VIEWS: 5,536 PAGES: 71 POSTED ON: 8/22/2014
AGENDA Board of Directors Regular Meeting 1086 Alcatraz Ave, Oakland, CA 94608 Additional Location: Courtyard Marriott. 500 E 1st St. Long Beach, CA 90802 October 24th, 2013 6:00 pm Vision & Mission Yu Ming Charter School will provide a challenging and comprehensive education for Kindergarten through 8th grade students, preparing them to be inquisitive and analytic lifelong learners in the 21st Century world. Our mission is: • To provide an academically rigorous college preparatory program • To graduate students with bilingual and biliterate skills in Mandarin and Chinese • To nurture intellectual curiosity, international perspective and diligence in attaining personal goals • To develop young people with compassion, sound moral character and a sense of responsibility for the community and the environment I. PRELIMINARY A. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at . B. ROLL CALL Present Absent Gloria Lee ______ ______ James Mink ______ ______ Chrissy Schwinn ______ ______ Josh Stern ______ ______ Carina Wong ______ ______ Kelun Zhang Rodrigo Prudencio C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by: Seconded by: Vote: INVITATION TO THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE BOARD I. CONSENT AGENDA (James) A. Approve the May minutes and September 19th, 2013 minutes B. Approve the September Check Register (Yoon) II. INFORMATION/ACTION ITEMS A. Finance Committee: (Yoon/Kelun – 20 MIN) 1. YTD Financials 2. Common Core Budget review B. Principal’s Report (Laura – 20 MIN) 1. Report on multiple items including: anticipated expenditures, school-wide discipline, Tone of parent communications to staff, new writing assignments, new report cards, new Teacher Support and Evaluation System 2. Report from Parent Action Group Co-Presidents C. Education Committee (Carina – 20MIN) 1. Report on Committee’s October 18th meeting, including discussions on draft teacher support & evaluation system and process improvement. D. Strategy (Gloria – 30min) 1. Discuss school goals for 2013-14 in preparation for October approval E. Facilities: (Chrissy- 20 MIN) 1. Provide update on possible long-term facility search F. Fundraising: (Rodrigo– 15 MIN) 1. Report on Fall Annual Fund Drive and plans for End of Year Campaign G. Board Development: (James– 30 MIN) 1. Approve priorities for Board development 2. Set year-long calendar of topics for future Board meetings III. REVIEW OF ACTION ITEMS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at . THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED WITHOUT NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the order of consideration of matters on this agenda may be changed without prior notice. REASONABLE LIMITATIONS MAY BE PLACED ON PUBLIC TESTIMONY The Governing Board’s presiding officer reserves the right to impose reasonable time limits on public testimony to ensure that the agenda is completed. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION WILL BE PROVIDED FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY Pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, any individual with a disability who requires reasonable accommodation to attend or participate in this meeting of the Governing Board may request assistance by contacting Yu Ming Charter School during normal business hours at 1086 Alcatraz Ave, Oakland, CA 94608; telephone (510) 452-2063as far in advance as possible, but no later than 24 hours before the meeting. FOR MORE INFORMATION For more information concerning this agenda or for materials relating to this meeting, please contact Yu Ming Charter School at 1086 Alcatraz Ave, Oakland, CA 94608; telephone (510) 452-2063 DRAFT MINUTES Board of Directors Regular Meeting 1086 Alcatraz Ave, Oakland, CA 94608 May 16, 2013 6:00 pm I. PRELIMINARY A. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m . B. ROLL CALL Present Absent Meng-Hsiung Kiang __X__ ______ Gloria Lee __X__ ______ James Mink ______ __X___ Ted Rebholz __X__ ______ Chrissy Schwinn __X__ ______ Josh Stern __X__ ______ Carina Wong __X__ ______ C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Stern shortened his Fund Development agenda item to include only a Q&A session. To accommodate Ms. Wong’s schedule, the Governance part of the agenda will follow the Principal’s report. With these changes, the board moved and voted on approval of the Agenda as follows: Motion by: Carina Wong Seconded by: Chrissy Schwinn Vote: 6-0-0 II. INVITATION TO THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE BOARD No members of the public offered comment on items not on the agenda at this time. III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve the April 18, 2013 Minutes B. Approve the April Check Register Ms. Kiang pulled the check register from the Consent Agenda DRAFT MINUTES Board of Directors Regular Meeting 1086 Alcatraz Ave, Oakland, CA 94608 Additional Location: Courtyard Marriott. 500 E 1st St. Long Beach, CA 90802 September 19th, 2013 6:00 pm I. PRELIMINARY A. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 6:20 p.m. B. ROLL CALL Present Absent Gloria Lee x ______ James Mink (by tel.) ______ Chrissy Schwinn x ______ Josh Stern x ______ Carina Wong x ______ Kelun Zhang x Rodrigo Prudencio x C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA James Mink requested that items 1 and 2 be dropped from the Board Development section of the agenda. With that amendment, the agenda was moved and voted on as follows: Motion by: Carina Wong Seconded by: James Mink Vote: 6-0-0 by roll-call vote INVITATION TO THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE BOARD No members of the public offered comments at this time. I. CONSENT AGENDA (James) A. Approve the August 15th and 24th minutes B. Approve the August Check Register (Yoon) The consent agenda was moved and voted on as follows: Motion by: Kelun Zhang Seconded by: Josh Stern Vote: 6-0-0 by roll-call vote II. INFORMATION/ACTION ITEMS A. Principal’s Report Principal Laura Ross provided an update on back-to-school night, and on other methods of outreach to parent community. Ms. Ross also provided an update on physical education, and related language issues, along with art classes, social skills classes and diversity training. Christine Wu-Dittmar provided an update on PAG, including a dinner, the moon cake sale, and a night market on Friday. B. Strategy Carina Wong led a discussion on the four categories of school goals: Student Outcomes; Life Skills/Global Citizenship; School Climate and Culture; and School Growth and Stability. 1. Student Outcomes The board discussed the appropriate standards and assessment to use for the four aspects of Mandarin proficiency/fluency (speaking, listening, writing and reading). The board also discussed the transition from STAR tests to SBAC tests, and methods to assess progress from one year to the next while switching tests. ACTION ITEMS: - Principal Ross to provide ELOPA results to Carina Wong. - Carina Wong to prepare adjusted target 2013/14 target for grade 2 2. Life Skills/Global Citizenship The board did not suggest any changes to this category. 3. School Climate and Culture The board discussed the definition of this category, as well as appropriate metrics. ACTION ITEMS: - Kelun Zhang to work on metrics for this category - Carina Wong to add Staff Satisfaction to this category, and move Confidence in Leadership out of this category - Josh Stern to send Laura Ross a copy of a survey to use with teachers in assessing staff satisfaction - Chrissy Schwinn to follow up with parents re metric for Parent Involvement 4. School Growth and Stability The board discussed additional elements to add to this category. ACTION ITEM: - Carina Wong to add Confidence in Leadership, Fund Development and Community Partnership to this category Members of the public offered comments on the school goals. The board discussed how to get further input on the school goals, and when to set annual goals. ACTION ITEM: - James Mink to add voting on school goals to the annual board meeting calendar, for June C. Facilities Chrissy Schwinn provided an update and led a discussion on the School’s long-term facility search. The board discussed the steps needed to have a Prop 39 request in to OUSD by the November 1, 2013 deadline. Members of the public provided comments on the facilities search. ACTION ITEM: - Facilities Committee to hold strategy session D. Finance Kelun Zhang presented an overview of the current financial situation of the School. EdTec staff provided an update on unaudited actuals. There will be an audit in September/October for approval by the board in November. E. Board Development Gloria Lee led a discussion on the communication guidelines document in the packet. The board discussed the issues raised by the document, and its manner of presentation. There was public comment on this item. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Regarding the balance of the Consent agenda, the board moved and voted on approval as follows: Motion by: Ted Rebholz Seconded by: Meng-Hsiung Kiang Vote: 6-0-0 Regarding the Check Register, in response to Ms. Kiang’s questions, Principal Ross clarified that parking reimbursement was a late submission, and that Gate View “Printing” was actually “Painting” related to move-in refurbishment. After this discussion, the board moved and voted on approval of the check register as follows: Motion by: Ted Rebholz Seconded by: Chrissy Schwinn Vote: 6-0-0 IV. INFORMATION/ACTION ITEMS A. Principal’s Report 1. Regarding staffing, Principal Ross reported as follows: a. Offer on 2nd-grade teacher has been accepted; just awaiting background check b. Additional other teachers in the interview pipeline; c. Mia has agreed to return d. Counselor / psychologist – job posting for school psychologist, preferably with Mandarin skills (of which Kara is aware) i. Prefer 0.5 FTE of Kara + 0.25 school psychologist ii. If no school can share Kara, then more time for school psychologist 2. Regarding facilities, Principal Ross reported on seismic work to be performed this summer. Ms. Kiang asked about the costs, including what the school would be liable for. Ms. Schwinn, Ms. Lee and Mr. Rebholz explained that the school is contractually obligated to pay up to $21,000 in total related expenses, with the Church responsible for anything above that threshold. iii. Mr. Stern asked about timing, and Ms. Schwinn explained that the Facilities Committee is seeking firm bids from contractors and clarity on permitting needs; Ms. Lee reminded the Board that this spending was approved by the Board as part of the lease negotiation. 3. Regarding curriculum and assessment, Ms. Wong encouraged Ms. Ross to underscore in her communications to parents upcoming changes in assessment tests. Ms. Kiang asked why CCCC is no longer being used, to which Ms. Ross responded that it’s not as good as ELOPA (including listening) and Common Core (including reading). 4. Principal Ross presented the proposed instructional minutes for school year 2013-14 for approval. The board moved and voted on approval of the instructional minutes as follows: Motion by: Carina Wong Seconded by: Chrissy Schwinn Vote: 6-0-0 5. Regarding enrollment, David Cherry summarized the application and enrollment statistics that were included in the Board packet, including especially that 23 of 52 new slots were taken by siblings of existing students. Mr. Rebholz requested Board feedback on possibly expanding the number of classes per grade, both to increase revenue and to increase diversity. B. Governance: 1. Approve change to term for Meng Hsiung Kiang Ms. Kiang proposed shortening her term to end on June 30, 2013, to conform with consistent board start and end dates. After discussion, the board moved and voted on approval of this proposal as follows: Motion by: Chrissy Schwinn Vote: 5-0-1 Seconded by: Josh Stern 2. Inform on the search for Board Candidates Ms. Kiang reminded board members that they should be prepared to vote on candidate Kelun Zhang at the June board meeting. Mr. Rebholz shared his positive feedback of the candidate, mentioning her being born in China, being a fluent Mandarin speaker, having experience in education, in particular, and in business, in general. Ms. Kiang agreed with Mr. Rebholz, and also noted that Ms. Zhang does not have board experience. Ms. Kiang also reviewed the challenges to date in attracting interested candidates. Ms. Schwinn asked about challenges with finding interested and qualified candidates, and Ms. Kiang explained the inverse relationship between quality and interest. Ms. Kiang explained that recruitment has been mainly via private networks, with limited postings online, due to disappointment with pertinent websites. Ms. Lee encouraged Ms. Kiang to pursue further opportunities for posting to targeted websites, and Ms. Schwinn noted that a parent would help develop Yu Ming’s “company” LinkedIn profile. 3. Inform on the process for selecting a parent member; decide on the process if appropriate As of the board meeting, no parents had declared candidacy for the parent-elected board seat. The board then discussed potential changes to the parent-elected board seat. Ms. Wong read an email sent by Melissa Lee with suggested revisions to the process for selecting parents to the Board. Ms. Kiang responded that the opinion expressed in the email did not represent the collective views of the PAG. Ms. Kiang also suggested increasing the number of parent-elected board members, in order to better represent the parent community. Mr. Rebholz asked what problem either of these solutions is trying to solve. Ms. Wong suggested that parent-elected members may not feel on equal footing due to a separate election process. Ms. Lee underscored that the Board member agreement commits that each Board member serves the interests of the entire school. Ms. Kiang stated that she has heard from parents who feel that their voices have not been heard, and stated that she believes that parents feel their views are not being well-represented. Ms. Wong stressed her concern that no parents have yet applied (i.e., the bigger problem is having qualified parents on the Board, not having parents elect the Board members). Ms. Schwinn reminded the Board that: (a) They ratify any Board member, including those that are elected by parents; (b) All Board members have a responsibility to represent the interests of the entire community; and (c) Any parent can contact any Board member. Ms. Lee reminded the public that any member of the public, including parents, can contact any Board member, as well as Laura; Board member bios and contact info are available on the school website. Ms. Lee also suggested that it’s now too late in the parent election process to change the process. Ms. Kiang responded that forthcoming vacancies in board seats in 2014 warrant making the change now. Members of the public provided comments as follows: One member of the public expressed the view that more diversity is better, and that parents may feel limited in discussing issues with Board members if they don’t know them. This person also suggested that staggered terms better assure continuity on the board. Another member of the public suggested that it would be better if a third parent-elected seat “tiered-out” to assure consistency and to ensure some parent representation in future when a greater share of Board members will be outsiders. This person also commented on the reading of a parent email at a board meeting, to the effect that, if one member of public had her email read by a Board member, it will open-up a Pandora’s Box, as any parent should be able to email a Board member. A third member of the public spoke in favor of the status quo. Understanding the pros and cons to the various Board member selection approaches, this person queried what the board believed would be valid reasons for not ratifying parent-elected Board members. A fourth member of the public agreed with the previous speaker in support of the status quo, but stated a concern with sense that parents can only go to parent-elected members; in contrast, this person believes that all Board members can be accessed by parents, and that the Board should reinforce this in communications to parents. A fifth member of the public suggested that this long discussion itself is discouraging and indicates too much red tape, rather than getting stuff done. This person also expressed uncertainty about the potential Board review of the parents’ selection of a board member. A sixth member of the public stated a belief that it’s important that parents select at least some Board members to ensure that parents have ability to directly select, and that three of nine is a good ratio. No motion was made or voted upon regarding these topics at this meeting. C. Fund Development: Mr. Stern reminded audience of need for volunteers to sign-up early to help with Gala planning. Mr. Stern postponed discussing other topics due to disparities between numbers from finance and fund development teams. Ms. Schwinn asked about events on the fund development calendar. Ms. Kiang asked about plans for next year, especially major items, as well as capital plans, and was curious about exploring capital fundraising when Mr. Stern’s predecessor also indicated that he had been working on it. Mr. Stern indicated that the long-term capital campaign will revolve largely around facilities, and that the Fund Development team is still exploring, building upon his predecessor’s work. A member of the public discussed working with a chef on food prep for a Luau. D. Finance: 1. Present April Actuals and 2012-13FY forecast EdTec presented materials from the board packet regarding April actual and the 2012- 13 fiscal year forecast. 