indianapolis lighthouse charter school -south · es ms es es es es exceeds standard 1.7. is the...

CHARTER RENEWAL REPORT Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School -South

2018

Office of the Mayor 2501 City-County Building

200 East Washington Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46202 Telephone: 317. 327.3601

www.indy.gov/oei

Charter Renewal Report

Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School - South

1

Introduction This Charter Renewal Report is a summary of the evidence collected by the Mayor’s Office of Education Innovation (OEI) pertaining to the performance, sustainability, and plans for improvement of Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School—South (ILCSS) during its most recent five years of operation. The Renewal Report is structured based on the Mayor’s Performance Framework, which is used to determine a school’s success relative to a common set of indicators. For each indicator in the Performance Framework, this Renewal Report initially summarizes the findings of the school’s Mid-Charter Review. After each school’s fourth year of operation, OEI conducts a comprehensive Mid-Charter Review relying on multiple sources of evidence. The complete results of the Mid-Charter Review for ILCSS were issued in April 2017 and the report is publicly available online at www.oei.indy.gov. For each area within the Performance Framework, this Renewal Report includes the rating issued at the time of the Mid-Charter Review, additional evidence collected by OEI in subsequent years, as well as an overall Charter Renewal Rating. Additionally, ILCSS submitted a formal response on [enter date] with additional evidence supporting the school’s performance on indicators that received a renewal rating of either approaching standard or does not meet standard. Consistent with the renewal petition framework, these are the areas that OEI required the school to respond to, as the school was judged to have not fully met standards for these indicators at the time of its most recent annual accountability report. Finally, the school submitted a plan for how it will sustain success and continue to improve over the next charter term if the charter is renewed, including a proposed five-year budget. ILCSS submitted formal responses to the following indicators: Core Question 1.1: Is the school’s academic performance meeting state expectation, as measured by Indiana’s accountability system? Core Question 1.2: Are students making sufficient and adequate gains, as measured by Indiana Growth Model? Core Question 1.3: Does the school demonstrate that students are improving, the longer they are enrolled at the school? Core Question 1.4: Is the school providing an equitable education to students of all races and socioeconomic backgrounds? Core Question 1.5: Is the school’s attendance rate strong? Core Question 2.1: Does the school demonstrate the ability to pay its obligations in the next 12 months? Core Question 2.2: Does the organization demonstrate long term financial health? Core Question 2.3: Does the organization demonstrate it has adequate financial management and systems? Core Question 3.6: Is the school meeting its school specific non-academic goals?



2

Summary of Ratings

Elementary/Middle School Core Question 1: Is the educational program a success? Mid-Charter Rating Renewal Rating

1.1. Is the school’s academic performance meeting state expectation, as measured by Indiana’s accountability system? *Previously: 1.1. Is the school making adequate yearly academic progress, as measure by the Indiana Department of Education’s system of accountability?

Approaching Standard


1.2. Are students making sufficient and adequate gains, as measured by the Indiana Growth Model? *Previously: 1.2. Are students making substantial and adequate gains over time, as measured using value-added analysis?


Does Not Meet Standard

1.3. Does the school demonstrate that students are improving, the longer they are enrolled at the school? *This indicator is new and was only assessed in the 2013-2014 school year.



1.4. Is the school providing an equitable education to students of all races and socioeconomic backgrounds? *This indicator is new and was only assessed in the 2013-2014 school year.



1.5. Is the school’s attendance rate strong? *Previously classified as 2.2.



1.6. Is the school outperforming schools that the students would have been assigned to attend? *Previously classified as 1.3.

Exceeds Standard Exceeds Standard

1.7. Is the school meeting its school-specific educational goals? *Previously classified as 1.4.

Exceeds Standard Meets Standard

1.8. High School: Is the school preparing students to graduate from high school on time, as measured by Indiana’s cohort graduation rate?

Exceeds Standard Exceeds Standard

1.9. High School: Is the school providing an equitable education to students of all races and socioeconomic backgrounds? Not Evaluated Not Evaluated

1.10. High School: Is the school preparing students for college and careers? Exceeds Standard Exceeds Standard

Core Question 2: Is the school in sound fiscal health? Mid-Charter Rating Renewal Rating

2.1. Short Term Health: Does the school demonstrate the ability to pay its obligations in the next 12 months? Does Not Meet

Standard Does Not Meet

Standard

2.2. Long Term Health: Does the organization demonstrate long term financial health? Approaching

Standard Approaching

Standard

2.3. Does the organization demonstrate it has adequate financial management and systems? Approaching


Standard



3

Core Question 3: Is the organization effective and well run? Mid-Charter Rating Renewal Rating

3.1. Is the school leader strong in his or her academic and organizational leadership? Meets Standard Meets Standard

3.2. Does the school satisfactorily comply with all its organizational structure and governance obligations? Approaching

Standard Meets Standard

3.3. Is the school’s board active and knowledgeable, and does it abide by appropriate policies, systems, and processes in its oversight?

Meets Standard Meets Standard

3.4. Does the school’s board work to foster a school environment that is viable and effective? Exceeds Standard Meets Standard

3.5. Does the school comply with applicable laws, regulations, and provisions of the charter agreement relating to the safety and security of the facility?

Meets Standard Meets Standard

3.6. Is the school meeting its school-specific non-academic goals? Approaching


Standard

Core Question 4: Is the school providing the appropriate conditions for success? Year 4 Year 6/CRR

4.1. Does the school have a high-quality curriculum and supporting materials for each grade? MS Meets Standard

4.2. Are the teaching processes (pedagogies) consistent with the school’s mission? AS Meets Standard

4.3. For secondary students, does the school provide sufficient guidance on and support and preparation for post-secondary options?

MS Meets Standard

4.4. Does the school effectively use learning standards and assessments to inform and improve instruction? MS Meets Standard

4.5. Has the school developed adequate human resource systems and deployed its staff effectively? MS Meets Standard

4.6. Is the school’s mission clearly understood by all stakeholders? MS Meets Standard

4.7. Is the school climate conducive to student and staff success? MS Meets Standard

4.8. Is ongoing communication with students and parents clear and helpful? MS Meets Standard

4.9. Is the school fulfilling its legal obligations related to access and services to students with special needs? MS Meets Standard



4

Summary of Historical Annual Performance Review Ratings

Core Question 1: Is the educational program a success? 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

MCR 2016-17

CRR

1.1. Is the school’s academic performance meeting state expectation, as measured by Indiana’s accountability system?

MS DNMS DNMS AS AS AS Approaching

Standard

1.2. Are students making sufficient and adequate gains, as measured by the Indiana Growth Model?

AS AS MS AS AS DNMS Does Not Meet

Standard

1.3. Does the school demonstrate that students are improving, the longer they are enrolled at the school?

Not Evaluated

DNMS DNMS DNMS DNMS DNMS Does Not Meet

Standard

1.4. Is the school providing an equitable education to students of all races and socioeconomic backgrounds?

Not Evaluated

DNMS DNMS DNMS DNMS DNMS Does Not Meet

Standard

1.5. Is the school’s attendance rate strong? Not

Evaluated DNMS DNMS DNMS DNMS DNMS


1.6. Is the school outperforming schools that the students would have been assigned to attend?

ES MS ES ES ES ES Exceeds Standard

1.7. Is the school meeting its school-specific educational goals? Not

Evaluated DNMS MS ES MS ES Meets Standard

High School Indicators 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

MCR 2016-17

CRR

1.8. Is the school preparing students to graduate from high school on time, and preparing those students who have not graduated on time to graduate within 5 years, as measured by Indiana’s cohort graduation rate?

