies which follow PCSB accounting guidelines." A review of
IDEA PCSs financial audits for recent fiscal periods reveals the same adherence to such accounting
principles.
Fiscal Management
IDEA PCS has not engaged in fiscal mismanagement. The schools audit reports reflect sound accounting
and internal controls, and no instances of incompliance that are required to be reported per the U.S.
Government Accountability Offices Auditing Standards. The school has consistently submitted all
necessary financial documents to PCSB in a timely manner.
Economic Viability
A review of the schools fiscal record indicates IDEA PCS is economically viable. 69 One indicator of
economic viability is a positive year-end annualized net income. IDEA PCS has concluded three of its last
five fiscal periods with positive net income balances.
A high net asset reserve 70 is another indicator of economic viability. A net asset reserve equivalent to
three to six months of operational expenditures is recommended. For the period ending June 30, 2012,
IDEA PCSs net assets approached $4.5MM and monthly expenditures were approximately $700K per
month, indicating that the school has approximately six months of operational expenditures in reserve. 71
Fiscal Period
Net Income
Cumulative Reserves
2008
$
$
118,829
3,948,250
2009
$
(60,720) $
$ 3,916,510 $
2010
2011
678,229 $
26,288 $
4,594,739 $ 4,621,027 $
2012
(97,967)
4,523,060
69
See IDEA PCS activities and financial analysis sheet, attached to this document as Appendix W.
Net asset reserves are reflective of a schools value in excess of its liabilities.
71
Fixed assets account for most of the schools net assets and would need to be liquidated to free up cash.
70
26
It should be noted that a significant portion (approximately 89.3%) of the schools total assets are fixed,
indicating the schools reliance on debt to finance expansionary activities. High levels of fixed assets
relative to current assets, coupled with minimal liquid assets, could lead to insolvency. However, IDEA
PCSs cash levels have been sufficient during the majority of the schools lifecycle and are slated to
increase steadily going forward.
Net working capital 72 and a liquidity ratio greater than one points to a schools ability to satisfy
immediate financial obligations. IDEA PCS has successfully managed its working capital needs and
generated positive working capital balances at the conclusion of each fiscal period (see table below). The
school has sufficient liquid assets as indicated by the FY 2012 liquidity ratio of 1.70. The school should
continue to strive to increase its liquidity to ensure that short-term payables are effectively managed and
cash levels are adequate enough to cover debt service payments.
Fiscal Period
Net Working capital
Liquidity ratio
2008
$
1,665,248
3.33
2009
$ 1,794,650 $
4.15
2010
2,369,924 $
6.31
2011
523,041 $
1.56
2012
589,708
1.70
The chart below details IDEA PCSs expenditures as a percentage of revenues. The school makes
spending decisions appropriate for managing education programs. Salaries and occupancy costs are in line
with comparable industry amounts and PCSB financial metrics for general education charter schools.
IDEA PCS: Expenditure as % of Revenues (FY2008 - FY2012 averages)
0%
72
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Personnel Costs
Direct Student Costs
Occupancy Expenses
General and administrative expenses
120%
Net working capital is an organizations total assets, less its total liabilities.
27
Appendix A
Overview of PCSB Reviews of IDEA PCS from 2007-present

Prepared by Sarah Medway
January 23, 2013
October 2007: PCSB conducted a School Improvement Plan Review, a process then
utilized by PCSB to ensure schools compliance with federal School Improvement
Plans. 1 The report detailing this review indicated that the schools execution of its School
Improvement Plan was inadequate. 2
2007-08 school year: PCSB worked with IDEA PCS to restructure its School
Improvement Plan. 3
February 2009: PCSB conducted a Program Development Review of IDEA PCS. 4 This
PDR reiterated serious deficiencies in IDEA PCS academic program, the most
significant being that the school does not have a clearly-defined curriculum and that
after working to revise this curriculum for eight months, the school only had developed
sketchy incomplete curriculum documents that do not span all content areas and all
grade levels. 5
February 2010: PCSB conducted another School Improvement Plan Review, this time
evaluating how effectively IDEA PCS was implementing the restructured Plan created in
2007-08. PCSB found IDEA PCS overall implementation its Restructuring Plan to be
inadequate, noting that it lacks specificity of activities, timelines, and targeted goals,
which hinders school leaders ability to successfully implement and monitor its
outcomes. 6
2010-11 school year: PCSB conducted another Program Development Review of IDEA
PCS, and found the school to be limited (the lowest rating) in 14 of 41 indicators, in
particular noting that the schools methods and strategies for instruction were limited. 7
2011-12 school year: PCSB conducted another Program Development Review of IDEA
PCS. This PDR Report documents that [t]he instructional program at IDEA remains an
area of need with only slight improvement noted from the 2010-2011 [PDR].
Additionally, the school was found to be limited in 14 of 42 indicators.
See 2007-08 School Improvement Plan (SIP) Review Report.

The report notes that the schools School Improvement Plan lacks a sense of urgency and
evidence that a collaborative team has thoughtfully developed a coherent and systematic plan of
action to address students deficiencies in reading, math, and the schools lack of highly qualified
staff.
3
See 2008 Draft Restructuring Plan Template.
4
See 2008-09 Program Development Review Report.
5
See 2008-09 Program Development Review Report.
6
See SIP Implementation Report 2010.
7
See Program Development Review Report 2010-11.
2
8
9
2011-12 school year: PCSB conducted a charter review of IDEA PCS, 8 noting that
there continues to be no comprehensive curriculum in place for all core and elective
courses. The school has failed to adequately address its academic targets on the DC-CAS
and all initiatives have failed to establish a trend of appreciable improvement in the
schools academic performance during the course of its fourteen year charter. 9
As required by SRA 38-1802.12(a)(3).

See IDEA PCS Charter Review Analysis.
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
February 25, 2012

Conditions for Continuance Agreement
D.C. Public Charter School Board
and
Integrated Design and Electronics Academy PCS (IDEA)
IDEA PCSResponse to Plan Submitted to PCSB on February 14, 2012, with
revised documents submitted on February 24, 2012.
At the February 2, 2012 public hearing on the PCSBs proposed revocation of IDEA
PCSs charter, the PCSB provided IDEA PCS with a letter requesting they provide by
February 14, 2012:
1.
2.
3.
4.
A comprehensive review of IDEA PCSs current status,

its approach to the restructuring effort,
the schools goals, and
how the school intends to use the expertise of its consultants to assist its
Board to enhance the schools capabilities.
The plan that was submitted on February 14 contains the following promises:
the Board Chair, Executive Director and Principal will step down at the end of
the 2011-12 school year;
the adult education program has been terminated;
the middle school program may be terminated, based on recommendation of
the restructuring team;
Ten Square will be the lead consultant of the restructuring team;
Charter Board Partners will conduct a full audit of its Board of Trustees and
identify new member, train the new Board
other consultants will be identified to join the restructuring team
End-to-End Solutions will conduct a full audit of their special education
records and program and they will work with OSSE to get training
an Action Plan to implement the changes will be submitted.
IDEA PCS, also committed to the following:
Implement the Restructuring Plan;

Provide monthly reports to the PCSB on its progress in implementing our
Restructuring Plan until its 15-year charter renewal; and
Expect PCSB to evaluate IDEA PCS by the same standards it applies in
evaluating any charter school whose charter is up for renewal.
1
The actual Restructuring Plan can best be described as a plan to plan. This is
partially because the new administration, which will be responsible for running the
restructured IDEA PCS, has not yet been hired. However, the lack of clear deadlines,
concrete substance, and organizational structure caused PCSB to identify a number
of conditions that must be met over the next seven months in addition to the
promises outlined above.
PCSB recognizes that is difficult to find a competent new leadership before the end
of the school year and therefore fully expects that the current IDEA PCS leadership
and Board establish a robust Reconstruction Team to begin the work of
restructuring IDEA PCS. On February 24, 2012, IDEA PCS submitted a profile of its
current consultants and a timeline for completing tasks outlined in its plan.
Currently, they have identified the following consultants to join the Restructuring
Team, and assigned each one tasks from the restructuring plan (see document
Academic Consultant Scope of Work.
TenSquare
Charter Board Partners
Aimee Evan, Quill Research Association
Alexandra Pardo, Candice Bobo, Rebecca Penny, Thurgood Marshall PCS
DC Special Education Cooperative
It is important that all members of the Restructuring Team be on board no later than
March 15, 2012, to start the process of opening by the 2012-2013 school year. While
the Restructuring Team works on the 2012-2013 School Year, IDEA leadership is
responsible for running the school and working with the restructuring team to
complete of the conditions outlined below.
Conditions
Per the February 24, February 14, and January 31 submissions by the school to
PCSB, PCSB recommends the following conditions:
The PCSB recommends that the following expertise is represented on the

Restructuring Team to develop an effective school program:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Project Manager
Secondary Master Scheduler
Special Education Coordinator
Curriculum Expert
Secondary Behavior Management Specialist
Parent Liaison
Governance Expert
Operations Expert
A restructuring team will be identified by March 15, 2012 and will be approved
by PCSB by April 1, 2012.Any changes to the makeup of the restructuring team
must be provided in writing and approved by PCSB.
The restructuring team will produce monthly reports due on the 15th of each
month, beginning in May 2012 and continuing through July 2013.
The restructuring team will conduct a thorough and intensive review of IDEAs
current systems and processes including: staffing, governance, academic
program and performance, finances, and operations. The review will determine
the merit of current systems and, when appropriate, suggest new systems. The
comprehensive review will be completed by May 1, 2012 and the findings and
action items based on those findings will be reported to PCSB in its
May15threport.
In addition to the action items identified in the report, the restructuring team
commits to the following action items:
May 15 report
Findings from the program review in the areas of curriculum, instruction,

governance, behavior, and operations, with proposed action items and
timetable--to be approved by the PCSB.
Staffing
o EvaluationIDEA signed on for RTTT funding and therefore must
evaluate its staff based on the RTTT guidelines. IDEA PCS must submit its
teacher evaluation system and the performance of the teachers it plans to
retain and the evaluator(s) name(s) to PCSB by May 1, 2012.
Governance
o Identify a new Board Chair and three new members of the Board
completed by April 30, 2012
School Academic Plan:

o Update the course offerings manual, delineating all existing materials and
prerequisites. Description and sequencecompleted no later than April
30, 2012final version due in July.
o The secondary master scheduling expert will create SY2012-2013 master
schedulecompleted by April 30, 2012. This should include a plan to
assess and diagnose all new students regarding literacy and math
proficiencies and make modifications as needed by August 2012.
o Describe the Summer School Program that will address Credit Recovery.
3
June 15 report
Staffing
o Hire school and academic leadership positions, including the executive
director and head of academics and head of operations contracts
should be completed by May 31, 2012. If additional time is required, this
should be delineated in the June 15th report, with supportive rationale for
the extension.
Governance
o Add an additional two new board members (totaling 5) by May 15. New
board members will include individuals with academic expertise, among
other skills as determined by a needs assessment.
July 15 report
Staffing
o Identify key teaching and academic support positions (must include
special education and data manager), including writing job descriptions
and advertise in multiple venues
Governance
o Determine how the mission can be accomplished and/or whether or not
the mission should be changed. A change would require a Charter
Amendment by July 12, 2012
o Create 2012-2013 Goals for the schoolcompleted by June 30, 2012
School Academic Plan
o Create a flexible SY2012-2013 Professional Development schedule, based

on intermittent PD needs assessments conducted during the school year
by June 30, 2012.
o Create SY2012-2013 assessment schedulecompleted by June 30, 2012
o Create a two-week teacher Professional Development plan to prepare

teachers for SY2012-2013 that will address the schools chosen curricula,
instructional strategies, and assessments. The plan must identify the who,
what, and how each component of the PD will be deliveredplan is to be
4
completed no later than June 30, 2012. School goals must be identified
for this, in line with the Mission.
o Select a student advisory board to work with the restructuring team to

develop a program that will create a culture that is welcoming for new
and returning students.
o Revise and update all policies identified consistent with the schools
mission and philosophy, including promotion, graduation, attendance,
and discipline. Develop strategies, goals, and measurable targets
designed to reduce the number of suspensions and expulsions during the
school year. completed by June 30, 2012
o Develop and submit the finalized Building Readiness
Checklist/schedule that will be used to open School by June 30th. (e.g.
Supplies needed, books, contracts, maintenance, repairs, furniture,
cleaning. June 30
August 15 report
Staffing
o All staffing positions must be filled by July 31, 2012
Governance
o Create governance committees, including academic and finance and
review DC CAS results as a Board and create an academic action plan
based on the results.
o Create Board approved policies for operation: i.e., inclement weather,

grading, school closing, Internet usage, etc.
School Academic Plan
o Final course offerings manual, delineating all existing, materials and

prerequisites. description and sequencecompleted no later than July
31, 2012
o The secondary master scheduling expert will create a final SY2012-2013

master schedulecompleted by July 30, 2012. This should include a
plan to assess and diagnose all new students regarding reading and math
proficiencies.
5
o Procure appropriate resources for core academic subjects by July 31,

2012
o Identify and procure appropriate interim and summative assessments for

core content areascompleted by July 31, 2012
Finance
o Complete a PCSB-approved budget for the coming academic year based
on conservative enrollment projections
September 15 report
Submit all updates; include all School Opening Documents and all summer
school data. All of this information will be reviewed for the October Board
meeting in order to determine the schools renewal status.
_______________________________________________________________________Date:___________
Brian W. Jones, Chair, DC Public Charter School Board
________________________________________________________________________Date:__________
David Owens, IDEA Public Charter School Board Member-of-Record
Appendix E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1
I. STAFFING REPORT ................................................................................................................ 4
EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP RECRUITMENT UPDATE ............................................................. 4

STAFFING & ORGANIZATIONAL CHART .................................................................................. 7
Key Findings ...................................................................................................................................................7
Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................9
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART - GENERAL STRUCTURE AND LINES OF REPORTING ..... 9
Key Findings ...................................................................................................................................................9
Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 10
II. GOVERNANCE REPORT ................................................................................................... 11

Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 11
Recommendations for Restructuring Activities .............................................................................. 13
Board Actions To Date and Proposed Actions with Timetables ............................................ 16
III. ACADEMIC PROGRAM & PERFORMANCE REPORT............................................... 19

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE & POLICIES ............................................................................... 19
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 19
MILITARY & CAREER PROGRAM ............................................................................................. 25
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 25
CAREER ACADEMIES ................................................................................................................... 26
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 28
CORE CURRICULUM & TEXTBOOK AUDIT ........................................................................... 30
Curriculum Overview .............................................................................................................................. 30
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 31
Textbook Overview .................................................................................................................................. 32
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 32
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 34
BEHAVIOR....................................................................................................................................... 42
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 42
Uniform Policy............................................................................................................................................ 43
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 43
Passing Periods and Tardy Policy ...................................................................................................... 44
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 44
Classification of Violations ..................................................................................................................... 45
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 45
Incident Reports ........................................................................................................................................ 46
CONFIDENTIAL
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 46

Detention ...................................................................................................................................................... 47
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 47
Suspension Data ........................................................................................................................................ 48
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 48
Security ......................................................................................................................................................... 48
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 49
Classroom Management ......................................................................................................................... 49
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 49
IV. FINANCE REPORT ............................................................................................................ 51

Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 51
V. OPERATIONS REPORT ..................................................................................................... 54

CONTRACTS & SALARIES ........................................................................................................... 54
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 54
VACATION & SICK LEAVE........................................................................................................... 55
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 55
RETIREMENT BENEFITS ............................................................................................................ 55
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 55
HEALTH BENEFITS....................................................................................................................... 56
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 56
STUDENT ENROLLMENT ............................................................................................................ 57
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 57
CONTRACTORS .............................................................................................................................. 57
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 57
CONFIDENTIAL
ii
TABLE OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX J
APPENDIX K
APPENDIX L
APPENDIX M
APPENDIX N
APPENDIX O
APPENDIX P
APPENDIX Q
APPENDIX R
APPENDIX S
APPENDIX T
CURRENT ORGANIZATION CHART

SAMPLE PROPOSED ORGANIZATION CHART
REVISED TEACHER EVALUATION PROCESS & RESULTS
NEW TEACHER RECRUITMENT UPDATE
CHARTER BOARD PARTNERS MODEL
NEW BOARD MEMBER BIOS
BOARD CONSULTANT BIO
BOARD PLANNING RETREAT AGENDA
MISSION REVIEW BACKGROUND & TASK FORCE NOTES
DRAFT MASTER SCHEDULE
ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR NEW STUDENTS
DRAFT COURSE CATALOG
SUMMER SCHOOL 2012
CURRICULUM & TEXTBOOK AUDIT
CONSERVATIVE ENROLLMENT TARGETS
SY 11-12 ESTIMATED INCOME STATEMENT
SY 11-12 ESTIMATED BALANCE SHEET
SY 11-12 CASH FLOW FORECAST
APPROVED RESTRUCTURING ACTION PLAN (V. 3.22.12)
TIMETABLE FOR ACTIONS FROM MAY 15TH REPORT
CONFIDENTIAL
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On February 27, the DC Public Charter School Board (PCSB) granted conditional continuance to
Integrated Design and Electronics Academy Public Charter School (IDEA) based on the schools
promises to make dramatic changes led by the Restructuring Team under the oversight of David
Owens, IDEA Board member and Chair of the Restructuring Team.
The PCSB-approved Restructuring Team, coordinated by TenSquare, a national educational
consulting firm, included the following scope of work and responsible people/parties:
Project Management TenSquare

Secondary School Master Scheduler Alexandra Pardo, Thurgood Marshall Academy
Special Education Expert- DC Special Education Cooperative
Curriculum Expert Rebecca Penney, Thurgood Marshall Academy, and team of core
content area master teachers
Secondary Behavior Management Specialist Candice Bobo, Thurgood Marshall
Academy
Parent Liaison - Candice Bobo, Thurgood Marshall Academy
Governance Expertise Charter Board Partners
Operations Expert TenSquare
Teacher Evaluation and Recruitment Aimee Evan, Quill Research Associates (and
Candice Bobo and Rebecca Penny)
This report is submitted in response to the PCSB requirement to conduct a thorough and
intensive review of IDEAs current systems and processes including: staffing, governance,
academic program and performance, finances, and operations. The findings and
recommendations of this audit are contained in the enclosed report.
Since the February 29th kick-off meeting, the Restructuring Team has worked in partnership with
IDEAs Board of Trustees, administrators and staff to complete all tasks per the PCSB-approved
Action Plan (Version: 3.22.12) and Conditions. In total, the Restructuring Team spent over 800
hours reviewing every aspect of IDEAs academic programs and operations and working with
IDEAs staff and Board to develop this report.
Specifically, this report includes the following deliverables as required by PCSB for the May 15th
report:
Findings from the program review in the areas of curriculum, instruction, governance,
behavior, and operations, with proposed action items and timetable. Findings from
additional areas deemed important for a comprehensive audit are also included.
An enhanced and revised teacher evaluation report. (IDEA submitted the teacher
evaluation system and performance of the teachers on May 1, 2012 to the PCSB.) This
report is provided in the appendices of this report.
A Governance update that includes detailed information on the five new Board
members. It is worth noting here that the IDEA Board voted David Owens as the new
Board Chair effective July 1, 2012. More information is provided in the Governance
Report.
CONFIDENTIAL
A draft course offerings manual, delineating all existing materials and prerequisites,
including description and sequence (completed by April 30) is included in the
appendices of this report. Please note that this is a draft report pending final staffing.
A SY 2012-13 draft Master Schedule (completed April 30), including a plan to assess
and diagnose all new students regarding literacy and math proficiencies. This schedule
is included in the appendices of this report.
The 2012 Summer School Program that addresses credit recovery is included in the
appendices of the report.
The overall findings of the audit conducted by this team of consultants may be summarized as
follows:
IDEA has established all of the basic building blocks of a school: there are
academic and discipline policies; student and staff handbooks; schedules and a course
catalog; an organizational chart; employee pay systems and benefits; budgets and
financial statements; Board committee charts and by-laws; etc. However, these basic
policies are not consistently expressed in writing or in action. This results in
understandable confusion in day-to-day operations. A complete review of such
policies is needed to achieve one consistent and coherent program.
The basic policies are not being implemented in any coordinated or strategic fashion.
Overall school performance inevitably suffers as a result. Especially critical is the
need to coordinate the academic program among various written instructions and
procedures in order to derive a more comprehensive result.
The foundations of a comprehensive academic program are present including
required course offerings in core courses, curriculum including unit plans, standards,
objectives, textbooks and scope and sequence, and career and JROTC offerings to
supplement the mission of the school. However, instruction lacks a school wide
framework.
Academic rigor, as evidenced by higher order objectives, student outputs, and
assessments, is insufficient leading to low student engagement.
Instruction is predominantly teacher led with a reliance on direct instruction. There
are not enough effective teaching strategies being implemented school-wide.
The teaching staff contains many teachers who are ineffective and minimally
effective as measured by Race To The Top and consultant observation tool measures.
Academic success will only be possible if these teachers are replaced with teachers
who meet the Districts HQT criteria and who can demonstrate that they are effective
and highly effective teachers.
There is a lack of structure in the school culture. By refocusing the staff and students
on the schools core values and implementing a simple set of rules with clear
consequences, the school can begin to bridge the gap between what is on paper and
what is practiced.
The board has been operating in the mode of a founding board rather than a
governing board. The board needs to transition some of its operational practices to
become more effective and more accountable for the academic success of the school
and its students.
Operationally the school is supported by internal staff and external contractors to
provide support for school operations in areas of academics, student support services,
facilities, security, and accounting; however the current organizational chart and
staffing plan do not maximize support for student learning and lack accountability for
staff performance.
CONFIDENTIAL
Declining student enrollment and the recent construction of the Wellness Center has
impacted the schools financial health. Among the recommendations found in the
Finance Report, the board and leaders must develop a conservative budget for SY
2012-13 and work closely with its lender on its $8M construction loan.
This report addresses, in detail, these basic operational structures that need to be fixed and
proposes specific action items that should be undertaken to correct the deficiencies that are noted
some of which are already underway.
The Restructuring Team has embraced three principles that it believes will determine the ultimate
success of the restructuring effort:
1. Technical advising performed by actual practitioners who are experts in their fields and
have a profound understanding of the challenges and best practices that most effectively
address those challenges.
2. A comprehensive scope of work that reviews the schools entire program and addresses
the root causes of the schools underperformance
3. The recognition of the fact that successful turnarounds require a sustained effort and a
multi-year commitment.
The Restructuring Team is prepared to work with IDEAs Board and the PCSB to determine the
best way to remain engaged with the effort. We would suggest a meeting with the PCSB at your
earliest convenience to discuss these recommendations and to seek your approval to implement
them.
Thank you for your support of IDEA and the Restructuring Teams efforts to help improve the
schools performance. Although there is still much work ahead of us, we believe we are on the
right track to improving academic outcomes of our students. We look forward to continuing the
work.
CONFIDENTIAL
I. STAFFING REPORT
EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP RECRUITMENT UPDATE

Recruitment for leadership for IDEA PCS has been active since March 2012, with nearly 100
applications processed in the past five weeks. The recruitment process is summarized below:
What?
Resume review
Candidates selected for written response activity and notified via
email
Written short-answer responses reviewed; Google search of
strongest candidates; pool of candidates identified for phone
interviews
Initial interviews either by phone or in-person
Initial reference check of top candidates prior to recommending
to Board of Trustees
Top candidates recommended to Board for in-person school visit
Board selects candidates to visit the school; TenSquare notifies
candidates and coordinates dates; school visit organized
School visit, including school tour, classroom observation
activity, and interview panel; recommendations for finalists
generated (interview panel) and communicated to the Board
Fingerprinting and background check of finalist(s); final

reference check of finalist(s)
Interview of finalist(s) by Board and final vote
Position offered and announced
Who?
TenSquare
TenSquare
TenSquare
TenSquare
TenSquare
TenSquare
Board & TenSquare
TenSquare
Board
representative(s)
Key staff
Parents/guardians
Student leaders
TenSquare
Board
Board
Applicants as of 5/4/2012: IDEA Principal Position

Total number of applicant resumes received and reviewed
36
Applicant more appropriate for a different school level or

different position at IDEA
Total number of applicants eliminated immediately for
reasons including:
No evident experience as a principal or lacking
substantial leadership experience, and/or
Inadequate academic expertise/experience, and/or
Experience more appropriate to another role or
another school, and/or
CONFIDENTIAL
13
Associated with a failing or closed school, and/or

Poorly written resume/cover letter/written response
(several errors of punctuation, spelling,
capitalization, grammar; typos; disorganized)
Total number invited to Level 2 Screening (written
responses)
Total asked to participate in phone interviews
10
4
Two solid principal candidates have emerged from this group and are undergoing second phone
interviews and initial reference checks. Both are veteran principals who have also been teachers:
one female with 25 years of experience and one male with 17 years of experience. Each has a
clear vision for what it takes to foster educational excellence, expertise in guiding staff, high
expectations for students, and an awareness of the challenges and opportunities inherent in
transforming an underperforming school.
Applicants as of 5/4/2012: IDEA Executive Director

Total number of applicant resumes received and reviewed
62
Applicant more appropriate for a different position at IDEA

Total number of applicants eliminated immediately for reasons
including:
No evident experience in a significant management
role, and/or
No evident experience as a people manager, and/or
Experience more appropriate to another role or another
school, and/or
Associated with a failing or closed school, and/or
Poorly written resume/cover letter/written response
(several errors of punctuation, spelling, capitalization,
grammar; typos; disorganized)
16
19
Total number invited to Level 2 Screening (written responses)

Total asked to participate in phone interviews
22
5
Top candidates so far include two attorneys with both education and business expertise and an
educator with extensive management experience in local school districts. All are eager to work in
collaboration with the new IDEA principal to refine the restructuring plan to implement a strong
academic program in a culture of accountability.
Through active networking, TenSquare has identified and is in the process of contacting an
additional group of candidates who are high performing individuals looking for growth or new
opportunities and currently hold positions at other D.C. public schools.
The Restructuring Team recognizes the challenge of not only simultaneously recruiting three new
leaders, but also the challenge of having three new leaders start this summer without any former
knowledge of each other or the school. After researching examples of successful turnarounds and
restarts, the Restructuring Team is considering how to best utilize the knowledge and talents of
Norm Johnson and TenSquare to create a transition that will give the new leadership, once hired,
CONFIDENTIAL
a greater likelihood of success. The Restructuring Team requests a follow-up meeting with the
Public Charter School Board to discuss how best to transition the reconstituted IDEA for school
year 2012-13.
Recruitment Sources: Notices have been posted or distributed to networks, services and
individual contacts, including but not limited to:
Baltimore Public Schools contacts
Bridgestar
Building Excellent Schools
Career Services - Graduate School of
Education at:
George Washington University
Harvard University
University of Pennsylvania
University of Maryland
City Bridge Foundation
City Year
Deloitte Community Involvement
Department of Education contacts
District level contacts in Montgomery
County
Education Trust
Education Week
Flamboyan Foundation
Gates Foundation contacts

High performing charter schools
Idealist
Independent educational consultants
KIPP Foundation
Local education-focused nonprofits
MetLife Foundation contact
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools
New Leaders for New Schools
New Profit, Inc.
Office of the Mayor
Professors of Education at Johns Hopkins
University and Loyola College
TFA alumni network
US Department of Ed contacts
Veteran principals
CONFIDENTIAL
STAFFING & ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

IDEA-PCS has 85 full time faculty/staff positions for a school of 347 students. Similarly situated
middle and high schools have closer to 50-60 full time employees for a student population of this
size. This begs a closer look at the positions of faculty and non-teaching staff members, and the
general structure and lines of reporting of the school.
Key Findings
Faculty Positions
There are 42 different individuals providing instruction as teacher of record to students.
A closer look at teacher staff plans show that teachers teach unequal class loads with
tremendous variation in core class size, ranging from as low as one to twenty-seven. The
average class size is 12.59. Teachers teach anywhere from one to seven class periods
based on the ten period day. Teachers teach between one and four different classes (e.g.
Algebra I, geometry). In addition to supporting special education students, special
education teachers are also teaching core classes (music and AP English) which impacts
their ability to meet the needs of students with special education. The typical class load
for a teacher at the high school level is between one and three difference courses. In
general, from our review of schedules and interviews with teachers, approximately fifteen
teachers have less than full time teaching schedules. Five teachers teach two difference
courses simultaneously to different students at the same time (e.g. Algebra II/ Geometry;
Spanish I/Spanish II) according to the master schedule. At the high school level, on an
eight period day, teachers typically teach 6 periods creating a teacher student load on
average of 120 150. The staffing plan does not match a typical staffing plan with only
one teacher having 120 or more students. Specifically:
There are 205 separate class sections taught:

3 sections have 25 or more students enrolled;
33 sections have between 20 24 students enrolled;
65 sections have 10 or fewer students enrolled;
29 sections have 5 or fewer students enrolled
The distribution of students to each teacher is uneven ranging from 1 to
126. The average student distribution by teacher is 62.92.
CONFIDENTIAL
The number of sections taught by each teacher varies between 7 and 1
Class Sections
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
# of Teachers
6
20
3
4
0
4
4
IDEAs teacher staffing plan is due in part to an inefficient master schedule and lack of course
sequencing. The school underwent three variations to the master schedule during the 2011-12
school year and a staff reduction in October. This is discussed at greater length in the Academic
Performance and Policies section.
Non-teaching Staff Positions
According to a FTE count provided by the Director of Human Resources, there are 39 staff out of
85 total who were neither teachers nor curriculum-related staff. These positions include the
following:
5 Security
4 Discipline
4 Front
office/Admin/Attendance
3 Counseling
4 Operations/Facility
1 Human Resources
1 Development
1 Business Manager
4 Food Service
3 IT and Desktop Support
CONFIDENTIAL
2 Family
Involvement/Support
Services
2.5 Data/ Registrar
1 Compliance Officer
Interviews with staff, observations and staff surveys reveal:
Several full-time staff members may not have responsibilities that warrant full-time positions
and pay.
There are staff members with duplicative roles. This creates two problems: an unnecessary
burden on the schools finances and a lack of clear ownership of the function/responsibility.
Staff members do not receive regular, annual performance reviews, according to interviews
with multiple teachers and staff members at the school. (A detailed review of HR files will be
necessary to confirm this observation.)
The administrative staff consists of an Executive Director, Deputy Executive Director,
Principal, Assistant Principal, and Head Dean. The multiple layer administrative team
appears to create some confusion for staff who express uncertainty about how decisions are
made. The size of the administrative team is larger than comparable schools with this size
student population.
IDEA-PCS employs its own Security, Facility and Food Service employees, as opposed to
contracting these services out as many charter schools do so as to reduce the need to hire,
manage and maintain their own full-time experts.
Attendance, Registrar, Data, and Family Involvement are performed by at least 5.5 different
employees. These functions are often combined into fewer roles (e.g. Family Involvement
and Attendance.)
Four front office staff handles phones, parent inquiries, applications, and administrative
duties. Four front office staff is excessive for a school of this size.
Recommendations
Review all full time non-teaching staff positions and job descriptions. Create clear and fulltime - job descriptions and evaluations for each position.
Reduce number of employees by eliminating duplicative positions and outsourcing, where
appropriate.
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART - GENERAL STRUCTURE AND LINES OF REPORTING

Key Findings
The current organization chart provided by the school shows six direct reports to the Executive
Director: Principal, Business Manager, Deputy Director, Administrative Support/Facility
Management, Operations/Security (Deans), and Director of Technology. (See APPENDIX A) Critical
functions that impact the performance of the school, such as Attendance (omitted from the chart),
Discipline, and Enrollment are separated from the leaders responsible for school performance
(Principal and Deputy Director) and instead housed under the Administrative Support/Facility
Management leader who also oversees Food Service, Custodians, and Transportation or the
Operations Manager/Head of Security.
Restructuring Team consultants who spent significant time at the school observing classes, talking
with teachers, or working with staff and leadership all shared a lack of clarity on where to go for
certain information. It was very difficult to ascertain who was responsible who owned particular
tasks.
Recommendations
Reduce the number of direct reports to the Executive Director (3) and create three
main functions of the school Academic & Behavior Performance (Principal),
Operations (COO) and Development (Development Director).
Connect all academic performance related responsibilities under the Principal
(including attendance, discipline, and enrollment- all of which are in need of
improvement).
Consider a simplified organization chart with clarified reporting lines and scopes of
each position in line with the aforementioned recommendations. The attached
proposed sample organizational chart aims to reduce the number of FTEs appropriate
for a school of 347 students, and to streamline reporting lines. Moreover, it creates
increased ownership over specific areas of the school while clarifying reporting
structures. (See APPENDIX B)
(See APPENDIX C for Revised Teacher Evaluation Process & Results)

(See APPENDIX D for New Teacher Recruitment Update)
CONFIDENTIAL
10
II. GOVERNANCE REPORT

INTRODUCTION
The IDEA Board of Directors and the IDEA Restructuring Team hired Charter Board Partners (CBP)
to assess the effectiveness of the IDEA board, develop an action plan for restructuring the board, and
work with the IDEA Board on the implementation of that plan. CBP began implementation of our
model for improving charter school board effectiveness in early March 2012. (See APPENDIX E.)
In addition to our regular model, CBP identified a top expert in effective governance to provide
training and expertise to the IDEA Board during the restructuring process (her bio is attached to the
end of this report).
CBP believes strongly that, by design, no two charter schools are alike, and that each school needs a
unique board. Therefore, in order to support boards in improving their effectiveness, we work hard to
get to know each individual board. To that end, CBP began our work with IDEA by conducting a
Board Needs Assessment, which included the following elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A self-assessment survey completed by members of the IDEA Board and school leadership
Interviews/conversations with Board members
Review of background materials
Attendance at PCSB hearings and meetings regarding IDEAs status
Extensive and ongoing discussions with TenSquare leaders and members of the restructuring
team
Key Findings
Based on this needs assessment, CBP has identified several key challenges that the IDEA Board
faces. These are common challenges across the charter school sector, and our experience with other
boards has helped us develop recommendations for addressing these challenges. This section briefly
outlines our key findings and recommendations; the rest of this section of the report offers further
detail.
The IDEA Board of Directors shares a deep passion for and commitment to the school. We have
been very impressed with the dedication of the current Board members, as well as the enthusiasm
and seriousness of purpose with which new Board members have joined this work. Unlike many
boards with which we have worked, the IDEA Board is unusually willing to seek advice and take
the steps necessary to improve its effectiveness. This is not typical in the charter school sector,
and we commend this Board for its renewed focus on effective governance.
The IDEA Board of Directors has been functioning as a founding board, not a governing board,
and therefore its leadership of the school has not been as effective and strategic as possible. In
our experience, charter school boards often remain in founding mode for many years after the
founding of the school; the IDEA Board is not alone in this situation. In the last few months, the
Board has already made important strides in identifying how it might improve its effectiveness.
Particular areas in need of improvement include:
CONFIDENTIAL
11
a. Developing a strong strategic plan for the schools sustainability and survival
b. Creating clear annual goals for the Board and monitoring progress towards those
goals
c. Strengthening the committee structure, so that committees have goals tied to the
Boards goals and handle the bulk of the Boards work (in progress)
d. Revamping meeting agendas to focus the majority of Board meeting time on strategic
oversight issues
e. Ensuring that Board members collectively have the skills and experience necessary to
meet the Boards goals (in progress)
f. Evaluating and supporting school leadership
Recommendation: Identify high-priority skills missing from the Board and recruit new Board
members with those skills (Ongoing; needs assessment complete and five new members added)
Recommendation: Remove disengaged Board members and faculty/staff members from the
Board (Ongoing)
Recommendation: Overhaul Board operations to follow best practice for charter school boards
(Ongoing)
Recommendation: Set clear Board goals and put in place a system for tracking progress towards
those goals (Ongoing)
Recommendation: Lay the groundwork for a strategic planning process (Ongoing)
Recommendation: Develop an evaluation plan for the new school leader (Ongoing)
The IDEA Board has not placed sufficient emphasis on the importance of sustained high
academic achievement in the school. Again, the IDEA Board is similar to many charter school
boards in that it has to some extent considered academic achievement to be primarily the
responsibility of the school leadership team. For high-functioning nonprofits, this is actually
considered best practice. However, it is our experience and our opinion that charter school
boards must share responsibility for ensuring high academic achievement, and that in the case of
schools with low academic performance, the board must actually assume leadership in this area to
determine what changes must take place to reverse course. In the last several months, the IDEA
Board has demonstrated a willingness to do this. We believe they are on the right track towards
increasing the Boards focus on academic achievement.
Recommendation: Refocus the Board to place top priority on raising academic achievement and
installing and supporting effective school leadership; set clear Board goals that reflect these
priorities and track progress towards those goals (Ongoing)
Recommendation: Add Board members with deep experience and expertise in organizational
management, school turnaround, data-driven school improvement, and supporting effective
leadership (Ongoing)
Recommendation: Revise Board meeting agendas to ensure that the majority of the Boards
time is focused on its top priorities. (Ongoing)
The IDEA Board has not examined the schools mission in recent years to determine if it is (1)
achievable, (2) measurable, and (3) the best mission to guide the school towards improving
academic achievement. Very few charter schools ever revisit the schools mission. As indicated
in IDEAs letter to the PCSB, the IDEA Board is committed to reevaluating the schools mission
CONFIDENTIAL
12
in its entirety and carefully studying what adjustments need to be made to set the school on a
course of improved student achievement, while preserving the intent of the schools founders and
the unique heart and soul of IDEA.
Recommendation: Convene a mission review committee to revisit the schools mission
statement and lead the Boards work in developing a new mission statement; consult with
academic and school reform experts; seek parent and stakeholder input; and vote on a revised
mission by June 30, 2012
Recommendations for Restructuring Activities

