Share |

National Council on Teacher Quality

 1120 G Street, NW, Suite 800
 Washington, DC 20005
[P] (202) 393-0020 x 105
[F] (202) 393-0095
www.nctq.org
[email protected]
Sarah Brody
Facebook Twitter
INCORPORATED: 2001
 Printable Profile (Summary / Full)
EIN 04-3536571

LAST UPDATED: 09/15/2017
Organization DBA --
Former Names --
Organization received a competitive grant from the Boston Foundation in the past five years Yes

Summary

Mission StatementMORE »

The National Council on Teacher Quality is led by the vision that every child deserves effective teachers and every teacher deserves the opportunity to become effective. As a nonpartisan research and policy organization, we recognize that it is not teachers who bear responsibility for their profession's many challenges, but the institutions with the greatest authority and influence over teachers. To that end we work to achieve fundamental changes in the policy and practices of teacher preparation programs, school districts, state governments, and teachers unions. We advocate for reforms at the federal, state and local levels.

Mission Statement

The National Council on Teacher Quality is led by the vision that every child deserves effective teachers and every teacher deserves the opportunity to become effective. As a nonpartisan research and policy organization, we recognize that it is not teachers who bear responsibility for their profession's many challenges, but the institutions with the greatest authority and influence over teachers. To that end we work to achieve fundamental changes in the policy and practices of teacher preparation programs, school districts, state governments, and teachers unions. We advocate for reforms at the federal, state and local levels.


FinancialsMORE »

Fiscal Year Oct 01, 2015 to Sept 30, 2016
Projected Income $7,170,024.00
Projected Expense $6,444,735.00

ProgramsMORE »

  • District Policy
  • State Teacher Policy Yearbook
  • Teacher Prep Review

Revenue vs. Expense ($000s)

Expense Breakdown 2016 (%)

Expense Breakdown 2015 (%)

Expense Breakdown 2014 (%)

For more details regarding the organization's financial information, select the financial tab and review available comments.


Overview

Mission Statement

The National Council on Teacher Quality is led by the vision that every child deserves effective teachers and every teacher deserves the opportunity to become effective. As a nonpartisan research and policy organization, we recognize that it is not teachers who bear responsibility for their profession's many challenges, but the institutions with the greatest authority and influence over teachers. To that end we work to achieve fundamental changes in the policy and practices of teacher preparation programs, school districts, state governments, and teachers unions. We advocate for reforms at the federal, state and local levels.


Background Statement

We were created in 2000 to provide an alternative national voice to existing teacher organizations, largely because a case needed to be made for a far more comprehensive reform agenda--certainly more far reaching than anyone was willing to propose at the time--because fixing the teaching profession requires reforms that challenge the current structure and regulation of the profession.  
 
At that time, there were few organizations dedicated to solving the structural problems of the teaching profession. There was also little understanding at the time that many of the rights and privileges granted to teachers were clearly granted without sufficient attention to what would be in the best interests of students, particularly students living in poverty. 
 
We’d like to take a bit of the credit for the fact that ten years later, the teacher quality problem is more fully understood and that we’re seeing pockets of progress in a good majority of states.  That’s progress we can be proud of. 
 
People now get that the teaching profession needs to look much different if we are going to attract and keep the kind of talent our children deserve. This means we need to rethink what it takes to get into the profession, how new teachers are trained, hired and assigned to schools, how they climb the ladder, how they get paid, and even how they retire.  
 
The work ahead is still daunting but we are more optimistic than ever that it is eminently achievable. To achieve the change we need, our organization advocates for reforms in a broad range of teacher policies at the federal, state and local levels in order to increase the number of effective teachers. In particular, we recognize the absence of much of the evidence necessary to make a compelling case for change and seek to fill that void with a research agenda that has direct and practical implications for policy. We are committed to lending transparency and increasing public awareness about the four sets of institutions that have the greatest impact on teacher quality: states, teacher preparation programs, school districts and teachers unions.

