Maryland Public Charter School Authorizer Orientation Workshop September 25, 2003 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 75
About This Presentation
Title:

Maryland Public Charter School Authorizer Orientation Workshop September 25, 2003

Description:

Policies and Procedures for School Closure ... Sample timeline: Pre ... Letter of intent, prospectus, full application. Application review strategies ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:156
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 76
Provided by: chic72
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Maryland Public Charter School Authorizer Orientation Workshop September 25, 2003


1
Maryland Public Charter School Authorizer
Orientation WorkshopSeptember 25, 2003
  • Hosted by the Maryland State Department of
    Education in cooperation with the Maryland
    Association of Boards of Education the Maryland
    Charter School Network

presented by the National Association of Charter
School Authorizers
2
About Our Sponsor
  • NACSAs development of this workshop was funded
    by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
  • We thank them for their support but note that the
    presentation content and related materials
    represent NACSA work products and do not
    necessarily reflect the opinions of the
    Foundation.

3
What are Charter Schools?
  • Like all public schools . . .
  • Open to all students (or subgroup targeted under
    state law)
  • Non-selective
  • Must meet all civil rights, special education,
    health and safety, due process, open meeting and
    other generally applicable laws for public
    schools
  • Funded according to the per pupil funding formula

4
What are Charter Schools? (cont.)
  • Different from traditional public schools . . .
  • Created by application to the district
  • May be sponsored by private non profit entities
  • Evaluated on outcomes based on terms of a written
    charter agreement
  • No students assigned to the school

5
Spread of Charter School Laws
6
Growth of Charter Schools
7
Percentage of Elementary Students by
Race/Ethnicity (1999-2000)
Source U.S. Department of Education, NCES,
Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999-2000.
8
Percentage of Elementary Schools with 75-100 of
Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-priced Lunch
(1999-2000)
Source U.S. Department of Education, NCES,
Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999-2000.
9
Authorizer Basics
  • Authorizers are entities charged with licensing
    (i.e., chartering), overseeing, and deciding
    whether to renew individual charter schools.
  • Statutory terms include
  • authorizer
  • sponsor
  • approver
  • granter

Authorizers charter schools primarily to provide
additional student choice options. Source
Fordham Report, May 2003
10
Authorizer Basics
  • Entities with chartering authority include
  • School districts (almost everywhere)
  • State departments of education (e.g., AZ, DE, PA,
    MA, NC)
  • State charter boards (AZ, DC)
  • Colleges and universities (FL, IN, MI, MN, MO,
    NY, OH, WI)
  • Non-profit organizations (MN, OH forthcoming)
  • Cities/Mayors (IN, WI)

11
Authorizer Data
  • More than 600 active authorizers are responsible
    for overseeing the nations nearly 2,700 charter
    schools.
  • The vast majority of authorizers charter 1-2
    schools.

Sources Fordham Report on Charter School
Authorizing, May 2003 Center for Education
Reforms 2003 Directory.
12
Charter Opportunities and Responsibilities
  • Adopting a New Schools Strategy

Overview of Charter Authorizer Responsibilities
13
Traditional Paradigm
Board
Charter Schools
Central Office
County Schools
GOALS
14
Changing Views of Chartering
  • New paradigm chartering as
  • Strategic tool for local boards to achieve goals

15
New Paradigm
Board
Central Office
County Schools
GOALS
Charter Schools
16
A Different County-School Relationship
  • County is not responsible for making the school
    succeed
  • County is responsible for holding the school
    accountable for its success or failure

17
How LEAs Use Chartering
  • Drive changes in instruction learning
    environment
  • Create small schools (Chicago)
  • Meet needs of specific groups of students
    (programmatic focus, learning style, special
    education) (Miami-Dade)
  • Encourage different and innovative educational
    programs or teaching methods (New York City)

18
How LEAs Use Chartering
  • Tap into educators motivations
  • Increase commitment effort through ownership
    (Chula-Vista, CA)
  • Give great principals the chance to thrive
    (Milwaukee)