Board Composition: Ensuring that the Right People are Around the Table for the Challenges Facing
IDEA
The first step in board restructuring is ensuring that the right people are around the table for the
significant challenges facing IDEA at this time. When Charter Board Partners was hired, the IDEA
Board had approximately 11 members. Approximately 5 or 6 of those members were faculty/staff
members employed by the school. Another 3 or so members were longtime members who were no
longer participating actively or regularly in the work of the Board. In addition, the Board was out of
compliance in composition; the Board did not include two parents of current IDEA students.
Based on our experience and best practice for charter school boards, the following elements of the
IDEA Boards composition need to be changed. These are common issues facing charter school
founding boards.
Remove faculty and staff members from the Board.
Add members with the skills and experience necessary for a high-functioning,
effective charter school governing board.
Suggest, and then if necessary require, that disengaged (as defined by the
governance committee) Board members step down.
Reinvigorate Board committees and delegate substantial work to relevant and goaloriented committees, rather than primarily to the executive committee and the board
as a whole.
It is our opinion, bolstered by the opinion of CBP expert governance consultants, that having faculty
or staff members serve as full voting board members is not best practice. Since the board is
responsible for evaluating and compensating the school leader, it is a conflict of interest to have
people who report to that leader sitting on the board. We do understand that many charter school
boards do include faculty and/or staff members, and in some cases, it is possible to have those
members recuse themselves when necessary to avoid the conflict of interest. In IDEAs case, given
the major changes that need to be made with regard to school leadership and faculty members and the
challenges involved with a broad and deep school restructuring, we recommend that the Board not
include faculty or staff members at this time and for the foreseeable future.
In the case of long-serving but disengaged Board members, we recommend graciously thanking them
for their service and asking them to step down and open the seat for engaged new board members
with critical skills to take IDEA forward. This is a common challenge for charter school boards. The
longer-term solution is to enforce term limits for all Board members.
CONFIDENTIAL
13
In terms of adding new members, which was identified by the Board as one of CBPs top priorities,
CBP and the executive committee of the Board agreed on key missing skill areas. Through our needs
assessment process, and in close collaboration with Board leadership and the restructuring team, CBP
identified the following recruiting priorities:
Education reformers/school turnaround experience

Leadership capacity/board chair, committee chairs
Legal background/skills
Human resources
Finance
Marketing/PR
Government/community ties
Board experience
Armed with this information, CBP set out to recruit high-caliber people who would bring these skills
and serve as leaders on the Board going forward. We tapped our extensive networks, reached out to
well-connected individuals in the city, and culled the top candidates from our ongoing pool of
interested and trained individuals. We interviewed a number of possible candidates and put together
a slate of people with the leadership capacity and deep experience the Board needs to move forward
as a high-functioning, effective governing board. Board members also brought several candidates to
the table for consideration.
We sent to the IDEA executive committee our CBP Board Candidate Recommendation Packets on
six candidates. The packets included resumes, bios, and our explanation of why we believe each
candidate will be a good fit for the IDEA Board. We gave the candidates extensive background
information on IDEA and briefed each one on IDEAs current situation. The IDEA executive
committee interviewed all six recommended candidates; either Josh Kern or Katie Herman from
TenSquare was present for all interviews. The Board decided to move forward with the six
candidates. All six confirmed interest in serving on the IDEA Board, and the Board voted all six onto
the board; however, one candidate later withdrew for personal reasons unrelated to the IDEA Board.
The five new members bring high-priority skills and outstanding qualifications to the IDEA Board.
The following chart highlights the skills/experience each one brings. (See APPENDIX F)
New Member
Joanne Fort
High priority skill areas

Leadership capacity, board experience, legal experience
Garrett Rush
Leadership capacity, finance, strategic planning
Calvin Snowden
Leadership capacity, board experience, community ties
Kelly Nakamoto
Finance expertise, board experience, leadership capacity
Keith Stephenson Education reform, school leadership, leadership capacity
Charter Board Partners has identified at least one additional academic candidate for recruitment to the
Board to ensure there are at least two members with the right kind of relevant educational expertise
CONFIDENTIAL
14
on the IDEA Board. We will work with the Board during the months of May and June to move one
or more final candidate(s) forward towards a vote.
To bring HR and communications expertise to the Board in the short term, CBP has identified the
following experts, who are offering their support and advice on a pro bono basis:
1. An attorney with Latham & Watkins, who has extensive experience with employment law
2. Two attorneys with Latham & Watkins who bring human resources experience
3. A vice president at Edelman, who specializes in crisis communications, strategic
communications and marketing, and public relations
Board Development: Launching IDEAs Governing Board
The second step in the restructuring process is transitioning the IDEA Board from a founding board
to a governing board. Many charter school boards remain in founding board mode for years after
their schools founding. The IDEA Board shares that common predicament. Based on our needs
assessment and our experience with other boards in similar circumstances, Charter Board Partners is
recommending a series of changes that we believe will enable the IDEA Board to complete its
transition from founding board to governing board. The main elements of CBPs proposed board
restructuring plan include:
Changing the boards focus
o Refocusing the Board to consider student achievement to be its primary concern and
responsibility
o Training the Board in what it means to be accountable for student achievement
Understanding board roles
o Training the Board to function effectively while staying in the realm of governance,
not management
o Creating detailed descriptions of the responsibilities of Board members, Board
committees, and Board officers
Board functioning
o Revising Board bylaws
o Setting up a robust committee structure and ensuring that committees have clear
goals, meet regularly, and collectively handle roughly 80 percent of the work of the
Board
o Establishing clear goals for the Board and all committees, with timelines
o Using more strategic agendas for Board meetings
o Setting norms of best practice (e.g., sending Board materials out 4 to 7 days in
advance of a meeting)
o Conducting an annual self-evaluation of the Board
School leader evaluation
o Planning proactively for setting up a strong evaluation process for the new leadership
team
o Ensuring that the new leader has a clear job description and goals from the day he or
she starts
CBP has engaged Dr. Michela Perrone to provide training and additional expertise to assist the Board
in its restructuring as the Board works to adopt better governance practices. Dr. Perrone brings many
years of experience as a board consultant and coach, as well as the Executive Director of a school.
(See APPENDIX G)
CONFIDENTIAL
15
A key element in the board development process was the IDEA Board Retreat on April 14, 2012.
With the help of Charter Board Partners and TenSquare, new and continuing Board members
participated in a full-day retreat that included training on best board practice as well as a strategic
planning session. (See APPENDIX H) Dr. Perrone facilitated the day. The retreat was extremely
well received by Board members and served as the de facto launch of the restructured Board.
It was determined at the retreat that the Board should create a stronger infrastructure by organizing
into the following standing committees and task forces:
Standing Committees:
o Executive
o Academic
o Governance
o Finance/Development
Task Forces:
o Mission Review
o HR/Staffing
o Restructuring/Compliance with PCSB Conditions
o Communications
The Board agreed on key goals for each committee/task force, focusing on those most critical to
meeting the PCSBs conditions. This work is outlined below.
Board Actions To Date and Proposed Actions with Timetables

The IDEA Board has taken a number of steps towards restructuring, based on the findings of the
CBPs needs assessment and program review and on the work of the restructuring team. The Board
has taken the following actions to satisfy the PCSB conditions that must be met by May 15, 2012 and
to lay the groundwork for upcoming deadlines:
1. Elected a New Board Chair. On April 19, 2012, the IDEA Board unanimously elected
David Owens to serve as the new Board Chair. Although the recommendation of CBP
and the Restructuring Team was that Mr. Owens assume Board leadership effective May
1, the current Board Chair, Col. Joe Stull, expressed a preference to remain Board Chair
through the end of the school year. Col. Stull will remain Board Chair until the end of
the school year and preside over the opening of the new facility and the end of school
year activities, while Mr. Owens will lead all Board work related to the schools
restructuring.
2. Elected five new Board members. The IDEA Board accepted the slate of new members
in the chart below and elected them to the IDEA Board on the dates shown below. Three
of the new members were elected before the PCSB designated date of April 30, 2012 and
the remaining two members were elected before the May 15, 2012 deadline.
CONFIDENTIAL
16
New Board Member

Joanne Fort
Calvin Snowden
Garrett Rush
Keith Stephenson
Kelly Nakamoto
Date Voted onto Board

April 19, 2012
April 19, 2012
April 19, 2012
May 11, 2012
May 11, 2012
1. Convened a Mission Review Task Force. The IDEA Board formed a Mission Review
Task Force, led by two new Board members, Joanne Fort and Calvin Snowden. The Task
Force held its first meeting on April 24, 2012. (See APPENDIX I) (It was not possible to
convene the Task Force by April 1, per the plan indicated in the February 14 submission
to PCSB, as the new Board members were not yet in the position to lead that work.) At
the April 24 meeting, Task Force members heard reports from key consultants on the
Restructuring Team to ensure that the mission review is done in tandem and is fully
integrated with the restructuring of the academic program. The Task Force also reviewed
information about IDEAs performance, supplementing information that the entire Board
heard at the April 14 retreat; members also conducted research about school missions,
and discussed the implications of each element of the mission statement. The Task Force
then crafted the following new mission statement, which will be presented to the IDEA
Board at its May 17, 2012 meeting for discussion and review:
The mission of IDEA Public Charter School is to prepare students for postsecondary opportunities and to be responsible citizens who contribute to the
community.
This mission has been reviewed by the school reform experts on the Restructuring Team, as
well as by David Owens, as the Restructuring Team chair. The Task Force has not yet been
able to present the proposed new mission to IDEA parents for review and discussion. Given
the uncertainty earlier in the year and the many changes facing the Board and the parent
community at this time, it was not optimal to involve parents in the initial mission review.
However, Board members are committed to seeking parent input as the mission review
process moves forward and will work to build parent support for and engagement around the
revised mission.
2. Scheduled the formal approval of the new committee structure for the May Board
Meeting. The IDEA Board has placed on the agenda for the May 17, 2012 Board
meeting the formal approval of a new committee structure that was discussed during the
Board retreat. The new structure is as follows:
Standing Committees:
Executive Committee
Academic Committee
Governance Committee
Finance/Development Committee
Task Forces:
Mission Review
CONFIDENTIAL
17
HR/Staffing
Restructuring/Compliance with PCSB Conditions
Communications
In addition, the IDEA Board plans to take the following actions according to the timetables set out in
this report, and based on the Boards decisions during its retreat.
1. The Mission Review Task Force will finalize the review of the new mission
statement and prepare any necessary Charter Amendment by July 12, 2012. Prior to
that date, the Board will create opportunities to seek parent input on the revised
mission statement.
2. The Governance Committee will conduct a review of the current bylaws and
recommend changes to the Board for adoption before July 31, 2012. Dr. Perrone will
serve as the advisor to the Governance Committee.
3. The Academic Committee will review the DC CAS results, create an academic action
plan based on the results, and bring the DC CAS results and the academic action plan
to the Board for review in August 2012, or as soon as DC CAS data is made
available. The Academic Committee will work hand-in-hand with the restructuring
team for the next 3 to 4 months, developing a clear and full sense of the challenges
and the plan for overhauling the academic program of the school. As the work of the
consultants winds down, the academic committee will take the mantle of overseeing
the progress of the schools new leadership team, and will identify and access
whatever support the instructional team of the school needs. The Academic
Committee will provide significant leadership on the Board in focusing board
meetings and deliberations on the achievement of the students; the committee will
produce a dashboard and keep the full Board updated every month on indicators of
progress and potential obstacles. CBP and TenSquare will provide ongoing support
to this committee as needed.
4. The Communications Task Force will work with an expert communications
consultant from Edelman, who will assist the committee in creating and
implementing a comprehensive communication strategy by June 30, 2012. The plan
will focus in the short term on a coordinated plan for communicating with the parent
community, reaching out to prospective students, and sharing the progress of the
restructuring team with the PCSB, the public and other stakeholders.
5. The HR/Staffing Task Force will work with the Restructuring Chair and consultants
to review the schools staffing plans, and will keep the Board informed about all
matters related to staffing. This task force will take the lead in developing a
communications plan for the Board to handle upcoming changes in composition of
faculty and staff. The task force is being advised by attorneys from Latham &
Watkins. The bulk of the Task Forces work will be completed by June 30, 2012.
CONFIDENTIAL
18
III. ACADEMIC PROGRAM & PERFORMANCE REPORT

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE & POLICIES
A comprehensive review of the academic program was conducted that included reviews of the
following: Academic Policy Handbook, Student Handbook, senior student transcripts, course catalog,
community service policies and student hours, staffing plan and master schedule. Within this review,
the promotion policy, course sequencing, and graduation requirements were also analyzed. Findings
of the review are summarized below.
Key Findings
The overall findings of the review indicate that while many necessary components (master schedule,
course catalog, staffing plan) exist, the overall academic program is plagued by a lack of coordination
between the various documents and procedures that negatively impact student academic achievement
in a direct way. The audit indicates that these documents and policies were created in isolation and
do not work in tandem to create a comprehensive academic program. Moreover, a review of the
documents revealed inconsistencies between the various policies and handbooks that should be
addressed.
In order to establish a comprehensive academic program, school academic polices and staffing
models must be united around student achievement. The master schedule should be directly linked to
course sequencing, graduation requirements, and the staffing plan. In the case of IDEA, however, it is
evident that these elements are not linked and instead function in isolation. A review of senior
transcripts demonstrates that students do not enroll in courses following a predetermined sequence.
Furthermore, inadequate course sequencing detrimentally contributes to student outcomes as students
are not enrolling in courses that are prerequisites for state and national standardized tests at the
appropriate grade level. As a result of poor scheduling and a lack of established course sequencing,
students matriculate to twelfth grade lacking coursework from prior grades. Furthermore, because of
the challenges identified with the master schedule, the staffing plan is also impacted. Teachers teach
unequal class loads with tremendous variation in core class size, ranging from as low as two to over
twenty. IDEA has failed to maximize on teacher staffing due to an inefficient master schedule and
lack of course sequencing.
In 2007, the District of Columbia adopted new graduation requirements beginning with the class of
2010. IDEA failed to revise its graduation requirements to conform to those adopted by the state, and
the schools graduation requirements do not align with those adopted by the District of Columbia
State Board of Education in math or science. While most students enrolled in coursework necessary
to meet the 2007 state graduation requirements, four students were missing the required four years of
math coursework. Additionally, a review of the documents indicated above did not clearly define
what, if any, JROTC course requirements students needed to complete. While some policies indicated
that students needed to complete four years of JROTC, the graduation requirements had no such
indication. About one-fourth of students did not complete four years of JROTC. Lastly, courses that
do not appear to meet the rigor of core content courses (e.g. Bridges to Algebra), especially in math,
have been used to meet core course graduation requirements.
CONFIDENTIAL
19
An audit of senior transcripts was conducted, including the review of senior transcripts, senior
schedules, and senior report cards from semester one as of April 1. The review found numerous
discrepancies, some of which have been since remedied. IDEA underwent three changes to the master
schedule in the 2011-12 school year. As a result, semester one senior report cards did not match
students schedules. Course titles and Carnegie unit assignments were not consistent between the
Course Catalog, student schedules, and student report cards. Letters of Understanding (LOUs), while
included for most students, were not accurately completed and lacked signatures. Because graduation
requirements were not aligned to District of Columbia requirements, some students were not enrolled
in necessary math classes. Transcripts indicated inconsistent practices were followed for indicating
coursework taken at other school or summer coursework. This included courses converted with
inaccurate titles from the prior school or incorrectly recorded as coursework taken at IDEA instead of
at a prior school, and summer coursework being attributed to regular school-year coursework.
Promotion policies in the Student Handbook, Course Catalog and Academic Policy Handbook were
audited. The audit reveals discrepancies between promotion policies found in each of the three
documents. In total, four different versions of the promotion policy were identified. While all polices
had similar underlying tenets, the inconsistencies must be remedied. The policy attempts to consider
which courses a student passes as well as how many total credits a student accumulates each year.
However, the policy does not account for how a student progresses throughout the four years of high
school. For example, 9th grade students are required to pass six courses including English, math,
science, social studies - yielding a higher-than-necessary number of students designated as not ontrack in 9th grade. Additionally, the restrictive policies result in increased numbers of students
retained, and potentially increasing transfers for students who could qualify as on-grade level at
another school. Most concerning in the promotion policies is the statement that indicates that
students who meet IEP goals or ELL goals will pass a course. Earning a passing grade in a course
should never be tied to a students IEP goals or ELL goals. Students who are receiving a four-year
high school diploma must earn the same credits and demonstrate course mastery like their non-special
education or non-ELL peers. A student who only meets his/her IEP goals should earn a certificate of
attendance, not a high school diploma.
A review of all available senior community service hours as of April 1 was conducted. At the time, 18
of 65 seniors had completed community service requirements and five of the 65 had at least 80 hours.
While many of the elements of an effective community service tracking program are in place, the
review indicated inconsistent use of the community service form, instances of service attributed to
community service that should be reevaluated as part of defining community service (e.g. babysitting, cutting hair, buying medicine), and a need to prohibit family members from signing off on
community service forms. A clearly defined community service policy should be implemented for the
2012-13 school year to remedy these concerns.
A review of the Course Catalog assessed course sequencing, and course credit delineation was
conducted. The review indicated that the Course Catalog included necessary elements such as course
title, course descriptions, course Carnegie Unit assignments, and course textbooks. Although course
descriptions were included for each course, the descriptions lack a consistent format and rarely
indicate what student outcomes will be. The English and Math department include courses that are
not core courses within their offerings. Course offerings in technical fields indicate several courses
that lead to industry certification; however, records indicate that no more than two industry exams
have been passed by IDEA students within the last two years. Additionally, review of AP course data
indicates low enrollment in a number of classes:
Two students enrolled in AP World History.
Four students enrolled in AP Calculus.
Four students enrolled in AP Chemistry
CONFIDENTIAL
20
Ten students enrolled in AP Literature and Composition

Records also indicate that no IDEA student has received a passing grade on an AP exam.
The review of course sequencing also indicates that current practices do not maximize student
achievement, including a lack of clear course sequencing in both science and JROTC courses. Senior
transcripts reviewed revealed that of the sixty-five seniors:
Eight were not scheduled for all necessary coursework to graduate in June of
2012.
Four students enrolled in geometry, a course necessary for students to complete
by tenth grade because it is tested on the DC CAS.
Ten students were enrolled in Algebra II, a course that is assessed by the SAT
exam and should be completed by junior year.
Seventeen students enrolled in Business Math (a fourth year math course) and one
other math class (Algebra II or geometry). The double enrollment in math classes
indicates students were not scheduled for necessary math coursework in prior
years.
Fourteen students were enrolled in Spanish II. Students should complete the
foreign language requirement prior to senior year to provide ample space in a
students schedule to repeat the course, if necessary.
Eighteen students enrolled in US History, typically the junior level history course.
Eight students enrolled in World History courses, typically geared for freshman or
sophomore year.
Ten students enrolled in Earth Science, a 9th grade course. One student was
enrolled in biology, a course typically taught in 9th or 10th grade. Nine students
enrolled in two science classes. Some of these students were never enrolled in a
science class in a prior school year or had failed a previous course.
Six students enrolled in JROTC 2 or 3, fourteen students not enrolled in any
JROTC course, and forty-five students enrolled in JRTOC 4.
Several other academic policies were reviewed that are worth noting. While the Academic Policy
Handbook has a policy for student entry into honors courses, honors courses were absent from student
transcripts. It is not clear if these courses are being offered. To ensure school-wide consistency,
policies relating to student grade calculations should be well defined and administered at the school
level, rather than at the teacher level. Additionally, attendance policies should be consistent schoolwide and attendance should not be tied to grade calculations. Control levels for access to the Student
Information System are lacking (Power School SIS), and currently allow office staff and substitute
teachers access to both view and enter data into the SIS. Lastly, grade reporting policies should be
reviewed to maximize parent-student communication about academic progress.
Recommendations
See APPENDIX J for SY 12-13 Draft Master Schedule

See APPENDIX K for Recommended Assessment Plan for New Students
See APPENDIX L for Draft SY 12-13 Course Catalog
Graduation Requirements- New graduation requirements should be established to include,

at a minimum, the state required coursework in all subjects. JROTC should be included in
elective credit requirements to allow students to take the course while still meeting state
graduation requirements for elective credit. Separating JRTOC from elective credit places
CONFIDENTIAL
21
an undue burden on students and jeopardizes students matriculation. Revised graduation

requirements have been included in the draft Course Catalog.
Community Service- IDEA should revise community service policies to include a clear
definition of community service that includes specific designations for service performance.
Additionally, the school should adopt policies that require service completion throughout a
students four years. Specifically IDEA should:
Revise the Community Service form to include a designation for type of service
(non-profit, government, other).
Exclude service for family members, neighbors, etc. from the community service
definition.
Establish minimum service requirements for students to complete by the end of
10th grade to ensure students are on track to accumulate adequate hours by
graduation without potentially having to fulfill all 100 hours in their senior year.
Promotion Policies- IDEA must identify a single promotion policy that takes into account
student credits, along with coursework, while considering a students progression over four
years towards graduation. (Revised promotion requirements have been included in the draft
Course Catalog. Additionally, all language about IEP goals and ELL goals should be
removed from promotion policies.
Transcripts- The school should establish polices for transfer credits and summer school
credits that ensure accuracy and fidelity.
Course Catalog/ Course offerings- While the Course Catalog is organized by department
and reveals that students may select from a broad range of courses, the following specific
revisions to the course catalog are required:
A course matrix should be included to delineate how courses are counted toward
course graduation requirements.
While course descriptions were included for each course, the descriptions should
be revised to include a general description for the course, course topics, and
student outcomes for each course.
Course offerings in each department should only include core course offerings.
Support courses such as Bridges to Algebra and Principles of Geometry
should be removed from the math department course offering and be provided
only as elective coursework. Students should not receive math credit for support
courses. This is true for English as well.
Course offerings should be reviewed to assess how they benefit student academic
achievement and ensure graduation requirements are met. Several course
offerings, especially in math, appear to be superfluous courses that do not hold
students to high expectations.
Course offerings such as AP courses and French should be reviewed to assess
student demand.
Advanced Placement course offerings should be scaled back for the upcoming
school year. The entire AP program should be curtailed for the 2012-13 school
year as part of broader academic course changes. To provide increased rigor for
students who need challenging coursework, honors courses should be
implemented in lieu of AP courses.
CONFIDENTIAL
22
The Course Catalog includes an extensive offering of industry courses that lead to
industry certification. A review of student outcomes on industry certification
indicates that in SY 2010-11, one student passed an industry exam. In SY 2011-12
two students passed industry exams. Given the low number of passed industry
exams, the course curricula and outcomes should be reviewed to consider if the
courses are in fact aligned with industry exams.
Course offerings should be reviewed to ensure that Carnegie Units, course title,
and course prerequisites in the Course Catalog align with student transcripts and
school practices.
Course Sequencing - A four-year course sequence should be developed that ensures

students are able to meet all graduation requirements within four years. The course
sequence should take into account course prerequisites, student academic needs, and
graduation requirements. The course sequence must align with the graduation requirements
for the District of Columbia. Further, it should allow for support classes in math and reading
for struggling students. Additionally, it should ensure students take necessary core
coursework in 9th and 10th grade and leave elective offerings for upper grades to ensure
students maximize graduation-required courses early on. A sample course sequence has
been provided in the Draft Course Catalog.
Other Academic Policies: In addition to changes recommended in specific documents, the

following are changes recommended to general academic policies currently practiced by
IDEA.
Establish an honors policy that maximizes student interest. The honors policy
indicates students must earn an 85% or higher in a course to be in an honors
course. IDEA should reduce this requirement to ensure that a diverse group of
students who need the academic rigor are able to enroll in the course.
Establish policies for calculating student GPAs that take into account honors
and Advanced Placement courses. Currently, no distinction is made between any
courses for GPA calculations.
Develop a policy for students who transfer in after 9th grade and credit
accumulation. The absence of such a policy creates inconsistent transfer credits
being applied.
Establish a school-wide grading policy. Current policies indicate that each
teacher establishes his/her own grading policy. Grading policies should be schoolwide to ensure students are graded equally in each course on student outcomes,
not teacher beliefs.
Define how final grades are calculated. Current policies allow teachers to define
how final grades are calculated. The school should adopt a consistent single
policy on how mid-term, quarter, and final grades are calculated. The absence of
clear policies around grading practices jeopardizes student achievement and
creates confusion for students and parents.
Eliminate student behavior from grade calculations. Current policies indicate
that a students behavior is factored into his/her grade. Grades should only factor
in actual tangible outcomes that demonstrate student mastery of content rather
than subjective measures such as behavior.
Eliminate attendance from grade calculations. Current policies indicate that a
students attendance factors into 12% of a students grade. Grades should only
factor in actual tangible outcomes that demonstrate student mastery of content
rather than attendance. The current policy does not indicate how attendance
should be calculated or what constitutes attendance. Policies for attendance should
CONFIDENTIAL
23
be tied to total days missed from a class that are consistent school-wide. For
example, a school-wide policy for loss-of-credit should be established that
determines that after a given number of days absent, a student loses credit for a
quarter resulting in a grade of F being given. An appeal process should be
simultaneously established to allow students to appeal loss of credit in extenuating
circumstances. The policy, however, must be school-wide and administered at the
administrative level rather than the teacher level to ensure consistency and
fairness.
Revise attendance policy that counts a student as present for the entire day for
one period of attendance. The current policy indicates that a student is considered
present for a full day of school if he/she was present for one class period. This
type of attendance policy is misleading and creates a false sense of daily
attendance rate. A student should be present for at least half of a school day to be
counted as present.
Establish school-wide policies for attendance monitoring. Attendance policies as
written do not create a continuum that establishes responsibility for taking student
attendance, for reviewing daily attendance, and for monitoring student attendance
at the administrative level. The policy as written creates a system where numerous
people interact with attendance data throughout the school day, but the ultimate
responsibility for student attendance is not addressed.
Develop controls for access to student information systems (SIS). Levels of
access to the SIS should be established to ensure that student record information
such as attendance, grades or biographical information can only be accessed and
changed by designated staff.
Reduce grade reporting periods. The current turn-around time for grade
processing between the end of a quarter and issuance of report cards is four
weeks. Quarters usually consist of about 45 days. Parents receiving notification of
progress in a prior quarter four weeks after the end of the marking period is
almost half-way through the end of the next marking period. The turnaround time
should be reduced to two weeks.
Establish consistent school wide policies for academic areas. The following
areas of the academic program should be included in the Academic Policy
Handbook and are currently absent:
Policies for missing work, make-up work, and late assignments.
Policies for grade changes initiated by teachers including a timeline.
Policies for student technology use. Given the vast technology
resources at the school, an Acceptable Use Agreement should be
developed for student use of technology, including the internet.
Policies for student use of the library and media center.
Policies for academic good-standing in relation to participation in
extra-curricular activities.
Policies related to summer school and the use of summer school for
credit recovery or credit accumulation.
(See APPENDIX M for Summer School 2012)
CONFIDENTIAL
24
MILITARY & CAREER PROGRAM

Background
The Integrated Design and Electronics IDEA public charter school (IDEA) Charter High School was
developed from the Phelps Career IDEA Public Charter School established at Phelps High School in
September 1993. The IDEA Public Charter School was designed on a career model - a careerfocused school-within-a-school that integrates academic and occupational curricula, increases student
career options and provides a meaningful learning context for both potential dropouts and collegebound youth. The Phelps Career IDEA Public Charter School was one of nine similar programs
initiated through a pilot effort in 1993, jointly sponsored and funded by the U.S. Departments of
Education and Defense. However, in 1998, when funding expired, the program converted to the
IDEA Public Charter High School, and Phelps was closed by the District of Columbia Public School
(DCPS) system. The mission of IDEA Public Charter School is to develop young people with the
academic, social, leadership and occupational skills to compete successfully in post-secondary
education/training and enter challenging careers in the technical fields of work.
JROTC
Since its inception, JROTC has been a part of IDEAs academic program. Currently, JROTC classes
from level I to V are offered for students in grades 9 12. The classes, taught by retired military
personal, are the basis for developing student character and leadership qualities at the school. Military
dress is written into the uniform policy and students are required to wear military uniforms on
designated school days. Military language is infused into the school program such as using the word
cadets for students.
The JROTC program was reviewed based on classroom observations, Academic Policies, student
schedules and transcripts, and the Student Handbook.
Key Findings
Course offerings - While JROTC courses are offered from level I to V, there are no clear
policies on which students enroll in JROTC V. Given that students begin the course
sequence in 9th grade, it is unclear how students matriculate through to Level V. Student
scheduling in regards to JROTC has resulted in students at varying grade levels being
enrolled in JROTC classes. For example, in the senior class of 2012, the following is a
breakdown of student enrollment in JROTC:
o
o
o
o
Three students enrolled in JROTC 2

Three students enrolled in JROTC 3
Forty-five students enrolled in JROTC 4
Fourteen students not enrolled in any JROTC course
Course enrollment Approximately 25% of seniors in the class of 2012 were not enrolled
in JROTC during the senior year or completed JROTC levels I to IV. School policies
conflict in regards to JROTC being a mandated course. Some graduation documents include
a four-year JROTC requirement while others do not. At times, JROTC is included as an
elective on course documents while at others it is a requirement.
CONFIDENTIAL
25
Course outcomes A review of the policies and classroom observations reveals an absence
of course outcomes and structure. While physical training in the form of marching drills was
observed, no instruction in leadership or citizenship was evident.
ASVAB exam IDEA students take the ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude
Battery) assessment. Student results were not available for this review.
Class observations Class observations revealed that JROTC instruction was inconsistent.
In some classes students were observed in marching drills while in others no visible
instruction was evident.
Recommendations
Revise the graduation requirements to specify what the school specific requirements for
JROTC are. Consider transfer students in the development of this policy.
Revise the JROTC program to establish course outcomes that include measurable objectives
for leadership, self-discipline, and physical aspects of the curriculum.
Adopt a JROTC curriculum based on research-based programs that include measurable
student outcomes for citizenship, self-discipline, and physical criteria.
Train JROTC instructors in this curriculum with regular observations from instructional
staff.
Establish outcomes for the ASVAB exam that include measuring student progress with
diagnostics, baselines, and benchmarks.
Determine what role JROTC will have in the school program including uniform policies,
language, Code of Conduct. If JROTC will be infused into school-wide elements, all staff
should receive training on these elements so that they can be infused into the entire school
program.
CAREER ACADEMIES
IDEA academic program infuses career courses into its course offerings. Throughout the schools
history, the courses have been part of course offerings, and the school has utilized various academy
models. In the most recent school year, IDEA has partnered with the National Academies Foundation
(NAF) to develop its career academies.
The career academy is a reform initiative that aims to improve high school students career readiness
while simultaneously situating graduates to be college-ready. The common definition of career
academies denotes a minimum of three core program features: (1) a small learning community; (2) a
curriculum combining career focus with meeting college entrance requirements; and (3) partnerships
with supporting employers, community members, and institutions of higher education (Stern, D.,
Dayton, C., Raby, M (2010) Career Academies: A proven strategy to prepare high school students
for college and careers. Career Academy Support Network. Berkeley, CA.). IDEAs current career
program does not meet any of these three components with fidelity based on a review of the
Academic Policy Handbook, student schedules, transcripts, master schedule and Student Handbook.
CONFIDENTIAL
26
Career Academy
Component
Small learning
community
Criteria
met at
IDEA
2011-12
No
A curriculum
combining career
focus with meeting
college entrance
requirements
No
Partnerships with
supporting employers,
community members
and institutions of
higher education
Unclear
Findings from
Consultants/Restructuring Team
Considerations
In the very beginning of IDEA, this

was the case as IDEA was a small
school within Phelps HS. IDEA,
since becoming a charter school
operates as a whole-school model.
Small learning communities do not
exist.
Reviews of transcripts reveal that
students are enrolled as the schedule
permits, rather than follow any
predetermined sequence or course
plan. Classroom observations reveal
there is no link between the career
courses and college requirements
Given the projected enrollment

for high school students in SY
12-13, it is not feasible to
establish small learning
communities
While IDEA has identified specific

partners, little to no evidence has
been found of these partnerships and
how they translate to the academic
program. It is unclear what students
gain from any of these partnerships
and the extent to which these
partnerships impact actual student
learning and outcomes.
IDEA should revamp its course

sequencing and offerings to
align with DC state graduation
requirements. Specific
consideration should be given
as to how career courses count
towards graduation. The role of
industry exams in career
courses should be reviewed.
In considering the career
academy model, IDEA should
work with the business
community, community
members and higher education
to determine what needs
regarding employment exists
and how IDEA can help
support the market forces. Dual
enrollment should be
specifically explored.
Currently, a variety of career courses are offered for students according to the Course Catalog
including:
A+ Certification
AutoCAD I
AutoCAD II
Computer Repair
Digital Video and Web Design
Drafting I
Electrical Wiring I
Electrical Wiring II
Introduction to Computers/Computer
Applications
Introduction to Keyboarding
Introduction to Technology (Intro to
Tech)
IT Essentials & Practical Applications
Microsoft Office
CONFIDENTIAL
Network +
Principles of Technology
27
However, a clear career academy model has not been instituted resulting in little student success in
regards to completion of industry certifications. Scheduling reveals not all courses are offered every
school year leaving gaps in students schedules and course offerings. Course offerings have been
based on who the school has hired (teacher) rather than what courses need to be offered to provide
consistent career sequencing. While the NAF curriculum has been purchased for the 2011-12 school
year, implementation at IDEA is not evident outside of written NAF documentation. Student
schedules reveal the absence of a consistent career academy that follows a predetermined course
sequence.
Key Findings
Students do not enroll in a comprehensive academy program. Students enroll in courses

based on openings in their schedules. Therefore, a student may enroll in Network + and
Electrical Wiring. For example,
o In the class of 2012, 0 students enrolled in Digital Video Web Design from grade 912.
o In the class of 2012, only 1 student enrolled in Electrical Wiring I and Electrical
Wiring II from grade 9-12.
o In the class of 2012, only 1 student enrolled in CAD I and CAD II from grade 9-12. In
the class of 2012, 2 students enrolled in A+ certification from grade 9-12.
Students enroll in as many as four career courses in one school year to as few as none. Due
to the lack of course sequencing and consistent career offerings, students may enroll in as
many as four difference career courses in one school year. The subsequent school year, the
same student will enroll in none as s/he is then making up core courses in which s/he was not
enrolled in the prior school year.
A full-fledged career academy model is not in place. Career academies are standalone
academies within a school that allow student to select a course of study and matriculate
through coursework in a selected field. Coursework in core courses aligns with the career
focus. Core courses have no alignment with any career courses. Students are not in any given
academy but instead are scheduled based on availability.
At least one technology instructor teaching technology courses does not have the
certification requirements to teach the course (no industry certification or college degree in
technology).
While preparation for industry exams is highlighted in each course offering, no more than
two industry exams have been passed by IDEA students in the past two school years.
Recommendations
IDEA should scale back the career course offerings for the 2012-13 school year and undergo
a career academy review process to determine what career courses the school wants to build
its academic program upon. Due August 31, 2012
Course alignment to industry exams should be distinctly reviewed given the historical pass
rates on these exams. Due August 31, 2012
Career teachers should have industry requirements and training to teach specified career
courses. Due August 31, 2012
Review industry needs in the District of Columbia to determine which career fields are most
critical to the economic landscape. Utilize this information to develop a course sequence for
student matriculation. Due December 31, 2012
CONFIDENTIAL
28
Consult with the higher education community and business leaders to identify opportunities
for partnerships. Consider working alongside the Community College of the District of
Columbia (CCDC) to identify dual-enrollment program opportunities. Due December 31,
2012
CONFIDENTIAL
29
CORE CURRICULUM & TEXTBOOK AUDIT

TenSquare contracted with subject-specific experts, each with 10-15 years of curriculum and
instruction experience in secondary Math, Science, English or Social Studies, to conduct audits of the
core curriculum and textbooks provided by IDEA. (See APPENDIX N) The English and Social
Studies auditor also has more than 20 hours in Common Core Standards professional development.
To date, audits have been completed for the following core courses:
Math: Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2 and Pre-Calculus
Science: Biology, Chemistry, Environmental Science, Anatomy & Forensics
English: English I, English II, English III, English IV
Social Studies: World History I, World History II, US History, US Government & Politics
Middle School core course curriculum will be audited by May 31, 2012. Advanced Placement courses
will not be audited because the Restructuring Team recommends that IDEA not offer AP courses in
SY 12-13 and instead offer Honors courses.
Curriculum Overview
Curricula in high school core content areas (math, social studies, English, and science) were reviewed
to understand the academic program of the school. In reviewing the curriculum, auditors considered
alignment to state or national standards, unit plans, pacing, assessments and use supporting materials.
Each curriculum was reviewed based on seven broad curricular elements as well as specific content of
each unit. The curricular elements included:
1. Use of textbook. Auditors reviewed the effective use of the textbook provided. Auditors
considered the alignment of the text to the content of the unit plans.
2. Use of support materials. Auditors reviewed any supporting materials such as
supplementary readings, manipulatives, primary sources, etc. that were included in the
curriculum. Supporting materials were reviewed in regard to their alignment with the
standards and context of each unit as well as their use for differentiated instruction.
3. Authentic assessments. When provided, any authentic assessments were reviewed to
determine alignment to the standards. Corresponding rubrics were reviewed to assess
reliability of the rubric to the content of the assessment.
4. Summative assessments. Any summative assessment unit test, mid-term exam, final exam,
chapter test, etc. was reviewed, as appropriate. Assessments were reviewed based on
alignment to the unit, standards, and supporting curricular materials. Special attention was
given to the alignment of the assessment to the unit objectives.
5. Objectives. Unit objectives were reviewed based on alignment to the standards. Additionally,
objectives were evaluated on complexity, rigor and correspondence to Blooms taxonomy or
Marzanos Yardstick, as used.
CONFIDENTIAL
30
6. Measurable objectives. Objectives were assessed to determine if they are measurable and
have concrete outcomes that align to the standards and units of study.
7. Pacing. The pacing of each unit was evaluated to determine if the length of time devoted to
each unit was adequate. Additionally, the pacing was analyzed in regards to the depth of the
unit, the objectives, and supporting materials.
For each content area, each subject was reviewed individually. A summary of findings for each
subject will be included as well as recommendations for immediate and long term action.
Key Findings
The curricula reviewed provided insight into IDEAs academic program. While most curricula
included all the elements and foundations of curriculum material unit plans, standards, objectives,
and authentic assessments - revisions are required to improve overall quality and rigor of curriculum
as well as alignment to standards, summative assessments, and higher order instruction. Moreover,
curriculum lacked any supplementary standards and cross-content infusion. Incorporating
supplementary standards (e.g. algebra I standards into geometry) and cross-content standards (e.g.
writing standards into social studies) would provide more in-depth instruction and provide
remediation as needed. Furthermore, it would allow for clear vertical alignment, which is currently
missing from the curriculum. The absence of summative assessments from curriculum should be
remedied immediately to ensure that all instructors clearly know what student should be able to do
at the culmination of the course. Without assessments, instruction cannot be planned backwards, a
best-practice for instruction. As noted, while the basic elements are present in each content area,
extensive revisions are recommended.
Recommendations
A cumulative review of all curriculum and suggested revisions yields the following most immediate
actions: for immediate revisions; January 31, 2013 for full development
Align math curriculum to Common Core standards.

