RENEWAL NARRATIVE
The Hoosier Academy charter schools are organized in three separate Indiana school
corporations: Hoosier Academy Indianapolis, Corporation #9805, Hoosier Virtual Academy,
Corporation #9865, and Hoosier Muncie Academy, Corporation #9810. This was the result of
changing legislation which impacted the authorization process of Indiana charter schools.
We request the renewal of Hoosier Academy Indianapolis, Corporation #9805 and Hoosier
Virtual Academy, Corporation #9865. Additionally, we wish to combine these two models into a
single corporation to create a unique, visionary learning opportunity for Indiana’s children.
Hoosier Academy Indianapolis is a high performing public charter school that delivers
instruction using a blended model. Students attend 51% of their academic time in a brick and
mortar classroom with the balance of instructional time occurring in a virtual setting. The
Hoosier Virtual Academy has existed for only three years and offers 100% virtual learning.
Combining these entities and leveraging technology’s vast capabilities, the new Hoosier
Academy will tap the continuum of flexible learning options that exist between the blended
model and fully virtual world in order to support optimal student achievement.
To accommodate this array of opportunities, the new Hoosier Academy will expand its
presence throughout Indiana, adding learning centers where the demand is present and taking
advantage of community settings such as libraries, youth centers and other appropriate sites.
Currently, every student attending one of the Hoosier Academies has an Individualized
Learning Plan (ILP). Within the ILP the new Hoosier Academy will imbed not only the student
goals, learning expectations and expected outcomes, but the personalized learning framework for
the student will be interwoven within the plan.
Although we are not requesting renewal of Hoosier Academy-Muncie, we believe the
expanded concept of the new Hoosier Academy can serve these learners even better. We
anticipate large numbers of families, including those who are not currently involved with
Hoosier, will embrace the flexibility and vision of personalized learning opportunities for their
children and have taken into consideration the impacts upon the planning, budget, and operations
of the new Hoosier Academy.
1
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Enrollment and Demographic Overview for Hoosier Academy Indianapolis and
Hoosier Virtual Academy
1. Enrollment and demographic overview of the current school year.
2012-13 ENROLLMENT
Hoosier
& DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Indy
9805
Total Enrollment
# of Students on Waiting List
535
Hoosier
Virtual
9865
4252
60
198
# Male
265
2034
# Female
270
2218
# White
364
3478
# Black
90
431
# Hispanic
16
124
# Asian
10
28
# Native American
1
22
# Other
54
169
Gender
Ethnicity/Race
Special Populations
# Students with IEPs
87
673
# English Language Learners
11
34
# Homeless Students
33
103
# Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch
122
1270
2
2.
Enrollment information for the length of charter contract (ADM count).
Enrollment Indy Corp 9805
Year 1
(2008-09)
Indy
Virtual
Year 2
(2009-10)
283
Year 3
(2010-11)
423
514
197
Year 4
(2011-12)
Year 5
(2012-13)
366
1853
529
4200
3. Hoosier Indy number and percentage of students eligible for special education
by eligibility category for the length of the charter contract.
Indy Corp 9805
Year 1
Year 2
(2008-09)
(2009-10)
Autism Spectrum
Disorder
3 13%
Blind or Low Vision
0
Cognitive Disability
2
Deaf or Hard of Hearing
15
Year 3
(2010-11)
23%
0
8%
13
19%
1
1%
6%
Year 4
Year 5
(2011-12)
(2012-13)
13
15%
16
0%
8%
4
0
1
2%
0
0
Deaf-Blind
0
0
0
0
Developmental Delay
(Ages 3-5A only)
0
0
0
0
Emotional Disability (Full
Time)
0
6
0
0
Emotional Disability
(Other)
6 25%
0
Language/Speech
Impairment
7 29%
10
Multiple Disabilities
0
0
Orthopedic Impairment
0
3
5%
1
1%
1
1%
2
1%
1
2%
9
13%
14
16%
17
18%
23
36%
20
30%
25
29%
24
29%
Other Health Impairment
Specific Learning
Disability
Traumatic Brain Injury
6 25%
0
0
16%
4%
0%
5
9%
3
15%
5
8%
8
12%
15
18%
15
15%
11
16%
14
16%
36
48%
0
0
0
0
3
(NOTE: PERCENTS ARE EQUIVALENT FOR HOOSIER VIRTUAL)
4. Enrollment of ELL over the length of the charter contract
ELL STUDENT POPULATION CHART
Corp 9805 Indy
Year 2 (2009-10) Year 3 (2010-11) Year 4 (2011-12)
#
%
#
%
#
%
4.
5. 1(2008-09)
Year
#
%
0
0%
0
0%
7
1%
5
Year 5 (2012-13)
#
%
1% 5
1%
5. Enrollment of Homeless students over the length of the charter contract
HOMELESS STUDENT POPULATION CHART
Corp 9805 Indy
Year 2 (2009-10) Year 3(2010-11) Year 4 (2011-12)
Year 1 (2008-09)
#
51
%
#
18%
42 9.9%
B.