2. Discuss 2013-14 draft budget EdTec presented materials from the board packet regarding the draft budget. 3. Discussion of Long Term Budget Mr. Rebholz asked whether a charter amendment would be required for expanding enrollment. Ms. Lee indicated that it would be required if the size of the school were to increase by at least 25%, which would trigger the “material change” threshold. Mr. Rebholz asked about Board member comfort with expanding enrollment, and Ms. Lee and Ms. Schwinn indicated comfort with considering three classes per grade, beginning with school year 2015-16. Ms. Kiang recommended also modeling attrition at 6th grade (in addition to 4th grade), as families may then start considering middle school alternatives. Ms. Lee encouraged Mr. Rebholz to defer to Ms. Ross regarding staffing scenarios for the long-range model. Mr. Stern encouraged the Finance Committee to seek Ms. Wong’s advice on staffing levels at higher grades, and to factor-in IEP growth. A member of the public raised the question of the feasibility of purchasing one or two facilities, and about the possibility of reducing class sizes if the school receives additional state funding. 4. Discussion/Approval of the EdTec Contract Principal Ross indicated that EdTec had submitted a revised proposal on the same day as the Board meeting, which she and Mr. Rebholz had not yet fully reviewed, but that they would do so and provide a recommendation before the next Board meeting. Ms. Kiang asked about competitors, and Mr. Rebholz responded that the school is talking with a competitor (CSMC). V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Check Register Yu Ming Charter School September 2013 Grand Total 85,336.22 Check Vendor Check Number Date Description Amount AT&T 2977 9/4/2013 Acct#760 761-3474 555 8; Phn Svc due 09/04/13 398.18 Rodric Camp 2978 9/4/2013 After School Program - Aug 2013 220.00 CoPower 2979 9/4/2013 ID:53985; Ins September 2013 218.81 East Bay Charter Connect 2980 9/4/2013 2013 EBCC/ACOE Common Core Workshop + Annual 2,000.00 Shiu Kuen Fong 2981 9/4/2013 Reimb: Picture Book & Classroom Materials 136.09 Jason Lu 2982 9/4/2013 Reimb: Supplies 840.60 Wei Shen 2983 9/4/2013 Reimb: Instructional Materials and Supplies 785.02 Standard Business Machines 2984 9/4/2013 Machine ID#9333; Color Toner 299.42 Polly Yan 2985 9/4/2013 Reimb: Misc Items 20,766.29 Danny Yun Wing Lau 2988 9/9/2013 Reimb: Phone Card 25.00 Pacific Gas & Electric 2990 9/9/2013 Acct#2086434523-4; Gas & Elect Svc - 07/23/13 - 08/20/13 473.45 Laura Ross 2991 9/9/2013 Reimb: Dinner with Elizabeth 40.00 Soccer Shots 2992 9/9/2013 Soccer Shots Classes 08/16 - 11/15/13 2,535.00 Vision Service Plan 2993 9/9/2013 30 027908 0001; Vision Benefits September 2013 60.93 Jiaying Xu 2995 9/9/2013 Reimb: Livescan Fingerprinting 49.99 Xiaochen Xu 2996 9/9/2013 Reimb: Fingerprinting 49.99 Greg Nichols 2989 9/9/2013 Reimb: Computer Network Related Supplies 985.56 Network for Good DB090913 9/9/2013 DB090913 - Network for Good 59.95 City Print & Mail 2986 9/9/2013 Full Serivce Copying - 3rd Grd Mandarin Writing Journal 211.40 Ruei-Lian Kao 2987 9/9/2013 Reimb: Supplies 41.67 Faltz Associates Inc 2997 9/17/2013 08/22 - 08/29/13 Indv S/L Therapy - B. Fairchild 885.00 Museum of Children's Art 2998 9/17/2013 Contract to Provide Services - Invoice 1 of 4 2,375.00 The Loss Prevention Inc 2999 9/17/2013 Livescan Fingerprinting/Backround Fee Aug 2013 52.00 Lynna Tsou 3000 9/17/2013 Reimb: Staff Welcome Party Food 79.75 Waste Management 3001 9/17/2013 Acct#065-4411352-2216-0; Waste Management Svc - 193.14 Waste Management 3002 9/17/2013 Acct#699-0009207-2216-2; Waste Management Svc - 148.00 Wei Shen 3010 9/18/2013 Reimb: ACTFL Conference 300.00 Soccer Shots 3011 9/18/2013 Soccer Shots Classes 08/16 - 08/30/13 585.00 Standard Business Machines 3012 9/18/2013 Machine ID#9471; Staple Cartridge 1,000.90 Client#12478; Completion of the 2011 Fed & State Info Tax Vicenti, Lloyd & Stutzman LLP 3013 9/18/2013 Returns for Yr Ended 06/30/12 950.00 Hermione Wilson 3014 9/18/2013 Reimb: Food for Parent Meeting 43.60 Xinyi Xu 3015 9/18/2013 Reimb: Supplies & Conference Fees 446.95 Note: Multiple expenses or "Itemized/Invoice Amounts" may be paid by one check. The total "Check Amount" will appear for each "Itemized/Invoice Amount" paid by the check. Check Vendor Check Number Date Description Amount Polly Yan 3016 9/18/2013 Reimb: Misc Expenses 8,217.41 AT&T EFT091813 9/18/2013 EFT091813 - Disconnect Notice Paid over Phone 398.18 Alameda County Office of Education 3003 9/18/2013 STRS Processing Fee: 1st Qtr July-Sept 2013 354.00 Anthem Blue Cross of CA 3004 9/18/2013 497638; Blue Cross Health Ins 10/01/13 - 11/01/13 5,934.00 Carl Chang 3005 9/18/2013 Reimb: Mileage, Workshop, Printer & Amplified Speaker 258.20 EdTec Inc. 3006 9/18/2013 Monthly Svc - Sept 2013 6,500.00 Lisa Jordan 3007 9/18/2013 Reimb: Supplies 293.35 Jason Lu 3008 9/18/2013 Reimb: Supplies & Textbooks 274.19 Revolution Foods, Inc 3009 9/18/2013 HS Student Meals - August 2013 4,620.90 Lia Barrow Ward M1100 9/20/2013 Manual Ck#M1100 dated 09/09/13 - No Backup 386.72 Wing Sum Wong 3017 9/23/2013 After School Teaching - Aug 2013 52.50 Alice Chiu 3018 9/24/2013 Reimb: Classroom Supplies 37.47 CoPower 3020 9/24/2013 ID:53985; Ins October 2013 1,258.23 East Bay Municipal Utility District 3021 9/24/2013 Acct#42099745569; Water Svc - 07/13/13 - 09/10/13 281.10 City Print & Mail 3019 9/24/2013 Full Serivce Copying - Leveled English Books 37.61 USPS.COM DB092413 9/24/2013 DB092413 - No Backup 10.30 East Bay Municipal Utility District 3022 9/24/2013 Acct#61360013774; Water Svc - 07/13/13 - 09/10/13 241.58 Reimb: Ink Cartridges, School Night Handouts & Gift Cards Lina Huang 3023 9/24/2013 for Staff Appreciation 693.88 Law Office of Donahue Gallagher Woods LLP 3024 9/24/2013 Acct#1YMCS.MATOF; Legal Svc's - August 2013 3,652.50 Lynna Tsou 3025 9/24/2013 Reimb: Psychology Books 110.46 Polly Yan 3026 9/24/2013 Reimb: Misc Expenses 1,246.45 CharterSafe 3027 9/24/2013 Biz & Workers Comp Ins - October 2013 2,670.13 Saint Columbia Church 3028 9/24/2013 Rent - October 2013 10,000.00 Learning A-Z DB092513 9/25/2013 DB092513 - No Backup 99.95 TimePayment Corp EFT092513 9/25/2013 EFT092513 - Timepayment 252.05 Lakeshore Learning DB092613 9/26/2013 DB092613 - No Backup 193.32 USPS.COM DB092613B 9/26/2013 DB092613B - No Backup 5.05 Note: Multiple expenses or "Itemized/Invoice Amounts" may be paid by one check. The total "Check Amount" will appear for each "Itemized/Invoice Amount" paid by the check. Yu Ming Charter School September 2013 Financial Presentation October 24, 2013 Yoon Chang Financial Presentation Agenda Financial Update Summary YTD Actuals Forecast Update Cash Flow Projections 2 Summary At the end of the first quarter, YTD revenues are on track and YTD expenses are below projections Yu Ming has received most of its deferred revenues; only outstanding 12-13 FY revenues are lottery and SPED revenues We won’t expect to receive 12-13 FY lottery until January/February Timing of prior year SPED revenues still need to be followed up with EDCOE YTD revenues are on track and YTD expenses are below projections A few changes were made to the forecast this month; primarily in after school program The school currently projects an operating income of $36K The 13-14 FY fund balance of $400K represents a 21% reserve, which is above CDE and ACOE’s recommended 5% reserve Yu Ming is in a good position to weather any potential mid-year budget development due to a strong 12-13 FY performance 3 2013-14 Financials: YTD Actuals The current forecast projects the operating income of $36K with the fund balance of $400K, represents a 21% reserve YTD Actuals: $239K in YTD revenues, $362K in expenses Revenues State Aid ($39K) was received in accordance with the non-deferral schedule Common Core ($16K) was received in September; the remaining amount will arrive in November Another $9K of afterschool revenues was received; and $9K of school lunch sales was also received YTD, approx. $5K was deposited for donations/fundraising Expenses YTD, Director of Curriculum, salaries have been paid out of consultants; therefore, certificated salaries are tracking below projections Health benefits are tracking below the projection by $17K A couple of employees decided to opt out of the school’s health plan; one employee has not been enrolled. The school purchased $16K of books and supplies this month; expected to spend another $10K for science books in coming months. Other early-year expenses are reasonable relative to budget 4 2013-14 Financials: Forecast Update The current forecast projects the operating income of $36K; decreased by $67K from previous month’s forecast Compensation and Benefits projections – increased by $13K New K teacher’s salary was lower than the previous K teacher A new instructional aide was added to the budget – the school now has 3 instructional aides Counselor was moved from classified to certificated – no impact on the forecast Adding one employee to the benefits increased the health benefit projection by $7K Books and Supplies projections – increased by $11K The school is planning to purchase a set of science textbooks – $10K was added to the budget Services and Other operating expenses – increased by $43K Afterschool consultants’ projection was increased by $43K this month; it is a combination of enrichment classes, PT afterschool consultants, parent teachers 5 Common Core Budget – Public Hearing The budget act requires the governing board to hold a public hearing on the use of these funds Entitlement 31,106 before they are included in a revised budget. Proposed Budget This funding is in support of the Technology 20,000 integration of academic content Instructional Materials 9,106 standards in instruction as adopted Professional Development 2,000 in the budget act for K-12 The purpose of this funding is to Total 31,106 support establishing high-quality instructional programs for pupils. Funding must be used for: Yu Ming will easily meet the funding requirements, restrictions Professional development through transition to Common Instructional materials Core. Integration of content standards through technology-based instruction 6 2013-14 Finances: Cash Flow Update Cash Flow should remain healthy throughout the year SB 740 Facilities Grant Update Yu Ming is eligible to receive SB 740 facilities grant because it is located in the attendance area of a public elementary (Sankofa) in which 70% or more of the students are eligible for FRPM, and Yu Ming gives a preference in admission to students who are currently enrolled in that public elementary school and to pupils who reside in the elementary school attendance area where Yu Ming is located When CSFA evaluated the 13-14 FY application, the most recent comprehensive data available at the time was the CDE FRPM data as of June, which is not the most recent and final. In it, Sankofa’s FRPM data was 65%; therefore, CSFA determined that Yu Ming did not meet the FRPM requirement EdTec provided the updated data, which states that Sankofa’s FRL % is 78%; however, CSFA response was that the school’s eligibility will be determined again at the second disbursement. EdTec will continue to follow up with CSFA and Sankofa, and update the board on any development; for the time being, $90K SB 740 facilities grant will remain in the budget; the timing of the grant will be delayed until March 2014. We still assume deferrals are in place during the spring This includes April (partial deferral to July), along with May & June (fully deferred to July) Current cash flow projects that the school will not be drawing down from the LOC this year 7 Common Core Budget Total Entitlement 31,106 Technology 20,000 Instructional Materials 9,106 Professional Development 2,000 Total Expenses 31,106 LEAs shall expend funds for the following purposes: • Professional development for teachers, administrators, and paraprofessional educators or other classified employees involved in the direct instruction of pupils that is aligned to the academic content standards • Instructional materials aligned to the academic content standards. • Integration of these academic content standards through technology‐based instruction for purposes of improving the academic performance of pupils, including, but not necessarily limited to, expenditures necessary to support the administration of computer‐based assessments and provide high‐speed, high‐bandwidth Internet connectivity for the purpose of administration of computer‐based assessments. EdTec Update p. 10 California Department of Education (http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r14/commoncore13apptltr1.asp) Page Generated: 9/11/2013 11:20:10 AM August 23, 2013 Dear County Superintendents of Schools: NOTICE OF THE FIRST APPORTIONMENT FOR THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 2013–14 This apportionment, in the amount of $622,006,100, is made from funds provided in Assembly Bill (AB) 86, Section 85 (Chapter 48, Statutes of 2013). Funding is in support of the integration of academic content standards in instruction adopted pursuant to sections 60605.8, 60605.85, 60605.10, 60605.11, and 60811.3 of California Education Code (EC) for kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, for purposes of establishing high-quality instructional programs for all pupils. This apportionment provides a payment of approximately 50 percent of the 2013–14 entitlements. School districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and state special schools receiving these funds may encumber the apportioned funds any time during the 2013–14 or 2014–15 fiscal years. As stated in AB 86, Section 85 (d), the local educational agencies (LEAs) shall expend funds for any of the following purposes: Professional development for teachers, administrators, and paraprofessional educators or other classified employees involved in the direct instruction of pupils that is aligned to the academic content standards. Instructional materials aligned to the academic content standards. Integration of these academic content standards through technology-based instruction for purposes of improving the academic performance of pupils, including, but not necessarily limited to, expenditures necessary to support the administration of computer-based assessments and provide high-speed, high-bandwidth Internet connectivity for the purpose of administration of computer-based assessments. As a condition of receiving these funds, the LEA must develop and adopt a plan delineating how funds shall be spent. The plan shall be explained in a public meeting of the governing board of the LEA before its adoption in a subsequent public meeting. Detailed expenditure information is due to the California Department of Education (CDE) at the end of fiscal year 2014–15. The method and format for this report has yet to be determined. As stipulated in AB 86, Section 85(b), the CDE is allotting an equal per-pupil amount using prior-year enrollment data. The per-pupil award amounts are estimated at $200 per pupil using California Longitudinal Public Achievement Data System fall enrollment data as of October 2012 and certified on or before May 24, 2013. Any incremental adjustments to the award amount will be made in the second apportionment in October 2013; however, the CDE does not anticipate large entitlement variations in subsequent apportionments. Warrants will be mailed to each county treasurer approximately three weeks from the date of this Notice. For standardized account code structure coding, use Resource Code 7405 and Revenue Object Code 8590, All Other State Revenue. Common Core State Standards implementation funds will be subject to the annual audits required by EC Section 41020. The CDE has sent an e-mail to each county superintendent, addressed to the county’s CDEfisc e-mail address, to inform him or her of this apportionment. The e-mail contained a link to the CDE Categorical Programs Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/ca/ where, under the program name, the letter and schedule for this apportionment are posted. The CDE requested that the e-mail be forwarded to all school districts and charter schools in the county. 