NACA RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY RENEWAL REPORT
NACA responds below to preliminary ratings provided by BCPSS on the Preliminary Review Report. Specifically, NACA requests further
review of data, methodology, and rating provided for Subcategories 1.4, 2.2, 2.4, and Category 3.
1.4: Fidelity to Charter/Application Overall---NACA RATED AS DEVELOPING
NACA maintains fidelity to its contract and to the school’s implementation of key design elements: rigorous academics, an inclusion model
relative to special education, a safe and peaceful school climate and culture, advanced character development, and an ongoing emphasis on
freedom and democracy. The 2009 contract stated academic and nonacademic goals that fit the NACA vision of its role in furthering the
advancement of Baltimore’s most impoverished children and these were outlined in the 2013 NACA application as follows:
Vision-Mission
“The NACA Freedom and Democracy School II’s (NACA F&D II’s) vision-and-mission emphasizes helping our country move to ever
higher levels of humanity by providing a rigorous, exemplary, college-preparatory education that equips our students “to make a living
and a life,”[1] enables them “to navigate life’s journey effectively and with integrity,”[2] and empowers them to participate fully in
freedom and democracy. ..Utilizing active, interlocking partnerships between parents, students, teachers, administrators, civic structures,
social leaders, business leaders, and political leaders, NACA F&D II launches into the world young people who are empowered to make a
life; equipped to make a living; and positioned to participate fully in freedom and democracy.” (sources quoted are Ella Baker and Rights
of Passage Shule).
NACA’s gifted and special needs students are all brought together under its education philosophy which is in the contract and reads as follows:
Educational Philosophy
“NACA F&D II’s educational philosophy rests and pivots on the following tenets:
*Every child can learn and reach high levels of academic achievement (can be equipped to make a good living), when she/he has
consistent support and high expectations from parents/guardians and other sectors, and when they have masterful, loving, always-learning,
creative teachers.
*Every child can realize continuous progress in her/his character development (can be cultivated to make a constructive life), when she/he
has character principles taught, discussed, and modeled, frequently and consistently, by parents, teachers, and other adult authority/leader
figures.
1
*Every child can learn, internalize, contribute constructively to, and participate peacefully and meaningfully in freedom and democracy,
when they are introduced to the lives and contributions of authentic exemplars of freedom and democracy, especially those of The 1960s
Freedom Movement.
*Families, teachers, administrators, staff, and community leaders, and peers are essential parts of students’ success; and they help ensure
the students’ success when they are informed about and supportive of the school and the school’s curriculum, vision, and policies.
*All of us grow as we embrace authentic multiculturalism.
*Literacy in Math and Science is essential for participation in present and emerging society.”
The information set forth in the NACA/BCPSS contract has been fully implemented and is consistent with its founding charter document. Further
guidance is requested on what defines “fidelity to charter” that is not described or explained in the NACA application.
In addition, the renewal metric citation in the Preliminary Renewal Report states:
“ (4) effectively addressed any challenges evident in the data, particularly in the areas of subgroup
performance, enrollment, student attendance, dropout rates, attrition and student choice data/school
demand.”
This metric contradicts other metrics in MSA related to NACA’s success in enrollment, attendance, retention, suspension, and attrition.
Specifically, (4) above contradicts subcategories 2.6 and 2.7 on same document which give a rating of “effective” in the category of “Student
attendance, chronic absences” and “Suspensions.” Below are data cited in 2013 application:

NACA students have an excellent attendance rate, in the 95% to 97% range for most of the 2010-2013 academic years, highly effective
and above District percentages in every category. Students with disabilities at NACA are no different: their absenteeism is low with
attendance in the 94% to 96% range from 2010-2013.

According to Table 3e(i), NACA had 281 students enrolled in 2013, with an average of 20% students with disabilities; the
largest growing subgroup at NACA and one that it continues to focus its staff development efforts on.