Impact Statement

 

  • NCTQ is the most influential organization in the country for driving reforms in states' policies. The fact that we produce an annual metric of state progress, the State Teacher Policy Yearbook, allows us to measure not just states' progress, but our own influence as well. The Yearbook assesses states on no fewer than 30 policy areas, making it very hard for states to improve their overall grade substantially. States have to make big improvements in not just one—but in five-to-10 areas—to have their grades improve. Over the past five years, 37 states have made enough changes to their policies across the 30+ Yearbook goals to increase their grades by at least one full grade level. In 2009, the average grade was D; it is now C-. Just 9 states have made no overall improvement in their grades since 2011. And if anything, we have made it harder for states to do better, moving the goalpost back, so to speak, on a number of Yearbook goals.
  • NCTQ has demonstrated that we can amass huge amounts of information, process it accurately, and present it in a way that is influential in the policy arena. We produced the most comprehensive report on a field within higher education ever in the history of the United States. The Teacher Prep Review was not just a singular accomplishment for teacher education, but for all of higher education. Our annual Yearbook consists of no fewer than 9,000 unique pages and 52 separate volumes. The Teacher Contract Database, launched in 2007, includes every state law, compensation schedules, school calendars, teacher contracts, and any school board policy relating to teachers for over 100 school districts.
  • NCTQ has demonstrated that our data can move districts to make difficult changes. Our district work has driven key policy changes at the district level and in contract negotiations through both the power of our reports and the influence that the comparative data we provide wields. We have also completed 13 customized studies of districts, revealing much data that is often difficult for a district to have publicly aired but that always helps the district move forward. Our recommendations provided each of these districts with specific, actionable changes to improve teacher quality. We can provide evidence of forward progress in these districts, but Boston is the best example. Even five years after our study was issued, the report has served as the “how to” manual for moving from a system of seniority-based hiring to one of principal autonomy, and for cleaning up lax evaluation policies.
  • We are learning how to have more of an influence with the mainstream public, particularly in our teacher prep work and the launch of a new website aimed at aspiring teachers, Path to Teach.
  • In the field of teacher preparation, we literally have put the issue on the map, and a movement has been ignited. The issue of poor teacher preparation has taken hold as something this country must resolve, and viable solutions are at hand. Between 2011 and 2014, no fewer than 40 states toughened up their teacher prep regulations, after years of inattention to this aspect of teacher policy. A number of major foundations that had previously not funded teacher prep initiatives have begun making high-leverage investments. The new accrediting body CAEP (in spite of tripping a bit recently) came out with strong new standards, privately giving NCTQ much of the credit because of our external pressure. A reform group of deans has been formed, Deans for Impact. The concept of high-quality inspections of programs has gained a secure foothold in the market. National journalists Amanda Ripley and Elizabeth Green both wrote prominent books calling attention to the need for better teacher prep. Media coverage of teacher prep has increased three-fold since 2013 when the first edition was released.  

 

 

Needs Statement

1. Fixing a broken teacher pipeline:  Working in Indianapolis and with charter schools in California, NCTQ’s Great from the Gate initiative is setting out to prove that student teachers can and should be the best source of schools' new teacher talent, provided schools are a lot clearer with higher ed about their own needs and establish higher standards from the start. We are currently looking for new sites for the 2018-19 school year.

2. Rating the quality of teacher prep programs: This project may well serve as NCTQ's legacy initiative by affecting long-sought changes in how higher ed prepares new teachers, changes which have proven so elusive in many other attempts. It is work that relies on investments both large and small by dozens of foundations dedicated to transforming what happens in their own states.

3. Modernizing state teacher policies: Our State Teacher Policy Yearbook has produced major wins in states' policies governing teacher evaluation, tenure, dismissal, and pay. As this work stands now, we have states' full attention. This is an inexpensive investment for any foundation, as it costs only $25,000 a year to support our analysis of a state.

4. Addressing inequity: We propose training all teachers no matter what their race or ethnicity to practice their craft more equitably. One problem is the lack of good materials to help teachers understand their own biases and then address them. We are repurposing actual experiments used in academic studies, a unique idea. We are proceeding carefully with early funding needed to support the development of a business plan, and we will then roll out ready-made modules.



CEO Statement

Over the past several decades, the teaching profession has suffered a brain drain as talented women and minorities have many more career options than they once did.  We’re drawing too heavily from the bottom half of students for our prospective teaching pool in terms of academic ability.  
 
We no longer live in a world where people become teachers for life, as most adults work their way through two, three, or more careers.  Yet the teaching profession is structured to appeal only to Lifers, particularly in the way it compensates teachers.  For example, much of the salary and benefits that teachers get is “backloaded." That is, a disproportionate amount is reserved for the last few years a teacher is teaching.  In one district, 70 percent of the raises a teacher will receive are reserved for years 20 and beyond. This does little to help entice top talent into the profession in today's world.
 