Not Evaluated

AS ES ES ES ES Exceeds Standard

1.9. Is the school providing an equitable education for students of all races and socioeconomic backgrounds?

Not Evaluated

Not Evaluated

Not Evaluated

Not Evaluated

Not Evaluated

Not Evaluated

Not Evaluated

1.10 Is the school preparing students for college and careers? Not

Evaluated DNMS ES ES ES ES Exceeds Standard

Core Question 2: Is the school in sound fiscal health? 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

MCR 2016-17

CRR

2.1. Short Term Health: Does the school demonstrate the ability to pay its obligations in the next 12 months?

DNMS MS DNMS DNMS DNMS AS Does Not Meet

Standard



5

2.2. Long Term Health: Does the organization demonstrate long term financial health?

AS AS DNMS AS AS AS Approaching

Standard 2.3. Does the organization demonstrate it has adequate financial management and systems?

MS DNMS DNMS AS AS AS Approaching

Standard

Core Question 3: Is the organization effective and well run? 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

MCR 2016-17

CRR

3.1. Is the school leader strong in his or her academic and organizational leadership?

MS AS MS MS MS MS Meets Standard

3.2. Does the school satisfactorily comply with all its organizational structure and governance obligations?

AS DNMS AS MS AS MS Meets Standard

3.3. Is the school’s board active and knowledgeable, and does it abide by appropriate policies, systems, and processes in its oversight?

DNMS MS MS ES MS MS Meets Standard

3.4. Does the school’s board work to foster a school environment that is viable and effective?

Not Evaluated

MS MS ES ES MS Meets Standard


MS MS MS MS MS MS Meets Standard

3.6. Is the school meeting its school-specific non-academic goals? Not

Evaluated Not

Evaluated MS AS AS

Not Evaluated


Core Question 4: Is the school providing the appropriate conditions for success? Year 4 Year 6/CRR

4.1. Does the school have a high-quality curriculum and supporting materials for each grade? MS Meets Standard

4.2. Are the teaching processes (pedagogies) consistent with the school’s mission? AS Meets Standard

4.3. For secondary students, does the school provide sufficient guidance on and support and preparation for post-secondary options?

MS Meets Standard

4.4. Does the school effectively use learning standards and assessments to inform and improve instruction? MS Meets Standard

4.5. Has the school developed adequate human resource systems and deployed its staff effectively? MS Meets Standard

4.6. Is the school’s mission clearly understood by all stakeholders? MS Meets Standard

4.7. Is the school climate conducive to student and staff success? MS Meets Standard

4.8. Is ongoing communication with students and parents clear and helpful? MS Meets Standard

4.9. Is the school fulfilling its legal obligations related to access and services to students with special needs? MS Meets Standard



6

Core Question 1: Is the educational program a success?

The Academic Performance Framework, outlined in Core Question 1, gauges the academic success of schools in serving their target populations and closing the achievement gap in Indianapolis. Core Question 1 consists of seven indicators designed to measure schools on how well their students perform and grow on standardized testing measures, attendance, and school-specific measures. Note: The Academic Performance Framework has been revised to include additional measures and to reflect changes in state accountability systems. For this reason, not all historical ratings are based on the listed indicator targets, and some historical ratings are not available. Please see overview above for specific updates.

1.1. Is the school’s academic performance meeting state expectations, as measured by Indiana’s accountability system?

Indicator Targets

Does not meet standard School has not met standard the last two years.

Approaching standard School has approached standard the last two years.

Meets standard School has met standard the last two years.

Exceeds standard School has exceeded standard the last two years.

School Rating

Mid-Charter Rating 2016-2017 Charter Renewal Rating

Approaching Standard Approaching Standard Approaching Standard

Each year the Indiana State Board of Education awards schools a letter grade by calculating results in the following categories: overall performance score on English/Language Arts and Mathematics, overall growth score on English/Language Arts and Mathematics, and overall multiple measures score on four-year and five-year graduation rates and college and career readiness achievement. The final grade is determined based upon any of the applicable aforementioned categories which are weighted based on enrollment and grades served. For detailed information about how the Indiana Department of Education calculates A-F letter grades, click here. As demonstrated in the chart below, ILCSS’ performance fluctuated over the past four years, starting the current charter term with a C in 2012-13, moving to a D in 2013-14 and 2014-15 and receiving a C in 2015-16 at 2016-17. In 2012-13, schools that received a C letter grade met standard on the Mayor’s Performance Framework. In years since, criteria for meeting standard in this indicator were changed. Because ILCSS’ performance has varied over the first four years of this charter term, it receives an Approaching Standard for this indicator in its renewal.

School Year A-F Results

2012-13 C

2013-14 D

*2014-15 D

2015-16 C

2016-2017 C

*On January 26, 2016, the State Board of Education voted to adopt Indiana’s recently signed Hold Harmless law. The law was approved in response to the state’s adoption of a new ISTEP+ assessment in 2015 and the sharp drop in assessment scores that schools experienced. It enabled schools to compare their grades from the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years

http://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/accountability/how-calculate-f-school-grades-04-27-2016.pdf



7

and to keep the better of the two. Since ILCSS received a ‘D’ in both years, that is the school’s final grade for the 2014-15 school year.

1.2. Are students making substantial and adequate gains over time, as measured by the Indiana Growth Model

Indicator Targets

Only applicable to schools serving students in any one of, or combination of, grades 4-8.

Does not meet standard Results from the Indiana Growth Model indicate that less than 60.0% of students are making sufficient and adequate gains (‘typical’ or ‘high’ growth).

Approaching standard Results from the Indiana Growth Model indicate that 60.0-69.9% of students are making sufficient and adequate gains (‘typical’ or ‘high’ growth).

Meets standard Results from the Indiana Growth Model indicate that 70.0-79.9% of students are making sufficient and adequate gains (‘typical’ or ‘high’ growth).

Exceeds standard Results from the Indiana Growth Model indicate that at least 80.0% of students are making sufficient and adequate gains (‘typical’ or ‘high’ growth).

School Rating


Approaching Standard Does Not Meet Standard Does Not Meet Standard

Under the Indiana Growth Model, the IDOE compares each student’s growth on ISTEP+ from one year to the next and determines whether students made low, typical or high growth compared to their academic peers. For more information on how growth is determined, click here. Each year, the Mayor’s Office looks at a weighted average of students earning typical or high growth to ensure that students are making substantial and adequate gains over time. Analysis of ILCSS’ spring-to-spring gains on the Indiana Growth Model data shows that an average of 63.3% of the school’s students achieved sufficient gains between 2012 and 2017. As such, ILCSS receives a rating of Does Not Meet Standard for this indicator on the renewal report.

.

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

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

ELA Math Total

ILCSS Average: 63.3% Standard: 70.0%

Percent of Students Making Sufficient Gains

http://www.doe.in.gov/accountability/growth



8

1.3. Does the school demonstrate that students are improving, the longer they are enrolled at the school?

Indicator Targets

Does not meet standard Less than 60.0% of students who have been enrolled at the school 3 or more years demonstrate proficiency on state standardized assessments.

Approaching standard At least 60.0% of students enrolled 2 years and 70.0% of students enrolled 3 or more years demonstrate proficiency on state standardized assessments.

Meets standard At least 70.0% of students enrolled 2 years and 80.0% of students enrolled 3 or more years demonstrate proficiency on state standardized assessments.

Exceeds standard At least 80.0% of students enrolled 2 years and 90.0% of students enrolled 3 or more years demonstrate proficiency on state standardized assessments.