1 of 2 EdTec Update p. 11 If you have any questions regarding this program, please contact Barbara Murchison, Program Administrator, Common Core Systems Implementation Office, by phone at 916-319-0387 or by e‑mail at BMurchison@cde.ca.gov. If you have any questions regarding this apportionment or the payment process, please contact Karen Almquist, Fiscal Consultant, Categorical Allocations and Management Assistance Office, by phone at 916-327-4406 or by e-mail at KAlmquis@cde.ca.gov. Sincerely, Jeannie Oropeza, Deputy Superintendent Services for Administration, Finance, Technology, and Infrastructure Branch Last Reviewed: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2 of 2 Yu Ming Charter School Budget vs. Actuals 1 1 1 As of most recent monthly close Actual Budget vs. Actual 2013-14 Budget Variance (YTD less Approved Previous Month's Current Forecast Jul Aug Sep Actual YTD Budget YTD Budget) Budget Forecast Forecast Remaining SUMMARY Revenue General Block Grant - 39,069 39,069 78,138 103,674 (25,536) 1,036,739 1,189,742 1,189,742 1,111,604 Federal Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Other State Revenues - 8,057 15,900 23,957 35,030 (11,073) 362,338 248,485 248,485 224,528 Local Revenues 2,840 111,114 18,614 132,567 79,222 53,346 140,359 240,185 240,185 107,618 Fundraising and Grants 307 3,390 908 4,606 27,318 (22,713) 287,733 287,733 287,000 282,394 Total Revenue 3,148 161,630 74,491 239,268 245,244 (5,976) 1,827,168 1,966,146 1,965,413 1,726,144 Expenses Compensation and Benefits 26,698 73,922 107,737 208,356 244,829 36,473 1,147,824 1,156,778 1,169,280 960,924 Books and Supplies 3,576 33,723 15,067 52,366 51,640 (726) 110,858 125,958 136,378 84,012 Services and Other Operating Expenditures 39,596 18,601 33,430 91,628 104,103 12,475 529,016 565,877 609,144 517,516 Capital Outlay - 9,500 - 9,500 3,750 (5,750) 15,000 15,000 15,000 5,500 Total Expenses 69,870 135,747 156,234 361,850 404,322 42,472 1,802,699 1,863,613 1,929,802 1,567,952 Operating Income (excluding Depreciation) (66,722) 25,883 (81,743) (122,582) (159,078) 36,496 24,469 102,532 35,610 158,192 Operating Income (including Depreciation) (66,722) 35,383 (81,743) (113,082) (155,328) 42,246 36,543 114,532 47,610 160,692 Fund Balance Beginning Balance (Unaudited) 351,979 285,257 320,640 351,979 351,979 - 351,979 351,979 Operating Income (including Depreciation) (66,722) 35,383 (81,743) (113,082) (155,328) 36,543 114,532 47,610 Ending Fund Balance (including Depreciation) 285,257 320,640 238,897 238,897 196,651 36,543 466,511 399,589 10/21/2013 1 of 6 Yu Ming Charter School Budget vs. Actuals 1 1 1 As of most recent monthly close Actual Budget vs. Actual 2013-14 Budget Variance (YTD less Approved Previous Month's Current Forecast Jul Aug Sep Actual YTD Budget YTD Budget) Budget Forecast Forecast Remaining Detail Enrollment Summary K-3 208 208 208 Total Enrolled 208 208 208 ADA % K-3 96% 96% 96% Average 96% 96% 96% ADA K-3 199.7 199.7 199.7 Total ADA 199.7 199.7 199.7 10/21/2013 2 of 6 Yu Ming Charter School Budget vs. Actuals 1 1 1 As of most recent monthly close Actual Budget vs. Actual 2013-14 Budget Variance (YTD less Approved Previous Month's Current Forecast Jul Aug Sep Actual YTD Budget YTD Budget) Budget Forecast Forecast Remaining REVENUE General Purpose Entitlement - 8012 Education Protection Account - - - - - - - 213,202 213,202 213,202 8015 Charter Schools General Purpose Entitlement - State Aid - 39,069 39,069 78,138 103,674 156,276 1,036,739 976,540 976,540 898,402 - 39,069 39,069 78,138 103,674 156,276 1,036,739 1,189,742 1,189,742 1,111,604 8300 Other State Revenues - - - 8381 Special Education - Entitlement (State) - 8,057 - 8,057 9,285 (1,228) 92,851 93,833 93,833 85,776 8545 School Facilities Apportionments - - - - - - 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 8550 Mandated Cost Reimbursements - - - - 479 (479) 4,792 2,796 2,796 2,796 8560 State Lottery Revenue - - - - - - 30,751 30,751 30,751 30,751 8590 All Other State Revenue (Common Core) - - 15,900 15,900 13,516 2,384 26,442 - 31,106 15,206 8592 Categorical Block Grant - - - - 8,347 (8,347) 83,466 - - - 0 Educationally Disadvantaged Block Grant - 868 (868) 8,676 - - - 8593 New School Categorical - - - - 2,536 (2,536) 25,359 - - - 0000 Common Core - - - - 31,106 - - SUBTOTAL - Other State Income - 8,057 15,900 23,957 35,030 (11,073) 362,338 248,485 248,485 224,528 8600 Other Local Revenue 8634 Food Service Sales 2,840 20,213 9,201 32,255 10,872 21,382 43,488 43,488 43,488 11,234 8636 Uniforms - 252 15 267 192 75 240 350 350 83 8676 After School Program Revenue - 89,858 9,398 99,256 64,000 35,256 80,000 179,716 179,716 80,461 8693 Field Trips - 290 - 290 3,371 (3,081) 13,485 13,485 13,485 13,195 8699 All Other Local Revenue 0 500 - 500 786 (286) 3,145 3,145 3,145 2,645 8999 Uncategorized Revenue - - - - - - - - - - SUBTOTAL - Local Revenues 2,840 111,114 18,614 132,567 79,222 53,346 140,359 240,185 240,185 107,618 8800 Donations/Fundraising - - - 8801 Individual Donations 307 2,390 486 3,184 24,652 (21,468) 166,400 166,400 83,600 80,416 8802 Corporations/Foundations - - 407 407 2,667 (2,259) 26,666 26,666 25,750 25,343 8803 Events - 1,000 15 1,015 - 1,015 94,667 94,667 177,650 176,635 SUBTOTAL - Fundraising and Grants 307 3,390 908 4,606 27,318 (22,713) 287,733 287,733 287,000 282,394 TOTAL REVENUE 3,148 161,630 74,491 239,268 245,244 175,836 1,827,168 1,966,146 1,965,413 1,726,144 - - 10/21/2013 3 of 6 Yu Ming Charter School Budget vs. Actuals 1 1 1 As of most recent monthly close Actual Budget vs. Actual 2013-14 Budget Variance (YTD less Approved Previous Month's Current Forecast Jul Aug Sep Actual YTD Budget YTD Budget) Budget Forecast Forecast Remaining EXPENSES Compensation & Benefits 1000 Certificated Salaries - - - 1100 Teachers Salaries - 42,409 55,547 97,956 101,243 3,287 556,834 556,834 537,601 439,645 1300 Certificated Supervisor & Administrator Salaries - - - - 11,818 11,818 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 1930 Other Cert - Counselor - - 4,678 4,678 - (4,678) - - 45,000 40,322 SUBTOTAL - Certificated Employees - 42,409 60,225 102,634 113,061 10,427 621,834 621,834 647,601 544,967 2000 Classified Salaries 2100 Classified Instructional Aide Salaries - 4,753 9,005 13,758 9,364 (4,394) 51,500 51,500 75,009 61,251 2102 Classified - Counselors - - - - 8,182 8,182 45,000 45,000 - - 2300 Classified Supervisor & Administrator Salaries 14,308 14,308 15,772 44,389 43,766 (623) 175,062 175,062 175,481 131,092 2900 Classified Other Salaries - - - - 4,038 4,038 22,210 - - - 2905 Other Classified - After School - 743 2,947 3,689 - (3,689) - 30,000 30,000 26,311 2930 Other Classified - Maintenance/grounds 394 883 2,005 3,282 5,400 2,118 21,600 21,600 21,600 18,318 SUBTOTAL - Classified Employees 14,702 20,687 29,729 65,118 70,749 5,631 315,372 323,162 302,090 236,972 3000 Employee Benefits 3100 STRS - 3,038 4,003 7,041 8,653 1,612 47,589 51,301 49,294 42,253 3300 OASDI-Medicare-Alternative 1,120 2,444 3,515 7,079 6,906 (173) 36,080 33,878 35,760 28,681 3400 Health & Welfare Benefits 4,847 3,131 7,207 15,185 32,570 17,385 97,710 97,710 104,224 89,039 3500 Unemployment Insurance 13 710 1,200 1,923 3,544 1,620 7,875 7,350 8,663 6,739 3600 Workers Comp Insurance 6,015 1,504 1,504 9,023 9,347 324 21,364 21,542 21,649 12,626 SUBTOTAL - Employee Benefits 11,996 10,826 17,783 40,605 61,019 20,414 210,618 211,782 219,590 178,985 4000 Books & Supplies 4100 Approved Textbooks & Core Curricula Materials 3,255 14,041 2,260 19,555 19,379 (176) 24,224 24,224 34,224 14,668 4315 Custodial Supplies - - - - 375 375 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 4320 Educational Software - - 2,425 2,425 1,664 (761) 2,080 2,080 2,500 75 4326 Art & Music Supplies - - - - 1,600 1,600 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 4330 Office Supplies - 65 34 100 1,845 1,745 7,379 7,379 7,379 7,279 4335 PE Supplies - 420 439 859 1,200 341 1,500 1,500 1,500 641 4345 After School Supplies - 49 179 228 2,496 2,268 3,120 3,120 3,120 2,892 4346 Teacher Supplies - - 3,386 3,386 8,320 4,934 10,400 10,400 10,400 7,014 4350 Uniforms - - - - 832 832 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 4410 Classroom Furniture, Equipment & Supplies - 1,567 380 1,947 7,840 5,893 9,800 4,900 4,900 2,953 4420 Computers (individual items less than $5k) 309 17,212 1,152 18,672 - (18,672) - 20,000 20,000 1,328 4430 Non Classroom Related Furniture, Equipment & Supplies - - - - 480 480 600 600 600 600 4435 Office first aid supplies 12 263 28 302 672 370 840 840 840 538 4710 Student Food Services - - 4,621 4,621 4,438 (183) 44,376 44,376 44,376 39,755 4720 Other Food - 108 163 271 500 229 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,729 SUBTOTAL - Books and Supplies 3,576 33,723 15,067 52,366 51,640 (726) 110,858 125,958 136,378 84,012 10/21/2013 4 of 6 Yu Ming Charter School Budget vs. Actuals 1 1 1 As of most recent monthly close Actual Budget vs. Actual 2013-14 Budget Variance (YTD less Approved Previous Month's Current Forecast Jul Aug Sep Actual YTD Budget YTD Budget) Budget Forecast Forecast Remaining 5000 Services & Other Operating Expenses 5210 Conference Fees - - - - - - 7,906 7,906 7,906 7,906 5220 Travel and Lodging - 963 - 963 791 (172) 3,163 3,163 3,163 2,200 5305 Dues & Membership - Professional - - - - 1,065 1,065 1,298 1,298 1,298 1,298 5450 Insurance - Other 4,665 1,166 (608) 5,224 8,190 2,966 18,720 18,720 18,720 13,496 5510 Utilities - Gas and Electric - 647 473 1,120 1,857 737 7,428 7,428 7,428 6,308 5515 Janitorial, Gardening Services & Supplies - 179 901 1,080 300 (780) 1,200 1,200 1,200 120 5520 Security - 497 - 497 1,250 753 5,000 5,000 5,000 4,503 5525 Utilities - Waste 324 324 341 990 587 (402) 2,349 2,349 2,349 1,359 5530 Utilities - Water 11 68 523 602 625 24 2,500 2,500 2,500 1,899 5535 Utilities - All Utilities - - - - 3,600 3,600 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 5605 Equipment Leases 253 252 252 757 1,250 493 5,000 5,000 5,000 4,243 5610 Rent 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 30,000 - 120,000 120,000 120,000 90,000 5615 Repairs and Maintenance - Building - 570 - 570 1,750 1,180 7,000 7,000 7,000 6,430 5617 Repairs and Maintenance - Other Equipment - - - - 62 62 624 624 624 624 5803 Accounting Fees - - - - - - 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 5809 Banking Fees - - 30 30 25 (5) 100 100 100 70 5812 Business Services 6,500 6,500 6,500 19,500 22,859 3,359 91,436 78,000 78,000 58,500 5820 Consultants - Data - - - - 500 500 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5824 District Oversight Fees - - - - - - 33,606 35,692 35,692 35,692 5830 Field Trips Expenses - - - - - - 14,984 14,984 14,984 14,984 5836 Fingerprinting - - 152 152 1,093 941 1,333 1,333 1,333 1,181 5839 Fundraising Expenses - - 60 60 - (60) 10,300 10,300 10,300 10,240 10/21/2013 5 of 6 Yu Ming Charter School Budget vs. Actuals 1 1 1 As of most recent monthly close Actual Budget vs. Actual 2013-14 Budget Variance (YTD less Approved Previous Month's Current Forecast Jul Aug Sep Actual YTD Budget YTD Budget) Budget Forecast Forecast Remaining 5843 Interest - Loans Less than 1 Year - - - - 79 79 475 475 475 475 5845 Legal Fees - 3,552 3,653 7,205 7,500 296 30,000 50,000 50,000 42,796 5851 Marketing and Student Recruiting 42 425 - 467 1,886 1,419 2,300 2,300 2,300 1,833 5854 Consultants - Curriculum/Elective 672 - (160) 512 815 303 4,480 26,690 26,690 26,178 5855 Consultants - Afterschool consultants 1,126 220 3,173 4,519 4,800 282 48,000 48,000 91,267 86,749 5857 Payroll Fees 107 278 147 532 1,050 518 4,200 4,200 4,200 3,668 5860 Printing and Reproduction 598 618 1,811 3,027 2,080 (947) 11,440 11,440 11,440 8,413 5863 Professional Development 250 2,685 854 3,790 4,121 331 22,665 28,665 28,665 24,875 5872 Special Education Encroachment - - 885 885 2,000 1,115 20,000 20,000 20,000 19,115 5875 Staff Recruiting 955 75 - 1,030 1,000 (30) 4,000 4,000 4,000 2,970 5878 Student Assessment - - - - 267 267 2,667 2,667 2,667 2,667 5881 Student Information System - - - - - - 5,918 5,918 5,918 5,918 5884 Substitutes 69 300 2,205 2,574 479 (2,094) 2,635 2,635 2,635 62 5899 Miscellaneous Operating Expenses 13,641 (11,233) 791 3,200 625 (2,575) 2,500 2,500 2,500 (700) 5910 Communications - Internet / Website Fees 383 60 - 443 426 (17) 1,704 1,704 1,704 1,261 5915 Postage and Delivery - 12 15 27 167 139 667 667 667 639 5920 Communications - Telephone & Fax - 443 423 866 1,005 139 4,020 4,020 4,020 3,154 SUBTOTAL - Services & Other Operating Exp. 39,596 18,601 33,430 91,628 104,103 12,475 529,016 565,877 609,144 517,516 6000 Capital Outlay 6100 Sites & Improvement of Sites - 9,500 - 9,500 3,750 (5,750) 15,000 15,000 15,000 5,500 6200 Buildings & Improvement of Buildings - - - - - - - - - - SUBTOTAL - Capital Outlay - 9,500 - 9,500 3,750 (5,750) 15,000 15,000 15,000 5,500 TOTAL EXPENSES 69,870 135,747 156,234 361,850 404,322 42,472 1,802,699 1,863,613 1,929,802 1,567,952 6900 Total Depreciation (includes Prior Years) - - - - - - 2,926 3,000 3,000 3,000 TOTAL EXPENSES including Depreciation 69,870 126,247 156,234 352,350 400,572 48,222 1,790,625 1,851,613 1,917,802 1,565,452 10/21/2013 6 of 6 Yu Ming Charter School Monthly Cash Forecast As of most recent monthly close 2013/14 Actual & Projected Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Forecast AP/AR Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Beginning Cash 202,776 286,761 337,961 314,073 334,306 300,923 237,432 306,317 291,367 340,292 317,031 255,901 Revenue General Block Grant - 39,069 39,069 213,741 70,324 70,324 162,543 70,324 76,469 111,970 57,061 - 1,189,742 278,849 Federal Income - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Other State Income - 8,057 15,900 8,974 23,288 8,082 8,082 15,770 77,010 9,510 14,839 280 248,485 58,695 Local Revenues 2,840 111,114 18,614 35,527 9,011 9,011 9,011 9,011 9,011 9,011 9,011 9,011 240,185 - Fundraising and Grants 307 3,390 908 25,314 11,864 21,153 61,792 61,792 61,792 14,960 14,960 8,768 287,000 - Total Revenue 3,148 161,630 74,491 283,557 114,487 108,570 241,428 156,896 224,281 145,451 95,871 18,059 1,965,413 337,543 Expenses Compensation & Benefits 26,698 73,922 107,737 143,789 103,447 103,447 106,912 103,880 103,880 101,418 101,418 92,732 1,169,280 - Books & Supplies 3,576 33,723 15,067 27,193 7,102 7,102 7,102 7,102 7,102 7,102 7,102 7,102 136,378 - Services & Other Operating Expenses 39,596 18,601 33,430 87,675 47,069 47,345 65,116 50,447 50,208 60,192 48,482 46,313 609,144 14,669 Capital Outlay - 9,500 - (5,750) - 3,750 - - 3,750 - - 3,750 15,000 - Total Expenses 69,870 135,747 156,234 252,907 157,619 161,645 179,131 161,430 164,940 168,712 157,002 149,898 1,929,802 14,669 Operating Cash Inflow (Outflow) (66,722) 25,883 (81,743) 30,650 (43,132) (53,075) 62,298 (4,533) 59,341 (23,261) (61,130) (131,840) 35,610 322,874 Revenues - Prior Year Accruals 172,421 - 83,746 - 20,165 - 24,903 - - - - - Expenses - Prior Year Accruals (66) - - - - - (7,898) - - - - - Accounts Receivable - Current Year - - - - - - - - - - - - Accounts Payable - Current Year (21,648) 24,161 (25,890) - - - - - - - - - Summerholdback for Teachers - - - - - - - - - - - - Loans Payable (Current) - - - - - - - - - - - - Loans Payable (Long Term) - - - (10,417) (10,417) (10,417) (10,417) (10,417) (10,417) - - - Ending Cash 286,761 337,961 314,073 334,306 300,923 237,432 306,317 291,367 340,292 317,031 255,901 124,061 Board of Directors Thursday, October 24th, 2013 AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION Agenda Item Principal Report Time Allotted 20 minutes Summary Principal Ross has provided a written update on: 1. Anticipated expenditures 2. School-wide discipline 3. Tone of parent communications to staff 4. New Writing Rubric and Writing Assignments 5. New Report Cards 6. New Teacher Support and Evaluation System PAG co-presidents, Christine Wu Dittmar and Eva Chiu, will provide an update on PAG activities. Type Information only Background None Key Questions • What suggestions does the Board have for dealing with accusatory parent emails? • Does the new Teacher Support & Evaluation System need to be Board-approved? Attachments • Teacher Support & Evaluation Process (draft) • Instructional Rubric (draft) • Formal Observation Process (draft) • K-2 student survey (draft) • Gr3-5 student survey (draft) To: Board of Directors From: Laura Ross, Principal Date: October 20th, 2013 RE: Principal Update for October 24th Board meeting This update provides information on the following topics: 1. Anticipated Expenditures 2. School-wide discipline 3. Tone of parent communications to staff 4. New Writing Rubric and Writing Assignments 5. New Report Cards 6. New Teacher Support and Evaluation 1. Anticipated Expenditures Instructional Materials I have increased the budget for textbooks and reading materials by $10,000. We are investing heavily this year in enrichment materials for the project-based units by buying 20-50 non-fiction texts for each trimester. Some have already arrived and others are on their way. In addition grade 1 were able to identify some nice leveled readers good for improving reading fluency in Mandarin and we ordered Time Magazine for grade 1 up. These investments are essential toward increasing exposure to non-fiction for elementary in line with the Common Core. Hiring another TA We currently have 3 TAs but I would like to increase this to 4, which would equate to 1 TA per grade. Currently 2 of our TAs have substantial amounts of time taken with individual students and as such support for teachers is not as much as anticipated prior to the start of the year. I interviewed a teacher with a credential, fluent in Mandarin but with limited experience. I believe would make a fantastic TA and we could use her as a substitute when necessary because she has a credential. We are currently around 7K up due to not hiring a Curriculum Director and for every month we have not hired one we gain around 4K from the budget so I believe we are likely to have the money for this. Recess Duty Currently every member of staff is on duty at least once every day yet it still does not feel like we have enough adults to properly monitor the students (2-3 adults per play area for most times). I intend to make a request to parents. If we are unable to get enough then I plan to offer to pay a basic wage. I will give training to the new volunteers/ employees. 