We also have come to grips with massive educational failure that is pretty unique to the United States.  Poor kids get a very different quality of education than do middle class kids.  Poor kids, especially minority kids, are too often assigned the weakest teachers.  In spite of billions of dollars spent to address this problem, which we call the achievement gap, we’ve made little headway. 
 
So our job at the National Council on Teacher Quality is to help move this mountain.  We have a different approach than any other teacher organization. We believe massive changes in policy and practice are needed by the institutions that have authority over the teaching profession.  That includes state legislatures, school districts and teachers unions, as well as institutions of higher education.  We dedicate our time to documenting the impact that these institutions have on teacher quality, which is often quite a hindrance to improving the quality of teachers and the teaching profession.  Everything we do is aimed at getting these institutions to change their policies and their practices.  

Board Chair Statement

I'm very proud to chair the board of NCTQ, an organization with a proven track record and a mission to improve teaching and teacher training across the country.  This is an organization that uses data to identify where reform needs to occur in schools of education and school districts, even when officials don’t want to hear it.  Even U.S. Department of Education Secretary Duncan has said that teacher preparation is an area that begs for reform.  
 
NCTQ has embraced the mission of reforming teacher preparation.  NCTQ is building on preliminary studies they've done of teacher preparation over the past seven years to actually rate more than 1,000 education schools that graduate 240,000 new teachers each year. Programs will be rated against a set of common standards and the ratings will be published annually in U.S. News and World Report. NCTQ is also undertaking additional communications strategies to ensure that future teachers and school districts know about the quality of teacher preparation programs in their regions.  The goal is to motivate people who want to become teachers to attend the better schools and to influence school districts to hire from the better schools.  We also hope that ineffective teacher prep programs will respond to these market pressures by greatly strengthening the quality of their training programs.  
 
NCTQ is a model of institutional transparency.  As the former Lieutenant Governor of Colorado, I know firsthand of the importance of  NCTQ’s work in pushing states, districts and schools of education to use data to reform the teaching profession.  It is an honor to serve on the board.

Geographic Area Served

STATEWIDE
NATIONAL
GREATER BOSTON REGION, MA
--

Organization Categories

  1. Education - Research Institutes & Public Policy Analysis
  2. -
  3. -

Independent research has been conducted on this organization's theory of change or on the effectiveness of this organization's program(s)

No

Programs

District Policy

All of our work in this area advances the need for districts to understand that there are solutions in place to common problems they’re facing. NCTQ's Teacher Contract Database houses the teacher policies spelled out in teacher contracts, school board policies and state law for over 100 school districts and 50 states and provides the base data for all of our district work products:
 
--Teacher Trendlines and Catching up With Contracts. These monthly publications are written for school district officials and cover how districts compare across select policy areas and respond to common challenges. 
--"The Best Places for Great Teachers to Work.” Modeled after Fortune Magazine’s 100 Best Companies to Work For, NCTQ seeks to build the first-ever serial report analyzing the features of large school districts (the 100 largest would be our sample) that do the best job creating a great place for great teachers to teach. With regular updates and the highlighting of “the best,” the report will provide a healthy incentive for change among school districts seeking to join the list of top performers. 
--Single-issue, multi-district research papers. For instance, in the past year we published Smart Money: What Teachers Make, How Long It Takes and What it Buys Them and Roll Call: The importance of Teacher Attendance. Both met with significant media attention. We plan to revisit the issue of a teacher attendance in a follow-up report in 2016, gauging improvements and making further policy recommendations.
Budget  $1,100,000.00
Category  Education, General/Other Education Policy Programs
Population Served K-12 (5-19 years) At-Risk Populations
Program Short-Term Success  We've partnered with local groups that have helped to build coalitions around incorporating needed reforms into new teachers' contracts. In Baltimore, we saw the new contract adopt our specific recommendation to base pay on teachers' contributions to student learning and the school in lieu of salary schedules tied to years of service and advanced degrees.
Program Long-Term Success 
Ultimately, we want districts to incorporate our policy recommendations into new contracts that are negotiated. We've seen a number of our recommendations taken into account in districts we've worked in, including Boston, Seattle and Baltimore.
 