19
How LEAs Use Chartering
  • Meet new federal and state requirements
  • Provide choices required under NCLB (many
    districts)
  • Deal with chronically low-performing schools (in
    the future)

20
But Why Use Chartering?
  • Increased influence through the charter
  • Value of starting fresh
  • Power of ownership
  • Bring outside resources into the system
  • Money
  • Time / commitment
  • Community connections

21
Core Authorizer Responsibilities
Application process
Performance contracting
Ongoing oversight
Renewal decision-making
22
Application Process
  • Timeline (often framed by law but some have
    discretion)
  • Application Requirements (many hold training
    sessions)
  • Specify selection criteria, which may include
    education plan, governance, budget, business
    plan, and performance goals.
  • Review Process
  • Often involves interviews, use of external
    reviewers, due diligence (e.g., background
    checks) and public hearings.
  • Decisions / Appeals
  • If denied provide feedback specify conditions
    for contingent approvals or appeals (if
    applicable).

23
Criteria Cited by Authorizers in Decisions to
Issue Charters
MEAN (Based on 4-point Scale)
  • Accountability Provisions 3.89
  • Mission and Goals of the School 3.84
  • Curriculum 3.82
  • Health Safety Issues 3.81
  • Finances 3.81
  • Assessment 3.77
  • Governance Management 3.76
  • Special Education Services 3.65
  • Admission Procedures 3.58
  • Instructional Strategies 3.57

Source SRI International, A Decade of Public
Charter Schools, 2000-2001 Evaluation Report,
2002 (Lee Anderson)
24
Performance Contracting
  • Contracts (and/or a separate Accountability
    Plan) may cover
  • Purpose of charter (mission and strategic
    approach)
  • Charters term and conditions for renewal
  • Laws regulations the school must satisfy
  • Resource flow and financial management (including
    relationships with EMOs/CMOs)
  • Target population and strategies for addressing
    deficiencies in student learning as well as
    parent appeal procedures
  • Performance measurements and reporting
    requirements and
  • Authorizer options for corrective action,
    revocation, etc.

25
Common Methods Used to Measure and Report
Progress
PERCENTAGE
  • Academic Achievement 96
  • Student Attendance 90
  • Staff Performance and/or Attendance 86
  • Student Behaviors 85
  • Promotion or Graduation 84
  • Parent Satisfaction 78
  • Parent Involvement 67

Source SRI International, A Decade of Public
Charter Schools, 2000-2001 Evaluation Report,
2002 (Lee Anderson)
26
Ongoing Oversight Evaluation
  • Compliance
  • Monitoring school operations using multiple
    quality indicators.
  • Information Gathering
  • May involve annual reports, student assessment
    results, fiscal audits, site visits, school
    self-reviews and parent surveys.
  • Should post data (e.g., annual reports, score
    results) via web.
  • Corrective Action
  • Should operate from a menu of possible responses
    to poor performance and noncompliance (e.g.,
    technical assistance, written warnings,
    probation, revocation, non-renewal).

27
Accountability Areas Monitored by Charter School
Authorizers
PERCENTAGE
  • Student Achievement/Statewide Assessments 95
  • Financial Recordkeeping 91
  • Compliance with Federal or State Regulations 90
  • Enrollment Numbers 87
  • Student Achievement/Other Standardized Tests 75
  • Student Performance on Performance-Based Tests 72
  • Alignment of Curriculum to State Standards 72
  • School Management or Leadership 68

Source SRI International, A Decade of Public
Charter Schools, 2000-2001 Evaluation Report,
2002 (Lee Anderson)
28
Renewal Decision-making
  • Decision-making Data
  • Objective measures from multiple sources.
  • But, will also involve some level of professional
    judgement.
  • Decision-making Procedure (Transparency)
  • Clarify data to be used timetable benchmarks
    for renewal, probation, revocation and
    non-renewal and the process for challenging and
    appealing the authorizers ruling.
  • Policies and Procedures for School Closure
  • Orderly transfer of student records, counseling
    for parents and students on school options,
    disposition of assets.