The Data Table3(f)(i) shows that NACA middle school started strong and has remained steady in keeping 64.3%, a higher percentage of
its cohort than the District. This accomplishment been in spite of the number of charter schools that have opened in Northeast Baltimore
over the past three years which has negatively affected NACA’s cohort retention rate. Several families have taken their children out of
2
NACA one year and then re-enrolled them in subsequent years – that is a pattern NACA sees internally; but BCPSS' data collection will
not see it.

NACA’s attendance rate has been high for all students with an all grades higher percentage of students in attendance as compared to the
District, from 2010-2013 as shown in the table below derived from the BCPSS data provided.
Category NACA/District
NACA all
NACA Gen Ed
NACA Students with
Student/District
Students/District
Disabilities/District
2010 Attendance
97.4/92.6
97.7/93.1
96.1/90.3
2011 Attendance
95.7/93.1
96.1/93.6
94.1/91.0
2012 Attendance
95.5/93.3
96.0/93.9
93.4/91.0
2013 Attendance
95.2/93.3
95.0/93.8
96.0/91.2

Of particular note is NACA’s ability to ensure that its students with disabilities are fully engaged and in attendance every day; the proof of
its effectiveness can be seen below in the data derived from table 3(g)(i). NACA students with disabilities attended school on a more daily
basis in comparison with the District’s rate as seen on the table presented above to question 3(g)(i) and derived from the BCPSS data. For
example, in 2013, the NACA general education attendance was 95.0% as compared with the students with disabilities attendance of
96.0%, both percentiles higher than that of other schools, both overall and for subgroups.

NACA’s average chronic absence rate for all students across all grades in 2013 was 7.6 as compared with the District’s rate of 23.3, or
three times that of NACA. NACA’s chronic absent rate of 5.3 for its students with disabilities was significantly low; the District’s rates
for SWD subgroup was significantly higher for each year, from 2010-2013. NACA performed above all District rates in its track record
for chronic absences across all years and subgroups.
Category
School: All Students 6-8
2010
Chronically
Absent
Rate/#
6.2/4
2011
Chronically
Absent Rate/#
6.9/9
2012
Chronically
Absent
Rate/#
7.7/15
2013 Chronically
Absent Rate/#
7.6/20
3
School: General Education
School: Students with Disabilities.
District: All Students

5.6/3
9.1/1
23.8/19.6
3.9/4
17.9/5
24. 7/20.5
4.5/7
21.6/8
22.5/18.8
8.3/17
5.3/3
23.3/19.6
NACA’s average chronic absence rate for students receiving special education services has ranged from 9.1 in 2010 to 5.3 in
2013 and has consistently been below District rates for the same time period. For 2013, for example, the SWD rate of 5.3 is
less than ¼ that of the District’s. NACA’s approach has not required it having to develop strategies for chronic absence rate
for its students receiving special education service.

When NACA opened, it faced many challenges, including finding many students that were not prepared for a college prep
school. At the mid-year point in 2010, all ninth graders were removed from NACA. From January 2010 to the present,
NACA’s suspension rate has remained at the low levels that it expects and strives toward. NACA experienced 23
suspensions in 2013, 15 suspensions in 2012, and 10 in 2011. The expulsion rate has remained low, with only two expulsions
occurring since NACA’s inception, from 2009-2013.