%
#
%
#
59
11%
33 9.0%
Year 5 (2012-13)
%
#
41
%
8%
Academic Performance Overview
The chart below provides an overview of the school’s academic performance for the length of
the charter contract. This snapshot of academic data provides information to assist schools in the
process of completing Sections II and III of the Renewal Application.
Hoosier Academy - Indianapolis CORP 9805
SY 2008-09
SY 2009-10
K-8
AYP
PL 221
n/a
n/a
No
Acad
Progress
44.50%
35.80%
44.60%
75.60%
44.20%
60.00%
No
D
(Watch)
53.00%
53.10%
56.10%
69.80%
52.30%
49.20%
N/A
C
N/A
N/A
N/A
9-10
SY 2010-11
9-10
SY 2011-12
NWEA
NWEA
NWEA
ISTEP
%
%
%
ISTEP
ISTEP
%
meeting meeting meeting
%
%
Passing
reading
LA
math
Passing Passing
Math &
growth growth growth
Math
ELA
ELA
target
target
target
0.00%
0.00%
2.00% 57.00% 68.00% 51.00%
69.48% 72.69% 65.06%
78.88% 83.20% 73.20%
75.16% 80.63% 68.13%
4
C. Written Overview
VISION
The new Hoosier Academy is a high-performing public charter school that combines traditional
learning with technology to connect students, parents, and teachers in a 21st century learning
community focused on results. The Hoosier Academy team of hard working, highly qualified
staff, in partnership with parents, strives for student mastery of a rigorous, research-based K-12
curriculum aligned to Indiana academic standards. The personalized blend of virtual and face to
face instruction puts public school accountability, teacher competence, and parent/adult
involvement at the center of student learning.
MISSION
The mission of The Hoosier Academy is to embrace a partnership with parents that drives
continued growth in student learning and builds a compelling foundation of family satisfaction,
student achievement, and social enrichment. We embrace our culturally diverse school
community and believe school accountability, teacher competence, and parent involvement must
be at the center of student learning and achievement.
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM
The unique instructional delivery systems developed by the Hoosier Academy support students
and families as they customize a learning program that best fits the needs of the learner. Each
student enrolled in Hoosier has a learning coach, generally a parent or guardian. This learning
coach receives extensive training to support academic progress as well as how to communicate
effectively with the teacher to assure coordination of the student’s learning. In collaboration with
the family, a highly qualified Indiana teacher helps create an Individualized Learning Plan (ILP)
for the student. In addition to learning goals, the appropriate balance of blended and virtual
learning is determined during the ILP development process, resulting in a personalized
educational program.
Regardless the instructional delivery system developed for the learner, all Hoosier Academy
students utilize the challenging K12 curriculum. This curriculum meets or exceeds all quality
metrics established through No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Title I, Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) and aligns with Indiana’s nationally recognized learning standards.
All content area learning materials including Language Arts, reading, math, sciences, fine arts,
world languages and practical arts, have been scientifically researched to assure they are
effective in meeting the needs of Indiana students. Students may elect to accelerate through
curricular areas of high ability or opt for additional enrichment opportunities. Those learners who
benefit from extended instruction have ready access to high quality, high interest intervention
materials.
Families who enroll their students in the new Hoosier Academy pay few if any fees for books
and materials. Computers and peripherals are shipped directly to the family along with boxes of
associated reading material, manipulatives, and learning tools. Families who qualify for the
National Free or Reduced Lunch Program can receive at no cost all computer equipment,
classroom materials and reimbursement of some internet expenses.
Hoosier Academy students are taught by only highly qualified teachers and enjoy rich extracurricular opportunities. They perform in school musicals, talent shows, art exhibitions, poetry
performances and participate in state competitions. Utilizing the international network of
5
schools supported by K12, Inc., students at Hoosier Academy also have access to an expanse of
over 100 clubs whose membership include students throughout the United States. High interest
options include chess, Legos, cyber-stacking, quilting, world languages, photography, and
American Girls Club. Hoosier Academy students can even participate in 4-H through the club
organization. Unusual options such as geocaching, spiders, guitar 101, and glogster appeal to
many Hoosier Academy students as well.
Family engagement is a critical part of life at Hoosier Academies. Parents are considered
learning coaches and receive intensive training on effective instructional collaboration and
monitoring of student progress. But family fun is also emphasized. Throughout the state, Hoosier
Academy families participate in Orchard Day, Pumpkin decorating, Gingerbread house
creations, ice skating, roller skating, high school dances, nature walks, book nights, fun at the
public library are all activities that reinforce the Hoosier Academy commitment to families.
Outreach coordinators and instructional staff travel throughout the state of Indiana to host these
activities.
COMMUNITY AND LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS
Hoosier Academy has a wide range of community and local partnerships which benefit students
and families alike. Organizations such as the Indiana Pacers, local town libraries, Barnes and
Noble Book Stores open their facilities for family activities, meetings, testing sites for ISTEP
and End of Course Assessments. Throughout the state we have collaborated with community
Boys and Girls Clubs to offer accessible testing sites for mandated Indiana standardized tests.