2. School-wide Discipline The Responsive Classroom training is going well, teachers are engaged and open to the strategies and language incorporated into the positive behavior philosophy. However, this is taking place slowly and in the meantime I feel that there is a need to make more substantial and quick changes- in particular as it relates to recess and lunch behavior policy. I have shared the current code of conduct with teachers and am in the process of getting feedback. It is generally agreed that there needs to be more detail about what type of incidents should lead to referral and which should be handled in the classroom. I plan to share this new document with the board at the next board meeting. We have also taken other steps; conducted a lunch volunteer training; developing a ‘shared language’ framework for discipline; reaching out for more volunteers at recess; painting line up numbers on the Blacktop and a ‘red zone’ which will act as a timeout during recess for inappropriate play. 3. Tone of parent communications to staff I am increasingly concerned about the tone of some parent communications to our staff. Teachers and myself are regularly receiving emails from parents that are accusatory and authoritarian in tone. The emails often make unreasonable demands and use heightened language like ‘bullying’ (which is only occasionally appropriately used) and include direct or indirect threats of legal action. The emails are resulting in a lot of stress to members of staff and consuming a lot of energy and time in drafting responses. Although I believe it is important for parents to feel they have access to staff I feel that in far too many cases the benefit of the doubt is not being given to staff. Rather than assuming they handled a situation effectively or did not know an incident had occurred, the assumption is that they either mishandled it or did nothing at all. I am concerned that this will have long-term consequences on staff retention. I would welcome suggestions from the board on how to address this. 4. New Writing Rubric and Writing Assignments We are in the process of making standardized writing rubric across each grade level for narrative, explanatory and argument writing. We have used the ELA Lucy Caulkin CCSS aligned rubric as a starting point and have used our own MLA standards to adapt these for Mandarin. At the same time we are developing our first end of trimester writing assignments. These will be delivered to students in around 2 weeks. Assignments will be marked at each grade level in teams and benchmarked as a whole school on the following Friday early dismissal PD. The results will be shared with parents at the first parent teacher conference. 5. New Report Cards We are developing new report cards appropriate for use with the CCSS. We are considering a move away from standards based report cards because with the new CCSS, which are both broader but require more detail, this would be hard to do (for example in grade 3 for ELA we counted more than 40 strands). The Education Committee is helping by providing comments on a couple of examples of more generalized approaches and providing more. However, I anticipate that the report may change a little throughout the year. In addition we will need to consider how to measure ‘Life Skills’ and incorporate these into the report cards. 6. New Teacher Support and Evaluation System I am currently working, with the support of the Education Committee on piloting a Teacher Support and Evaluation system for this academic year. (See attached for initial drafts) Following on from last Friday’s meeting with the Education Committee I will be making some changes to the documents and will then share these with the teachers for feedback. It is important to get teachers engaged in this process and to have their buy in. The focus in this first year will be entirely on support. Yu Ming Charter School Teacher Support and Evaluation Plan 2013-2014 Contents 1. Introduction, Overview & Goals 2. Components 3. Rolling out 4. Supports & Rewards 5. Key Questions Introduction, Overview & Goals Yu Ming Charter School is now in its third year of operation. The mission of the school is To provide a rigorous college preparatory program To graduate students who are bilingual in English and Mandarin Chinese To nurture curiosity, international perspective and diligence in attaining personal goals To develop compassionate individuals with sound moral character and respect for community/environment In order to ensure the school succeeds in our mission and that students graduate bilingual and biliterate in Chinese and English and career and college ready, we must provide our teachers with a Teacher Support and Evaluation System that enables them to become highly effective classroom teachers . Many of the components of this plan come from the College Ready Promise (TCRP) and have been used over the last few years at 4 CMOs across California, including Aspire, with whom we consulted when devising the plan. The rationale for using these materials was twofold: 1. To make use of well researched and existing materials that can be tailored to fit our educational model; and 2. To benefit from the experience and expertise of Aspire CMO, who are local and are willing to provide knowledge and information to support us. They began working on TCRP in 2009. Goals: To provide meaningful and useful feedback to teachers To provide supporting tools aligned to teachers’ needs that enable them to grow professionally To establish a culture in which feedback is welcomed and continual growth and development is the norm To create a process that it consistent, fair and clear to all staff Yu Ming Charter School Teacher Support and Evaluation Plan 2013-2014 Components A strong Teacher Support and Evaluation plan uses multiple measures for teacher effectiveness. This plan includes the following components Observations and Feedback Student and Parent surveys Student growth data School-wide growth Multiple Measures 40% - Observations (Formal & "Mini") 30% - Individual Student Growth 10% - School Student Growth 15% - Student Survey 5% - Parent Survey Teacher Effectiveness Rubric The rubric we will use is known as ‘The College Ready Teaching Framework’. It has four domains 1. Data Driven Planning and Assessment 2. Classroom and Learning Environment 3. Instruction 4. Professional Contributions Observations will be used to measure domains 1-3 Student Surveys will be used to measure domains 2-3 Parent survey will be used to measure domain 4 See doc ‘YMCS Instructional Rubric (TCRP)’ Yu Ming Charter School Teacher Support and Evaluation Plan 2013-2014 Observations Throughout the year there will be 2 formal observations and 3 mini observations. The formal observations will last 40 minutes and the mini observations will last 15-20 minutes. Currently the Principal is responsible for conducting all the observations and may seek external support where necessary (in training and guidance as well as for the language of instruction). When the school hires a Curriculum Director this person will share the responsibility with the Principal. The formal observations will be in the first and last trimester of each year. Mini observations will be scheduled so that there is one per trimester. Two out of the three will be pre-arranged and will relate to goals set by the teacher in the pre observation conference. See doc ‘Formal Observation Process Overview’ Surveys Student Surveys will be given twice per year, once in the Fall and once in the Spring. Results in the Fall will be used to help teachers determine SMART goals aligned to the rubric. The results in the Spring will allow both teacher and Principal to measure improvement against those goals according to the students. Parent surveys will be conducted in April/ May of each year. The results will be used to help inform teachers’ decisions for the following year, particularly in regard to mode, frequency and style of communication. See docs ‘K-2 Student Survey’ and ‘3-5’ Student Survey Student and School Growth measures NB This will change over time as the age of our students increases, new state tests replace old ones and the school becomes more mature. In addition, whilst the school is small collecting and analyzing the data will be a challenge. Grades K-1 As there are no mandated tests for these grade levels measuring student growth over the year will be a challenge. Currently we use ELLOPA to assess students’ oral proficiency in Mandarin Chinese; and intend to take the students’ scores at the end of their previous year and map these against the scores at the end of their current year to track their progress. In ELA we currently use DIBELS, which we assess at 3 times throughout the year. Aspire uses the DRA. We will consider a move to the DRA or MAP (the latter measures both Math and ELA). Grades 2 and up We will have state mandated standardized test scores to track student growth in core subjects from grade 2 up. However, given the current transition from CSTs to SBAC there may be some years where data is not available or not reliable. In light of this we will need to employ the same techniques as with the lower grade levels for at least a couple of years. School wide growth will be measured in two ways, through ELLOPA and through STAR. Yu Ming Charter School Teacher Support and Evaluation Plan 2013-2014 Rolling Out The graphic below provides an outline of the process throughout the year. Trimester 1 •August/September: Initial assessments & data collection from prior year 'end of year assessments' •October: Principal & Teacher conferences (1) Goal setting and formal observation preparation •November: Formal observations and feedback (1) Trimester 2 •December: Student surveys (1) •December: Mini observations and feedback (1) •February: Mini observations and feedback (2) Trimester 3 •April: Parent surveys distributed •May: Student surveys (2) •May: Formal Observation and feedback (2) •May: End of year internal assessments & STAR •June: Combine data to provide student growth •June: Mini Observations and feedback/ final teacher principal conference Supports and Rewards Observation feedback and conference times will be an opportunity to check in with teachers; assess areas of strength and development and establish where they need support. Goals set at the beginning of the year will be refined accordingly and tools for support suggested. These could include any of the following: External professional development opportunities Assignments based on Doug Lemov’s Teach Like a Champion video series or Lee Canter’s Classroom Management Targeted use of videos from ‘Teacher’s TV’ Peer observations Follow up observations and meetings with Principal as necessary Use of Bloomboard (should we choose to subscribe) Rewards are yet to be determined but could include a bonus tied to performance or stipends for increased responsibilities (i.e. ‘Lead Teachers’). Yu Ming Charter School Teacher Support and Evaluation Plan 2013-2014 Key Questions Student Growth indicators: With limited resources and staff, how do we devise a measure for student growth that is reliable and not labor intensive? This is especially true for K-1 which does not have state mandated tests but in the next few years may also be true for grades 2 and up because of the transition to SBAC from CSTs. Does the structure of 2 formal observations and 3 mini observations strike the right balance? Would it be more effective to have more mini observations and less formal observations? Which is the best way to get an accurate picture but also promote the importance of a thorough planning process and reflection? Teaching staff will grow by approximately 3 members per year for the next 5 years (we currently have a core teaching staff of 10 with 1 reading coach and 3 TAs). As the staff grows how sustainable is the above outline? Does somebody else need to assist with the observations? Should the Principal get ‘observation training’? Where from? How/ should the results from this process be linked to rewards? Given that this will be the first year of implementation and we are still a young school I would like to put the emphasis on ‘support’ rather than ‘evaluation’. How can I do that but still create a culture that welcomes feedback? Should we use the same descriptors as Aspire ‘Entering, emerging, effective, highly effective and Master’? How can you set norms around placement on this (i.e. so that only very few would expect to be Master teacher vs. all staff)? What other tools for support should be offered that aren’t included here? Is there a good way to formalize the support process and incorporate into this outline? How should teachers be brought into the process so they feel invested in the plan as well? How should the plan, once finalized be shared with staff and then with parents? Should videos of peer teaching be used rather than peer observation? Whilst this is an effective tool for teacher support and growth it is also a controversial one. How can an atmosphere conducive to filming each other’s classrooms be created? What is the best way to introduce peer video? Should we subscribe to Bloomboard? What needs to be in place (other than extra time!) to ensure teachers make use of such a resource? Yu Ming Charter School Instructional Rubric (YIR) Domain 1: Data-Driven Planning and Assessment The College- Standards Indicators Ready Teaching A) Selection of learning objectives Framework 1.1 Establish standards-based learning objectives and assessments B) Measurability of learning objectives through -2014 2013 summative assessments A) Designing and sequencing of learning experiences 1.2 Organize instructional plans to promote standards- based, cognitively engaging learning for students B) Creating cognitively engaging learning experiences for students 1.3 Use student data to guide planning A) Lesson design guided by data A) Knowledge of subject matter to identify pre-requisite 1.4 Use knowledge of subject matter content/skills and knowledge and skills learning processes to plan for student learning B) Addresses common content misconceptions A) Selection and progression of formative assessments 1.5 Design assessments to ensure student mastery B) Planned response to assessment data Domain 2: Classroom Learning Environment 2.1 Create a classroom/community culture of learning A) Value of effort and challenge 2.2 Manage student behavior through clear expectations A) Behavioral expectations and a balance of positive reinforcement, feedback, and redirection B) Response to behavior 2.3 Establish a culture of respect and rapport which A) Interactions between teacher and students supports students’ emotional safety B) Student interactions with each other 2.4 Use smooth and efficient routines, procedures, and A) Routines, procedures, and transitions transitions to maintain instructional momentum Domain 3: Instruction A) Communication of the learning objectives of the lesson 3.1 Communicate learning objectives to students B) Connections to prior and future learning experiences C) Criteria for success A) Executes lesson cycle 3.2 Facilitates Instructional Cycle B) Cognitive level of student learning experiences A) Questioning B) Academic discourse 3.3 Implementation of instructional strategies C) Group structures D) Resources and instructional materials A) Checking for understanding and adjusting instruction 3.4 Monitoring student learning during instruction B) Feedback to students C) Self-monitoring Domain 4: Professional Contributions A) Accuracy 4.1 Engage in critical reflection, constantly revising B) Use in future planning practice to increase effectiveness C) Acceptance of feedback A) Participation in a professional community 4.2 Engage in collaborative relationships with peers to learn and share best practices and ensure continuity B) Professional development in student learning C) Shared commitment 4.3 Uphold and exhibit the Yu Ming norms and A) Norms described by school / YMCS handbooks expectations 4.4 Develop two-way communication with families about A) Initiation of meaningful communication student learning and achievement B) Responsiveness to parent inquiries and communication 4.5 Engage in collaborative relationships with families to A) Inclusion of the family as a partner in learning decisions support their child's success and college readiness 2 Domain 1: Data-Driven Planning and Assessment Standard Indicators Level I Level II Level III Level IV Learning objective(s) are Learning objective(s) are missing Learning