Develop essential questions, measurable objectives, and higher order objectives for each unit.
Develop unit summative assessments, mid-term and end-year exams for all subject areas.
Develop school-wide rubric elements to align rubrics across content and grade levels
focusing on content mastery rather than processes and procedures for authentic assessments.
Develop curriculum for US Government.
Align course descriptions in Course Catalog to curriculum.
Recommendations for each content area are included in each core subject area in the attached report.
It is important to note that curricular revisions are a lengthy process requiring a variety of
stakeholders to be involved. While every curriculum reviewed requires extensive revision, the school
should consider either immediately working one full grade level, such as 9th grade, or on one entire
content area, such as math. Methodical revisions will allow horizontal or vertical alignment to be
addressed while making necessary changes. Addressing revisions in a scattered process should be
strongly discouraged. Last, school-wide curricular templates should be devised so that all curriculums
include the same element. A suggested format would include:
Electronic word document format
CONFIDENTIAL
31
Course overview and summary that includes:

o Description of the course
o Content emphasis of the course
o Course units with length of unit
o Skill emphasis of the course
o Standards for the course
o Supplementary standards
o Textbook and major reading/ supporting sources
Unit map for each unit completed including essential questions, objectives, standards,
supporting standards, activities, assessments, authentic assessments, alternative activities with
modifications
Assessments for each unit (major tests, projects, etc.)
o All projects must include a standards aligned rubric
Midterm and Final Exams with answer key
See complete core curriculum summaries in APPENDIX N.

Textbook Overview
In correspondence to the curriculum, textbooks were reviewed by the consultants. Textbooks were
reviewed to determine alignment to the curriculum, readability, and content. Consultants attempted to
answer the following questions:
1. Alignment. To what extent does the textbook align with the curriculum when considering
standards, scope and sequence, and objectives?
2. Content. Are the textbooks comprehensive in their coverage of the content at the high school
level?
3. Readability. What is the reading level for the textbook? How accessible is the textbook to
readers in high school? What provisions, if any, are made for struggling readers?
4. Format. How is the textbook organized and formatted for student learning?
5. Visuals. To what extent does the textbook have appropriate and supporting images? Is there
an appropriate balance between text and images? Do the images provide support the text and
content?
6. Use of supplementary information. How are supplementary concepts included in the text?
For example, do social studies textbooks contain primary source documents? Do science
textbooks provide any additional reading excerpts beyond actual content descriptions? Do
math texts include any word problems? What is the quality of these supplementary readings?
7. Check for understanding. Do chapters and sections provide check for understanding for
students? If so, are higher and lower order questions included?
8. Current. How current is the textbook?
Key Findings
IDEA has adopted commonly used textbooks in high school programs from major publishers.
However, it is important to consider the text in relation to the curriculum. While mention of a specific
CONFIDENTIAL
32
textbook was included in most curriculum documents, textbooks provided to consultants were often
not aligned to curriculum. For instance, math textbooks are not used in the curriculum. At other times,
as noted in the curriculum review, textbooks are cited in the curricular documents, but specific details
as to which sections in the textbook to use when are not included. Major textbook publishers include
a diverse range of supplementary materials aligned to text such as workbooks, text banks, online
resources, and modified texts for remediation. From the curriculum and textbook review, it was not
evident that any supporting materials were used. Classroom observations revealed few instances of
textbook use by students and teachers. Notably, the consultants have learned that students do not all
own textbooks; often there is only one set per course that teachers share. Given the findings of the
textbook review, IDEA should begin a large scale textbook adoption that includes the purchase of
new texts as curriculums are revised.
Recommendations
Develop a school-wide textbook adoption policy considering the shelf-life of textbooks.

Books reviewed ranged in copyright from 2000 to 2010.
Review school budgets to determine appropriate textbook replacement allocations. Budget
determinations should include any new textbook purchases as well as a 10% replacement
cost, per year/per text for lost, damaged, or stolen books.
In conjunction with curriculum revisions, consider textbook alignment and purchase new
texts, as appropriate.
When considering purchasing new texts, consider what supplementary materials accompany
each text workbooks, online supports, assessment materials, etc.
Given the diverse needs of IDEA students, ensure new textbook adoptions include support
materials for diverse learners.
See complete textbook reviews in APPENDIX N.
CONFIDENTIAL
33
INSTRUCTION
Instruction and pedagogy were reviewed based on classroom observation and curriculum audits. A
total of 75 classroom observations were conducted encompassing every subject across all grade
levels. Curriculum audits were conducted for all high school courses in English, math, science, and
social studies.
It should be noted that elements of instruction are also included in other aspects of this report.
Specifically, standards and standard alignment to the Common Core is addressed in the Curriculum
section. The use of summative assessments, authentic assessments and the use of rubrics is noted in
the Curriculum section.
Key Findings
1. Instructional model
Classroom observations revealed the absence of any school-wide instructional model. There were no
consistent instructional practices or pedagogical approaches evident across classrooms, subject areas
or grade levels. A total of 58% of teachers had posted standards, objectives and Do Nows, but only
34% of teachers had relevant objectives that were aligned to standards. Five of the 38 teachers
observed (13%) used a variety of research-based instructional practices such as lecture, modeling,
discussion, small group or individual practice and informal assessment.
The workshop model of instruction is a framework where learning is organized into three main
components direct teaching, shared practice/learning, and independent practice/learning. These
three components are commonly referred to as the To, With, By Model. Using this system, teachers
first teach a concept to the students (direct teaching). They then practice the concept with the students
(shared practice/learning). Finally, after the shared practice experience, teachers allow the students to
practice the concept by themselves (independent practice/learning). When framing instruction in this
manner, a student has three different opportunities to learn a concept in at least three different ways.
This model moves a student from dependence on the teacher to independence. The student becomes
independent in his/her learning experience because s/he is given the opportunity to explore the
concept without the teacher. Therefore, the Workshop Model changes a teachers role from
indoctrinator to facilitator.
Most observed classroom instruction was direct instruction where the entire focus was on the teacher.
Direct instruction was predominately lecture based with students taking notes. There was no
consistent school wide format for the lecture or the note taking. Students were engaged at various
levels with the note taking. Moreover, the note taking only resonated with auditory learners. Multiple
learning styles were not addressed in direct instruction. During direct instruction Marzanos high
yield strategies were not evident. Few teachers appropriately engaged students in guided instruction.
Guided instruction allows the student and teacher to work together to practice a new concept. This
practice was absent from most instruction as instruction was dominated by direct instruction (lecture).
Independent practice is the third element of instructional frameworks and it allows students to
independently practice the new concepts. Independent practice was not evident in most observations.
While instances of students working independently were visible, this was more in the format of
busy work rather than true meaningful independent practice that would align to instruction and
CONFIDENTIAL
34
objectives culminating in assessment. It is important to note that independent practice is only relevant
when coupled with strong direct and guided instruction. Students working on set problems with the
absence of the direct instruction and guided practice becomes busy work rather than true meaningful
instruction. Moreover, when students were given independent work, few instances included time for
students and the teacher to review the work and get feedback. Without feedback and immediate
assessment, students and teachers cannot determine if students are mastering a given concept and with
what skill level.
In addition to the direct, guided, and independent practice, other general instructional practices were
observed. There were few examples of cooperative learning done correctly. In instances when
cooperate learning was attempted, few students were engaged in the process and procedures for the
cooperative learning were rarely determined beforehand. Classrooms lack established procedures and
students were not given many opportunities to practice work and receive feedback. In a science
classroom, students were conducting a lab, but only received verbal directions from the teacher, not a
lab sheet or rubric. Consequently, the teacher had to repeat instructions multiple times and
continuously redirect students attention to the project. The lab environment was chaotic, messy and
unsafe. Multiple instructional observations revealed an over reliance on verbal instructions, resulting
in confusion for students. Numerous observations revealed an absence of teacher instruction
substituted by videos, board games (Connect 4), playing football (outside of PE class), and students
replacing classwork with their own activities (texting, eating, sleeping, reading non class materials,
and engaging in conversation). Last, on numerous occasions, classrooms that appeared on the master
schedule were not in session, did not have a teacher present, or were combined with another class.
This led to a lack of instruction and unsupervised students. Consistent school-wide instructional
practices would create a routine where students learned in a more efficient environment.
2. Differentiated instruction
There are 60 students with active IEPs at IDEA. In a school with a diverse population it is necessary
to address the needs of students by acknowledging multiple learning styles through differentiated
instruction. During observations, the majority of instruction belonged to the teacher. Student
participation was passive and mostly involved note-taking, answering low level questions and reading
aloud or to themselves. The lack of an instructional framework, noted above, adds to the direct
instruction that dominates most classrooms. With the exception of observations, noted in this section,
the majority of class instruction did not meet the needs of multiple learning styles or diverse learners.
Instruction was predominantly auditory (lecture based), when present. Notably, in two English
classes, a science class and two technology classes, students were given the opportunity to lead
instruction. In those classrooms teachers used visual, oral and kinesthetic tools to address the way
individual students learn. Students read aloud, worked in small groups and pairs, coached each other
through problems, built computers and used technology to engage students multiple learning styles.
In the middle school math class, students were allowed to select one of three problems to solve using
a computer. This example of differentiated learning stood out from among observations.
Reading classes are part of the school schedule to enforce and remediate reading for students
significantly below grade level. If these classes are effective, they have the possibility of providing
differentiated instruction for struggling readers. Current reading intervention classes, taught by
CONFIDENTIAL
35
consultants, are not effective. Reading classes were observed on several occasions. When a 9th grade
Essentials of Reading class was observed, no instruction was taking place. The teacher was sitting
with students, talking. Once the observer entered the room, the teacher went to the board to write a
series of questions.
1. Is it okay to be happy when someone dies?
2. Is it okay for a husband to have total control over his wife?
3. When someone you love dies, are you always sad?
Students were instructed to take out paper and write responses to the three questions. After a few
minutes the teacher said they would begin reading The Story of An Hour by Kate Chopin. Students
asked if they could share their responses to the questions. The teacher said no, passed out a handout
of the reading and began a read aloud with the students. On another occasion, a student described for
twenty minutes a book she had read for her English class. The book was not part of the curriculum or
present in the classroom. Other students were not engaged in the process nor were there any required
activities to do as the student described the book for twenty minutes. In another observation, there
were three students present for class. Two of the three students rejected the class instruction and were
allowed to engage in off-task behavior. The one student who engaged in instruction read aloud. The
teacher listened to the student read aloud but provided little to no feedback. The lack of differentiated
instruction resulted in off-task students in all instances.
In other classes techniques were not consistently employed. The majority of instruction was lecture
based, supporting over reliance on direct instruction. Teachers either stood in the center of the
classroom or sat at their desks. Students were instructed to define words, write sentences, read
passages from texts, solve math problems and complete reading check questions. Some teachers
attempted visual instruction techniques by using technology such as overhead projectors, computers
and software such as PowerPoint, but the instruction was all delivered through lecture, with students
copying notes and teacher-directed Q&A.
Most instruction took place in either whole group or individual format. Small group instruction was
only observed in five classrooms, an English, technology, math, science, and JROTC class. Of those
classes, only the English class used small group instruction effectively, pairing students to complete
peer revision of 5-paragraph essays with rubrics. The other classes struggled with organization,
classroom management and appropriate use of the small group format. Students were placed in pairs
and small groups to answer basic questions at the end of a chapter. Students were given chart paper
and handouts and told to solve math problems in groups of three, but teacher did not check for
understanding and students did not share out work. One successful use of kinesthetic learning was
observed in an animation class where students were modeling a 3-D hand. Students used software to
create 2-D and 3-D polygon cubes, manipulating them into the shape of a hand.
Differentiated instruction ensures students at various learning levels needs are met within the
classroom. Differentiated instruction also can take into account the various multiple learning styles
within the classroom setting. Differentiated instruction can transpire in four meaningful elements of a
lesson:
CONFIDENTIAL
36
Structure: the format/structure teachers use to teach (e.g., lecture, group work, etc.)
Content: the lessons (e.g., strategies, skills, understandings, etc.) taught
Assessment: how teachers gauge what students have learned
Activities: the methods students are given to apply what they have learned
Practically, effective differentiated instruction may entail a teacher allowing students to select from a
variety of practice problems to assess their own weakness. Alternatively, students may select from
among a variety of presentation styles such as written report or visual presentation to effectively
demonstrate content knowledge. Marzanos high yield strategies are an effective practice for
differentiated instruction. As described in this report, high yield strategies are overwhelmingly
missing from instruction. As noted, differentiated instruction is an area of growth for teachers at
IDEA based on the classroom observations.
3. Student assessment
Formal and informal assessments of student learning are critical to the instructional process to ensure
students are mastering skills and content of each class. Formal assessments included specific quizzes,
tests, and authentic assessments. Informal assessments can take the form of exit tickets, student
questioning, problem checks, and other methods that are quick feedback for students and teachers.
Formally, students were predominantly assessed through tests and quizzes. Informal assessment was
not effectively utilized during many classroom observations. Question and answer was used, but all
questioning was low level and teachers did not give thoughtful feedback to student responses. In
order for feedback to expand learning, it must be meaningful providing direction for a student in
regards to his/her learning. Teachers responses should extend learning rather than end with a yes or
no response. In a JROTC class the teacher asked, Why is it important to stretch prior to PT?
Student responded, To prevent injury. Teacher said yes and continued leading the class in stretches.
Teachers showed lack of content knowledge by making statements after students gave answers like,
I hope thats the definition. When students asked for further explanation, they were not given clear
answers.
Only 34% of teachers had posted objectives that were aligned to standards and connected to the
lessons being taught. Posted objectives were often out of date. Teachers had the same objectives
(standards, Do Now, etc.) posted when observed by multiple evaluators over several weeks. In some
cases, objectives were not clear and not aligned to standards or instruction. For example, in one
technology class the posted objective was, Using the correct tool will assure a safe working
environment. Writing Matters: How can understanding formulas impact the way we see our future?
No instruction took place during the period. Students worked independently at their desks. In other
classes where objectives were clear and aligned to instruction, teachers struggled with delivery.
Teachers were easily drawn off topic by student questions. Lessons were poorly facilitated and weak
classroom management hindered engagement. Teachers failed to assess whether objectives were met
because of poor organization.
Having measurable objectives is critical to completing the assessment loop in instruction. Objectives
define what students should be able to do in a given class period. The objectives serve as a guide for
assessing learning in a given class. Because objectives in observed classes were often missing,
CONFIDENTIAL
37
outdated, or not written in a measurable format, the focus on what students should be learning and the
assessment that corresponds could not occur.
4. Student engagement
Student engagement varied depending on the class structure and planning invested in the lesson by
the teacher. When lessons were organized and planned, students were highly engaged. This was
observed consistently in 20% of lessons. In the other classes, students attention waned during parts
of the lesson or they were completely disengaged. This occurred primarily in classes where no
instruction took place or there was a clear lack of planning. Overall, there is a lack of accountability
to student learning by teachers in the observed classrooms. Effective planning and preparation are
essential to improving student engagement. Moreover, the lack of instructional strategies and
overreliance on direct instruction, as noted earlier, impacts student engagement.
Student engagement varied among classes. For example, upon entering a JROTC classroom, the
objective stated, To ensure all Let-1 cadets know all of the basic stretches. The Do Now said, Take
10 minutes to read student handout on basic military stretches. When the observer entered the room
10 minutes into the period, the class was watching a video of a news program where commentators
were discussing the investigation of the death of Trayvon Martin. After 3 more minutes of watching
the video, the teacher turned off the television and told students to go into the hallway and begin
stretching. Several students were reluctant to participate and remained in the classroom. In a Social
Studies class students were given a question to answer in small groups. Most students ignored the
instructions and had conversations with their group members instead. Close to the end of the third
quarter, students were given entire class periods to complete make-up work and missed
assignments in another class. Students rarely used this time to complete work. In one technology
class, the teacher moved from the center of the room to his desk. Teacher remained seated at
computer for the remainder of the period. Of the 14 students in the class, only two appeared to be
engaged. One worked with the teacher at computer, the other worked independently. The other
students chatted about after school plans, touched each other in a flirtatious manner, played solitaire,
and turned off their computers and went to sleep. In another history class, students were supposed to
present on women who had influenced American History. The teacher sat at her desk and ate what
appeared to be her lunch while students instead of presenting chatted in self-created groups.
Student engagement is the pinnacle of instruction. Without student engagement the best planned
lesson falls short and the purpose of the lesson, and instruction as a whole, becomes obsolete. IDEA
students express a true desire for instruction and engaging lessons, but the lack of planning and
preparation on the part of teachers negatively impacts student engagement. The emphasis on direct
instruction directly impacts student engagement in the classroom.
5. Rigorous expectations
Expectations for students are not rigorous at multiple levels of the instruction cycle. Most middle
school classes have the same Do Now, to define the word of the day and use it in a sentence.
Objectives are not measurable. Questioning is low level. Teachers ask closed questions and frequently
give students the answers. The majority of questioning techniques involved knowledge and
comprehension. Students were asked to recall facts and define vocabulary. They were instructed to
CONFIDENTIAL
38
summarize historical events but never moved on to synthesis or analysis. Homework was rarely given
and did not offer practice. Homework in a science class was to Bring in a shoebox.
In an English class with no posted standards or objectives, the agenda had one item Vocab. Ch.
19. The Do Now was, What do you think your Advisory 3 grade is? The homework was to study
for Thursdays vocabulary test. No instruction occurred during the period. The teacher passed back
exams while one student was completing the exam as make-up. The student was using a textbook to
answer questions on the test. The teacher stepped out of the room and another student sat across from
the one completing the exam and begin sharing answers. Once the teacher returned to the class, she
went to her desk and the two students continued to talk and cheat on the exam. During the observation
cycle five teachers showed video clips or movies that did not support the curriculum. In classes where
evidence showed lack of planning, students made comments like, Are we going to play UNO again
today? and, We already read this chapter. In another class, students were told to play Connect 4
because no lesson had been planned for the class.
The absence of academic rigor directly impacts student achievement and is partially impacted by the
lack of planning and preparation by teachers. IDEA students are eager to receive rigorous instruction
and would eagerly engage in instruction that is challenging. In instances where instruction was
rigorous and engaging students demonstrated enthusiasm for learning. On the other hand, when
lesson plans and activities were not evident for students to engage in that challenged them
intellectually, students devised their own activities for the class period that yielded off-task
behaviors that were seldom corrected and instruction dwindled in rigor.
6. Use of technology
Technology can be utilized as a teaching tool to enhance instruction for students. IDEA has a number
of technologies available to teachers outside of technology specific classrooms including graphing
calculators, computers, laptops, smart boards, televisions, LCD projectors and overhead projectors. In
reviewing technology, classroom observations considered how teachers incorporate the use of
technology resources into the curriculum to ensure students are prepared with the technology skills
necessary to enter the post-secondary world of college or career readiness.
Technology was observed as a positive enhancement to instruction on some occasions. For example,
in an anatomy class videos were shown to demonstrate the impacts on poisons on human beings. The
video clips enhances the lesson but were not used to supplant instruction. In a US history class, a
video was shown of Billy Joels, We didnt start the fire, as a visual tool to demonstrate major
cultural, social, and political occurrences in history. In a biology class, a smart board was used to
model an experiment regarding traits. In these instances, technology supplemented instruction but
was not used as a substitute for instruction, rather an aid. In all instances, outside of technology
specific courses, where technology was utilized it was used as a technology supplement for
instruction by the teacher. Student use of technology to do was not observed. The primary users of
technology were teachers. While this is not adverse, it further supports the focus on direct instruction
noted earlier in this section.
Conversely, examples of poor technology use were also evident. Technology was over utilized by
classroom teachers who lacked ample instructional materials and instead used technology to replace
planning and instruction. In a social studies classroom a teacher used the overhead project to project a
CONFIDENTIAL
39
publisher made worksheet. Students were instructed to answer the questions, more than half of which
were not relevant to the topic covered. In another course, when the observer entered students were
instructed by the teacher to work on a power point. No further instructions were given. Assignment
criteria or explanation were missing. As a result few students worked on the assignment and many
viewed websites of their choice. It was the observers opinion based on the objectives and the
instruction given to students that the power point assignment was busy work rather than related to
content. In an English class a teacher attempted to use the smart board. However, a lack of training
resulted in the teacher ineffectively using the technology. More than 15 minutes of instructional time
were devoted to learning how to use the smart board by the teacher while students sat and grew
impatient. Again, as in instances of positive use of technology, the primary technology user was the
teacher further supporting the focus on direct instruction by IDEA teachers.
Recommendations
1. Research and adopt a school-wide instructional model. The Workshop Model of instruction
should be implemented across all subjects. The framework allows teachers to establish a
routine for classroom instruction that can be used in any content. Instruction includes the
following components.
The Warm-up/Do Now a quick problem or question used to focus students and get
them ready for learning.
Direct Instruction/Mini-Lesson whole group explicit instruction that teaches a key
concept, demonstrates a strategy or skill, or allows students to read and think aloud
for a specific purpose. During this time teachers also set expectations, give directions
and prepare students for practice.
Guided practice/Shared Work teacher practices the concept just taught with whole
group. Allows students to ask or answer questions, direct them through the steps of
an activity, solve problems and get feedback from teacher and peers.
Independent practice students work independently, in pairs on in small groups.
Teacher circulates the room to make sure all students are on task, meets with
individual students or small groups for more direct instruction or coaching.
Share-out/Closing students share out what they learns through informal assessment
tools. Teachers use reflections, exit tickets and other strategies to assess whether
students understood what was taught.
2. The school should identify 5 school-wide teaching strategies that are research-based to
implement in each classroom. Consistent teaching strategies will ensure students become
familiar with a structure for instruction. Marzanos high yield strategies should be reviewed
in this context to make selections. Suggested areas of focus include:
Effective practices for building vocabulary.
Effective practices for accessing informational text in the content area.
Effective practices for collaborative group work.
Effective strategies for assessing immediate student learning (exit tickets, think-pair
share, thumbs-up/ down, graphic organizers, Cornell notes, white boards).
CONFIDENTIAL
40
3. The school should devise expectations for key instructional areas and provide professional
development to teachers in those areas. Among key areas of focus should be:
Daily measurable objectives.
Daily aim question with frequent checks for understanding throughout the lesson that
support the aim.
Vocabulary strategies to complement the word walls in every room.
Use of informational text in every content area.
Higher order questioning that requires students to think of the same topic from
different viewpoints.
4. Create balanced literacy classrooms. Identify research-based reading strategies for content
areas. Adopt a school-wide reading strategy to be used across curricula by all teachers.
Provide adequate reading intervention for struggling readers.
5. Develop school-wide writing rubrics that infuse writing strategies across all subjects. All
teachers, regardless of content area, speak the same language when it comes to writing so that
IDEA has a uniform writing process and expectations across the content areas.
6. Develop department wide rubrics and expectations for laboratory reports in science.
7. Teachers should receive professional development on the following research-based best
practices to improve instruction.
The Workshop Model
Marzanos high-yield strategies.
Writing measurable objectives
Creating effective rubrics
Reading across the curriculum
Effective use of technology resources to facilitate student learning
CONFIDENTIAL
41
BEHAVIOR
IDEA Public Charter School has the foundation in place to create a school culture that supports
student learning with consistency and accountability. The majority of the students at IDEA are
pleasant, polite, charismatic and eager to learn. Their misbehavior and chronic rule breaking is caused
by a lack of structure in the school culture. By refocusing the staff and students on the schools core
values and implementing a simple set of rules with clear consequences, the school can begin to bridge
the gap between what is on paper and what is practiced.
Key Findings
The uniform policy is neither consistently enforced by school staff nor do students comply
with the majority of its mandates.
The tardy policy and passing period procedures are not consistent. The policy as stated in the
handbook is the not the same as the policy displayed on posters throughout the building.
There is no evidence that either policy is enforced.
Class I and II violations are not consistently enforced. Classroom teachers routinely
overlooked Class I violations.
There is evidence of a discipline referral form and a daily monitoring sheet to track student
behavior, but there is no evidence that it is used.
It is not clear how students are assigned detention.
Suspension data for the current school year is incomplete.
Few staff members were observed in the halls during passing periods, but security could be
found on the first and second floor.
There is no standard behavior management plan in place and guidelines for dealing with
student disciplinary issues in the classroom are not evident.
There is no cohesive positive behavior program in place.
The findings of this report were compiled after conducting classroom and common area observations
over a five-week period, in addition to informal interviews with school staff and students. The
following is a list of sources and resources that informed this report.
Audit of IDEA Public Charter School Cadet Handbook, 2011-2012

Suspension Summary Report 3 Years (2009-2012)
IDEA discipline referral form, Junior Academy daily monitoring form
Discipline proposal memo
15 hours of observations per evaluator, for a total of 45 hours of observations in the schools
classrooms and hallways
23 teachers observed
Informal interviews with students in the middle school and high school
Informal interviews with 4 teachers, 2 security guards, and 2 deans
3 evaluator meetings to share observation findings
CONFIDENTIAL
42
Specific Policies and Procedures: Uniform Policy, Hallways/Passing Periods/Tardy Policy

Uniform Policy
As stated in the IDEA Cadet Handbook, IDEA has a mandatory uniform policy that states students
are required to wear the uniform every day and must come to school properly attired. Students are not
permitted to leave articles of clothing or their ID cards in their locker overnight. The handbooks says,
On Monday, Thursday and Friday students must wear plain black or khaki pants/skirts, a white shirt
purchased from the schools authorized dealer (with the appropriate school patches), and solid black
shoes. The pants must be properly hemmed, the skirt no more than two inches above the knee, the
shirt tucked inside the pants, an appropriate belt must be worn along with black or white socks, and
the school ID must be visible at all times. It further differentiates the uniform by stating, On
Tuesday and Wednesday, the military uniform must be worn. The military uniform should be worn
properly and students have the option to wear authorized military boots. Finally, the handbook states
that students who fail to display their ID cards will not be permitted to enter the building, receive food
services, attend outside school activities or participate in after school mentoring programs. Students in
violation of the dress code may be suspended for the remainder of the academy day.
Key Findings
Uniform policy is neither consistently enforced by school staff nor do students comply with the
majority of its mandates.
Student IDs were not visible.
Students who failed to display proper identification were given full access to the building and
its services throughout the school day.
An average of 70% of students were regularly observed wearing incomplete and
inappropriate uniforms.
Students shirts were not tucked into pants.
Students wore sweaters, sweatshirts, jackets and coats over their uniform shirts.
Girls wore micro-mini skirts and skirts made of figure-hugging spandex.
Students were observed getting dressed at their lockers.
On Military Dress days, three out of every 10 students observed were not in full military
dress.
Staff did not attempt to enforce the dress code during class or in the hallways.
Students not observed receiving consequences for non-compliance.
Recommendations
Train all staff, teacher and non-teachers, to enforce a clear uniform policy.
Assign students not in uniform to a detention and require immediate compliance. Ongoing
Clearly define the schools uniform policy. Consider specific policies for school uniform and
military uniforms.
Establish an emergency uniform bank which allows students not in compliance access to
appropriate school uniforms immediately in lieu of sending students home or to suspension.
CONFIDENTIAL
43
Passing Periods and Tardy Policy

The Cadet Handbook states that the school will close its doors to late-arriving students at 8:15 am.
Students that arrive after that time are checked in and given a pass to class, denoting time of arrival.
The information is recorded by security and reported to the Front Office. The handbook further notes
that a point system is attached to tardy, excused and unexcused absences. Throughout the building
there are posters stating that students who are late to class in between periods should report to security
and receive a pass to class.
Key Findings
The tardy policy and passing period procedures as stated in the handbook are not consistent with the
policy displayed on posters throughout the building. There is no evidence that either policy is
enforced.
Students frequently entered classrooms more than 5-15 minutes late.
Of the twenty-three classes observed by one teacher evaluator, students entered late without
consequences approximately eleven times.
Tardy students disrupted the learning environment and teachers either stopped teaching to
address the needs of the tardy student or ignored them.
Students were observed entering classrooms, requesting materials from the teacher, searching
for their belongings, having conversations, and horseplaying with peers.
While observing students passing from class to class in the hallway, there was limited supervision by
adults.
Students socialized in the hallways past the start of the period.
Students frequently used profane language and were not reprimanded.
Students participated in horseplay in stairwell and hallways.
No more than two teachers were observed on hall duty in any hallway, on multiple floors,
during passing periods.
Students were gathered outside of classrooms, unattended.
Teachers walked by, saw students unattended, and either kept walking or mentioned they
would call security to handle the situation.
During the five weeks of observations, the observers found students unattended in classrooms
multiple times. When observers notified security, we were told to inform the Front Office.
When we informed the Front Office, they informed security.
On at least three occasions, students were left unattended in the hallway or classroom for
more than 10 minutes.
It is not clear when and how the point system is used or if it is tracked.
There are no written procedures on the accrual of points.
There is no written merit system in place.
Recommendations
Review and edit the school handbook. School leaders should edit the handbook, reorganize
the content, and omit contradictory and repetitive policies. The handbook should be ready for
distribution to staff and students prior to the start of the new school year.
CONFIDENTIAL
44
Create and enforce a tardy policy. Students report to class chronically late because the current
policies are inconsistent and not enforced. Create a system to record and track student
tardiness. Create standard tardy passes that note the time the pass was issued and allow
students a 5 minute grace period to report to class. The security guard at the front desk should
write and log all tardy passes.
Students found in the hallway without a pass should be considered to be cutting class and
should be sent directly to in-school suspension for the period. Established consequences
should be determined for cutting class.
Disciplinary Process: Classification of Violations, Incident Reports, Detentions,

Suspensions, Expulsions, Suspension Data
Classification of Violations
According to written policies, violations of the Code of Conduct are grouped into three categories,
Class I, II and III. The Cadet Handbook mandates that before the classification of an incident is
determined, a school administrator will consult with the student and staff member involved in the
incident. Once the classification is determined, the school administrator will implement the
disciplinary procedure. Three or more violations of a Class I or II offense in a four-month period may
result in expulsion without a hearing if the circumstances warrant.
Documentation in the handbook instructs classroom teachers to handle disruptions on their own.
Suggestions include phone calls to parents, and parent conferences. Only after these basic steps have
been followed, or if the violation is severe, will administrators step in. The handbook states, Class I
violations include excessive disruptions of the learning environment, disrespect, excessive tardiness,
cutting class, profanity, and non-compliance. A first offense will warrant parent contact. Subsequent
offences will result in students being assigned to in-school suspension, probation, detention, extra
work assignments or other consequences at the recommendation of an administrator. The handbook
says that Class II violations include defiance, dress code violations, vandalism, theft, obscenity,
truancy, possession of drug paraphernalia, lying, excessive horseplay and other violations. A first
offense will warrant in-school suspension or extended work assignments before or after school.
Subsequent offences will result in an out-of-school suspension for up to five days. Class III violations
include bullying and harassment, intimidation, fighting, drug possession, distribution or use, theft,
gambling, weapons possession and other violation. The disciplinary action for this class of violations
is an out-of-school suspension and possible expulsion.
Key Findings
Class I and II violations are not consistently enforced. Classroom teachers routinely overlook Class I
violations.
Students were heard using profanity in the hallways without receiving a reprimand.
Students frequently disrupted the learning environment. Only one teacher out of five teachers
was observed verbally reprimanding a student who entered a classroom and disrupted the
learning environment.
Only one out of eleven teachers was observed requesting a tardy pass from a late student.
Students attended classes and were observed in the hallways non-compliant with the uniform
policy.
Some vandalism is evident throughout the building on walls, desks and in classrooms.
CONFIDENTIAL
45
Recommendations
Reclassify violations to the Code of Conduct. The consequence matrix is vague and
convoluted. Administrators should invite a focus group of teachers and staff to edit each tier
of violations and come up with a simple list of infractions that are prevalent in the school, and
then determine to which tier each is assigned.
The team should identify 5-6 basic rules that every student must follow and that every adult
most enforce. For example, students must be in uniform with IDs visible, electronics and cell
phones are prohibited, profanity is not allowed, etc. These rules should be visible and posted
throughout the school. Students should receive detentions or demerits when they violate these
basic rules.
Establish a behavior intervention plan that includes opportunities for students to remediate
behavior at every class of violation. For example, create a merit system that allows students
to reduce the number of demerits earned. Assign a point or credit system to the Character
Development seminars that allow students with multiple Class II violations to work their way
off probation.
The school must review its policies for suspension (in-school and out-of-school). School law
mandates parent notification of each infraction leading to a suspension in writing. Further,
specific procedures regarding due process are mandated that do not appear to be in effect at
IDEA. Suspension policies must adhere to school law. The school lacks coherent and
comprehensive written policies in this area.
The school should review its expulsion policies. Students cannot be expelled without due
process. The schools policy of issuing an expulsion without a hearing violates due process.
The schools expulsion policy should be revised and include appeal procedures.
Incident Reports
The handbook states incident reports should be completed for Category II and III violations. When a
student receives three incident reports he/she should be scheduled for a disciplinary meeting to
discuss referral to Character Development, Peer Mediation, mental health counseling, behavioral
contract, or an expulsion hearing. After reviewing the incident students may be assigned in-school
(ISS) or out-of-school suspension (OSS). An OSS for three or more days automatically places a
student in Character Development. Two or more OSS totaling more than 3 days during a three-month
period, will also result in student placement in Character Development. Based on the severity of the
incident or the number of incidents accrued, a student can be expelled without attending the character
development program. Failure to attend or complete the character development program without
written approval from the administration will result in an expulsion hearing.
Key Findings
There is evidence of a discipline referral form and a daily monitoring sheet to track student behavior,
but there is no evidence that it is used.
On only one occasion observers found two students completing in-school suspension with the
Junior Academy Dean.
Neither the Junior Academy nor the High School Deans were visible and present in the
hallways during passing periods or class time.
CONFIDENTIAL
46
On two visits to the transition room, students were unattended. On one occasion 12 students
were left standing outside the room for more than 10 minutes, waiting for a staff member who
was absent for the day. There did not appear to be any alternative procedure in place.
Students were eventually admitted to the room by a security guard after students informed the
guard they were not allowed to return to class.
Recommendations
Establish a clear chain of command for reporting student incidents.