NACA’s percentages of SWD students receiving short-term suspension has shown a trend of improvement from 44% in 2010 to 25% in
2013 as seen below on table derived from table 3(l)(ii) provided by BCPSS. Expulsion data show NACA history of two expulsions, one
related to SWD in 2011. NACA has not had any long-term suspensions or expulsions.
Category
Suspensions # NACA/SWD
2010
2011
2012
2013
54/24
11/4
15/5
24/6
Expulsions NACA/SWD
0/0
1/1
0/0
1/0
Expulsion percentage NACA/SWD
0%
100%
0%
0%
4
The data show that NACA’s disciplinary policy does NOT discriminate against students receiving special education services or
disproportionately affect them in a negative way. The advanced character development mission and vision has worked to reduce the
suspension rate and has served as both a preventative measure and a framework.
2.2: Talented People (School Effectiveness Review)--- NACA RATED NOT EFFECTIVE
NACA rebutted this rating and accepted BCPSS including NACA's rebuttal (dated 9/22/13) as Appendix A to the final SER as follows:
“Domain 2: Talented People
NACA contests the rating of “non-effective” on specific SER finding 2.2. Relative to 2.2, NACA II has created and implemented systems that are
consonant with and adherent to the teacher evaluation system developed by and required by BCPSS. NACA has created systems that evaluate
teachers and staff against individual and school-wide goals, which provide interventions to those who are not meeting expectations, and that can
remove those who do not make reasonable improvement. NACA utilizes its systems and follows BCPSS’ and the BTU’s required systems.
NACA’s process for the teaching staff includes the School Director (SD)/Principal evaluating the teachers during pre-set times determined by
BCPSS during the school year, using the BCPSS Instructional Framework 2.0 (revised June 2012). All teachers are provided copies of the
framework and are made aware of the timeframes for evaluations. The teacher evaluation does include an opportunity for the SD/Principal to go
over the items that they will be evaluated on ahead of the formal evaluation to answer any questions the teacher may have. This is followed by the
formal evaluation conducted by the SD/Principal or other BCPSS recognized, properly-credentialed person. Feedback is provided during the
formal evaluation and throughout the school year.
Additionally, the results of NACA's August 2013 Survey of NACA's teachers is set forth below. The teachers shared the information below is a
correct representation of what the teachers communicated/tried to communicate to the SER team in April 2013, relative to Domain 2 (items 2.1
and 2.2).
Please compare SER Team's report (below) and NACA Teachers' Survey (below):
The evidence suggests the SER team's penned findings and report should be understood as significantly erroneous.
SER Team's report:
Domain 2: Talented people: Not effective, Not effective
NACA's Teacher Survey report:
Domain 2: Talented People; Teachers’ Consensus Response: Highly Effective, Highly Effective”
5
2.4: Parent, teacher, and student Satisfaction: (Chicago 5E and School Survey)
CATEGORY 2. DOES THE SCHOOL HAVE A STRONG CLIMATE? (min 25% weight of decision)
2.4 Parent, Teacher, and Student Satisfaction
Parents: School Survey Overall Satisfaction (%
Not Effective
positive responses)
Teachers and Students: Chicago 5E Survey
Effective
The final SER finds NACA “Developing” on all three subsections of this question as follows. Also the SER results contradict the school survey
results.
Domain 3: Engaged families and community
3.1 The school provides a safe and supportive
learning environment for students, families,
teachers, and staff.
3.2 The school cultivates and sustains open
communication and decision-making
opportunities with families about school events,
policies, and the academic and social
development of their children.
3.3 The culture of the school reflects and
embraces student, staff, and community diversity.
Developing
Developing
Developing
However, only 22 parents completing the School Climate survey reported as follows.
N.A.C.A. Freedom and
Democracy Academy II
PARENTS
N/A
SCHOOL TYPE
N/A
AVERAGE
72.2%
SCHOOL TYPE
80.4%
AVERAGE
66.7%
349
School Type:
Item
STUDENTS
30.3%
33.7%
STAFF
46.2%
51.1%
46.2%
45.5%
69.2%
76.4%
2) I feel like I belong in this school/
my student feels he/she belongs at this school
57.4%
7.7%
3) If students break rules, there are fair
1) Students Respect Each Other
6
SCHOOL TYPE
AVERAGE
SCHOOL TYPE
AVERAGE
SCHOOL TYPE
AVERAGE
84.3%
55.2%
55.0%
70.0%
91.5%
80.1%
75.7%
100.0%
96.9%
70.0%
81.5%
55.7%
50.0%
50.0%
70.6%
5) Students feel safe at this school
60.4%
62.0%
84.6%
88.1%
6) I like my classes/I like the classes I
take/I like the classes I teach
N/A
SCHOOL TYPE
N/A
AVERAGE
Parents TOTAL RESPONDANTS: 22
consequences
4) Teachers provide extra help to students
who need it