objective(s) include both missing a specific level of either a specific level of cognition specific levels of cognition and All of level 3 and... cognition or content. or content. A) Selection of content. Learning objective(s) exceed AND OR learning AND level of cognition or increase 1.1 Learning objective(s) are Learning objective(s) are objectives Learning objective(s) are aligned level of challenge required by Establish misaligned (do not progress misaligned (do not progress to and progress toward mastery content standards. toward mastery of content toward mastery of content standards-based of content standards. standards). standards). learning Learning objective(s) are Learning objective(s) are objectives and B) Measurability measureable. measureable. of learning All of level 3 and... assessments Learning objective(s) are not AND AND objectives Achievement of learning measureable. Achievement of learning Achievement of learning through objective(s) is measured by objective(s) is measured by objective(s) is measured by summative multiple methods. general criteria (quantitative or specific criteria (quantitative or assessments qualitative). qualitative). The design of the learning The design of the learning The design of the learning experiences is not aligned to experiences is not aligned to the experiences is aligned to the the learning objective(s). learning objective(s). learning objective(s). AND All of level 3 and... A) Designing and OR AND 1.2 Learning experiences are not The design of the learning sequencing of Learning experiences are not The design of the learning Organize sequenced to enable students experiences is differentiated to learning sequenced to enable students to experiences is sequenced to instructional to demonstrate independent meet the needs of subgroups experiences demonstrate independent enable students to demonstrate mastery of the learning of students. plans to promote mastery of the learning independent mastery of the objective(s) through the standards-based, objective(s) through the gradual learning objective(s) through the gradual release of cognitively release of responsibility. gradual release of responsibility. responsibility. engaging learning Instructional plans include Instructional plans include B) Creating Instructional plans do not All of level 3 and... for students cognitively provide opportunity for cognitively engaging learning cognitively engaging learning Instructional plans provide experiences but without experiences throughout the engaging learning cognitively engaging learning differentiated, cognitively appropriate time and support lesson cycle, and each learning experiences for experiences throughout the engaging learning experiences throughout the lesson cycle. experience provides appropriate students lesson cycle. for subgroups of students. time and support. The teacher uses student data to The teacher uses student data to inform planning of content inform planning of content 1.3 organization or instructional organization and instructional All of level 3 and... The teacher does not use A) Lesson design strategies. strategies. The teacher cites instructional Use student data student data to guide or OR AND strategies to meet the needs of guided by data to guide planning inform planning. The teacher uses student data to The teacher uses student data to individual students. inform planning that meets the inform planning that meets the needs of the whole class. needs of subgroups of students. 3 Domain 1: Data-Driven Planning and Assessment Standard Indicators Level I Level II Level III Level IV The teacher does not accurately The teacher accurately identifies The teacher accurately identifies identify or address the the prerequisite knowledge and the prerequisite knowledge and prerequisite knowledge and skills skills to achieve the skills to achieve the A) Knowledge of to achieve the standard/learning standard/learning objective(s). standard/learning objective(s). 1.4 objective(s). subject matter to AND AND All of level 3 and... Use knowledge OR identify pre- The teacher includes The teacher includes The teacher uses knowledge The teacher does not include of subject requisite opportunities to activate opportunities to activate to address potential gaps for opportunities to activate matter knowledge and prerequisite knowledge. prerequisite knowledge. individual students. prerequisite knowledge. content/skills skills AND AND OR The teacher includes strategies The teacher includes strategies to and learning The teacher does not include to address potential gaps for address potential gaps for processes to strategies to address potential whole groups of students. subgroups of students. plan for student gaps for whole group of students. learning The teacher does not anticipate The teacher anticipates common The teacher anticipates common All of level 3 and... common student misconceptions student misconceptions but does student misconceptions and The teacher includes B) Addresses and does not include strategies to not include strategies to ensure includes strategies that ensure opportunities for students to common content ensure students recognize and students recognize and address students recognize and address uncover and correct their misconceptions address these misconceptions to these misconceptions to master these misconceptions to master own additional master the standard/learning the standard/learning the standard/learning misconceptions. objective(s). objective(s). objective(s). A variety of formative The formative assessments are assessments are selected to yield inconsistently aligned to the Formative assessments are not actionable data about progress learning objective(s). All of level 3 and… aligned to the learning toward mastery of the learning A) Selection and OR The formative assessments objective(s). objective(s). progression of Formative assessments do not are differentiated to yield OR AND formative yield actionable data. actionable data about 1.5 assessments Formative assessments are not OR Formative assessments are subgroups of students. Design planned. planned for different components Formative assessments are assessments to of the lesson cycle, progressing planned for a single component toward student mastery of the ensure student of the lesson cycle. learning objective(s). mastery All of level 3 and… The teacher provides opportunities for students to B) Planned The teacher has not planned a The teacher inconsistently plans The teacher plans to adjust use formative assessments to response to response to data from formative responses to data from instruction based on the data reflect on current progress assessment data assessments. formative assessments. from each formative assessment. toward the learning objective(s) or to determine next steps to extend learning. 4 Domain 2: The Classroom Learning Environment Standard Indicators Level I Level II Level III Level IV The teacher’s words and All of level 3 and... 2.1 The teacher’s words and actions provide little or no The teacher’s words and actions Students assume Creates a actions promote belief in encouragement for emphasize compliance and responsibility or take student ability and high classroom/ A) Value of effort academic learning or convey completion of work. Students seek initiative for producing high expectations for student effort. community and challenge low expectations for student to complete tasks without quality work, holding Students consistently expend culture of effort. Students do not consistent focus on learning or themselves, and each other, effort to learn and persist in learning consistently persist in persistence toward quality work. to high standards of producing high quality work. completing assigned work. performance. The teacher has established It is evident that the teacher The teacher inconsistently The teacher consistently clear, high standards for did not teach standards for communicates standards for communicates clear, high student behavior. student behavior. student behavior. standards for student behavior. Without being prompted, A) Behavioral 2.2 OR OR AND students articulate or expectations Manage student Student behavior does not Student behavior inconsistently Student behavior consistently promote behavioral behavior through contribute to an academic contributes to an academic contributes to an academic expectations that support clear environment. environment. environment. the classroom’s academic environment. expectations and The teacher’s verbal or non-verbal a balance of response to student behavior is positive The teacher’s verbal or non- The teacher does not inconsistent. reinforcement, verbal response to student respond to misbehavior OR All of level 3 and... feedback, and behavior is consistent, B) Response to when necessary, or the Teacher’s verbal or non-verbal Students appropriately respectful, proactive, and redirection behavior response is repressive or response is focused on the whole- respond to or redirect each includes redirection, feedback disrespectful of student class. other’s behavior. or positive reinforcement to dignity. OR specific students. Teacher emphasizes consequences over positive reinforcement. 5 Domain 2: The Classroom Learning Environment Standard Indicators Level I Level II Level III Level IV The teacher’s interactions The teacher’s interactions with The teacher’s interactions with with some students are students inconsistently students are respectful, negative, demeaning, or demonstrate respect and All of level 3 and… 2.3 positive, and appropriate for A) Interactions inappropriate to the age and positivity, or are not consistently The teacher’s interactions Establish a the age and needs of the between teacher needs of the students in the appropriate for the age and needs demonstrate a positive students in the class. culture of respect and students class. of students in the class. rapport with individual AND and rapport OR OR students. Students exhibit respect for the which supports Students exhibit disrespect Students inconsistently exhibit teacher. students’ for the teacher. respect for the teacher. emotional safety Student interactions are Student interactions are generally B) Student Student interactions are polite All of level 3 and... impolite and disrespectful, polite and respectful, but students interactions with and respectful, and students Students encourage each which interferes with do not support each other’s each other support each other’s learning. other individually. learning for some students. learning. 2.4 The teacher has not The teacher has established some Use smooth and The teacher has established All of level 3 and... established or does not routines, procedures, and and enforces routines, With minimal prompting, efficient A) Routines, enforce routines, transitions; however, some may procedures, and transitions students effectively facilitate routines, procedures, and procedures, and transitions, be missing or inconsistently that maximize instructional some routines, procedures, procedures, and transitions resulting in a loss of enforced, resulting in the loss of time. and transitions. transitions instructional time. instructional time. 6 Domain 3: Instruction Standard Indicators Level I Level II Level III Level IV The teacher explains the learning objective(s) but does The teacher explains the A) Communication not refer to the objective(s) learning objective(s) and refers All of level 3 and... The teacher does not of the learning throughout the lesson. back to it throughout the lesson. Students are able to articulate explain the learning objectives of the OR AND the relevance of the learning objective(s). lesson Students cannot articulate Students are able to articulate objective. what they are expected to what they are expected to learn. learn. The teacher makes connections The teacher facilitates as 3.1 The teacher makes connections The teacher makes limited between the current learning students build connections between the current learning Communicate B) Connections to connections between objective(s) and the students’ between the current learning objective(s) and the students’ learning prior and future current learning prior and future learning to objective(s) and their prior and prior or future learning. objectives to learning objective(s) and the further student understanding future learning. Students Connections are vague or students experiences students’ prior or future of the content material within make explicit connections based on connections to learning. or outside of the discipline or within or outside of the assessments and grades. unit. discipline or unit. The teacher clearly articulates the criteria for successfully The teacher mentions but does All of level 3 and... The teacher does not demonstrating attainment of the not clearly explain the criteria The teacher solicits student establish criteria for lesson objective(s). C) Criteria for for successfully demonstrating discussion to define or affirm successfully demonstrating AND success attainment of the learning the criteria for successfully attainment of the learning Students are able to articulate objective(s). demonstrating attainment of objective(s). the criteria for successfully the learning objective(s). demonstrating attainment of the learning objective(s). 7 Domain 3: Instruction Standard Indicators Level I Level II Level III Level IV The teacher executes a The teacher executes a lesson lesson cycle that is The teacher executes an cycle that is inappropriately All of level 3 and... inappropriately paced. appropriately paced lesson paced. To address the learning needs of A) Executes OR cycle that gradually releases AND subgroups, the teacher adapts the lesson cycle The teacher does not responsibility so that students The teacher does not execute pacing or the release of execute a lesson cycle that can independently master the a lesson cycle that gradually responsibility. 3.2 gradually releases learning objective(s). releases responsibility. responsibility. Facilitates Learning experiences Instructional Learning experiences are not Some learning experiences throughout the lesson cycle Cycle cognitively engaging. are cognitively engaging. All of level 3 and... are cognitively engaging. B) Cognitive level OR OR Learning experiences require AND of student Learning experiences do not Some learning experiences student thinking that exceeds the Learning experiences learning match the level of rigor match the level of rigor level of cognition or increases the consistently match the level of experiences required to attain mastery of required to attain mastery of level of challenge required by the rigor required to attain the standard/learning the standard/learning standard/learning objective(s). mastery of the objective(s). objective(s). standard/learning objective(s). 8 Domain 3: Instruction Standard Indicators Level I Level II Level III Level IV Many questions posed by The teacher poses questions to a All of Level 3 and… The teacher poses questions to the teacher do not move wide range of students that are Students pose questions a small number of students in student thinking toward scaffolded toward cognitive that require cognitive the class. mastery of the learning challenge and mastery of the challenge. OR objective(s). learning objective(s). OR A) Questioning The teacher inconsistently OR AND Students initiate scaffolds questions toward Most of the questions The teacher uses strategies to questions to further cognitive challenge and posed by the teacher enable students to correctly other students’ mastery of the learning require little cognitive answer questions and extend or understanding of the objective(s). challenge. justify their thinking. content. The teacher does not require The teacher inconsistently students to use the language of requires students in whole class Students facilitate whole The teacher facilitates conversations the discipline, discuss or small group conversations to class or small group in whole class and small group academic ideas, or justify their use the language of the discipline, discussions and consistently B) Academic settings that require all students to reasoning. discuss academic ideas, or justify use the language of the Discourse consistently use the language of the OR their reasoning. discipline, discuss academic discipline, discuss academic ideas, The teacher provides minimal OR ideas, and justify their 3.3 and justify their reasoning. opportunities for student Academic discourse is limited to a reasoning. Implementation discussion. small number of students. of instructional All of level 3 and... strategies The teacher differentiates The structure and size of grouping The structure and size of grouping grouping arrangements in arrangements inconsistently arrangements move students order to maximize learning move students toward mastery of The structure and size of toward mastery of the learning for individual students. C) Group the learning objective(s). grouping arrangements do not objective(s). Students rely on each other structures OR move students toward mastery AND to work through challenging Students inconsistently of the learning objective(s). Students actively participate within activities and hold participate within all group all group structures. themselves and each other structures. accountable for individual or group work. Resources and instructional All of level 3 and... Resources and instructional Resources and instructional materials materials are unsuitable to the Resources and instructional D) Resources and materials are partially suitable to are suitable to the lesson lesson objective(s), distract materials require cognitive instructional the lesson objective(s). Resources objective(s), support attainment of from or interfere with student engagement. Students materials and materials only partially the learning objective(s), and learning, or do not promote choose, adapt, or create promote cognitive engagement. promote cognitive engagement. cognitive engagement. materials to extend learning. 