Create three Dean positions at the school. A middle school dean (7th -8th grade), lower school
dean (9th -10th grade), and upper school dean (11th-12th grade). Each dean will be the first line
of contact for teachers needing assistance with behavior management, not security. Deans
should be required to counsel students, determine appropriate consequences and next steps,
contact parents, follow-up with teachers and manage data.
Rewrite the discipline referral form so that it supports use with the Code of Conduct. Make it
easy to use and available to all staff. Explicitly state that Deans are the first line of contact
when referring a student.
Create a standard suspension form that communicates the Class of the violation as well as the
type and number of days of suspension.
Detention
The Cadet Handbook documents that when students commit an infraction of school rules Monday
through Wednesday, they are required to attend detention on Friday from 1pm-4pm. When students
commit an infraction of school rules on Thursday and Friday, they are required to attend detention on
Saturday from 9am-1pm. Students who arrive late for detention on Friday must serve detention on
Saturday and the subsequent Friday. Students who arrive late on Saturday will serve the following
Friday and Saturday. Students who do not attend their assigned detention will serve a three-day OSS.
Key Findings
It is not clear how students are assigned detention. There was evidence of a memo form used by the
deans to notify parents when a student was assigned detention, but there is no data on whether
detentions are actually served. The information in the handbook is inconsistent. Page 4 explains the
discipline policy as listed above, while page 38 has a different detention statement that explains that
detention can be served any day of the week, as assigned by the principal, administrator or teacher.
Recommendations
Centralize the detention system and hold detention a minimum of 4 days a week so that
students are assigned to detention soon after the act is committed.
Create a system where detentions are an established consequence for Class I violations.
Assign a behavior specialist to conduct detentions consistently and to manage in-school
suspension.
CONFIDENTIAL
47
Suspension Data
Key Findings
Suspension data for the current school year is incomplete.
The only document produced with student suspension data was the Suspension Summary
Report 3 Years (2009-2012).
The document, received in March 2012, only contained data through January of the current
school year. Data collected states:
SY 11-12one ISS and 68 OSS
SY 2010-201112 ISS and 111 OSS
SY 2009-2010 64 ISS and 160 OSS
The suspension data reflects the need to restructure the discipline program and consistently enforce
school rules.
The current data is incomplete. Students are sent to the Transition Room, which is considered
ISS, on a daily basis but this is not being tracked.
Students have been observed in ISS with the middle school dean, but there is no data to attest
to that.
The data presented does not account for the number of violations observed in hallways and
classrooms.
ISS numbers should be higher. Such a low number of documented in-school suspensions is evidence
that the current discipline system is not being implemented consistently.
Recommendations
Use a data tracking system to track student attendance and all discipline data (detentions,
referrals, suspensions, demerits and merits), such as Blackbaud or other education databases.
Assign clear ownership of the entire discipline process to the Head Dean to ensure
appropriate implementation at all levels of the school.
As noted earlier, policies as written regarding suspension and expulsion do not follow school
law and violate students due process. These policies should be reviewed and rewritten to
comply with all mandates of school law.
Staff Enforcement of Code: Security, Classroom Management

Security
The security team consists of five guards stationed throughout the building during the school day.
One guard is present at the check-in desk while the other guards are stationed at satellite desks in the
CONFIDENTIAL
48
hallways. The security team wears a clearly identifiable uniform and is the most visible presence in
the hallways during the school day.
Key Findings
Few staff members were observed in the halls during passing periods, but security could be found on
the first and second floor. However, the farther one traveled from the security hubs on the first and
second floor, the less the security presence was felt. The enforcement of rules is inconsistent. Of note,
on numerous occasions when observers entered the building there was no security stationed at the
front desk. Visitors walked in without any monitoring and were free to roam the building.
Students were aware of areas where there was no security presence and took advantage of the
lack of supervision by cutting class, hanging at lockers, and playing in the stairwells.
There was a general lack of respect displayed by students towards security officers and vice
versa. Students openly cursed in front of guards, called them disrespectful names and were
overall defiant.
Some security guards were observed yelling at students while others were observed
socializing with students at security hubs while class was in session.
Recommendations
A security guard must be present at the front door at all times to ensure all visitors are
checked in. Visitor policies should be clearly defined and established.
Security team should be assigned with a rotation schedule that allows for guards to be
stationed at high traffic areas and roaming duties throughout the building.
There should be one guard at the entrance of the building, one in the first floor middle school
wing, and one at the security station on the second floor.
One guard should be assigned to roam the building, monitoring the third floor, all stairwells
and all restrooms.
Guards should know the school code of conduct and consistently enforce it.
Guards should be properly trained in working in a school setting.
Classroom Management
Key Findings
There is no written, standard behavior management plan in place and guidelines for dealing with
student disciplinary issues in the classroom are not evident. Some teachers have established their own
classroom procedures to maintain an orderly work environment, but this was not observed across the
board.
In most cases, it was observed that teachers rely on security to handle major classroom
management issues.
Of seven teachers who had classroom management issues arise, only two appropriately
reprimanded students and corrected the behavior. When a student entered a classroom to get a
book, but playfully hit another student in the face on their way out the door, the teachers
only response was the call the students name, not correct the behavior.
CONFIDENTIAL
49
Students were frequently tardy and took extended bathroom breaks. When questioned,
teachers commented that all the bathrooms in the school are locked except for the ones on the
first floor. Students must hunt for a staff member with a key or travel to the first floor to use
the bathroom.
Classroom procedures were not evident in all classrooms. They were prompted multiple times
to complete the Do Now. They talked to each other while instruction was taking place and
frequently got out of their seats to move around the room without permission.
Teachers were observed joining conversations that took the instruction off topic, rather than
redirecting the student back to the lesson.
Students were also frequently observed talking during direct instruction. Teachers had to
repeat their instructions or questions multiple times in order for students to get on task.
Teachers made comments that they did not feel supported and were left on their own.
There are no incentives used to reinforce positive behavior inside or outside the classroom.
Recommendations
Create a professional development plan that supports teachers in developing classroom

management skills.
The plan should be led by the deans and be implemented at the start of the school year. Deans
should work with administration over the summer to create training lessons that teach staff
how to uphold the schools core values and enforce the schools basic rules consistently. The
plan should include a full overview of the schools disciplinary program as well as lessons
throughout the school year on reflective practice and emotional literacy.
Create a merit system that includes incentives for students to modify behavior. Revise the
Character Development program. Create a curriculum for the program that focuses character
education. Include a restorative discipline plan that allows students to reflect on their
behavior and return to the classroom within one day.
We recommend that before IDEA commit to and purchase a research-based behavior management
program, such as PBIS, the school should first put in place basic discipline structures and procedures,
and train all staff in the building to work in support of them. The school should revise behavior
policies, train staff to implement basic and consistent policies on a daily basis, improve classroom
management capability of its teachers through focused professional development, re-design its Dean
staffing structure, re-design detention and ISS programs, ensure trained, professional security
personnel and a strategic rotation schedule that ensures proper coverage throughout the building, and
institute a merit system to reward positive behavior. Once these basic building blocks of a discipline
program are in place, the school can consider whether to incorporate a research-based behavior
program to enhance the existing structure.
CONFIDENTIAL
50
IV. FINANCE REPORT
Key Findings
Financial Overview
The Restructuring Team reviewed IDEA Public Charter Schools financial statements from SY07-08
through SY10-11. In 2009, IDEA PCS had full enrollment, short term assets were approximately two
million dollars, and the per-pupil funding had been increasing 7% annually. With this backdrop,
IDEA PCS embarked on an expansion in 2009 that included the construction of a gymnasium,
additional classrooms and the Wellness Center.
In the last three years IDEA PCS has experienced deteriorating financial health. We can find
evidence of this decline in the trends of two major financial measures. The schools months of cash
reserve ratio, which measures the number of months the school could operate without cash, has been
trending downward and is now at 1.52 months. The schools current ratio, a measure that reflects the
ability of a school to meet its financial obligations over the next year, has also decreased significantly.
We expect IDEA to lose more than $600,000 in SY11-12 and, and absent significant changes to the
schools staffing model, IDEA could lose more in SY12-13. Two main factors are driving these
losses: (1) declining student enrollment without associated staffing adjustments, and (2) the additional
cost associated with the recent construction.
Declining Student Enrollment
IDEA PCS enrollment, which had held steady around 470 students for a number of years, slid
dramatically in SY10-11, falling 17% to 389. Enrollment further fell by 8% in SY11-12, to 359
students. Seventh and eighth grade enrollment has fallen almost 50% off its high, reflecting the
challenge of recruiting students in this age range.
CONFIDENTIAL
51
The decrease in students creates a substantial loss in the most substantial and reliable portion of
revenue. In SY10-11, IDEA PCS maintained the same personnel spending while the number of
students decreased. Consequently salary costs increased $2,750 per pupil from SY09-10 to SY10-11.
The burden of not making proportional cuts to staff effectively cost the school more than one million
dollars per year in SY10-11 and SY11-12. During these two years, IDEA PCS spent $15,000 per
student for staffing. By comparison, most of the high schools sampled for purposes of this study
converge around $12,000 per student in staffing costs, nearly $3,000 less than IDEA. The following
figures demonstrate these trends.
NCPs first year was high due to its lack of scale.
The declining student enrollment and relatively high personnel costs have been offset by temporary
revenue sources. ARRA, CityBuild, and other facility grants provided band-aids that propped up cash
and/or net income for two years. Once these large grants sunset, the school will need to either replace
the revenue shortfall of around half a million dollars annually or makes adjustments to its spending.
We expect IDEA to lose more than $600,000 in SY11-12 and, and absent significant changes to the
schools staffing model, IDEA could lose more in SY12-13. (See APPENDICES O, P, Q, R)
Recent Construction
With the IDEA PCS construction nearing completion (expected in June 2012), the school is faced
with a new financial burden that must be proactively managed. The additional $500 thousand
annually in interest and principal starting on September 15, 2012 will challenge a school with falling
enrollment, high personnel costs, and an uncertain grant profile described above.
The $8 million loan from BB&T financing the new construction matures on August 2014. The school
had planned to refinance the loan, but the ability to refinance will be contingent upon the schools
ability to meet certain academic and financial benchmarks.
CONFIDENTIAL
52
Recommendations
Develop a conservative budget for SY12-13 that anticipates an accurate enrollment, funds the
increased debt service, and meets the bank covenants. This budget will require drastically
reducing staffing costs. A thoughtful budget and strong execution against plan will position
the school for its August 2014 refinancing and a stable financial future.
Work closely with BB&T, the lender for the $8M loan. The school needs to communicate
the current state and plans to BB&T to ensure that it is not in technical default.
Establish a new Finance Committee of the Board led by Garrett Rush.
Continue an aggressive recruitment effort to re-enroll current students and attract new
students with close oversight by the Restructuring Team and the Board of Trustees.
Develop detailed and transparent weekly enrollment and re-enrollment targets and
actions/consequences for not meeting targets.
CONFIDENTIAL
53
V. OPERATIONS REPORT
CONTRACTS & SALARIES
Key Findings
IDEA-PCS employees are at-will. Offer letters are for 10-month and 12-month periods; however,
current language does not specify that the agreement is only for one school year. 10-month
employees include teachers, substitutes, security and food service staff, while 12-month employees
include administrators, select security staff, counselors, front office and other non-teaching staff.
The pay scale for teachers is neither competitive to the DCPS 2011-12 pay scale, nor to many high
performing charter high schools that peg their compensation rates to DCPS. In fact, the pay scale for
2011-12 starts $13,500 below the DCPS starting point (Step 1, Bachelors).
IDEA adds lump sums for the following qualifications:
Certified teacher - 4k
Masters degree - 3k
Doctoral degree - 2k
Sped Cert - 5k
Course chair - 3k
Lead teacher - 1500
Professional license 3K
It should be noted that certification is not required to teach in District charter schools. While the
IDEA scale provides additional compensation for certification, it does not recognize individuals for
earning credits towards degrees (e.g., towards Masters or PhD).
To illustrate the lack of competitiveness in salaries an English teacher of 7 years with a Masters
Degree can only earn $48,800 (or $52,800 with certification). Comparatively, in DCPS, a teacher
with these qualifications would earn $69,132 as a base.
A review of salaries also finds that key leadership positions may be undercompensated in comparison
to competitor charter schools and DCPS; except for the Development Director/ Grants Writer who
currently has an 11-month contract with a provision that enables him to earn a percentage of grants
won on top of his base salary. As a result, the Development Director earned a $62,000 bonus last
year. This is not customary.
Recommendations
Add language to contracts to specify the school year the offer letter pertains to and include a
start and end date.
Consider adding 11-month positions for librarian, college counselor, and programs.
Consider requiring Deans (12-month employees) to serve as Summer School principal and/or
Dean.
CONFIDENTIAL
54
Revise and increase teacher pay scale to be comparative to traditional DCPS pay scale and
competitive with high performing charter and DCPS schools; eliminate compensation for
certification and instead add for credits towards degrees. Eliminate compensation distinction
for lead and special education teachers.
Conduct research on administrator salaries and adjust pay for leadership positions
accordingly.
Completely revise pay structure for Development staff so that bonuses are not linked to
specific grants, but for performance in meeting general development goals.
VACATION & SICK LEAVE

Key Findings
Vacation and sick leave is comparable to other schools at 12 paid vacation days and 12 paid sick days
for 12-month employees, and 3 days for 10-month employees in addition to paid school holidays.
However, IDEA currently enables all faculty and staff to carry over an unlimited amount of vacation
and sick leave from year to year. Employees are also allowed to receive unused vacation as payouts
each year at $20 per hour, (a policy that also applies to hourly employees who earn less than that
amount in wages).
Recommendations
Combine personal and sick leave to allow for teachers to take leave as needed.
Revisit number of sick days for 10-month employees to make certain it conforms with DC
law.
Revise the leave polices to ensure that the academic needs of students are being met. Block
days to limit how many people can take leave. .
RETIREMENT BENEFITS
Key Findings
IDEA offers unusually generous retirement benefits compared with other charter schools in the
District. According to the handbook, normal retirement is to be effective at age 55 or older with 5 or
more years of employment with IDEA PCS. Retirees may elect to receive a lump sum payment of
accrued vacation leave at their current pay rate or have the payment amortized over a period of pay
days until the accrued funds are exhausted. (p.19) The handbook also says on page 15 that upon
retirement accrued sick leave will be paid to the employee. This policy is extremely rare for charter
schools, and written as is leaves the school open to an ongoing financial liability that is difficult to
manage. As of SY 2011-12, 22 employees are eligible for this retirement benefit with a total
estimated liability of approximately $250,000.
Retirement: TIAA CREF
CONFIDENTIAL
55
In addition to IDEAs internal retirement benefit, IDEA offers two 403(b) retirement plans to
employees and employees can participate in both. The first is plan allows employees to contribute up
to the maximum amount allowable with no match from the school. The second plan allows
employees to contribute 1% of their pretax salary and IDEA matches with an additional 3%.
Recommendations
Discontinue policy that allows employees to carry over unused vacation and sick leave.
Revise the retirement policy to be more in line with other DC charter schools.
HEALTH BENEFITS
Key Findings
IDEA offers employees the following benefits: health, dental, vision, life and disability.
Health: CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield
IDEA covers the entire cost of the employees HMO rate at 100 percent. If the employee opts for the
PPO or Open Access plan, then the employee covers 100 percent of the additional cost and that
additional cost is automatically deducted from the paycheck. Employees are also permitted to add
family members, but employees are responsible for 100 percent of the additional cost associated with
family members.
Dental: United Concordia
IDEA covers the entire cost of the of United Concordias dental plan similar to health coverage.
Vision: Advantica.
IDEA covers the entire cost of Advanticas vision plan similar to health coverage.
Life Insurance and Disability: Mutual of Omaha.
IDEA pays the premium on a $10,000 life insurance policy. Employees can increase the policy
amount, but are responsible for the additional premium.
IDEA pools their coverage through the Center for Nonprofit for dental and vision. IDEA works
directly with a broker for health and life insurance.
Recommendations
Some of the health benefits offered to employees are atypical and may create an additional
financial obligation to the school; however changing benefit levels can be a sensitive issue for
returning employees and so the school needs to carefully consider the potential for savings
against the cost of creating additional turmoil for staff. Additional analysis is required of
what these benefits are costing the school each year and how they compare to other charter
schools in Washington, DC.
CONFIDENTIAL
56
STUDENT ENROLLMENT
Key Findings
PCSB decision to revoke charter has created an additional enrollment and recruitment challenge for
next year. As of the drafting of this report, 70 percent of current students have re-enrolled for next
year and only 30 new applications have been received. There is a significant effort underway to
recruit new students. The Board of Trustees and Restructuring Team are monitoring the recruitment
effort. Target enrollment figures for next year are included in the finance section of this report.
Recommendations
Move up lottery date from May 31 to March 1. The current date means that students cannot
be enrolled officially until after May 31st, while competing charter schools often have dates
earlier in the year.
Create a year-round recruitment marketing plan and make sure staff implements it.
Improve website to make application process more prominent, and create ability to submit
application directly online.
Create realistic budgeting numbers tied to historical trends.
Consider expanding down to include 6th grade so that recruitment can begin at a natural break
of D.C. students.
CONTRACTORS
Key Findings
Security: IDEA employs a chief of security, deputy chief of security, three full time day security
guards and two part time night security guards.
Facility: IDEA employs a full-time employee to manage the boilers and an additional building
engineer who works four days per week. The school has a list of preferred contractors (plumber,
electrician, roofer) who are on call to perform work when necessary. IDEA has an additional full
time facilities and operations manager that is ultimately responsible for the facility.
Recommendations
Security: Consider keeping one internal security guard observed to be particularly strong by
Restructuring Team consultants. Contract Security and Facility services out to companies that
have a record in working with charter schools such as PMM and JHJ. This will eliminate the
need to offer benefits from the school, manage employees and performance, and oversee
hiring and firing. There are experts in these fields who can be counted on for professional,
consistent services.
Facility Management: Review whether a full-time person is required for the boilers.
Facility Management: Review whether the additional facilities positions and contracts are
commercially reasonable (e.g., carpenter, building engineer, on call plumber and electrician).
Food Service: Review food service contract and make recommendation on whether to
continue/discontinue.
Review additional contracts and determine whether they should be renewed.
CONFIDENTIAL
57
TABLE OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX J
APPENDIX K
APPENDIX L
APPENDIX M
APPENDIX N
APPENDIX O
APPENDIX P
APPENDIX Q
APPENDIX R
APPENDIX S
APPENDIX T
CURRENT ORGANIZATION CHART

SAMPLE PROPOSED ORGANIZATION CHART
REVISED TEACHER EVALUATION PROCESS & RESULTS
NEW TEACHER RECRUITMENT UPDATE
CHARTER BOARD PARTNERS MODEL
NEW BOARD MEMBER BIOS
BOARD CONSULTANT BIO
BOARD PLANNING RETREAT AGENDA
MISSION REVIEW BACKGROUND & TASK FORCE NOTES
DRAFT MASTER SCHEDULE
ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR NEW STUDENTS
DRAFT COURSE CATALOG
SUMMER SCHOOL 2012
CURRICULUM & TEXTBOOK AUDIT
CONSERVATIVE ENROLLMENT TARGETS
SY 11-12 ESTIMATED INCOME STATEMENT
SY 11-12 ESTIMATED BALANCE SHEET
SY 11-12 CASH FLOW FORECAST
APPROVED RESTRUCTURING ACTION PLAN (V. 3.22.12)
TIMETABLE FOR ACTIONS FROM MAY 15TH REPORT
CONFIDENTIAL
58
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Integrated Design and Technology Public Charter High School

Accountability Plan
SY 08-09 to SY 07-08
2008-2013
School Mission: Integrated Design and Electronics Academy (IDEA) Public Charter School will develop young people and enhance their academic, social, leadership and
occupational skills to compete successfully in post secondary education and training and to enter challenging careers in the technical fields. This will be achieved through a
unique learning environment and enhanced career opportunities that include effective integration of academic and technological career training in electronics and
engineering design through the leadership training of the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) programs. Students will graduate, go on to college or obtain
employment in a needed career field in the Washington, DC area. The mission as stated in our charter supports reducing unemployment through an intense integrated
curriculum.
A. Academic Performance Objectives

Assessment
Tool(s)
Annual
Target
Five-Year
Target
Baseline
Data
Revised: 3 September 2008

Strategies for Attainment
Performance
Objectives or Goals
Performance
Indicator(s)
1. Career and Technical

Education (CTE)
Introduction to Technology
Course. Ninth graders will
begin their four year
program of CTE education
by completing the Intro to
Tech Course.
Percentage of
students earning
passing grade in
the Introduction to
Technology Course
(Grade: C- or
above)
Class Rosters
Grade Reports
Student
Transcripts
50% of 9th grade

students will
complete the
Introduction to
Technology
Course with a
passing grade of
C- or above.
50% of ninth
graders will pass
the Introduction to
Technology
Course.
2007- 2008
63/115 = 55%
Program of study will reflect 9th

Education (CTE)
specialized course of study.
Tenth and Eleventh grade
students will take a two
year sequence of
specialized technology
instruction.
Percentage of 11th
grade students
(who began their
CTE instruction at
IDEA as 9th
graders)
completing a two
year specialized
course of study.
(Grade: C- or
above)
Course of Study
Records
Transcripts
Grade Reports
40 % of 11th
graders will
complete two
years of one of
IDEA Public
Charter Schools
course/program
offerings with a
passing grade of
C- or above.
40 % of 11th
graders will
complete two
years of one of
IDEA Public
Charter Schools
course/program
offerings with a
passing grade of
C- or above
SY 2009-2010
10th and 11th grade students will

be scheduled in a two year
sequence of specialized
instruction. Currently specialized
instruction is offered in Computer
Repair/A+ Certification,
Networking, Drafting/AutoCad
and Graphic Arts.
grade students being scheduled in

the Intro to Tech Course.
Page 1 of 5
Approval Date: Pending
Performance
Objectives or Goals
Performance
Indicators
Assessment
Tool
Annual
Target
Five-Year
Target
Baseline
Data

Education (CTE).
Internship program
Percentage of
seniors completing
an internship
program.
Successfully
completing an
internship.
Percentage of
graduating seniors
(who began their
CTE instruction at
IDEA as 9th
graders). Earning a
CTE certificate.
Internship
evaluations and
observations
completed by the
employer.
25% of seniors
will complete an
internship
25% of seniors
will complete an
internship
SY 2007-2008
18/64 = 27%
Students usually complete the

internship program during the
summer between their 11th and 12th
grade. However, ambitious students
may complete the internship during a
prior summer.
Course of Study
Records
Transcripts
Grade Reports
Internship
Evaluations
25% of graduating
seniors will
receive a CTE
certificate.
25% of graduating
seniors will
receive a CTE
certificate
TBD SY 20102011
Certificate requirements include:

Passing Intro to Tech
Course
Passing a specialized 2 year
course of instruction
Successfully completing an
internship.

Education (CTE). CTE
Certificate.
School Name: Integrated Design and Electronics Academy Public Charter School
Board Chair Signature ____________________________________________
DCPCSB Chair Signature _____________________________________________________
Date ____________
Date ____________
Page 2 of 5

Assessment
Annual
Five-Year
Baseline
Tool
Target
Target
Data
Performance
Objectives or Goals
Performance
Indicators
5. Seniors will perform on

the SAT at levels beyond
the average for AfricanAmericans to promote
college entrance
Percentage of 12th
grade students who
take the SAT
performing above
the national
average for
African Americans
Official SAT
score reports
30% of the
graduating seniors
will achieve
combined score of
800 on the Math
and Verbal
sections of SAT.
30% of the
seniors will
achieve combined
score of 800 on
the Math and
Verbal sections of
SAT).
SY 2007-2008
6/15 = 40%
6. 11th grade students

will perform on the PSAT
or SAT at a level that will
allow them to advance as
seniors able to perform on
college entrance.
Percentage of 11th
grade students who
take the PSAT or
SAT.
Official PSAT
score reports
Official SAT
score reports
Percentage of 10th
grade students who
take the PSAT.
30% of the juniors

will achieve a
combined score
700 on the Math
and Verbal
sections of SAT
or PSAT (PSAT
scores will be
converted to SAT
score by adding a
zero, 70=700.
30% of the
sophomores will
achieve a
combined score
600 on the Math
and Verbal
sections of the
PSAT (PSAT
scores will be
converted to SAT
score by adding a
zero, 60=600.
SY 2007-2008
21/57 = 37%
7. 10th grade students

will perform on the PSAT
at a level that will allow
them to advance as
seniors able to perform on
college entrance.
30% of the juniors

will achieve a
combined score
700 on the Math
and Verbal
sections of SAT
or PSAT (PSAT
scores will be
converted to SAT
score by adding a
zero, 70=700.
30% of the
sophomores will
achieve a
combined score
600 on the Math
and Verbal
sections of the
PSAT (PSAT
scores will be
converted to SAT
score by adding a
zero, 60=600.
Official PSAT
score reports

During their 6 years of instruction,
students in grades 7-10 will receive
additional instruction, usually 2
periods a day in Math and English
to prepare them for the SAT.
IDEA Public Charter School will

offer the PSAT to all juniors during
school hours at no cost to the
family.
SY 2007-2008
22/36 = 61%
IDEA Public Charter School will

offer the PSAT to all sophomores
during school hours at no cost to the
family.
Page 3 of 5
Performance
Objectives or Goals
Performance
Indicators

Assessment
Annual
Five-Year
Tool
Target
Target
8. Seniors who choose to

take the ASVAB test and
attain a score high enough
to qualify them as an
eligible armed forces
enlistee
Number of seniors
taking the ASVAB
test.
Official score
reports for the
ASVAB test.
30% of the
seniors taking the
ASVAB test will
score 31 or
higher.
9. IDEA students will

outperform students in
other area schools on
statewide assessment.
Percentage of
students achieving
levels of
proficiency
Statewide
Assessment
scores (DC CAS)
IDEA students
will outperform
other area schools
on the statewide
assessment.
10. IDEA students in

grades 7-10 will read at
grade level or improve by
at least one grade level
per year in Reading.
Percentage of
students
demonstrating a
growth in reading
ability.
Gates-MacGinitie
Scores
30% of students
in grades 7-10
will read at grade
level or improve
by at least one
grade level.
Baseline
Data
30% of IDEA
seniors taking the
ASVAB test will
score 31 or
higher.
SY 2007-2008
10/22 = 45%
Teachers will integrate reading

and writing across their content
areas. All teachers will focus on
improving student's
comprehension skills, vocabulary,
and fluency in writing as well as
their Math skills. Students 17
years old or older can voluntarily
take the ASVAB examination.
IDEA students
will outperform
other area schools
on the statewide
assessment.
SY 2007-2008
School
Math/Reading
IDEA Math42.47%
Other Schools
Math-16.65%
The school will analyze the test

scores in each subject area.
30% of students
in grades 7-10
will read at grade
level or improve
by at least one
grade level.
IDEA Reading
44.86%
Other Schools
22.70%
SY 2008-2009
TBD
Proficiency scores for local

public high schools (Anacostia,
Ballou, Spingarn & Woodson)
will provide the comparative data
IDEA will meet or exceed.
The school will employ a literacy

coach.
During their 6 years of
instruction, students in grades 710 will receive additional
instruction, usually 2 periods a
day in English to assist and
improve their reading ability.
Page 4 of 5
Integrated Design and Technology Public Charter High School

B. Non-Academic Performance Objectives
Performance
Objectives or Goals
Performance
Indicator(s)
1. IDEA high school

students will complete a
four year sequence of
JROTC that will encompass
instruction in leadership,
teamwork, citizenship,
health and physical fitness.
Number of students
who complete
Leadership,
Education, Training
(LET), I, II, III and
IV in JROTC.
2. IDEA students will

attend school regularly.
3. IDEA students will reenroll at IDEA to complete

the course of study.
Assessment
Tool(s)
Annual Target
Five-Year
Target
Baseline
Data
Strategies for
Attainment
Progress reports,
report cards and
transcripts.
25% of seniors will

complete Leadership,
Education, Training
(LET), I, II, III and IV
in JROTC.
25% of seniors will

complete Leadership,
Education, Training
(LET), I, II, III and
IV in JROTC.
SY 2008-2009
Participation in LET
classes and membership in
the cadet corps.
Percentage of
students attending
school daily
Daily Attendance
Reports
Progress Reports
Report Cards
65% daily attendance

rate
65% students will

attend school daily
ADA > 65%

SY 2007-2008
Percentage of 7th11th graders that reenroll
School admission
form
School Rosters
Maintain minimum of
50% of students per
year
50 % of students reenroll in the program

at IDEA
Re-enrollment
rates of > 50%
SY 2007-2008
Early Intervention Team

(EIT)
Home Visits
Phone Master
Discipline Programs
Social Workers
Telephone Calls
Newsletters
Safe Environment
Home Visits
Strong Academic Prog.
Media Announcements
Page 5 of 5
Appendix I
D.C. Public Charter School Board

CHARTER REVIEW ANALYSIS
INTEGRATED DESIGN AND ELECTRONIC ACADEMY (IDEA)
PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL
Background
Integrated Design Electronics Academy (IDEA) Public Charter School is in its fourteenth year of
operation (1998-2011). The school transitioned to the DC Public Charter School Board (PCSB)
in 2007. The schools mission is to develop young people with the academic, social, leadership
and occupational skills to compete successfully in post secondary education/training and enter
challenging careers in the technical fields of work (grades 7-12). The school is located in the
Deanwood area of Ward 7 and currently serves 362 students in grades 7 through 12. The school
has been accredited by the Middle States Association through 12/1/2013. Based on federal
NCLB legislation, IDEAs instructional program is in Restructuring Year II.
According to the schools most recent Program Development Review, IDEAs instructional
program continues to be an area in need of significant improvement. Additionally, the new
curricular design process is in various stages of development. Therefore, there continues to be
no comprehensive curriculum in place for all core and elective courses. The school has failed to
adequately address its academic targets on the DCCAS and all initiatives have failed to establish
a trend of appreciable improvement in the schools academic performance during the course of
its fourteen year charter. During the schools most recent nine-year DCCAS record (2002-2011),
approximately 55% - 70% of IDEAs learner population has failed to acquire proficient reading
and mathematics skills sufficient to meet the demands of challenge and competitiveness in these
critical areas, as specified in its mission.
Year
%
Not Proficient
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Reading
76%
72%
68%
64%
78%
66%
55%
57%
59%
61%
%
Not Proficient
Math
71%
70%
63%
72%
75%
70%
58%
60%
66%
62%
One of the greatest concerns cited by the Program Development Review team was the number of
Board foci on continuing initiatives not directly related to academic achievement. These efforts,
over the years, have consistently competed with time and resources necessary to ensure the
development of an effective instructional program reflective of consistent and sustained
achievement gains for learners, particularly in the critical areas of reading and mathematics
skills.
Charter Review Summary
Both IDEA academic programs are Tier III; scoring 29.3% out of 100 percentage points in the
middle school grades under the Performance Management Framework (PMF) and 30.9 of 100
percentage points under the PMF in the high school grades. Additionally, according to the
Annual Report 2010-2011, and the Program Development Review interviews with faculty hired
to teach in the evening, IDEA has conducted an Adult Education Program for a number of years.
There is no official record of the schools formal request for a charter amendment to add this
program to the original charter; this is a violation of the School Reform Act 38-18-2.04. None has
been submitted to the former Board of Education or to the DC Public Charter School Board.
A charter school must have PCSB approval at least 120 days before
implementing a modified curriculum or instructional method, if it
represents a significant departure from the curriculum or
instructional method described in its application.
The budget for this program, according to IDEA school leadership, has been partially funded
through the Department of Educations 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC)
Grant, which the DOE identifies as a resource for student Academic Improvement. The No Child
Left Behind legislation mandates that the focus of the 21st CCLC programs be placed on
providing academic and other enrichment opportunities to children in high-poverty, lowperforming schools, to help these children succeed in meeting State and local academic
standards. Concomitantly, schools receiving the grant, have the option of opening learning
centers to families of those students who participate in center activities. DOE describes the
family-focus activities as opportunities for literacy and related educational development. The
language of the legislation allows centers to serve adult family members of students, but not
community members at large. The Adult Education Program at IDEA Public Charter School
does not appear to meet these NCLB legislative criteria. The center has offered free adult
education classes in the evening, specializing in computer technology to community members at
large. Eighty-five evening students were enrolled in the program 2010-2011. The Program
Development Review team advised IDEA leadership that a charter amendment must be
submitted to the PCSB, in order to legally continue this program component.
The school has not committed any known violations relating to the education of children with
disabilities. Based on its 2010-2011 PMF academic and non-academic performance, IDEA is not
a candidate for charter revocation.
Academic Performance Results

The following analysis of IDEAs academic performance is based on the four common PMF
indicators for each secondary program: middle/high:
Middle School Performance
(1) Middle School Student Progress: Possible Points 40
Overall, IDEAs eighty-five 7th and 8th grade students demonstrated belowaverage progress in both reading and math on the DC CAS, scoring only 6 of 20
possible points in reading and 5 of 20 possible points in math. Thus, the school
earned 11 of 40 points for its middle school MGP measure.
(2) Middle School Student Achievement: Possible Points 25
Overall, of the eighty-five students in grades 7 and 8 taking the DC CAS in
reading, 39.5% were proficient and advanced and 5.3% were advanced only. In
math, 44.7% were proficient and advanced and 0% of students were advanced
only. The middle school earned 1.93 of 10 points for proficient and advanced
in reading; it earned .53 of 2.5 points for advanced only in reading; 3.26 of 10
points for proficient and advanced in math and 0 of 2.5 points for advanced
only in math. Therefore, IDEA earned 5.72 points of 25 points for its middle
school achievement measure.
(3) Middle School Gateway: Possible Points 15
Of the 44 eighth graders taking the DC CAS reading assessment, 45% were
proficient and advanced. IDEA earned 4.5 of 15 possible points for its middle
school Gateway measure.
(4) Middle School Leading Indicators Possible Points - 20
Overall, IDEAs middle school attendance rate was 90.3% earning the school 5.3
of 10 possible points. Its re-enrollment rate was 64.2%. IDEA earned 2.74 of 10
possible points. Thus, IDEA earned 8.04 of 20 possible points for its middle
school leading indicator measure.
High School Performance
(1) High School Student Progress: Possible Points 15
IDEAs sixty-nine tenth grade students demonstrated average progress in reading
and better than average progress in math on the DC CAS, scoring 3.9 of 7.5
possible points in reading and 6.9 of 7.5 possible points in math. Thus, the school
earned 10.78 of 15 points for its high school Student Progress MGP measure.
(2) High School Student Achievement: Possible Points 30
Of the sixty-nine students in grade 10 taking the DC CAS in reading, 40% were
proficient and advanced and 0% of students tested were advanced only. IDEA
earned 2.1 of 10 possible points in grade 10 reading. Of the sixty-nine students
tested in grade ten mathematics, 30.3% scored proficient and advanced on the
DC CAS. The school earned 1.26 of 10 possible points. The percentage of
students who scored advanced only in mathematics was 0%. Therefore, the
school earned 0 of possible 2.5 points. The school earned was 0 of 5 possible
points for Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate performance.
Thus, IDEA earned 3.4 points of 30 possible points for the high school
achievement measure.
(3) High School Gateway: Possible Points 30
Overall, of the 41 seniors enrolled at IDEA during the 2010-2011 SY, 40 seniors
graduated. IDEA received 5.4 of 7.5 possible points or a 95% graduation rate. Of
the eleventh grade students taking the PSAT at IDEA, 20% scored 80 or higher on
the reading and math portions of the test. IDEA earned 3 of 7.5 possible points for
its PSAT Gateway performance. Of all twelfth graders who took the SAT, 26.1%
scored 800 or higher on the verbal and math portions of the test. IDEA earned
1.89 of 7.5 possible points for its students SAT performance. Because IDEAs
college acceptance rate of 37 did not exceed PCSBs established floor of 63%, the
school earned 0 of 7.5 possible points. Additionally, of 30 possible points, IDEA
received 10.33 for its high school Gateway measure.
(4) High School Leading Indicators Possible Points - 25
IDEAs High School attendance rate was 90.3% earning the school 5.3 of 10
possible points. Its re-enrollment rate was 57.7%, which did not exceed the 59%
floor established by the PCSB, resulting in the high schools earning 0 of 10
possible points. And finally, 48% of ninth grade high school students were on
track to graduate with their 2011-2015 cohort, earning the school 1.12 of 5
possible points. Overall, IDEA earned 6.42 of 25 possible points for its high
school leading indicator measure.
Non-Academic Performance Results
The following analysis of IDEAs non-academic performance is based on 38-1802.13(a) (b) of
the School Reform Act:
(1) Compliance- The Board of Trustees has implemented an additional instructional
program without submitting a Charter Amendment to obtain official Board approval
for an Adult Education Evening Program, a violation of the School Reform Act 3818-2.04. The original charter was approved to provide education for students in
grades 9-12. In 2003, the school submitted a charter revision request to the D.C.
Board of Education requesting the addition of grades 7 and 8. Therefore, the school
is currently operating outside the legal restrictions of the originally approved charter.
In the area of special education, the school has not committed any known violations
related to the education of children with disabilities. The school is under PCSB
4
Restructuring Year II in compliance with NCLB federal legislation. The school has
had no compliance issues during the 2010-2011 school year.
(2) Financial - Based on the information available, PCSB believes that the IDEA PCS
has solid fiscal management processes in place. The schools audit reports (FY08FY10) reflect sound accounting and internal controls policies. The school has
done an extremely good job submitting all necessary documents to PCSB for
review when required. Annual budgets are extremely thoughtful and reflect
careful planning and financial savvy.
The school continues to perform
exceptionally well in terms of cash flow and liquidity management. For the year
ending June 30, 2010, the schools nets assets approached $4.6 million up $678K
from FY09 year-ending results. Additionally, the schools liquidity ratio of 6.31
indicates that the school possessed $6.31 of liquid assets for every $1 of short-term
debt (a one-to-one ratio is adequate). As with any not-for-profit organization, the
school should seek to continuously improve its fiscal management and internal
controls.
(3) Economic Viability- Based on the information contained in the tables and charts
above, PCSB staff concludes that IDEA PCS is economically viable and of sound
fiscal health.
Appendix J
From: Mikayla Lytton, Catherine Day

To: Sarah Medway
Re: IDEA PCS Graduation Rates
Date: January 16, 2013
Conclusions
From the following data, we can draw the following conclusions:
Graduation rates have stayed consistent throughout the past throughout 2007-08 to
2010-11 years
o Note 2011-12 rate is the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate and therefore is
inconsistent with previous rates
Charts and Graphs

I have created the following charts to support our conclusions:
Graduation Rates
100%
94%
95%
93%
95%
95%
90%
85%
85%
78%
80%
75%
Confirmed Data*
70%
Unconfirmed Data
65%
60%
55%
50%
5th Year
10th Year
Performance Performance
(2002-03)
(2007-08)
2008-09
2009-10
*Data has been confirmed by PCSB and/or OSSE.