Program Success Monitored By  We can see our success when a new contract agreement is made in the districts we've worked in. We hope to do more targeted follow up studies in those districts to build off the reports we've already completed and are in talks with Baltimore to do just that.
Examples of Program Success  One of our most recent program successes was actually a long time in the making. We were the first to point out that Chicago's teachers were working a significantly shorter work day than teachers in the surrounding districts, and thus students were in school learning for less time. That bit of information helped the district and the mayor eventually make the case that the district's school day needed to be expanded, which the union is in negotiations over right now.

State Teacher Policy Yearbook

We produce the 52-volume State Teacher Policy Yearbook each year (a comprehensive version every other year is alternated with more focused case studies on particular topics) not just to document the current policies of states, such as a journalist might do, but to lay out a blueprint for reform. Our intent is to guide state action in this complex arena, urging them to address what most would consider largely anachronistic, ineffective and often counterproductive policies governing the teaching profession. For that reason, the Yearbook is not just an encyclopedia.  Instead, it measures, grades and ranks each state against a whole range of policy recommendations (currently 36 goals) covering teacher preparation, retention, dismissal, evaluation and compensation. If the content of our advocacy fails to ignite enthusiasm for reform, we also hope to motivate states to act if for no other reason than to improve their ranking and grade.  
Budget  $575,000.00
Category  Education, General/Other Education Policy Programs
Population Served US K-12 (5-19 years)
Program Short-Term Success 
We're proud of the impact Yearbook has had on state policies thus far, including:
 ·        Connecticut, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Oklahoma now offer a stand-alone licensure test on the science of reading instruction.
·        Pennsylvania eliminated its K-12 special education license.
·        California, Illinois, New York and Washington have removed barriers limiting alternate route providers.
·        Florida and Tennessee now hold teacher preparation programs accountable through the use of student achievement data.
·        Florida, Indiana, Idaho, and Ohio prohibit districts from basing their salary schedules on years of experience.
 
Program Long-Term Success 
When we put out our 1st Yearbook, now 8 editions ago, states largely ignored us or were angry, telling us that we had it all wrong.  That isn’t the case anymore.  
 
The Yearbook actually laid much of the foundation for what states needed to achieve in the Race to the Top competition.  The Department of Education drew heavily from the Yearbook for the policy language it needed to guide the teacher portion of the competition.  
 
Further, the Yearbook has become a go-to resource for policymakers working at the national, state and local levels, including governors, state legislators, and school boards.  It is also an invaluable resource for change agents, particularly foundations and advocacy groups interested in advancing teacher quality, including 50CAN and Stand For Children. 
 
Moving foward, we will continue to track states' progress against our framework for reform. 
 
 
Program Success Monitored By  We are able to measure the success of this project by virtue of the fact that we publish an edition each year and grade states every other. Thus, every two years we can measure how states' grades improved against our framework for reform. We have also developed a progress indicator, which allows us to see whether states have made progress toward Yearbook goals, even if their grade might remain the same.
Examples of Program Success 
At the state level, it's clear that the Yearbook has an impact in terms of both raising awareness around state teacher policies and driving state regulators to adopt policy changes in line with our recommendations. We can see our mark being made when we look at changes to states' Yearbook grades as well as state progress on our policy framework.  Between 2009 and 2011:
•The average state grade improved from a D to a D+.
•The number of states earning a C- or higher nearly tripled by jumping from eight to 23. 
•We also gave out our first-ever "B" grade in 2011 to Florida. 
•5 states made progress on 10 or more Yearbook goals (there are 36 goals in total).
•28 states' grades improved 
 
We also work with more than a dozen states on both a formal and informal basis to help them advance teacher quality.

Teacher Prep Review

The Teacher Prep Review is the bedrock of NCTQ’s work to transform teacher preparation. The Review gives the public access to qualitative program information for some 2,400 teacher prep programs, information that cannot be found anywhere else. For the first time, the public can make more informed choices, forcing shifts in the labor market and ultimately changing how institutions prepare teachers.

 

The Review is modeled after the famous 1910 Flexner Report, which rated the quality of medical schools in the United States and precipitated wholesale changes in medical training.

 
Beginning in fall 2016, we will publish updated data on program quality.
 
Meanwhile, we are introducing two new strategic layers to this work in order to better target the consumers of teacher preparation--aspiring teachers and school districts--helping them make more informed decisions about which programs to give their business. We are:
 
1. Helping school districts use their student teaching partnerships as powerful levers for improving teacher preparation and getting better prepared teachers. We help districts align these partnerships to their own hiring needs, accepting only as many student teachers as they can responsibly train and only those whom they determine are good prospective hires.
 