School Rating


Does Not Meet Standard Does Not Meet Standard Does Not Meet Standard

Many Mayor-sponsored charter schools are serving student populations from chronically low-performing schools. Recognizing this, the OEI performance framework examines student proficiency as a function of how many year’s students have been enrolled at the school – allowing more time for the school to reach a high level of student proficiency on standardized assessments. In 2013-14, of those students enrolled at ILCSS for two years, 55.8% were proficient on both English/Language Arts and Mathematics. Of those enrolled at the school for three or more years, 54.1% were proficient on both subjects. In 2014-15, of those students enrolled at ILCSS for two years, 30.6% were proficient on both English/Language Arts and Mathematics. Of those enrolled at the school for three or more years, 31.0% were proficient on both subjects. It is important to note that in the same year, the Indiana Department of Education adopted a new ISTEP+ assessment. In the transition, the majority of schools state-wide experienced a dip in proficiency by an average of 13% in English-language arts and 22% in Mathematics. In 2015-16, of those students enrolled at ILCSS for two years, 30.4% were proficient on both English/Language Arts and Mathematics and of those enrolled at the school for three or more years, 37.7% were proficient on both subjects. Finally, in 2016-17, of those students enrolled at ILCSS for two years, 30.8% were proficient on both English/Language Arts and Mathematics and of those enrolled at the school for three or more years, 28.5% were proficient on both subjects.

55.8%

30.6% 30.4% 30.8%

54.1%

31.0%37.7%

28.5%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-17

2 Years 3+ Years

Proficiency by Years Enrolled

2 yr target

3+ yr target



9

Because this indicator was first evaluated in 2013-14, there are only four years of data available for the renewal report. From the data reported above, the school earns a renewal rating of Does Not Meet Standard.


Indicator Targets

Does not meet standard School has more than 15% difference in the percentage of students passing standardized assessments amongst races and socioeconomic statuses.

Approaching standard School has no more than 15% difference in the percentage of students passing standardized assessments amongst races and socioeconomic statuses.

Meets standard School has no more than 10% difference in the percentage of students passing standardized assessments amongst races and socioeconomic statuses.

Exceeds standard School has more than 5% difference in the percentage of students passing standardized assessments amongst races and socioeconomic statuses.

School Rating



Each year, the Indiana Department of Education reports student results disaggregated by race/ethnicity groups and socioeconomic status. Disaggregated performance for ILCSS is captured below.

As shown in the graph above, the largest of these gaps in 2013-14 occurs between Hispanic student proficiency and Black student proficiency, resulting in a difference of 26.7%. As show in the graph above in 2014-15, the largest of these gaps occurs between Hispanic student proficiency and Black student proficiency, resulting in a difference of 18.4%. In 2015-16, the largest of these gaps occurred between Hispanic student proficiency and Black student proficiency, resulting in a difference of 12.0%. Finally, in 2016-17, the largest of these gaps occurred between Hispanic and Black student proficiency, resulting in a difference of 21.1%.

Proficiency by Race/Ethnicity

42.8%

25.2%29.8%

22.5%

60.0%

33.8% 37.2% 36.1%

69.4%

43.6% 41.9% 43.6%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

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

Black White Hispanic



10

As shown in the graph above, in 2013-14 ILCSS had a small proficiency gap between Free/Reduced lunch student proficiency and Paid lunch student proficiency, resulting in a difference of 2.7%. In 2014-15, ILCSS had a large proficiency gap between Free/Reduced lunch student proficiency and Paid lunch student proficiency, resulting in a difference of 17.0%. OEI was unable to examine socioeconomic subgroup performance in 2015-16 and 2016-17 due to a small sample size. In order to report on subgroup performance, a subgroup must have at least 30 students and therefore were not evaluated on this section of the indicator.

As a result of the achievement gaps over time in both race/ethnicity and socioeconomic subgroup proficiency, ILCSS receives a renewal report rating Does Not Meet Standard for this indicator.

1.5. Is the school’s attendance rate strong?

Indicator Targets

Does not meet standard School’s attendance rate is less than 95.0%.

Meets standard School’s attendance rate is greater than or equal to 95.0%.

School Rating



Starting at the age of 7, students in Indiana are required to attend school regularly. Habitual truancy is defined by the Indiana Department of Education as 10 or more days absent from school, meaning students are required to attend school for 95% of the 180 days in the school year. In 2012-13, the Office of Education innovation did not evaluate schools’ attendance rates on the performance framework. As shown in the chart below, over the last four school years, attendance at ILCSS trended up and then down. The 95% standard was not met any of those years. The school’s average attendance rate, 93.4%, is also below the target of 95%. Therefore, ILCSS receives a renewal rating of Does Not Meet Standard for this indicator.

Proficiency by Socioeconomic Status

51.1%

26.6%0.0%

48.4%43.6%

0.0%0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

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

Free/Reduced Paid

Not Evaluated

Not Evaluated



11

1.6. Is the school outperforming schools that the students would have been assigned to attend?

Indicator Targets

Does not meet standard

School’s overall performance in terms of proficiency and/or growth is generally lower than that of the schools the students would otherwise have been assigned to attend in each of the last three years.

Approaching standard

School’s overall performance in terms of proficiency and/or growth is generally lower than that of the schools the students would otherwise have been assigned to attend in two of the last three years.

Meets standard School’s overall performance in terms of both proficiency and/or growth is generally as good as that of the schools the students would otherwise have been assigned to attend.

Exceeds standard School’s overall performance consistently outpaces that of the schools the students would otherwise have been assigned to attend.

School Rating


Exceeds Standard Exceeds Standard Exceeds Standard

Each year, the Office of Education Innovation compares the performance of Mayor-sponsored charter schools to that of Marion County public schools that students in grades 3 – 8 would have been assigned to attend based on their place of residence. Using this analysis, ILCSS outperformed the schools its students would otherwise have been assigned to attend in proficiency and growth in both English/Language Arts and Math over the last five years. High schools are not evaluated on indicator 1.6.

92.5%

94.5%

93.3%

93.2%

91.5%

92.0%

92.5%

93.0%

93.5%

94.0%

94.5%

95.0%

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

Attendance Average

Attendance Rates

95% target



12

The table below answers the question “Did ILCSS outperform the schools students would otherwise have been assigned to attend?” for each category.

School Year Proficiency Growth

ELA Math ELA Math

2012-13 Yes Yes Yes Yes 2013-14 Yes Yes No Yes

2014-15 Yes Yes Yes Yes 2015-16 Yes Yes Yes Yes 2016-17 Yes Yes Yes Yes

In summary, the school’s overall performance in terms of both proficiency and/or growth was better than that of the schools the students would otherwise have been assigned to attend in all but one category for all five years. As such, ILCSS earns a renewal rating of Exceeds Standard for this indicator.

1.7. Is the school meeting its school-specific educational goals?

Indicator Targets

Does not meet standard School does not meet standard on either school-specific educational goal.


School is 1) approaching standard on one school-specific educational goal, while not meeting standard on the second goal, 2) approaching standard on both school-specific educational goals, or 3) meeting standard on one school-specific educational goal, while approaching standard on the second goal.

Meets standard School is 1) meeting standard on both school-specific educational goals, or 2) meeting standard on one school-specific educational goal while exceeding standard on the second goal.

Exceeds standard School is exceeding standard on both school-specific educational goals.

School Rating


Meets Standard Exceeds Standard Meets Standard

Each year, Mayor-sponsored charter schools set two educational goals that are aligned with or support the school’s unique mission. All data for school-specific goals are self-reported by the individual school.

In 2013-14, ILCSS set its first goal around students’ proficiency rates on interim assessments and its second goal around student acceptance rates into 4 year colleges. As reflected in the chart below, ILCSS received a not evaluated for 1.7a due to issues with assessment design and a no data on 1.7b due to not submitting data for this goal, for an overall rating of does not meet standard. In 2014-15, ILCSS set its first goal around students’ proficiency rates on interim assessments and its second goal around student acceptance rates into 4 year colleges. As reflected in the chart below, ILCSS received an exceeds standard for 1.7a and an approaching standard on 1.7b, for an overall rating of meets standard.