Data
I have also included the data I used to produce these charts.
2010-11
2011-12
Year
Graduation
Rate
Source & Notes
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
94%
93.18%
95.2%
2010-11
2011-12
95%
78%
IDEAs records (unconfirmed data)

OSSE (link)
Graduation Rate File (File name:
PCSB_GRADUATION_RATE_FINALS.xls)
PMF
PMF. Note that this is the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate and is not
consistent with the calculation methodology used for all other years.
Appendix K
APPLICATION FOR CHARTER RENEWAL

JANUARY 7, 2013
Contents
I.
Executive Summary ..........................................................................................1
II.
Required Documentation ..............................................................................4
III.
Review of 1997-2013 Charter Performance ................................................5
A.
Criterion 1: Fulfillment of Charter Goals ....................................................... 5
1.
Academic Goals ............................................................................................................. 5

a)
Ensure graduation rates are over 90% ........................................................................ 5
b) Ensure all June graduates go to college or meaningful employment (minimum wage

or higher) by September...................................................................................................... 6
c)
2.
Raise grade point averages (GPA) an average of 5% per year ................................... 7

Non-Academic Goals .................................................................................................... 8
a)
Create an environment that encourages attendance & reduces absenteeism. ............. 8
b)
Ensure all eligible seniors are afforded the opportunity to obtain financial aid. ...... 10
c)
Improve student citizenship through JROTC & Community Activities ................... 10
d)
Integrate learning and work experience through hands-on, work experiences ......... 12
e)
Incorporate youth development activities (JROTC, fieldtrips, teamwork, service) . 14
f)
Receive more than a high school diploma ................................................................ 15
B. Criterion 2: Fulfillment of Student Academic Achievement Expectations .... 16

1. IDEAs performance on academic achievement expectations as set forth in its
original charter.................................................................................................................... 16
a)
Improve PSAT, SAT and ASVAB test scores between 7-10% each year................ 16
2. IDEAs performance on academic achievement expectations for all students,

including students with disabilities and English language learners ............................... 18
a)
Proficiency and advanced performance on SAT-9 and DC CAS ............................. 18
b)
Student growth in proficiency on the state assessment ............................................. 21
c)
College readiness as demonstrated by PSAT/SAT Scores, AP exams ..................... 21
d)
Student performance on mission related measures ................................................... 22
IDEA Public Charter School
ii
C.
Criterion 3: Compliance with Applicable Laws ........................................... 22
1.
General Laws............................................................................................................... 23
a)
Health and Safety ...................................................................................................... 23
b)
Enrollment Data ........................................................................................................ 23
c)
Maintenance and Dissemination of Student Records ............................................... 24
d)
Compulsory Attendance Laws .................................................................................. 24
e)
Title I of the Improving Americas Schools Act ...................................................... 24
f) Civil Rights Statutes and Regulations of the Federal Government and the District of
Columbia ........................................................................................................................... 25
g)
Other ......................................................................................................................... 25
2.
Special Education Laws.............................................................................................. 25
3.
Financial Laws ............................................................................................................ 25
iii
I.
Executive Summary
Integrated Design and Electronics Academy Public Charter School (IDEA) seeks a
renewal of its charter petition pursuant to Section 38-1802.12(b) of the School Reform Act, D.C.
Code 38-1800.01, et seq. IDEA is in the midst of restructuring its entire operations pursuant to
an agreement with the D.C. Public Charter School Boards (PCSB) and therefore there are
some aspects of IDEAs operations and its charter renewal application that are unique.
A quick recap of the past year provides a useful framework. On December 19, 2011, the
PCSB voted to revoke IDEAs charter for failing to meet its academic goals and student
achievement expectations set forth in its charter. On February 2, 2012, at a public hearing in
response to the PCSBs actions, IDEA, with the strong support of its stakeholders, including the
school leadership, faculty, staff and the community, submitted a comprehensive plan to
restructure its operations. On February 22, 2012, the PCSB approved a restructuring plan and
timeline, the terms of which were memorialized in a Conditions for Continuance Agreement
(Agreement.)
Pursuant to the Agreement, IDEA formed a restructuring team that conducted a thorough
top-to-bottom audit of IDEAs staffing, governance, academic program, and finances;
recommended new systems; identified a new Board chair and five new Board members; updated
the course offerings manual; developed a new master schedule; hired new leadership, teachers
and staff; assessed the mission; updated school policies; submitted a new budget, and made
many other improvements. On May 15, 2012, IDEA and the restructuring team submitted a
report to the PCSB, that discussed the audit findings and made sweeping recommendations to
improve the schools operations on all fronts academic, governance and financial. The PCSB
endorsed those recommendations, and, over the past several months, IDEA has been
implementing those recommendationsand moreunder the leadership of the new Board chair,
a reconstituted board and the new Executive Director.
Thus, while the focus of the charter renewal process prescribed by Section 38-1802.12(b)
is directed to a schools past performance over the past 15 years, IDEA is submitting its
application as a school that has not only acknowledged its need to restructure its programs to
meet its aspirational academic goals; but also has actively and aggressively implemented a multiyear turnaround plan. IDEA has highlighted these facts throughout its renewal application.
Additionally, unlike other schools up for renewal, none of the founders or former school
leaders is currently associated with the school. Thus, the schools performance prior to the 20122013 school year does not reflect the changes that have been instituted by the current board, the
new leadership team or the majority of teachers and staff who were hired as part of the
restructuring process. Historical data that is provided in this application to support the original
charter goals come from published annual reports produced by the former administration,
available files maintained by the former administration, and files provided by current, veteran
employees of the school.
IDEA respectfully requests that its renewal application should be viewed and evaluated in
light of these facts and circumstances.
That Was Then. The founders of IDEA saw a need for a high school, in an underserved
area of the District of Columbia, with the goal of preparing students for post-secondary
opportunities. To that end, IDEA has always offered students a variety of opportunities to gain
college readiness, work-related experience through both internships and formal technical
education offerings, and exposure to opportunities that ready them for the armed forces. The
application that follows will show that over the years, IDEA built a rich program of leadership,
service, and youth development opportunities relying heavily on skills learned through an active
Junior Reserves Officers Training Corps (JROTC) program, and met many of its nonacademic goals. IDEA bought, renovated and expanded an historical school building in
Deanwood that has become an integral part of the community. The school has graduated
hundreds of students. Despite these successes, the annual academic goals of sustaining high
graduation rates, increasing grade point averages and increasing PSAT/SAT/ASVAB scores
were not met and progress towards meeting those goals, although at times solid, did not show
consistent trends. As more data-driven measures of academic performance were introduced into
the charter school system, IDEA began to lose ground. Academic achievement, in terms of test
score performance, shows that IDEA performed below state averages on the DC CAS, even
though IDEA consistently outperformed similarly situated neighborhood schools such as H.D.
Woodson and Ron Brown. It was these concerns that led to the current restructured IDEA.
This Is Now. In order to chart a more academically successful course beginning in the
fourteenth year of its charter term, IDEA took significant steps to change the top leadership of
the school and to transition from its founding team to a team that could achieve the type of
academic success that has always been envisioned for the IDEA students. At the end of the
2011-2012 school year, the founding board chair, founding executive director, deputy director,
and principal resigned and turned the school over to a newly formed administration. The new
team includes a Board with extensive governance and academic expertise, and a leadership team
with proven operational, academic and school culture expertise. This new team has focused
intensely on raising academic achievement and improving school culture at IDEA during this last
year of the charter term.
IDEA has focused on raising academic achievement with:
100% highly qualified teachers of whom more than two-thirds are new hires that
replaced the ineffective teachers from the previous administration
New graduation requirements and course sequencing that aligns with state
graduation requirements and emphasizes student academic success
A new promotion policy that focuses on increasing the percentage of ninth
graders on track for graduation
New school wide grading policies that no longer hinder students from success
Rigorous and DC CAS aligned interim assessments to gauge student progress
towards mastery of standards and readiness for spring exams
A DC CAS academic action plan to aggressively raise student performance on
state exams
IDEA has focused on improving school culture by:
Enhancing the dean structure by creating an upper grade dean to prioritize postsecondary readiness of juniors and seniors
Revamping the code of conduct, attendance policies and discipline policies with
higher expectations, clearer consequences, and strategic linkages
Offering intensive professional development on culture to teachers and staff
Implementing student-led parent-teacher conferences to help students become

invested in their own education
Arranging grade-level team meetings to enable teachers to work across disciplines
Enforcing consistent implementation of policies and consequences
IDEA currently serves more than 300 students, largely from the surrounding Deanwood
community of Ward 7. Students and families are invested in the new IDEA, energized by and
committed to the new leaders and teachers, and want IDEA to remain as an educational option in
their community. Research shows that successful school turnarounds typically take three to five
years to achieve full effect. IDEA is in Year 1 of this significant effort, with a great team of
leaders, teachers and staff in place to see it through. The team looks forward to the opportunity to
continue to build IDEA so that it fulfills its founding intent to prepare students for postsecondary success and active and engaged citizenship in their communities.
II.
Required Documentation
Request 1: Articles of Incorporation
See attached articles of incorporation as required by SRA 38-1802.12(b)(3).
Request 2: Current By-Laws
See attached current by-laws, as required by SRA 38-1802.12(b)(3).
Request 3: Audited Financial Statements
See attached audited financial statements for the preceding four years, as required by
SRA 38-1802.12(b)(2).
III.
Review of 1997-2013 Charter Performance

A.
Criterion 1: Fulfillment of Charter Goals
The founders of IDEA envisioned a program that would ensure that any student could be
successful in his/her post-secondary pursuits, regardless of interests and academic background.
At the core of this belief is a commitment to a college-readiness curriculum that ensures all
students can be successful in the classroom, the military or the workforce after graduation. The
founders vision for the academic program for IDEA and its students continues.
1.
Academic Goals
Ensure graduation rates are over 90%

Over the schools history, IDEA has reached this graduation goal or come very close
during most years of operation even when faced with challenges such as students entering below
grade level and students who were habitually truant. All public high schools were required by
OSSE to use a new Adjusted 9th Grade Cohort Rate for calculating graduation rates beginning in
2010-211 and therefore graduation rates were lower across the board for secondary schools in the
District. IDEAs record is as follows:
a)
School Year
90% of students eligible School Year

will graduate
90% of students eligible will

graduate
98-99
100%.
07-08
94%
99-00
88%
08-09
93.1%.
00-01
81%
09-10
90%
01-02
88%.
10-11
95% / 72.3% Adjusted 9th grade

cohort rate (first year of
implementation across DC
schools) D.C. Average: 58.6%
02-03
86%
11-12
78 % using Adjusted 9th grade

cohort rate D.C. Average: 61%
03-04
82%
04-05
80%
05-06
64%
06-07
No Data Available
RESTRUCTURING
Tracking graduation rates has been a focus of the restructuring program. First, the school
revamped the withdrawal process to better track students who leave IDEA. The new process
ensures IDEA identifies each withdrawn students next academic pursuit rather than allow a
student to withdraw and potentially drop out. Second, revisions to the grading policy have
attributed to the increases in 9th grade on track metrics. The revisions follow national trends to
focus on student achievement and academic success rather than failure by no longer allowing
grades less than 60% to be attributed to students quarter grades. Third, the school is currently
working to partner with credit-recovery programs to ensure students who are missing graduation
credits have a support system in place to make up for lost credit. Fourth, revisions to the
graduation requirements and promotion policy allow students to earn more credits during the
normal school day rather than forcing students to accumulate necessary credits in night school or
summer school.
From the start of the restructuring efforts in the second half of the 2011-2012 school year,
IDEAs adjusted graduation rate was 78%, up from 72% in 2010-11. This rate was the tenth
highest out of 32 public high schools in the city, and significantly above the state average.
Moreover, 81.8% of 9th graders in 2011-12 were on track towards graduation, which is
significantly higher than available data for previous years.
However, given the new Adjusted 9th Grade Cohort Rate for calculating graduation rates
and the current restructuring process, IDEA sees a 90% graduation rate as an aspirational goal
that will need to be reached in incremental steps. To ensure that students are on track to meet this
goal in future years, the school has implemented related benchmark goals, including that 65% of
freshman will earn credits needed to be on track for graduation, and that 70% of juniors will
complete 75 of 100 mandatory community service hours by June 2013.
b)
Ensure all June graduates go to college or meaningful
employment (minimum wage or higher) by September
IDEAs mission has been, and continues to be, the preparation of students with the
academic, social, leadership and occupational skills for post-secondary opportunities. The
available data from IDEAs early years (i.e., 1998 through 2006) shows that IDEA graduates
have gone to college, entered careers in technical sectors, including the automotive and medical
fields, and served in the United States Military, including the Army, Navy and Air Force. Several
students have even attended college while serving in the military Reserves to help defray the
cost. IDEAs available data after 2007 only shows the percentage of 12th graders who were
accepted into a two or four-year college. The available data is presented below:
School
Year
Percentage of graduating seniors who planned to enter college, technical

training, the workforce, or military within six month of graduation.
98-99
No Data Available
99-00
100% 57% College; 0% Work Force; 43% Military
00-01
01-02
100% 50% College; 25% Technical Training; 6%Work Force; 19% Military
02-03
100% 70% College; 10% Technical Training; 10%Work Force; 10% Military
03-04
100% 48% College; 37% Technical Training; 7.5%Work Force; 7.5%Military
04-05
No Data Available
05-06
06-07
No Data Available
07-08
78% college acceptance rate
08-09
09-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
100% expected college acceptance rate

RESTRUCTURING
As an initial part of our restructuring efforts, IDEA has focused on increasing the college
acceptance rates that had fluctuated between 30% and 78% in recent years. This past year, 100%
of our graduating seniors in the Class of 2012 were accepted to college and we expect the same
for 2012-13. This vast improvement was the result of the restructuring work. First, IDEA
dedicated a guidance counselor to ensuring all students applied for college. Second, IDEA held
application help days where seniors worked one-on-one and in small groups with faculty and
volunteers to complete applications. Third, IDEA introduced into its academic offerings an
elective course, College Prep, which focuses on the college entrance process. Last, the school
focused on working with students one-on-one to ensure students completed necessary
benchmarks for post-secondary transition including registering and taking the SAT/ACT, taking
the AVSAB, and career required entrance exams. Moving forward, IDEA will continue to
dedicate staff to students post-secondary pursuits in college, the armed services, and postsecondary training/careers and to tracking the post-secondary choices of the graduates more
precisely. IDEA will also use the Student Clearinghouse Database to track student college
enrollment moving beyond acceptances. Finally, the school will expand resources to the postsecondary transition including student reference guides, career inventories, and online databases
such as Naviance.
c)
Raise grade point averages (GPA) an average of 5% per year
The new leadership team has limited historical data available about the increases in grade
point averages. The data available from the later years show that the prior leadership of IDEA
did not met its goal of increasing grade point averages 5% per year. The available data includes:
School Year
06-07
07-08
08-09
09-10
10-11
11-12
Average GPA per year

1.97
2.00
2.04
1.98
2.07
2.05
RESTRUCTURING
Under restructuring, the new leadership team has undertaken efforts to ensure GPAs are
tracked and well defined. First, the school defined how the grade scale translates to GPA points.
Next, IDEA implemented a new grading methodology that allows for greater student
achievement while enhancing a students ability to be successful in a course. The grading scale
for grades in the F category were redefined ensuring no student earns less than 60%. Third, the
school has utilized an electronic student information system (SIS) to calculate student GPAs. The
addition of this module in PowerSchool ensures that student GPAs can be tracked over time.
IDEA believes that in order to raise student GPAs, student accountability and buy-in will
be essential. Through restructuring, IDEA has established grade level teams that meet regularly
to review student achievement. The teams review student grades and progress and identify steps
necessary to advance the achievement of individual students. The school has focused on
recognizing students with high GPAs through reward and recognition programs. Additional work
will be done through math classes at each grade level to introduce and have students calculate
their own GPAs. As the restructuring efforts continue, the school will examine how grades from
outside institutions, credit recovery, and summer school factor into a students GPA.
2.
Non-Academic Goals
a)
Create an environment that encourages attendance & reduces
absenteeism.
Attendance rates between 1998 and at least 2004 were reported to the chartering body at
the Board of Education only as Average Daily attendance and Average Daily membership. Using
these calculations, attendance rates typically fluctuated between 66% to 86%. These rates are
slightly lower than the rates that were generated after IDEA began utilizing the PowerSchool
student information system that tracks attendance more accurately and reports a calculated
average attendance rate to report attendance to the chartering authority.
Regular attendance by all students has been a challenge for IDEA since its inception. For
many years, attendance incentives were primarily implemented at the teacher/class level, and
awards and recognition were given to students for perfect attendance. IDEA has made regular
attendance a greater school-wide priority and has implemented a number of different schoolwide strategies to encourage higher attendance of its students.
In 2010-11, IDEA implemented an attendance incentive program by which classrooms
and individuals who had perfect attendance for a given week were entered into a raffle each
Friday. Any student who had been in school the full week received a token prize, such as a free
food item, and was entered into a raffle during each of the three lunch periods for larger prizes
such as a $5-10 ITunes gift card. Since beginning these incentive programs, IDEA has seen
increases in the attendance rate to over 90% except during SY 2011-12 when the threat of school
closure resulted in disruption of the school routines and negatively impacted a number of
students and their families The historical attendance rates for the school are presented below:
Historical Attendance Rates

School Year
98-99
99-00
Rate
60%
70.7
School Year
07-08
08-09
Rate
91%*
93%*
00-01
70%
09-10
81.7%
01-02
75%
10-11
90.3%*
02-03
79.7%
11-12
MS: 85.5%, HS: 81.9%
03-04
85%
12-13
92% for 1st quarter, end of Oct.
04-05
No data available
05-06
82%
06-07
No data available
*When available, data taken from PMF results or other published PCSB Performance Reviews/reports. For other
years, data is taken from or calculated using ADA/ADM data from IDEA Annual Reports.
RESTRUCTURING
Under the schools restructuring plan, the school has set a specific target of 91% average
daily attendance for the 2012-13 school year. As of the end of first quarter in SY12-13, the
average attendance was 92%.
Under the restructuring model, the Head of School Culture and Deans are responsible for
student attendance with administrative support from the Main Office staff. Advisors are also
primary points of contact for attendance and punctuality with four out of five school days
beginning with a small "homeroom" class that can focus on social skills instruction. As such,
advisors are highlighting the importance of attendance and coming up with their own incentives
and challenges for their small-group advisories. For example, during the months of August and
September a pizza luncheon and Timberwolf ROARS (Recognizing Outstanding
Achievements and Rewarding Success) were given to all students with perfect attendance. In
addition, Advisors set-up quarterly Family Conferences that include attendance as part of the
student-led conference with individualized student data.
IDEA has also implemented a more detailed and clear attendance policy for students.*
The policy outlines clear expectations for students and families with regards to the importance
of attending school regularly and aligns the IDEA policy with the OSSE policy on attendance
regarding truancy and interventions. Additionally, the school outlined policies for documenting
excused and unexcused absences. Trigger points have been established (5, 10, 15 and 20
absences) that result in direct action with parents to diminish chronic absenteeism. Parents are
regularly informed of absences through AlertNow messages, personal phone calls, letters, and
even home visits, when necessary. In cases where students are flagged for serious attendance
concerns, parents will receive a call an attendance contract and improvement plan is
implemented through a meeting with one of the deans. When, despite efforts, the critical marks
of 10 and 20 absences are reached for several students, the school conducts mandatory CFSA
reporting and de-enrollment as outlined in the 2012-13 IDEA Student and Family Handbook.
*Highlights of the 2012-13 attendance policy can be found at http://www.ideapcs.org/for-studentsfamilies/attendance-policies
b)
Ensure all eligible seniors are afforded the opportunity to
obtain financial aid.
IDEA has worked to ensure that all students pursue meaningful post-secondary
opportunities. For the last five years, IDEA has had the benefit of a dedicated DC-College
Access Program (DC-CAP) advisor assigned to the school to educate students on higher
education opportunities and financial aid. (For a number of years, DC-CAP advisors had only
been assigned to DCPS high schools and had not been available in public charter schools). This
advisor, who is on campus three full days a week, has regularly held individual and group
sessions with students from 9th 12th grade to help educate them about, and assist them with, the
college financial aid process. Through group sessions in homeroom or during lunch periods, the
advisor would attempt to see every student, even those who planned to pursue the military or the
workforce, to ensure that students understood all of their options. During the college application
period in the first half of twelfth grade, the advisor worked individually with students as well as
hosted afterschool workshops for parents to help them navigate the complex financial aid system.
RESTRUCTURING
A new Upper School Dean role was created for the 2012-13 school year to replace the
former guidance counselor. This revised role focuses on overseeing students' academic and
behavioral concerns in a holistic approach. Through weekly grade level meetings with the 11th
and 12th grade team, the Upper School Dean can guide the process of college applications and
financial aid. The twelfth grade teachers and advisors who have the most direct contact and best
relationships with students and families are used as the leads. In addition, the dean also tracks all
relevant student data in this area, such as class rank, GPA, SAT/ACT scores, post-secondary
goals, college applications completed, recommenders, and FAFSA status. The DC-CAP advisor
housed at IDEA continues to counsel individual and groups of students three days a week to
ensure that students and their families are informed about options to make college attendance a
reality. In conjunction with the Upper School Dean, Head of Academics, and twelfth grade
advisors, the DC-CAP advisor helps facilitate an annual Financial Aid Information Night for
students and parents as well as a couple targeted College Application Days. During the latter, not
only are local community colleges available to register students on-site, there is dedicated time
and attention from IDEA staff to guide students through different parts of the application process
through a workshop model. In addition, the 2012-13 course offerings at IDEA include a College
Prep and Writing Lab class during which students can receive targeted, small-group assistance.
The course is even open to eleventh grade students so that students can get an early start,
previewing the process before their senior year. In 2012-13 the school expects 100% of its
graduating seniors to be accepted into two or four-year colleges.
c)
Improve student citizenship through JROTC & Community
Activities
The Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (JROTC) program has been at the core of
IDEA since the schools inception. IDEA PCS believes that participation in JROTC instills in
students strong leadership abilities, good character, a commitment to service, and an
understanding of the importance of outstanding citizenship in their communities. While some
students who participate in JROTC may go on to military service after completing high school or
10
college, the skills acquired in JROTC help prepare all students for success regardless of their
path and ensure that IDEA is meeting its mission of preparing students to be responsible citizens
who contribute to the community.
Since the schools first years of operation, student participation in JROTC has been
mandated and it remains a vital part of our school culture. In JROTC classes, students learn skills
such as leadership principles, planning, strategy and application, communication skills, conflict
resolution, financial planning, presenting skills, map reading, first aid and CPR and drug safety.
Students also have the opportunity to develop in the areas of: Physical fitness; Responsibility;
Teamwork; Motivation. Additionally, students are able to participate in afterschool and weekend
JROTC activities such as: Marksmanship safety, Drill competitions, Color Guard, Academic
challenge team, Land navigation team, Service learning projects, Weekend adventure drill,
Military ball, Essay contests, Summer leadership challenges and Cadet challenge-physical fitness
competition. IDEA students have also performed well and qualified for enlistment through the
required Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB.)
Over a number of years, IDEA students have participated in JROTC summer leadership
camp. The Color Guard has been selected to lead or open multiple ceremonies for local
community groups and military and governmental agencies in the District of Columbia,
Maryland, and Virginia. In 2009-10, IDEA received a commendable rating on its JROTC annual
report, earning the maximum 400 possible points by the US Army Cadet Command.
Community Service. Community service has been a component of the IDEA education
since inception. Over the schools history, students have participated in community service
activities in a variety of ways some coordinated specifically through the JROTC program as
well as other school wide initiatives. Since at least 2006, all students have been required to
complete community service hours in order to graduate from the school.
The JROTC program has been extremely active in providing and supporting community
service. Some of the specific initiatives through JROTC have included:
A partnership (and multi-year grant) with the DC Learn and Service program since at least
2005, where IDEA students participated in community emergency response team training.
The JROTC Department has sponsored National and Global Youth Service Day over a
number of years, focusing on disaster preparedness and First Aid.
For a number of years, students have volunteered at the Armed Services Retirement Home to
run recreational therapy programs, including Bowling for Dollars and Senior Prom.
For many years, IDEA students, staff, and families have assisted with the Safeway Feast for
Sharing Thanksgiving Event, which provided a holiday meal and social services for over
5,000 disadvantaged, homeless, and elderly citizens.
The IDEA Steering Committee, founded 12 years ago to connect with business and community
leaders and to establish the school as a true partner in the community, has supported other
school-wide projects outside of JROTC including:
In 2008-09, students participated in the design and building of a computer center to serve the
local Deanwood community
Winter Clothing Accessory Drive benefited100 people on the street, annually.
Students designed and created decorative tiles for the new health and wellness center.
11
Deanwood Community Day, an annual event bringing together IDEA families, staff
members, local organizations, and neighbors, attracting some 400-500 people per year to
partake in free food, games, information, contests, rides and activities.
The School Wellness Council, founded in 2009, identifies and addresses healthy-living
habits, strategies, and programs that benefit the school, families, and the neighborhood.
RESTRUCTURING
JROTC continues to be a core component of the IDEA program moving forward. JROTC
classes are now required for two years as part of IDEA graduation requirements. IDEA offers a
comprehensive four-year JROTC program for students wishing to pursue military education and
training during their high school career.
As part of the restructuring program, IDEA revamped the JROTC program to ensure all
students were sequentially scheduled for JRTOC. Second, the school is working with instructors
from the JRTOC program to infuse school-wide community events and service components.
Third, IDEA, through the JROTC program, is utilizing the experience and training of upper level
junior cadets to provide leadership for underclass students in JROTC 1 and 2. This commitment
to community remains a key component of the IDEA program.
Currently, community service hours are a requirement for graduation, and meeting
interim expectations each year is a prerequisite for promotion to ensure that students are on track
towards graduation requirements: 25 hours required for 9th grade promotion; 50 hours for 10th
grade promotion; 75 hours for 11th grade promotion; 100 hours by May 15 for graduation.
Under restructuring, IDEA has enhanced policies and practices related to community
service. First, IDEA revamped its methods for tracking community service hours. Second, a clear
definition of community service was established. Third, one designated person has been assigned
to tracking community service. Fourth, through the JROTC program, the school will continue to
organize days of service and service opportunities for students both within the IDEA community
and the broader DC community. Fifth, students have annual community service hour
expectations as a part of promotion requirements.
d)
Integrate learning and work experience through hands-on,
work experiences
While the wording of IDEAs mission has evolved over the years, at its core has been a
goal of preparing students for post-secondary opportunities. To that end, the school has always
offered students a variety of opportunities to gain work-related experience outside of the
academic program through both internships and formal technical education offerings. For many
years, students had access to a variety of internship opportunities through local organizations.
Examples of past opportunities include:
In 2004-05, students participated in the Good Samaritan Foundations Student Training

Opportunity Program which provided after-school tutoring and mentoring, job related
skills workshops, and summer internships.
High school students who were learning computer assisted drafting, networking, and
computer installation skills participated in a practical, real-world experience that made a
significant difference in their community. Students, under the supervision of 21st CCLC
instructors, designed and built a $100,000 computer laboratory for its neighboring church
12
and 21st CCLC partner. This project gave students invaluable skills, saved the church
thousands of dollars and added a valuable resource to the neighborhood.
Students have completed multiple projects, including a computer training laboratory at
Corinth Baptist Church and at Ferebee-Hope Elementary School, and an internet caf at
Nia Community Public Charter School. Under the supervision of technology instructors,
students conducted needs assessments for their clients, designed the computer
laboratories using Automated Computer Aided Drafting (AutoCAD), built the computer
systems using skills from the computer repair course, and installed the computer
laboratories through electronics and computer networking courses.
VRROOM was an academy co-located at IDEA to introduce youth to a myriad of career
opportunities in the motorsport and related industries. Participants received education
and sample training in areas such as auto safety, driving, public speaking, design, health
& fitness, and sewing. For a number of years, VRROOM held a summer camp that
hosted fifty participants and utilized eight student interns as junior camp counselors.
Throughout the summer and academic year programming, students gained skills in oral
communication skills as they were often invited to speak at events.
IDEA Internship Program: An IDEA student internship program was established six
years ago that includes a spring pre-employment training program in which eligible students
learn valuable job skills, workplace etiquette and other personal skills. After completing the
training, students were assigned as summer interns with local businesses, nonprofits, and
government agencies in DC where they are mentored, gain additional training and earn money.
Partner organizations have included the DC Summer Youth Employment Program, National
Academy Foundation, and the Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation. This program
is targeted to 11th grade students but also works with students across grades. Anecdotal evidence
from program staff suggests that students who have participated as 11th graders have attended
college at a higher rate than students not in the program.
For at least five years, JROTC has co-sponsored an internship program targeted
towards 9th graders called Bringing the Learning Home in conjunction with the US Holocaust
Museum. Students participate in a 13-week training that culminates in a final exam of leading a
tour as a museum guide. Students receive service learning credits and a small stipend during their
first year (9th grade) and are fully paid for all subsequent years.
Lastly, for the last few years, numerous IDEA 12th graders have been selected to
participate in the Urban Alliance Youth partnership whereby students get early release to work in
paid positions with local agencies and businesses, and ongoing support in college.
Career and Technical Education Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs
have been a core part of IDEAs approach since year one to ensure that students have exposure
to a variety of post-secondary opportunities, including meaningful opportunities in the
workforce. While most of IDEA graduates go on to college or the military, for those that do not
choose either of these paths, the technical training has been instrumental in creating successful
career opportunities. CTE courses have been designed to prepare students for both college and
careers in current or emerging high skills, high wage, high demand occupational areas or
clusters. When IDEA first opened in 1998, it provided two career and technical education
programs of study: drafting and electrical wiring. To keep up with technological developments,
these offerings evolved into automated computer aided drafting and computer networking and
13
repair. For a number of years, new students were introduced to technology during a summer
technology boot camp, with introductory courses in middle-school and more specialized
offerings in the upper grades. Students were given the opportunity to participate in technical
training at IDEA in a variety areas such as electronics, automated computer aided drafting
(AutoCAD), computer networking, and computer repair. In 2009, the school revived the
electrical traditional, commercial and residential electrical wiring offerings due to student and
parental demand, through a partnership with Truland Systems Corporation, a local major
electrical construction management, design, and engineering firm that provided internship
opportunities for students and financial support to the school for several years. Truland provided
technical and instructor support for the electronics/electrical wiring program in which students
learned the fundamentals of power, lighting and lighting controls, life-safety systems, energy
management systems, emergency power and uninterruptible power supply systems, and security
systems meeting the most stringent requirements.
RESTRUCTURING
As part of restructuring, IDEA reexamined its career program. For the 2012-13 school
year, the school shifted the focus to IT courses based on student demand and outcomes. With the
revamped IT focus, the school developed a course sequence that allows students to move through
a vertical course sequence in one area rather than have students take a variety of career and
technical electives that did not align. In Principles of Technology, the introductory course,
students are exposed to computer hardware, basic business technology, basic electronics, basic
web page design, CAD, Computer Repair and Networking. The course will provide both handson as well as theory for each module. Upon successful completion of this course, students will
have a working knowledge of IT and be ready to choose a certification track, if desired. The
school is currently evaluating outside partners such as IT ComputerWiz Kids to further enhance
the career and technical offerings. The school also revamped course sequencing and offerings in
the JROTC program for students wishing to enter the military as a post-secondary option. Course
sequencing was clarified and the master schedule was designed to allow students to transition
between course levels in a sequential order. IDEA will undertake research to determine what
career and technical fields are in demand based on employment available in the metropolitan
area, and this will guide the expansion of the career and technical program for future years.
e)
Incorporate youth development activities (JROTC, fieldtrips,
teamwork, service)
Throughout the schools history, IDEA has offered numerous opportunities for students
to become well-rounded citizens, developing their leadership and social skills outside of the
academic program. As discussed above, JROTC and community service learning projects offer
significant opportunities for youth development. For most years of the schools history, 100% of
students have participated in JROTC programs. And through community service, students gain
invaluable skills and experiences beyond academic ones. Other examples of ways the school has
worked to incorporate youth development activities over its history include:
Field trips to Washington DCs many cultural and academic institutions

Offering a variety of sports programming for students over the years. In 2003-04, the
school established a basketball and cheerleading programs, and over the subsequent years
added a number of additional programs.
14
In 2005-06, IDEA also established an Out of School Time program for grades 7 to 12
through grants from the 21st Century Community Learning Centers and the District of
Columbia Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation.
In 2010-11, the school created IDEAs Business Men and Women (BMW), where student
leaders (who were paid in IDEA bucks) led classroom activities, such as creating and
overseeing a math tutoring program for other students, presenting data to IDEAs school
leadership team and developing incentives to increase student achievement at the school.
RESTRUCTURING
In SY 12-13, IDEA continues to support youth development activities, while
emphasizing academic rigor and structure during the school day. The school currently offers a
full line-up of fall, winter and spring sports for boys and girls, and a number of afterschool
activities. With a state-of-the-art gym opened for the 2012-13 school year, athletic youth
development has expanded. Already, the girls volleyball team won the charter league
championship in November of 2012. Other youth development activities include: Arts club,
music club/drum line, ACE (Architecture, Construction & Engineering) Mentor Program,
Yearbook, National Honor Society, and community service.
f)
Receive more than a high school diploma
Since the schools inception, technical education has been a key focus at IDEA. Students
who have pursued coursework in the vocational track were able to earn certificates in a variety of
areas, including computer repair, AutoCad, electrical house wiring, and computer networking.
Historical data is limited, but over the past years, approximately 40 students earned
certificates and approximately six students earned Industry Certificates (A+).
School Year
Received shop certificates at graduation
98-99
No Data Available
99-00
100% of seniors
00-01
80% of seniors
01-02
Thirteen seniors received their shop certificates; six in Computer

Repair, six in CAD and one in Electrical House Wiring.
02-03
Fifteen (15) seniors received their shop certificates; 4 in

Computer Repair, 4 in CAD and 8 in Electrical House Wiring.
03-04
33 juniors received their shop certificates: 19 in AutoCAD, 12 in

Computer Repair, and 2 in Computer Networking. One junior
earned the CISCO Certification.
04-05
No Data Available
05-06
13 students received shop certificates: 5 Computer Networking, 4