Other organizations include the Childrens’ Hospitals, Indiana Association of Young Children,
and the Indiana Childrens’ Museum. Academic partnerships include De Vry, eCollege, and
College Board.
SCHOOL LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE
Through its contract with K12, Inc., the Hoosier Academy is supported by a national team of
experts in fields such as curriculum development, instructional training, business management,
school law, special programs and technology. General oversight for carrying out the statutory,
contractual, and fiduciary roles defined in Indiana legislation is the responsibility of the five
member governing authority, referred to as the Board. Additionally, the Board monitors and
holds school leaders responsible for high levels of achievement, client satisfaction, and
impeccable operations.
Currently, local key administrative positions include the head of schools, two academic directors,
a special education manager, and a human relations/operation manager. The Hoosier Academy
has five Academic Team Leaders who provide leadership to the teaching corps and ensure
effective instruction and high levels of student achievement.
Ratios of students to certified teachers are approximately 50 – 70 students in grades K-6 per
teacher, including blended and virtual students and 150 – 300 students per teacher in the content
areas in middle school and high school, also including blended and virtual students.
II. Looking Back: The Record and Analysis of Performance
The following data were pulled from the 2010-11 Indiana Department of Education COMPASS
Reports and were provided by the Office of Charter Schools, Ball State University. They are
6
effective indicators of the past success of Hoosier Academy. These data were unavailable for
Hoosier Virtual Academy.
(2.1) Measure of Student Progress/ Time (Growth) E/La and math.
a. Are Hoosier Academy students making adequate growth based on the school’s median
student growth percentile (SGP) in math and ELA? (K-8)
SGP ELA
54
YES
SPG Math
54
YES
b. Are the lowest-performing students in the Hoosier Academy making adequate growth
based on the median student growth percentile (SGP) of the lowest quartile of students
in math and ELA? (K-8)
SGP ELA
SPG Math
55
48
YES
NO
c. Are a sufficient number of Hoosier Academy students meeting the growth standard in
ELA, math, and reading based upon results of the probit regression model? (NWEA)
(K-8)
LA
Math
Reading
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
YES
YES
YES
d. Are a sufficient number of Hoosier Academy students meeting the growth standard in
language, math, and reading based upon results of the probit regression model?
(NWEA) (HS)
LA
-0.04
YES
Math
-0.04
YES
Reading
0.11
YES
7
Considering the above data, it is apparent Hoosier Academy is performing well. We believe the
new Hoosier Academy will result in higher levels of student achievement and we are looking at
methods and instructional settings that will promote achievement, allowing students to master
the curriculum at a minimum of the 3% weekly pace established for all learners.
(2.2) Measures of Student Achievement (Status)
a.1. Are Hoosier Academy students achieving proficiency on ISTEP+ in ELA and math?
(K-8)
Content
Hoosier
State
Answer
ELA
83%
78%
YES
Math
79%
80%
NO
a.2. Are Hoosier Academy students achieving proficiency on ECAs in English 10 and
Algebra 1? (HS)
Content
Hoosier
State
Answer
English 10
76%
72%
NO
Algebra 1
52%
73%
NO
b. Are Hoosier Academy students performing well on ISTEP+ in ELA and math in
comparison to other schools in the district (K-8) and (HS) ?
Content
Percent
Proficient
Percent
Proficient
District
Difference
Answer
ELA
83%
71%
12
YES
Math
79%
69%
9
YES
English 10
76%
62%
14
YES
Algebra 1
52%
80%
-29
NO
8
From the data listed above, there is clearly an issue with high school achievement, particularly in
mathematics. This year Hoosier Academy has implemented math lab and a program called Study
Island. Teachers have been trained in utilizing the Study Island data down to the individual
student level and specific learning needs of that student. From that point, teachers tailor
additional learning opportunities. Through Professional Learning Communities, these data
promote teacher collaboration and problem solving.
c. Are Hoosier Academy students performing well on state assessments in ELA and math
in comparison to similar schools?
Content
Percent
Proficient
Percent
Proficient
Similar
Schools
Difference
Answer
ELA K-8
83.1%
86.5%
-3.4
NO
Math K-8
78.8%
86.5%
-7.7
NO
English 10 ECA
76%
79%
-3
NO
Algebra 1 ECA
52%
59%
-7
NO
The
performance data listed above clearly shows Hoosier Academy is not performing at a level of
similar schools. It is vitally important to the entire organization that Hoosier Academy meet
these challenges and provide effective interventions and instruction for every student. Of
particular concern is the trend of low performance in mathematics. Notice Algebra I ECA
achievement is merely 52%. As a result of the math scores, Hoosier has implemented several
initiatives including mandatory 60 minutes of math instruction daily, math lab, and Study Island,
a program designed to help students master English Language Arts and Math standards.