2.  Educating and motivating aspiring teachers, parents and guidance counselors--who currently don’t know how to judge teacher prep programs--to make more informed decisions about which programs to give their business. Our new website, www.pathtoteach.org, distills our ratings into more accessible language for 17-25 year-olds (with discrete interfaces for the differing needs of those looking for undergrad and grad programs) and is designed to help them choose the best college. We need to raise additional funds to market the site and grow our reach.
Budget  $5,200,000.00
Category  Education, General/Other Education Policy Programs
Population Served College Aged (18-26 years) K-12 (5-19 years) At-Risk Populations
Program Short-Term Success 
Improvements that we hope to see within the three-year mark of our first national review's publication include:
1. Districts begin to change their hiring practices.
2. We continue to add endorsements for the work from state and district superintendents as well as education advocacy organizations. To date, 107 school district superintendent and 15 state school chiefs (including Mitchell Chester) have endorsed this project. We also have endorsements from 27 advocacy groups from all over the country, including Mass Insight Education & Research Institute and the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education. The Council of the Great City Schools, which represents 65 large urban school districts in the nation, provided an unprecedented endorsement 
3. More education advocacy organizations make teacher preparation a priority.
4. We continue to engage the press around our work and teacher preparation. 
Program Long-Term Success 
We estimate that the project’s success will best be judged after the third edition of the review is published. The expectation is to build a “brand” for the project with aspiring teachers and school districts in order to alter the marketplace for new teachers. 
 
After three years we will assess the extent to which schools we've identified as low-performing have been closed, those needing improvement have improved against our standards, and whether the models we highlighted as exemplary are being replicated. 
 
We'll assess whether we are in fact altering the marketplace for new teachers in terms of where prospective candidates choose to go for teacher preparation and from which schools districts hire new teachers. 
Program Success Monitored By 
Here are the metrics we will use to evaluate our success:
•From the 1st edition to the 3rd, how many institutions improved their ratings?
•Have institutions rated highly by NCTQ drawn more applicants? Have institutions rated poorly by NCTQ lost applicants?
•Have school districts changed their hiring practices?
•How many low rated programs were shut down?  How many programs lost program approval? How many were put on probation?
•Have any states introduced measures to control the supply of new teachers? Have they used that authority to reward high performing programs or punish low performers?
•Have any states installed a strong inspectorate program to conduct meaningful evaluations of program quality?
Examples of Program Success 
We know that college ratings influence institutions to change (e.g. The Princeton Review and U.S. News tell us so). We also see that institutions tout their ratings when they're high, so we are confident that rating schools will result in change.
 
Even more so, it's important to note that without having published a word of analysis or piece of data, our National Review has already done what no other reform effort to improve teacher preparation has done before it: it has rocked the boat. The mass boycott of the review by the institutions, as well as the steady stream of press-documented pushback we’ve gotten from schools is sheer evidence that our work has teeth. We are greatly anticipating the release of the review early next year, as we see its ability to ultimately force education schools to improve or face loss of approval and clientele as inevitable.
 
 
 

CEO/Executive Director/Board Comments

Looking across our work program, there are certainly areas that, with additional resources, we could develop to really advance our efforts:

1st: We want to ensure that our new website, Path to Teach, reaches a broad audience. This site has huge potential to guide aspiring teachers toward better preparation, but only the extent to which we can drive traffic to the site. We would like to execute a robust marketing strategy to get high school students, guidance counselors, parents, and career-changers to visit and use the website.

2nd: We want to do a much better job breaking up the data-packed State Teacher Policy Yearbook into more digestible pieces as well as make the Yearbook website more interactive—as that’s how most people access it.    

3rd: Right now our Teacher Contract Database is also a sea of data.  We need to do a better job highlighting and presenting key data it contains and packaging it for meaningful public consumption. For instance, we most recently put out a short report comparing teacher leave in all the districts.  You’d be amazed at the differences. We plan to continue to highlight our data for policymakers in similar such reports moving forward.