9 Domain 3: Instruction Standard Indicators Level I Level II Level III Level IV The teacher inconsistently The teacher checks for checks for understanding understanding using varied throughout the lesson cycle. techniques throughout the All of level 3 and... The teacher does not check for OR lesson cycle to yield The teacher implements students’ understanding of the The checks do not yield A) Checking for actionable data on students’ differentiated instruction and learning objectives during the actionable data on students’ understanding progress toward the learning continued checks for lesson. progress toward the learning and adjusting objective(s). understanding based on the OR objective(s). instruction AND progress of subgroups toward The teacher does not adjust OR The teacher adjusts mastery of the learning instruction based on the data. The teacher inconsistently or instruction based on the data objective(s). ineffectively adjusts to meet students’ learning instruction based on the needs. 3.4 data. The teacher provides Monitoring The teacher provides feedback throughout the student learning The teacher does not provide feedback but not throughout lesson cycle that is specific during feedback to students. the lesson cycle. and timely. All of level 3 and... instruction B) Feedback to OR OR AND Students provide specific students Feedback does not advance Feedback inconsistently Feedback consistently feedback to one another. students toward mastery of advances students toward advances students toward the learning objective(s). attainment of the learning attainment of the learning objective(s). objective(s). Students assess their work Students assess and monitor with an emphasis on the quality of their own work completion rather than against the learning All of level 3 and... C) Self- Student self-monitoring is not progress toward the learning objective(s) and success Students determine appropriate monitoring evident. objective(s). criteria. next steps for improving their OR AND learning. Students cannot justify their Students are able to justify self-assessment. their self-assessment. 10 Domain 4: Professional Contributions Standard Indicators Level I Level II Level III Level IV The teacher makes a detailed and The teacher does not know the The teacher makes an accurate The teacher has a generally accurate assessment of a lesson’s degree to which a lesson was assessment of a lesson’s accurate impression of a effectiveness and success in effective or achieved its effectiveness and success in A) Accuracy lesson’s effectiveness and achieving the instructional goals, instructional goals, or profoundly meeting the instructional goals, success in meeting the citing specific data and weighing misjudges the success of a citing general data to support 4.1 instructional goals. the relative strengths of each data lesson. the judgment. Engage in critical source. reflection, The teacher makes several specific B) Use in future The teacher has limited The teacher makes general The teacher makes specific suggestions about how the lesson constantly planning suggestions for how the lesson suggestions about how the suggestions about how the could be improved and predicts revising practice could be improved. lesson could be improved. lesson could be improved. how the improvements will to increase advance student learning. effectiveness The teacher welcomes feedback The teacher is resistant to The teacher accepts feedback The teacher welcomes from supervisors and colleagues, feedback from supervisors or from supervisors and C) Acceptance of feedback from supervisors and uses the feedback to improve colleagues and/or does not use colleagues but may/may not feedback colleagues and uses the practice, and seeks further the feedback to improve use the feedback to improve feedback to improve practice. feedback on what has been practice. practice. implemented. The teacher avoids participating The teacher actively The teacher makes a substantial The teacher participates in in the professional community participates in the professional contribution to the professional A) Participation in professional community activities or has strained community by developing community by assuming a professional activities as required, relationships with colleagues positive and productive appropriate leadership roles and 4.2 community maintaining cordial that negatively impact the professional relationships with promoting positive and relationships with colleagues. Engage in learning community. colleagues. professional relationships. collaborative Beyond active participation and relationships The teacher actively engages in strategic application of required The teacher resists applying The teacher applies learning with peers to professional development professional development, the learning gained from gained from professional learn and share B) Professional opportunities and strategically teacher seeks additional learning professional development development activities, and development applies the learning gained to opportunities based on individual best practices activities and does not share makes limited contributions to practice. The teacher willingly need. The teacher initiates and and ensure knowledge with colleagues. others or the profession. shares expertise with others. willingly shares expertise with continuity in others. student learning The teacher assumes a leadership The teacher demonstrates little The teacher contributes to and The teacher adheres to shared role in contributing to, endorsing, C) Shared commitment to supporting actively endorses shared agreements that support and encouraging others to commitment shared agreements that support agreements that support student learning. embrace the shared agreements student learning. student learning. that support student learning. 11 Domain 4: Professional Contributions Standard Indicators Level I Level II Level III Level IV 4.3 Uphold and The teacher assumes a leadership A) Norms The teacher inconsistently The teacher complies with The teacher fully supports and role in modeling school policies exhibit YMCS described by complies with school policies school policies and timelines, complies with school policies and timelines and encourages norms and school/ handbooks and timelines. doing just enough to “get by.” and timelines. others to support them. expectations The teacher promotes frequent The teacher provides minimal The teacher adheres to the The teacher initiates two-way communication with A) Initiation of information to parents about school’s required procedures communication with parents parents to improve student meaningful individual students, and/or the for communicating with about students’ progress on a 4.4 learning. Students contribute to the communication communication is inappropriate families with an awareness of regular basis, respecting cultural Develop two-way design and/or communication of to the cultures of the families. cultural norms. norms. communication the system. with families about student The teacher responds to parent The teacher responds to parent B) Responsiveness The teacher does not respond, or learning and concerns in a superficial or The teacher responds to parent concerns in a pro-active, timely to parent inquiries regularly responds insensitively cursory manner, or responses concerns in a timely and manner and handles this achievement and to parent concerns about may reflect occasional culturally respectful manner. communication with great communication students. insensitivity. professional and cultural sensitivity. 4.5 The teacher works proactively and Engage in The teacher works collaboratively with the family and collaborative The teacher dictates collaboratively with the family The teacher does not work with student to define specific relationships A) Inclusion of the actions/strategies to support to define specific the family to define specific actions/strategies that will support family as a partner student’s academic success actions/strategies that will with families to in learning actions/strategies to support and college- readiness but support student’s academic student’s academic success and support their their child’s success and college- college- readiness and follows up decisions does not follow up with the success and college- readiness child's success readiness. with the family to ensure success. family to measure success. and follows up with the family Students initiate the use of and college to ensure success. strategies with their parents. readiness 12 YMCS: FORMAL OBSERVATION PROCESS OVERVIEW LESSON PLAN AND PRE-OBSERVATION CONFERENCE Teacher Role Observer Role Estimated Time • Prepares lesson • Listens 20-30 minutes in conference plan • Collects • Acts as primary evidence presenter Activity Purpose The teacher will share with the observer his or her planning for an upcoming lesson through an elaborated lesson plan and pre-observation conference so that the observer may gather evidence related to Domain 1. Prior to the conference 1. Teacher prepares presentation and submits a lesson plan for observer. Through the lesson plan and/or pre-conference conversation the teacher should address the questions and evidence below. At the conference Activity Overview 2. Observer hosts the conference. 3. Teacher presents and shares information with observer who collects evidence. After the conference 4. Observer and teacher individually review evidence and make preliminary ratings for Domain 1. Standards assessed Questions to address and evidence to gather 1.1 Establish standards-based How did you establish the learning objective(s) for your lesson? learning objectives for instructional plans What instructional strategies will be employed throughout the lesson? 1.2 Organize instructional plans to promote standards-based, o How do these strategies allow for a gradual release of cognitively engaging learning responsibility? (i.e. I do, we do, you do) for students o How do these strategies promote high levels of cognition? o How are your strategies differentiated for various student levels? How is this lesson being driven by student data? (may ask follow-up questions to have 1.3 Use student data to guide teacher explain how the lesson is differentiated for subgroups or individual students) planning 1.4 Use knowledge of subject How are you activating prior/pre-requisite knowledge in this lesson? matter content/skills and How have you planned to address common content misconceptions? learning processes to plan for student learning 1.5 Design assessments to ensure How will you know (throughout the lesson) whether students have attained or are student mastery on the track towards attaining the learning objective? CLASSROOM OBSERVATION Teacher Role Observer Role Estimated Time • Teaches lesson • Observes 30-45 minutes • Collects student • Collects evidence work Activity The observer will view a teacher’s lesson to understand how the teacher creates and maintains the classroom Purpose environment and delivers instruction. The observer will note both student and teacher experiences related to Domains 2 and 3. 1. Teacher teaches students. 2. Observer collects evidence by observing teacher and students and may speak with students Activity to gather additional evidence. Overview 3. Teacher collects student work samples for analysis. 4. Teacher and observer individually review evidence and make preliminary ratings for Domains 2 and 3. Standards Assessed Indicator evidence to gather Domain 2: Classroom Learning Environment 2.1 Create a classroom/community culture of learning A) Value of effort and challenge 2.2 Manage student behavior through clear expectations and A) Behavioral expectations a balance of positive reinforcement, feedback, and B) Response to behavior redirection 2.3 Establish a culture of respect and rapport which supports A) Interactions between teacher and students students’ emotional safety B) Student interactions with each other 2.4 Use smooth and efficient transitions, routines, and A) Routines, procedures, and transitions procedures to maintain instructional momentum Domain 3: Instruction A) Communication of the learning objectives of the lesson 3.1 Communicate learning objectives to students B) Connections to prior and future learning experiences C) Criteria for success A) Executes lesson cycle 3.2 Facilitates instructional cycle B) Cognitive level of student learning experiences A) Questioning B) Academic discourse 3.3 Implementation of instructional strategies C) Group structures D) Resources and instructional materials A) Checking for students’ understanding and adjusting instruction 3.4 During lesson, teacher makes effective instructional decisions based on formative assessments B) Feedback to students C) Self-Monitoring REFLECTION AND POST-OBSERVATION CONFERENCE Teacher Role Observer Role Estimated Time • Presents student work • Listens 45-60 minutes in and reflection • Collects evidence conference • Presents The teacher will share with the observer his or her assessment of student work and reflection on the Activity Purpose success of the lesson to develop additional evidence for Domain 4. The teacher and observer will discuss a few pre-selected indicators that they rated differently. The teacher and observer will begin to develop the teacher’s professional learning plan based on the observation evidence and ratings. 1. Teacher submits student work and reflection prior to conference. 2. Observer reviews student work and reflection, collecting evidence in Domain 4; makes preliminary ratings. Activity Overview 3. Observer and teacher individually compare ratings for all Domains prior to meeting and prioritize several indicators to discuss if they notice discrepancies between their ratings. Observer and teacher finalize all ratings. 4. Teacher and observer discuss next steps for the teacher’s professional growth. Standards assessed Questions to address and evidence to gather How do student work samples demonstrate that students have or have not achieved the learning objective(s)? How would you change your lesson plan A. Accuracy in the future to ensure that more students achieve the objective? How will you use this student data to inform your future lessons/other 4.1 Engage in B. Use in future plans? critical reflection, planning constantly revising practice to increase What are the two greatest insights you’ve gained from this experience? C. Acceptance of effectiveness Explain how you will translate these insights into future practice goals. feedback What supports will you need to guide you in reaching these goals? 2013-2014 YMCS K-2 Student Survey Questions K-2 Question YIR Indicator 1. Does your teacher tell your class how to behave in the 2.2A classroom? 2. Most of the time do students in your class behave and follow 2.2A/2.2B the rules? 3. When students in your class do not follow the rules, does 2.2B your teacher help them so they can behave better next time? 4. Does your teacher let your class know when you are doing a 2.2A/B good job following the rules? 5. Does your teacher make you feel that she or he really cares 2.3A about you? 6. Does your teacher listen to what you have to say when it is 2.3A your turn to speak in class? 7. Does your teacher help you feel better when you are upset? 2.3A 8. Do you feel you can ask your teacher for help when you need 2.1A, 2.3A it? 9. When students don’t understand something, does your 3.4B teacher try to help them understand it better? 10. Does your teacher show you how make your work better? 3.4B 11. Does your teacher ask you questions to make sure you 3.4A understand what you are learning? 12. In your class, does your teacher show you how to fix your 3.4B/C mistakes to do better next time? 2013-2014 YMCS 3‐5 Student Survey Questions 3‐5 Questions YIR Indicator 1. My teacher sets clear expectations for how we should behave in this class. Indicator 2.2A 2. Most of the time, my classmates behave the way my teacher expects them to. 2.2A 3. When students in this class misbehave, my teacher helps them to behave 2.2B better. 4. My teacher lets us know when we are doing a good job following expectations. 2.2A 5. In this class, my teacher makes me feel that he or she really cares about me. 2.3A 6. My teacher listens to what I have to say when it is time to share my ideas. 2.3A 7. My teacher helps me feel better when I am upset. 