Are low-SES students achieving in ELA and math (k-8)?
Content
Percent School
State Low
of
Low-SES
SES
School Proficiency Proficiency Difference Answer
ELA K-8
28%
69%
68%
1
YES
Math K-8
28%
69%
70%
-1
NO
Considering the OCS data above, low-SES Hoosier Academy students are achieving at a rate
close to the state average. With our current emphasis upon math achievement, Study Island has
been an invaluable tool to track and monitor student success.
9
The chart below shows the special needs population of Hoosier Academy, particularly in
English/Language Arts are doing relatively well. We believe this success is linked to the
individualized instructional model that leverages technology, hands on manipulatives and
activities.
Are special needs students succeeding in English Language Arts and math (K-8)?
Content
Percent School
State
of
Sp Ed
Sp Ed
School* Proficiency Proficiency Difference Answer
ELA K-8
10%
58%
47%
11
YES
Math K-8
10%
58%
56%
1
YES
(2.5) Measures of Mission-Specific School Goals
N/A
OVERALL RATING
2.4.a.1 SAT/ACT Perf
2.4.a.2 SAT/ACT Particip
2.4.b. Graduation Rate
2.3.a P.L. 221
2.2.d Subgroup Prof : ELA
2.2.e Subgroup Prof: math
N/A
2.2.c Sim Sch Comp ELA
2.2.c Sim Sch Comp math
HS
D
2.2.b Dist Comp: ELA
2.2.b Dist Comp: math
M M M
2.2.a Proficiency ELA
2.2.a Proficiency Math
2.1.a Growth ELA
2.1.a Growth math
K-8
2.1.c Probit: LA
2.1.c Probit: math
2.1.c Probit: reading
School
2.1.b Growth Lowest
performing ELA
2.1.b Growth Lowest
performing math
OVERVIEW OF MEASURES
M M M M D M M D D M M
M N/A
M
M M M
F N/A… …
D
D F M F D D N/A
The mission specific school goals overview above summarizes the successes and
academic needs of Hoosier Academy. Clearly math achievement must continue to
be prioritized k through 12
II. Looking Back: The Record and Analysis of Performance.
Hoosier Academy has consistently performed at or above state performance levels since its
inception in 2008-09 as illustrated in the following charts.
10
GRADE 3 ELA
GRADE 3 MATH
GRADE 4 ELA
GRADE 4 MATH
GRADE 5 ELA
GRADE 5 MATH
11
GRADE 6 ELA
GRADE 6 MATH
GRADE 7 ELA
GRADE 7 MATH
GRADE 8 ELA
GRADE 8 MATH
12
a.
The data above illustrate both the historical success of Hoosier Academy and the current success
and needs. Both the elementary school and middle school earned a state ranking of “A” while the
high school scored “D”, bringing the K-12 score to an overall “B”.
EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE
B. Using the school’s accountability and assessment data, illustrate the improvement in
academic performance of students over the term of your charter’s existence.
All data including state, achievement, and individual student information indicate consistent
levels of achievement. Since opening in 2008 – 2009 school year, Hoosier Academy ISTEP+
performance has consistently been at or near the state average. A relative weakness in
performance is math achievement within all subpopulations. However, the gap continues to close
and achievement rates are rising. We believe this is due to new, individualized curriculum
implemented within the K12 program combined with intensive application of effective use of
data.
Clearly the data show Hoosier Academy high school is in need of systemic intervention. We
have analyzed many different data sources and established the understanding that students and
teachers must be held accountable for learning. Student progress is monitored more frequently
and students who are showing signs of disengagement are attended to on a more frequent basis.
To promote faculty engagement monthly professional development sessions have been added to
the calendar for the high school faculty on topics such as student engagement, working with
diverse populations, and effective analysis and use of student data.
High school students are being held accountable for completing the required curriculum at higher
achievement levels. The curriculum used at Hoosier is rigorous and standards driven. To assure
13
students are successful, faculty have implemented additional monitoring and communications
sessions. In the brief history of Hoosier Academy high school, the percent of students who
actually show up to take the End of Course (ECA) assessments has been very low, a fact that
contributes to the low grade earned by the high school. Last year only 15% of the eligible
students participated in the ECA retest opportunities. Positive messaging regarding the impacts
and importance of taking ECA exams has already shown improvement. This fall nearly 70% of
the eligible students took the exam. Continued efforts in this area will meet our goal of 100%
eligible students participating in ECA exams.
A relative area of strength for Hoosier is English/Language Arts. As shown on the
Accountability Report Card, 48.3% of the bottom 25% of low performing students achieved high
growth in Language Arts in grades 4 through 8. While the goal is 50% and above, we believe we
are closing the gap, especially with students who remain enrolled at the Hoosier Academy for
two years or longer. Equally important, 36.4% of the top 75% achieved high growth. We believe
the implementation of math labs combined with a new emphasis upon completing Study Island, a
self-paced program in math and English Language Arts, will raise the achievement level for all
students and result in Hoosier performing at or better than the comparable schools identified by
the Indiana Department of Education.