The BCPSS Rubric rating criteria for this element (Parents: Climate Survey: Overall Satisfaction (% positive responses)) is:
Rubric
Highly Effective
Effective
Developing
Not Effective
School's 5-yr average value is ≥ 80th
percentile of all schools in the District based
on grade band
School's 5-yr average value is ≥ 65th
percentile of all schools in the District based
on grade band
School's 5-yr average value is ≥ 50th
percentile of all schools in the District based
on grade band
School's 5-yr average value is < 50th
percentile of all schools in the District based
on grade band
It is not clear how- the 5 year average was calculated for NACA, entering its third year at the time of the survey. The breakdown of the items with
the highest and lowest satisfaction on the School Survey shows a significant number of items where NACA ranked at almost the same level as the
school type average, i.e., within 5-6 percentage points. Please provide the data and methodology for subcategory 2.4 showing that NACA ranked
at less than 50% of all schools in the District for a five-year period.
Also, at what point does the Renewal Advisory group factor in NACA's internal surveys and the results of those surveys (Please Note: MSDE's
best practices include transformation charter schools doing their one internal assessements/surveys/analyses); and what weight are the surveys
given? This is extremely important, because NACA's internal Parent Surveys received very positive responses from 148 parents.
7
2.8: SWD (from Rubric)---NACA RATED NOT EFFECTIVE
Category
1
2.8
Total
Is the school an academic success? (min 50% weight)
Effective Academic Programming for Students with Disabilities
whole
100
50.00%
Data Source
3
0.75%
City Schools/
Renewal
Application
Rubric
Highly Effective
Effective
Developing
Not Effective
Evidence that school has a demonstrated a
strong trajectory of growth, is aware of its
data and responsibilities to students with
disabilities, does not have any gaps or has
decreased gaps in the data as it relates to
performance and climate metrics for students
with disabilities over time, and has effectively
and consistently implemented processes,
interventions and strategies to support
student outcomes over the course of the
contract.
Evidence that school has a demonstrated a
trajectory of growth, is aware of its data and
responsibilities to students with disabilities,
has minimum gaps or has decreased gaps in
the data as it relates to performance and
climate metrics for students with disabilities
over time, and has generally implemented
appropriate processes, interventions and
strategies to support student outcomes over
the course of the contract. The school has
taken prompt and appropriate steps to
address any shortcomings.
Evidence that school is working towards a
trajectory of growth, is aware of its data and
responsibilities to students with disabilities,
and has implemented processes,
interventions and strategies to support
student outcomes including to address any
gaps in the data as it relates to performance
and climate metrics for students with
disabilities over time over the course of the
contract but in some instances has struggled
to take measures that are appropriate and
sufficient. The school has taken steps to
remedy such shortcomings.
Little or no evidence that school is working
towards a trajectory of growth and is aware of
its data and responsibilities to students with
disabilities. School has failed to sufficiently
implement processes, interventions and
strategies to support student outcomes
including to address any gaps in the data as it
relates to performance and climate metrics for
students with disabilities over time over the
course of the contract.
The NACA 2013 renewal application included substantial data to demonstrate its achievement with its SWD students. The reference to the
application as the source for a rating of “not effective” is confounding to NACA. Below are data cited in Categories 1. and 2. Of the 2013 NACA
application and based solely on the BCPSS MSA and other survey tools provided to NACA for the application.
1.
Is the School an Academic Success?
c.
Please refer to Data Table 2(c)(i) provided by City Schools addressing the school’s record of disaggregated and subgroup
performance on the MSA, Stanford 10 (if school’s academic performance and discuss any data trends, achievement gaps and other
considerations relevant to evaluating and understanding the school’s performance.
8
Currently, NACA has an estimated 20% of its students within the Students with Disabilities
(SWD) subgroup .The academic performance of the SWD subgroup for 2010-2013 needs to be reviewed
with details provided by subject matter and grade. NACA has constructed the table below from BCPSS
data to show the grade by grade reading performance of its students with grades 6-8 compared with the
performance of the District. The table below shows NACA performance for 2012 and 2013 above that of