13

In 2015-16, ILCSS set its first goal around students’ proficiency rates on an arts-infused performance task and its second goal around student acceptance rates into 4 year colleges. As reflected in the chart below, ILCSS received an exceeds standard for 1.7a and an exceeds standard on 1.7b, for an overall rating of exceeds standard. Finally, in 2016-17, ILCSS set its first goal around students’ proficiency rates on an arts-infused performance task and its second goal around student acceptance rates into 4 year colleges. As reflected in the chart below, ILCSS received an exceeds standard for 1.7a and an exceeds standard on 1.7b, for an overall rating of exceeds standard.

School Year

School-Specific Goals Result Rating Overall Rating

2013-2014

Overall, 70% of students will be proficient on Lighthouse Academies National Interim Assessments based on CCSS for grades K-12.

Not Evaluated

DNMS

100% of 12th grade graduates are accepted to at least one four year college.

No Data DNMS

2014-2015

Overall, 70% of students will be proficient on Lighthouse Academies National Interim Assessments based on CCSS for grades K-12.

100% ES

MS

90-94.9% of 12th grade graduates are accepted to at least one four year college.

66% AS

2015-2016

Over 70% of students will score proficient or better on an arts-infused student performance task.

100% ES ES

100% of twelfth grade graduates are accepted to at least one four-year college or university.

100% ES

2016-17

Over 70% of students will score proficient or better on an arts-infused student performance task.

100% ES

ES 100% of twelfth grade graduates are accepted to at least one four-year college or university.

100% ES

Due to the school-specific goal results over the last four years, ILCSS receives a renewal rating of Meets Standard for this indicator.

High School Indicators

1.8. Is the school preparing students to graduate from high school on time, and preparing those students who have not graduated on time to graduate within 5 years, as measured by Indiana’s cohort graduation rate?

Indicator Targets

Does not meet standard School’s 4-year graduation rate is below 70.0% and the school demonstrated less than a 5.0 percentage point increase from its 4-year to 5-year graduation rate.

Approaching standard School’s 4-year graduation rate is 70.0-79.9%, or the school demonstrated greater than or equal to a 5.0 percentage point increase from its 4-year to 5-year graduation rate.

Meets standard School’s 4-year graduation rate is 80.0-89.9%, or the school demonstrated greater than or equal to a 10.0 percentage point increase from its 4-year to 5-year graduation rate.

Exceeds standard School’s 4-year graduation rate is at least 90.0%, or the school demonstrated greater than or equal to a 15.0 percentage point increase from its 4-year to 5-year graduation rate.

School Rating



e



14

The Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) places all Indiana students into a cohort by the student’s first date of enrollment in high school. By placing each student in a cohort, IDOE can measure schools’ four-, five- and six-year graduation rates. For more information on how graduation rates are calculated in Indiana, click here. IDOE considers all students who have completed graduation requirements by October 1st of their cohort’s graduation year as four-year graduates. Because of this extension, graduation rates are measured a year in arrears for accountability purposes in order to capture those students who graduate after the end of the school year. The chart below captures the 4- and 5-year graduation rates for ILCSS. The 2012-13 cohort had a 4-year graduation rate of 73.0% and that increased 8.1% to 81.1% for its 5-year rate. The 2013-14 cohort had a 4-year rate of 95.0% that increased 2.5% to 97.5% for its 5-year rate. The 2014-15 cohort had a 4- and 5-year graduation rate of 91.3%. Finally, the 2015-16 cohort had a 4- and 5-year graduation rate of 98.2%.

Since OEI did not evaluate graduation until 2013-14, only ratings from 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are included in the overall mid-charter rating. Based on ILCSS’ graduation rates over the last two years, the school earned an Exceeds Standard on this indicator for the renewal report.


Indicator Targets

Does not meet standard School has more than 15% difference in the percentage of students passing standardized assessments amongst races and socioeconomic statuses.

Approaching standard School has no more than 15% difference in the percentage of students passing standardized assessments amongst races and socioeconomic statuses.

Meets standard School has no more than 10% difference in the percentage of students passing standardized assessments amongst races and socioeconomic statuses.

Exceeds standard School has more than 5% difference in the percentage of students passing standardized assessments amongst races and socioeconomic statuses.

School Rating


Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated

98.2%

91.3%

97.5%

81.1%

98.2%

91.3%

95.0%

73.0%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

2016

2015

2014

2013

4-year

5-year

+2.5%

Meeting Standard+8.1%

4- and 5-Year Graduation Rates

+0.0%

+0.0%

http://www.doe.in.gov/accountability/graduation-rate



15

Each year, the Indiana Department of Education reports student results disaggregated by race/ethnicity groups and socioeconomic status. OEI evaluates high school performance gaps by comparing the proficiency rates of students who pass both the English 10 and Algebra I ECAs across subgroups. In order to examine subgroup proficiency, a school must have at least 30 students enrolled in more than one subgroup in its 10th grade cohort. Because ILCSS did not enroll 30 students in more than one subgroup during the 2012-13 through 2016-17 school years, the school was not evaluated on this indicator for the renewal report.

1.10. Is the school preparing students for college and careers?

Indicator Targets


Less than 30.0% of graduates meet at least one of the following: 1) received a ‘3’ or better on an AP exam; 2) received a ‘4’ or better on an IB exam; 3) received transcripted post-secondary credit from an approved course; or 4) received an industry certification from an approved list.


30.0 - 39.9% of graduates meet at least one of the following: 1) received a ‘3’ or better on an AP exam; 2) received a ‘4’ or better on an IB exam; 3) received transcripted post-secondary credit from an approved course; or 4) received an industry certification from an approved list.

Meets standard

40.0 - 49.9% of graduates meet at least one of the following: 1) received a ‘3’ or better on an AP exam; 2) received a ‘4’ or better on an IB exam; 3) received transcripted post-secondary credit from an approved course; or 4) received an industry certification from an approved list.

Exceeds standard

At least 50.0% of graduates meet at least one of the following: 1) received a ‘3’ or better on an AP exam; 2) received a ‘4’ or better on an IB exam; 3) received transcripted post-secondary credit from an approved course; or 4) received an industry certification from an approved list.

School Rating



The Indiana State Board of Education has established criteria for determining whether or not a high school graduate has not only met graduation requirements, but is also college- or career-ready. In order to be deemed college- or career-ready, a student must pass an AP or IB exam, earn dual credit from an approved list of courses, or receive an industry certification from an approved list.



16

As shown in the chart above, an average of 54.7% of ILCSS students have graduated college- and career-ready over the last four years. Due to the school’s historical college- and career- readiness ratings, the school earns an overall rating of Exceeds Standard for this indicator on the renewal report.

College- and Career-Readiness % of Graduates

22.2%

68.4%61.9% 66.1%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

2013 2014 2015 2016



17

Core Question 2: Is the organization in sound fiscal health?

The Financial Performance Framework, outlined in Core Question 2, gauges both near term financial health and longer term financial sustainability while accounting for key financial reporting requirements.

2.1. Short-term Health: Does the school demonstrate the ability to pay its obligations in the next 12 months?

Indicator Targets

Does not meet standard The school does not meet standard on 2 or more of the five sub-indicators shown below.


The school approaches standard for all 5 sub-indicators shown below, OR meet standard on 3 sub-indicators, while approaching on the remaining 2 OR meets standard on 4 sub-indicators, while not meeting standard for the final sub-indicator.

Meets standard The school meets standard for 4 sub-indicators shown below, while approaching standard on the final sub-indicator.

Exceeds standard The school meets standard for all 5 sub-indicators.