Although math performance is a relative weakness, 42% of the top 75% performing students had
high growth in math, almost 6% higher than the high growth in the top 75% of ELA. Again,
emphasis on individualized completion of Study Island is a proactive measure taken to raise
student achievement.
The following chart is an example of data provided by Study Island.
The chart shows a specific teacher’s class achievement in Fractions & Decimals. 71% of the
class earned Blue Ribbons (passed the content area). The teacher can identify the students simply
by clicking on the percentage and immediately know who is struggling, who has achieved, and
who is yet to begin the lesson. Further drill down in the data and looking across other math skills
provides the teacher with valuable instructional targets.
As mentioned, the data indicate Hoosier Academy has throughout its existence, achieved at or
near the state averages. There are several major factors that contribute to these results. First, each
student who attends Hoosier Academy has an Individual Learning Plan (ILP) that is developed
with the student’s teacher, parents, and student. This plan is updated annually, and reviewed
quarterly to make any necessary changes that will positively impact the student’s achievement.
A second contributing factor is the rigorous Hoosier Academy curriculum. Developed by
14
national curriculum experts, the curriculum is aligned with Indiana state standards with focus on
higher level thinking and critical thinking skills. It is research based and provides strong
enrichment and interventions for all learners. Pacing guides are provided but students are
encouraged to utilize a mastery approach to learning.
A third contributing factor is the effective use of data. School leaders and teachers have been
trained in effectively using data to drive instruction and are focusing on identifying and
addressing challenges to student achievement. Using Paul Bambrick-Santoyo’s books, Leverage
Leadership and Driven By Data we have created a common language and culture of data usage
which is providing promising increases in student achievement.
Yet, despite these strong supports, Hoosier Academy is doing more to raise achievement.
Hoosier is actively working to improve achievement in mathematics across the board. Looking
at longitudinal data in comparison to Indiana performance data there, are no consistent,
significant upwards or downwards trends in either content area. Hoosier Academy has
demonstrated relative success with subgroups of students including special needs population and
low-SES students, again, performing at or near the Indiana state average performance levels. One
additional tool that is being used to increasing student success is the effective use of data.
Three key programs provide monitoring data. Scantron Performance Series Web-based
Diagnostics is a computer-adaptive test that quickly pinpoints the proficiency level of students in
English/Language Arts and mathematics that correspond with Indiana standards. This provides
for more accurate student placement, diagnosis of instructional needs, including instructional
adjustments, and measurement of student gains. Scantron is administered twice in the school
year: at the onset and again at the end of the school year and reveals student growth. This
standardized measure is not only effective in providing achievement and growth data for Indiana
students; the test is normed across the country and therefore provides additional information
regarding effectiveness of the curriculum and instructional models used.
Benchmarking and progress monitoring instruments include DIBELS AD (grades k-2) and Study
Island (grades 3-10). Data from ECA, SAT, and AP exams provide valuable insights into the
effectiveness of instruction. Not only do these data provide formative information to guide
instructional decisions, they also illustrate objective outcomes that are measurable and traceable
to student performance skills which can be taught and retaught based upon student needs. The
data from these sources pinpoint student achievement to the indicator level of the state standards
and also suggest acceleration or intervention options.
All three assessment tools, Scantron, DIBELS AD, and Study Island, provide unique data that
are used to drive instructional decisions for Hoosier Academy teachers.
III Looking Forward: Plans for the Next Charter Term
Hoosier Academy is committed to raising the level of student achievement during the next
charter term. The following strategies will be utilized in the effort to achieve “Meets Standards”
with a goal of achieving “Exceeds Standards” in areas where Hoosier Academy has already
demonstrated it is meeting the established standards.
15
As mentioned, all students will have an Individual Learning Plan (ILP). The ILP will be a living
document. Advisors, teachers, learning coaches, and administrators must analyze continuous
streams of data to assure the ILP is meeting the intent of promoting student success.
For students performing below grade level, an intervention model will be included as part of a
student’s Individual Learning Plan. These interventions will include both online and offline
extended learning opportunities to ensure that struggling students are provided with structured
efforts to address gaps in their knowledge or skills. Detailed use of standardized measures such
as Scantron’s Performance Series, Study Island benchmark testing, and continuous curriculum
based monitoring will guide instruction. General education, special education teachers, Title I
staff and counselors shall work as needed with students, parents, and/or learning coaches
virtually or face-to-face.
Similarly, advanced students will have multiple options to complete advanced learning
objectives. They will have an opportunity to accelerate content or explore areas of interest in
greater depth. A fully articulated K-12 program for High Ability students will be created in Year
1 of the new charter and will provide an outline of educational expectations for High Ability
learners.
A commitment to comprehensive improvement of student achievement is currently being
implemented in the current Hoosier Academy Indianapolis and Hoosier Virtual Academy. Staff
is being trained in the effective use of data to improve learning outcomes. All current and future
staff will continue to work in Professional Learning Communities focused on data driven
decision making using materials such as Paul Bambrick-Santoyo’s books, Leverage Leadership
and Driven By Data to instill a common understanding, common language and common culture
of data throughout the entire organization.