the District with one exception.
SWD Performance
 6th Grade
 7th Grade
 8th Grade
2012 Reading NACA/ District
60.0/37.3
33.3/31.4
54.5/28.2
2013 Reading NACA/ District
53.3/34.2
22.2/35.5
33.3/27.6
NACA’s math performance for its SWD subgroup shows more variance and less trending toward
cohesiveness in the NACA Math program’s ability to meet the multiple needs of its special needs
students. During the next contract period, NACA will reinforce efforts on improving its Math program,
for all grades, with an emphasis on both staff development and monitoring of progress made on a weekly
basis.
g.
Discuss how the school uses data to inform decisions regarding instruction, curriculum,
school programs, professional development and/or other school components.
iii. How does individual student achievement data inform student interventions and
differentiation? Please provide one or more specific examples of how data analysis has
resulted in a change at the school.
Individual student achievement data are utilized by NACA’s teachers and administrators to increase
student performance in the following ways:
 Assist teams and teachers to plan collaboratively and create action plans which include targeted
instruction based on student need (differentiation).
 Plan lessons that address specific learning needs designed especially for after school coach class.
 Deliver small group instruction.(grouped by needs to reinforce skills).
9
 Reteach, reassess, and retest.
 Create and develop activities that contain rigor to challenge students who are excelling and
working above grade level.
Example 1: We specifically tailor our program by providing services for special education students by
providing a “push in model” and the “pull out” model. The “push in model” model involves a special
education teacher co-teaching with the general education teacher while providing services for the special
education student. The “pull out model” pulls out special needs students who need more intensified
services.
2.
Does The School Have A Strong School Climate?
c.
Are the school’s teachers highly effective at instruction?
ii.
Please describe the school’s approach to highly effective instruction for students
with disabilities in the least restrictive environment.
NACA's approach to highly effective instruction for students with disabilities in the least restrict
environment continues functioning well, as it has from NACA's inception. NACA continues employing
an “inclusion” model/approach, wherein all children are educated in the same classroom together. NACA
has no “special education room” where children receive their lessons. The inclusion approach frees
students from having to carry and overcome antiquated, disempowering labels/stigma. The general
education teacher, the special educator(s), and the parent(s) discuss and plan together strategies that
enable the students with different needs to learn, grow, and excel.
Teachers provide visual, auditory and kinesthetic opportunities for students to learn academic
concepts for students with disabilities as well as for students who simply learn differently, who do not
have an individual education plan. Highly effective teachers are able to use a series of methods to ensure
consistently high levels of achievement routinely. NACA’s teachers’ ability to differentiate instruction is
apparent daily as each class has students who absorb instruction in different ways. Students with
disabilities are educated in a general education classroom with their non-disable peers, in the least
restrictive environment.
When IEPs are written, programming needs are analyzed and the expectation is, more
often than not, students will be educated with their non-disabled peers. When assessment
indicate that more intensive work is needed with a student, he/she will be pulled out of the general
education classroom for more intensive work, designated by the IEP. Individual Education Plan meetings
10
are led by an IEP Chairperson, with teachers, parents or guardians present to make the appropriate
decisions for the student. All notification timelines are set forth and met: notification of parents and
teachers, assessment and timelines, and the writing of goals and objectives.
g.
Does the school have a good track record for attendance?
i.
Please refer to Data Table 3(g)(i) provided by City Schools on attendance. If
attendance rate is a concern, detail the school’s strategy for addressing this and
the school’s goals in this area. Please discuss the strategies used during the
contract term to improve attendance rates.
NACA’s attendance rate has been high for all students with an all grades higher percentage of
students in attendance as compared to the District, from 2010-2013 as shown in the table below derived
from the BCPSS data provided.
Category NACA/District
NACA all
NACA Gen Ed
NACA Students with
Student/District
Students/District
Disabilities/District
2010 Attendance