School Rating


Does Not Meet Standard Approaching Standard Does Not Meet Standard

Sub-indicator Ratings

Enrollment Ratio

Does not meet standard Enrollment ratio is less than or equal to 89%

Approaching standard Enrollment ratio is between 90 – 98%

Meets standard Enrollment ratio equals or exceeds 99%

February Enrollment Variance

Does not meet standard Enrollment ratio is less than or equal to 89%

Approaching standard Enrollment ratio is between 90 – 95%

Meets standard Enrollment ratio equals or exceeds 95%

Current Ratio

Does not meet standard Current ratio is less than or equal to 1.0

Approaching standard Current ratio is between 1.0 – 1.1

Meets standard Current ratio equals or exceeds 1.1

Days Cash on Hand

Does not meet standard Days cash on hand is less than or equal to 30

Approaching standard Days cash on hand is between 30-45

Meets standard Days cash on hand equals or exceeds 45

Debt Default Does not meet standard Default or delinquent payments identified

Meets standard Not in default or delinquent

Beginning in the 2012-13 school year, the Office of Education Innovation (OEI) added and revised several key indicators of its financial performance framework. The enrollment ratio tells authorizers whether or not the school is meeting its enrollment projections in its charter. Each charter school commits in its charter contract to offering the community a certain number of seats to educate students. It is important that each school is fulfilling its commitment to the community by working diligently to ensure that families and children seeking educational



18

opportunities are aware of the school. Additionally, a charter school, like all public schools, receives state funding based on its enrollment. This means that enrollment is an important factor in the fiscal health of charter schools. Based on data from the September 2012 count day, Indiana Lighthouse Charter School – South’s enrollment met the enrollment targets stated in its charter agreement. As a result, the school met standard for this sub-indicator. The school’s performance for the February count day is listed as “N/A” because the state did not perform a February count prior to the 2013-14 school year. In school year 2013-14, Indiana Lighthouse Charter School – South missed its enrollment targets by 35 students for the September count day and thus approached standard for this sub-indicator. In the same year, OEI also looked at the change (variance) between fall and February enrollment. Since the February enrollment influences funding for the second half of the school year, schools need to retain enough students between September and February to ensure the school remains financially viable through the end of the school year and beyond. In the 2013-2014 school year, Indiana Lighthouse Charter School – South’s enrollment remained stable and the school met standard for this sub-indicator. At the September 2014 count day, Indiana Lighthouse Charter School – South had 1095 students enrolled. This was just below the 1108 students that the school promised it would serve in its charter contract. As such, the school met standard for this sub-indicator. IDOE indicated that the school had 1027 students enrolled at the February Count Day. This represents 94% of the number of students enrolled at the time of the September Count Day. As a result, the school approached standard for this sub-indicator. For school year 2015-16, Indiana Lighthouse Charter School – South’s projected enrollment was 919 students. September Count Day enrollment was 921, which constituted a 100% enrollment variance ratio, and therefore the school met standard. Moreover, Indiana Lighthouse Charter School – South had 917 students enrolled at February Count Day, leading to a 100% February Enrollment Variance Ratio. As a result, the school met standard for this sub-indicator for school year 2015-16. Lastly, Indiana Lighthouse Charter School – South enrolled 908 students at the September 2016 Count Day, which is just below the 919 target the school had set. For that reason, the school met standard on this sub-indicator. Similarly, the school had 899 students enrolled at the February 2017 Count Day, which constitutes 99% of the students enrolled in September. As a result, the school also met standard on this sub-indicator.

At the end of school year 2012-13, Indiana Lighthouse Charter School - South had a current ratio of 0.26, which means that the school’s current assets represented 26% of its current liabilities. As a result, the school did not meet standard for this sub-indicator. Between 2013 and 2017 however, Indiana Lighthouse Charter School - South had more current assets than current liabilities (those due in the next 12 months). For school year 2013-14, Indiana Lighthouse Charter School - South had a current ratio of 2.58. At the end of school year 2014-15, the school’s current ratio was 1.20. In addition, the school ended school year 2015-16 with a current ratio of 2.11. Finally, Indiana

740 715

1095

921 908

709

1027

917 899

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

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

Actual September Enrollment Actual February Enrollment

Enrollment Variance Ratio

Target: 750 Target: 750

Target: 1108 Target: 919 Target: 919



19

Lighthouse Charter School - South had a current ratio of 1.97. As a result, the school met standard for this sub-indicator for four out of the five years evaluated and did not meet standard for the remaining one.

Indiana Lighthouse Charter School - South ended the year with 37 days of cash on hand in 2013, 45 days cash on hand in 2014, 16 days cash on hand in 2015, 28 days cash on hand in 2016 and 46 days cash on hand in 2017. This means that if payments to the school had stopped or been delayed post June 30 of each respective year, the school would have been able to operate for 37 more days after June 30, 2013, 45 days after June 30, 2014, 16 days after June 30, 2015, 28 more days after June 30, 2016, and 46 more days after June 30, 2017 assuming that spending levels remained constant. Based on this data, the school met standard for this sub-indicator in 2013-14 and 2016-17, approached standard in 2012-13, and did not meet standard in 2014-15 and 2015-16.

Finally, between school year 2012-13 and 2015-16, the school successfully met its debt obligations based on the information that Donovan CPAs (formerly Fitzgerald Isaac), the school’s auditor, provided. However, the audit report for school year 2016-17 noted that Indiana Lighthouse Charter School - South failed to meet one of the three financial covenants included in the school’s bond agreement. It is worth noting that the school discussed the issue with the bondholder and obtained a verbal agreement that the bond will not be called as a result. Based on the information provided, the school met standard for school years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, and did not meet standard for school year 2016-17.

Days Cash on Hand

37

45

16

28

46

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

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

Days Cash on Hand

Standard: 45 days

0.26

2.58

1.20

2.11 1.97

0

1

2

3

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

Current Ratio



20

Since the school did not meet standard in 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16, met standard in 2013-14, and approached standard in 2016-17, it receives a rating of Does Not Meet Standard for its charter renewal rating on the short-term financial health indicator.

2.2. Long-term Health: Does the organization demonstrate long-term financial health?

Indicator

Targets


The school does not meet standard on any of the 3 sub-indicators

OR meets standard on 1 sub-indicator but does not meet standard

on the remaining 2.

Approaching standard The school meets standard on 2 of the sub-indicators while not

meeting on the third, OR approaches standard on all 3 sub-

indicators.

Meets standard The school meets standard on 2 of the sub-indicators and

approaches standard on the third.

Exceeds standard The school meets standard for all 3 sub-indicators.

School

Rating




Aggregate

Three-Year

Net Income

Does not meet standard Aggregate 3-year net income is negative.

Approaching standard Aggregate 3-year net income is positive, but most recent year is

negative.

Meets standard Aggregate three year net income is positive, and most recent year is

positive.

Debt to

Asset Ratio

Does not meet standard Debt to Asset ratio equals or exceeds .95

Approaching standard Debt to Asset ratio is between .9 - .95

Meets standard Debt to Asset ratio is less than or equal to .9

Debt

Service

Coverage

(DSC) Ratio

Does not meet standard DSC ratio is less than or equal to 1.05

Approaching standard DSC ratio is between 1.05-1.2

Meets standard DSC ratio equals or exceeds 1.2

The Mayor’s Office of Education Innovation introduced Core Question 2.2 in its current form in the 2012-13 school year. Core Question 2.2 evaluates each school’s long term fiscal health with the understanding that a charter school, like any non-profit entity, can only operate for so long with year over year losses, extreme amounts of debt, or an inability to meet its debt obligations.