High school will focus the advisory program to help students begin to self-direct and responsibly
complete the established Individual Learning Plan, making appropriate adjustments as needed
throughout the four years of their high school career.
Interventions to assist high school students complete core courses, with a focus upon math
achievement will be implemented.
High school students will be encouraged to complete dual credit courses and/or AP courses and
strive to earn the Indiana Academic Honors Diploma.
Hoosier Academy has created specific, measurable benchmarks and targets for each grade level.
These goals are designed to increase achievement to “Meets Standards” and “Exceeds
Standards”. The chart on the following page outlines these goals.
Hoosier Academy was recently invited by the University of Oregon to participate in a pilot
program next year exploring effective data collection and use with DIBLES assessment tools.
16
SPECIFIC GOALS TO PROMOTE STUDENT GROWTH AND ACHIEVEMENT
Grades K-2
95% of students in grade K-2 will participate in benchmark literacy screening assessments
twice per year. Students who are at risk will received progress monitoring in essential
literacy skills.
Grades 3-8
On aggregate, 75% of students enrolled three full consecutive academic years will score
proficient or above on STEP+ in math, ELA and Reading or show aggregate gains that are
equal to or above those of the norm group in the norm referenced exam.
Grades 3-8
On aggregate, 75% of students enrolled less than three full consecutive years will show
aggregate gains that are equal to or above those of the norm group in the norm
referenced exam.
Grades K-8
Full year, full time students in grades k-8 will complete an average of at least 80% of the
lessons in math, language arts, history, and science with 80% mastery.
Grades9-12
All students in grades 9-12 will have a graduation plan with measurable goals in the areas
of reading, math, writing, science, social studies, and credit acquisition.
Grade 10
On aggregate, 75% of students enrolled three full consecutive academic years will score
proficient or above on the Indiana ECA’s or show aggregate gains that are equal to or
above those of the norm group in the norm referenced exam.
Grade 11
On aggregate, 85% of students enrolled three full consecutive academic years will score
proficient or above on the Indiana ECA’s or AP Exams or show aggregate gains that are
equal to or above those of the norm group in the norm referenced exam.
Grade 12
On aggregate, 100% of all students will graduate or complete a certificate of attendance
within one year of their cohort group. A minimum of 50% of the graduating class will be
accepted to the college of their choice.
The data in the following tables are drawn from Hoosier Academy Indianapolis and represent
indicators from the Academic Performance Framework. (Equivalent data were not available for
Hoosier Virtual School at the time of this application.)The tables include data from school years
2010-2011 and 2011-2012 (when available). As part of the school’s “looking forward” analysis,
the tables are filled to demonstrate achievement growth from current levels to “Meets Standards”
by 2013-2014.
17
Are students making adequate growth based on the school’s median student growth
percentile (SGP) in math and ELA? (K-8)? (Meets Standard: the median SGP is at least
50.)
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
School
Median
School
Median
School
Median
School
Median
School
Median
School
Median
School
Median
School
Median
SGP-ELA
SGP-Math
SGP-ELA
SGP-Math
SGP-ELA
SGP-Math
SGP-ELA
SGP-Math
54
54
50
52.5
54
55
60
60
Are the lowest-performing students in the school making adequate growth based on the median
student growth percentile (SGP) of the lowest quartile of students in math and ELA? (K-8)? (Meets
Standard: the median SGP of the lowest 25% of students in the school is at least 50.)
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
School
Median
School
Median
School
Median
School
Median
School
Median
School
Median
School
Median
School
Median
SGP-ELA
SGP-Math
SGP-ELA
SGP-Math
SGP-ELA
SGP-Math
SGP-ELA
SGP-Math
55%
48%
48.3%
33.3%
55%
48%
60%
53%
Are students achieving proficiency on ISTEP+ in math and ELA? (K-8) (Meets Standard: At least 80% of
students met proficiency in math and ELA.)
2010-11
% ProfLA
83%
% Prof
Math
79%
2011-12
% Prof
ELA
80.6%
% Prof
Math
75.2%
2012-13
% ProfLA
83%
% Prof
Math
80%
2013-14
% ProfLA
90%
% Prof
Math
85%
18
% Proficient–Similar
71%
Schools-Math
Difference (in percentage
points)
Percent Proficient - School-
9
80.63
Algebra 1
English 10
Algebra 1
English 10
Algebra 1
ECA P %
ECA P %
ECA P %
ECA P %
ECA P %
ECA P %
ECA P%
ECA P%
19
points)
English 10
Schools-Math
Difference (in percentage
Algebra 1
15%
Eng10
% Proficient–Similar
85%
points)
% Proficient - School-Math
2012-13
Schools-ELA
Difference (in percentage
ELA % Proficient–Similar
60%
points)
Percent Proficient - School-
Schools-Math
Difference (in percentage
2012-13
15%
15%
% Proficient–Similar
81%
points)
% Proficient - School-Math
2011-12
Schools-ELA
Difference (in percentage
ELA % Proficient–Similar
57.1%
points)
Percent Proficient - School-
Schools-Math
Difference (in percentage
2011-12
15%
15%
2010-11
% Proficient–Similar
77.8%
75.16 points)
% Proficient - School-Math
52%
Schools-ELA
Difference (in percentage
2010-11
15%
% Proficient–Similar
69%
76%
ELA % Proficient–Similar
points)
% Proficient - School-Math
79%
12 % Schools-ELA
Difference (in percentage
% Proficient - School-ELA
83%
Are students achieving proficiency on ECAs in Algebra 1 and English 10? (HS) (Meets Standard: At
least 80% of students met proficiency in math and ELA.)