2.3A 8. I feel okay asking the teacher for help when I need it. 2.1A, 2.3A 9. Our class stays busy and doesn’t waste time. 2.4A 10. My teacher explains to us why we are learning something when we start a new 3.1A/B lesson. 11. My teacher gives us clear directions for our activities. 3.1C 12. I know what I am supposed to do in this class. 3.1A/3.1C 13. My teacher helps us remember what we have learned in this class. 3.1B 14. In this class, we learn a lot almost every day. 3.2A/B 15. I like the ways we learn in this class. 3.2A/B 16. I am learning new things in this class. 3.2B 17. When students don’t understand something, my teacher explains it another 3.4B way so that they will understand. 18. My teacher shows me how I can do better on my work. 3.4B 19. My teacher asks us questions to make sure we understand what we are 3.4A learning. 20. In this class we learn how to fix our mistakes. 3.4B/C Board of Directors Thursday, October 24, 2013 AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION Agenda Item Education Committee Discussion on Teacher Evaluation and Feedback Time Allotted 15 minutes Summary The Education Committee Reviewed the Teacher Feedback and Evaluation System the principal has proposed to use this year. Type Information Background Last year the Education Committee suggested we need a teacher feedback and evaluation system in place. Key Questions • Does the board need to approve the system Laura is piloting? • What questions do you have about it? Attachments • Notes from October 18, 2013 Education Committee meeting • Note: Draft documents from teacher support & evaluation system are included as part of the Principal report Yu Ming Education Committee Notes from October 18 Meeting 1 PM Ed Trust West Offices Present: Carina, Laura, Carrie, Rebecca, Hunter By Phone: Meng Hsiung, Marilyn Crawford Guests: David Steele, Hillsborough County Public Schools and Kelly Montes De Orca, former CAO for PUC Schools Welcome and Introductions Carina welcomed new members (Hunter Gatewood) and the guests. David and Kelly have specifically been invited because the discussion was about the teacher evaluation and feedback system that Laura is piloting this year. Discussion on Teacher Feedback and Evaluation Laura opened the discussion by reviewing her plan and posed some of the questions that she wanted feedback on. She is using a framework that is being used be five major CMOs that are part of the College Ready Promise. She described the advantages of using a framework someone else has used and the disadvantages. The group gave her the following advice: Instructional Framework • It is missing a focus on the assignment. It’s a common mistake and we should cross walk it with other rubrics that might get this right. Marilyn offered to provide examples and expertise to help fix this issue. Kelly agreed that it was a flaw in the rubric (she was part of the team that created it.) • The values of the school are not clear in the rubric. The CMOS that use this have a very different population. There is also nothing in the rubric that highlights bilingualism is core to the school. We might consider that in both the rubric and the student surveys. • Carina suggested Laura call Kevin and he might be more willing to talk about what they do with her especially if he has any items on the cultural competence issue that seems to be missing. Teacher Engagement in the Process/System • Kelly and David both agreed that they would not lead with a conversation about compensation. Let that happen later after the system is more stable. • Hunter concurred and said that you have to think of three types of information gathering: for research, for support and for evaluation. You have to separate those and be clear about that when you pilot this. • All agreed that making this a pilot year would be an important way to communicate this to teachers. • Kelly said it is important how you frame this work: to engage in CR instruction and what it looks like. • David said that they used video as a way to engage teachers in a peer to peer discussion. Student Surveys • Rebecca felt strongly that surveys did not reflect the values of the school and the language felt very much like “control” rather than “self-regulation” and that if we are asking students the wrong things. • Make sure you go into the survey saying what we want to learn. • Everyone liked the idea of using fall and spring administration of survey so that a teacher could make it actionable. • The group felt that there were not enough challenge questions in the student survey (that was the second most important indicator of effectiveness according to David after classroom management based on the MET work. Questions like: my teacher expects nothing less than full effort etc. We should go back and add those. • Look for trend analysis and don’t think about it question by question: teachers who had high control versus low challenge. We looked at it in cross tabs. This was very helpful according to Kelly. • Student survey: do you want to ask about identify culture of kids since it is a bilingual school? Rebecca felt strongly that was missing especially given the mission of the school and the group agreed. Measurement and Weights • Kelly suggested Laura consider student growth indicators like SLOs (student learning objectives) in non- tested areas. Growing movement around that work and these are teacher created. • We discussed the weight of the formal versus informal observations (split it 50/50). All of the observations would measure same domains. Kelly and David thought we might want to consider weighting the informal differently and focusing them on the goal areas that teachers might have set rather than looking at all the areas. • Mini observations could be weighted on different areas—varies by teacher based on needs. Be strategic from leader. • Might not make sense to do an average of all the domains. You might want more flexibility in the system so that if a teacher scores low on the first one, you actually weight the second one higher because they might show great progress. • Be clear that the expectation is a 3 and that 4 is way beyond what the average teacher can do, • Make the beginning year as much about support as you can. Eventually all mini observations are all unannounced. • David said that he had not found that you get much of a difference in the formal versus informal evaluations. Parents think they put on a show on the day of the formal evaluation and research doesn’t suggest that. There is consistency. • Do we have the right proficiency descriptors: Kelly said it is less about what you name them and more about how you talk about what it looks like. They are not all equal distance between the numbers. Set expectations that a 3 is what you really want. • David said they don’t use developing anymore because teachers hated it. Ask teachers to name them. Administrator Role and Making it Manageable • Think about frequency of process: do you need to do it every year? Maybe on two year cycles or self- guided learning process on off year… You don’t have to evaluate every teacher every year. You might create a system that looks at some teachers more frequently based on their needs. • What is teacher’s role in setting goals? And how do you tie it to the evaluation? You could link the goal setting to the mini observations. Be clear about it up front. • Consider the TAP model: use peer observers. Just for support. • Carina cautioned against using a board member as an observer. • Observation training is critical for anyone who does evaluations. The principal and others need to get trained. We did not talk about teacher supports strategy or professional development for teachers and will need to pick that back up at a future meeting. Quick Business The second half of the meeting focused on quick business and process improvement. We reviewed the dates of the meetings and the cadence/topics: th o Friday, December 13 (1-3pm) o Friday, February 14 (1-3pm) th o Friday, April 11 (1-3pm) th o Friday, June 13 (1-3pm) Carina also mentioned to the group what happened with the goals and promised to send them out to the committee. She highlighted a request from the Board chair for us to take on a discussion about a measurement system for the “cultural competence” that seems to be in the charter in the mission statement and the value. To provide a rigorous college prepatory program To graduate bilingual students in Mandarin Chinese To nurture curiosity, international perspective and diligence in attaining personal goals To develop compassionate individuals with sound moral character and respect for community/environment We agreed that life skills is the wrong word and discussed using cultural competence and “character”. The group agreed that it was too ambitious right now to take that on (Laura concurred later in the meeting) and that we needed to focus on getting some of the core parts of the education program stable first. Process Improvement Hunter described his background and walked us through a Process Improvement Model that he (and many others) use. We talked about how we might apply this immediately. The difference in this model and most continuous improvement models is that it is a much faster iteration (act, plan, study, do) cycle. • Laura said it was helpful and she could try it out with getting kids to self-regulate during lunch and recess. We walked through some next steps. • We could also try it out with the peer teachers/observation issue we discussed earlier. • Laura also asked if she could get feedback on standards based report cards. She’ll send two versions out to use but Hunter suggested she could use this as an example of the process improvement model if she used a few teachers and ten parents and gave them different versions of the report card to get feedback. Next Meeting The next meeting will be held. December 13 from 1-3. We will look at the writing assignments that will be used this year and the rubrics. Carina will likely ask some experts in that area to join us for that meeting. If we have time, we should discuss the professional development system and any feedback from Laura on the “process improvement” cycles she’s tried. Board of Directors Thursday, October 24, 2013 AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION Agenda Item Strategy Time Allotted 30 minutes Summary Vote on proposed goals for 2013/14 School Year Type Decision Background This is the culmination of a 2-month process to finalize goals for this school year. We drafted potential goals at the August Board retreat, we informed families about the goal setting process at meetings and e-newsletters, held several Q&A sessions with parents including one at the Oct 8 PAG meeting. This latest version integrates some suggestions made by parents. (In future years, this goal-setting process will ideally be done prior to the start of the school year!) Key Questions • What should be our targets for parent and staff NPS? • For student survey results? Attachments • 2013/14 Goals 2013-14 School Goals DRAFT Metric Baseline 2013-14 Target Notes Early Language Learning Oral Performance Assessment (ELLOPA) for K-2 evaluates four areas: Oral Fluency, Grammar, Vocabulary & Listening. The Student Oral Proficient Assessment Mandarin K = 96/96/96/100% K OF/G/V/L = 96/98/94/100 (SOPA) is a similar test for grades 3-8. We have set goals for Yu Proficiency: G1 = 95/95/95/100% G1 OF/G/V/L = 77/75/71/98 Ming students’ proficiency at each grade level, based on the goal ELLOPA & G2 = 85/85/85/100% G2 OF/G/V/L = 96/94/94/94 of reaching Advanced Low and Medium by G8. The levels are SOPA G3 = 96/96/96/100% defined by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL ) Proficiency Guidelines. (Note: Most immersion set a target of Intermediate.) 2012-13 In 2013, CA’s State Testing and Reporting (STAR) program will Math: NA NA 100% proficient or advanced test a new Common Core aligned assessment by Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), instead of using the previous 2012-13 English: NA NA CST test. Individual student and school scores will not be given 78% proficient or advanced this year. We are evaluating other ways to assess math and ELA. Student Outcomes CA will eventually update the formula for calculating Academic Performance Index, using the new test. In the meanwhile, they Overall: API 2012-13: 944 NA will continue to use the 2012-2013 API score as a placeholder. (The API is on scale of 200 to 1000.) Yu Ming is creating assessments for each trimester, which will K =80% Proficient include science and social studies content as well as application of Interdisciplinary G1=85% Proficient Mandarin and English language. They will be scored by teachers Writing None – new in 2013-2014 G2=90% Proficient based on a Common Core aligned rubric and reported to parents Assessments GR3=95% Proficient during parent/teacher conferences. In the long-run, we will seek to have these assessments research-validated. Unfortunately, we have yet to identify a reliable system for Mandarin testing student Mandarin reading proficiency. We are continuing None NA Reading to seek ways to use leveled texts to determine whether students are reading at grade level so that we can set goals in this area. This year we will explore different ways to assess “life skills” Character, described in our mission, specifically: Values & • To nurture curiosity, international perspective and diligence None NA Global in attaining personal goals Citizenship • To develop compassionate individuals with sound moral character and respect for community/environment In 2012-2013, we administered a pictoral survey to students K-2. Student We will be updating the survey this year, and G3 will probably get TBD Satisfaction a text survey based on the instruments designed by the Tripod Project at Harvard. In 2012-2013, staff requested an informal conversation rather than School Climate and Culture Staff None NPS = 30 a survey. Satisfaction: Parent Net Promoter Score (NPS) is a widely used consumer satisfaction NPS = 34 NPS = 45 Satisfaction: research question. Baseline is from the end-of-year parent survey NPS administered in June 2013. Based on a question to be added the anonymous end-of-year Parent 85% (self-report) 100% Yes parent survey: “Have you met the 30-hour volunteer requirement involvement for families at Yu Ming?” Based on the end-of-year parent survey: “Please indicate the Target area: 59% scoring 7+ on scale of 0-10; Valuing diversity at school: degree to which you agree that: Yu Ming values diversity of valuing diversity 10 is strongly agree 70% agree or strongly agree backgrounds.” Long Term goal: 100% Target area: Based on the end-of-year parent survey. “Please indicate the 45% scoring 7+ on scale of 0-10; Confidence in Leadership confidence in degree to which you agree that Yu Ming’s Board of Directors 10 is strongly agree 70% agree or strongly agree Leadership makes sound decisions about the direction of the school” Enrollment 100% 100% In the future, we may consider adding Wait List as a measure Based on calculated Average Daily Attendance (ADA), on which School Growth and Stability Attendance 97% 97% state and federal per pupil funding is based Our fund balance includes one-time start-up grant funds received Cash reserve 6/30/13 balance: 25% 6/30/14 balance: 10% in 2011 and 2012, which will be spent down over the next several years as we add a grade level each year. Adequate On track to secure next Based on current enrollment plans, we will outgrow our Alcatraz Yes facilities facility for 2015 Ave. space after 2014-15 school year Based on principal evaluation; applies to high-performing staff Staff Retention 75% 90% only. Community partnerships and relationships are critical to the Community TBD TBD school’s long term success. We are still in the process of building relations our community engagement strategy and metrics. Board of Directors Thursday, October 24, 2013 AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION Agenda Item Facility Committee Report Time Allotted 20 minutes Summary To share progress on facility scoping, budgeting and financing and discussion of next steps and timeline, including whether to authorize the committee to search for a facility for 2015 (K-8 and/or K-5) Type Discussion /action Background Yu Ming has secured the 1086 Alcatraz site through summer 2015 and plans to occupy this site until K-4. A longer-term plan to guide the school as we bridge from this facility to a permanent home for a K-8 school is under development by the Facility Committee in conjunction with Fund Development and Finance Committees. After the August board retreat next steps included: • financial modeling (what we can afford and by when) • identifying potential developers or funders to work with • stakeholder input from teachers and parents, particularly around the issue of one site vs. two sites • assessment of options with OUSD The attached report provides progress updates on recent activities. Key Questions • Are there any additional potential financing sources? If yes, who can explore them? • Based on progress to date, should Yu Ming engage a broker to begin searching for a site? K-8 and/or K-4 + 5-8 and/or K-5 + 6-8 • Who is responsible to move forward on