29
Reasons For Revoking, Not Renewing, or Imposing
Sanctions
PROBATION
NON-RENEWAL
  • Financial Viability or Management 100 70
  • School Management/Leadership 83 69
  • Progress Toward Academic Goals 64 50
  • Enrollment Numbers 64 16
  • Growth in Student Performance 50 37
  • Actual Student Performance Levels 36 44

Source SRI International, A Decade of Public
Charter Schools, 2000-2001 Evaluation Report,
2002 (Lee Anderson)
30
Putting it All Together
Clear expectations for school performance
Performance contracting
Evidence about progress toward goals
Ongoing oversight
Decisions based on expectations evidence
Renewal decision-making
31
Putting it All Together
Accountability Relationship (contract) (oversight)
(decision-making)
Application Process (outreach) (criteria) (review)
(decisions)
High-quality chartered schools
32
Authorizer ResponsibilitiesPart I
  • Application Process and Performance Contracting

NYCs Chartering Strategy
33
Core Authorizer Responsibilities
Application process
Performance contracting
Ongoing oversight
Renewal decision-making
34
Application Process
  • Opportunity
  • for authorizers and school organizers
  • to create excellent schools
  • through a rigorous, high-quality process
  • Process
  • consider multiple stages
  • as a chance for applicants to improve their plans
  • and for authorizers to charter sound schools
  • Key step
  • basis of school development and charter agreement

35
Application Process
  • Sample timeline
  • Pre-application - Questions to consider
  • How will the authorizer interact with potential
    applicants?
  • What guidance will the authorizer provide for
    potential applicants?
  • What specific information will the authorizer
    provide for potential applicants?
  • Post-application Decision process after
    application submitted
  • Review process begins possible steps
  • interviews, expert reviews, public hearings,
    opportunities to refine and resubmit
  • Application approved/denied decision within 120
    days (requirement under MD charter law)

36
Core Authorizer Responsibilities
Application Process
  • Outreach
  • Criteria
  • Review
  • Decision

37
Application Process ? Outreach
  • What kind(s) of outreach will help the authorizer
    achieve its strategic goals?
  • Basic outreach
  • clear accessible information about application
    requirements and process
  • Active outreach
  • training for potential applicants
  • individualized guidance on application
    development
  • Targeted outreach
  • Target specific educational programs
  • Target specific sponsors (e.g., community groups)

38
Application Process ? Criteria
  • Submission requirements
  • Elements required by state law
  • Guidance
  • How will the application be evaluated?
  • Balance
  • Critical information for decision-making
  • Formulate strong plans
  • Expectations for applicants
  • Benefit from the work of other authorizers

39
Application Process ? Review
  • Multi-step process
  • Letter of intent, prospectus, full application
  • Application review strategies
  • Interviews between applicant and sponsor
    (staff/board)
  • External reviews
  • Community input (applications for public review,
    public hearings)
  • Transparency

40
Application Process ? Decision
  • Application decision considerations
  • As mandated by state application guidelines
  • As determined by criteria outlined in application
    (ensure fairness and consistency)

41
Summary
  • Purposes of the application process
  • Quality
  • Fairness
  • Transparency

42
Core Authorizer Responsibilities
Application process
Performance contracting
Ongoing oversight
Renewal decision-making
43
From Approval to Opening
  • Sample timeline
  • Chartering process begins possible steps
  • Organizer refines plans outlined in application
  • Charter agreement is negotiated and signed
  • Prepare for school opening possible steps
  • Organizer further develops plans (e.g.,
    transportation, food services, health, special
    education, etc.)
  • Organizer executes plans
  • Authorizer conducts pre-opening visits with clear
    checklist