Management


CEO/Executive Director Ms. Kate Walsh
CEO Term Start Feb 2002
CEO Email [email protected]
CEO Experience Kate Walsh has served as the president of the National Council on Teacher Quality since 2003, leading work to ensure that every child has equal access to effective teachers. At NCTQ, Walsh has spearheaded efforts to instill greater transparency and higher standards among those institutions which exert influence and authority over teachers. Notably, she launched the first-ever review and rankings of the nation’s teacher preparation programs. Previously Walsh worked at The Abell Foundation in Baltimore, the Baltimore City Public Schools, and the Core Knowledge Foundation. Among her accomplishments, she started and ran a boarding school located in Kenya, East Africa in order to educate at-risk boys from Baltimore; founded one of the nation’s premier STEM programs, yielding numerous Intel Talent Search winners for Baltimore City; and started the first alternative certification program for teachers in Maryland. A long-time resident of Baltimore, Walsh has also served on the Maryland State School Board.
Co-CEO --
Co-CEO Term Start --
Co-CEO Email --
Co-CEO Experience --

Former CEOs and Terms

Name Start End
-- -- --

Senior Staff

Name Title Experience/Biography
Ms. Sarah Brody Chief of Staff Sarah Brody serves as NCTQ's chief of staff after having worked at Charter Board Partners as the nonprofit's Director of Development and External Affairs. Prior to that, she managed fundraising and assisted with state policy work for NCTQ from 2009-2013. Sarah began her career as a Teach For America corps member, teaching high school English in the School District of Philadelphia and then at Mastery Charter School. Sarah holds an MS in education from the University of Pennsylvania and a BA in English and history from Emory University.

Awards

Award Awarding Organization Year
-- -- --

Affiliations

Affiliation Year
-- --
Member of state association of nonprofits? No
Name of state association --

External Assessments and Accreditations

External Assessment or Accreditation Year
-- --

Collaborations

--

CEO/Executive Director/Board Comments

--

Foundation Comments

--

Staff Information

Number of Full Time Staff 17
Number of Part Time Staff 1
Number of Volunteers 0
Number of Contract Staff 60
Staff Retention Rate % 80%

Staff Demographics

Ethnicity African American/Black: 1
Asian American/Pacific Islander: 0
Caucasian: 15
Hispanic/Latino: 0
Native American/American Indian: 0
Other: 0
Other (if specified): 1
Gender Female: 14
Male: 4
Not Specified 0

Plans & Policies

Organization has Fundraising Plan? Under Development
Organization has Strategic Plan? Under Development
Years Strategic Plan Considers --
Management Succession Plan --
Business Continuity of Operations Plan No
Organization Policies And Procedures Yes
Nondiscrimination Policy Yes
Whistle Blower Policy No
Document Destruction Policy --
Directors and Officers Insurance Policy --
State Charitable Solicitations Permit --
State Registration --

Risk Management Provisions

--

Reporting and Evaluations

Management Reports to Board? Yes
CEO Formal Evaluation and Frequency Yes Annually
Senior Management Formal Evaluation and Frequency Yes Annually
Non Management Formal Evaluation and Frequency Yes Annually

Governance


Board Chair Mr. John Winn
Board Chair Company Affiliation Retired State School Chief, Florida
Board Chair Term Apr 2013 -
Board Co-Chair --
Board Co-Chair Company Affiliation --
Board Co-Chair Term -

Board Members

Name Company Affiliations Status
Dr. Selma Botman Yeshiva University --
Mr. Jean-Claude Brizard Cross & Joftus, LLC Voting
Mr. John Connolly 1647 --
Mr. Chester E. Finn Jr. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Thomas B. Fordham Institute Voting
Mr. Ira Fishman NFL Players Association Voting
Dr. Marti Watson Garlett Laureate Education and Kaplan University Voting
Dr. Bernadeia Johnson Minnesota State University-Mankato Voting
Mr. Henry Johnson B&D Consulting Voting
Mr. Paul Kihn McKinsey Voting
Dr. Thomas Lasley Learn to Earn Dayton --
Mr. F. Mike Miles Dallas Independent School District Voting
Dr. Chris Nicastro Lee Consulting Group Voting
Mr. Hugh Norwood Trinity Education Group --
Dr. Carol G. Peck Former CEO of Rodel Charitable Foundation of Arizona Voting
Ms. Kate Walsh National Council on Teacher Quality Exofficio

Constituent Board Members

Name Company Affiliations Status
-- -- --

Youth Board Members

Name Company Affiliations Status
-- -- --

Advisory Board Members

Name Company Affiliations Status
-- -- --

Board Demographics

Ethnicity African American/Black: 3
Asian American/Pacific Islander: 0
Caucasian: 10
Hispanic/Latino: 0
Native American/American Indian: 0
Other: 1
Other (if specified): 1
Gender Female: 5
Male: 9
Not Specified 0