21

Indiana Lighthouse Charter School - South met standard for the net income sub-indicator for school years 2012-13 and 2013-14 and approached standard in years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. The school had an aggregate three-year net income of $882,183 in school year 2012-13, $1,163,566 in school year 2013-14, $44,082 for school year 2014-15, -$356,987 in school year 2015-16 and -$156,560 for school year 2016-17. The graph above shows the annual and three-year net income at Indiana Lighthouse Charter School - South for school years ending 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017.

The school met standard on the debt to asset ratio sub-indicator for the school year 2012-13. Indiana Lighthouse Charter School - South approached standard on the debt to asset ratio for school years 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17. Finally, the school did not meet standard for school year 2014-15. The debt to asset ratio means that, for school 2012-13, Indiana Lighthouse Charter School - South’s total liabilities represented 84% of its total assets. Similarly, total liabilities accounted for 91%, 100%, 93% and 94% of Indiana Lighthouse Charter School - South’s total assets for school years, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, respectively.

3-Year Aggregate Net Income

$974,481

$6,614

-$937,013

$573,412

$207,041

$882,183

$1,163,566

$44,082

-$356,987-$156,560

$(1,500,000)

$(1,000,000)

$(500,000)

$-

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

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

Net Income Three Year Aggregate Net Income

0.840.91

1.000.93 0.94

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

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

Debt to Asset Ratio



22

In 2012-13, Indiana Lighthouse Charter School - South had a debt service coverage ratio of 0.39, meaning that the school could only cover 39% of its upcoming debt obligations with its current net operating income. In school years ending 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, the school had debt service coverage ratios of 1.09, 0.63, 2.06 and 1.39, respectively. During FY2017, Indiana Lighthouse Charter School - South refinanced its obligations related to its facilities. Previously, the school had a lease with CFM Indianapolis, LLC, however, the school was able to purchase its buildings by issuing IFA Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds, Series 2016, totaling up to $16,770,000. The interest rate of such bonds is between 6.25% and 7.25%, with semi-annual interest payments and annual principal payments. Based on the information presented above, the school met standard on its debt service coverage ratio in school years 2015-16 and 2016-17, but it did not meet standard in 2012-13 and 2014-15. Finally, the school approached standard for this sub-indicator in 2013-14. Overall, Indiana Lighthouse Charter School - South approached standard for this indicator in 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2015-16 and 2016-17, and did not meet standard in 2014-15. As a result, Indiana Lighthouse Charter School - South receives a rating of Approaching Standard for its charter renewal rating.

2.3. Does the organization demonstrate it has adequate financial management and systems?

Indicator Targets

Does not meet standard The school does not meet standard on 1 of the sub-indicators.

Approaching standard The school meets standard on 1 sub-indicator, but approaches standard for the remaining sub-indicator.

Meets standard The school meets standard on both sub-indicators.

School Rating




0.39

1.09

0.63

2.06

1.39

0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.002.202.40

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

Debt Service Coverage Ratio



23

Core Question 2.3 ensures that schools have the proper internal controls and that schools are reporting financial data both to the state of Indiana and to the Office of Education Innovation in a timely manner.

In 2012-13, Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School South met standard for its annual accrual based audit because the audit report did not contain any material weaknesses or a significant deficiency. The school also met standard for its reporting requirements, and, as a result, the school met standard for Core Question 2.3 for the 2012-2013 school year.

In 2013-14, auditors found a significant deficiency in the school’s financial statements and, therefore, the school approached standard for the annual accrual based audit report requirement. The school did not meet standard for its reporting requirements, and therefore, did not meet standard for Core Question 2.3 for the 2013-2014 school year.

For school year 2014-15, auditors found a material weakness and a significant deficiency in the school’s financial statements and, therefore, the school did not meet standard for the annual accrual based audit report requirement. The school also did not meet standard for its reporting requirements, and therefore, did not meet standard for Core Question 2.3 for the 2014-15 school year.

In 2015-16, the school received a clean audit and, therefore, met standard for the annual accrual based audit sub-indicator. However, Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School South approached standard for the compliance reporting requirement. Overall, the school approached standard for Core Question 2.3 for school year 2015-16.

Finally, in 2016-17, auditors found two significant deficiencies in the school financials and, therefore, the school approached standard for the annual accrual based audit report. In addition, the school met standard for its compliance reporting requirements. Overall, Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School South approached standard on core question 2.3 for school year 2016-17.

Because the school met standard on core question 2.3 in school year 2012-13, did not meet standard in school years 2013-14 and 2014-15, and approached standard for school year 2015-16 and 2016-17, Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School South receives a rating of Approaching Standard on its renewal report for Core Question 2.3.

Sub-indicator targets 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Financial Audit

DNMS

The school receives an audit with multiple significant deficiencies, material weaknesses, or has an ongoing concern.

MS AS DNMS MS AS AS

The school receives a clean audit opinion with few significant deficiencies noted, but no material weaknesses.

MS The school receives a clean audit opinion.

Financial Reporting Requirements

DNMS The school fails to satisfy financial reporting requirements.

MS DNMS DNMS AS MS

MS The school satisfies all financial reporting requirements.



24

Core Question 3: Is the organization effective and well-run?

The Governance and Leadership Performance Framework, outlined in Core Question 3, gauges the academic and operational leadership of schools. Core Question 3 consists of five indicators designed to measure schools on how well their school administration and board of directors comply with the terms of their charter agreement, applicable laws, and authorizer expectations. It is worth noting that the framework was updated for the 2013-2014 school year. While some indicators were re-organized into Core Question 3, two are new, and two have since been removed.

3.1. Is the school leader strong in his or her academic and organizational leadership?

Indicator Targets

Does not meet standard The school leader presents concerns in a majority of the sub-indicators with no evidence of a credible plan to address the issues.

Approaching standard The school leader presents concerns in a minimal number of the sub-indicators and may or may not have a credible plan to address the issues.

Meets standard The school leader complies with and presents no concerns in the sub-indicators below.

Exceeds standard The school leader consistently and effectively complies with and presents no concerns in the sub-indicators below.

Sub-indicators

Sub-indicators Sub-indicator

Result Demonstration of sufficient academic and leadership experience

Leadership stability in key administrative positions

Communication with internal and external stakeholders

Clarity of roles among schools and staff

Engagement in a continuous process of improvement and establishment of systems for addressing areas of deficiency in a timely manner Meets Consistency in providing information to and consulting with the schools’ board of directors

3.1 Rating


Meets Standard Meets Standard Meets Standard

Between 2012 and 2015, the leadership team roles at Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School South remained consistent including a Regional Vice President (RVP) (or a Regional Director), an elementary principal and a middle school/high school principal. In both the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years, ILCS South experienced challenges in leadership stability in key administrative positions. In the 2013-14 school year, both the Regional Director and a principal resigned, leaving the high school principal to absorb the majority of responsibilities of all three roles for the remainder of the year. These responsibilities included managing the closure process for Monument Lighthouse Charter School, managing staff and teachers for K-12, and working as a school liaison for the board of directors and the Mayor’s Office. While he was able to manage these



25

responsibilities and complete the school year, he was unable to dedicate the significant time and energy that each role required. In the 2014-15 school year the school experienced a transition with the secondary principal being replaced with the school’s Director of College Transition. Though this transition caused an adjustment period within the school, the new principal was able to quickly establish leadership systems to maintain school operations and even improve the academic programming and culture among students and staff. Importantly, even during the leadership transitions that took place during these years, rising leaders were able to review and revise roles and responsibilities in a way that was clear and allowed for progress on school objectives. In the 2015-16 school year, with the addition of Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School East, the network added several local operational staff including a controller, regional operations manager and a staff accountant. The staff members in these roles consistently demonstrated sufficient academic and leadership experience for their roles.