44
Performance Contracting Accountability Planning
  • Definitions
  • Why important
  • Why challenging
  • Components of charter agreement

45
Definitions Performance Contract
  • Performance contract, aka charter, aka
    charter agreement
  • An agreement between an authorizer and school
    that specifies

46
Definitions Performance Contract
  • Expectations school must meet to secure renewal
    (or avoid revocation)
  • results
  • compliance
  • Expectations authorizer must meet
  • autonomy
  • resources
  • services

47
Definitions
  • Accountability Planning
  • The process
  • by which the authorizer and the school come to
    agreement
  • about the expectations for which the school will
    be held accountable

48
Performance Contracting
  • Components of a charter agreement
  • Common elements
  • School-specific elements
  • Services agreements
  • Performance goals

49
Performance Contracting
  • Why is the charter agreement important?
  • Defines legal relationship b/w authorizer
    school
  • Defines how the authorizer will hold school
    accountable
  • Sets framework for authorizer responsibilities
    (oversight, decision-making)
  • (Ideally) helps school launch with clear mission,
    purpose goals

50
Performance Contracting
  • Why is performance contracting challenging?
  • High stakes decision
  • How good is good enough?
  • How bad is too bad?
  • Focusing on results
  • Meshing with federal state requirements

51
Accountability Planning
  • Three tracks of accountability planning
  • Externally mandated indicators
  • Federal (e.g., AYP)
  • State (e.g., state assessment system)
  • Charter law (e.g., fiscal compliance)
  • Authorizer-initiated indicators
  • E.g., Parent satisfaction measures
  • School-initiated indicators
  • Mission-specific goals

52
Accountability Planning
  • School-initiated goals indicators
  • Application the starting point
  • Refinement process
  • Clarify mission goals
  • Select/develop measures
  • Note refinement takes time
  • Final plan negotiated with authorizer

53
Expectations How Definitive?

Straight Formula
Pure Judgment
WHY? Clarity is vital Need basis for tough calls
WHY? Performance is complex Importance of
intangibles
54
One Approach Performance Matrix
  • Defines a set of indicators of success
  • Defines levels of performance on indicators
  • Does not include a formula for renewal
  • Creates some clarity
  • Gives structure and rigor to evaluation
  • Preserves authorizers discretion

55
Summary
  • Steps for performance contracting
    accountability planning
  • Identify externally-mandated indicators
  • Define authorizer-initiated indicators
  • Negotiate school-initiated indicators
  • Determine how definitively to set expectations

56
Authorizer ResponsibilitiesPart II
  • Ongoing Oversight
  • Renewal Decision-making

A View from the Inside
57
Core Authorizer Responsibilities
Application process
Performance contracting
Ongoing oversight
Renewal decision-making
58
Ongoing Oversight Evaluation Overview
  • Role of Oversight in Chartering
  • Components

59
Role of Ongoing Oversight
  • Period between signing the charter agreement
    (performance contract) and renewal decisionmaking
  • Potential Uses of Oversight
  • Monitor compliance with terms of the charter
    agreement
  • Highlight schools strengths and weaknesses
  • Aid schools development
  • Reveal information about practices that may be of
    value for other schools
  • Provide parents and the public with information
    they need to make good, informed decisions

60
Oversight of Charter vs. Non-charter Schools
  • District schools
  • District owns and operates
  • District directly responsible for day-to-day
    activity
  • District intervenes when problems arise
  • Charter schools
  • Charter school has school-based management
  • District responsible for accountability under
    charter agreement
  • District intervenes in severe cases of breach of
    agreement

61
Components of Oversight
  • Information Gathering Aligned with Accountability
    Plan
  • Externally mandated indicators
  • Authorizer-initiated indicators
  • School-initiated indicators
  • Monitoring
  • Information and Assistance
  • Evaluation and Corrective Action
  • If performance lags, how does the authorizer
    respond?
  • Escalating responses