financing opportunities? Attachments 2013-10-24 Report on Facility Committee Activities To: Board Of Directors From: Chrissy Schwinn, Chair, Facility Committee Date: October 24, 2013 RE: Update on Facility Committee activities Committee and Project Team Development: • Formed committee with 6 parent members (+ chair); all with relevant professional expertise for various stages of facility process • Establishing regular meeting and communications processes. Two meetings held; next meeting Oct 29 • Will provide bios as available • Still interested in additional committee members particularly in finance, development or construction experience Stakeholder Communications and Input • As reported at September meeting, provide information and gathered input from teachers and parents on high-level site specifications such as one site vs. two sites, pros/cons to current site, other concerns. • Information to be further quantified and incorporated as site specifications further developed. Site Requirements/ Programming Have preliminary estimate of school space needs for K-8, including a single or dual site. Overall K-8 site preliminary estimates o 28,000sf – 38,000 sf o 2.5 – 5 acres Committee beginning work to: • Further identify required, preferred and nice to have site features based on prior searches and additional stakeholder input • Develop requirements and parameters for dual site scenario o K-3 and 4-8 o K-4 and 5-8 o K-5 and 6-8 • Identify zoning requirements to facilitate speedy CUP • Develop a scorecard to support facility committee in evaluating sites Project Budget and Financing Finance committee has developed a model with enrollment, staffing projections and other assumptions to help calculate total facility expense per year (from which we can estimate project budget based on financing scenarios). This model will help us understand the overall facility expense and project budget we can take on, giving different financing and fundraising scenarios. Assumptions: Expenses: • We assume payroll and non-medical benefits grow at 5% Year-Over-Year (YOY), medical benefits grow at 10% YOY, and all other expenses grow at 3% YOY Revenue: • We assume full enrollment of 426 students • We assume $6,000 growing to $6,800 per ADA under the new education funding bill (per EdTec guidance) • We provide scenarios for w/ SB-740 and w/o SB-740. Fundraising and financing: • Assume two separate fundraising categories: one covers annual operating expenses, and another is specific to a capital campaign • Assume specific deal structure, per Oliver conversation • Maintain 10% cash balance on operating expenses Other information: • Some charter school guidance averages typical facility expense at 10 – 15% of budget (sometimes more in urban areas). • Comparable fundraising in established Oakland district schools with similar demographic has been suggested at $750 per student • Need to determine if SB-740 eligibility is affected by type of deal structure. Preliminary Projections Based on initial modeling, total project price estimates range from $4million to $13million with largest variables being 1) whether SB740 eligible or not; 2) anticipated amount of per student fundraising; and 3) structure of financing. Most likely range is $6m to $11m although further refinements are still underway. Ownership To seriously explore site ownership, we need to identify: • A “deal champion” who can manage project overall including development and financing aspects • An experienced partner who can support financing needed to pursue capital project On October 7, Gloria Lee, Chrissy Schwinn, Josh Stern and Matthew Sade met with Steve Oliver to further explore possible partnership around financing and development. Mr. Oliver requested we share our preliminary space needs and pro forma with him to begin evaluating whether we are a good fit for his program. He is interested in investing in a good, central, safe location and indicated Oakland as the likely best market at this time. Key factors in assessing the long-term viability of our school will include our financial carrying capacity, the stability of our business, the stability of our board and our earned vs. raised $ potential. While these conversations move forward, we will continue to look for other potential partners/developers/financers that may be able to help. District Sites We have written a formal letter to OUSD formally expressing our interest in a long-term lease agreement to start in August 2015. We are not planning to participate in Prop 39 process this year because we are not actively looking for space for 2014-15. We will consult with CCSA / MYM / local advisors on how to navigate to build support in alignment with Prop39 process timing for 2014, and gather info on existing OUSD – charter school partnership and lease terms. Commercial/Private Sites With initial program requirements and project budgets, we have enough information to consider engaging in a search for sites that match our requirements and that we can afford. If the board agrees, propose that we develop site specifications based on prior searches, preliminary program assessment and financial model and engage a broker to search for K-8 (28k- 38k sf) and K-5 (17k- 22k sf) sites. Committee to bring specific search criteria to board in November. At the same time, the committee continues to investigate options and implications related to 1086 Alcatraz Ave, and is researching existing school sites as the most viable candidates for a successful search. Yu Ming Facilities Scenario All figures in USD Assumptions Notes: Funding: Expenses: Attendance 97.0% Y8 Figure Expense Growth 2.0% 2013 Budget Federal Revenue Growth 2.6% 7200 Payroll / Other Benefits Growth 5.0% Medical Benefits as % of Salaries 10.4% State/Local Revenue Growth 0.0% Medical Benefits Growth 10.0% Other Benefits 5.4% YM Fundraising Growth -11.3% Medical Benefits as % of Salaries 12.0% Benefits as % of Salaries 15.8% Flatline $/student $750 Other Benefits as % of Salaries 8.0% per ADA % Lease Total Benefits as % of Salaries 20.0% SB740 (Greater of) $750 75% Payroll Taxes (FICA, Medicare, etc.) 8.2% Budget 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Notes: Enrollment 211 258 303 346 387 426 ADA 205 250 294 336 375 413 Funding per ADA General Block Grant 6,000 6,158 6,321 6,488 6,659 6,835 Per Yoon, new funding rates per ADA Title 1-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB740 0 1,546 1,320 1,158 1,038 945 State Revenue 1,770 1,770 1,770 1,770 1,770 1,770 Local Revenue 686 686 686 686 686 686 Funding per student $8,456 $10,161 $10,097 $10,102 $10,153 $10,235 Assume flat in forward years General Block Grant 1,228,020 1,541,183 1,857,757 2,177,378 2,499,657 2,824,169 Updated with latest funding figures from EdTec SB740 Revenue 0 387,000 387,852 388,703 389,556 390,415 State Funding 362,338 443,048 520,324 594,166 664,573 731,545 Same as in budget Local Funding 140,359 171,624 201,558 230,162 257,436 283,379 Same as in budget Federal, State, Local Funding $1,730,717 $2,542,856 $2,967,492 $3,390,410 $3,811,221 $4,229,507 Yu Ming Annual Fundraising 287,733 312,175 325,306 329,606 327,116 319,500 $ per student $1,364 $1,210 $1,074 $953 $845 $750 Baseline Total Revenue $2,018,450 $2,855,031 $3,292,797 $3,720,016 $4,138,337 $4,549,007 $4,459,077 $ per student $9,862 $11,408 $11,203 $11,084 $11,024 $11,009 Payroll Expenses 937,206 1,172,850 1,374,818 1,651,931 1,892,543 2,153,087 Medical Benefits 97,710 147,779 181,888 229,478 276,048 329,753 Other Benefits 50,646 93,828 109,985 132,154 151,403 172,247 Taxes 65,319 95,587 112,048 134,632 154,242 175,477 Payroll & Benefits 1,150,881 1,510,044 1,778,739 2,148,196 2,474,237 2,830,564 Books and Supplies 110,858 138,263 165,626 192,913 220,088 247,113 $ per student $542 $552 $564 $575 $586 $598 Services & Other Operating Expenses 379,715 473,582 567,307 660,772 753,853 846,420 $ per student $1,855 $1,892 $1,930 $1,969 $2,008 $2,048 One-time Expenses 4,480 0 0 0 0 0 Operating Expenses (w/o Facilities) $1,645,934 $2,121,889 $2,511,672 $3,001,881 $3,448,178 $3,924,096 Operating Income (w/o Facilities) $372,516 $733,142 $781,125 $718,135 $690,159 $624,911 Target Facilities Expense 159,821 559,680 564,680 569,680 574,680 579,680 579,680 Assume $20K is variable between utilities, janitorial, and % of revenue 7.9% 19.6% 17.1% 15.3% 13.9% 12.7% 13.0% $ per student $781 $2,236 $1,921 $1,697 $1,531 $1,403 Total Operating Expenses $1,805,755 $2,681,569 $3,076,352 $3,571,561 $4,022,858 $4,503,776 Yu Ming Facilities Scenario All figures in USD Assumptions Notes: Funding: Expenses: Attendance 97.0% Y8 Figure Expense Growth 2.0% 2013 Budget Federal Revenue Growth 2.6% 7200 Payroll / Other Benefits Growth 5.0% Medical Benefits as % of Salaries 10.4% State/Local Revenue Growth 0.0% Medical Benefits Growth 10.0% Other Benefits 5.4% YM Fundraising Growth -11.3% Medical Benefits as % of Salaries 12.0% Benefits as % of Salaries 15.8% Flatline $/student $750 Other Benefits as % of Salaries 8.0% per ADA % Lease Total Benefits as % of Salaries 20.0% SB740 (Greater of) $750 75% Payroll Taxes (FICA, Medicare, etc.) 8.2% Budget 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Notes: Total Operating Income $212,695 $173,462 $216,445 $148,455 $115,479 $45,230 % of revenue 10.5% 6.1% 6.6% 4.0% 2.8% 1.0% Target 1% Cash Balance BOP Balance 350,136 562,831 268,157 307,635 357,156 402,286 (+) Operating Income 212,695 173,462 216,445 148,455 115,479 45,230 (+) Capital Campaign - 1,231,620 106,326 184,359 212,944 286,154 (-) YM Equity Purchase - (1,699,756) - - - - (-) Payout to Oliver - - (283,293) (283,293) (283,293) (283,293) (-) Capex / downpayment / other - - - - - - EOP Balance $562,831 $268,157 $307,635 $357,156 $402,286 $450,378 Target Cash Balance $180,576 $268,157 $307,635 $357,156 $402,286 $450,378 % of Total Operating Expenses 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Facilities Evaluation Budget 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Facilities Expense 159,821 559,680 564,680 569,680 574,680 579,680 (-) Rent 120,000 - - - - - (-) Utilities 13,477 16,809 20,135 23,452 26,756 30,041 $ per student $66 $67 $69 $70 $71 $73 (-) Insurance / Maintenance / Other 26,344 26,871 27,408 27,956 28,516 29,086 Available for Facilities - 516,001 517,137 518,271 519,408 520,553 536,169 552,254 YOY growth % 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 3.0% 3.0% Joint Venture Structure: Oliver Equity 15.0% 12.5% 10.0% 7.5% 5.0% 2.5% 0.0% YM Equity 15.0% 17.5% 20.0% 22.5% 25.0% 27.5% 30.0% Total Debt 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% Purchase Price Term 30 Annual interest rate 5.0% Principal Amount - Debt 7,932,194 Equity Amount - Oliver 1,699,756 1,416,463 1,133,171 849,878 566,585 283,293 0 Equity Amount - YM 1,699,756 1,983,049 2,266,341 2,549,634 2,832,926 3,116,219 3,399,512 Purchase Price $11,331,706 Board of Directors Thursday, November 15, 2012 AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION Agenda Item Annual Fund Drive (AFD) and End of Year Campaign Time Allotted 15 minutes Summary To report on the results of the 2013 Fall Annual Fund Drive and to inform on plans for the End of Year Campaign Type Information Background This is a periodic reporting to the Board on the fund development activities of the Fund Development Committee Key Questions • Attachments • To be distributed at the Board Meeting: a final tally of the 2013 AFD and an acknowledgement of the giving families who generously helped the school meet its goal for the 2013 AFD Board of Directors Thursday, October 24, 2013 AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION Agenda Item Discussion and vote re board development priorities for the year Time Allotted 30 minutes Background At the August board retreat, the board discussed setting priorities for the board’s own development for the year. The board requested that the Board Development Committee present a set of potential priorities for discussion and vote, selected based on both importance and need for improvement. Summary The following are the potential priorities for discussion. Each potential priority is stated in the form of an activity that successful boards engage in, drawn from a longer list that was included in the packet for the August 2013 board retreat. The six potential priorities below represent board activities that we believe are important to the coming year, and on which we believe the board needs to improve. Underneath each potential priority is a set of sub-tasks to help describe the scope of the potential priority. The board should identify 2-4 priorities from this list to focus on during this school year. The Board Development Committee will then focus on developing metrics for each priority, and will set up professional development readings and/or training on each. • Sets academic standards o Provides a written set of academic expectations o Has a clear plan to conduct oversight of the academic program o Approves selection of appropriate, objective metrics for each component of the academic program • Monitors academic achievement o Ensures that appropriate, objective metrics are administered for each component of the academic program o Tracks progress toward academic achievement goals using objective measures • Oversees and evaluates the principal o Oversees and evaluates the management of operation of the school o Oversees and evaluates the creation of an academic program designed to meet the school’s academic standards o Uses academic achievement data to oversee and evaluate the principal’s performance in meeting academic standards • Communicates effectively with stakeholders o Acts as one body, and individual members speak with one voice regarding issues decided by the board, regardless of vote count o Communicates effectively with parents o Communicates effectively with authorizer • Holds efficient, productive meetings o Has near full attendance at all meetings o Spends most of meeting time setting the stage/creating the future rather than reacting and responding to immediate needs o Spends little, if any, time revisiting old business and prior decisions o Adheres to time limits set in agenda for individual items, unless extended by specific motion and majority vote • Makes effective use of committees o Effectively delegates to committees the preparation of proposals for Board action on strategic issues o Ensures that committee members have the time and expertise to tackle strategic issues in greater depth, and with more specific expertise than the full board has time for during regularly scheduled board meetings Type Discussion, Decision Key Questions 1. How many priorities are the right number for the board to focus on per year 2. What are the specific priorities the board should focus on for its own development over the rest of the school year Board of Directors Thursday, October 24, 2013 AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION Agenda Item Discussion and possible vote re calendar for recurring board meeting items Time Allotted 15 minutes Background The board requested that the Board Development Committee prepare a list of decisions that happen on a recurring basis, in order to put together an annual calendar of decision items for board meetings, to be used by the chair. Summary The following items were submitted by board members: August: o review previous fiscal year’s soft-close o retreat o set school goals for school year o set board priorities for school year September: o announce goals publicly October: o Approve/update enrollment policy November: o approve audit o members eligible to begin second term in June declare interest in renewal o members declare candidacy for officer positions o review long-term financial model and implications for fund development, staffing and facilities December: o vote on board member renewals o vote on officer positions for following year o review mid-year financial performance o approve revisions to the budget, if necessary o closed session to conduct Principal's annual review and set compensation and goals for Jan-June January: February: March: o discuss teacher compensation proposal for next year o discuss and approve Facility maintenance/upgrades for following school year April: o vote of teacher compensation plan for following year o vote on new Director candidates for board seats that will be open effective July 1 May: o declare candidacy for committee chair positions o Review and approve following year’s budget June: o set principal goals for July-Dec o review results of school surveys o vote on committee chairs o review progress towards school goals o review performance on board priorities o renew board member agreements o set fund development goals Unassigned events: o approve ADA reports o approve Insurance contract o approve EdTec contract o approve/renew HR benefits plan o approve Family Handbook Type Discussion, Decision (or delegation to Chair) Key Questions 1. Did we miss anything? 2. Where should the unassigned events go? 3. Why do we take it so easy in January and February? 4. How long would the June meeting have to be in order to do all that?
Pages to are hidden for
"YMCS-102413-Board-Ma.. - Yu Ming Charter School"Please download to view full document