Between 2013-2017, The RVP met frequently with principals to monitor school goals and operations as well as to offer support where needed. The RVP also maintained consistent communication with the board of directors, Lighthouse Academies of Indianapolis (LAI), the school’s management organization, and the Mayor’s Office. Additionally, the LHA leadership team has fostered several community partnerships, including those with local schools and universities, mentoring programs, college counseling organizations, and teacher preparation and training organizations that directly support the school and its students. Currently the network leadership consists of a RVP, Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School South (ILCS South) consists of a K-6 Principal, and a 7-12 Principal, all of whom were retained from the previous school year. Additionally, the Lighthouse network included several local operational staff including a controller, regional operations manager, and a staff accountant. All members of the leadership team demonstrated sufficient experience. There were some concerns throughout the 2017-18 school year regarding leadership’s communication with OEI and external stakeholders. However, once the school leader was alerted to this issue, the issue was quickly resolved. Throughout this leadership’s time at ILCS South, The RVP and Principals consistently engaged in a process of results-oriented data analysis. The RVP and principals provided a standardized and results-based report to the board at every meeting that included accurate and relevant information. With a continued emphasis on school culture, the school continued to see decreased out-of-school suspensions and expulsions. The high school is also on track to continue strong College and Career Readiness results. Additionally, leaders reflected on interim assessments frequently throughout the year to monitor student achievement and to make curriculum and instruction adjustments where needed. Based on the indicator ratings Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School South receives a rating of Meets Standard for indicator 3.1 for organizational leadership.



26

3.2. Does the school satisfactorily comply with all its organizational structure and governance obligations?

Indicator Targets





Sub-indicators


Result Submission of all required compliance documentation in a timely manner as set forth by the Mayor’s Office, including but not limited to: meeting minutes and schedules, board member information, compliance reports and employee documentation

Compliance with the terms of its charter, including amendments, school policies and regulations, and applicable federal and state laws

Proactive and productive collaboration with its board and/or management organization (if applicable) in meeting governance obligations

Active participation in scheduled meetings with OEI, including the submission of required documentation by deadlines

3.2 Rating


Approaching Standard Meets Standard Meets Standard

Over the course of the last four years, Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School struggled to consistently meet all compliance obligations as specified by the Mayor’s Office (OEI) and the Indiana Department of Education. In 2012-13, while the Regional Vice President worked diligently with the school leadership to ensure compliance in all areas required by OEI, the local board needed more clarity on policies and procedures to ensure compliance with Indiana Open Door Law. In 2013-14, the Regional Director’s transition from her role resulted in confusion regarding compliance responsibilities and late submissions. While the compliance documentation was often late, the ILCS staff worked with the board and Regional Operations Manager to ensure it was eventually submitted. In 2014-15, the Regional Operations Manager (ROM) was primarily responsible for submitting compliance documents to the OEI. At the beginning of the year, ILCS submitted only 36% of their required reports and documents on time. By the middle of the year, the RVP took on more responsibility for reporting and submission time improved dramatically. By year end, ILCS had no outstanding documents. During the 2015-16 school year the ROM was primarily responsible for submitting compliance documentation and missed a significant deadline in the first quarter, which coincided with his hiring date. The ROM, however, immediately corrected the issue and submitted all reports on time for the remainder of the year. During the 2016-2017 school year, the Regional Operations Manager (ROM) was primarily responsible for submitting compliance documents to the Mayor’s Office (OEI). ILCS South complied with all of its organizational and governance reporting obligations.



27

During the 2017-18 school year, ILCS South complied with all of its organizational and governance reporting obligations; however, there were some concerns about communication with external stakeholders. This includes the lack of communication around the timeline for the school’s 2016-17 audit, as well as overall board correspondence with OEI regarding general compliance and school safety incidents. While student safety issues were appropriately addressed by the school, there was a lag in reporting of the incidents to OEI. The RVP and board chair were made aware of these concerns and implemented systems that outline what instances warrant communication with OEI and which staff or board member is responsible. Between 2013 and 2018, ILCS maintained compliance with all material sections of its charter and submitted amendments when necessary. When made aware of concerns, the board engaged with OEI quickly to address and mediate the issue. As a result of the above indicator ratings, Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School South receives a renewal rating of Meets Standard for indicator 3.2.

3.3. Is the school’s board active, knowledgeable, and does it abide by appropriate policies, systems, and processes in its oversight?

Indicator Targets





Sub-indicators


Result Timely communication of organizational, leadership, academic, fiscal, or facility deficiencies to the Mayor’s Office; or when the school’s management company (if applicable) fails to meet its obligations as set forth in the charter

Clear understanding of the mission and vision of the school

Adherence to board policies and procedures, including those established in the by-laws, and revision of policies and procedures, as necessary

Recruitment and selection of members that are knowledgeable, represent diverse skill sets, and act in the best interest of the school and establishment of systems for member orientation and training

Effective and transparent management of conflicts of interest

Collaboration with school leadership that is fair, timely, consistent, and transparent in handling complaints or concerns

Adherence to its charter agreement as it pertains to governance structure

Holding of all meetings in accordance with Indiana Open Door Law

3.3 Rating





28

The Board at Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School South (ILCS South) includes board members with a range of expertise and are knowledgeable about the school, its policies, and issues of concern. The board roster has ranged from eight to ten members with a range of experience drawing from fields, including education, finance, law, technology, business/marketing, community, CMO and parent. In the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years, in accordance with the board’s bylaws, a parent and representative from LAI also served as directors. Prior to the 2013-14 school year, Lighthouse Academies of Indiana (LAI) served as both the governing board and charter management organization (CMO) for ILCS South. In the 2012-13 school year, the Lighthouse Academies board was challenged in meeting all of its governance and organizational compliance obligations. While the board meetings were transparent with public notices posted in advance of meetings and board minutes accurately reflected the meetings, the local board needed more clarity on policies and procedures to ensure compliance with Indiana Open Door Law. Additionally, there was a challenge in maintaining a focus on the performance of the two Indianapolis schools since meetings were conducted via conference all and all five schools were discussed. From 2013 – 2016, the governance and operational compliance issues noted above were corrected. Starting in the 2013-14 school year, based on historical concerns with the previous governing structure (including capacity to oversee five schools across the state, lack of local context and control and conflicts of interest) a local LLC took over governance responsibilities for ILCS South. The LLC previously served as an advisory board for the organization. In the 2013-14 school year, under the leadership of a new local board president, the ILCS South board worked to better understand and participate in proper governance policies and procedures. The board demonstrated a commitment to the school’s mission to prepare students for college through a rigorous arts infused program. This commitment was especially apparent in the board’s decision to close Monument Lighthouse Charter School (MLCS), an underperforming school over which they also had governance oversight. All directors maintained alignment with these decisions and worked to overcome the ensuing obstacles. Although directors received and reviewed board packets in advance and received extensive updates from the school leadership team, there was not a high level of engagement form all directors during the meetings. The board relied heavily upon school leaders to provide information and only 2-3 directors contributed consistently to discussions. In the 2014-15 school year, the board continued to work towards improving its oversight systems. This included establishing standardized monthly board reports, delineating roles and responsibilities among individual directors and creating committees. The commitment to the school’s mission was especially apparent during the 7-12 principal transition as well as during an unexpected budget shortfall. During these times, directors remained focused on what was best for the students of the school. The board continued to rely heavily on school leadership to provide information and lead discussions. That said, it was noted that a majority of directors were regularly engaged in discussions, asking clarifying questions and contributing perspective when appropriate. In the 2015-16 school year, the board focused on recruiting new directors to add prioritized skillsets, diverse backgrounds, and increased engagement in its governance of ILCS South. Additionally, the board continued to work towards improving its oversight systems. This included refining standardized monthly board reports to prioritize school goals while maintaining efficient meetings, delineating roles and responsibilities among individual directors and strengthening committee performance. During the 2016-2017 school year, the Lighthouse Academies of Indiana board began the year comprised of 10 individuals with experience in education, policy, business, community engagement, marketing, and law. While the expertise was comprehensive the board sought out recruitment of potential directors with development, fundraising, and financial expertise. In accordance with the board by-laws, a parent also served as a director. The board demonstrated an understanding and commitment to the school’s mission to prepare students for college through a rigorous arts-infused program. Conversations during board meetings regularly centered around student experiences and outcomes. Directors were supportive of school initiatives to provide wraparound services to students, celebrate student progress and support