Board Information

Board Term Lengths 3
Board Term Limits 0
Board Meeting Attendance % --
Written Board Selection Criteria No
Written Conflict Of Interest Policy Yes
Percentage of Monetary Contributions 0%
Percentage of In-Kind Contributions 0%
Constituency Includes Client Representation No

Standing Committees

    --

CEO/Executive Director/Board Comments

--

Foundation Comments

--

Financials


Revenue vs. Expense ($000s)

Expense Breakdown 2016 (%)

Expense Breakdown 2015 (%)

Expense Breakdown 2014 (%)

Prior Three Years Total Revenue and Expense Totals

Fiscal Year 2016 2015 2014
Total Revenue $3,094,912 $6,805,662 $2,429,588
Total Expenses $4,299,675 $4,474,972 $4,881,954

Prior Three Years Revenue Sources

Fiscal Year 2016 2015 2014
Foundation and
Corporation Contributions
-- -- --
Government Contributions $0 $0 $0
    Federal -- -- --
    State -- -- --
    Local -- -- --
    Unspecified -- -- --
Individual Contributions $3,016,332 $6,787,209 $2,409,255
Indirect Public Support -- -- --
Earned Revenue $75,251 $17,828 $19,581
Investment Income, Net of Losses $3,329 $625 $752
Membership Dues -- -- --
Special Events -- -- --
Revenue In-Kind -- -- --
Other -- -- --

Prior Three Years Expense Allocations

Fiscal Year 2016 2015 2014
Program Expense $3,793,860 $4,012,687 $4,579,762
Administration Expense $331,358 $308,067 $153,076
Fundraising Expense $174,457 $154,218 $149,116
Payments to Affiliates -- -- --
Total Revenue/Total Expenses 0.72 1.52 0.50
Program Expense/Total Expenses 88% 90% 94%
Fundraising Expense/Contributed Revenue 6% 2% 6%

Prior Three Years Assets and Liabilities

Fiscal Year 2016 2015 2014
Total Assets $4,722,086 $6,001,182 $3,763,286
Current Assets $4,332,286 $5,546,817 $3,240,736
Long-Term Liabilities $453,508 $528,816 $595,401
Current Liabilities $202,817 $201,842 $228,051
Total Net Assets $4,065,761 $5,270,524 $2,939,834

Prior Three Years Top Three Funding Sources

Fiscal Year 2016 2015 2014
1st (Source and Amount) -- --
-- --
-- --
2nd (Source and Amount) -- --
-- --
-- --
3rd (Source and Amount) -- --
-- --
-- --

Financial Planning

Endowment Value --
Spending Policy --
Percentage(If selected) --
Credit Line No
Reserve Fund Yes
How many months does reserve cover? 6.00

Capital Campaign

Are you currently in a Capital Campaign? No
Capital Campaign Purpose --
Campaign Goal --
Capital Campaign Dates -
Capital Campaign Raised-to-Date Amount --
Capital Campaign Anticipated in Next 5 Years? --

Short Term Solvency

Fiscal Year 2016 2015 2014
Current Ratio: Current Assets/Current Liabilities 21.36 27.48 14.21

Long Term Solvency

Fiscal Year 2016 2015 2014
Long-term Liabilities/Total Assets 10% 9% 16%

CEO/Executive Director/Board Comments

--

Foundation Comments

Financial summary data in the charts and graphs above is per the organization's IRS Form 990s. Contributions from individuals are listed under foundations and corporations when the breakout was not available.

Documents


Other Documents

No Other Documents currently available.

Impact

The Impact tab is a section on the Giving Common added in October 2013; as such the majority of nonprofits have not yet had the chance to complete this voluntary section. The purpose of the Impact section is to ask five deceptively simple questions that require reflection and promote communication about what really matters – results. The goal is to encourage strategic thinking about how a nonprofit will achieve its goals. The following Impact questions are being completed by nonprofits slowly, thoughtfully and at the right time for their respective organizations to ensure the most accurate information possible.


1. What is your organization aiming to accomplish?

--

2. What are your strategies for making this happen?

--

3. What are your organization’s capabilities for doing this?

--

4. How will your organization know if you are making progress?

--

5. What have and haven’t you accomplished so far?

--