Electricity/Electronics, 3 AutoCAD, 1 Computer Repair.
06-07
No Data Available
07-08
2007-08 No certificates were issued this year.
15
RESTRUCTURING
IDEA continues to provide students with the opportunity to gain invaluable real-world
skills that will give our students a significant advantage when they enter advanced training or
certification programs, college, or the workforce. The academic course work ensures all students
have the foundations necessary to elect college as a post-secondary option. Emphasizing the
college entrance process, IDEA works with all students to ensure students are college entrance
ready by taking college entrance exams (SAT/ACT), providing financial aid information,
(FAFSA and DC TAG), and providing college guidance through the DC CAP program. All
students must complete two years of the JROTC program, with an option to complete four years,
to ensure preparation for careers in the military as a post-secondary option. The JROTC program
in the first two years provides an introduction to the military and service for students while
honing in on leadership and academic skill necessary to succeed in the military. Students wishing
to pursue the military option receive academic preparation for the military entrance exam,
AVSAB. Last, as described earlier, after completing a foundational technology introduction
course, students have the opportunity to pursue a certification track in technology. Under
restructuring, IDEA will be researching expansion of the career and technical field based on
market demand. IDEA anticipates an expansion of this career and technical field in the future.
B.
Criterion 2: Fulfillment of Student Academic Achievement
Expectations
1.
IDEAs performance on academic achievement expectations as set
forth in its original charter
a)
Improve PSAT, SAT and ASVAB test scores between 7-10%
each year.
PSAT. Historically, PSAT scores have fluctuated for 10th grade and 11th grade verbal and
math scores. Scores for 10th graders have ranged between 29 and 34 for verbal scores, 30 and 34
for math, and 30-33 for writing. For 11th graders, scores ranged between 32 and 34 for verbal and
between 33-35 for math. The school saw increases from 2008 to 2009 of 13% and 6% for 10th
and 11th grade verbal scores respectively, 3% for 10th and 11th grade math scores, and 9% and
10% for 10th and 11th grade writing scores. In all other years, scores stayed the same, or saw
slight increases or decreases.
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
10th Grade
Verbal
Math
29.9
32.9
33.9
33.8
33.8
34.3
34.5
30.3
2012
11th Grade
Writing
30.8
33.6
32.4
33.4
Verbal
32.7
34.5
33.7
33.3
36.6
Math
34.1
35.2
33.7
34.5
36.1
Writing
32.2
35.4
33.3
32.8
35.6
16
SAT. SAT data is available for the last six years. This data suggests that while the school
did not meet the annual goal for score increases, the school has seen small but steady increases in
the average verbal and math SAT scores over the last four years.
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
12th Grade
Verbal
Math
379
366
373
368
362
346
359
348
368
351
371
354
Writing
366
353
360
347
361
346
The school has also defined a set of target scores for all three exams that would indicate
students were on track to acceptance into a two or four year college or the armed services. The
charter goal states that averages will be 800-1000 or higher. Over the last several years, IDEA
has seen an increase in the number of students who are reaching the target of at least 800 on
combined verbal and math SAT scores.
This past year (2011-12), 28% of 12th graders who took the SAT achieved an 800
combined or higher, up from prior years for which data is available. For 11th graders, scores were
even higher, with 47% achieving a score of over 800 and 71% scoring at least 700.
ASVAB Scores. IDEA encourages those students who are interested in any of the
branches of the military to take the ASVAB. The chart below indicates the percentage of
students who voluntarily elected to take the ASVAB and attained a qualifying score that enabled
them to enlist in one of the armed services.
% of students who took the ASVAB and obtained a qualifying score
School Year
06-07
46%
07-08
31%
08-09
38%
09-10
53.5%
10-11
29.5%
11-12
26%
12-13
41%
RESTRUCTURING
IDEAs restructuring plan includes goals for 2012-13 related to college preparedness:
90% of seniors will take the SAT I by March 2013; and 30% of seniors will score 800
(math/verbal) on the SAT for the class of 2013.
17
In 2012-13 the Upper School Dean will work with junior and senior students to ensure
90% of seniors take the SAT I by March of 2013. This dean will provide assistance to students in
registering for the exam (including facilitating the fee waiver process) and, provide test prep
materials for students. Seniors enrolled in the College Prep class will practice SAT questions and
gain familiarity with the test format and scoring. The school is working on devising incentives
and recognition for students both in taking the test and test success. In the future, IDEA will
work with the College Board to examine the feasibility of making IDEA a SAT test site. Second,
IDEA will work to establish a SAT prep course for students. Third, IDEA will work to infuse
SAT prep into junior level courses in English and math.
2.
IDEAs performance on academic achievement expectations for all
students, including students with disabilities and English language learners
a)
Proficiency and advanced performance on SAT-9 and DC CAS
The first table presents historical proficiency rates on both the DC CAS and the SAT-9
for available years for IDEA PCS and the DC state average. State average figures are for
secondary schools only, with the exception of 2012. The 2012 scores include both elementary
and secondary schools as those are the results currently available from OSSE. Please note that,
generally, secondary scores are lower than elementary scores. Thus, the combined 2012 scores
present a slightly higher state average than we would predict for secondary scores alone.
During the SAT-9 years (2003-2005), IDEA PCS students generally achieved at or above
the state average for reading, and at or slightly below the state average in math. After the initial
year adjusting to the DC CAS, from 2007-2010 IDEA students generally achieved at or above
the state average in reading and at or slightly below the state average in both. In the past two
years, unfortunately, IDEA has experienced some drop off in scores.
Table 1. IDEA PCS Historic Proficiency vs. DC State Average
DC
%
State
%
DC State
Proficient Average Proficient Average
Year
Reading
Reading Math
Math
2012 - DC CAS
35.2%
45.6%
35.2%
49.3%
2011 - DC CAS
39.7%
47.9%
38.0%
52.3%
2010 - DC CAS
41.5%
46.4%
34.5%
48.7%
2009 - DC CAS
42.4%
44.9%
40.9%
45.7%
2008 - DC CAS
44.9%
41.8%
42.5%
40.7%
2007 - DC CAS
34.3%
33.9%
31.0%
32.1%
2006 - DC CAS
23.6%
31.8%
26.6%
25.7%
2005 - SAT-9
39.7%
30.4%
30.2%
34.1%
2004 - SAT-9
32.3%
30.9%
37.4%
38.3%
2003 - SAT-9
26.3%
28.7%
28.7%
35.5%
In none of these years did IDEA PCS have sufficient students to constitute a subgroup for
accountability for either special education or English language learners.
18
Another way to consider IDEAs student achievement over time is to compare IDEA
performance to similar schools located in geographic proximity. Only one District of Columbia
Public School (DCPS) high school is located in ward 7, HD Woodson. While three DCPS
middle school are located in the ward, Ron Brown is closest in proximity to IDEA. Overall,
student achievement at IDEA has surpassed or been on par with the comparison schools every
year since 2003 demonstrating the schools added valued to student achievement in ward 7.
In reading, IDEA has consistently outperformed its DCPS comparison schools of
Woodson HS and Ron Brown MS.
Table 2. IDEA PCS vs. Comparison Schools, Reading
Year
2012 - DC CAS
2011 - DC CAS
2010 - DC CAS
2009 - DC CAS
2008 - DC CAS
2007 - DC CAS
2006 - DC CAS
2005 - SAT-9
2004 - SAT-9
2003 - SAT-9
Ron Brown
IDEA Woodson
HS
MS
PCS
22.8%
17.8%
35.2%
13.4%
22.7%
39.7%
25.0%
28.9%
41.5%
23.8%
27.0%
42.4%
28.6%
24.9%
44.9%
11.7%
19.5%
34.3%
16.9%
16.1%
23.6%
7.1%
29.5%
39.7%
11.5%
25.8%
32.3%
10.8%
25.1%
26.3%
19
In math, IDEA PCS has strongly outperformed Woodson HS, and has slightly
outperformed, on average, Ron Brown MS.
Table 3. IDEA PCS vs. Comparison Schools, Math
Year
2012 - DC CAS
2011 - DC CAS
2010 - DC CAS
2009 - DC CAS
2008 - DC CAS
2007 - DC CAS
2006 - DC CAS
2005 - SAT-9
2004 - SAT-9
2003 - SAT-9
IDEA Woodson Ron Brown

HS
MS
PCS
17.2%
36.5%
35.2%
13.4%
48.1%
38.0%
17.9%
36.2%
34.5%
25.2%
28.9%
40.9%
17.5%
18.7%
42.5%
10.8%
12.0%
31.0%
13.0%
9.3%
26.6%
14.3%
21.2%
30.2%
21.8%
31.0%
37.4%
26.1%
31.1%
28.7%
IDEA recognizes scores dipped in 2012; the school believes this can partially be
attributed to three major elements affecting the school. First, the schools academic leader, the
principal, left in the middle of the school year due to health concerns. The absence of the
academic leader left the school under resourced for transition to the common core standards on
the 2012 DC CAS. As a result, instruction in 2011-12 did not align with the newly adopted
common core standards assessed in 2012. Thus, instruction did not align to the revamped DC
20
CAS in 2012. Second, due to lower than anticipated enrollment in October, the school
experienced a reduction in force in early November. This transition disturbed student and teacher
class assignments. Third, the instability under possible closure in the 2011-12 school year
resulted in great anxiety that plagued the entire school community. This anxiety impacted the
academic program and student achievement as students and teachers worried about the schools
future and its impact on their personal plans. The Restructuring Team that began its work in
March 2012 did not address test preparation and was focused primarily on planning for SY12-13.
RESTRUCTURING
In 2012-13, IDEA revamped its focus on student outcomes on the DC CAS. First,
underperforming teachers were replaced with new teachers with proven track records in raising
student achievement. IDEAs most effective math and English teachers who returned for the
2012-13 school year were reassigned to tested grades and subjects. Second, teacher leaders in
math and English received targeted professional development for the DC CAS including
understanding the DC CAS, the transition to the common core standards, the format and scoring
of the DC CAS and supporting documents from CTB/McGraw Hill. Third, math and English
teachers revised curriculum to align to the common core standards. Next, a math support class
was added to tenth grade to bridge learning gaps in algebra I in 10th grade while supporting
algebra skills necessary for algebra I. Finally, a revamped interim assessment program was
established that tests students math and reading standards mastery in four cycles prior to the DC
CAS. Data deep dives are used after the test to realign instruction and identify supports for
students and teacher instruction. IDEA believes that these changes will positively contribute to
student test growth in 2012-13.
b)
Student growth in proficiency on the state assessment
The available measure of student growth is the Median Growth Percentile (MGP)
produced by OSSE. These data are currently available for 2009-2010 and 2010-2011.
IDEA PCS MGP for reading in 2010 and 2011 were roughly the same at 43 and 41,
respectively. This means that, on average, IDEA PCS scores higher than at least 40 DC schools.
Please note that the MGP takes into consideration all schools, although elementary
schools typically perform higher than secondary schools like IDEA. The MGP data as published
by OSSE do not allow us to consider IDEAs growth compared only with secondary schools.
c)
College readiness as demonstrated by PSAT/SAT Scores, AP
exams
The school has also defined a set of target scores for all three exams that would indicate
students were on track to acceptance into a two or four year college or the armed services. Over
the last several years, IDEA has seen an increase in the number of students who are reaching the
target of at least 800 on combined verbal and math SAT scores.
This past year (2011-12), 28% of 12th graders who took the SAT achieved an 800
combined or higher, up from prior years for which data is available. For 11th graders, scores were
even higher, with 47% achieving a score of over 800 and 71% scoring at least 700.
In the schools history, although few if any students scored higher than a 1 on AP exams,
IDEA believed in the research showing the value of exposing students to an AP curriculum in
21
improving college readiness. Courses offered included: AP English Language, World History,
Chemistry, US History, US Government, and English Literature.
RESTRUCTURING
Section II. A.1. Restructuring addresses how IDEA is currently addressing student
preparedness for the PSAT and SAT exams. With regards to AP exams, under restructuring,
IDEA eliminated AP courses for the 2012-13 school year to focus on its core academic program.
The school plans to revive the AP program in the future as the core academic program is
developed. The school will look to tools like AP Potential (College Board) that predicts student
success on AP exams based on PSAT scores as it considers reestablishing its AP program.
d)
Student performance on mission related measures
IDEAs charter goals inherently include specific, mission-related measures including
goals that address the academic, workforce and armed forces pillars of the program. These
measures, and results, were addressed in Criterion 1.
C.
Criterion 3: Compliance with Applicable Laws
IDEA believes that it has no known material compliance issues with applicable laws, as
detailed below. In addition, the PCSB issued a 2012-2013 annual Compliance Review Report
that confirmed IDEA is in compliance with applicable laws in the following areas:
Fair enrollment process (enrollment application, written lottery procedures)
Notice and due process for student suspension and expulsion
Student health
Student safety (employee background checks, sexual violation protocol assurance policy,
school emergency response plan)
Employment policies and the protection of confidential information
Appropriate insurance
Occupancy, lease, and license for the facility (certificate of occupancy, lease/purchase
agreement, basic business license)
High quality teachers (Elementary and Secondary Education Act)
Board fiduciary duty (board meeting minutes, board calendar meeting dates, board
bylaws)
Articles of incorporation
School organization
Litigation status
School calendar
High school courses for graduation
Submission of annual report
Accreditation status
The PCSB and OSSE have noted, from time to time, compliance issues, each of which IDEA has
subsequently addressed and resolved. For example, the 2012-2013 Compliance Review Report
noted that IDEA had only one parent board member at the time when the review was conducted.
At the time of the review, the Board was in the process of identifying a second parent and has
22
since voted to accept the parent candidate who was identified and nominated. Similarly, IDEA
received a letter from OSSE regarding A-133 findings on the schools FY 2011 (July 1, 2010
June 30, 2011) financial audit. OSSEs review questioned $7,489 in costs and found that the
amounts reimbursed under the Federal Grants are unallowable costs, as IDEA does not have
adequate controls in place for the approval of time and effort reporting, with reconciliations to
approved personnel records. The school expects it will also have A-133 findings on its FY
2012 (July 1, 2011 June 30, 2012) financial audit. These issues have since been addressed so
that such findings will not recur.
1.
General Laws
a)
Health and Safety
IDEA believes it has materially complied with applicable health and safety laws
including D.C. Code 38-1802.02(11), D.C. Code 38-1802.04(c)(4), the Healthy Schools Act
of 2010, American with Disabilities Act facilities provisions, and the D.C. Fire Prevention Code,
D.C. Code 6-701 and is unaware of any compliance issues. IDEA submits the required
report to PCSB prior to September 16 of each year confirming compliance with health and safety
regulations.
IDEAs campus has a certificate of occupancy issued by the DCRA. The DCRA notes on
its website that one of the main purposes of a certificate of occupancy is to ensure compliance
with the D.C. Building Code, which includes accessibility requirements. IDEA is unaware of
any issues with a student or parent being denied access to any IDEA program or event due to
facility accessibility.
Each year, the D.C. Fire Departments sends inspectors to IDEA to check for compliance
with the D.C. Fire Prevention Code. At the end of each visit, the fire inspector typically provides
the school with list of minor issues that the school needs to correct. The fire inspector
subsequently returns between fifteen and thirty days later to ensure that IDEA had made the
necessary changes. IDEA is unaware of any issues that have been raised by fire inspectors but
remain unresolved or uncorrected. IDEA conducts regular fire drills and has an evacuation plan.
The PCSB confirmed in its 2012-2013 annual Compliance Review Report that IDEA is
in compliance with applicable laws relating to student safety and relating to the occupancy, lease
and license for IDEAs facility.
b)
Enrollment Data
IDEA believes it has materially complied with applicable laws regarding enrollment data
and conducting a fair enrollment process D.C. Code 38-1802.04(c)(12) and D.C. Code 381802.06.
IDEA has established procedures for ensuring that student enrollment data is tracked and
student enrollment is conducted in accordance with applicable laws. IDEA offers open
enrollment to all students who are residents of the District of Columbia and, if space is available,
to nonresident students who meet the tuition requirement. IDEA uses a random selection
process, subject to the exceptions provided in D.C. Code 38-1802.06, if it receives more
applications than it has spaces, and does not limit enrollment on the basis of a student's race,
color, religion, national origin, language spoken, intellectual or athletic ability, measures of
achievement or aptitude, or status as a student with special needs. IDEA tracks the full name,
23
address, sex, and date of birth of each student attending IDEA. Enrollment information is
included in IDEAs annual report submitted to the PCSB and is audited annually.
in compliance with applicable laws relating to a fair enrollment process.
c)
Maintenance and Dissemination of Student Records
IDEA believes it has materially complied with applicable laws regarding the maintenance
and dissemination of student records including D.C. Code 38-501 et seq. and 38-301 et seq.
and is unaware of any compliance issues. As Subtitles B and D of the School Reform Act
address compliance with enrollment and attendance laws and are addressed separately in this
charter renewal submission, this information will not be duplicated here. The non-profit
corporation statute, D.C. Code 29-401, does not relate to student records and hence is
inapplicable here. As detailed in the Student and Family Handbook, IDEA complies with the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). IDEA has also established procedures
for ensuring that student health records and proof of immunizations are collected, maintained,
and disclosed in accordance with applicable laws. These procedures are also outlined in IDEAs
Student and Family Handbook 2012-2013. IDEA does not enroll any non-residents as students.
in compliance with applicable laws relating to student health records and the protection of
confidential information including the D.C. Code Section 38-1802.04, FERPA and the Student
Access to Treatment Act of 2007.
d)
Compulsory Attendance Laws
IDEA believes it has materially complied with applicable laws regarding compulsory
attendance D.C. Code 38-201 et seq. and is unaware of any compliance issues. IDEA has
established procedures for ensuring that student attendance is tracked and reported in accordance
with applicable laws. For example, IDEAs Student and Family Handbook provides parents with
information regarding the schools attendance and truancy policies.
in compliance with applicable laws regarding student suspension and expulsion.
e)
Title I of the Improving Americas Schools Act
IDEA receives Title I funds and has established procedures in its fiscal policies manual to
ensure that District and Federal requirements for the use of these funds will be met; it is IDEAs
policy to adhere to all federal guidelines including OMB Circular A-133, "Audits of States,
Local Governments and Non-Profit Organizations, OMB guidance A-87 and 34 CFR 80.20 for
financial management standards, 34 CFR 80.36 for procurement standards, 34 CFR 80.32 for
inventory management standards, and EDGAR 80.
As discussed above, IDEA received a letter from OSSE regarding A-133 findings on the
schools FY 2011 financial audit and expects A-133 findings on its FY 2012 financial audit, but
the issues raised have since been resolved and the school does not expect such findings to recur.
in compliance with Elementary and Secondary Education Act guidance that all elementary and
secondary subject area teachers are highly qualified. IDEA requires all of its teachers to be
highly qualified. All Title I funds received by IDEA are tracked and reported on a timely basis
24
by a consultant retained by the school. IDEAs applications for Title I funds for FY 2012-13
were recently approved.
f)
Civil Rights Statutes and Regulations of the Federal
Government and the District of Columbia
IDEA believes it has materially complied with applicable civil rights laws and is unaware
of any compliance issues. IDEA has established policies and procedures in its Personnel Policy
Handbook, which it provides to all employees at the start of each school year that ensure it is in
compliance with applicable laws. The employee handbook addresses, among other things,
nondiscrimination in hiring, employee grievance procedures, and sexual harassment policies.
The IDEA Student and Family Handbook also contains a notice of nondiscrimination.
in compliance with applicable laws regarding employment policies and the protection of
confidential information including the D.C. Code 38-1802.04, D.C. Code 38-1802.07, FERPA,
the Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007, and applicable state and federal
employment laws.
g)
Other
IDEA is unaware now of any other issues of current compliance with applicable laws.
2.
Special Education Laws
IDEA believes it has materially complied with applicable special education laws,
including Subchapter B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411, et
seq.) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794). The PCSB has noted
that compliance with special education laws will be ascertained through a desk audit. In
addition, OSSE regularly conducts a review of IDEAs compliance with special education laws
and has, from time to time, identified areas where needs to improve. IDEA certified on July 13,
2012 that it has corrected all individual student noncompliance issues that had been raised by
OSSE in the April 2012 Compliance Monitoring Report. OSSE conducted a compliance review
earlier this year but has not, as yet, issued a report on its review.
3.
Financial Laws
Except as stated below, IDEA believes it has materially complied with applicable
financial laws D.C. Code 38-1802.13(b), D.C. Code 38-1802.04(c)(1), and D.C. Code
38-1802.04(d)(11)(B)(ix) and (xi) and is unaware of any compliance issues. IDEA has
established policies and procedures in its Financial Policies and Procedures manual that ensure
that IDEAs financial management procedures ensure fiscal soundness. This manual was
reviewed by an accountant when drafted for compliance. IDEAs financial statements are
audited by an approved auditor each year. These audit reports, which IDEA provides each year
to the PCSB, have not identified any material issues of noncompliance with applicable financial
laws. Although certain issues or deficiencies have been raised in the past, each of these issues
has been addressed. As noted above, IDEA received a letter from OSSE regarding A-133
findings on the schools FY 2011 financial audit and expects A-133 findings on its FY 2012
financial audit, but the issues raised have since been resolved and the school does not expect
such findings to recur. In addition, IDEA includes in its annual report submitted to the PCSB a
25
list of grantors and donors that have contributed monetary or in-kind donations having a value
equal to or exceeding $500.
Pursuant to IDEAs Financial Policies and Procedures manual, and consistent with the
requirements of D.C. Code 1802.04(c)(1), IDEA also solicits requests for proposals for all
procurement contracts in excess of $25,000 and provides required documentation for each
contract to the PCSB. Attached as Exhibit A is a list of all individuals and organizations that
have received $25,000 or more in payments from IDEA over the last two fiscal years; IDEA has
identified those contracts in the Submitted for Bid column in the attached Determination and
Findings Form that were awarded in the past two fiscal years in excess of $25,000 for which a
procurement report should have been made to the PCSB but was not. IDEA will be providing
the PCSB with additional information about those contracts in January 2013.
26
Appendix L
From: Ashish
To: Sarah Medway
Re: DC CAS Results for IDEA
Conclusions
From the following data, we can draw the following conclusions:
DC CAS Reading for last 4 years has been below State Average.
DC CAS Math for last 4 years has been below State Average.
Charts and Graphs

I have created the following charts to support our conclusions:
IDEA DC CAS Reading Proficiency Rates

60%
50%
46.40%
43.80%
45.10%
45.50%
45.60%
40%
30%
DC CAS Reading
State Average Reading
44.60%
20%
42.90%
41.20%
39.20%
35.20%
10%
0%
10th Year
Review(2007-08)
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
IDEA DC CAS Math Proficiency Rates

60%
50%
45.70%
45.40%
47.00%
49.30%
40.60%
40%
30%
DC CAS Math
State Average Reading
42.20%
20%
40.90%
33.80%
37.60%
35.20%
2010-11
2011-12
10%
0%
10th Year
Review(2007-08)
2008-09
2009-10
Data
I have also included the data I used to produce these charts. These data were sourced from
OSSEs website.
Year
10th Year
Review(2007-08)
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
DC CAS State
Math
Average
Scores Math
42.20%
40.90%
33.80%
37.60%
35.20%
40.60%
45.70%
45.40%
47.00%
49.30%
DC CAS
Reading
Scores
44.60%
42.90%
41.20%
39.20%
35.20%
State
Average
Reading
43.80%
46.40%
45.10%
45.50%
45.60%
Sources:
1) http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/release_content/attachments/DCCAS_2
012.pdf (State Average DC CAS scores, page 6)
2) http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/release_content/attachments/DCCAS%2
02012%20School%20List_CLEAN%20%281%29.pdf (DC CAS result for IDEA)
Appendix M
Appendix N
From: Tim Harwood

To: Sarah Medway
RE: IDEA PCS Historical Attendance Rates: Average Daily and In-Seat
Conclusions
Using attendance data from ProActive and the PMF reports from the past five years, we can draw these
conclusions:
IDEA PCSs average daily attendance rate for the past two years is lower than previous years for
middle and high school students, but the schools in-seat attendance rate has noticeably
improved during this period.
While IDEA PCSs high school in-seat attendance rate is on par with the charter sector average
for the past two years, 1 students enrolled in grades 9 12 at the school had the fourth highest
truancy rate (18.96%) of 20 high schools in the sector for SY2011-2012.2
Charts and Graphs

The bar charts on the following page provide historical attendance rates for IDEAs middle and high
school students and were used to form PCSBs conclusions.
According to ProActive, the in-seat attendance rate for the charter sector for was 82.0% for SY2011-12 and 78.9%
through December of SY2012-13.
2
SY2011-2012 truancy rate rankings file SY2012 School Truancy Rates_TBH_01142013_yearend at:
http://intranet.dcpubliccharter.com/SPT/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2FSPT%2FSha
red%20Documents%2FEquity%20and%20Fidelity%2FBoard%20Action%2FTruancy%20and%20lost%20instructional
%20time%2FSY2012
Middle School Attendance Rates

100.0%
90.0%
87.4%
90.4%
90.3%
85.5%
85.0%
85.0%
82.6%
80.0%
73.7%
72.4%
74.7%
70.0%
60.0%
ADA rate
50.0%
In-seat rate
40.0%
Charter Sector Average

(in-seat rate)
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
(through
December)
High School Attendance Rates

100.0%
90.3%
90.0%
83.6%
86.3%
81.1% 80.9%
81.9%
78.6%
80.0%
70.2%
70.0%
65.3%
67.8%
60.0%
ADA rate
50.0%
In-seat rate
40.0%
Charter Sector Average (in-seat
rate)
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
(through
December)
Data & Sources:

These tables provide the ADA and ISA rates and sources from 2008-09 through December of 2013 that
were used to create the charts. The ADA rates for 2010-11 and 2011-12 were validated. All other ADA
and ISA figures were not validated by PCSB.
Middle School: Average Daily Attendance
2012-2013
2011-2012
85.0% - through
December 2012
85.5%
2010-2011
90.3%
2009-2010
90.4%
2008-2009
87.4%
ProActive not validated

https://pcsb.proactiveschool.com/isbase/core/screen/main
PMF Validated: http://www.dcpubliccharter.com/data/images/083idea_ms11-12.pdf
PMF
Validated: http://www.dcpcsb.org/data/images/pcsb%20book_dec1.pdf
Middle School: In-Seat Attendance

2012-2013
2011-2012
82.6% - through
December 2012
85.0%
2010-2011
74.7%
2009-2010
72.4%
2008-2009
73.7%

High School: Average Daily Attendance

2012-2013
2011-2012
80.9% - through
December 2012
81.9%
2010-2011
90.3%
2009-2010
86.3%
2008-2009
83.6%

PMF Validated: http://www.dcpubliccharter.com/data/images/083idea_ms11-12.pdf
PMF
Validated: http://www.dcpcsb.org/data/images/pcsb%20book_dec1.pdf
ProActive not
validated https://pcsb.proactiveschool.com/isbase/core/screen/main
High School: In-Seat Attendance

2012-2013
2011-2012
78.6% - through
December 2012
81.1%
2010-2011
67.8%
2009-2010
70.2%
2008-2009
65.3%

Appendix O
Integrated Design and Electronic Academy PCS

COMPLIANCE REVIEW REPORT
2011-2012
INDICATOR
DOCUMENTATION
RATIONALE
COMPLIANCE
STATUS
COMMENTS
Enrollment of New Students

Fair enrollment process.
Enrollment application; written

lottery procedures with dates for
enrollment process.
Compliance with School Reform Act

Section 38-1802.06.
Not compliant
Current year student handbook or

other written document that
outlines the school's discipline
policy and procedures.

Section 38-1802.06 (g); guidance for
PCSB staff when contacted by parents.
Compliant
Submit Application prior to

enrollment/acceptance.
Student Suspension and Expulsion

Notice and due process.
Student Health Records
Health and safety of students.
Option 1: Notice of assigned nurse

on staff .
Section 38-1802.04 (c)(4) and the
Option 2: Copy of staff certificate Student Access to Treatment Act of
2007.
to administer medications.
Compliant
Background Checks on Employees and Volunteers
Health and safety of students.
Current roster of all employees and

volunteers (working greater than 10
hours at the school) with indication Compliance with School Reform Act
of date background check
Section 38-1802.04 (c)(4).
conducted and that a copy of the
report is on file.
Not Compliant
Employee Handbook
Employee handbook or other
Section 38-1802.04, FERPA, the Public
Employment policies and the protection written document on policies and
Education Reform Amendment Act of
Compliant
of confidential information.
procedures governing employment
2007, and applicable state and federal
at the school.
employment laws.
Insurance
Appropriate insurance.
Certification that appropriate levels Compliance with School Reform Act

of insurance have been secured.
Section 38-1802.04 (b)(4).
Compliant
Incomplete
Integrated Design and Electronic Academy PCS

COMPLIANCE REVIEW REPORT
2011-2012
INDICATOR
DOCUMENTATION
RATIONALE
COMPLIANCE
STATUS
School Facility
Certificate of occupancy.

Section 38-1802.04 (b)(4) - a Certificate
Compliant
of Occupancy is required at opening and
for a relocation to a new facility.
Lease/Purchase Agreement.

Section 38-1802.04 (b)(4) - lease or
purchase agreement is required at
opening, for a relocation to a new
facility, and for amendments to a lease
once it expires.
N/A
School quality and choice.
Communication with parents on

school's compliance with NCLB
before September 1 or within 14
days of school AYP results.
Compliance with NCLB and ESEA

guidance.
Compliant
High quality teachers.
For Title I schools, current year

teacher roster with grade and
subject(s) taught, HQ status, and
how the status was met (HOUSSE,
Praxis, Degree,
License/Certificate); action plans
for all non-HQT staff.
Compliance with NCLB and ESEA

guidance to ensure that all elementary
and secondary subject area teachers are
highly qualified.
Compliant
Composition.
Board roster with names and titles.

Section 38-1802.05.
Compliant
Fiduciary Duty.
Board meeting minutes.

Section 38-1802.05.
Compliant
Lease/Purchase Agreement and

certificate of occupancy.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Board of Trustees
COMMENTS
Appendix P
Charter School Annual Performance Review

IDEA PCS Compliance Review
I. STUDENT INFORMATION
A. Student Enrollment, Attendance, and Discipline
Has the enrollment process been conducted in a manner that is fair and consistent with the law,
the Charter Agreement, and the schools announced procedures?
Indicator
i. Enrollment procedures were publicly announced.
ii. Cutoff date for enrollment was announced in advance.
iii. Lottery, if needed, was conducted fairly.
iv. Waiting list is accurately maintained. Students are enrolled in order from
list.
Comments:
Evidence
Ad Proof (Sample)
Waiting List
Compliant
Yes
*No
N/A
Yes
* Cut off date needs to be included in the applicaion and/or fliers
B. Student daily attendance and changes in student enrollment are carefully documented.
Indicator
i. Daily attendance reports are on file.
ii. Student roster is regularly updated.
iii. There is a functioning Student Support Team in place at the site level. An
identified homeless liaison is required as part of the SST.
Evidence
Attendance Roster
Aug/Sept Rosters
Compliant
Yes
Yes
Yes
SST member list with

identified homeless liaison
Comments:
C. Student suspension and expulsion policies are fairly administered and due process procedures have been followed.
Indicator
Evidence
Compliant
i. Suspension and expulsion policies were disseminated to students, parents, & Parent/Student
Yes
staff.
Acknowledgement Form
ii. The school-wide discipline policy includes (a) clear explanation of
Yes
infractions, (b) consequences, rewards, and interventions, and (c) clearly
outlined due process procedures. The due process procedures must include (1)
clearly outlined basis for suspensions and expulsion recommendations, (2) a
recommendation step in the expulsion process, and (3) at least one distinct level
Discipline policy in student
of appeal (i.e. Principal, Hearing Officer, BOT, etc.).
handbook that includes all
required components.
iii. There is evidence that due process procedures have been followed.
Yes
Parent Notification Letter
Comments:
D. Student records are stored and managed within a secure environment.

Indicator
i. Records are available to authorized personnel.
ii. Records are stored in locked area.
iii. Policies and procedures exist for safeguarding student privacy.
Comments:
Evidence
Student Sign-In/Out Log
Main Office
*
Compliant
Yes
No
*Should be included in the staff handbok and/or policy and

procedures in addition to current reference in the student handbook
District of Columbia Public Charter School Board
Marian Bobo - Reviewer

I. STUDENT INFORMATION (Continued)
E. Special Education and physically disabled students (section 504) are properly identified.
Are required special education assessments being conducted? Are IEPs on file for every student receiving special education services?
Indicator
Evidence
i. Documentation of parent receipt of Special Education Procedural Manual for Signed Parent Receipt of
Parents exists.
Manual
Compliant
Yes
ii. Current IEPs are on file for students receiving special education services.
Current IEP in Student File Yes
iii. Special education assessments are completed within 120 days of referral.
Referral Form
Invoices for SPED
Services
iv. Invoices are on file to show documentation of special education services.
Yes
Yes
Comments:
F. English Language Learners (ELLs) are properly identified, assessed and served.
Indicator
i. School has clear program of instruction for ELLs.
ii. ELL students are properly identified.
Evidence
Home Language Survey
iii. Students identified as PHLOTE (Primary Home Language Other Than

English) by the Home Language Survey, are administered the Kindergarten
WIDA ACCESS Placement Test (K-WAPT) or the WIDA ACCESS
Proficiency Test (W-APT), if they have not been previously identified or have
recent ACCESS for ELLs scores.
iv. School has appropriate resources and supports available for ELLs.
v. Students are exited from language support programs when they have reached
Level 5 English proficiency.
N/A
N/A
N/A
vi. All ELL students are assessed at least annually and English proficient
students continue to be monitored for two years after being mainstreamed.
vii. School provides communication to homes in native languages that families
can understand.
Comments:
Compliant
*No
Yes
N/A
N/A
*School needs to reference/delineate/outline an ELL program as

part of general operating protocol in case such students are
identified or enrolled in the future
G. Student health records, such as proof of immunization, evidence of allergies, and documentation of health problems are kept accurately
and securely.
Indicator
Evidence
i. There is a school nurse or staff certified to administer medicine.
Nurse on Staff
ii. Student health records exist and are up to date.
iii. Teachers are made aware of student health conditions that may require
emergency response.
iv. Parents and students are notified of emergency response information (asthma Emergency Posters
and anaphylaxis).
Displayed in Building
Comments:
Compliant
Yes
Yes
*No
*The school needs to get copies of this poster from the PCSB
H. Reporting Student Information

Are reports on student progress available to students and/or parents in regular intervals?
Indicator
i. Students and/or parents receive regular written reports of students
performance.
Evidence
Mid-Term Progress
Reports
Compliant
Yes
Comments:

II. STAFF INFORMATION

A. The school maintains adequate personnel records for staff.
Indicator
i. Every employee has an employment agreement (contract) and a job
description.
Evidence
Employee Contract
Compliant
Yes
B. Background checks have been conducted for all employees and volunteers who work over 10 hours per week.
Indicator
Evidence
i. Documentation of background checks for all new employees and volunteers is Most Employees have a
on file.
Background Check
Compliant
Yes
C. An employee handbook has been developed, distributed to personnel, and regularly updated.
Indicator
Evidence
i. An employee handbook is on file and available to all staff (Check key

All key sections are in
sections: sexual harassment, equal opportunity hiring, drug-free workplace, etc.) place
Compliant
Yes
D. The school has a complaint resolution process for employees.

Indicator
i. The complaint resolution process is on file and available to staff.
Comments:
Evidence
Employee Handbook
Compliant
Yes
The employee offer letter for teachers does not contain a specific
reference to the subject that they will be teaching
E. Key personnel changes are promptly reported to the Charter Board.

Indicator
i. Documentation exists to demonstrate that the school has reported key
personnel changes to the Board. (this applies to administrative positions)
Evidence
Letter or Memo to PCSB
Compliant
Yes
Comments:

III. SITE INFORMATION
A. Required insurance certificates are on file at both the school and the Charter Board office, and are in force.
Indicator
i. Insurance certificates meeting charter requirements are on file at the school
and the Charter Board office.
Evidence
Current Insurance
Certificate
Compliant
Yes
Comments:
B. The school maintains an accurate inventory of all school assets.

Indicator
Evidence
i. Inventories are complete. (NOTE: Must include item, description, location, View electronic copy of
source of funds.. )
inventory
All Sources of Funds are
ii. Sources of funds are identified.
Present
iii. Equipment and furnishings are properly labeled. (i.e. barcode or ID
number)
Comments:
Compliant
Yes
Yes
*No
*The labeling process has not been completed as begun by a previous employee
C. There is a lease and an active certificate of occupancy on file.

Indicator
i. Lease and certificate (s) of occupancy are available for review.
Comments:
Evidence
C of O
Compliant
Yes
School will fax a copy of the C of O to the PCSB
D. The school maintains copies of all building inspections, all Fire Marshall inspections, and emergency drills.
Indicator
Evidence
Certification from DCFD

i. There is a certificate showing DCFD inspections within the past year on file. for Required Inspections
ii. There is an up to date school emergency response plan in place with a
School Emergency
current School Emergency Response Team.
Response Plan on file
iii. First emergency evacuation within the first 10 days of the beginning of the
school year and monthly thereafter.
Fire Drill Held w/in First

10 Days of School and
monthly
Compliant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Comments:


III. SITE INFORMATION (Continued)
E. The school engages in safe food practices as required in the D.C. Food Code.
Indicator
i. There is a BBL certificate on file from DCRA
Evidence
BBL Certificate
Yes
Compliant
ii. Hand washing posters are displayed at sinks and all public and private
lavatories that employees may use.
Hand washing Posters are

Viewed throughout the
Building
Yes
iii. There is a certified food handler/manager at the school site.
Identification and/or
Certificate for Certified
Food Handler
Yes
Comments:
F. The school's Board of Trustees is structured in compliance with the School Reform Act.
Indicator
Evidence
Board of Trustee Roster
w/Members Identified
i. There is an odd number of Trustees, not exceeding 15.
Yes*
iii. At least two Trustees are parents of a student attending the school.
Board of Trustees Roster

Lists Residential Addresses No*
Board of Trustee Roster
w/Members Identified
Yes
iv. PCSB has been notified of all Board changes, with updated contact
information.
Memo or letter to PCSB

notifying staff of BOT
changes and includes
updated information.
ii. A majority are residents of the District of Columbia.
Comments:
Compliant
Yes
*There were eleven active members (including five ex-officio

officers who are also included in a total list of 16). Six of the 11
active members are DC residents.
G. The school is in compliance with the nonsectarian requirement of the School Reform Act.
Indicator
i. There is no evidence of religious affiliation or instruction.
Evidence
No indication of any
religious affiliation
Compliant
Yes
Comments:

IV. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

A. No Child Left Behind Notification & Corrective Actions
Indicator
Evidence
Compliant
i. The school's NCLB report card is posted in a location visible to the public.
Bulletin Board
Yes
ii. Offer all students the option to transfer to another school that has not been
identified for improvement
iii. Request the option of transfer relationship with (3) schools not identified
for improvement.
NCLB Letter To Parents

Dated before Sept. 1
Yes
Letter to 3 school leaders
Yes
iv. Offer and provide supplemental services to identified low-income students. Invoices for SES
v. Develop a School Improvement Plan
SIP Document
Yes
Yes
Comments:
B. No Child Left Behind HQT
Comments:
Indicator
Evidence
i. Ensure that all elementary and secondary subject area teachers hired after the
first day of the 2002-2003 school year are "highly qualified."
*
ii. Notify parents of their right to request information on the qualifications of
their child's teacher.
iii. Parents must be notified if the child has been taught for four weeks by a
*Letter to Parents about
teacher who is not considered "highly qualified."
Long-Term Sub
Yes
iv. If the request is made, schools must inform parents whether the teacher has
met the qualifications under NCLB to be considered "highly qualified."
v. Paraprofessionals meet the HQT requirements of NCLB.
Yes
N/A
Letter to Parents with

Teacher Qualifications
Compliant
*No
**No
* Current data on newly hired instructional staff was not available.

The 2007 HQT Report presented an overview of previous staff
status that needed to be updated. **Parents should receive this letter
as part of the opening protocol.
Appendix Q
COMPLIANCE REVIEW
Name of School
October 24, 2007

Date of Review
Kenneth Whitted and Arlene King Berry
Name of Reviewer
SITE VISIT REVIEW

QUESTIONS
A. Student
Enrollment,
Attendance, and
Discipline
Has the enrollment
process been
conducted in a
manner that is fair
and consistent with
the law, the Charter
Agreement, and the
schools announced
procedures?
INDICATORS
9 Enrollment
procedures were publicly
announced.
Can you tell me how you
publicized your enrollment
procedures?
9 Cutoff date for

enrollment was
announced in advance.
Examples of what to look for

(tools, records, contracts, etc.)
EVIDENCE
COMMENTS
YES/NO
Copy of flyer or advertisement

Copy of student
registration/application
Copy of school newsletter
Invoice of payment to
newspaper
(See Exhibit 1)
Copy of invoice
Copy of school newsletter
Application
(See Exhibit 3)
(See Exhibit 4)
Copy of lottery process
(See Exhibit 4a)
School did not need to

use the lottery because
they were able to take in
all the students who
applied by the closing
date.
N/A
Copy of waiting list
(See Exhibit 5)
To date no students have

been pulled from the
waiting list.
Yes
Yes
(See Exhibit 2)
(See Exhibit 3)
Yes
What was the period for

open enrollment (start date,
end date)?
9 Lottery, if needed, was

conducted fairly.
How many students
applied for admission?
Did you conduct a lottery
for open slots?
What was your lottery
process?
What were your lottery
results?
9 Waiting list is
accurately maintained.
Students are enrolled in
order from list.
Do you have a waiting list
for students?
Check waiting list to see whether

students have been accepted
since, and in the order of the
wait list
SITE VISIT REVIEW
QUESTIONS
B. Are student daily
attendance and
changes in student
enrollment being
carefully
documented?
INDICATORS
9 Daily attendance
reports are on file.