2013-14
63%
Are students performing well on ISTEP+ in math and ELA in comparison to other schools in the
district? (K-8) (Meets Standard: School’s average % proficient on Reading and Math meets or exceeds
the average performance of students in the home district by less than 15 percentage points.)
2013-14
State Low-SES Proficiency Rate**-ELA
Difference (in percentage points)
School Low-SES Proficiency Rate-Math
State Low SES Proficiency Rate**-Math
Difference (in percentage points)
Percent of School*
School Low SES Proficiency Rate-ELA
68%
1
69%
70%
-1
28%
72%
20
10%
Difference (in percentage points)
State Low SES Proficiency Rate**-Math
School Low-SES Proficiency Rate-Math
Difference (in percentage points)
2012-13
State Low-SES Proficiency Rate**-ELA
School Low SES Proficiency Rate-ELA
Percent of School*
Difference (in percentage points)
15%
15%
15%
15%
0%
78.88
Difference (in percentage
%
points)
Difference (in percentage
District Algebra 1 ECA Pass %
points)
School Algebra 1 ECA Pass %
% District English 10 ECA Pass
%
points)
E School English 10 ECA Pass
Difference (in percentage
District Algebra 1 ECA Pass %
points)
School Algebra 1 ECA Pass %
Difference (in percentage
District English 10 ECA Pass %
points)
School English 10 ECA Pass %
Difference (in percentage
District Algebra 1 ECA Pass %
points)
School Algebra 1 ECA Pass %
Difference (in percentage
2012-13
10%
8%
State Low SES Proficiency Rate**-Math
School Low-SES Proficiency Rate-Math
Difference (in percentage points)
points)
School English 10 ECA Pass %
83.2
15%
Difference (in percentage
-29%
District English 10 ECA Pass %
District Algebra 1 ECA Pass %
80%
2011-12
8%
2011-12
State Low-SES Proficiency Rate**-ELA
School Low SES Proficiency Rate-ELA
Percent of School*
Difference (in percentage points)
State Low SES Proficiency Rate**-Math
School Low-SES Proficiency Rate-Math
Difference (in percentage points)
points)
School Algebra 1 ECA Pass %
52%
Difference (in percentage
District English 10 ECA Pass %
62%
14%
School English 10 ECA Pass %
76%
2010-11
5%
5%
School Low SES Proficiency Rate-ELA
69%
2010-11
State Low-SES Proficiency Rate**-ELA
Percent of School*
28%
Are students performing well on ECAs in Algebra and English in comparison to other schools in the
district? (HS) (Meets Standard: School’s average % proficient on Reading and Math meets or exceeds
the average performance of students in the home district by less than 15 percentage points.)
2013-14
Are low-SES students achieving proficiency on ISTEP+ in math and ELA? K-8 (Meets Standard:
School sub-group’s average % proficient on Reading and Math meets or exceeds the statewide
average performance of students by less than 15 percentage points.)
