KCSD ad hoc committee reviews Sugar Valley Rural Charter renewal requests; recommends measurable goals and tighter reporting

The Keystone Central School District ad hoc charter school committee met Feb. 3 to review data and four modification requests from Sugar Valley Rural Charter School as part of the charter renewal process, and to form recommendations for the KCSD board.

The committee reviewed publicly available achievement and growth data from the state’s Future Ready site and the charter school’s materials, discussed assessment requirements and diagnostics, considered a requested enrollment increase from 475 to 495 students, and debated whether the charter should continue to appear in person for an annual data presentation to the KCSD board.

Committee members placed the most emphasis on student performance and growth. Dr. Redmond, the district presenter to the committee, said the charter’s scores “are below” the statewide averages in English language arts and mathematics when disaggregated by subgroup, and showed a mixed growth picture. “The statewide average growth is about 75.4 and the Sugar Valley rural charter school growth was a bit below that at 65,” Dr. Redmond said while reviewing the state comparison slides. He noted science scores showed a closer alignment to state averages and that statewide results changed markedly after the pandemic.

Why it matters: the ad hoc committee’s recommendations will guide the full board’s decision on whether to renew the charter agreement. Renewal decisions must consider six statutory criteria the board uses; Dr. Redmond reminded the group that “if they violate any of these things, then the board has grounds to not renew,” and that the charter had not been shown to violate those criteria in the materials reviewed.

Committee recommendations and discussion

- Measurable performance goals: District staff recommended including “specific and measurable achievement and growth goals” in any renewed charter agreement. Dr. Redmond recommended a starting target of roughly a 5-percentage-point improvement year over year for tested measures as a reasonable, incremental goal given historical variability; one committee member warned that smaller schools can show natural year-to-year swings and suggested a lower target (2.5 points) could be within the noise of a small cohort. Committee members agreed the board will ultimately set any numeric goals.

- Use of assessments: The charter asked to eliminate a second, required diagnostic assessment in paragraph 6(a) of the current charter, saying the NWEA MAP screening administered three times per year was preferred to reduce assessment burden. Dr. Redmond explained the district’s position that MAP functions as a screening tool while a second-layer diagnostic test provides strand-level detail used to target interventions: “That next layer of test is the diagnostic tool that gets really specific…so you can actually fix it.” The committee asked Dr. Redmond to contact Tracy (the charter contact) before the board meeting to clarify how the charter currently uses any second-layer diagnostics and report back.

- Act 158 and grade‑12 exemptions: The charter proposed amending paragraph 6(a) so that “students in grade 12 who have successfully completed all requirements of a graduation pathway under Pennsylvania Act 158 may be excused from the additional assessments and interventions.” Committee members agreed with that proposed wording change.

- Enrollment cap request: Sugar Valley requested a modest enrollment cap increase from 475 to 495 (an increase of 20 seats, bringing average class totals from about 36.5 to 38). Committee members expressed differing views. One member said the board may not consider financial impact under state law and framed the question as student-centered; another said the district should reach comparable performance standards before enlarging charter enrollment. No final decision was taken; members agreed to present the differing opinions to the full board.

- Annual presentation requirement: The charter requested to cease an in‑person annual appearance before the KCSD board to present its annual comprehensive data report and instead provide the report electronically, with the option to answer submitted questions in person. Committee members generally favored that approach as a way to allow committee and board members time to review materials and send informed questions in advance, while noting value in an in‑person, conversational presentation when the charter and district want a strategic discussion about data and partnership opportunities.

Context and next steps

Committee members repeatedly discussed the need for comparative data presented in a like-for-like format; several members asked staff to prepare district-level comparisons in the same style before any final board action. Dr. Redmond said he will try to clarify the charter’s current use of diagnostic assessments with Tracy and report back to the ad hoc committee before or at the board meeting. The ad hoc committee agreed to forward its recommendations and the recorded differences of opinion (notably on enrollment) to the full KCSD board for action.

The meeting included detailed discussion of subgroup performance, assessment strategy, and procedural expectations for reporting — but produced no formal board vote at the ad hoc level. The committee ended the meeting by confirming its proposed recommendations for the board: seek clarification about diagnostic testing use; accept the Act 158 wording change; report mixed views on the enrollment increase; and propose replacing the routine, in‑person annual presentation with a submitted report plus follow‑up questions and an in‑person option when warranted.

A draft of the ad hoc committee’s recommendations will be delivered to the KCSD board in advance of the next board meeting, where the full board will consider formal renewal language and any conditions.