EVIDENCE
Examine attendance system in

file cabinet or computer
Ask to see printed attendance
records from 5 random days
since the beginning of the year
(See Exhibit 6)
COMMENTS
YES/NO
The school is using

Power School as their
internal management
system and OLAMS as
their online attendance
management system.
Yes
What attendance system is used?
9 Student roster is
regularly updated
reflects withdrawals,
transfers, new
registrations, etc.
C. Are student
suspension and
expulsion policies
being fairly
administered? Have
due process
procedures been
followed?
9 Suspension and
expulsion policies were
disseminated to students,
parents, & staff.
Does the attendance system

show which students are absent
and which are present (i.e. is it
exception-based or does it
require an affirmative
present)?
Current copy of student roster
Get the name and title of the
staff person responsible for
updating your student roster
How are you recording students
who leave your school? (e.g.,
those who transfer, those who
dropout, expelled, etc. see the
records of any for this year, or
last year if necessary
Copy of the parent handbook
Do you have parents sign to
acknowledge that theyve
received a parent handbook?
Parental sign-off sheets
Check handbook for the school
disciplinary policy
Yes
(See Exhibit 7)
Ms. N. Butler,
registrar and Mrs.
Mackey, assistant
registrar.
(See Exhibit 8)
Parent signatures are on

file with the Dean of
Students.
Yes
SITE VISIT REVIEW
QUESTIONS
INDICATORS
9 There is documentation
of the basis for each
decision to suspend or
expel.
9 There is evidence that
due process procedures
have been followed.

How do you document
suspensions/expulsions?
EVIDENCE
(See Exhibit 9)
Review documentation of at
least one suspension and one
expulsion
Copies of letters informing
parents of right to hearing in
their native language
Notes from long-term

suspension and expulsion
hearings
Check attendance sheet for 5
day suspensions (or more) and
expulsions
YES/NO
Yes
The school has a very

unique way of handling
discipline. In school
detention is the
preference rather than
suspensionsthere have
been on special education
students suspended.
Copies of Manifestation Hearing

notes for students identified with
special needs suspended 10
consecutive days or 10
cumulative days in a school
year.
9 Suspensions of 5 days
or more and expulsions
are promptly reported to
PCSB.
COMMENTS
Yes
N/A
Correspondence notifying PCSB
D. Are student
records stored and
managed within a
secure environment?
9 Records are available

to authorized personnel.
9 Records are stored in

locked area.
Who at the school is authorized

to have access to students
records?
Check to see if there is a log that
shows when someone has
removed and returned a student
file
How are they secured?
Principals office, main office
file cabinets, other locked area
The following have

access to student
records:
Administrators, the
guidance
department and
teachers.
Student records are
stored in locking file
cabinets in the
locked file room
Yes
Yes
SITE VISIT REVIEW
QUESTIONS
E. Are Special
Education and
physically disabled
students (section 504)
being properly
identified? Are
required special
education
assessments being
conducted? Are IEPs
on file for every
student receiving
special education
services?
F. Are English
Language Learners
(ELLs) being
properly identified,
assessed, and served?
INDICATORS

EVIDENCE
9 Policies and
procedures exist for
safeguarding student
privacy.
Safeguarding policy statements,

administrative handbook, office
manager handbook, etc.
Personnel Policy
Handbook, page 14.
9 Documentation of
parent receipt of Special
Education Procedural
Manual for Parents exists.
9 Current* IEPs are on
file for students receiving
special education services.
Copies of parental receipt
*(not more than one year old)
9 Special education
assessments are
completed within 120
days of referral.
9 Invoices are on file to

show documentation of
special education services.
(for IEPs reviewed)
9 ELL students are
properly identified.
COMMENTS
YES/NO
Yes
Yes
Check that current IEPs are in

files for at least a 10% sampling
of special education students
from roster
There are 62 special

education
studentssix
student files were
reviewed (Six
represents 10% of
the students)
The files reviewed were

in order.
See an example from previous

yearWhen was the student
referred for special education?
When was the student assessed?
Check to ensure assessment
results are in the students file.
Have you had any students
newly referred for special ed this
year? Have assessments been
scheduled/completed?
Copy of invoices
Copy of contracts
There is a home language survey

(HLS) in EVERY students
cumulative folder.
Yes
Yes
(See Exhibit 10)
There were no HLS

in the student files.
The administration
called another
school and got a
copy of one.
Yes
The survey will be given

to all students and
incorporated in the
application package in
the future.
No
SITE VISIT REVIEW
QUESTIONS
INDICATORS
9 Students identified as
PHLOTE (Primary Home
Language Other Than
English) by the Home
Language Survey, are
administered the
Kindergarten WIDA
ACCESS Placement Test
(K-WAPT) or the WIDA
ACCESS Proficiency Test
(W-APT).
9 School has clear
program of instruction for
ELLs.
(All schools are required
to have a written plan on
file, regardless of having
or not having ELLs
enrolled.)

EVIDENCE
COMMENTS
Copies of the Kindergarten

WIDA ACCESS Placement Test
(K-WAPT) or the WIDA
ACCESS Proficiency Test (WAPT) results are in the students
cumulative folder.
School should have written

procedures and identified
services on file (i.e. English as a
Second Language, transitional
Bilingual education, or bilingual
immersion program). Clear,
documented criteria for amount
and level of student services
based on assessment results.
YES/NO
N/A
There are no ELL

students at the present
time. The school team is
in the process of writing
the procedures for
servicing these students
when they arrive.
No
9School has appropriate

resources and supports
available for ELLs.
For example: ESL resource

center, bilingual and native
language texts and supplemental
materials, tutoring, etc.
N/A
9 All NEP/LEP students

are assessed at least
annually and FEP
students continue to be
assessed for two years
after being mainstreamed.
Student roster of ELLs

Copies of ACCESS results and
test date in student folders
N/A
9 Students are exited from

language support
programs when they have
reached appropriate
English proficiency
levels.
Copy of exit notification forms

and monitoring service forms
N/A
SITE VISIT REVIEW
QUESTIONS
INDICATORS
9 School provides
communication to homes
in native languages that
families can understand.
G. Are student health

records, such as proof
of immunization,
evidence of allergies,
and documentation of
health problems
being kept accurately
and securely?
9 Student health records

exist and are up to date.
H. Reporting Student
Information
9 Records are stored in a

locked area when not in
use.
Are reports on
student progress
available to students
and/or parents in
regular intervals?

Evidence of reasonable
accommodations to
communicate to families
(contracts with translators and
interpreters, copies of translated
flyers, notices, school policies,
etc.)
Do you have a nurse? If not,
who verifies that student
immunizations are up to date?
How is the verification handled?
Copies of student registration
forms
Checklist of required items for
admittance
Copies of student application
File cabinet in main office
Special Education Coordinators
Office
9 Teachers are made

aware of student health
conditions that may
require emergency
response.
Do you have records that

teachers have been notified of
these conditions?
9 Students and/or
parents receive regular
written reports of student
performance.
What type of progress reports

does the school make, and how
often?
See written sign-off sheet if

possible
EVIDENCE
YES/NO
All of the families are

English speaking at this
time.
N/A
Nurse Buoy is the

school nurse.
Yes
Locked file cabinet

in the Special Ed.
Office
Yes
Teachers were
notified in writing
via a Chronic
Illness List.
Yes
Report cards are

sent home
quarterly.
Yes
[for small schools (<500

students), request the progress
reports for 3 students per grade;
for large schools (>500),
request the progress reports for 5
students per grade you can
pick the names from the roster]
SUMMARY COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS -- STUDENT PRACTICES:

7
COMMENTS
SITE VISIT REVIEW

QUESTIONS
A. Does the school
maintain adequate
personnel records for
staff?
INDICATORS
9 Every employee has an
employment agreement
(contract) and a job
description.

(tools, records, contracts,
etc.)
Ask to see roster of current
staff, with position titles and
functions
EVIDENCE
COMMENTS
YES/NO
(See Exhibit 21)
Yes
The Metropolitan
Police Department
does the background checks for
this school.
Yes
Employee
Handbook, pages
15 and 16.
Yes
Employee
Handbook, pages
12 and 13.
Yes
See example of employee

contract for at least 10% of
random employees
Contracts, Offer letters,
Employment Agreements
B. Have background 9 Documentation of

checks been conducted background checks for
all new employees and
for all employees and
volunteers is on file.
volunteers who work
over 10 hours per
week?
C. Has an employee
handbook been
developed, distributed
to personnel, and
regularly updated?
9 An employee handbook
is on file and available
to all staff.
D. Does the school

have a complaint
resolution process for
employees?
9 The complaint
resolution process is on
file and available to staff.
Check that each employee has

current check on file
Ask to see their volunteer list
and check for those with more
than 10 hours
What service do you use to do
your background checks (e.g.,
Metropolitan Police Dept, etc?)
(If the service is not MPD, look
at service agreement.)
Check to see key sections:
sexual harassment, equal
opportunity hiring, drug-free
workplace, etc.
Employee handbook
Human Resource Guide

SITE VISIT REVIEW
QUESTIONS
E. Are key personnel
changes promptly
reported to the Charter
Board?
INDICATORS

(tools, records, contracts,
etc.)
9Documentation exists to
demonstrate that the
school has reported key
personnel changes to the
Board. [this applies to
administrative positions]
Letters, memo to PCSB of BOT

or administrative change
EVIDENCE
SUMMARY COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF PRACTICES:
COMMENTS
There were no changes.
YES/NO
N/A
III. SITE MANAGEMENT

SITE VISIT
REVIEW
QUESTIONS
A. Are required
insurance
certificates on file
at both the school
and the Charter
Board office, and
are they in force?
B. Does the school
maintain an
accurate inventory
of all school
assets, such as
furnishings,
equipment, and
other property?
INDICATORS
Examples of what to look

for (tools, records,
contracts, etc.)
EVIDENCE
COMMENTS
YES/NO
9 Insurance certificates
meeting charter
requirements are on file at
the school and the Charter
Board office.
See copy of insurance

certificates at each site
Exhibit 15
Yes
9Inventories are complete.
Ask for an electronic copy
Electronic Exhibit
Yes
9 Sources of funds are

identified.
Check inventory list to note

private, per pupil, federal, etc.
9 Equipment and
furnishings are properly
labeled.
Perform random check of

labeling
Does the
inventory indicate
the source of the
fundslocal,
federal, or
privateused to
purchase or lease
each item
inventoried?
9 Lease and certificate(s)
C. Are the lease
of occupancy are available
and an active
for review.
certificate of
occupancy on file?
See certificates for all school

sites
Exhibit 16
10
In process
No
Random check revealed

properly labeled equipment
and furnishings
Yes
Yes

SITE VISIT
REVIEW
QUESTIONS
D. Does the
school maintain
copies of all
building
inspections? All
Fire Department
inspections and
fire drills?
E. Has the school

obtained a Basic
Business License
(BBL) in order to
serve food to its
students?
Does the school
engage in safe
food practices as
required in the
D.C. Food Code?
F. Is the schools
Board of Trustees
structured in
compliance with
the School Reform
Act?
INDICATORS
There is a certificate
showing DCFD inspections
within the past year on file,
and documentation of fire
drills.
[Tell new schools that they
need to set this up with the
Fire Dept if they have not
done so]
[First emergency
evacuation drill within first
10 days of the beginning of
the school year and
monthly thereafter.
Evidence should show
start/end times]
9 There is a BBL
certificate on file from
DCRA.

contracts, etc.)
EVIDENCE
Fire drill logs
Exhibit 11
Employee training in fire

emergency - New employee
orientation agenda; annual
faculty meeting agenda; or staff
handbook with designated
evacuation assignments
Exhibit 12
BBL certificate
Exhibit 13
COMMENTS
YES/NO
First fire drill held 9/5/07;

training in fire emergency held
during staff orientation
Yes
Yes
*Application and receipt.
9 Hand washing posters

are displayed at sinks and
all public and private
lavatories that employees
may use.
Walk through and note where

signs are visible (cafeteria,
kitchen, teachers lounge)
9 There is an odd number

of Trustees, not exceeding
15.
[Attach an updated Board
roster and a copy of the
By-Laws for the BOT]
Board of Trustees Roster
Yes
Exhibit 14
11
Yes

SITE VISIT
REVIEW
QUESTIONS
INDICATORS
9 A majority are residents
of the District of
Columbia.
9 At least two Trustees
are parents of a student
attending the school.
9 Has PCSB been
notified of all Board
changes, with updated
contact information?
G. Is the school in
compliance with
the nonsectarian
requirement of the
School Reform
Act?

contracts, etc.)
Check roster for residential
addresses.
EVIDENCE
YES/NO
Exhibit 14
Yes
Exhibit 14
Yes
9 Is there any evidence

of religious affiliation or
instruction?
SUMMARY COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SITE MANAGEMENT:
12
COMMENTS
School notified PCSB via

email of changes
Yes
There was no evidence of

religious affiliation.
Yes
SITE VISIT REVIEW

QUESTIONS
A. No Child Left
Behind Reporting
Has the reporting
process been
conducted in a
manner that is clear,
definitive and
consistent with the
law, the No Child
Left Behind Act?
INDICATORS
9 The schools NCLB
report card is posted in
a location visible to the
public. (Does not apply
to first year schools,
early childhood and
adult ed programs.)
9 Offer all students the
option to transfer to
another school that has
not been identified for
improvement. (Applies to
schools identified for
improvement)
9 Request the option of
transfer relationship with
(3) schools not identified
for improvement.
(Applies to schools
identified for
improvement)
9 Offer supplemental
services to identified
low-income students.
(Applies to schools
identified for
improvement.

EVIDENCE
Main office
Bulletin Board
Letter to parents dated before

September 1st or within two
weeks of AYP notification from
PCSB.
Exhibit 17
Ask to see PCSB notification

letter to confirm date.
Letter to school leaders/Board of
Trustees
Response from school
leaders/Board of Trustees
COMMENTS
YES/NO
The report card is posted

at the entrance hallway.
Yes
Yes
No
(Please note the schools and

dates the letters were sent.)
Invoices of supplemental
services
Letters to parents of low-income
students offering supplemental
services.
(Check for the annual authorized
service provider list)
Exhibit 10
Yes
Exhibit 17
Exhibit 18
13

SITE VISIT REVIEW
QUESTIONS
B. No Child Left
Behind Corrective
Actions
Has the school
adhered to corrective
action measures set
forth when identified
for improvement?
C. No Child Left
Behind HQT
INDICATORS
9 Develop a School
Improvement Plan
(Applies to schools
identified for
improvement)
9 Provide supplemental
services. (Applies to
schools identified for
improvement)
9 Ensure that all
elementary and
secondary subject area
teachers hired after the
first day of the 20022003 school year are
highly qualified
(Applies to all schools)
9 Notify parents of their
right to request
information on the
qualifications of their
childs teacher (Applies
to all schools)
9 Parents must be
notified if the child has
been taught for four or
more consecutive weeks
by a teacher who is not
considered highly
qualified. (Applies to
all schools)

EVIDENCE
School Improvement Plan

document
Exhibit 20
Yes
Contract from supplemental

service vendors
Schedule of services
Parental consent forms
Copies of Praxis exams
Copies of License
Official Transcript for subject
area degree
Attestation document that
certifies teacher qualifications
Exhibit 10
Yes
See Electronic
Exhibit
COMMENTS
The following teachers

do not meet HQT
requirements:
William Lewis
Nicole Travers
Farah Jacob
YES/NO
No
Correspondence to parents dated

before September 1st.
Exhibit 17
Yes
Correspondence to parent(s)
Identification of long-term
substitute teacher
Exhibit 17
Yes
14

SITE VISIT REVIEW
QUESTIONS
D. No Child Left
Behind HQ
paraprofessionals
INDICATORS

EVIDENCE
9 If request is made,
schools must inform
parents whether the
teacher has met the
qualifications under
NCLB to be considered
highly qualified
Correspondence to parents
should include:
a) Whether the teacher has met the
Exhibit 17
9 Do the
paraprofessionals meet the
HQT requirements?
COMMENTS
YES/NO
Yes
qualifications under NCLB for the

grade levels and subject areas in
which the teacher provides
instruction.
b) The baccalaureate degree major
of the teacher, and any other
graduate certification or degree held
by the teacher in the field or
discipline of his/her certificates or
degrees.
a) Associates degree or
b) Two years of higher
education or
c) Paraprofessional Praxis
exam
NA
15
Appendix R
Revised: 22 January 2013

NAME
PHONE NUMBERS
ADDRESS & E-MAILS
Mrs. Susie Dixon

Parent Coordinator
Parent
H(202) 396-6431
W(202) 219-5205 ext 154
325 34th Place. N.E

Ms. Latisha Porter

Parent
Cell (202) 497-9788
latisha_porter@yahoo.com
1331 Savannah Street, SE #8
Mr. Edward Dunson

Chairman, School of
Architecture
H (202) 686-3667
W (202) 806-7424
edunson@howard.edu
2800 Quebec Street NW- Suite 515
Mrs. Joanne D. Fort

H (202) 537-6835
Vice President and
C (202) 744-5534
General Counsel of
Urban Service Systems Corporation
joannefort00@gmail.com
4955 Sherier Place, NW
Mr. David H. Johnson

Consultant
H(703) 307-7516
W(703) 815-8783
C (703) 815-8783
bro6970@cox.net
13700 Stonedale Court
Clifton, Va 20124
Mrs. Kelly Nakamoto

PwC | Tax Partner
W (703) 918-3091
F (813) 207-7696
C (703) 403-0451
kelly.m.nakamoto@us.pwc.com
1800 Tysons Boulevard
McLean, VA 22102
Mr. David Owens

Chairman
H (202) 291-8415
W(202) 508-5228
C (202) 258-4757
Mr. Garrett Rush

Director
W (202) 481-7345
F (202) 973-2401
C (703) 627-8080
dowens@eei.org
701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
garrett.rush@navigantconsulting.com
1200 19th Street NW, Suite 700
William R. Spaulding
H(202) 526-1973
Wdspauld@aol.com
1905 Randolph St. N.E.
Calvin R. Snowden
H (202) 726-4993
calvinsnowden@comcast.net
Director University
for the People, GSA
F (202) 726-6821
C (202) 697-3765
1422 Floral Street Northwest

NAME
PHONE NUMBERS
ADDRESS & E-MAILS
Keith T. Stephenson
Vice President,
K12, Inc
C (202) 288-0092
kts318@yahoo.com
1345 Ritchie Place NE
Nicole Seward
*Ex-officio
Business Manager
H(301) 577-6832
W(202) 399-4750 ext 226
F(202) 399-4387
busmanager@ideapcs.org
4509 Crandall Court
Lanham, Md 20706
Alcine D. Mumby
*Ex-officio
Head of Academics
(510) 593-9836
W(202) 399-4750 ext 215
F(202) 399-4387
alcine.mumby@gmail.com
12379 Pleasant View Drive
Fulton, Md 20759
John Goldman
*Ex-officio
Executive Director
H(202) 258-3529
W(202) 399-4750 ext 207
C(202) 258-3529
F(202) 399-4387
johngoldman@gmailcom
1415 Rhode Island Ave, #302
*Ex-officio means the individual is NOT an official voting member of the Board of
Trustees but attends meetings as required by the IDEA PCS Board.
David Owens
Appendix S
DC Public Charter School Board

Phase I Database Review by PCSB Special Education Monitor
DESK AUDIT: Database Review
School: IDEA PCS

Date: October 24, 2012
Leader: Ms. Alcine Mumby
Special Education Manager: Sara Graves
Current Total School Population: 306 Current Number of Students with Disabilities: 59
Section 504 Plans:
Supporting Law
Per District of Columbia School Reform Act (Chapter 18. DC Code 38-1800.01)
38-1802.04 (a) A public charter school shall comply with all of the terms and provisions of its charter.
(11) A public charter school shall submit an annual report that includes
(ii) Student performance on any districtwide assessments.
(vi) Official student enrollment.
(vii) Average daily attendance.
38-1802.2 (B) The methods that will be used, including classroom technology, to provide students with the knowledge, proficiency, and skills needed:
(ii) To perform competitively on any districtwide assessments.
(10) A description of the student enrollment, admission, suspension, expulsion, and other disciplinary policies and procedures of the proposed school, and the criteria for
making decisions in such areas.
(11) A description of the procedures the proposed school plans to followto comply withall applicable civil rights statutes and regulations of the Federal government
and the District of Columbia. (includes ADA and handicapped accessibility)
Per PCSBs Charter School Renewal Application
Legal Requirements for Charter Renewal: Renewal application includes: A report on the progress of the public charter school in achieving the goals, student academic expectations, and
other terms of the approved charter
Criterion 1: Mission and Vision Statement- If your schools vision and mission statement has changed since your charter was granted, in no more than three pages, provide an updated
mission and vision statement applicable to the schools next charter term. Provide a narrative description of how this mission and vision
statement serves the students in your school including examples reflecting this service.
Criterion 2: Academic Performance summarize the schools academic performance over the current fifteen year charter term, including percentage of students achieving
proficient and advanced performance on the SAT-9 and DCCAS exams (include past and current AYP determinations; post-secondary
readiness as demonstrated by graduation rates, PSAT/SAT scores, college acceptance rates, AP exams scores, etc.;: and student attendance
and re-enrollment rates
Reviewers will look for evidence of.Examples of school performance and reasons for those performance outcomes
Special Education Monitoring and Compliance Manual (IDEA Part B), OSSE, 2011
The IDEA Part B regulations at 34 CFR 300.600 require that the SEA monitor the implementation of DEA Part B, make annual determinations about the performance of each LEA,
enforce compliance with IDEA Part B, and report annually on the performance of the SEA and each LEA. The primary focus of the SEAs monitoring activities must be on improving
educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities and ensuring that LEAs meet the program requirements of IDEA Part B. In exercising its monitoring
responsibilities, the SEA must ensure that when it identifies noncompliance with the requirements of IDEA Part B by LEAs, the noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in
no case later than one year after the SEAs identification of the noncompliance.
The IDEA Part B regulations at 34 CFR 300.600(c) and 300.603 require the SEA to make determinations annually about the performance of each LEA based on information
provided in the SPP/APR, information obtained through monitoring visits, and any other public information made available.
1
Performance
Standards
1. School has made
demonstrable
improvements in the
academic performance
of students with
disabilities (SWDs)
Supporting Data, Evidence

In
and Information
Place
% of subgroup of SWDs YR:
achieving proficient or
5
advanced on SAT-9 and 10 X
DCCAS exams for the
13 X
operation years listed:
Achievement gap by
percentage between
SWDs and whole school
population on SAT-9
and DCCAS exams for
the operation years
listed:
14
15
5
10
13
X
X
14
15
(High Schools Only):

10
Post-secondary readiness 13
as demonstrated by
14
PSAT/SAT scores for
15
the operation years
listed:
Data from all PCSB generated X
school performance profile and
composite reports/reviews
2. School has
implemented key
elements in its mission
for SWDs as well as
Charter application and

agreement, and any
amendments
In
Process
Not
in
Place
Does
Not
Exist
Comments & Documents

2002
OSSE data only goes back to 2003
2007: Only 2 SWD
2010: 21 SWD
Reading: 9.52% P & A
Math: 23.81% P & A
2011: 18 SWD
Math: 11.11% P & A
2012: 18 (who took test)
Math: 6.00% P & A
State Reading: 14.58% P & A

State Math: 16.40% P & A
2007: Only 2 SWD

2010: 21 SWD
Reading: 31.66% Gap
Math: 10.01% Gap
2011: 18 SWD
Reading: 28.08% Gap
Math: 26.47% Gap
2012: 18 (who took test)
Reading: 32.00% Gap
Math: 31.00% Gap
Information not received
PCSB Program Development Review Report 11/12
2.2 strategies in place to address variant student needs
2.4 strategies in place to ensure meeting of IEP goals
instructional strategies in place
resources in place
related services and accommodations in place
3.2 collects and analyzes data
3.4 accurate and timely identification/evaluation
limited
proficient
proficient
proficient
proficient
adequate
proficient
Charter agreement includes information about identifying and providing appropriate

services for students with disabilities according to federal law.
the whole school, and

has implemented key
elements of the charter
application and
agreement as they
apply to SWDs
3. The school is
currently compliant
with OSSE, IEP, and
CAP reporting
requirements.
List of students counted &

not counted in SEDS per
2013 child count deadline and
including student eligibility
determination, placement and
related services
11-12 PCSB Enrollment Data 59 SWDs

Level 1: 6
Level 2: 14
Level 3: 13
Level 4: 26
59 / 306 19%
School CAP reporting

documentation for SWDs
(IDEA Part B, Activities
bolded under #4)
4. The school provides
data to the District on
the 20 indicators in the
OSSE State
Monitoring &
Compliance of Part B
OSSE documentation relevant

to the charter school and
the State Part B Compliance
Monitoring
Part I-FAPE in the LRE
Indicator A: The LEA
educates students in the least
restrictive environment. (5)
Indicator B: The LEA ensures
IEPs are appropriately
developed and implemented.
OSSE FFY 2010 IDEA Part B LEA Performance Determinations

80%
Needs Assistance
PCSB: 2011-2012 Comprehensive Special Education Review Report

Indicator 3.1 Adequate

Indicator 2.2 Adequate
Indicator C: The LEA

completes evaluations within
the State-established timeline.
(11)
Indicator D: The LEA ensures

that students referred by Part
C have an IEP implemented
by their 3rd birthday. (6)
Indicator E: the LEA uses
appropriate steps to
successfully transition
students from high school to
According to SEDS (11/20/12), there are 9 overdue meetings for 2012: 1 Initial
Eligibility, 3 Triennial Eligibility, and 5 IEP Reviews.
Indicator 2.4 Exemplary
OSSE Quarterly Findings 6/29/12

Between 1/1/12-3/31/12
Noncompliance for timely completion of re-evaluations (none outstanding in OSSE
records as of 12/12)
N/A
OSSE Quarterly Findings 6/29/12

Between 1/1/12-3/31/12
Noncompliance for secondary transition requirements (under review in OSSE records
as of 12/12)
postsecondary settings. (13)

Indicator F: The LEA utilizes
appropriate discipline
processes and procedures. ((4)
Indicator G: The LEA does
not have a disproportionate
representation of students in
special education or specific
disability categories. (9, 10)
Indicator H: The LEA

provides instructional
materials to blind persons or
other persons with
print disabilities in a timely
manner.
Part II-Dispute Resolution

Indicator 4 Adequate
N/A
Indicator A: The LEA timely

implements due process
complaint requirements. (17)
Indicator B: The LEA timely
responds to State complaint
requests and decisions. (16)
Indicator C: The LEA
voluntarily engages in
mediation when requested by
parents/guardians. (19)
Part III-Data

Indicator 5.1 Exemplary
Indicator A: A. The LEA

submits timely, valid and
reliable data. (20)

Item Number 2
Information regarding timely, valid and reliable data All data are valid and reliable and submitted timely
Indicator B: The LEA uses

data to inform decisionmaking. (20)
PCSB: 2011-2012 Program Development Report

Indicator 3.2 (A)
Adequate level of development and implementation (A)The school has a system in
place to collect, record and/or analyze student academic data to determine success in
meeting most of the schools goals.
Indicator 3.2 (B)
Proficient - School-wide data are inconsistently reported to staff, parents, the PCSB
and other community members.
Indicator 3.3 (A)
Limited- Some teachers and administrators use assessment results to identify student
strengths and weaknesses in content areas, make decisions to improve instruction
4
Part IV Fiscal
Indicator A: The LEA
expends IDEA Part B funds
in accordance with Federal
laws, state laws and approved
budget and spending plans.
Indicator B: The LEA uses
IDEA Part B funds only to
pay the excess costs of
providing special education
and related services to
children with disabilities.
Indicator C: C. The LEA
meets its maintenance of
effort requirement
5. The school has

complied with
reporting requirements
for students with
Section 504 Plans
6. School ensures
facility is accessible to
disabled students
Indicator D: The LEA

properly calculates and
expends CEIS funds.
Indicator E: the LEA does not
comingle IDEA Part B funds
with other funds.
TBD
delivery and increase student achievement.

x

Item 5- Timely submission of Phase I and II Applications and the sub-recipient sought
valid reimbursement for a minimum of 45% of its IDEA, Section 611 funds within the
first fifteen months of the FFY 2010 grant cycle
See Indicator A

Item 6
LEA in compliance with the IDEA Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement and
reported on MOE to OSSE timely
N/A
N/A
Assurances that facility aligns

with ADA requirements
Special Education Desk Audit should be considered as a negative factor during renewal decision. Yes
Assessment data indicate that SWDs have not made academic growth, performance scores of SWDs have consistently fallen below State averages, and special education
subgroup percentages continue to be on the low end of a significant gap when compared to whole school results.
According to OSSE 2010 IDEA Compliance Monitoring Report: 80%; Needs Assistance
Appendix T
ENCLOSURE 2
FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR (FFY) 2010 IDEA PART B LEA PERFORMANCE DETERMINATIONS
LEA:
Integrated Design & Electronic Academy Public Charter School
Final Percentage
Rating:
80%
Determination Level:
Needs Assistance
SUMMARY OF EACH REQUIRED ELEMENT AND RATING ASSIGNED

Item
Number
Element
Determination
Number of
Points
Earned
Indicator 4b not in compliance

Indicator 9 in compliance
Indicator 10 in compliance
Indicator 11 not in compliance
Indicator 12 N/A
Indicator 13 not in compliance
History, nature and length of

time of any reported
noncompliance (APR Indicators
4b, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13)
Information regarding timely,

valid and reliable data
All data are valid and reliable and

submitted timely
3a
Identified noncompliance from

on-site compliance monitoring
and/or focused monitoring
(student and/or LEA level)
LEA did not receive a report in FFY

2010 as the result of an on-site
monitoring visit
N/A
3b
Dispute resolution findings

(student and/or LEA level)
LEA has 51-100 students with IEPs

1-8 findings of noncompliance
Outcomes of sub-recipient audit

reports
Timely submission of A-133 Report (if

applicable) 4
Type of Auditors A-133 Report Issued
on Compliance (if applicable) 4
Significant deficiencies identified by the
Auditor that are not a material
weakness in the A-133 Report (if
applicable) 4
Material weaknesses identified by the
Auditor in the A-133 Report (if
applicable) 4
Auditors designation as low-risk subrecipient in the A-133 Report (if
applicable) 0
Significant deficiencies identified by the
Auditor that are not a material
weakness in the annual independent
audit 2
Material weaknesses identified by the
Auditor in the annual independent audit
4
Noncompliance or other matters
identified by the Auditor that is required
to be reported under Government
Auditing Standard 4
3.3
(average
points)
Other data available to OSSE

regarding the LEAs compliance
with the IDEA, including, but not
limited to, relevant financial data
Timely submission of Phase I and II

Applications and the sub-recipient
sought valid reimbursement for a
minimum of 45% of its IDEA,
Section 611 funds within the first
fifteen months of the FFY 2010
grant cycle
Compliance with the IDEA

Maintenance of Effort (MOE)
requirement
LEA in compliance with the IDEA

Maintenance of Effort (MOE)
requirement and reported on MOE
to OSSE timely
Performance on selected District

of Columbia State Performance
Plan (SPP) indicators
LEA did not meet minimum n size

for disability subgroup
LEA met District of Columbia FFY

2010 SPP Indicator 5c target of
placement of less than 26% of its
N/A
students into separate settings
Evidence of correction of findings

of noncompliance, including
progress toward full compliance
(points added to total score)
Less than 90% of noncompliance