2013-14
School Low SES Proficiency Rate-ELA
State Low-SES Proficiency Rate**-ELA
Difference (in percentage points)
School Low-SES Proficiency Rate-Math
State Low SES Proficiency Rate**-Math
Difference (in percentage points)
Percent of School*
School Low SES Proficiency Rate-ELA
State Low-SES Proficiency Rate**-ELA
Difference (in percentage points)
School Low-SES Proficiency Rate-Math
State Low SES Proficiency Rate**-Math
Difference (in percentage points)
Percent of School*
School Low SES Proficiency Rate-ELA
State Low-SES Proficiency Rate**-ELA
Difference (in percentage points)
57%
58%
-1%
52%
56%
-4%
10%
60%
60%
0
60%
60%
0
10%
65%
60%
5%
State Low SES Proficiency Rate**-Math
Difference (in percentage points)
Percent of School*
School Low SES Proficiency Rate-ELA
60%
N/A
***
***
State Low SES Proficiency Rate**-Math
Difference (in percentage points)
Percent of School*
***
NA
3%
6%
6%
1%
1%
School Low-SES Proficiency Rate-Math
***
School Low-SES Proficiency Rate-Math
Difference (in percentage points)
State Low-SES Proficiency Rate**-ELA
School Low SES Proficiency Rate-ELA
Percent of School*
Difference (in percentage points)
State Low SES Proficiency Rate**-Math
School Low-SES Proficiency Rate-Math
Difference (in percentage points)
State Low-SES Proficiency Rate**-ELA
School Low SES Proficiency Rate-ELA
Difference (in percentage points)
NA
State Low-SES Proficiency Rate**-ELA
School Low-SES Proficiency Rate-Math
Difference (in percentage points)
N/A
***
State Low-SES Proficiency Rate**-ELA
52%
Difference (in percentage points)
Percent of School*
10%
2013-14
Difference (in percentage points)
Difference (in percentage points)
1
2012-13
5%
State Low SES Proficiency Rate**-Math
56%
2011-12
State Low SES Proficiency Rate**-Math
School Low-SES Proficiency Rate-Math
58%
Are students with disabilities achieving proficiency on ISTEP+ in math and ELA? K-8
State Low SES Proficiency Rate**-Math
Difference (in percentage points)
11
2010-11
2012-13
60%
State Low-SES Proficiency Rate**-ELA
47%
School Low SES Proficiency Rate-ELA
***
2011-12
School Low-SES Proficiency Rate-Math
School Low SES Proficiency Rate-ELA
58%
Percent of School*
***
2010-11
65%
Percent of School*
10%
Are ELL students achieving proficiency on ISTEP+ in math and ELA? K-8
2013-14
21
Is the school meeting acceptable standards according to P.L. 221 categories? K-8 (Meets Standard:
School received a “B” (Commendable Progress)
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
B
A
A
A
Is the school meeting acceptable standards according to P.L. 221 categories? HS (Meets Standard:
School received a “B” (Commendable Progress)
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
F
D
B
B
Overall Academic Rating 2010-2011 (K-8)
Overall Academic Rating 2010-2011 (HS)
Overall Academic Rating 2011-2012 (K-8)
Overall Academic Rating 2011-2012 (HS)
Overall Academic Rating 2012-2013 (K-8)
Overall Academic Rating 2012-2013 (HS)
Overall Academic Rating 2013-2014 (K-8)
Overall Academic Rating 2013-2014 (HS)
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
Total Students
25
40
100
IREAD
# Pass IREAD % Pass IREAD
21
84.0%
36
84.0%
90
90%
M
D
M
D
M
M
M
M
% ELL
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
% F/R Lunch
24.0%
30.0%
30.0%
22
A. Educational Plans
1. Vision. The new Hoosier Academy is a high-performing public charter school that leverages
best practice in effective use of technology blended with effective instructional strategies to
connect students, parents, and teachers in a 21st century learning community focused on high
student
achievement. The new Hoosier Academy team of hard working, highly qualified staff, in
partnership with parents, strives for student mastery of a rigorous, research-based K-12
curriculum aligned to Indiana academic standards. Delivered through a personalized mix of
blended settings, whether individual settings, in traditional learning centers synchronous virtual
school settings, this visionary school program puts public school accountability, teacher
competence, and parent/adult involvement at the center of student learning.
3. Educational Plan Modifications. The key modification of the new Hoosier Academy is the
integration of the current blended and virtual instructional models. Desired educational outcomes
and learning needs will drive the personalization of the students’ Individual Learning Plan and
educational setting. The new Hoosier Academy will expand the blended learning center model
throughout the state in locations with high demand and will establish flexible learning groups
that meet in locations and at times that meet the learning needs of the student.
4. Financial Plans. 5-year Financial Projections. The completed financial plan and list of required
documents will be submitted Friday, January 18, 2013
1.Current Board approved budget with minutes,
2.Prior year Board approved budget with minutes,
3.current facility/school lease term and conditions and
4.applicable insurance policies and their renewal
D. Organizational Plans
1. Enrollment Plan. The new Hoosier Academy will serve grades K-12 and is planning,
budgeting, and organizing for 7,000 students with the ability to add up to 15% additional
students annually through the charter timeframe.
2. Governance and Management. Hoosier Academy will be governed and managed by
a Board consisting of five members. The Board will initially utilize current by-laws and
policies with a goal of continuous review modifications, or additions in order to respond
to legislative mandates and student needs.
3. Transportation (if applicable). Hoosier Academy has no transportation needs.
4. Facility The new Hoosier Academy will expand its physical presence throughout
Indiana. A needs driven mix of learning centers in the north, central, and southern parts
of the state, and drop in locations such as community facilities, libraries, youth
organizations, and university sites will be utilized to their maximum capacity.
23
5. Educational Service Providers We contracted with an educational service provider
during the original term of the charter and intend to continue to contract with the same
education service provider. The primary material change in the agreement with the
educational service provider is to expand the agreement to support students from the
former Hoosier Muncie and Hoosier Virtual Schools who choose to enroll in Hoosier
Academy. Submit a copy of the proposed management agreement for the renewal term.
24