97.4/92.6
97.7/93.1
96.1/90.3
2011 Attendance
95.7/93.1
96.1/93.6
94.1/91.0
2012 Attendance
95.5/93.3
96.0/93.9
93.4/91.0
2013 Attendance
95.2/93.3
95.0/93.8
96.0/91.2
ii.
How does the school’s attendance rate for students with disabilities compare with
City Schools’ average in this subcategory? If this is a concern for the school,
please indicate the school’s plan for addressing this.
Of particular note is NACA’s ability to ensure that its students with disabilities are fully engaged
and in attendance every day; the proof of its effectiveness can be seen below in the data derived from
table 3(g)(i). NACA students with disabilities attended school on a more daily basis in comparison with
the District’s rate as seen on the table presented above to question 3(g)(i) and derived from the BCPSS
data. For example, in 2013, the NACA general education attendance was 95.0% as compared with the
students with disabilities attendance of 96.0%, both percentiles higher than that of other schools, both
overall and for subgroups.
h.
What is the school’s track record for chronic absences?
i. Please refer to Data Table 3(h)(i) provided by City Schools on chronic absences. Please
discuss the strategies used during the contract term to reduce the chronic absence rate.
11
NACA’s average chronic absence rate for all students across all grades in 2013 was 7.6 as
compared with the District’s rate of 23.3, or three times that of NACA. NACA’s chronic absent rate of
5.3 for its students with disabilities was significantly low; the District’s rates for SWD subgroup was
significantly higher for each year, from 2010-2013. NACA performed above all District rates in its track
record for chronic absences across all years and subgroups.
Category
School: All Students 6-8
School: General Education
School: Students with Disabilities.
District: All Students
2010
Chronically
Absent
Rate/#
6.2/4
5.6/3
9.1/1
23.8/19.6
2011
Chronically
Absent Rate/#
6.9/9
3.9/4
17.9/5
24. 7/20.5
2012
Chronically
Absent
Rate/#
7.7/15
4.5/7
21.6/8
22.5/18.8
2013 Chronically
Absent Rate/#
7.6/20
8.3/17
5.3/3
23.3/19.6
ii. What is the school’s chronic absence rate for students with disabilities? If chronic
absence is a concern for students with disabilities, detail the school’s strategy for
addressing this and what the school’s goals are in this area. Please discuss the strategies
used during the contract term to reduce the chronic absence rate for students with
disabilities.
NACA’s average chronic absence rate for students receiving special education services has ranged from
9.1 in 2010 to 5.3 in 2013 and has consistently been below District rates for the same time period. For
2013, for example, the SWD rate of 5.3 is less than ¼ that of the District’s. NACA’s approach has not
required it having to develop strategies for chronic absence rate for its students receiving special
education service.
l.
What is the school’s data on student suspension and expulsions and what goals has the
school set for a future term?
ii.
What is the percentage of students with disabilities that receive a short-term
suspension, long-term suspension or expulsion and how does this compare with
rates in the school’s total population of students? Please discuss the strategies
used during the contract term to reduce the percentage of suspensions and
expulsions for students with disabilities.
NACA’s percentages of SWD students receiving short-term suspension has shown a trend of
improvement from 44% in 2010 to 25% in 2013 as seen below on table derived from table 3(l)(ii)
provided by BCPSS. Expulsion data show NACA history of two expulsions, one related to SWD in
2011. NACA has not had any long-term suspensions or expulsions.
12
Category
Suspensions # NACA/SWD
2010
2011
2012
2013
54/24
11/4
15/5
24/6
Expulsions NACA/SWD
0/0
1/1
0/0
1/0
Expulsion percentage NACA/SWD
0%
100%
0%
0%
The data show that NACA’s disciplinary policy does NOT discriminate against students receiving special
education services or disproportionately affect them in a negative way. The advanced character
development mission and vision has worked to reduce the suspension rate and has served as both a
preventative measure and a framework.
3.
CATEGORY 3. OVERALL MANAGEMENT RATING: DEVELOPING
NACA overall management and governance have received stellar ratings from BCPSS. There
are two major concerns that NACA would like to address:

The Rubric does not provide metrics to measure success on the elements comprising overall
management. For example, NACA’s timeliness in its submission of quarterly reports and
audit does not appear to factor into the rating;

The SER gave NACA an “effective” on the school’s board of trustees (or operator) ability
provides competent stewardship and oversight of the school. Yet stewardship and strategic
planning, integral parts of management, and areas of “effective” rating for NACA, have been
excluded from this Preliminary Renewal Report.
13