29

students in their transition to college and career. The vast majority of directors were regularly engaged in discussions, asking clarifying questions and contributing perspective and supports where appropriate. In governance operations, 2012-13 school year concerns were corrected and the board maintained compliance in subsequent years. In 2013-14, as the board separated from the LAI board, it adopted updated by laws and has maintained compliance with these bylaws each year. From 2013-2018, board meetings were held as scheduled, quorum was met and the school abided by Indiana Open Door Law. Additionally, no conflicts of interest were noted – including during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years when – per their bylaws – an employee of LAI served as a director. From 2013 - 2018, the board chair and RVP consistently communicated with one another and the Mayor’s Office (OEI). They were transparent, proactive and collaborative in communicating updates and concerns with the board and OEI. Overall, for indicator 3.3, the Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School South receives a rating of Meets Standard for its mid charter review.

3.4. Does the school’s board work to foster a school environment that is viable and effective?

Indicator Targets





Sub-indicators


Result Regular communication with school leadership and/or its management company

Annual utilization of a performance based evaluation to assess its own performance, that of the school leader, and management organization (if applicable)

Collaboration with the school leader to establish clear objectives, priorities, and goals

Interaction with school leader that is conducive to the success of the school, including requesting and disseminating information in a timely manner, providing continuous and constructive feedback, and engaging the school leader in school improvement plans

3.2 Rating


Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Meets Standard

In the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years, the ILCS South board held monthly meetings in which all stakeholders, including the RVP, Principals, network employees and relevant school staff provided thorough reports on school performance. Between meetings, the board chair met regularly and communicated with RVP to provide leadership and support in school initiatives and events. Additionally, both LAI and school leaders received a thorough annual evaluation. The board evaluated LAI and the RVP evaluated school leadership. That said, while the board made strides to improve its own performance during these years there were no formal systems for setting board goals or evaluating progress. Lastly, in every observed interaction, the board and the school leadership team appeared to



30

have a positive and collaborative working relationship. The school leadership team was proactive, self-reflective and self-motivated which allowed for relevant and transparent meetings that demonstrated a constant commitment to school improvement. As a result, ILCS South received a meets standard in this indicator for each year. In the 2015-16 school year the ILCS South board continued the work they had been doing in the previous two years and also created formal systems for setting board goals and evaluating progress. These systems included board committees for academics, finance, development and governance. These committees all engaged directors and school staff frequently around specific school priorities and goals. The board also introduced a self-evaluation system that allowed it to monitor its own performance and prioritize areas of development in the coming year. Lastly, there was an observed increase the board asking critical questions around school performance. In 2016-17, the committee structures remained consistent, but not all were effective in collaboration or goal setting. For example, the governance committee created priorities related to board recruitment, board member on-boarding and the creation of a dashboard to guide board committee work more generally. That said, as a result of issues arising related to bonds, facilities negotiations, transportation contract negotiations etc., the governance committee sometimes fell off-track in their work on the afore mentioned identified priority areas. Additionally, a review of board meeting notes and minutes reflects little evidence that suggests the academic committee was consistently actively engaged in collaboration with school leaders on the creation of academic priorities and goals. In 2017-18, a review of notes from board meeting minutes suggests that the previously established committee structures had become less effective. For example, the finance committee consisted of only one board member and the network’s controller, however they met regularly and delivered timely reports. The governance and development committees meeting schedules were less consistent and the delivery of reports in a timely manner was often inconsistent or there were no reports. In response to feedback from OEI analysts, the academic committee was re-established to meet and develop goals and a dashboard to be shared with the school leader. As a result of the above ratings, Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School South receives a rating of Meets Standard for its mid charter review.


Indicator Targets




Sub-indicators


Result Health and safety code requirements

Facility accessibility

Updated safety and emergency management plans

A facility that is well suited to meet the curricular and social needs of the students, faculty, and members of the community

3.2 Rating Mid-Charter Rating 2016-2017 Charter Renewal Rating



31


Between 2012 and 2018, Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School South’s facility met all health and safety code requirements and provided a safe environment conducive to learning. The facility’s design, size, maintenance, security, equipment and furniture were all adequate to meet the school’s needs. Even through several construction projects over the years, the school remained accessible to all including people with disabilities. The Mayor’s Office monitoring of ILCS-South’s compliance with health and safety code requirements did not reveal any significant concerns related to these obligations. Accordingly, the school receives a Meets Standard for this indicator.

3.6. Is the school meeting its school-specific non-academic goals?

Indicator Targets

Does not meet standard The school does not meet standard on either school-specific non-academic goal.


School is 1) approaching standard on one school-specific non-academic goal, while not meeting standard on the second goal, 2) approaching standard on both school-specific non-academic goals, OR 3) meeting standard on one school-specific non-academic goal, while approaching standard on the second goal.

Meets standard School is 1) meeting standard on both school-specific non-academic goals, OR 2) meeting standard on one school-specific non-academic goal while exceeding standard on the second goal.

Exceeds standard School is exceeding standard on both school-specific non-academic goals.

3.6 Rating


Approaching Standard Not Evaluated Approaching Standard

Each year, Mayor-sponsored charter schools set two educational goals that are aligned with or support the school’s unique mission. All data for school-specific goals are self-reported by the individual school.

In 2013-14, ILCSS set its first goal around students’ proficiency rates on interim assessments and its second goal around student acceptance rates into 4 year colleges. As reflected in the chart below, ILCSS received a not evaluated for 1.7a due to issues with assessment design and a no data on 1.7b due to not submitting data for this goal, for an overall rating of does not meet standard. In 2014-15, ILCSS set its first goal around students’ proficiency rates on interim assessments and its second goal around student acceptance rates into 4 year colleges. As reflected in the chart below, ILCSS received an exceeds standard for 1.7a and an approaching standard on 1.7b, for an overall rating of meets standard. In 2015-16, ILCSS set its first goal around students’ proficiency rates on an arts-infused performance task and its second goal around student acceptance rates into 4 year colleges. As reflected in the chart below, ILCSS received an exceeds standard for 1.7a and an exceeds standard on 1.7b, for an overall rating of exceeds standard.



32

In the 2016-17 school year, ILCS South set its first non-academic goal around decreasing out-of-school suspensions from the previous year. The school reported an overall 44% decrease in out-of-school suspensions, and therefore, the school receives an Exceeds Standard on this goal. ILCS South set its second goal around student retention from one school year to the next. As a result, final results for ILCS’s 2016-17 student retention goal will not be available until the start of the 2017-18 school year. Therefore, the school received a Not Rated until results are submitted.

Due to the school-specific goal results over the last two years, ILCSS receives a mid-charter rating of Approaching Standard for this indicator.

Core Question 3: Is

Core Question 4: Is the school providing the appropriate conditions for success?

the organization effective and well-run? Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School—South’s reports for Core Question 4: “Is the school providing the appropriate conditions for success?” can be located on the OEI website through this link.

http://oei.indy.gov/indianapolis-lighthouse-charter-school/



33

indianapolis lighthouse charter school -south · es ms es es es es exceeds standard 1.7. is the...

Documents