corrected within one year after the
identification of the noncompliance
Total Number of Points Earned + Additional Points
19.3
Total Possible Points from Applicable Elements
24
Percentage of Points from Applicable Elements
80%
Appendix U
Enclosure E
Special Conditions
1. Basis for Requiring Special Conditions
Pursuant to IDEA section 616(g) of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA or Part B) and 34 CFR 80.12, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) is
designating the District of Columbia (D.C.) as a high risk grantee and imposing Special
Conditions on the District of Columbia, Office of the State Superintendent of Educations (States,
D.C.s, or D.C. OSSEs) Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2012 grant award under IDEA Part B.
The State did not meet the Special Conditions imposed on its FFY 2011 IDEA Part B grant award
related to: timely initial evaluations and reevaluations; timely implementation of hearing officer
determinations (HODs); timely correction of noncompliance; secondary transition requirements;
and early childhood transition requirements. OSEP has imposed Special Conditions related to
timely initial evaluations and reevaluations and timely implementation of HODs on D.C.s IDEA
Part B grant award since 2001. These issues were initially identified in the 1998-2001 Compliance
Agreement between D.C. and the U.S. Department of Education. OSEP has imposed Special
Conditions on D.C.s IDEA Part B grant award related to: timely correction of noncompliance
since 2005; secondary transition requirements since 2009; and early childhood transition
requirements since 2010.
Timely initial evaluations and reevaluations: An initial evaluation that meets the requirements of
section 614(a)(1), (b), and (c) of the IDEA and 34 CFR 300.301(c)(1) must be completed for all
children with disabilities within the maximum number of days established by the States policy.1
See also, section 612(a)(7) of the IDEA. A reevaluation that meets the requirements of section
614(a)(2), (b), and (c) of the IDEA and 34 CFR 300.303 must be completed for each child with a
Section 614(a)(1)(C)(i)(I) of the IDEA and 34 CFR 300.301(c)(1) require that an initial evaluation be conducted within
60 days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation, or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation
must be conducted, within such timeframe. Section 38-2561.02 of the D.C. Code states that the District of Columbia must
assess or evaluate a student who may have a disability and who may require special education services within 120 days
from the date that the student was referred for an evaluation or assessment. Section 3005.2 of Chapter 30 of Title 5 of the
D.C. Municipal Regulations states: The IEP team shall conduct an initial evaluation of a child within a reasonable time of
receiving a written referral and parental consent to proceed and within timelines consistent with Federal law and D.C. Code
Section 38-2501(a). (D.C. Code Section 38-2501(a) has been repealed and D.C. Code Section 38-2561.02 now addresses
timeliness of evaluations.) The States Part B Initial Evaluation/Reevaluation Policy, dated March 22, 2010, states: The
[local educational agency] LEA must complete an initial evaluation, including the determination of the eligibility of a child
suspected of having a disability within 120 calendar days of receiving the written referral. The States Notice of
Procedural Safeguards, Rights of Parents of Students with Disabilities, revised January 2011, states: Under District of
Columbia law, the LEA must complete an initial evaluation of a child suspected of having a disability, including the
determination of eligibility, within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days of receiving the written referral. The
document also states that the 120-day timeframe does not apply to an LEA if: (1) the parent repeatedly fails or refuses to
produce the child for evaluation; (2) the parent fails or refuses to respond to a request for consent for the evaluation; or (3)
the parent enrolls the child in a school of another LEA after the 120-day timeline has begun, but before the previous LEA
has determined whether the child is a child with a disability. This special circumstance only applies if the new LEA is
making sufficient progress to ensure a prompt completion of the evaluation, and the parent and the new LEA agree to a
specific time when the evaluation will be completed.
disability no later than 36 months after the date on which the previous evaluation or reevaluation
was completed, unless the parent and the LEA agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary.2
D.C. reported in its May 1, 2012 progress report, amended May 15, 2012, that for the January 1,
2012 through March 31, 2012 reporting period, 94 percent of initial evaluations were provided in a
timely manner and that 44 children had not been provided a timely initial evaluation at the end of
the reporting period. In the States May 1, 2012 progress report, amended May 15, 2012, D.C.
reported that 89 percent of children were provided a timely reevaluation and 48 children had not
been provided a timely reevaluation at the end of the reporting period. D.C. exceeded the required
percentage for reducing the backlog of overdue initial evaluations and reevaluations set forth in in
the Departments June 20, 2011 determination letter for the November 1, 2011 reporting period,
but did not meet the required percentages for the February 1, 2012 and May 1, 2012 reporting
periods. In its May 1, 2012 progress report, amended May 15, 2012, D.C. reported that it reduced
the number of children in the backlog whose initial evaluations were overdue from the number of
such children it reported in its February 1, 2012 progress report, by 29 percent. The State reported
that it reduced the number of children in the backlog whose reevaluations were overdue from the
number of such children it reported in its February 1, 2012 progress report by 25 percent.
Therefore, while D.C. has made some progress, the State continues to demonstrate noncompliance
with the timely initial evaluation and reevaluation requirements in IDEA sections 612(a)(7) and
614(a) through (c) and 34 CFR 300.301(c)(1) and 300.303.
Timely implementation of HODs: Hearing officer determinations must be implemented within the
timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there is no timeframe prescribed by the hearing
officer, within a reasonable timeframe set by the State, as required by section 615(f) and (i) of the
IDEA. D.C. reported in its May 1, 2012 progress report, amended May 15, 2012, that for the
January 1, 2012 through March 31, 2012 reporting period, 26 percent of HODs were implemented
in a timely manner and 36 percent of the backlog of HODs were implemented. In the States May
1, 2012 progress report, amended May 15, 2012, D.C. reported the number of children in the
backlog of HODs not timely implemented was 57 at the conclusion of the February 1, 2012
through March 31, 2012 reporting period. D.C. continues to demonstrate noncompliance with the
requirements in IDEA section 615(f) and (i) to ensure timely implementation of due process
decisions.
Timely correction of noncompliance: Section 612(a)(11) of the IDEA and 34 CFR 300.149
require States to ensure that each educational program for children with disabilities administered
within the State is under the general supervision of individuals responsible for educational
programs for children with disabilities in the State educational agency. Section 616(a)(1)(C) and
34 CFR 300.600 of the IDEA require States to monitor implementation of Part B by LEAs. The
State must have in effect policies and procedures to ensure that it complies with the monitoring and
enforcement requirements in 34 CFR 300.600 through 300.602 and 300.606 through 300.608.
See also 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(E). In exercising its monitoring responsibilities under
300.600(d), the State must ensure that when it identifies noncompliance with requirements of Part
2
Section 614(a)(2) of the IDEA and 34 CFR 300.303 require that a reevaluation occur at least once every three years,
unless the parents and the LEA agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary. The States Part B Initial
Evaluation/Reevaluation Policy, dated March 22, 2010, states: The LEA must hold a reevaluation meeting within three
years of the date the previous initial evaluation or reevaluation was completed. The reevaluation meeting must be
scheduled in time to allow the IEP team to conduct assessments, if necessary, and to reconvene within three years of the
previous eligibility meeting.
Page 2
B by LEAs, the noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year
after the States identification of the noncompliance (34 CFR 300.600(e)).
D.C. reported in its May 1, 2012 progress report, amended May 15, 2012, that 2,512 of the 4,166
findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010, for which the one-year timeline has expired,
were corrected in a timely manner (60.3 percent). The State attributed the slippage in compliance
from the timely correction rate for FFY 2008 findings (98 percent) and FFY 2009 findings (81.29
percent) to the increased percentage of findings made through monitoring activities rather than
dispute resolution processes. OSEP concludes, and the State recognizes, that while it has increased
the number of findings identified using all of the components of its general supervision system,
including a statewide database, on-site monitoring, and LEA self-assessments, it is not yet able to
demonstrate that noncompliance is corrected in a timely manner consistent with IDEA sections
612(a)(11) and 616, 34 CFR 300.149 and 300.600(e), 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(E), and OSEP
Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008 (OSEP Memo 09-02).
Secondary transition: Beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the child turns 16,
or younger if determined appropriate by the IEP Team, and updated annually, thereafter, the IEP
must include: (1) appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate
transition assessments related to training, education, employment, and where appropriate,
independent living skills; and (2) the transition services (including courses of study) needed to
assist the child in reaching those goals, as required by section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) of the IDEA
and 34 CFR 300.320(b). The public agency must invite a child with a disability to attend the
childs IEP Team meeting if a purpose of the meeting will be the consideration of the
postsecondary goals for the child and the transition services needed to assist the child in reaching
those goals. See 34 CFR 300.321(b)(1). To the extent appropriate, with the prior consent of the
parents or a child who has reached the age of majority, the public agency must invite the
representative of any participating agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying
for transition services. See 34 CFR 300.321(b)(3).
D.C. reported under Indicator 13 of its FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR), that 6.75
percent of youth aged 16 and above had an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary
goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition
services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those
postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the students transition services needs;
evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services were to be
discussed; and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was
invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached
the age of majority. In its May 1, 2012 progress report, amended May 15, 2012, D.C. reported that
of the 100 IEPs of youth aged 16 reviewed for the February 1, 2012 through March 31, 2012
reporting period, 41 percent included the required secondary transition content. While these data
reflect some progress from the FFY 2010 data, D.C. continues to report very low levels of
compliance with the secondary transition requirements in IDEA section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) and
34 CFR 300.320(b) and 300.321(b).
Early childhood transition: Children referred by Part C prior to age three, who are found eligible
for Part B, must have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays, as required by
IDEA section 612(a)(9) and 34 CFR 300.124(b). D.C. reported under Indicator 12 of its FFY
2010 APR, that 62.4 percent of children referred by Part C prior to age three, who are found
eligible for Part B, have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. In the States
Page 3
FFY 2011 Special Conditions progress reports, D.C. reported that for the July 1, 2011 through
March 31, 2012 reporting period, 85.3 percent of children who were served in Part C and found
eligible for Part B had an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. While these
data reflect progress from the FFY 2010 data, D.C. continues to demonstrate noncompliance with
the early childhood transition requirements in IDEA section 612(a)(9) and 34 CFR 300.124(b).
D.C.s FFY 2010 APR Determination: As a result of D.C.s very low compliance data reported for
Indicator 13 (secondary transition) and its longstanding noncompliance with the IDEA
requirements related to timely initial evaluations and reevaluations, timely implementation of
HODs, and timely correction of noncompliance that the Department has had to require that D.C.
address for multiple years with various enforcement actions, D.C. received a needs intervention
determination for the sixth consecutive year. The Departments June 28, 2012 determination letter
requires D.C., pursuant to IDEA section 616(e)(2)(B)(i), to submit a corrective action plan (CAP)
that is reasonably designed to address each of the areas in which the State needs intervention. In
addition to submitting a CAP, pursuant to IDEA section 616(e)(1)(B) and (2)(A), the Department
directed D.C. to use: (1) $250,000 of its FFY 2012 State-level funds under IDEA section 611(e) to
further reduce the backlog of overdue initial evaluations and reevaluations and increase progress
toward ensuring timely initial evaluations and reevaluations; and (2) $250,000 of its FFY 2012
State-level funds under IDEA section 611(e) to address noncompliance with secondary transition
requirements. The Department authorizes D.C. to use the otherwise directed funds for other
purposes if the State elects to direct LEAs that demonstrated noncompliance with these
requirements to use: (1) $250,000 of their FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds to reduce the backlog of
overdue initial evaluations and reevaluations and increase progress toward ensuring timely initial
evaluations and reevaluations; and (2) $250,000 of their FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds to address
noncompliance with secondary transition requirements.
The failure to ensure timely initial evaluations and reevaluations was also a factor in the States
FFY 2008 and FFY 2009 APR determinations. Pursuant to IDEA section 616(e)(1)(B) and (2)(A),
the Department directed D.C. to use $500,000 of its FFY 2010 and FFY 2011 State-level funds
under IDEA section 611(e) to carry out initial evaluations and reevaluations for children who had
not been provided a timely initial evaluation or reevaluation (i.e., to reduce the backlog of overdue
initial evaluations and reevaluations). The Department authorized D.C. to use the otherwise
directed funds for other purposes if the State elected to direct LEAs that demonstrated
noncompliance with the requirements to conduct timely initial evaluations and reevaluations, to use
$500,000 of their FFY 2010 and FFY 2011 IDEA Part B funds to reduce the backlog of overdue
initial evaluations and reevaluations.
For FFY 2010, the State directed the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) to use $250,000
of its FFY 2010 IDEA Part B funds to reduce the backlog of overdue initial evaluations and
reevaluations. D.C. reported it would use $250,000 of its FFY 2010 State-level funds under IDEA
section 611(e) to support DCPS in securing additional contracted evaluators. Because the State
had not satisfactorily demonstrated as of May 23, 2011, that DCPS had used $250,000 of the
States FFY 2010 State level funds under IDEA section 611(e) and $250,000 of the LEAs FFY
2010 funds to reduce the backlog, OSEPs June 20, 2011 determination letter and the FFY 2011
Special Conditions required that the State continue to report on the use of the FFY 2010 funds.
For FFY 2011, D.C. directed DCPS to use $500,000 of the LEAs FFY 2011 IDEA Part B funds to
reduce the backlog of overdue initial evaluations and reevaluations. In the May 1, 2012 progress
report, amended May 15, 2012, the State provided a report on the status of DCPS use of: (1)
Page 4
$250,000 of the States FFY 2010 State-level funds under IDEA section 611(e) and $250,000 of
DCPS FFY 2010 IDEA Part B funds; and (2) $500,000 of DCPS FFY 2011 IDEA Part B funds to
reduce the backlog of overdue initial evaluations and reevaluations. The State reported that as of
May 15, 2012, DCPS had used $250,000 of the LEAs directed FFY 2010 IDEA Part B funds and
$238,126 of the LEAs directed FFY 2011 IDEA Part B funds to reduce the backlog of overdue
initial evaluations and reevaluations. The State provided an explanation of how DCPS would use
the remaining $250,000 of the directed FFY 2010 State-level funds under IDEA section 611(e) and
the remaining $261,874 of the LEAs directed FFY 2011 IDEA Part B funds by July 1, 2012.
Based on the above, OSEP imposes the following Special Conditions on D.C.s FFY 2012 IDEA
Part B grant award to ensure that D.C. corrects the areas in which the Department has determined
the State did not meet the FFY 2011 Special Conditions and the areas that affected the States FFY
2010 APR determination of needs intervention.
2. Nature of the Special Conditions
The State must comply with the following Special Conditions:
a. CAP: As directed in OSEPs June 28, 2012 FFY 2010 SPP/APR response letter, D.C. must
submit a CAP that ensures the State can: (1) demonstrate compliance with the secondary
transition requirements in IDEA section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) and 34 CFR 300.320(b) and
300.321(b); (2) demonstrate that it has a general supervision system that is reasonably designed
to effectively correct noncompliance in a timely manner as required by IDEA sections
612(a)(11) and 616, 34 CFR 300.149 and 300.600(e), 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(E), and OSEP
Memo 09-02; (3) demonstrate compliance with the requirement to implement HODs in a timely
manner as required by IDEA section 615(f) and (i); and (4) demonstrate compliance with the
requirement to conduct timely initial evaluations and reevaluations as required by IDEA
sections 612(a)(7) and 614(a) through (c) and 34 CFR 300.301(c)(1) and 300.303. Because
D.C. did not meet the Special Condition imposed on its FFY 2011 IDEA Part B grant award
related to early childhood transition, D.C. must also address in the CAP how the State can
demonstrate compliance with the requirement that children referred by Part C prior to age
three, who are found eligible for Part B, must have an IEP developed and implemented by their
third birthdays, as required by IDEA section 612(a)(9) and 34 CFR 300.124(b).
D.C. must submit its CAP to OSEP by August 1, 2012. The CAP must include: (1) a
description of the specific actions the State will take to address each of the five areas specified
above; (2) the projected timelines for completing each of the actions; (3) the name of the party
responsible for implementing each action; and (4) a description of the evidence D.C. will
submit to OSEP to demonstrate that the action has been completed.
b. CAP Progress Reports: D.C. must report on the status of implementation of the CAP in
accordance with the schedule specified below:
First CAP
Progress Report
CAP Progress
Report Due Date
Reporting Period
November 1, 2012
April 1, 2012 September 30, 20123
For the first reporting period, the State must provide the information required in section 2.b.(A) (timely initial evaluations
and reevaluations) for the period July 1, 2012 through September 30, 2012.
Page 5
Second CAP Progress

Report
Third CAP Progress
Report
February 1, 2013
October 1, 2012 December 31, 2012
May 1, 2013
January 1, 2013 March 31, 2013
In addition to reporting on implementation of the CAP, D.C. must also submit the specific data
and other information as described below:
(A) Demonstrate compliance with the requirement to conduct timely initial evaluations and
reevaluations
With each of the three CAP progress reports, the State must report the following
information:
(1)
Initial Evaluations
(a) The number of children who, as of the end of the previous reporting period had
been referred for, but not provided a timely initial evaluation.
(b) The number or children referred for initial evaluation whose initial evaluation
became overdue during the reporting period.
(c) The number of children from (a) and (b) above, who were provided initial
evaluations during the reporting period.
(d) The number of children who had not been provided a timely initial evaluation at
the conclusion of the reporting period.
(e) The percent by which the State reduced the number of children with overdue
initial evaluations reported in the States previous progress report. To calculate
the percentage use data reported above in (A)(1): [(a) minus (d)] divided by (a)
times 100.
(f) The percent of initial evaluations provided to children whose initial evaluation
deadlines fell within the reporting period that were conducted in a timely
manner.
The State must also report the actual numbers for the following:
(i) The number of children whose initial evaluation deadlines fell within the
reporting period.
(ii) The number of those children who were provided a timely initial evaluation.
(iii) The number of children, if any, for whom the exceptions in 34 CFR
300.301(d) applied.
To calculate the percent of initial evaluations provided in a timely manner use
the data reported in (ii) divided by [(i) minus (iii)] times 100.
(g) The average number of days the initial evaluations that had not been provided in
a timely manner were overdue.
(h) A description of the actions the State is taking to address any noncompliance
with the timely initial evaluation requirements.
Page 6
(2) Reevaluations
(a) The number of children who, as of the end of the previous reporting period had
not been provided a timely triennial reevaluation.
(b) The number of children whose triennial reevaluation became overdue during the
reporting period.
(c) The number of children from (a) and (b) above, who had been provided triennial
reevaluations during the reporting period.
(d) The number of children who had not been provided a timely triennial
reevaluation at the conclusion of the reporting period.
(e) The percent by which the State reduced the number of children with overdue
triennial reevaluations reported in the States previous progress report. To
calculate the percentage use data reported above in (A)(2): [(a) minus (d)]
divided by (a) times 100.
(f) The percent of triennial reevaluations provided to children with disabilities
whose reevaluation deadlines fell within the reporting period that were
conducted in a timely manner.
The State must also report the actual numbers for the following:
(i) The number of children whose triennial reevaluation deadlines fell within
the reporting period.
(ii) The number of those children who were provided a timely triennial
reevaluation.
To calculate the percent of triennial reevaluations provided in a timely manner
use the data reported in (ii) divided by (i) times 100.
(g) The average number of days the triennial reevaluations that had not been
provided in a timely manner were overdue.
(h) The reasons for the delays in conducting reevaluations in a timely manner and a
description of the actions the State is taking to address the noncompliance.
(B) Demonstrate compliance with the requirement to implement HODs in a timely manner4
(1)
With each of the three CAP progress reports, the State must report the following
information:
(a) The number of children whose HODs, as of the end of the previous reporting
period, had not been implemented within the timeframe established by the
hearing officer or by the State.
(b) The number of children whose HODs had not been implemented within the
timeframe established by the hearing officer or by the State (became overdue)
during the reporting period.
For purposes of the FFY 2012 Special Conditions, HODs does not include settlement agreements and the data are
calculated on a per child basis, not per HOD in cases where the same child has more than one HOD.
Page 7
(c) The number of children from (a) and (b) whose HODs were implemented
during the reporting period.
(d) The number of children whose HODs had not been implemented in a timely
manner at the conclusion of the reporting period.
(e) The percent by which the State reduced the number of children whose HODs
had not been implemented in a timely manner reported in the States previous
progress report. To calculate the percentage, use the data reported above in
(B)(1): [(a) minus (d)] divided by (a) times 100.
(f) The percent of HODs that were implemented in a timely manner during the
reporting period.
(g) The reasons for the delays in implementing HODs in a timely manner and a
description of the actions the State is taking to address the noncompliance.
(C) Demonstrate that the State has a general supervision system that is reasonably designed to
effectively correct noncompliance in a timely manner
(1)
With the first CAP progress report, due November 1, 2012, D.C. must provide the
information specified below:
(a) The number of the 134 remaining findings of noncompliance identified in FFY
2009 that D.C. reported were not corrected under Indicator 15 in the FFY 2010
APR, for which the State verified the noncompliance was corrected more than
one year after the States identification of the noncompliance (i.e., subsequent
correction).
(b) The number of findings of noncompliance D.C. made during FFY 2010 (July 1,
2010 through June 30, 2011).
(c) The number of findings identified in FFY 2010 for which the State verified the
noncompliance was corrected as soon as possible and in no case later than one
year after the States identification of the noncompliance.
(d) The number of findings identified in FFY 2010 for which the State verified the
noncompliance was corrected more than one year after the States identification
of the noncompliance (i.e., subsequent correction).
(e) A description of the actions taken to verify the correction of noncompliance to
ensure that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 and/or FFY
2010: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e.,
achieved 100 percent compliance) based on a review of updated data, such as
data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system;
and (2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is
no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA consistent with OSEP Memo 0902.
(f) A description of the actions the State has taken to address any remaining
findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 and/or FFY 2010 that were
not corrected.
Page 8
(2)
In lieu of providing data with the second CAP progress report, due February 1,
2013, D.C. must report FFY 2011 actual target data for Indicator 15 (identification
and correction of noncompliance) consistent with the required measurement and
instructions in its FFY 2011 APR, due February 1, 2013. D.C. must also address all
of the issues related to Indicator 15 identified in OSEPs June 28, 2012 response to
the States FFY 2010 SPP/APR submission.
(3)
With its third CAP progress report, due May 1, 2013, D.C. must provide the
information specified below:
(a) The number of any remaining findings of noncompliance identified in FFY
2009 and/or FFY 2010 that D.C. reported were not corrected under Indicator 15
in the FFY 2011 APR, for which the State verified the noncompliance was
corrected more than one year after the States identification of the
noncompliance (i.e., subsequent correction).
(b) The number of findings of noncompliance D.C. made during FFY 2011 (July 1,
2011 through June 30, 2012).
(c) The number of findings identified in FFY 2011 for which the State verified the
noncompliance was corrected as soon as possible and in no case later than one
year after the States identification of the noncompliance.
(d) The number of findings identified in FFY 2011 for which the State verified the
noncompliance was corrected more than one year after the States identification
of the noncompliance (i.e., subsequent correction).
(e) The number of findings identified in FFY 2011 for which the one year timeline
for correction has not yet expired.
(f) A description of the actions taken to verify the correction of noncompliance to
ensure that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2009, FFY 2010,
and/or FFY 2011: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory
requirements (i.e., achieved 100 percent compliance) based on a review of
updated data, such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or
a State data system; and (2) has corrected each individual case of
noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA
consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.
(g) A description of the actions the State has taken to address any findings of
noncompliance identified in FFY 2009, FFY 2010, and/or FFY 2011 that were
not corrected within one year of the States identification of the noncompliance.
(D) Demonstrate compliance with secondary transition requirements

For each of the three CAP reporting periods, D.C. must:
(1)
Select a new random sample of at least 100 IEPs of youth aged 16 and above to be
reviewed for IEP secondary transition content during the reporting period.
(2)
Report, of the student records reviewed, consistent with the required measurement
for Indicator 13, the number and percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP
that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated
Page 9
and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services,

including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those
postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the students transition services
needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team
meeting where transition services were to be discussed and evidence that, if
appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP
Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the
age of majority.
(3)
Report the number of LEAs included in its review and the number of those LEAs
that demonstrated compliance with the secondary transition requirements.
(4)
Provide an explanation of the progress or slippage that occurred for the reporting
period and a description of the actions the State is taking to address any
(E) Demonstrate compliance with early childhood transition requirements

(1)
With its first CAP progress report, due November 1, 2012, D.C. must provide a
preliminary report of the States FFY 2011 (July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012)
actual target data for Indicator 12. The States preliminary data must be reported
consistent with the required measurement and instructions for the FFY 2011
SPP/APR submission. This includes reporting the range of days beyond the third
birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP developed and the reasons for
the delays.
(2)
With its second CAP progress report, due February 1, 2013, D.C. must report the
percent of children referred by Part C prior to age three, who are found eligible for
Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays
for the period July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012. D.C. must also indicate the
range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP
developed and the reasons for the delays.
(3)
With its third CAP progress report, due May 1, 2013, D.C. must report the percent
of children referred by Part C prior to age three, who are found eligible for Part B,
and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays for the
period January 1, 2013 through March 31, 2013. D.C. must also indicate the range
of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP
developed and the reasons for the delays.
c. Directed Use of State-Level IDEA Section 611(e) Funds: As directed in OSEPs June 28,
2012 FFY 2010 SPP/APR response letter, D.C. must use: (1) $250,000 of its FFY 2012 Statelevel funds under IDEA section 611(e) to further reduce the backlog of overdue initial
evaluations and reevaluations and increase progress toward ensuring timely initial evaluations
and reevaluations; and (2) $250,000 of its FFY 2012 State-level funds under IDEA section
611(e) to address noncompliance with secondary transition requirements. The Department
authorizes D.C. to use the otherwise directed funds for other purposes if the State elects to
direct LEAs that demonstrated noncompliance with these requirements to use: (1) $250,000 of
their FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds to reduce the backlog of overdue initial evaluations and
reevaluations and increase progress toward ensuring timely initial evaluations and
Page 10
reevaluations; and (2) $250,000 of their FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds to address
To ensure that D.C. can reduce the backlog of overdue initial evaluations and reevaluations,
increase progress toward ensuring timely initial evaluations and reevaluations, and increase
compliance with secondary transition requirements within one year, D.C. must accelerate the
implementation of corrective measures and expedite the use of the directed FFY 2012 IDEA
Part B funds. Based on the following timeline, the Department is requiring D.C. to ensure that
$500,000 of its FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds are used for the purposes described below by
July 1, 2013.
1. On August 1, 2012, D.C. must report whether it intends to: (1) use $250,000 of its FFY
2012 State-level funds under IDEA section 611(e) to reduce the backlog of overdue initial
evaluations and reevaluations and increase progress toward ensuring timely initial
evaluations and reevaluations; (2) direct those LEA(s) that demonstrated noncompliance to
use $250,000 of their FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds to reduce the backlog and increase
progress towards ensuring timely initial evaluations and reevaluations; or (3) use a portion
of its FFY 2012 State-level funds, and direct those LEA(s) that demonstrated
noncompliance to use a portion of their FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds to reduce the backlog
and increase progress towards ensuring timely initial evaluations and reevaluations (the
combined amount of State-level and LEA-level FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds must total
$250,000). D.C. must also report whether it intends to: (1) use $250,000 of its FFY 2012
State-level funds under IDEA section 611(e) to address noncompliance with secondary
transition requirements; (2) direct those LEA(s) that demonstrated noncompliance to use
$250,000 of their FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds to address noncompliance with secondary
transition requirements; or (3) use a portion of its FFY 2012 State-level funds, and direct
those LEA(s) that demonstrated noncompliance to use a portion of their FFY 2012 IDEA
Part B funds to address noncompliance with secondary transition requirements (the
combined amount of State-level and LEA-level FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds must total
$250,000).
With its August 1, 2012 report, D.C. must provide a proposed spending plan on how the
FFY 2012 State-level funds under IDEA section 611(e) will be used by July 1, 2013 to
reduce the backlog of overdue initial evaluations and reevaluations, increase progress
toward ensuring timely initial evaluations and reevaluations, and to address noncompliance
with secondary transition requirements. The proposed spending plan must include: (1) the
activities that will be carried out with these funds; (2) the costs associated with each of the
activities; (3) a projected timeline for using the funds to pay the costs associated with each
of the activities that demonstrates that the funds will be used by July 1, 2013; and (4) an
explanation of how the activities will result in reduction of the backlog and increase
progress toward ensuring timely initial evaluations and reevaluations, and address
noncompliance with secondary transition requirements. D.C. must also describe the
documentation that it will provide to demonstrate that it has used: (1) $250,000 of its FFY
2012 State-level funds under IDEA section 611(e) and and/or the portion of FFY 2012
IDEA Part B funds it has directed LEA(s) to use to carry out the activities described in the
States and/or LEAs spending plan to reduce the backlog of overdue initial evaluations and
reevaluations and increase progress toward ensuring timely initial evaluations and
reevaluations; and (2) $250,000 of its FFY 2012 State-level funds under IDEA section
Page 11
611(e) and and/or the portion of FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds it has directed LEA(s) to use
to carry out the activities described in the States and/or LEAs spending plan to address
In addition, as required by the Departments June 20, 2011 determination letter and the
Special Conditions in D.C.s July 1, 2011 IDEA Part B grant award letter, D.C. must
provide: (1) the amount of the $250,000 of FFY 2010 State-level funds under IDEA
section 611(e) DCPS used from April 1, 2012 through June 30, 2012 to reduce the backlog;
(2) documentation that DCPS used those FFY 2010 IDEA Part B funds to reduce the
backlog; (3) the amount of the $261,874 of DCPS FFY 2011 IDEA Part B funds that were
used from April 1, 2012 through June 30, 2012 to carry out the activities described in
DCPS spending plan; and (4) documentation that DCPS used those FFY 2011 IDEA Part
B funds in a manner consistent with the DCPS spending plan. If DCPS does not use the
funds by July 1, 2012, the State will be required to continue to report on the use of those
funds in each subsequent progress report, until the Department notifies the State that it has
determined that the State and DCPS have fulfilled the requirement to use the FFY 2010 and
FFY 2011 IDEA Part B funds.
Using the data reported in section 2.b.(A)(1)(e) and (A)(2)(e) of these Special Conditions,
the State must also report: (1) the percent by which the State reduced the number of
children with overdue initial evaluations reported in the States May 1, 2012 progress
report, amended May 15, 2012; and (2) the percent by which the State reduced the number
of children with overdue reevaluations reported in the States May 1, 2012 progress report,
amended May 15, 2012.5
2. On November 1, 2012, D.C. must provide evidence it has directed the use of funds, as
appropriate, and submit a proposed spending plan that includes the four components
described above for the State-level spending plan for: (1) any LEA(s) directed to use FFY
2012 IDEA Part B funds to reduce the backlog and increase progress toward ensuring
timely initial evaluations and reevaluations; and (2) any LEA(s) directed to use FFY 2012
IDEA Part B funds to address noncompliance with secondary transition requirements. D.C.
must also provide: (1) the amount of the $250,000 of the States and/or LEAs FFY 2012
IDEA Part B funds that were used from July 1, 2012 through September 30, 2012 to carry
out the activities described in the States and/or LEAs spending plan to reduce the backlog
and increase progress toward ensuring timely initial evaluations and reevaluations; (2) the
amount of the $250,000 of the States and/or LEAs FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds that
were used from July 1, 2012 through September 30, 2012 to carry out the activities
described in the States and/or LEAs spending plan to address noncompliance with
secondary transition requirements; and (3) documentation that the State and/or LEA used
those FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds in a manner consistent with the States and/or LEAs
spending plan.
the State must demonstrate that it has: (1) reduced the number of children with overdue
initial evaluations reported in the States August 1, 2012 progress report by 25 percent; and
OSEP will take into consideration D.C.s submission of amended data to allow for late data entry or data correction
adjustments, as appropriate.
Page 12
(2) reduced the number of children with overdue reevaluations reported in the States
August 1, 2012 progress report by 25 percent.
Using the data reported in section 2.b.(D)(2) of these Special Conditions, the State must
demonstrate that of the student records reviewed, 75 percent of youth aged 16 and above
had IEPs that included the required secondary transition content.
3. On February 1, 2013, D.C. must provide: (1) the amount of the $250,000 of the States
and/or LEAs FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds that were used from October 1, 2012 through
December 31, 2012 to carry out the activities described in the States and/or LEAs
spending plan to reduce the backlog and increase progress toward ensuring timely initial
evaluations and reevaluations; (2) the amount of the $250,000 of the States and/or LEAs
FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds that were used from October 1, 2012 through December 31,
2012 to carry out the activities described in the States and/or LEAs spending plan to
address noncompliance with secondary transition requirements; and (3) documentation that
the State and/or LEA used those FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds in a manner consistent with
the States and/or LEAs spending plan.
initial evaluations reported in the States November 1, 2012 progress report by 50 percent;
and (2) reduced the number of children with overdue reevaluations reported in the States
November 1, 2012 progress report by 50 percent.
4. On May 1, 2013, D.C. must provide: (1) the amount of the $250,000 of the States and/or
LEAs FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds that were used from January 1, 2013 through March
31, 2013 to carry out the activities described in the States and/or LEAs spending plan to
reduce the backlog and increase progress toward ensuring timely initial evaluations and
reevaluations; (2) the amount of the $250,000 of the States and/or LEAs FFY 2012 IDEA
Part B funds that were used from January 1, 2013 through March 31, 2013 to carry out the
activities described in the States and/or LEAs spending plan to address noncompliance
with secondary transition requirements; and (3) documentation that the State and/or LEA
used those FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds in a manner consistent with the States and/or
LEAs spending plan.
initial evaluations reported in the States February 1, 2013 progress report by 75 percent;
and (2) reduced the number of children with overdue reevaluations reported in the States
February 1, 2013 progress report by 75 percent.
5. On August 1, 2013, D.C. must provide: (1) the amount of the $250,000 of the States
and/or LEAs FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds that were used from April 1, 2013 through
Page 13
June 30, 2013 to carry out the activities described in the States and/or LEAs spending plan
to reduce the backlog and increase progress toward ensuring timely initial evaluations and
reevaluations; (2) the amount of the $250,000 of the States and/or LEAs FFY 2012 IDEA
Part B funds that were used from Apri1 1, 2013 through June 30, 2013, to carry out the
activities described in the States and/or LEAs spending plan to address noncompliance
with secondary transition requirements; and (3) documentation that the State and/or LEA
used those FFY 2012 IDEA Part B funds in a manner consistent with the States and/or
LEAs spending plan.
initial evaluations reported in the States May 1, 2013 progress report by 95 percent or
more; and (2) reduced the number of children with overdue reevaluations reported in the
States May 1, 2013 progress report by 95 percent or more.
had IEPs that included the required secondary transition content.6
d. FFY 2011 SPP/APR: D.C. must submit its FFY 2011 SPP/APR to OSEP, due February 1,
2013. D.C. must report consistent with the required measurement and instructions, FFY 2011
data for all indicators and must address all issues identified in OSEPs June 28, 2012 response
to the States FFY 2010 SPP/APR submission.
3. Evidence Necessary for Conditions to be Removed
The Department will remove these Special Conditions if, at any time prior to the expiration of the
FFY 2012 grant year, the State provides documentation, satisfactory to the Department, that it has
fully met the requirements and conditions set forth above.
4. Method of Requesting Reconsideration
The State can write to OSEPs Director, Dr. Melody Musgrove, if it wishes the Department to
reconsider any aspect of these Special Conditions. The request must describe in detail the changes
to the Special Conditions sought by the State and the reasons for those requested changes.
5. Submission of Reports
D.C. must submit all reports required under these Special Conditions to:
Lisa M. Pagano
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
Office of Special Education Programs-MSIP
550 12th Street, S.W., Room 4173
Washington, D.C. 20202 or by e-mail to: lisa.pagano@ed.gov
6
OSEP recognizes that the August 1, 2013 due date for reporting this information occurs after the FFY 2012 grant period
(July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013). However, since the data required for the August 1, 2013 progress report are based on
activities carried out during FFY 2012, we are including this reporting requirement in these Special Conditions. When
reporting on August 1, 2013, D.C. must provide the data required in section 2.b.(A) (timely initial evaluations and
reevaluations) and section 2.b.(D) (secondary transition requirements) for the period of April 1, 2013 through June 30,
2013.
Page 14
Page 15
Appendix V
Appendix W
IDEA PCS: 5 YEAR STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION ANALYSIS

2008
2009
2010
2011
Assets
Current Assets
Cash/Cash equivalents
Grants receivables
Prepaid expense
Total Current Assets
Fixed Assets
PPE net
Deferred financing loan costs, net
Total Fixed Assets, net
Total assets
2,186,519
175,188
16,805
2,378,512
1,598,012
740,999
24,670
2,363,681
1,920,652
865,865
29,304
2,815,821
1,075,271
383,894
5,887
1,465,052
2012
1,056,962
368,905
5,394
1,431,261
4,178,570
128,043
4,306,613
6,685,125
3,865,045
139,362
4,004,407
6,368,088
4,428,051
67,965
4,496,016
7,311,837
7,363,732
67,965
7,431,697
8,896,749
11,832,244
67,965
11,900,209
13,331,470
106,800
339,135
162,329
105,000
713,264
139,827
177,729
141,475
110,000
569,031
175,505
149,629
120,763
445,897
388,040
378,709
175,262
942,011
247,894
465,555
128,104
841,553
Long-term liabilties
Loan payable, net of current portion
Obligations under interest rate swap
Retainages Payable
Total liabilities
1,994,631
28,980
2,736,875
1,882,547
90,372
2,541,950
2,271,201
122,206
2,839,304
3,010,230
323,481
4,275,722
7,956,857
10,000
8,808,410
Net Assets
Net Income
Change in value of swap
Beg. Net Assets
Total Net Assets (Ending Net Assets)
Total liabilities and net assets
118,829
(21,540)
3,850,961
3,948,250
6,685,125
(60,720)
28,980
3,948,250
3,916,510
6,458,460
678,229
3,916,510
4,594,739
7,434,043
26,288
Liabilities and Net Assets

Current liabilities
Accounts Payable
Accrued payroll and benefits
Refundable advance
Loan payable, current
Total current liabilities
Long-term debt/ Total Equity ratio:

Net-working capital:
Liqiudity ratio:
0.51
1,665,248
3.33
0.50
1,794,650
4.15
0.52
2,369,924
6.31
(97,967)
4,594,739
4,621,027
8,896,749
0.65
523,041
1.56
4,621,027
4,523,060
13,331,470
1.76
589,708
1.70
IDEA: 5 YEAR STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES ANALYSIS

2008
2009
Revenue:
Revenue
Total revenue
$
$
2011
2012
8,206,443
8,206,443
$
$
8,624,511
8,624,511
$
$
9,396,185
9,396,185
$
$
8,509,337
8,509,337
$
$
8,286,344
8,286,344
$
$
$
$
$
5,531,970
506,887
1,082,036
1,564,338
8,685,231
$
$
$
$
$
5,689,798
428,396
1,096,960
1,502,802
8,717,956
$
$
$
$
$
5,856,275
1,368,215
576,067
682,492
8,483,049
$
$
$
$
$
5,341,570
1,525,361
588,215
929,165
8,384,311
$
$
$
$
$
(60,720)
28,980
(31,740)
3,948,250
3,916,510
$
$
$
$
$
678,229
678,229
3,916,510
4,594,739
26,288
(97,967)
$
$
$
26,288
4,594,739
4,621,027
$
$
$
(97,967)
4,621,027
4,523,060
Expenses:
Personnel costs
Direct Student costs
Occupancy expenses
Total expenses
5,020,238
368,438
1,117,058
1,581,880
8,087,614
Net Income
Change in value of swap
Change in Net Assets
Net Assets, beginning of year
Total Net Assets (Year End Balance)
$
$
$
$
$
118,829
(21,540)
97,289
3,850,961
3,948,250
$
$
$
$
2010
Profit Margin
Personnel costs/ Total Revenue
Direct Student costs/ Total Revenue
Occupancy expense/ Total Revenue
G&A expenses/ Total Revenue
1%
61%
4%
14%
19%
Personnel Costs
Direct Student Costs
Occupancy Expenses
64%
10%
10%
15%
-1%
64%
6%
13%
18%
7%
61%
5%
12%
16%
0%
69%
16%
7%
8%
-1%
64%
18%
7%
11%
698,692.58
6.47

IDEA PCS Renewal Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IDEA PCS Renewal Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2012-13 Charter

Preliminary Renewal Report

Integrated Design and

January 31, 2013

GOALS AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT EXPECTATIONS

See DC Code 38-1208.12(a)(3).

1. Ensure graduation rates are over 90%.

IDEA PCS Graduation Rates

*Data confirmed by PCSB and/or OSSE 15

See IDEA PCS Renewal Application, p. 7, attached to this document as Appendix K.

IDEA PCS PSAT Performance

IDEA PCS Eleventh Grade Average PSAT Scores

Difference between state and school average

Percentage of Eleventh Grade Students with a

Source: PCSB PMF (* = not validated)

IDEA PCS SAT Performance

IDEA PCS Twelfth Grade Average SAT Scores

Average School Score

Difference between state and school average

Source: College Board

Percentage of Twelfth Grade Students With a

Source: PCSB PMF (* = not validated).

IDEA PCS DC-CAS Performance 23

IDEA PCS DC-CAS Reading Proficiency Rates

DC-CAS Math Proficiency Rates

IDEA PCS ASVAB Performance 24

Percentage of IDEA PCS Students Taking ASVAB and

5. Create an environment that encourages attendance and reduces absenteeism. 2627

Middle School Attendance Rates

High School Attendance Rates

7. Improve student citizenship.

See Appendices G and H.

10. Receive more than a high school diploma.

Target Associated with Goal

Career and Technical Education (CTE) Introduction

50% of ninth graders will pass the Introduction

40% of 11th graders will complete two years of

COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS

IDEA PCS Compliance Review (2011-12), attached to this document as Appendix O.

Maintenance and Dissemination of Student Records

Special Education Laws

FISCAL MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC VIABILITY

Has engaged in a pattern of nonadherence to generally accepted accounting principles;

Direct Student Costs

General and administrative expenses

Overview of PCSB Reviews of IDEA PCS from 2007-present

See 2007-08 School Improvement Plan (SIP) Review Report.

As required by SRA 38-1802.12(a)(3).

February 25, 2012

A comprehensive review of IDEA PCSs current status,

IDEA PCS, also committed to the following:

Implement the Restructuring Plan;

The PCSB recommends that the following expertise is represented on the

Findings from the program review in the areas of curriculum, instruction,

School Academic Plan:

School Academic Plan

o Create a flexible SY2012-2013 Professional Development schedule, based

o Create a two-week teacher Professional Development plan to prepare

o Select a student advisory board to work with the restructuring team to

o All staffing positions must be filled by July 31, 2012

o Create Board approved policies for operation: i.e., inclement weather,

School Academic Plan

o Final course offerings manual, delineating all existing, materials and

o The secondary master scheduling expert will create a final SY2012-2013