62
Monitoring
  • Question How will the authorizer use the
    information to make judgments about a schools
    progress toward meeting goals?
  • Example Evaluating readiness to open
  • Pre-opening checklist
  • Verification of readiness

63
Monitoring
  • Reporting Tools
  • Avoid duplication of efforts is the information
    already compiled to an existing source?
  • Student assessment data (consider types and
    methods in addition to annual standardized test
    scores, e.g., study of student performance over
    time - value-added analysis)
  • Surveys of parents and school staff
  • Compliance reports (e.g, attendance reports,
    governance reviews, financial reviews)

64
Monitoring
  • Reporting Tools (continued)
  • School self-evaluation (D.C. Public Charter
    School Board requires during schools first year
    of operation program, standards, goals,
    assessment methods, school/classroom climates,
    management/governance, and parent/community
    involvement)
  • Site visits formal and informal (Chicago Public
    Schools, State University of New York,
    Massachusetts Department of Education,
    Indianapolis Mayors Office)
  • External reviews surveys, on-site reviews, data
    analysis (Central Michigan University,
    Indianapolis Mayors Office)

65
Information and Assistance
  • Question Can the authorizer make reporting and
    compliance easier for charter schools?
  • Examples
  • Provide information e.g., calendar of reporting
    requirements, handbook (Indianapolis Mayors
    Office, Central Michigan University,
    Massachusetts Department of Education)
  • Provide training/guidance e.g., training on
    health, safety, welfare, issues and/or
    permissible uses of funding
  • Facilitate reporting systems - clear, simplified
    format or electronic reporting
  • Meetings with charter school leaders

66
Evaluation and Corrective Action
  • Internal vs. External problems
  • Charter- or law-related issues (e.g., financial,
    governance, performance, etc.)
  • Internal management issues (e.g., parent
    complaints, employment issues)
  • Response to low performing schools
  • Requirements under No Child Left Behind
  • Parent notification (required under No Child Left
    Behind)
  • Probation or other intermediate steps
  • Procedures for taking action

67
Corrective Action Strategies
  • Table of Remedies (D.C. Public Charter School
    Board)
  • Notice of concern (letter to schools board,
    Performance Improvement Plan recommended)
  • Notice of deficiency (Performance Improvement
    Plan negotiated with specific improvement
    objectives, technical assistance requirements,
    and timetable for improvement)
  • Notice of probationary status (PIP imposed with
    technical assistance team possible external
    monitor)
  • Full charter review (determines whether to
    commence revocation proceedings recommendation
    to revoke, not to revoke, or to impose lesser
    sanctions)

68
Core Authorizer Responsibilities
Application process
Performance contracting
Ongoing oversight
Renewal decision-making
69
Renewal Overview
  • Why the Renewal Decision is Important
  • Why the Renewal Decision is Challenging
  • Role of the Authorizer

70
Why Renewal is Important
  • Affirms importance of performance for students
    and families
  • Gives the Board a form of control / authority it
    typically lacks
  • Credibility of charter accountability system
    rests on it

71
Why Renewal is Challenging
  • Systems often too weak to support
  • Performance is complex, not simple
  • Schools build up a constituency
  • Legal considerations

72
Role of the Authorizer in Renewal
  • Adopt a clear process for renewal decisions
  • Timing
  • What the school will submit
  • What options the authorizer has
  • probation?
  • reconstitution?
  • Steps in the decision process
  • Planning for the worst school closure policies
  • Stick to the process

73
Discussion Question
  • What can we do NOW to set the stage for viable
    renewal decisions THEN?

74
Open Dialogue
  • Questions Answers

Suggested Next Steps
75
Additional Resources
  • National Association of Charter School
    Authorizers
  • www.charterauthorizers.org
  • Authorizer Resource Library
  • U.S. Charter Schools
  • www.uscharterschools.org
  • Accessing Federal Programs A Guidebook
  • U.S. Department of Education
  • www.ed.org
  • Grants Contracts
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com